[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN UPDATE ON NASA
EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 9, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-37
__________
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
27-676 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana PAUL TONKO, New York
DRAIN LaHOOD, Illinois BILL FOSTER, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California AMI BERA, California, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
BILL POSEY, Florida DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JIM BANKS, Indiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
November 9, 2017
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Ami Bera, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human
Exploration and Operations Directorate, NASA
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Dr. Sandra Magnus, Executive Director, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Discussion....................................................... 37
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator, Human
Exploration and Operations Directorate, NASA................... 56
Dr. Sandra Magnus, executive director, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)............................ 83
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 88
Documents submitted by Representative Bill Posey, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 89
AN UPDATE ON NASA
EXPLORATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
----------
Thursday, November 9, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Babin [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Space
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``An Update on NASA
Exploration Systems Development.''
I now recognize myself five minutes for an opening
statement.
Exploration means expanding our reach as humans, as a
civilization and as a country. The ability of our nation to
explore space is a strategic imperative. Our ability to carry
out this critical strategic endeavor will rely on a few key
capabilities. We must launch the Space Launch System in order
to push beyond low-Earth orbit. We must finish developing the
Orion capsule in order to operate in deep space. And we must
upgrade our ground infrastructure to support a rejuvenated and
an expanded exploration agenda.
NASA's long-term goal, as laid out in the 2017 NASA
Transition Authorization Act, is to extend human presence
throughout the Solar System. The Space Launch System and Orion
are the strategic capabilities that will allow and enable
humans and robots to accomplish this goal. SLS and Orion will
enable U.S. astronauts to return to the Moon for the first time
since Gene Cernan left his daughter's name in the lunar
regolith in 1972.
As Vice President Pence said in his inaugural meeting of
the reestablished National Space Council, ``We will return
American astronauts to the Moon, not only to leave behind
footprints and flags, but to build the foundation that we need
to send Americans to Mars and beyond.'' SLS and Orion are the
tip of the spear that will lead that return. The commercial
sector can contribute by supplying necessary services and
providing augmenting capabilities, but SLS and Orion are
irreplaceable strategic assets that are necessary for missions
to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
One of the first major laws that President Trump signed was
the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017. The bill, which
originated with this Committee, directed NASA to stay the
course with SLS and Orion. It also reaffirmed congressional and
presidential direction for NASA to utilize a stepping-stone
approach to exploration, which allows for a return to the Moon.
I wholeheartedly support the Administration's call to
return to the Moon. This Committee has received testimony time
and again that the Moon is the appropriate next destination for
our space program. Returning to the Moon does not have to mean
delaying a mission to Mars. On the contrary, it is a logical
step that enables exploration of the red planet and beyond.
And while I'm excited by the promise of how strategic
assets like SLS and Orion will enable America to return to the
Moon, this committee has a responsibility to conduct oversight
to ensure that these programs are successful. All three
exploration system elements--SLS, Orion, and Ground systems--
have experienced delays and overruns. This year has certainly
challenged the program.
Last year, Michoud in Louisiana was hit by a tornado. In
August, Texas and Florida were hit by hurricanes. A couple
years ago the Michoud's Vertical Assembly Facility foundation
was not reinforced, requiring a rebuild. This year,
complications with friction stir weld pins at Michoud resulted
in poor welds on the core stage. All of this adds up. It
appears as though the new issues with tornados and hurricanes
and welding will cost roughly a year of delay. Depending on
whether the Europeans deliver the service module on time for
integration on Orion, the delay may be greater.
Congress needs to understand where the program is today.
What cost, schedule, and performance deliverables can the
agency commit to? What is the plan going forward? How will NASA
manage future issues to ensure long-term program
sustainability? We aren't out of the woods yet on this program,
but we can see the edge of the forest. Significant progress has
been made. We're bending metal, writing software code, and
integrating hardware. Given a program of this magnitude, this
is no small feat, particularly given the challenges that the
program faced under the last administration.
In order to meet our nation's space exploration goals, it
will take focus, discipline, and continuity of efforts going
forward. The Administration and Congress must not only provide
leadership and direction, but we must also appropriately fund
and oversee the program. Similarly, NASA and the contractors
have to execute. Failure to do so could have dire consequences
for the program, and there will be no one else to blame.
The Administration has demonstrated its renewed support.
