[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NASA: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-04
__________
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
24-669PDF 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
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky AMI BERA, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JERRY MCNERNEY, California
GARY PALMER, Alabama ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JIM BANKS, Indiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
February 16, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 4
Written Statement............................................ 5
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Babin, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Bera, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Witnesses:
Hon. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut, Former United States
Senator
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 22
Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, Gemini VI, Gemini IX, Apollo 10,
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Astronaut; Chairman, NASA
International Space Station Advisory Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 38
Written Statement............................................ 40
Dr. Ellen Stofan, Former NASA Chief Scientist
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Mr. Tom Young, Past Director, Goddard Spaceflight Center; Past
President/COO, Martin Marietta; Past Chairman, SAIC
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 59
Discussion....................................................... 66
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Hon. Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut, Former United States
Senator........................................................ 100
Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, Gemini VI, Gemini IX, Apollo 10,
Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Astronaut; Chairman, NASA
International Space Station Advisory Committee................. 109
Dr. Ellen Stofan, Former NASA Chief Scientist.................... 118
Mr. Tom Young, Past Director, Goddard Spaceflight Center; Past
President/COO, Martin Marietta; Past Chairman, SAIC............ 125
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Neal P. Dunn, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 132
Document submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 134
NASA: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``NASA: Past, Present,
and Future.'' I'll recognize myself for an opening statement
and then the Minority Member.
NASA has a storied past. The witnesses before us today are
proof of that. They personify the accomplishments of our
American space program. Joining us today, we have two legendary
astronauts, two accomplished scientists, two preeminent
engineers, three space advisory body members, leaders from both
the private and public sector, and accomplished managers. We
have the only scientist to walk on another celestial body, a
test pilot that has flown 120 different types of aircraft and
three different space vehicles, a revolutionary leader in
stealth technology development, a former Senator, a former
Lieutenant General, a former NASA Center Director, the Mission
Director for the first robotic landing on Mars, and NASA's
former Chief Scientist, all in four people. Their impressive
accomplishments give them the credibility to discuss the future
of our space program.
We stand at a crossroads. Sir Isaac Newton said, ``I do not
know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to
have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and
diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a
prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth
lay all undiscovered before me.''
Today, as we consider the next steps of the space program,
we are all like that boy or girl. Presidential transitions
offer the opportunities to reinvigorate national goals. They
bring fresh perspectives and new ideas that energize our
efforts. Now is the time to reaffirm our support for the bold
visions and commitments that will shape America's future in
space.
The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 is the
culmination of many years' discussions and hopefully will soon
pass the Senate and House. And it perhaps will pass the Senate
tomorrow. This legislation has two goals. First, it reiterates
the importance of maintaining NASA's continuity of purpose. The
National Research Council's ``Pathways'' report, the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel's recent reports, and numerous outside
advisory groups and associations have all highlighted the
significance of continuity. Without it, our space program will
be left adrift and rudderless.
Second, the bill allows the President to introduce a fiscal
year 2018 budget request that reflects his priorities. With a
fresh perspective, the White House will be able to work with
the new Congress to implement the goals and initiatives
necessary to continue our leadership in space. Our hearing
today provides an opportunity to understand fundamental
challenges before the new Administration and Congress. And we
will explore possible directions for our space program that
will benefit and inspire the American people.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Now, that concludes my opening statement,
and the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning to all. I want to welcome all of our distinguished
panel of witnesses, and thank you for your service to the
nation. I'd like to welcome our recently appointed new members
to the committee and most especially our new Ranking Member,
Dr. Bera.
This morning, we will be discussing NASA, whose inspiring
mission is nothing short of reaching for the stars. Mr.
Chairman, dreaming big is what propels our nation to achieve
lasting accomplishments. We all want our children and our
grandchildren to believe in dreaming big and yes, in reaching
for the stars. NASA provides tangible evidence that we can do
just that.
Over the past 6 decades NASA has sent humans to the lunar
surface, robotically explored, all the planets in the solar
system, landed and operated rovers on Mars, monitored Earth and
its systems, and studied the sun, and looked deep into the
universe. NASA has led the multination International Space
Station partnership and has supported continuous human
operations on the International Space Station for over 15
years.
In addition, NASA has made significant progress in
demonstrating the use of commercially contracted services for
cargo resupply of the ISS. And NASA anticipates that the ISS
commercial crew transportation services will begin within the
next few years.
NASA continues to follow the priorities of the National
Academies' Decadal Surveys for its service program. For
example, the James Webb Space Telescope scheduled for launch in
October 2018 will enable us to examine the first light after
the Big Bang to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.
I also want to recognize NASA's Earth science program,
which has a long history of space-based observations in support
of research to better understand our Earth's systems and our
changing climate.
In addition, NASA carries out aeronautics research, which
has been vital to the growth and safety of America's aerospace
industry. Today, NASA is making steady progress on developing
the Space Launch System, the Orion spacecraft, and the
exploration ground systems, the key systems that will enable us
to once again send our astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit and
eventually to Mars.
And as important as these activities are to advancing our
priorities in space and aeronautics, they are no less important
to us here on Earth. Advances in human health research and
medical diagnostic tools, materials, and advanced technologies
developed through the space program have all helped improve our
daily lives. However, we cannot take NASA's incredible
achievements or the benefits they provide for granted. They
will not continue without a sustained commitment of vision,
resources, and support.
It is clear that the challenge ahead of us is to provide
NASA with stability and sustainability so that it can carry out
the challenging task that our nation has given it. We can get
to Mars, but we need a plan to do so that is sustainable over
multiple decades. We can answer the difficult question of
whether there is life in the universe by continuing to support
the scientific investigation of our solar system and beyond. I
have no doubt that, working together, we can enable NASA to do
these things and more. However, we must be careful not to undo
NASA's progress by changing directions with every new
Administration. Simply put, we must commit to staying the
course.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when much of our national discourse
revolves around what divides us, we can look to our space
program as something that unites us.
Well, we have a lot to discuss this morning and I look
forward to our witnesses' testimony. I also look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, our colleagues on the
Committee, and the new Administration to ensure that we give
NASA and its partners the stability, sustainability, and
resources needed to continue our leadership in sciences,
aeronautics, human spaceflight, and exploration. I thank you
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, the Chairman of
the Space Subcommittee is recognized for his opening statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I'd like
to welcome you all here today for a very important discussion
on where NASA has been and where it is and where it will go. I
find it difficult to imagine a more qualified panel of
witnesses with more personal insight and experience than the
one before us today, than Dr. Schmitt, Lieutenant General
Stafford, Dr. Stofan, and Mr. Young. I want to thank you very,
very much for taking your time to come out from your busy
schedules to be with us this morning.
America's civil space program is nearing its 70th
anniversary, and in the seven decades since NASA's birth,
astronauts have walked on the lunar surface, spacecraft have
ventured out into the interstellar void, telescopes have
discovered thousands of planets orbiting other stars in our
galaxy, but those exciting achievements were not free. It is
very difficult to explore a universe of infinite wonder with a
finite budget. We must prioritize our visions and destinations
in a way that reflects responsible stewardship of American
taxpayer dollars.
Fortunately, the election of a new Administration and the
start of a new Congress has given us the important opportunity
to think about our space program and consider bold new
directions and the future for our space program. For instance,
should we return to the Moon? How can we ensure that the
progress made on deep space exploration capabilities like the
Space Launch System and the Orion continues in a fiscally
responsible manner? Can public-private partnerships and
international collaboration augment taxpayer investment? How
would those partnerships be structured to ensure safety and
attract private sector contributions and provide value to the
taxpayer? Can we both extend ISS operations past 2024 and
conduct deep space exploration without significant increases in
NASA's budget?
NASA's hard work over many decades is on track to provide
the nation with the tools it needs to make a bigger, bolder
future in space, and now is the time to start talking about
what that future will look like. I hope that our witnesses here
today can help make that conversation as lively and as vibrant
as possible.
Our continued leadership in space is not just about
exploration. Our national security, our international standing,
and economic competitiveness all depend on our leadership in
space.
I couldn't be more excited to discuss these crucial
questions with today's witnesses, and I want to thank you all
again for being here and I look forward to your testimony.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, the Ranking
Member of the Space Subcommittee, is recognized for an opening
statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning and
welcome to the distinguished panel.
Listening to the Chairman's description of the panel makes
all of us feel like underachievers here.
I also want to just take a moment to thank my Democratic
colleagues for selecting me as the Ranking Member on the Space
Subcommittee for this Congress.
As a kid who grew up in Southern California in Downey, home
of Rockwell International, much as my generation, the space
program epitomized the national pride that we had in America,
the fact that President Kennedy challenged us to dream beyond
what we knew we could do, yet we set our minds to it, we
focused on it, we recruited the best talents, and we went out
and achieved it. And getting back to that pride is incredibly
important.
I think all of us remember waking up early in the morning
to watch Apollo launches, holding our breath, watching Apollo-
Soyuz, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, and we've got to recapture
that imagination again. We've got to--as the Ranking Member
said, we've got to dream big. And that's why SLS and Orion are
so important.
We don't know yet how we're going to go to Mars with human
space travel and return, but the goal of imagination and
dreaming and achievement isn't doing what you know how to do,
it's about setting that goal, taking the talent that we have in
America, and putting our minds to it. Yes, we have limited
resources, yes, we have other priorities, but we've got to get
back to dreaming big.
And it is that vigor that inspired a generation of kids to
go into the sciences to move forward, and if we want to
continue that superiority in technology and American pride, the
importance of our national defense, it was great to see Dr.
Stofan's opening remarks from my home State of California some
of the work that NASA is doing in helping us manage water and
address it--and it seems funny to be talking about a drought
right now in this really wet winter, but what NASA does in
helping us manage weather forecasting and so forth, it's
incredibly important and national security.
So, I am deeply honored to be the Ranking Member. The
members of this Committee do not-- this is not a Republican or
a Democratic issue. This is about national pride and leading
the way. And I don't want an American space program that
follows. I want an American space program that moves us forward
and leads and works with the international community to
continue to go to that next frontier.
In my own District we've got an Aerojet Rocketdyne
facility, and when I visit the workers out there and when I
listen to the President talk about bringing manufacturing jobs
back to America, it's those types of jobs that are not the jobs
of the last century but the jobs of the next century. And it is
pretty amazing the work that they're doing. And if we make the
right investments, we can lead the way once again and lead the
21st century space program.
So, thank you to the distinguished panel. Thank you to the
Chairman for calling this hearing, and I look forward to
working in the 115th Congress to make this a reality.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
Our first witness today is Hon. Harrison Schmitt, an Apollo
17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator from New Mexico. His
career as a geologist has taken him around the world and
beyond. In 1965 he was selected as a NASA scientist astronaut.
In 1971 Dr. Schmitt was assigned as a lunar module pilot for
the Apollo 17 mission. He is the first and only scientist to
walk on another celestial body. He then went on to serve in the
U.S. Senate for six years, and he has also served as Chairman
of the NASA Advisory Committee.
With the sad passing of Gene Cernan, Dr. Schmitt is the
last person alive to walk on the Moon.
Dr. Schmitt has a bachelor's of science from the California
Institute of Technology and his doctorate in geology from
Harvard University.
I'll now recognize the Vice Chairman of the Science
Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, to introduce
our next witness.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is my privilege
to introduce Lieutenant General Tom Stafford. Lieutenant
General Stafford was born and grew up in Weatherford, Oklahoma,
a town in my district literally just down the road from my
hometown of Cheyenne. He was selected to be a part of the
second astronaut class as a member of the Air Force in 1962
where he began an amazing career. He commanded Gemini VI and
Gemini IX before heading the mission planning analysis
responsibilities for the Apollo project. And as commander of
Apollo 10, he performed the first flight of the lunar module 9
miles above the lunar surface and designated the first lunar
landing site, obviously good radar and photography there,
General, as successful as that was.
Following the Apollo program, he worked at the NASA manned
spaceflight center and logged his fourth spaceflight as an
Apollo commander of Apollo-Soyuz test project mission in 1975,
which helped end the space race.
Since coming back to Earth, Lieutenant General Stafford
worked as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the acquisitions at the
Air Force. He initiated the F-117A stealth fighter, wrote the
original specifications for the B-2 stealth bomber. He served
as an advisor to the NASA Administrators over the past 20-plus
years and has personally helped various vice presidents assess
NASA's capacities and objectives. And he's currently Chairman
of NASA's Advisory Council Task Force for the International
Space Station safety and operational readiness.
Lieutenant General Stafford, I believe I can speak on
behalf of the whole committee and certainly every one of our
fellow Oklahomans, we are honored that you are with us today
and this morning and we look very forward to your comments. And
as always, thank you for your service. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
Our next witness, Dr. Ellen Stofan, served as NASA's Chief
Scientist from 2013 to 2016. There, she served as Principal
Advisor to the NASA Administrator on the agency's science-
related strategic planning and programs. As a scientist, her
research has focused on the geology of Venus, Mars, Saturn's
moon Titan, and the Earth. Dr. Stofan holds a bachelor's degree
from the College of William and Mary and a master's and
doctorate degree in geological sciences from Brown University.
Our last witness today is Mr. Tom Young, and he is the
former Director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, the
former President and COO of Martin Marietta, and former
Chairman of the Science Applications International Corporation.