Congress consistently funds the program at healthy levels. It
is time for NASA and the contractors to deliver.
I am thankful that our witnesses are here today to help us
better understand where we are with the program and how we plan
to move forward, and I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for an opening statement.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to our
distinguished panel.
This is a great hearing and a great time for this hearing
to get an update on NASA's exploration systems development
activities. NASA continues to progress, but as the Chairman
pointed out, there have been some challenges beyond their
control in developing key elements needed to move humans beyond
low-Earth orbit and eventually send them to Mars.
Construction of the Space Launch System, the Orion crew
vehicle, and ground infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center is
well underway. Major components for Exploration Mission 1, also
known as EM-1, and EM-2, are undergoing fabrication and
testing. For example, in August 2017, NASA completed the--
welding the liquid oxygen tank that is scheduled for use on the
SLS launch vehicle to be flown on EM-1. The Orion spacecraft
destined for EM-1 was successfully powered up for the first
time in August 2017 and on October 19, 2017, NASA engineers
conducted a full duration 500-second test of one of the RS-25
flight engines to be used on EM-2.
NASA and industry partners have not undertaken a rocket
development program of this scale for more than three decades.
In addition to new hardware and infrastructure, this has also
necessitated reestablishing critical capabilities needed for
U.S. leadership in deep space exploration. This is not just
work NASA and its prime contractors are doing. Over 1,000
suppliers spread across every State are part of this program.
However, a program of this size does not happen without
challenges, and NASA's human space exploration program is
facing several, including having to maintain manufacturing,
test, and processing schedules as SLS, Orion, and EGS are
integrated; the recovery from tornado damage at the Michoud
Assembly Facility that the Chairman mentioned; resolve first-
time production issues for SLS elements; and adjust activities
in response to unpredictable appropriations funding.
As the Chairman pointed out, independent analysis by GAO
and NASA's Office of Inspector General have also identified
concerns with NASA's ability to meet projected launch dates.
For instance, in an April 2017 report, GAO found that despite
SLS, Orion, and EGS activities making progress, ``schedule
pressure is escalating as technical challenges continue to
cause schedule delays.'' GAO characterized NASA's planned
launch date of November 2018 as ``precarious.''
Part of what I hope to get out of today's hearing is a
better understanding of what that clear plan and an updated
launch date for EM-1, as well as the opportunity to continue
examining other important issues, including the reasons for the
latest delay in launching EM-1 and the basis for having
confidence in NASA's plan moving forward; indicators and
milestones Congress should use for measuring progress being
made both by the SLS, Orion, and EGS programs and by NASA in
establishing a production capability; and how a return to the
Moon, including establishing a human presence, would impact the
goal of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s, as directed in the
2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, you've often heard me talk about
growing up in the middle of the Space Race, growing up in
Downey, California, home of much of the Apollo mission and how
that inspired me, along with a generation of kids, to think
about the sciences and beyond. What we're talking about in
terms of the systems that we're developing today is a
reestablishment of American leadership in the space program as
we start to think about going back to the Moon and going beyond
into deep space. And that does have the ability to inspire
another generation of kids and reinvigorate our desire to
explore our curiosity about the universe around us.
One of those inspirational figures of the nation's human
space program is actually with us today. Dr. Magnus has flown
on the shuttle and lived on the International Space Station. We
thank you, Dr. Magnus, for your service and appreciate you
being a role model for millions of young people.
I look forward to the testimony and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you. I couldn't agree more, Mr. Bera.
I now recognize the Chairman of our full committee, Mr.
Smith.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
your comments and the Ranking Member's comments as well.
Congress has supported NASA's Exploration Systems program
for years. We have showed this support in law and with funding,
from one Administration to the next. After all these years,
after billions of dollars spent, we are facing more delays and
cost overruns. Recent hurricanes and tornadoes have damaged
some facilities and slowed localized progress, but many of the
problems are self-inflicted. It is very disappointing to hear
about delays caused by poor execution when the U.S. taxpayer
has invested so much in these programs.
For the last eight years, Congress has defended the Space
Launch System and Orion crew vehicle from attempts at
cancellation and proposed budget cuts. Funding for the
Exploration Systems Development now is nearly $4 billion a
year.