He began his career with NASA at the Langley Research Center in
1961 and became Director of the Planetary Program at NASA
headquarters in 1967. Mr. Young was recognized with NASA's
highest award, the Distinguished Services Medal, for his role
in the Viking project, the first time any country has
successfully landed a payload on Mars.
Mr. Young earned both a bachelor's degree in aeronautical
engineering and a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering
from the University of Virginia and a master's of management
degree from MIT.
We welcome you all and certainly recognize your collective
expertise. And, Dr. Schmitt, we'll begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. HARRISON SCHMITT,
APOLLO 17 ASTRONAUT,
FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR
Dr. Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am an explorer. Freedom in America uniquely enhances the
human drive to explore beyond familiar and/or unknown
boundaries. Exploration is in our blood, as has been indicated
by your statements. From the founders' foray into
constitutional government to entrepreneurial enhancement of our
pursuit of happiness to Jefferson and Lewis and Clark's opening
of the American West and yes, to Eisenhower and Kennedy's bold
initiatives leading to Armstrong's first small step on the
Moon.
Now, the Moon and Mars and deep space beckon new
generations of young Americans, and I emphasize young. We would
ignore their call at our peril.
A program for Americans to land on Mars would be a
remarkable and historic answer to that call. Such a landing,
however, will not be easy. Mars has just enough atmosphere to
cause trouble on entry but not enough to help. The great
distance between Earth and Mars mean crews will not have
mission control to help in critical operations. Gravity on Mars
may or may not help astronauts adapt physiologically. Long
transits to Mars may require artificial gravity and/or fusion
propulsion and definitely will require heavy shields of water
for radiation protection. The capability to launch 100 metric
tons to Earth escape velocity may be required. At least two
generations of young engineers, scientists, and skilled workers
must relearn how to deal with the challenges and risks of deep
space.
To meet these challenges I am convinced that the Moon is a
necessary steppingstone with great geopolitical and scientific
value in its own right. Only 3 days away rather than many
months, the Moon provides necessary resources, engineering
verification, operational training, physiological insights,
private sector partnerships, and the immediate geopolitical
high ground.
If the United States returns to deep space, Congress can
gain valuable lessons from the Apollo Cold War space effort.
The keys to success for the Apollo program were a sufficient
base of technology and aircraft and spaceflight experience to
begin; a large reservoir of patriotic young Americans and
skilled workers, the Sputnik generation; a pervasive
environment of national unease; the catalytic events of Sputnik
and Yuri Gagarin's orbital flight; an articulate, persuasive,
and patriotic President and Congress; a Congressional and White
House commitment to about 100 percent manager reserve of
funding so schedule could be maintained in the face of unknown
and unknown-unknown problems; tough, competent, disciplined,
courageous managers; and possibly as important as anything, a
working environment of liberty.
All these keys must accompany a Moon/Mars/deep space
initiative but also include in addition today improved
education in STEM skills and critical thinking, substitution of
China's ambitions for the Cold War stimulus of the 1960s, a
permanent national commitment to deep space exploration,
maintenance of an average workforce age of less than 30 years,
and elimination of an aversion to taking necessary risk.
As detailed in my submitted testimony and on the America's
Uncommon Sense website, a focused Apollo-style management
system will be needed. This system must stay young, stay lean,
and stay risk-takers. Once the decision to go back to the Moon
and on to Mars is made, the sole focus of civil space
management should be to do just that.
With a well-managed Moon/Mars/deep space program, having
sustained annual funding levels of about $20 billion per year,
including 30 percent management reserve, the following
milestones should be possible: return Americans to the Moon
service by 2025, lunar settlement by 2030 with public and
private capital funding partnership, lunar resource production
by 2035 with private capital funding and management primarily,
fusion-powered interplanetary booster also by 2035, Mars crew
landing by 2040, and I believe Mars settlement by 2045. That's
a big agenda.
In conclusion, returning to the Moon will increase
significantly the probability of success of a Mars landing and
exploration program and to maximizing its scientific returns.
Because of the multidecadal nature of such an effort, such a
return to deep space exploration requires the unequivocal and
sustained commitment of the nation, even more so than was
required for the Apollo program again because of its
multidecadal aspects.
Finally, if the decision is to move quickly to reassert
American dominance in space, we are, I believe, well-positioned
to do so. The geopolitical environment facing freedom today is
as critical as that which faced Congress and the Eisenhower and
Kennedy Administrations prior to Apollo. Our current
technological foundations actually greatly exceed those of May
1961 having been vastly expanded by the nation's public and
private sectors.
Development of the Space Launch System is well ahead of
Saturn V development at a comparable time thanks to leaders in
Congress such as yourselves and to leaders in NASA. The Orion
spacecraft is in test rather than being just a sketch on a
blackboard. Constellation's Altair lunar lander design
progressed well beyond early concepts of the Apollo lunar
module. Understanding of human physiology and space has been
greatly advanced by use of Skylab, the shuttle, and the ISS.
Unlike the 1960s, the private sector is well-positioned to
support as well as to partner with the federal government.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, Congress and the Administration
should move America back into deep space sooner rather than
later. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to comments
of my colleagues, and I would be happy to answer any questions
that you or the committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmitt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Schmitt.
And, Lieutenant General Stafford.
TESTIMONY OF LT. GEN. THOMAS P. STAFFORD,
GEMINI VI, GEMINI IX, APOLLO 10,
APOLLO-SOYUZ TEST PROJECT ASTRONAUT;
CHAIRMAN, NASA INTERNATIONAL
SPACE STATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Make sure your microphone is on there.
Okay.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Checklist. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Johnson, members of the committee, I'm honored to appear before
you today to discuss our nation's space program. In my opinion,
the timing and the subject of this hearing are perfectly
chosen.
One of the key issues confronting the new Congress and the
new Administration will be how to go forward with restoring
Americans' preeminence in space after what frankly for nearly
eight years has been lost opportunities. And getting the
program back on track is so important. The next steps will be
to ensure the stability of the program.
We have had in recent years seen all too clearly the
consequences of failure to carry out the long-term objectives.
The changing of major programs with the change of new
Administrations has been detrimental to the nation's space
program. NASA's past is one of the nation's crown jewels and
one of the things that has made America great. It is a
wonderful projection of what I would term soft power to the
rest of the world.
That encompasses nine Apollo missions to the Moon. Six of
those were landings on the Moon. We have seven robotic
spacecraft landings on Mars, the Hubble Space Telescope, the
first rendezvous and landing on a near-Earth asteroid, robotic
reconnaissance of every planet in our solar system, and the
development of the space shuttle, and, with our international
partners, the building and the operations of the International
Space Station.
I and my colleagues on this panel have had the incredible
privilege and the good fortune to be part of that history, Mr.
Chairman. Unfortunately, it is history. NASA's presence today
does not do justice to its past. Many of our greatest
achievements are no longer to be seen in flight, but rather to
be found only in museums. We have abundant plans to return to
the Moon, establish a lunar base and instead, just recently,
start to talk but only talk about going one day to Mars.
The next flagship science mission that we will have
launched, the James Webb telescope, was started during the Bush
Administration with nothing comparable initiated during the
eight years of the previous Administration with the exception
of a wonderful Congressional initiative to build the SLS and
the Orion spacecraft. And I said last night at the meeting that
the members of this committee and a similar committee in the
Senate should be congratulated for taking the initiatives to
say that America should go forward, and you all did a great
job, just a wonderful job. I know it was--Bill Nelson was a
leader for the Democratic side, Kay Bailey Hutchison, over here
we have Mr. Gordon and Ralph Hall, whose picture I see on the
wall there, a great leader, and a lot of the staff like Robert
Obermann recognized, and many others.
It was such a great effort by the Congress and this
Committee in 2010 that set the umbrella that we are now
proceeding in going forward. And we need--this future will turn
return us to the Moon and then go on to an exploration of Mars.
The SLS can be useful for many large robotics spacecraft to
the outer planets and may be useful to the Department of
Defense. And we have done a lot of studies in the period of '90
and '91 I was asked by the Vice President to put together a
large team to study how to go back to the Moon, go on to Mars
in a way that is faster, better, and I'll use the word less
cost, not cheaper. And so I gathered 45 people full-time. I had
the commander of the space and missile system put together 150
part-time. We had inputs from academia, industrial firms from
all over the United States.
And then for nearly 12 months we studied, and finally, the
Vice President and I had a joint press conference in the White
House and produced this book, which is the inputs of thousands
of people called America at the Threshold still regarded by
some as a Bible and a foundation. You can use variations of it,
but that will take you back to the Moon and on to Mars.
And I know it's not been fashionable to talk about the
Moon, but the Moon is important and we said--one of our
architects--that we would go there and learn enough, you know,
from the environment and do simulations, too, with Mars,
things, not to take up too much of the funding but enough to go
there and then on to Mars.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Lt. Gen. Stafford follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Lieutenant General Stafford.
And, Dr. Stofan.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ELLEN STOFAN,
FORMER NASA CHIEF SCIENTIST
Dr. Stofan. Thank you for inviting me before this Committee
today. As the Chairman remembers, I was delighted to come and
speak with you about life in the universe in 2015. Today, I
want to share my optimism about where NASA currently stands and
where it's headed.
Over the next few years, I hope to join members of this
committee to watch American astronauts launch from Florida
aboard American spacecraft, feel the roar of the largest
rockets since Apollo leave the ground, have my perspective of
the universe changed by data from the James Webb Space
Telescope, and have people's lives improved here on Earth by
the continued observation and study of our own planet, and be
much closer to answering that question ``Are we alone?''
NASA's planetary, earth science, astrophysics, and
heliophysics programs continuously rewrite textbooks with their
discoveries. These areas of science are deeply connected and
are leading us to discover an earthlike planet around another
star. NASA's Kepler space telescope has found over 3,000
planets around other stars, and telescopes launched in the
coming years will further the search.
Which brings me to Mars. Mars is the most likely place
beyond Earth to have harbored and may still harbor life. Other
targets include Europa, Enceladus, and Titan, but Mars is the
closest, the most accessible for exploration, and the most like
our own Earth. Finding fossil evidence of past life on Mars is
not going to be easy, and I strongly believe it will take Mars
astronauts to find proof of life.
When I started as Chief Scientist, I was moving houses and
I found an old newspaper interview with my father that he did
when he became head of the space station in 1986. He talked
about how the space station would lay the groundwork for humans
to get to Mars in 20 years. I read this not long after having
given a speech saying the exact same thing. Mars will always
remain 20 years in the future without bipartisan support and
the commitment to make it happen. It can be done without major
increases in budget and without revolutions in technology. It
just needs focus, constancy of purpose, and continued
leadership.
NASA has a sustainable plan to get humans to Mars orbit by
2032 and land thereafter. This plan is built upon the research
NASA does on the space station to prepare for longer duration
of spaceflight and NASA's development of deep space
capabilities. The next step is a habitat in lunar orbit in the
mid-2020s to learn about the higher radiation environment and
finalize development of long duration life-support systems.
If international partners or the private sector want to go
to the surface of the Moon, as the commercial sector is well on
its way to doing, NASA is already supporting these efforts. In
both low-Earth orbit and the surface of the Moon, the 2020s
will be the decade of NASA moving out and the private sector
moving in. By 2032 we'll be ready for the first human roundtrip
mission to Mars with the surface landing to follow in the late
2030s. Unlike past plans, this plan is sustainable as it
assumes a level of spending consistent with post-Apollo
reality. Should Congress want to up the relative spending, this
timeline could be accelerated.
Mars is the goal for human exploration and it is key that
we keep our eyes on this prize, doing things we have never done
before, pushing the limits. This is the proper role and should
be the focus of NASA. When nations try to do great things,
tough things that no one has done before, they move their
country forward economically, strategically, inspirationally.
But it's important to remember that the only planet we can
actually live on is this one. From space, we are able to
collect deep and continuing data sets of Earth that are
directly beneficial to our economy, our national security, and
to each one of us every day. Data gathered from NASA's Earth-
observing satellites and aircraft, coupled with NASA's support
of fundamental research and analyses of these data enable us to
better understand and predict our weather, make better land-use
and urban-planning decisions, and respond to natural disasters
and wildfires. Satellite observations of crops help us predict
food security needs not just in this country but around the
world.
NASA data are helping us understand the rapid rate of
change we see from melting sea ice in the Arctic, the loss of
ice in Greenland and western Antarctica, changing patterns of
vegetation, and rising sea levels.
Water is a precious resource and a potential source of
world conflict. Our satellites today are giving us an
unprecedented view of the global water cycle. These data help
farmers plan how to water crops, water resource managers plan
for and deal with too much or too little rain, and warn us of
possible droughts or floods.
As Chief Scientist, I spoke to schoolkids here and around
the world. NASA truly does inspire the next generation. They
see NASA as a shining example of American ingenuity and
leadership, American can-do.
NASA has accomplished great things and now reaches to do
great new things: find life on other worlds, walk on the
surface of Mars, use our space data to help sustain and prosper
life here. It just takes commitment and focus. With your
support of NASA, you don't have to wait for the future to
happen. You can create it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stofan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Dr. Stofan.
And, Mr. Young.