The Government Accountability Office reported last spring
that the first launch of the SLS likely will be delayed a year
from late 2018 to late 2019. Delays with the European Service
Module also could push this into 2020. If this is the case, the
schedule for the first launch with crew is also at risk because
the time needed to upgrade the mobile launch platform.
The NASA Inspector General reported this week that the
development of Exploration Systems is one of the most
significant challenges facing NASA. The IG highlighted problems
facing all components of the system: SLS, Orion, and the Ground
Systems. NASA and the contractors should not assume future
delays and cost overruns will have no consequences. If delays
continue, if costs rise, and if foreseeable technical
challenges arise, no one should assume the U.S. taxpayers or
their representatives will tolerate this forever.
Alternatives to SLS and Orion almost certainly would
involve significant taxpayer funding and lead to further
delays. But the more setbacks SLS and Orion face, the more
support builds for other options. Other space exploration
programs at NASA, like the Commercial Crew Program, also are
facing significant delays and challenges.
NASA has suffered for decades from program cancelations
that have delayed exploration goals. As NASA's exploration
systems progress from development to production, operations and
maintenance, NASA and its contractors must bring down costs and
guarantee that deadlines are met. To this end, I was glad to
see NASA issue a request for information last November in order
to explore ways to reduce costs. Moving to firm fixed-price
contracts for production might be an appropriate path going
forward, but only if it benefits the taxpayer.
Congress needs to have confidence in NASA and the
Exploration Systems contractors, which I don't believe we have
now. That confidence is ebbing. If it slips much further, NASA
and its contractors will have a hard time regaining their
credibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, let me introduce our witnesses. Our first witness
today is Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of the
Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA.
Mr. Gerstenmaier began his NASA career in 1977 performing
aeronautical research, and he has managed NASA's human
spaceflight portfolio since 2011.
He received a bachelor's of science in aeronautical
engineering from Purdue University and a master's of science in
mechanical engineering from the University of Toledo.
Our second witness today is Dr. Sandra Magnus, Executive
Director at the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, AIAA. In addition to her role at AIAA, Dr. Magnus
is a former NASA astronaut and, prior to that, worked as a
practicing engineer in the aerospace industry.
Dr. Magnus received a degree in physics, as well as a
master's degree in electrical engineering, both from Missouri
University of Science and Technology. She also earned a Ph.D.
from the School of Material Science and Engineering at Georgia
Tech.
And I now recognize Mr. Gerstenmaier for five minutes to
present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
HUMAN EXPLORATION
AND OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Thank you.
We're living in an amazing time in human spaceflight. NASA
and our international partners have had crewmembers living
onboard the International Space Station for more than 17
consecutive years. Most high school students today have only
known a time when humans were living and working in space.
We are using the space station to expose a broader
community beyond the current space industry the benefits of
using microgravity as an environment to develop new systems and
techniques for use on the Earth. These new companies and
researchers have never seen the benefits of space to their
products and processes. The space station is becoming a place
for business to expand, grow, and gain competitive advantage
over companies not doing research in space. Just as having
crews in space is now accepted, business operating in space
will become normal and accepted.
NASA has bought services for cargo delivery from two
companies and is adding a third. The agency is in the process
of acquiring services and certifying two new systems to
transport crews to the ISS. These companies are busy
manufacturing and certifying their systems. Our partners in
low-Earth orbit are helping build a strong commercial space
industry and this allows us to focus our efforts on deep space
exploration, which brings us to the subject of today's hearing:
exploration systems development.
NASA's Space Launch System rocket, the Orion deep space
capsule with the European Service Module, and Ground System
programs are undergoing manufacturing and certification in
preparation for their first integrated flight. Just think about
it. There is more human spaceflight hardware in production
today than at any time in the United States since Apollo.
As a nation, we are building three different crew vehicles:
Orion, Starliner, and Dragon, one for deep space and two for
low-Earth orbit. Getting to this point was not easy, and there
are still challenges ahead. However, we all need to pause and
reflect on this amazing time.
As we pursue human exploration further into the solar
system, our exploration teams are building more than a rocket
and a spacecraft for a single flight. Rather, we are building a
flexible, sustainable system that will be used for decades to
come. With this approach, we can incrementally upgrade and
enhance our exploration systems to accomplish a variety of
missions, crewed and un-crewed in deep space.
We are also building a system designed with modern
manufacturing technique for lower production costs than
previous designs. The work performed in support of SLS and
Orion has applications to other programs in aerospace. For
example, hundreds of requests for information have been
transferred from Orion to the commercial spacecraft in
development for low-Earth orbit. The work on self-reacting--
reaction friction stir welding developed for SLS will have
application beyond SLS to other launch vehicles in development.
It is the proper role of government to develop capabilities
for use by all. Hardware to support the multiple flights has
been built. Three Orion crew modules, one structural test
article, one flown during Exploration Flight Test 1, and the
current flight article have all been built for Orion. Four
major test stands are complete at Marshall. The engine section
structural testing is fully complete at Marshall. The vertical
assembly building at KSC is complete. The launch pad is nearing
completion. All RS-25 engines and controllers are ready for
flight.
Seventeen parachute development tests are complete. Four
qualification parachute tests are complete with four more open.
The data from these parachute tests are helping our commercial
crew partners with their tests also.
The amount of work completed today for the deep space
exploration system is large, and it is documented in my written
testimony. Further, this government investment in SLS and Orion
is benefiting all. We need to be careful and not focus on a
single launch date projection but rather take time to examine
the quality, quantity, and future benefit of the work
completed. This deeper examination will reveal the value of the
work completed to the nation.
NASA has carefully reviewed the work remaining to the
launch, including certification, and while this review shows
EM-1 launch date of June 2020 is possible, the agency has
chosen to manage to a December 2019 launch. This earlier launch
date is reasonable and challenges the teams to stay focused on
tasks without creating undue pressure. Furthermore, NASA's
taking additional steps to reduce schedule risk for both known
and unknown issues and protect for the earliest possible launch
date. The cost for EM-1, even with the June date, remain within
the 15 percent limit for SLS and are slightly above for Ground
Systems operations. Exploration Mission 2, Orion costs, and
schedule are not adversely impacted by the EM-1 schedule, and,
as discussed earlier, the work completed by SLS, Orion, and
GSDO shows outstanding progress.
I welcome your questions and thank you for this opportunity
to discuss the amazing work accomplished by the men and women
of NASA and their contractor partner teams. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier.
And now, I recognize Dr. Magnus for five minutes for her
testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SANDRA MAGNUS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS
AND ASTRONAUTICS (AIAA)
Dr. Magnus. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to address you today.
The development system of the Space Launch System and the
Orion crew vehicle are major milestones for our nation's space
program, and I would not understate their importance. However,
I would like to address the larger view related to the current
state of our human spaceflight program and comment on its
progress and direction.
The idea of what is possible in space has been in
transition over the last decade. When talking with the public,
I use a model to describe the ecosystem that is today's human
spaceflight program. I refer you to the figure on the TV
monitors and have you imagine a bubble or a balloon centered on
the Earth slowly expanding. That expanding surface represents
the outward expansion of human activity. Since the Apollo era
for the last 40 years, the surface of that bubble has expanded
only to low-Earth orbit in that initial phase, and it's
remained there. During this period, the government was the
driving force behind the expansion of human activity in space,
and this had led to an accumulation of experience, technology,
and management operations in this environment.
Now, private industry has become interested in engaging
more proactively and independently in this open space, in that
development phase as on the figure. As commercial activities
mature, it creates stability and a foundation upon which the
surface of the bubble, the initial phase, can expand yet
further beyond low-Earth orbit.
For the foreseeable future, expansion beyond will continue
to be driven primarily by government-derived goals and
investments. Because of the increased engagement by industry in
LEO, in low-Earth orbit, NASA and the government are now free
to develop beyond into cislunar space and beyond that.
But at the core of implementing this model are two key
questions. What are the technologies, knowledge, and experience
that the government wants to have available for broad
dissemination to industry 50 years from now? And two, what are
the capabilities and services that are--that the government and
private industry, each driven by their own motives, are
interested in developing that can potential sustain viable
space-based businesses after leveraging initial government
investment?
A core concept inherent in the model and underscored by
these questions is the fact that there is a need for government
investment and activity at the leading edge of exploration
during that initial phase and the fact that industry will
sooner or later reap the benefit of that government investment
to create and establish new capabilities and business ventures
in the development phase.
And I might comment the normalization phase we're not ready
for yet in human spaceflight but you see that happening over
the last decades in the satellite industry where there are
independent economic spheres active and the government is a
customer. However, the government still does its own thing for
its own purposes. So if you can add that sort of with a twist
to human spaceflight, we're just simply not ready for that
phase yet. And this is the dynamic that's unfolding in human
spaceflight, as I mentioned.