TESTIMONY OF MR. TOM YOUNG,
PAST DIRECTOR, GODDARD SPACEFLIGHT CENTER;
PAST PRESIDENT/COO, MARTIN MARIETTA;
PAST CHAIRMAN, SAIC
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NASA's accomplishments during the six decades of its
existence have been extraordinary. It's hard to imagine a
public or private sector organization that has accomplished
more, given the level of difficulty of the NASA endeavors,
including the array of accomplishments or observations that
have revolutionized our understanding of our sun and planetary
home, landers and rovers on the surface of Mars, robotic visits
to all the planets of our solar system, telescopes that have
looked to billions of years back in time and also have
discovered hundreds of planets around other stars, humans
walking on the surface of the Moon, and the development and
operation of a space station that is a technological marvel.
Truly, NASA has repeatedly turned the perceived impossible into
reality. NASA's accomplishments have filled our books and
electronics systems with new knowledge about our sun, Earth,
our solar system, the universe, and humans operating in space.
NASA has been a source of enormous national pride and
international prestige. NASA has inspired our youth, as well as
people of all ages. When we make the observation that great
nations do great things, the NASA contributions are high on the
list of great things. NASA has done its part in making our
nation great.
One of the more impressive accomplishments of NASA has been
the human exploration program, specifically, humans walking and
riding on the surface of the Moon while exploring and enhancing
our scientific understanding of our nearest neighbor. While the
lunar endeavor was spectacular, it also highlights a
disappointment that no boots-on-the-ground human exploration
venture has been accomplished since Apollo 17 44 years ago. We
have the opportunity to rectify this disappointment in the next
couple of decades.
The enormous capability that has been developed from the
multitude of successes, as well as disappointing failures, is
often overlooked when assessing the accomplishments of the last
six decades. NASA has an enormous bank of knowledge, expertise,
and experience, largely resident in the people of NASA.
It would be wrong to equate the accomplishments of the last
six decades to NASA alone. The U.S. aerospace industry with
implementation capabilities second to none has been an
incredible partner. The industry has continued to develop its
capabilities to implement the most challenging of endeavors.
The third leg of this national capability is the depth of
talent that resides in our laboratories and academic
institutions. I believe the reason for the remarkable success
of the last six decades is that we have fully utilized the
continuity of expertise resident in NASA, in combination with
the implementation capability of industry and the talent and
capabilities in our laboratories and in academia.
Space is a one-strike-and-you're-out business. It takes the
absolute best of all sectors to assure success. Our space
initiatives are focused on exploration and science. To maximize
our exploration and scientific results also requires our
absolute best. These lessons learned will be critically
important to the future of NASA.
So where is NASA today? The trend of challenging endeavors
with anticipated incredible results continues unabated. The
James Webb Space Telescope, SLS, Mars 2020 is the first step in
returning samples from the surface of Mars to Earth and Orion
are but examples.
In addition to rigorously implementing the approved NASA
program, our most important responsibility is developing a
strategy for the future. This is currently critical because the
challenges and opportunities are large and significant. With
exceptional leadership, focus, commitment, and support, the
future can be even more rewarding than the past six decades. It
is also possible that we can spend a lot of money and
accomplish little.
There is a set of great questions that can guide our
thinking about the future. Are we alone? What is dark energy
and dark matter? Is it possible and practical for Mars to be a
lifeboat or a second home for the human race? These are
certainly--there are certainly other great questions, but these
are opportunities to start the discussion. I believe we can
answer each of these questions in the next few decades.
I suspect we have all looked at the night sky and wondered
if we're alone or if we have neighbors waiting to be
discovered. The fact that we don't understand 90 percent of the
universe says the opportunity for awesome discoveries awaits
us.
In discussing the NASA future, I'll separate my comments
into science and human spaceflight. The science element is
well-planned and focused upon the highest-priority endeavors.
The National Academies' Decadal Surveys are well done with
broad participation of the scientific community. NASA
effectively utilizes the Decadal Surveys to establish direction
for the science enterprise.
The current and future strategic state of human spaceflight
is cloudy, and current NASA budgets--approximately $9 billion--
is allocated to human spaceflight. Over the next two decades,
that accumulates to approximately $180 billion, which should
support significant accomplishments.
My view is that there are too many potential paths
competing for the available resources, making it imperative
that difficult program decisions be made. About half the
current budget is allocated to low-Earth-orbit endeavors which
consists of the International Space Station, commercial cargo,
and commercial crew. The other half of the budget is for human
exploration, which includes SLS and Orion. A $4.5 billion
budget is clearly inadequate for a capable human exploration
program. A choice must be made and made soon between LEO and
exploration.
Additionally, there is discussion of NASA leading or being
the catalyst for commercializing LEO. There are also plans for
a cislunar space endeavor of approximately a decade duration.
Date--debate continues as to whether the Moon or Mars should be
the exploration objective.
Are we going to have a credible human exploration program?
Assuming the answer is yes, we needed to focus our physical and
human resources on making exploration a credible reality.
Failure to decide between these competing options will result
in significant resources being spent and not--could not have a
credible exploration program.
My personal conviction is the primary human spaceflight
goal for the future NASA should be exploration with boots on
the ground on either the Moon or Mars. I believe Mars is the
most compelling objective. I believe the commercialization of
LEO should be the responsibility of the private sector with
NASA providing technological support but not management or
financial support. Above all else, a detailed plan for the
human exploration program is mandatory.
A future NASA focused upon the great questions with a
science portfolio guided by the National Academies' Decadal
Survey and a human exploration program concentrating on the
human exploration of Mars can be responsive to the axiom that
great nations do great things. NASA's future can be even more
exciting and rewarding than NASA's extraordinary past. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Young.
I'll recognize myself for questions. And, Dr. Schmitt, let
me address the first one to you. You set some great worthy
goals, landing again on the Moon in I think 2025, landing on
Mars in 2040, only 25 years from now. What does NASA need to do
that it is not doing now to get to Mars by 2040 and land
astronauts on that surface?
Dr. Schmitt. Mr. Chairman, I think the main demand to
accomplish that would be to put together a management system in
NASA that is comparable to what ultimately evolved for Apollo.
That system would include an average age that's younger than
NASA today. Young people provide that courage and patriotism
and imagination that really made Apollo possible.
During the Apollo 13 crisis, Gene Kranz did a survey when
he had a moment of the ages of people in mission control, and
the average age at that time was 26. The nuclear Navy keeps
itself young, and it's well worth I think looking on how that's
done. Of course, it's a military program and they have
different rules than the civil service, but still, I think it's
important for the long-term future of NASA to find a way in
which it can keep itself young.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Good. Thank you.
Dr. Schmitt. That's one of many, but management is going to
be the key I think.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. Lieutenant General
Stafford, just to take it to the shorter-term, say the next 4
or eight years, what recommendations do you have for Congress
and NASA as to what we can accomplish in that time frame? And
let me add that yesterday, NASA announced--I don't know if you
read it or not or heard it or not, but NASA announced that they
are going to conduct a study about the very real possibility in
two years of sending astronauts on SLS and do a Mars flyby.
They're just conducting the study. They didn't commit to it 100
percent yet but--I'm sorry, Moon flyby, not a Mars flyby. What
do you think--that got your attention, didn't it? A Moon flyby
in two years with astronauts on SLS. But what do you think of
that idea? What do you think we could be doing in the next 4 to
8 years?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Mr. Chairman, the one thing again is
continuity and adequate management and budget resources. And
it's so important I think that people understand why we need a
big booster. And for the new members of the Committee here to
emphasize that when I lifted off to go to the Moon, when Jack
Schmitt lifted off, our--the total mass was about 6.25 million
pounds. In 11 minutes we put approximately 300,000 pounds into
orbit or a little--I had about 138 metric tons and Dr. Schmitt
had a little bit more on his. And then we kicked out. And most
of it was the third stage with the fuel in it, which was only
4.8 percent of that giant booster.
And what was the useful payload? The lunar module and the
command module was a third of that, so we had 1.6 percent that
went on to do that mission to land on the Moon, so this is why
you need a big booster. You'll see all the different ideas.
We'll take small ones and put them together and all this. Well,
we've been through it and we've studied it from A-to-Z. It
doesn't work.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. We're started down the right path and I
think--
Chairman Smith. Good to hear. Okay. Thank you, Lieutenant
General Stafford.
And, Dr. Stofan, you have a special interest in discovering
life in the universe elsewhere outside of our solar system, and
I have a special interest in that as well. I think it's a
fascinating subject. What are the prospects of discovering some
form of life--vegetative, sentient, whatever it might be--
elsewhere in the universe outside our solar system? And do we
have any hope, say, in the next ten years, with any of our
telescopes or next-generation telescopes of picking up spectra
from an earthlike planet, for example?
Dr. Stofan. Well, as you know, we have all of the targets
from Kepler of planets around other stars, some of which lie in
the habitable zone, and then obviously we have the TESS, the
Transiting Exoplanet Survey Telescope, that will launch in
about a year-and-a-half that will, we think, find a habitable
planet--a potentially habitable planet about one a month for
its three-year mission.
That means we're going to have a lot of candidates for the
James Webb Space Telescope, which has the ability to look at
the atmospheres of planets around other stars. So James Webb
will hopefully start looking for gases like carbon dioxide,
methane, oxygen, water that would be potentially indicative of
habitability. But it's really going to take that next
generation of space telescope, I think, to get us from
identifying potentially habitable worlds to being a lot more
confident that that world is actually potentially inhabited.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Stofan. So for right now, I think our focus really need
to be on our own solar system--Mars, Europa, Enceladus, Titan--
where we can really push this question of----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Stofan. --what are the bounds of habitability, what are
the chances of life beyond Earth by really looking at our own
solar system.
Chairman Smith. Right. And as you know, NASA has plans for
Europa as well, too.
Dr. Stofan. Yes.
Chairman Smith. With the indulgence of my colleagues, let
me squeeze in one last question and it is this: Mr. Young, you
mentioned the constraints of the budget. You said we have
limited resources, all of which is true, so therefore, what can
NASA do best, what can the private sector do best, in order to
maximize the use of our resources?
Mr. Young. I have a couple answers to your question, which
is a very good one. First off, I really believe we've got----
Chairman Smith. Will you pull the mic towards you just a
little bit? Thank you. There.
Mr. Young. I really believe we've got to make the hard
decisions. We cannot distribute the limited budget over all of
the possibilities that exist, even though they all have merits
and we expect to accomplish them all. So we've really got to
establish priorities, number one.
The second thing is that I--having spent a bit of my life
both in NASA and also in the private sector, I have some
appreciation for both sides of the equation. NASA has enormous,
what I call continuity capability, to apply to a given space
exploration kind of an endeavor. Industry goes much more from
project to project. It has enormous implementation capability.
And I think we need to recognize what the strengths are that
both groups bring to this particular problem.
And when we're able to marry the enormous continuity
capability that NASA has and the implementation capability that
industry has, we seem to really be able to accomplish an awful
lot. When we choose to tie one of their hands behind them and
say, look, you know, we're only going to use part of your
capabilities, that's when we usually end up with not very
satisfactory results.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Young.
That concludes my questioning, and I'll recognize the
Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for her questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all of you for your testimony. It's been very
enlightening to me. And I guess my question now is I'd like to
hear from each of you what you would recommend that we focus on
for the next few years, and if we choose to continue to focus
on all aspects--the Station, as well as pursuing Mars--how much
money do you think we need?
Dr. Schmitt. Congresswoman, the--that's a tough question--
--
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Dr. Schmitt. --because as I said in my oral testimony and
believe very strongly that if you decide you're going to have a
deep space human spaceflight program that includes the Moon,
Mars, and deep space itself, that needs to be a focus. And
there are, I think, other ways in which we can implement the
very fine programs that NASA has undertaken in the years
largely since Apollo, but it really--it takes management focus,
I think, to make sure that you're going to be successful and to
deal with the geopolitical realities that drive you in that
direction.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Schmitt. So I think the Congress needs to examine just
what is going to be required legislatively in order to provide
that focus.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Stafford?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Ms. Johnson, the--as pointed out by the
Chairman, we have so much money for the exploration, which
includes, you know, space station and other things. And we've
answered a lot of questions that were identified in this study
and other studies. One thing is how do you close the loop to
reuse the air? Every human being here at sea level, average
weight, uses about 2.2 pounds of oxygen a day. You need about 6
pounds of water a day and then approximately 1.5 pounds of food
a day. Probably some people get more than that. But the main
thing is the recycling. And the Russians started it. We started
it really in Skylab, and now it's working very well on the
space station.
But, remember, as I pointed out, when Dr. Schmitt and I
flew to the Moon, our useful payload was 1.6 percent of what we
lifted off with. So if you have a pound--1.6 of oxygen, it's
going to take 100 pounds of gross weight to start with. So the
space station has answered a lot of that. It's been up there
for quite a while. And by 2024 to me it should answer most of
the questions that have been required.
And also, we've determined with the--we call it the ARED,
astronaut exercise resistant device, how to keep the bone mass
up, the muscles up, and we've really come a long way. The
station has really answered a lot of the questions. So some of
that money could be used to go forward.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Stofan. I think the focus should be--remain more or
less as it is, implementing the Decadal Surveys; supporting
basic research and technology development, as NASA does across
its directorates; supporting aeronautics and the great support
it gives to the aeronautics industry in this country; and to
follow NASA's plan, ISS to 2024, support SLS and Orion, lunar
habitat in the mid-2020s, Mars orbit in 2032. This is an
achievable plan, and again, it more or less fits within NASA's
existing budget. This does not require huge increases in
budget.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Young. I believe that if we continue on the current
course with the multiple paths that we're on and the current
budget, the committee hearing that'll take place ten years from
now will say what a disappointing decade we had and that we
will be negligibly closer to landing humans on Mars than we are
today.
So I think we have two real decisions to make. One is to
narrow the number of paths and to focus on the highest-priority
item. The second is--you asked about resources, and this is
always dangerous and I haven't done an analysis, but if I had
to answer your question, if you want to keep doing what we're
doing today, what do you need? $10 billion-plus more per year.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
I've always felt we ought to have a pin that says one
percent for NASA, which would be doubling our current budget.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Lieutenant General Stafford, you may not have been there on
the first day of NASA, but you've been there in one capacity as
an astronaut or a manager or an advisor since the Kennedy
Administration.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. He was my boss for a brief period of
time, too.
Mr. Lucas. You're a lucky man. I bet he was there, too.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. I was.
Mr. Lucas. So, Lieutenant General Stafford, from your
perspective if you could expand for a moment, what are the
things that we on the committee should be concerned about? What
perils lie out there that we should be prepared to think about?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Mr. Lucas, we talk about human
spaceflight. The number one criteria is safety absolutely above
all. And what concerns me is that NASA--we've set the criteria.
We understand it, but yet at times it's gone away from us like
those two accidents we had on the shuttle, the tragic fire we
had early on in Apollo, but then we came back. Then we had
Apollo 13, and we learned a lot of things. And we have all of
these strict requirements. And if you violate those
requirements, it can be a very bad day. That is one thing is my
concern is we have safety and we have rigid reinforcement all
the way through for that.
Mr. Lucas. Very good observation, General. Also along that
same line, there are opportunities that avail itself, whether
it's the Moon or the asteroids or Mars or things a century on
down the road, and there's lots of discussion in this day and
time amongst members of the committee and the general public
about NASA's role versus the growing industry so to speak, how
to maintain that balance. Do you have any observations on that?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, the volunteer work I do now is the
advisory committee for the International Space Station, so we
just look at the mess, you know, coming up and there's been
some failures we've had. But when I use the word commercial, I
go back to my fortunate experience for about 30 years, and I
served on 14 boards on the New York Stock Exchange over this
period of time, so I think I understand what----
Mr. Lucas. You have come a long way since Weatherford high
school, yes.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Yes, sir. So--thank you, sir. But what
is called commercial to me is not really truly commercial. It's
probably more subsidized. That's what--Mr. Lucas, what I would
say. But in other words, if you have commercial, you plan to
make a profit, but where do the funds come from? Are you going
to be able to sell this? Now, there's a long-term thing and
there might be progress payments, but I don't really see it as
pure commercial right now the way it is.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, General.
Dr. Schmitt, you have the unique perspective not only of
being an astronaut and a scientist, but you've been a part of a
legislative body. You have--that other body.
Dr. Schmitt. The other body, yes.
Mr. Lucas. And that's a polite way to put it today, that
other body. So you've seen the appropriations process from the
inside. You've seen the budget process from the inside in the
other body. Would you agree that we face certain challenges as
a committee trying to make sure that resources are properly
allocated to do the things we need to do? I mean, you went
through these struggles as a Senator.
Dr. Schmitt. Yes, no question about it, Congressman. The
problem is political diversity. There is a great pressure to
deal with many different things for many different
constituencies, and I really think, again, that if we're going
to focus on the geopolitical issue, we're going to have to
truly focus. And everybody has to realize that there may be
other ways to get the diversity, but the agency that is charged
with going forward with human spaceflight is going to have to
focus on that. And I think the House and Senate are going to
have to focus and try to resist what has been going on and
that's this political diversity that's been asked of the
agency.
Mr. Lucas. Well, Senator, I wholeheartedly agree with you,
and I acknowledge we have to make tough decisions. Matter of
fact, when I leave this committee hearing, I'm going to a
meeting of the Ag Committee where we're going to discuss what
you should be able to do with your food stamps. It should be
lively and exciting.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
And the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is
recognized for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member Johnson, and to all of our witnesses today. I
think this is the only Committee in Congress where the
biographical information is longer than the testimony. So I
really appreciate all of your expertise and your background.
Lieutenant General Stafford, Russia has been in the news
quite a bit lately, and there is much to be concerned about and
investigated. But there have been other strained times in our
relationship, and the space program has always stood out as a
diplomatic success. It is vital that space exploration does not
become a political issue between Russia and the United States.
So what is your assessment of the current state of the Russian
space program? We are, as of today, still relying on Russia for
launching our U.S. astronauts to the International Space
Station. Do you have any concerns about that or concerns about
the reliability or quality of the launch vehicles or Soyuz at
this time?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, Congresswoman, that's a very good
question. And I was fortunate at the height of the Cold War
when each country had 6 or 8,000 nuclear weapons aimed at each
other we did the Apollo-Soyuz mission. And the Soviets and now
the Russians--at times they were difficult as far as the
negotiations. However, once they negotiated and signed up to
the agreement, they lived up to it. And it worked out very well
and set the background for the future shuttle here and the
International Space Station.
Now, they have recently had--well, over a period of time I
think three progress failures that have gone on that booster.
It's slightly different than what we fly with a spacecraft.
Now, the--in the first stage of the Soyuz booster, they've
flown over 2,000 and it's fairly reliable. It's in the upper
stages where they're having the problems. However, the--it's a
very rugged vehicle. It's landed in low hills and really
mountains at times, something we haven't been able to do, and
we can land on water so I--and they have upheld their part of
the agreement all the way through. And again, they are very
much aware of safety criteria as we are.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Well, thank you. And I think we can
learn from history and what our countries have done in the past
and maintained that relationship despite what happens in other
spaces.
So, Dr. Stofan, Oregon State University in my home State
receives significant funding from NASA. The work they do helps
inform important national activities you discuss in your
testimony like weather forecasting, ocean monitoring. What are
some of the concrete examples of how Earth science missions and
research have benefited the American people and our economy?
And then I also want to ask you--I'll ask you both
questions at once. What can we do--we as Members of Congress,
you as experts in your field--to inspire the next generation,
as Dr. Bera was talking about, other than movies like Hidden
Figures, which I think is playing a big part right now and
inspiring young people? What can we do as communities to
inspire young people to keep this mission going?
Dr. Stofan. Thank you. I think when you look across what
NASA is doing, you can pick certainly specific observations,
for example, in California the work we've been doing with
multiple sensors to look at with our GRACE spacecraft to assess
the amount of water we've been pulling out of aquifers in
California. We also did a test project over the last couple
years where we were working with farmers to develop an app to
assess the amount of water, the health of their crops, the
amount of water they were using, and it actually got some of
the farmers to use about 25 to 35 percent less water on their
crops.
So there's a lot of specific examples of this, of NASA
working to solve problems, whether it's in agriculture or in
water management, where we again have an app that's now in the
hands of water managers and farmers to help them assess crop
health and control their water usage.
So across the board we've been taking NASA earth science
data, which has historically been for the scientific community
to do science stuff with and turning it into information that
helps people in their everyday lives whether, again, its
agriculture or water planning. This is critically important.
And NASA has that unique global perspective, that unique
vantagepoint of space. We develop the technology, we develop
the next-generation instrumentation. And when I say we, I very
much mean with our university partners in basically every State
in this country. It's the NASA family that's doing all this
work and giving the benefits to people in every State in this
country.
For that second part, you know, inspiration, Charlie used
to say--Charlie Bolden, my boss, would always say, you know,
the best STEM outreach NASA ever does is when we launch a
rocket into space. When we do great things, that's when we
inspire. And believe me, I'm a huge fan of STEM education
programs, especially in getting girls and underrepresented
groups involved and engaged in STEM.
But the best way we can do that, the best way we can engage
that NASA generation is the same way that we did in Apollo.
When we have humans walking on Mars, you're going to see a huge
spike in Ph.D.'s just like we did after Apollo, the well-known
Apollo effect. We do nothing better than when we do great
things. And from The Martian to Hidden Figures, you see the
public really engaged in going to Mars. And we need to
accomplish that.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time is expired. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is to Lieutenant General Stafford, but please,
if any of the other three would like to chime in after his
remarks, feel free to do so.
Lieutenant General Stafford, in your written testimony you
mentioned that during an 11-month period from 1968 to 1969 the
Saturn V rocket flew five times, roughly once every 2 months.
This launch frequency is obviously much higher than the early
plans for the Space Launch System. Should we worry about the
Space Launch System launch frequency, and how will this impact
safety and cost?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. When you have
long delays in between, you still have to--it costs money to
have the support people there to go. And the better tempo you
hit, the cheaper it's going to be--or should I say, sir, the
less cost it will be per launch and also probably the safer it
will be. And, you know, I think you need more than one every
two years, and I don't know the optimum number but you need it
where you have a somewhat repetitive, rapid repeatability, and
that would definitely enhance safety, it would reduce costs.
Mr. Brooks. But you testified that you don't know the
optimum rate. From that I infer the exact optimum rate, but do
you have some kind of judgment or range that you think would be
preferable?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, Mr. Brooks I would say probably a
minimum of two a year, three a year would be desirable, but a
minimum would be two a year, sir.
Mr. Brooks. Would any of the other witnesses like to add
any insight?
Dr. Schmitt. I would agree with that number. I think that
two a year keeps the team active, keeps the team on their toes,
and that's what I think Lieutenant General Stafford is
referring to is that--having a launch every two years or so is
certainly not optimum but two launches a year and a program
that matches that I think is compatible with what we talked
about earlier.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Yes, first off, your first question was should
we worry about it? And the answer is yes, absolutely. When I
was Director of Goddard, we managed the Delta rocket at the
time. We launched one a month while I was there. When I was
President of Martin Marietta, we launched an awful lot of large
Titan vehicles.
I think there's one thing that everybody in the launch
vehicle business knows. The higher the launch rate, the higher
the probability of success. And when you talk about launching a
sophisticated rocket once every three years or once every two
years, I think the answer in my view is that's not acceptable.
And so where does the cutoff come? I don't exactly know. If you
get to what--both comments that Tom and Jack made of two a
year, two a year is not an unreasonable number. If you get much
less than that, you really need to study the problem very hard
to see if you have special techniques you can put in place to
hopefully bridge the gap of not launching frequently. But the
largest--I'm a big supporter of SLS, but the thing I would be
most worried about is the infrequency of launches.
Dr. Stofan. If I could also just quickly comment?
Mr. Brooks. Please do.
Dr. Stofan. The SLS rocket has the time to get to the outer
solar system, so if we're pursuing this question of going out
to those ocean worlds of the outer solar system, the SLS is a
great asset. So the scientific community is always ready to
make use of those extra launches.
Mr. Brooks. In the limited time I have left this is a
general question for whoever wishes to take a shot at it. Is
there a market for heavy-lift beyond NASA? Is it possible to
design effective exploration architectures that make use of
both the SLS, as well as the commercial heavy-lift vehicles
currently under development? And what are the advantages or
disadvantages?
Dr. Schmitt. Well, I'll take a crack at that. I think there
is. I about ten years ago published a book where I thought the
private investors might be interested in funding both a heavy-
lift launch vehicle and activities on the Moon in pursuit of
lunar resources, particularly fusion fuel helium-3. Now, with
the SLS that partnership I think is even more viable with the
government because the private sector can now--or the investor
sector can concentrate on the resource side of things rather
than on the launch vehicles. So if you put together that kind
of a partnership for lunar development, then I think, yes,
it'll be a tremendous need for launches on the order of two a
year if not more.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has
expired. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I kind of think about and reflect on my opening
comments and think about the success of the Gemini and Apollo
programs. Let me just read President Kennedy's quote. ``We
choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this
decade and do the other things not because they are easy but
because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize
and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that
challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are
unwilling to postpone and one we intend to win, and the others,
too.''
And in laying down that challenge to us as a nation, he was
also touching on the importance of strong science research
programs, the importance of federal funding, the importance of
investing in the next generation so that we would have that
next generation of scientists. Now, I wasn't born when he gave
that speech, but I'm a direct beneficiary of the challenge that
was laid out there, and I think all of us in the country are.
Would you say part of the success was that there was a
direct challenge in a specific timeline that wasn't about one
Administration to the next because achieving the goals spanned
Administrations but there was a clear goal that was set out?
Lieutenant General Stafford?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. That's a very good point, sir, and I do
think we need specific goals and we need stability. But one
thing I'd recommend to the Committee--and I said this before--
that I saw that was so effective was called the National Space
Council. And it was put into law by the majority leader after
Sputnik at the same time DARPA was formed and NASA was formed.
That was by Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson called the National
Space Council. President Eisenhower decided not to activate it.
For some reason he thought it would take away some power, but
as soon as President Kennedy was elected, he put Vice President
Johnson in charge of the National Space Council.