The model I have discussed is a powerful one, and if it's
employed strategically--if employed strategically--and that
brings me to the important point, and this is one that you've
heard many, many times and I don't think that you disagree, and
so the United States needs a comprehensive national space
strategy. It is imperative that we commit as a nation with a
constancy of purpose for the long term. It is the nature of the
space business that it takes time, patience, and constant
purpose to make advancements. The establishment of the National
Space Council provides an opportunity to create this integrated
approach.
A committed long-term strategy is necessary but it's not
enough to ensure the success of the U.S. space program. To be
effective, sufficient resources need to be allocated to
implement the plan. This is something that has challenged NASA
in the past and continues today. When I joined the agency in
1996, NASA received approximately 7/10 of a penny for every tax
dollar. Today, the agency receives approximately 5/10 of a
penny for every tax dollar, this despite the fact that the
number, breadth, and complexity of programs has increased.
Fundamentally, NASA is constrained by limited control on
the expense side of its budget as well and has limited freedom
to adjust overhead, either facilities or civil workforce,
whether size or skillset, and in some cases the management of
task assignments around the agency. To execute a long-term
strategic U.S. space program in a constrained budget
environment effectively and successively, NASA must be given
the ability to make decisions and take actions in these areas.
Equally important to the adequate resources is the
stability insurance of those resources. Developing space
hardware is complex and challenging, as you've heard today. A
program with a multiyear phase budget can absorb more initially
expensive engineering decisions knowing that the result will be
lower operational costs and hence overall net savings over the
life of the program. The current budgeting process and lack of
a stable budgetary environment prohibits this kind of
comprehensive approach to be used.
The transition that is occurring in how humans engage in
space has been a goal for decades. Our nation was built upon
exploration, expansion, and economic development. From the
arrival of the first immigrants and settlers to the westward
expansion across the continent, we have faced the challenges,
forged new paths, and overcome all obstacles. As we expand into
space, the next frontier, I am confident we can tap into the
same spirit and energy.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address this body,
and thank you for your continued support of our nation's space
program. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Magnus follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Dr. Magnus.
I appreciate the witnesses' testimony. The Chair recognizes
himself for five minutes for questions.
And I want to thank you both. I was running a little bit
late this morning, didn't have a chance to see you before the
hearing started, so anyway, great to have you here. We
appreciate you.
One of the primary purposes of the NASA Transition
Authorization Act of 2017 was continuity of purpose and
expressing the importance of staying the course on program
development so as not to delay American space exploration any
longer. Can each of you discuss the importance of continuity of
purpose and how you balance that against good program
management and discipline? And we'll start with you, Mr.
Gerstenmaier.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think it's really important we
have a common vision of what we're doing as we move forward so
we can build the hardware and systems that can support that
vision. And we've done that with SLS and Orion. We've built a
system that allows us to move human presence into the solar
system. So the Orion capsule has applications for around the
Moon, can support activities on the Moon and lunar activities.
It can also support development beyond the Earth-moon system,
the same with SLS. The rocket is designed to really be a heavy-
lift launch capability. It can support the human missions
around the Moon, it is also absolutely critical and needed for
Mars-class missions, and it also can serve a very strong role
for the science activities such as the Europa mission to go out
to the outer planets. It can reduce the transit time by 50
percent to the outer planets.
So we have tried to build pieces of key infrastructure that
enables this vision and allows us to fit within this
architecture and framework we've been given, but keeping a
constancy of purpose or a general direction when we're moving
forward is extremely important to us. Starting and stopping is
very difficult in our industry.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Dr. Magnus?
Dr. Magnus. Yes, I'd--excuse me. Yes, I'd like to echo
that. Starting and stopping in our industry is really not
healthy.
Chairman Babin. Right.
Dr. Magnus. We saw that with the end of the shuttle
program, and we lost a lot of our corporate knowledge, and
we're going to see some of that when we start launching again.
We'll have to relearn some lessons that we've already learned.
But the continuity piece is important. You know, as a
nation, we have a little bit sometimes of a short attention
span, and we end up hurting ourselves. It was already mentioned
earlier there were a lot of programs that we've seen NASA have
to cancel over the years.