And believe me, sir, I was new to NASA but it flat moved,
and then after him, Hubert Humphrey, and it continued on until
President Nixon reorganized the White House in 1973 and it went
away. The next time it was reactivated was when President Bush
Senior said let's go back to the Moon and on to Mars and put
Vice President Quayle in charge of the National Space Council.
And that way it was focused and you didn't have people like
lower-level OMB people taking pieces out here or there or think
that they help to recognize--it focuses it.
Mr. Bera. Absolutely. So having a specific goal, having a
specific time frame that doesn't change from Administration to
Administration----
Lt. Gen. Stafford. That's right.
Mr. Bera. You know, my colleague from Colorado gave me this
sticker. It says ``2033: We can do this.'' you know? And--
right, we can do this. And, Mr. Young, you touched on it.
Mr. Young. Yes, if I could just add a little bit to your
question. I think having it--absolutely the answer is yes. I
was a young engineer at that time working for NASA. There was
no confusion by me or my colleagues as to what our objective
was, what we were trying to accomplish. And anything that was
not critical to the success of that accomplishment, we just
didn't do. In other words, we were focused on that goal and
that objective. And I mean I remember that as rigorously as I
can remember anything. And unfortunately, that's not where we
are today.
Mr. Bera. And I think if we want to accomplish what we want
to accomplish, we have to get back to that and folks can sit
here and say, well, we're in political turmoil as a nation,
we're divided. Look back at the 1960s. I don't think it was a
time of political stability, yet we had national pride, we had
a national goal, and we went out to accomplish it. And in some
ways that could be what brings us together as a nation as well.
Dr. Schmitt?
Dr. Schmitt. Congressman Bera, I totally agree with you.
That's why in my oral testimony and written testimony I
indicated milestones. I think you need those. You need to
commit to those. And one essential ingredient is that Congress
and the OMB and the White House have to be willing to provide
management reserve of funding. You cannot make milestones in
complicated programs unless you have a management reserve. Now,
do you need 100 percent like we had an Apollo? No, we're much
smarter than we were. But I think generally a 30 percent
management reserve until you get to critical design review on
various systems is absolutely essential to keep on schedule.
Mr. Bera. Right. And, Dr. Stofan, you've already laid out
what those milestones are to go into orbit around Mars in 2032.
Was that the goal? Well, let's set that out there. Let's put it
out there and let's not continually change course. Let's
actually dedicate the resources, the person power and inspire
that next generation. So I notice I'm out of time but thank you
guys for everything that you've done for our country.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Bera.
And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all so much
for being here. You truly are our heroes. We're grateful for
each one of you, what you've done and continue to do, so thank
you so much for that. You're fine.
But I have some questions for you, and this is an inspiring
time but also any time I get a chance to talk about NASA is
inspiring to me. And I think it's so important for us to be
starting this new Congress and this great Committee, which I'm
so honored to serve on with Chairman Smith and my colleagues,
but it is so important for us for so many reasons. But I think
maybe one of the most important reasons is how NASA, throughout
our history, continues to be such a place that inspires the
next generation, next generation of astronauts, of scientists,
of physicists, of people engaged in that discovery, that idea
that has always been such a key part of who we are as a nation.
And so I have been really excited. One of the things that
we've been doing in my district recently is we reached out--I
represent seven counties but we reached out to high school
students and we started a STEM scholar program where I meet
with 19 of our STEM scholars from around the 14th Congressional
District in Illinois. We meet monthly going to different STEM
facilities, whether it's a research facility or a university or
other things to be able to learn from them.
I had a chance to be with some good friends of mine, the
Cain brothers. Cain Tubular has worked very closely with NASA
in exhaust systems for our rocket engines and the students just
loved it. We had a person from NASA come in and speak to them
as well. So, so good for us to learn together, be inspired, but
also to hear from them what's worked for them, what teacher
inspired them, what program inspired them.
So I asked them if they had any questions for NASA, for
astronauts, for scientists who have been engaged in important
work, so I reached out to them and I'm going to use the
remainder of my couple of minutes to ask some of the questions
that my STEM scholars had if that's all right.
First, Claire, who is just a brilliant young student, has
been involved in FIRST Robotics as an engineer, drive coach,
and outreach coordinator for her team ``Got Robot.'' But Claire
asks how does NASA--what has NASA done in the past and what
does it plan to do to continue to encourage students to pursue
careers in STEM to become that next generation of brilliant
scientists and astronauts? And is there a way that NASA can
help build curriculum or lessons that could reach more students
to be able to do that? And I'd just open that up. What do you
think NASA is doing or should do to inspire young people, that
next generation of astronauts and scientists?
Dr. Stofan. You know, through our NASA education programs,
we have a lot of programs that are focused on kids in STEM and
how to get kids engaged in STEM. And I think it's a constant
challenge on how do we make sure those programs are really
producing good results. You know, how can we make sure that
they're effective? And I think over the last several years
we've really taken a hard look at our programs and tried to
say, where are we actually moving the needle on this? It's a
huge source of frustration when we still don't see girls and
underrepresented groups getting into STEM.
One of the things we do that I think is effective is we
partner with FIRST Robotics----
Mr. Hultgren. Good.
Dr. Stofan. --for example, and I think----
Mr. Hultgren. It's a great, great program.
Dr. Stofan. --it's a great program.
Mr. Hultgren. Me, too. Good. I think to just continuing to
tell your story, and we had the chance last Congress to be able
to connect with astronauts up on the International Space
Station. And I see all the time as I see the NASA channel,
oftentimes, our astronauts are connecting with students and
school groups and how important that is.
Let me ask another quick question. Andrew, another one of
my STEM scholars from St. Charles, Illinois, another brilliant
young man who is very interested in cyber issues,
cybersecurity, he's a CyberPatriot and also very active in the
Civil Air Patrol and Air Force Association. But he had a three-
part question if I can ask my last one. As we continuously are
moving forward in an interconnected world on the digital level
with a greater need for computing power for our future space
travel and advancements, we know that our adversaries will take
advantage of every aspect of our nation's vulnerabilities. How
can someone like me--this is Andrew asking--who is currently
involved in cybersecurity education and competition for the
past three years contribute to the current and future space
travel and advancement? Also, do you think cybersecurity plays
a major role in NASA? Lastly, what is the current demand for
cybersecurity jobs in NASA?
Dr. Schmitt. Well, it sounds like that young man is doing
everything he needs to do to get ready----
Mr. Hultgren. I'm just trying to grab onto his coattails.
He's amazing.
Dr. Schmitt. --and to answer his own question. I have some
responsibilities in Orbital ATK for cybersecurity, and it is an
extraordinarily complicated issue. It has to be addressed by
the government as well as by corporations, and it's just going
to be something that's with us continuously, and we're just
going to have to start to get smarter and smarter.
One of the things that has interested me recently is to try
to get security built into processors. And the Draper
Laboratory, with which I'm also associated, has developed some
means to do that so that you continue to use the firewalls and
the whitelisting and other aspects of cybersecurity, but you
build into the processor that kind of security. And I think
it's an intriguing idea, and it's something that Andrew may
want to look into.
Mr. Hultgren. Good. Thank you. My time is expired. We have
some other questions that I hope we can maybe give to you all.
Some of my other STEM scholars had questions if we can follow
up.
One last word, Chairman. I just want to say thank you to
Lieutenant General Stafford, all of you, so grateful, but,
Lieutenant General Stafford, I really appreciate all that you
have done and mean to us and really appreciated your words last
night talking about Gene Cernan and your work with him. We miss
him but we're just so grateful to you and all that you mean to
us as a nation but also to our space program. But all of you,
thank you so much. With that, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
And the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is
recognized for her questions.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, many thanks
to the Ranking Member, to the Chairman, and really to our
distinguished panelists today.
We have a lot of STEM activities in my District and had the
excitement of having a direct link from the International Space
Station with 3,000 students watching from Waterbury,
Connecticut, seeing a graduate from their high school talk to
his former calculus teacher. And I will tell you, there is very
little--you've all mentioned the importance of students really
seeing that.
So the challenge we face here is we've got a lot of
different objectives for NASA on the table right now and not
enough money and not enough time to pursue them all in a
sequence that inspires. So if you can talk a little bit more,
how do we establish benchmarks? And if you are willing to say
what would you lop off or put down to lower priorities if we
really think that manned exploration is vital, which many of
you have said, if you have to triage--I think we'd rather plus
up here but we may not have that option. And I see Mr. Young is
ready to go with the triage question. Thank you.
Mr. Young. It's a great question and I actually think the
crucial question. My personal belief is that the priority for
human spaceflight should be exploration, boots on the ground,
either the Moon or Mars. My choice is Mars. To do that we've
got--as you say, we've got to not do some other important
things. My personal belief that I mentioned is commercializing
low-Earth orbit, I think NASA should not be in that business
except for providing technological support. So that would be my
item that I would cross off.
International Space Station is the more difficult of the
questions. I personally--and there's no way that we can have a
credible exploration program and a credible low-Earth orbit
space station program at the current budget in my view. So I
would prioritize those things that are necessary to support
humans to Mars. I would accomplish those and I would transition
if possible it to the commercial world as soon as I could.
The other thing that's going to consume a lot of resources
is the decade-worth of effort in cislunar space. I personally
believe there's a lot of things that need to be done in
cislunar space to support the Mars program, but I wouldn't
establish a cislunar space program on its own. I would
establish a Mars program, and then from the Mars program, I
would figure out what do I need to do in cislunar space to get
to Mars.
So I think a human-to-Mars mission will stretch us almost
to our limits but I think is achievable. But to do it we've
kind of got to do just what you said. We've got to prioritize.
That would be my personal priority. The country could decide
it's another priority. You know, maybe commercializing low-
Earth orbit is the right priority. If that's true, get the rest
of the stuff out of the way, but it's not what I would
personally do.
Ms. Esty. I see at least two other nodding heads on
prioritizing Mars. Does everyone have an agreement around that?
Because if this is--we are going to have to make some very
difficult decisions if we are going to achieve any of these
things in a time frame that makes any sense. And I think we--as
our colleague Dr. Bera underscored, you do need focus, and that
does help--public support is enhanced when there are timelines
and there are benchmarks and people can see that progress. That
galvanizes support, which makes it easier for us to achieve not
just that goal but other ones as well.
Others who would like to chime in?
Dr. Schmitt. Well, I think Tom Young has articulated it
very well. I have already made the leap that the Moon is
extraordinarily important to get to Mars, but I think anything
you do in this so-called cislunar space has to be with that in
mind. It doesn't mean other things won't happen as a result
scientifically and operationally, but you really do need that
experience. A generation or two needs the experience that we
used to have as a result of Apollo if you're going to go to
Mars successfully.
Dr. Stofan. Yes, I think it's really critical that we do
say focused. And I would call the Committee's attention to the
work that Mr. Lightfoot has been doing over the last several
years to really look inside NASA and say, you know, what are we
duplicating at our various NASA centers? How do we focus? Over
the last, I would argue, at least ten years, NASA has been
carrying too many potential futures, too many potential paths.
Robert has already begun the work to try to say we have one
path; we're going to Mars; let's narrow this down. We've
started on that path. The guidance of this Committee, of this
Congress, would help solidify that.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. That's all very helpful for us
because, again, we want to be helpful in achieving these
missions, and if there are too many missions, none will be
achieved. And that is a great loss not to just this country but
really to the future of the human species. So we would like to
be helpful in this process. Thanks--thank you very much. And it
looks like the General also has----
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Yes, I'd like to point out one thing to
the Committee, particularly the new members. In physics when we
talk about Mars, you know, it's in a 687-day orbit where we're
in a 365-1/4. It's inclined 1.9 degrees. You put all this
together, which APL did this for us in a study. And you have--
you can only launch from Mars every 26 months, and you have
about a 60-day window. But also there's a sinusoid, an energy
per kilogram--or pound if you want to put it that way--that's
required and we're right down--there's a 15-year sinusoid, and
we're right down near the minimum now, 2016, '17, '18. Then it
starts back up. By the time you get to, say, 2024, '25, you're
up near the peak so it's going to take--you can only put a
little payload there. Then it starts down. And so 15 years from
now, 2031, '32, '33, you're down in this thing so you can set a
target. But that is that one thing when you talk Mars that you
have to remember all the way, that 15-year sinusoid.
Dr. Schmitt. I'm going to beat that with fusion propulsion,
Tom. You won't have to launch every 26 months.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
And the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is
recognized.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Serving on this
Committee is a high privilege, especially because we have the
opportunity to discuss things like this with this amazing
panel. So thank you all for being here.
Before I get started on Moon/Mars, I think that's an
important discussion, but I want to say the first time I had a
conversation with the Lieutenant General Stafford I was running
the Tulsa Air and Space Museum. I had just left the United
States Navy as a pilot and here I am at this museum. We made an
effort, Mr. Chairman, to get a space shuttle in the city of
Tulsa, and we had a long history with the shuttle. We built the
bay doors on the space shuttle. We had built the shuttle
carrier aircraft, the 747 that carries carries the shuttle on
its back was modified in Tulsa. We built the big devices that
picked the shuttle up and make it vertical for the launch deck.
NASA said you need a 10,000-foot runway to have a shuttle on
display at your museum. You need a museum dedicated to
education.
So we made this effort to go after a shuttle. And I was
pretty new at the museum at the time and I get this call, and
my staffer comes in and says Lieutenant General Tom Stafford is
on the phone for you. And I said yes, and the Easter Bunny is
on line two, right? And of course Lieutenant General Tom
Stafford was on the Board of Directors for the National Museum
of the U.S. Air Force and he wanted to let me know that the
U.S. Air Force Museum was going to be getting a shuttle and not
the Tulsa Air and Space Museum.
I'm sad to report, sir, that neither one of us got a space
shuttle, but it was a great conversation and I appreciate you
being from Oklahoma. If none of you have--if you've ever been
to Oklahoma, if you ever get a chance to go to Oklahoma, I
highly recommend visiting the Tom Stafford Museum. You're doing
a lot to inspire the young, you know, generation in Oklahoma,
and thank you for all your great work there.
I want to talk for a second about this Moon/Mars thing
because I think it's important. While we all want to go to the
Moon, and certainly with my friend from Colorado, Mr.
Perlmutter, 2033, great goal; I think it ought to be 2032. I
think most Republicans agree with the 2032 number. But while
that's important, I've heard Dr. Schmitt and Lieutenant General
Stafford talk about the geopolitical issues here, the fact that
there is a soft power element here.
We know what China is doing. They're launching taikonauts
on Chinese rockets to their own Chinese space station. Not too
long ago they put an orbiter around the Moon to map the Moon.
After a year of mapping the Moon they launched it deeper into
space to the L2 point 60,000 kilometers on the back side of the
Moon where it shut down and just hovered for a period of 8
months before repowering and flying into deep space in
formation with an asteroid. That is a massive achievement and
accomplishment that is astonishing.
We also know that the Chinese have launched direct-ascent
antisatellite weapons, one that in fact shot down one of their
own satellites, creating a space debris field of 3,000 pieces.
We also know that they are currently testing antisatellite
weapons all the way out to geostationary orbit where our most
important communication satellites, AEHF or nuclear command and
control communications, WGS. For those of us that are tactical
operators, we depend on WGS and of course all of our space-
based infrared systems to detect missile launch systems all in
that very important orbital regime out there in geostationary
orbit.
The Chinese have demonstrated if not the desire, they have
at least demonstrated the capacity to attack that geostationary
orbit from above, and that is a critical concern that everybody
on this Committee should be taking note of because of the
situational awareness limitations that we have in deep space.
So when we think about the Moon and when we think about
Mars, we all want to get to Mars in 2033. I think that's a
great objective. I will also say that cislunar is critically
important for the geopolitical position of the United States of
America and the Mars is the horizon goal. It's critical. We
need to get there. The Moon I believe is necessary.
And, Dr. Schmitt, I'm going to turn it over to you for a
second because you've talked about how it's possible that the
U.S. Government could in essence provide transportation to not
only lunar orbit but to the lunar surface and have the private
sector invest in developing not only the Moon but the capacity
for cislunar, which is a geopolitical concern right now for the
United States. Can you address how we could leverage commercial
in that realm?
Dr. Schmitt. Well, I've been convinced for a long time,
Congressman, that ultimately the private sector, as Tom as
pointed out, can truly commercialize for-profit, exploit the
resources of the lunar surface, the part of the lunar surface
called the regolith, which is a debris layer that covers the
Moon that's several meters thick. That contains hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and helium, and particularly this
fusion fuel called helium-3.
So the only basis I'm aware of for a truly commercial
operation is in lunar resources and both for use in space and
for use here on Earth. And if the government as it is right now
is moving towards developing heavy-lift launch vehicles, then
that opens the door I think for this partnership to really be a
viable one. And I talk to people about it all the time
obviously, and we'll just have to wait and see whether the
investor community or the energy community step up and realize
that this long-term potential is there.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Chairman, thank
you for having this hearing. It's fascinating. Thank all of you
for being here.
Dr. Stofan, when Lieutenant General Stafford in his
testimony he--let me quote it. He said that basically, the next
flagship science mission will be the James Webb Space Telescope
initiated in the Bush Administration with nothing comparable
initiated during the eight years of the Obama Administration,
and goes on to suggest a lack of leadership during these last
eight years. You were there as the Chief Scientist. How would
you react to that?
Dr. Stofan. Well, obviously, I don't agree with that. We
initiated the Mars 2020 mission. We'll be setting the stage to
return samples from Mars in the mid-2020s, which I didn't even
get into. It's critical to bring those samples back in the
2020s, which will allow us to develop our entry, descent,
landing ascent, and return-to-Earth capabilities.
So Mars 2020, WFIRST, our next telescope after James Webb,
was initiated under this Administration, a mission to Europa
initiated under this Administration, this past Administration,
a revolution in small satellite technology that's underpinning
the huge revolution. We just saw all these planet satellites
launched a few days ago. All that technology has been worked on
a NASA over the eight years. It's transformed through a lot of
our programs, our small satellite, our lower-cost options in
astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary earth science. We've made
incredible progress over the eight years, building on the long
bipartisan history of NASA.
And so I don't think it's, oh, we accomplished a lot in the
past; we've done nothing over the eight years. I think NASA has
continued to execute the Decadal Surveys. We've made strong
progress. We will hopefully continue to make strong progress
with this Committee's support.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Dr. Stofan, one of the--the
conversations that we have on this Committee is the role of
Earth sciences in NASA's budget. But as I understand now where
it's about $1.9 billion out of the $19.5 billion. And I know
my--the Chairman, my friend, has talked about the rebalancing
of the NASA portfolio, and so we often are concerned that this
means the disappearance of the Earth sciences budget as part of
that, redirecting into deep space, for example. How would--what
would happen if NASA's Earth science budget were eliminated?
Dr. Stofan. Well, first of all, I would point out that the
earth science budget has actually been fairly flat over about
the last 20-plus years. In fact, if you look back at around
2000 it was about $1.4 billion, which, if you put that in
today's dollars, we are actually lower. So the earth science
budget has actually not grown. It's slightly shrunk.
Again, NASA has the unique vantagepoint of space. We build
NOAA's weather satellites, the GOES-R, which has been returning
amazing images of this planet. That satellite was built by
NASA. We do have four other agencies. We built Landsat, which
is critical to farmers, to urban planners all around the world.
We are studying the global water cycle. We're developing that
next generation of instruments. NASA's earth science program is
critically important.
And I would also remind people that the technologies that
come out of the investments in the earth science program spawn
new industries, that downstream application of earth science
data collected by NASA and made open to the public have created
new companies--Orbital Insight, DigitalGlobe. I can, you know,
sit here and name companies that get downstream value, create
jobs all across this country. The earth science program is an
investment in this country and it returns benefits to all of us
every day.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. And my friend the Chairman doesn't
want me to exaggerate, the complete elimination but rather
rebalancing. Okay.
Dr. Schmitt, as--wonderful to have the geologists here, but
I know you're deeply involved in fusion power, too. And you
talked about fusion power for this. Do you--in your work do you
see any relevance for fusion power for power here on Earth?
Dr. Schmitt. Well, I certainly do. I think the--having done
an economic analysis of this some years ago, I think the
potential for helium-3 fusion power on Earth is very, very
great. Now, it's not something that's going to happen overnight
and it's--it takes a long view of things before you start to
make a profit on it. But nevertheless, the resources there on
the Moon, the technology is advancing here on Earth to use
helium-3 in fusion devices. Most of that has been done with
private funding so far. You may have recently seen a press
release from Tri Alpha, a Paul Allen-funded operation where
they are working on boron--what's called P-boron-11, but the
technology base is equally compatible for helium--lunar helium-
3 fusion power.
The nice thing about helium-3 fusion power is that you
don't produce neutrons. Neutrons are bad actors. They create
the radioactive waste that we worry about. And certainly DT,
tritium-deuterium fusion device is going to create a great deal
of waste, and that's often not talked about when we talk--when
we think about these--the ITER project in Europe and so forth.
But helium-3 fusion produces protons, which can be directly
converted to electricity at very--at high efficiency, as well
as without the difficulty of waste production. So I think in
the long term if you want an environmentally--relatively
environmentally benign energy source for the very long term,
then this something that ultimately I think we're going to look
very closely at.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Schmitt, I think it
was you early on in your comments who said you think one piece
of advice you would give NASA was to resist political diversity
for the agency. Would you elaborate on that?
Dr. Schmitt. It's just that the kind of things that we've
talked about in terms of focusing, many of the things that NASA
does are really within the purview of other agencies, and I
think that that ought to be examined very closely by this
Committee, which has the responsibility for several agencies,
not just NASA. And that just because you start to focus on Mars
and deep space doesn't mean that these other programs have to
go away. They can be, I think, taken under the umbrella of
other agencies, and that ought to be looked at very carefully.
Now, does NASA stay in the business of actually providing
technological assistance such as they do for NOAA? That's a
question that you'll just have to discuss and try to answer.
But other agencies do have the same responsibilities in the
areas where NASA has been diversifying over the last several
decades.
Mr. Weber. Okay. There was a little bit of the conversation
I think that the Ranking Member, Chair just alluded to that it
seems like there would be a rebalancing of the budget, and
perhaps that's part of what you're taking on in the budget
process.
I cannot overstate what I believe is the importance of
NASA. And, Lieutenant General Stafford, I don't want to get
into your bailiwick but--not having had the privilege of
serving in the military you know, they say that whatever force
occupies the high ground has the upper hand, and folks, there
is no higher ground than space.
And to my good friend from Oklahoma, Congressman
Bridenstine's comments about the Chinese able to shoot down
satellites, that ought to be pretty alarming and a wakeup call
for us all.
You actually said in an exchange with Suzanne Bonamici
earlier--or the comments were that she didn't want space
exploration to become an issue between the United States and
Russia. Well, that was before Jim had made his comments about
China. Do you think that's a prudent outlook to not be on guard
and to really want that competitive edge and that military
edge? Do you think United States literally ought to be going
after that kind of edge?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, Congressman, to me the United
States--in this case it would I would think the Air Force's
responsibility--it could be Army and the ballistic missile
defense, but we need to be the leaders in the world. And we
need to have, under the DOD, funds for that.
Mr. Weber. So you would say that the leaders in the world
not just because of STEM and the other--the pride that Dr. Ami
Bera talked about but other issues but for national security?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Right, for national security,
absolutely, what Congressman Bridenstine has mentioned there,
that we need to be right there out in front of everything, on
top of everything.
Dr. Schmitt. We--Congressman, if I may just add to those
remarks, we tend to forget that Apollo was a creature of the
Cold War. It really was.
Mr. Weber. Oh, I don't forget.
Dr. Schmitt. And we gained a great deal of science, a great
deal of technology, and many, many other things from that
effort. But the stimulus, the impetus was the Cold War and a
very important part of it----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Dr. Schmitt. --I would say. So that has to be kept in mind.
And as far as I'm concerned, with Congressman Bridenstine's
comments, we are very close to being in a Cold War today and
need that kind of----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Dr. Schmitt. --impetus and with a milestone focus as was
discussed earlier.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for saying that. And the
gentlelady from Oregon is not here, but I think one of the
comments she made was that she didn't want to see this become
an issue between the United States and Russia, but I think when
you're dealing with the Russians giving us a ride, to the space
station, which to me is an absolute travesty, I think we have
to differentiate between the Russian space agency--and y'all
would know that better than I would--and the Russian military.
But I would tell you, not knowing any more about that
differentiation or either of those agencies than I know, I
would have to believe that either one--they would sell us down
the river in a heartbeat if it was to their advantage
militarily. Would y'all agree with that?
Dr. Schmitt. I would.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, we have to look at it in certain
ways. The arrangements with Russia is like a stovepipe. We deal
with the Russian space agency, but they have lots of other
responsibilities besides what we call, quote, ``civil space.''
And they have lived up to their agreements on that, but they
have other agreements, too. They have other things that they
support----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. --where NASA is primarily all civil. And
had we continued on the Constellation program, we'd have had
American astronauts flying on American rockets in spacecraft in
late 2013 or early '14.
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, thank you for saying that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
And the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter, is
recognized.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'll start
with us. We start them young in Colorado. Got the outfit at the
Air and Space Museum. Finn Henderson, 4 months old.
Chairman Smith. Any relation?
Mr. Perlmutter. Yes, grandson.
Chairman Smith. Grandson. Okay.
Mr. Perlmutter. Twenty thirty-three, and so, General, I
want to talk to you about this and to the entire panel. And I
thank you all very much for your testimony today and for your
service. And, Senator, I'm going to get to you because we're
going to talk about budgets for a second.
But you mentioned sort of the orbital mechanics of all of
this, and we had a panel about this time last year of some NASA
agency execs, and I expressed to them my disappointment that we
hadn't gotten to Mars by now, you know, Star Trek, Star Wars,
on the Moon 40 years ago-plus, and why aren't we there? And
they said, well, because of fits and starts between
Administrations and Congresses. And I said if you had the
revenue, if you had the support, steady, sufficient revenues,
what's the earliest we could get to Mars? And I was hoping
they'd say 2024 and then they kind of went through the two-year
cycles that you just talked about and they said 2033 if they
had steady, sufficient support.
But that's the $64 question because it hasn't--it's been
kind of fits and starts for all of you. And I, as a legislator,
apologize for that because we haven't given you the steady
support. And to your point, Mr. Young, you know, it's a mixture
of things, the agency's expertise, the private sector's ability
to really bring forces and potentially the international
community as well.