If you look back in the Apollo era, you think of the
dedication and the commitment they had over a decade and longer
to commit and execute that program. That's really what you need
in the space--human spaceflight. You need a ten-year, 15-year,
a 20-year program, and you need to be able to stick to it.
I think it's really exciting that the Committee's
interested in this topic. I think the oversight's important to
sort of keep people focused. I think that's an important key as
well, so it takes the whole community. But you have to be able
to stick to the----
Chairman Babin. Right.
Dr. Magnus. --program, and you have to be able to fund it
appropriately so that the intelligent decisions can be made to
do the tradeoffs with the expenses.
Chairman Babin. Excellent. Thank you very much. How will a
delay in the first launch of an uncrewed Space Launch System
until no earlier than December of 2019 impact the scheduled
launch date of a crewed launch of SLS? NASA has an internal
date it's managing to, as well as a date is has formally
committed to. Do either of these dates now change?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, again, in terms of our Exploration
Mission 2, our first crewed mission, so far the schedule
delays, even if the Exploration Mission 1 went all the way to
June, it doesn't really impact where we are with EM-2. There's
a constraint that the mobile launch platform in Florida--that's
the facility that the rocket launches off of--it needs to be
modified between the first flight and the second flight to
allow for the exploration upper stage. And there's a 33-month
amount of time needed between--for that upgrade of that mobile
launcher. So that's what keeps EM-1 and EM-2 tied together, but
right now, the slips that we've seen with EM-1 don't impact
where we can launch the first----
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. --crewed flight at this point. But again,
we need to be very careful of that, we need to watch for that,
and we need to potentially discuss whether it's advantageous to
us to have another mobile launcher available to avoid that tie
between EM-1 and EM-2, but that's the current tie.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Magnus, do you have
anything to add to that? Okay.
How will a slip in the first launch of the un-crewed Space
Launch System impact the cost of the program?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, it's surprising to some that the
overall cost hasn't really changed that much because what
we've--especially for EM-1 because what we've done is we're
really building much more than just one single flight. So as
work is completed on the first launch and the first flight,
when that work is completed, that work can be set off to the
side and the teams can go off and start working on the next
element. So in fact----
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. --we have today multiple pieces of
hardware in flow for the multiple missions across the sequence.
Chairman Babin. Okay. I have got six seconds. How will a
delay in the first un-crewed launch of the Space Launch System
impact a potential launch of SLS for the Europa mission?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, there's really no impact there. We
can support----
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. --pretty much whatever the Science
Mission Directorate needs for that mission, and we'll figure
out whether it occurs after the first flight or after the
second flight to meet their needs.
Chairman Babin. Okay. I have several more questions, but
we're going to go on to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Magnus, in your opening statement you talked about the
importance of having a strategic vision over the long period,
and we saw that when President Kennedy challenged us in the
1960s to put man on the Moon in this decade. My colleague from
Colorado probably does have a sticker that says ``Mars by
2033,'' so we ought to commit to putting a woman on Mars by
2033. It does give the public a sense of what we're working
towards, and in that perspective as we're thinking about SLS
and Orion, the lunar mission, et cetera, it gives us the chance
to think about it in a context of, okay, if we're going to the
Moon, how does that help us then think about how we're going to
go and take that next step.
So in that context, as we're thinking about EM-1 in the
context of going to deeper space, I'm sensing that as we do the
EM-1 mission we're learning a lot. We're reestablishing supply
chains. We're reestablishing a workforce and a talent base that
will make EM-2 easier, is that correct?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, definitely. As we--the first EM-1
flight is to test the vehicles and the systems and the hardware
to make sure they're really operating to the levels that they
need to be when we put crew onboard. And I think as you see
this movement outward, we go to the Moon where we can return if
something goes wrong in several days, five days. On station
today, we can be back in about an hour, hour-and-a-half from
station. When we go to Mars, we're now committed for multiple
months, so I think you see that natural progression in taking
more risk, learning to operate in a more challenging
environment, and as you operate in that more challenging
environment, you need systems that can support operating in
that environment. So it's kind of a natural stepping stone and
movement as we use the Moon as a proving ground, a training
ground, a development area where we can build concepts,
processes, procedures, and hardware that will eventually allow
us to go to the Mars-class missions in the future.