So it's a responsibility. I mean we find more common ground
on this Committee than any of the other committees I've served
on in this Congress. And this area especially, space
exploration, is the place where I think we really do all have a
common interest and want to see us move forward. And it might
be a different thing for each of us, what floats our boat,
whether it's a national security question or a science and
pride question, but whatever it is, maybe we are at the
confluence of something big here.
And the reason I'm looking at you, Senator, is the revenues
are a hard thing but they're not impossible. We came up with
$800 billion over a weekend to save the banks in 2008. It was a
Republican Administration and a Democratic Congress. If we
can't--and the number that was given to us was about $200
billion, maybe 250 over 17 years to get to Mars and, you know,
different kinds of ways to do it. I'm a lawyer. I'm not going
to say other than I'd like to see this result and let you
scientists and engineers tell us how to put the pieces in
place. So I'd just like your reaction to that.
Dr. Schmitt. I think you've hit on a very important point
and that rather than thinking in terms of what is the total
cost, you need to think in terms of what is a reasonable annual
cost of going forward. I think that's what happened to the
initiative in the Bush 41 Administration is that it got tarred
with a total cost when you can't operate that way. You've got
to operate on an annual basis, as you've indicated, and we need
to decide what that is. What is a reasonable number in order to
make the milestones?
Now, I think 2033 is probably doable. I did not have it on
my list of milestones primarily because I'm still not sure that
we're going to give NASA the management tools to make that
happen.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, and----
Dr. Schmitt. And this is not the NASA that I--that was
managing things when Tom and I were flying in Apollo.
Mr. Perlmutter. So let me talk to about that. Let's say,
you know--and you know from being a legislator and the
diversity of interests around this place how difficult it may
be for all of us to come together to have a 17-year plan.
Sometimes we can't plan 17 minutes, but if we're able to do
that, I'm assuming--and I look to you, Mr. Young, and to you,
Dr. Stofan, and, General, to you for your comment--can NASA,
together with its private sector contractors, find the
management tools to do it? Or is that an impossibility?
Dr. Stofan. You know, I've spent the last three years
visiting every NASA center around this country talking with our
private space contractors. The people at NASA are totally
capable of doing this. They are chomping at the bit. They need
clear direction, they need focus, and they need budgetary
support. The people are there; the expertise is there. They're
waiting and they're eager to get started on this.
Mr. Young. You know, I think Ellen said it very well. I
agree with that. I mean, I think it clearly can be done but it
takes some bold leadership, you know, to make it happen. I must
share with you--you're talking about dates and some of these
dates are mind-boggling to me. You know, we were talking about
earlier Kennedy's thing. I think from Kennedy's statement to
humans on the Moon was eight years. I remember the first large
space project I worked on as a very junior engineer was the
original lunar orbiter where we took the photographs and found
the landing sites for Jack and----
Dr. Schmitt. It was a wonderful program, Tom.
Mr. Young. That program from start until we were in orbit
by the Moon was 27 months. And by the way, we were criticized
because the commitment was 24 months.
So we obviously have allowed--which I think is what Jack
was trying to say--we've allowed an enormous amount of non-
value-added work to creep into our execution of programs and
that's something that--you know, that we should try to
eliminate them as we can. But I think Ellen said it well. I
think the people who will do this job are chomping at the bit
for the leaders to just unbridle them and let them go.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. General?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, the one word that sticks in my
mind, Congressman, is that this Committee was really the
epitome of back in 2010 is the word courage. And this Committee
and its corresponding committee in the other body put forth
their courage right in front of what the Administration did and
canceled Constellation and started the SLS and Orion.
But when you said why weren't we there in 2016, well, we
did the study for President Bush 41 and Vice President Quayle
at his joint press conference. Our target for Mars was 2016,
sir, 2016.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, we've got to get on our horse here
and get it done for you. Thank you.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. And one thing about it, again, when I
recommend the National Space Council so you have somebody with
horsepower at the top. It doesn't take any big bureaucracy.
Four or five people is all you need in the National Space
Council and take it and drive it so you don't have these
detractions.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Knight, is recognized.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to talk about a completely different subject. I
know everyone wants to talk about Mars and the Moon and that's
great and they're laudable goals, but you can't get to space
until you go through the big A, so I'll be talking about the
big A. Aeronautics is now about $700 million I noticed in Dr.
Stofan's comments. I read through them and I appreciate her
bringing up the X-Plane program and bringing up all the things
that we can do.
Lieutenant General Stafford, I will go with you first. We
now have a new aviation horizons effort where we have many X-
Plane programs that are coming online. The X-57 is the new
designation. But the big one that I'd like to talk about is the
low boom supersonic demonstrator because we've been flying
across this country at .8 Mach for as long as we have flown
across this country. And I would hate for my children who are
now in their early 20s to be my age someday and say hey, we're
still flying across this country at .8 Mach.
And I think that that would be one of the great
achievements that we could do, that NASA could do to prove
this, to lower the supersonic boom down to the 65 decibel or
lower so that we could remove this archaic 1973 FAA law and
really do something so we could travel across this country at
1.8, 1.9. And think of what the economic boom that would be
that people could get to their destination 2 hours quicker that
are going across the country. So just your opinion of that,
Lieutenant General?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, Congressman Knight, I think you
have made a very valid point in particular not only across the
country but across the ocean.
Mr. Knight. Sure.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. And I've been fortunate to fly the
Concorde many times, so I think you're right on.
I'd like to remind the Committee that Congressman Knight's
father was a classmate of mine in Air Force test pilot school,
and he flew the X-15 and he set a couple of world records that
still stand so we're very proud of your father----
Mr. Knight. Thank you.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. --Colonel Pete Knight. But your X
program I think is very valid, sir.
Mr. Knight. Thank you. And Dr. Stofan, if you have any
comments on that.
Dr. Stofan. I think NASA's aeronautics program, as I said
in my submitted remarks, is really critical. Obviously the
aviation industry is a hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars industry
here in the United States, and the fundamental research that
NASA does from looking at all of the technologies that that we
help to develop that are in the new--latest Boeing aircraft, we
really underpin a lot of the developments in the U.S. aviation
industry.
And so from the low boom demonstrator to the X-Plane
program, the investments that NASA makes in aeronautics are
really critical, and I think they should be supported by this
committee going forward.
I would point out we're also doing work in green fuels,
which is critical because when you fly planes at supersonic
altitudes you're putting greenhouse gases into a place in the
atmosphere where they reside for a long time. So NASA also is
doing a clean fuels program along with the low boom
demonstrator. Both of those are critical for allowing
supersonic air transport.
Mr. Knight. Absolutely. And I wanted to bring up just
another point. I know that Mars and the Moon are the big goals,
they are, and I think that the way that we get to those big
goals--and I think Dr. Schmitt said it--that you've got to lay
out the goal and you've got to say that we are going to do this
by 2032 or we are going to set this. And we've got to fund it
every year. That is Congress' mission, to fund it every year.
The smart people will figure it out. NASA is way ahead, and
I know that they can accomplish these goals, but if we don't
fund it every year and if we don't have a mission through
Administrations, we will not get there. It will be a start and
stop just like we have done with many different programs. And I
bring up hypersonics that we have worked on for the last 50
years in start-and-stop issues. Our last start and stop was the
X-43 and the X-51, and we have done great data-collecting of
those periods of time. But now we are seeing other countries
take our data, steal it, and then jump forward and then maybe
fund. So now we are seeing other countries maybe establish a
weapon that would hurt us at 3,800 miles an hour.
And so those are the things that NASA has also got to be
very cognizant of when we do these budgets is that the big
items are the big items, but there are also many, many items
that accomplish missions. And my time is----
Dr. Schmitt. Congressman, if I could----
Mr. Knight. Yes, sir.
Dr. Schmitt. --I have suggested--and I think that the
implication of your remarks is that aeronautics is terribly
underemphasized. And one way in which you might assist the
refocusing of NASA is to recreate the equivalent of the old
NASA Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, NACA----
Mr. Knight. I firmly agree.
Dr. Schmitt. --and let it stand on its own, and I think it
can stand on its own. From Apollo on, NACA programs contributed
a tremendous amount to Apollo, but then the aeronautics
research in general began to decline under those pressures. And
I'd like to see a whole new emphasis in aeronautics, and I
think you can do it with recreating an agency that has a focus.
I like focused agencies. I really do.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Congressman Knight, the one thing, too,
that you need to do is coordinate with the Air Force research
lab. I think this is a great way for cooperation. And there's
no doubt. You brought it right out that--I've been briefed on
some things the Chinese have done, and they've really advanced
in hypersonics and weapons, not nuclear but just with chemicals
or you put just energy, v squared over 2g, it's got a real
tremendous effect. But you're right on on that. We need to get
back into hypersonics.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
It's just been a real treat to hear you experts give great
testimonies, and a lot of great questions have been asked and
had some very enlightening answers. I have several questions
that I wanted to ask but I think we've already touched on them.
But there are several questions that I feel like I'd like to
ask about an announcement that was made yesterday. Acting
Administrator Robert Lightfoot of NASA announced that he was
directing Bill Gerstenmaier to conduct a feasibility study to
determine whether the first exploration mission EM-1 using SLS
and Orion could be flown with a crew. It's currently planned as
an un-crewed test flight, as you know. We welcome that news of
this study, but some of the questions that this may elicit I
would like to hear some of your opinions.
The first one, is it possible to technically justify it?
Can the additional risks be justified and addressed? Should
there be an off-ramp if the schedule slips too far or cost
comes in too high? Is there an alternative scenario that
accelerates flying astronauts--that accelerates exploration by
moving EM-2 forward as well? So I would like to ask each of
you. We'll start with you, Dr. Schmitt. Is it possible to
technically justify this?
Dr. Schmitt. I have no idea. I think both outside and
inside of NASA are going to have to look at it very closely,
whether you can man-rate the system that fast and----
Mr. Babin. Yes.
Dr. Schmitt. --meet the kind of kind of criteria that Tom
has put forward on many occasions that meet the safety
requirement. You know, the one thing that will always hurt a
space program is an accident, and there's always risk and you
have to be willing to take those risks, but still, you also
have to make sure that you fully understand the risks that
you're taking. And that I think we'll just have to wait and
see. It also depends on what the Administration decides it
wants to do. The next NASA Administrator will certainly be
responsible for doing whatever that turns out to be.
Mr. Babin. All right. Okay. Thank you.
Yes, Lieutenant General Stafford.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Right, Mr. Babin, the space shuttle, we
flew that crew on the first flight and it flew. And I was
involved with that decision because at that time--it was a few
years when I was head of the astronaut group with Dick Slayton.
We did not have faith in the autopilots. And I think what we'll
have on the SLS--we're using parts that's been there before,
and the main core has four space shuttle main engines and
they've been liquid engines and they've proved out over a
period of time. The solid rocket boosters are elements of the
space shuttle. They're a five segment now instead of four. The
upper stage, they're going to have four RL10s, and those have
been around for 50 years, improving all the time. And the last
I saw, sir, there's been 480 straight flights. So the power
plants----
Mr. Babin. Good.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. --are in pretty good shape I think, so
it's main thing is building the core. And I would feel better
about flying this than we did other things.
Mr. Babin. Thank you for that.
Dr. Stofan?
Dr. Stofan. You know, obviously the approach Robert's taken
by having Bill Gerstenmaier do a study I think is the correct
one and NASA will, whether it's commercial crew or whether it's
the SLS Orion flight, will always put safety first. Would I
personally love to see the schedule accelerated? Yes, I would
love that. The sooner we get to Mars, the better.
I think a bigger issue is one that we touched on earlier is
that flight rate of SLS and Orion going forward after that
first flight, which I think is still an ongoing concern.
Mr. Babin. Yes. Okay. Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Yes, just to add my comments. I think doing the
study is good so I applaud that. A little bit of what Ellen
just said, you know, I would actually add a part B to it, and
that is, God, it's a long time between the first flight and the
second flight today, you know, the plan with the first one
being un-crewed and the second one some few years later, which
I don't remember the exact number of years but some years later
with a crewed. And so part B in my mind if you're really going
to take a hard look at this overall plan is how can you
accelerate it so that you do the first one and then within a
few months after it you do the second one?
You know, somebody commented earlier about the number of
flights of the Saturn V within a year----
Mr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Young. So I think whether the first one ends up being
crewed or un-crewed as the current plan is, the second one
being as soon after it as is practical, meaning a few months,
which is probably a budget issue but would be a responsible
thing to consider.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Dr. Schmitt. Just----
Mr. Babin. Does somebody have something else? Yes, sir.
Dr. Schmitt. Just quickly, a little history, the first
full-up use of the Saturn V with a crew was the Apollo 8
mission around the Moon, so you're saying can we do that now
with the SLS, the same kind of thing.
Mr. Babin. Same answer that----
Dr. Schmitt. And the Apollo 8 mission of course was sort of
an afterthought when we were running behind schedule on the
lunar module, and they actually had had problems with the
Saturn V on one of the un-crewed launches, and that had to be--
the pogo problem in that case. And they even had some of that
problem on the Apollo 8 launch.
So you have to make sure that you really understand your
launch systems and the full-up system is what's important. And
that was Dale Myer's orders to von Braun is let's launch this
thing full up finally because von Braun would have tested it to
death. I think even he admitted that later.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins,
is recognized.
Mr. Higgins. Dr. Schmitt, in your long list of
accomplishments, your bio, you've helped to uncover much of the
geological history of the Moon and its relationship to the
early history of the Earth, further definition of the violent
impact history of the Earth during the period when life began,
the potential role of the largest impact basin and the
evolution of the Moon, identification of samples of the lunar
mantle, the definition of the sequence of formation of three
large lunar basins, the list goes on and on but it does not
mention that you were certainly the only pilot in history that
almost landed a lunar modular on an aircraft carrier.
Dr. Schmitt. Well, you know, thank goodness the Navy moved
the carrier because our guidance system was so good we were
about to hit the carrier.
Mr. Higgins. You were on target. I bring that up, that
aircraft carrier was the USS Ticonderoga. My father was a Navy
pilot in World War II and had the honor of serving on that
aircraft carrier. My father was a fiercely patriotic man and
did not trust the Chinese or the Russians. Perhaps by the
nature of my DNA but certainly through the course of my life
and in view of recent events politically and space-based,
neither do I.
So my question to you, sir, is regarding America's interest
in maintaining a persistent human presence in space, be that
human presence on the frontier, in a low-Earth orbit,
geostationary, or an American human presence based on the Moon,
is it necessary that we involve international partners as we
push the frontiers of the American space program?
Dr. Schmitt. I personally do not think it's necessary. I
think it takes the United States to be the leader of a program,
as it was in Apollo. We had international partners to some
degree in Apollo. We certainly had a lot of international
participation by some of the engineers, and the lunar sample
analysis program was an international program. So yes, but it
takes our leadership. I think we need to be in charge in order
to provide an opportunity for international partnerships.
But no partnership, I think, should be in the critical
path. If you're going to go to Mars by way of the Moon, that
critical path has to be our responsibility. You can't be
waiting for some other partner to deliver and to make--and--
again, I think it's just absolutely essential that there be a
leader of these kind of programs.
Mr. Higgins. I concur and thank you.
Lieutenant General?
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Yes, sir. I like what Dr. Schmitt said.
We--America needs to be a leader. If you're going to be first
in the world, you need to be first in space and we have to be a
leader. And I've been deeply involved with the International
Space Station, the partners. I've been deeply involved earlier
with the Soviets and now the Russians. And to me you have to
completely differentiate the Soviets from the Chinese. It's a
whole different world.
And I've been to Russia maybe 35 times. In fact, I adopted
two Russian orphan boys. So I think I understand a lot of the
Russians and what it is that--it takes too long to go into it
in this Committee, but the Chinese are a complete different
type of effort. And so I agree with your father on the Chinese
completely. And in the Russians, it's really one more of
nationalistic and it's now materialistic, too. But it's a
different world, and it takes too long to go into it here.
Mr. Higgins. That's a unique and valuable perspective. I
would encourage my colleagues and the members of this committee
to maintain a sharp focus on our national security as we move
forward with our plans to advance the causes of NASA. And I
certainly agree with this panel that has appeared before us
that we need to be completely focused with the mission
parameters, as laid out over the next 15 or 17 years. It seems
to be the window. And I look forward to working with my
committee members and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
make it happen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for
coming here.
It's been probably five decades that I have respected and
admired you and your accomplishments. The words that come out
of your mouth are like gospel to me, and I just can't thank you
enough for your attendance here. I was in high school when
Kennedy gave his famous speech about why go to the Moon, and
that became my first priority in life was to have my
fingerprints on that rocket that took our men to the Moon and
return them safely. And in general I appreciate you pointing
out the third stage references a while ago, and that was my
stage. And I'll forever be proud of that. A little bit of a
lump.
You know, poll after poll, study after study, survey after
survey shows the general public thinks we spend 20 to 25
percent of our budget on space. And we all know it's more like
1/2 of one percent. And they don't understand the benefits.
They don't understand the importance to our national security,
the ultimate military high ground, the economic, the STEM as
you so well pointed out, the benefits of it. And so, you know,
we're trying to change that.
And we're trying to make sure or ensure that NASA considers
everything that they do as a steppingstone to going to Mars. We
think that's got to be the priority. When everything is a
priority, nothing is a priority. And that's where we are now
so, you know, kind of playing whack-a-mole.
I usually carry around a chart that has like over two dozen
missions to nowhere started by one Congress or one
Administration and canceled by another. And you mentioned,
Lieutenant General, a little while ago we'd probably be on Mars
now if we had stayed the course last time. That's really a big
problem that we have.
Selling our colleagues on the importance of space is not an
easy job either. The people on this Committee all respect space
and are enthusiastic about space, and you ask anybody on my
staff what do you do in Congress, well, the first thing we do
is we still sell space every day in every way. You know, it's
important. And you all remember when the space station survived
by just one vote in Congress.
So we keep a running list, a hit list, who's with us, who's
against us, who says they're with us, who's not. And we try and
keep this in perspective, but, you know, we've seen a budget--
NASA budget take hits for a big city cops police plan. We've
seen another department take money out of NASA to do a
responsibility they're already tasked with and they're already
funded for. You know, the NASA budget is kind of like--been
like a big pinata occasionally, and we want to see that doesn't
continue.
But we have to sometimes consider that maybe NASA is not
our biggest assistant in this. And I want to share with you one
time, you know the beautiful educational and impressive press
kits that we did for each shuttle launch that anybody came to
one of those, there's a decal and the stories and the stickers
and the pins and, I mean, very impressive. If you went to
launches, you'd see people clutching these valuable things.
And so when they did the last shuttle launch, I contacted
my local NASA P.R. people and said, look, I'd like to get 434
press kits, and I'd like to make it a priority next year to
deliver one to every Member of Congress and talk about how this
would be a treasure for their grandchildren and, you know,
there won't be any more of these and give me the opportunity to
discuss one-on-one and have something in hand because Members'
times are valuable.
Well, my local P.R. people went to work to get that for me
but NASA Washington said no. They said that's not your job. So
you know who did it? Nobody did it. And it's a great
opportunity lost.
So, with the time remaining I'd kind of like your thoughts
on promotion, where you think we could do more, where we could
be more persuasive with NASA.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, you're my Congressman now since I
live in Satellite Beach.
Mr. Posey. Well, you and Buzz both.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Yes.
Mr. Posey. Well, thank you. Don't hesitate to call on me,
Lieutenant General.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Right. But, you know, what I've observed
over the years--and, Jack, I'd like your opinion, too--one of
the weaknesses of NASA has been its public relations.
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. That goes all the way back starting with
Gemini. And I remember George Low was so aware of this when he
was the Deputy Administrator. But it's been there and is
something that you brought out very well.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you.
Dr. Schmitt. When I was chairing the NASA Advisory Council,
it was--this was something that came up and the budgets that
were being allocated for outreach and education--and I'm not
sure where that allocation came from, whether it was within
NASA the OMB or the Congress, but for this kind of outreach
that you described budgets were going down and they probably
are even lower now than they were then. And we raised that
issue and it was one that apparently was unresolvable. And my
memory is not clear exactly if I ever was clear on why it was
unresolvable.
When Tom and I were active, NASA did have a reasonably good
outreach program. If you weren't assigned a crew, for example,
there was your week in the BARREL, and about every 8 months we
would be given to NASA headquarters to fill requests from
Congress and elsewhere for appearances. And so for a week about
five or eight times a day we would fulfill these requests all
over the country. That was excellent. They also had a van--
several vans that would go around the country and visit schools
and other facilities. I was told hundreds of times how
effective those vans were in outreach to school systems.
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Dr. Schmitt. So there--it's not that NASA hasn't had a
history of knowing how to do that. It's just that right now my
understanding the budgets don't exist, and I know the vans
don't exist anymore. And I don't think that the week in the
BARREL exists anymore because my understanding is if you want
an astronaut appearance, the sponsor has to pay all the
transportation, everything, all the costs. So if you want a
better outreach program, the funds have to be there to do it.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you, again. Anybody else?
Dr. Stofan. If I could just point out, NASA partners with
museums all around the country. We touch thousands of kids
every day through Boys and Girls Clubs programs. We reach kids
in afterschool programs. Our social media sites are some of the
most popular in this country.
But I would also point out that the way we get the most
people engaged in NASA is Curiosity landing on the surface of
Mars, the Pluto encounter. Every time you're going to see SLS
launch, when we see commercial crew on its way to the space
station, these are the ways we engage the public, by doing
great and amazing things. That's our best outreach.
Mr. Posey. Well, and I think that's awesome, and I liked on
their website where you can buy a ticket to the Moon now--I
mean, a ticket to Mars. I went on and applied. I'm still
waiting 14 months but, you know.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The other gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for putting
together this fantastic panel, the best one I've ever had in my
whole time in Congress is this group. I've learned a lot.
I would like to ask Dr. Schmitt a question. In your
presentation, you gave quite a few items on the key to success
of the Apollo program, and one of those was the sufficient base
of technology. And my question is is that base knowledge or is
it hardware or is it people? What were you speaking of when you
were saying that you need a sufficient base of technology?
Dr. Schmitt. Well, thank you, Congressman. It's an
important question. Before Apollo we had the component base of
technology, the engineering understanding of many aircraft
systems and some spacecraft systems that came out of the World
War II and the Cold War, primarily out of the Defense
Department. There was that kind of understanding.
The X-15 program was an extraordinarily important part of
the NACA, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics,
activities that fed into NASA both in terms of understanding
flight in difficult regimes but also because Bob Gilruth, who
was the head of the Space Task Group, had managed--and they
were managing the X-15 program. So that knowledge, that
managerial knowledge was a very important component.
But we also inherited the managerial knowledge from a
Canadian aircraft program that was canceled by Canada, the Avro
Arrow aircraft program. And many of the people that came into
NASA particularly in flight control--John Hodge and the like--
were out of that Canadian Arrow program. Gilruth had made a
specific trip to go up there and recruit.
So that's what I'm talking about when I say a base of
technology. It's not only the components, the microelectronics
that were just coming on, some of the materials that were just
coming on, but it's also, if you will, the technological
understanding of how to manage complex programs.
And now, today, I think we're in much better shape, as I
said in my testimony, than we were for Apollo. The base has
much expanded, primarily because of the innovations in the
private sector, the advance of computer technology. We were
advancing it for Apollo, but all of a sudden it took its own
legs and ran within the private sector. So that base right now
from the point of view of both flying and manufacturing is so
much stronger today than it was for Apollo.
So I really think that if you all and others decide let's
go, let's focus, we're ready to move. I think we can make
progress and we can get up to a heavy-lift launch a year. In
fact, that was probably the biggest mistake we made, and it
started way back in the Johnson Administration is that we only
bought 15 Saturn V's. And the Nixon Administration confirmed
that decision. We should have had that production line going
continuously and launching a couple times a year, and we would
have met that 2016 date without question. The Saturn V was a
very robust system and could have done everything that we've
done since and more.
You got me started on something that----
Mr. Webster. Well, let me ask another question about the
funding. I was thinking as we were talking about prioritizing,
which I think is a great thing, and we pick our spots and maybe
all of them are laudable but we can only do so many and if we
focus all of our money there, then we'll accomplish the goal.
Is there any thought that the other ancillary savings that come
from the advances made by space exploration could be funded
from areas that we're spending--maybe futilely spending money
on trying--for instance, someone said that every time there's a
launch, there's a heightened interest in STEM education.
Well, if that be the case, maybe we spent too much on
getting consortiums together and funding those and trying to
figure out how we're going to encourage somebody who's in the
seventh or eighth grade to begin thinking about becoming an
engineer or something else in the technology sense. Maybe
there's a broader prioritization that could take place. Maybe
there's advances made in health care or maybe there's advances
made in other things and technology that come from space
exploration that we're funding but maybe we're funding and the
results are way less than would happen if we were just doing
that. Do you have any comments about that?
Dr. Stofan. You know, the problems with funding basic
research, whether it's in technology development or in
scientific areas is you really don't know where those spinoffs
are coming from. Every day--every year at NASA we publish a
spinoff book about this thick of spinoffs that have come off.
If we could predict every one of those, I would agree with you,
but the problem is we can't. And so when you're investing in
basic research, basic science, basic technology, you don't know
where the payoff is going to be. You just know there's going to
be payoff because we've demonstrated that in this country for
well over 50 years.
Mr. Webster. Anyone else? Yes.
Lt. Gen. Stafford. Well, one thing, again, all of us have
talked about and the Chairman has talked about is the
stability, is--that does not change between when
Administrations change. And the first time this ever happened
was when the Clinton Administration came in because, you know,
it was President Reagan that started the space station and that
continued on. President Nixon started the space shuttle and
that continued on whether it was Democrat or Republican. And
then it started with the Clinton Administration and the next
time it happened, bang, was with the last Administration. And
those two square waves really set us back.
Mr. Webster. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Webster. And let me thank
all of our experts for being here today. You could clearly tell
by the participation and by the enthusiasm of our members that
we all support America's initiatives in space, and you all have
been a big part of that for many, many years and I hope will
continue to be a big part of that as well. So thanks again.
Feel free to contact us any time with your advice and
counsel. We would look forward to that.
And we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]