Mr. Bera. And as we move on to EM-2 and send a crew up, are
we also now conceptually thinking about EM-3?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. If we're really building continually
to challenge what we can do, the big advantage of the Space
Launch System is we can not only carry crew, but we can carry a
substantial cargo with us, with the crew, so we can carry
potentially a habitation piece with us on EM-3, and when the
crew will be there, they can go into that habitation module and
begin a crew-tended presence around the Moon, which is, again,
starting to break that tie back to the home planet and getting
us ready to move into deep space. So you can see that natural
progression of where each mission builds on the past mission,
and we take stronger challenges, we push the team more, we gain
the experience. And what we learn from those earlier missions,
it feeds directly into the next mission, so each mission builds
on each other.
Mr. Bera. Dr. Magnus, in the slide that you presented, you
also showed the private commercial sector following behind, so
could you describe how you see the private and international
community kind of falling behind as the government starts to
push further and further, how the private sector and
international community can continue to support that?
Dr. Magnus. Yes, so that goes back to the idea of a
national comprehensive strategy because, ideally, what you
would want to do from a national viewpoint is figure out what
are the technologies and capabilities that you want to invest
in from a government viewpoint so that those knowledge and
those pieces of technology are available for everybody. And
then what is--what are the things that are a little bit more
mature that you could encourage companies or companies might be
interested in developing.
And then from a national viewpoint as well when you think
about the international piece, what are those technologies and
capabilities that as a country we want to take the lead in? Do
we want to be the transport experts? If you look at Canada,
they've decided to focus on robotics, for example.
And then understanding the concept of those priorities, you
can then establish how do you want to bring the international
partners in and how do you want to help the companies
establish, you know, the leverage that they need to build into
their businesses. So you have to kind of start with that big-
picture view that has to be a little bit more governmentwide
and nationally focused.
Mr. Bera. In prior committee hearings--let me make sure I'm
thinking about this correctly, when we've thought about a
return to the Moon, I can visualize a day where NASA is focused
on the science mission. They may look at the various launch
vehicles that are available in the commercial market as opposed
to having to build their own launch vehicles, say, okay, we'll
contract with company X to be the launch vehicle. They'll look
at various lunar landing commercial vehicles, say, okay, we're
going to contract with this lunar landing vehicle. That will
take our science project. Is that the right way to think about
this potentially?
Dr. Magnus. Yes. If I may, if you think about--you know,
you have a toolbox to build a house. You don't have just one
tool in a toolbox, and you find the right tool for the job. And
so, again, in using the satellite business as a model, there
are economic activities going on that--where the government
purchases services, and there are government activities as
well, so you need a mix, and it has to be driven by what are
the--what is the strategic view for the country and what kind
of capabilities do you want to create and make sure that you
have going forward, so you have to think about it from that big
picture. There's a place for all of it in the right strategy.
Mr. Bera. Right. Thank you. I'm out of time. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Okay. Thank you.
Now, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The production of the core stage element is currently
driving the Space Launch System program schedule. The program
is combining welding techniques and materials--specifically,
the thickness of the metal--that have not been used before.
While establishing new production techniques is laudable, the
program has faced numerous setbacks as it is developing these
processes and correcting defects.
How confident is the program that it and its contractors
will have gained enough knowledge to avoid these setbacks and
delays for future flight hardware?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We've met the challenges of self-reacting
friction stir welding of the thicker materials. We understand
now how to do that. We'll still probably continue to refine the
welding technique as we go into future pieces, but the basic
understanding is in place now and we know how to do the
welding.
And as I said in my opening remarks, that's also important
to the industry as a whole. NASA paved the way by now allowing
others to use those same techniques in the larger thickness of
materials.
Mr. Brooks. If you could, what steps does the program and
contractor have in place to avoid mistakes such as welding tool
changes that shut down production?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We're again carefully monitoring all that
activity. We're looking at ways we can do inspection. We knew
fairly soon and immediately that there was a problem with our
welding when it occurred, so the good news was we had tools and
techniques in place to find the defects to prevent that from
extending into the flight hardware. That was good.
The bad thing we didn't know is we fully didn't
understand--we had done smaller samples. We had done smaller
welding tests, but we had not done of--any of the magnitude or
the scale of which we're trying to do with the full vehicle. So
I think we just need to be prepared as we build schedules going
forward to know that these first-time things that we have never
done before of a magnitude that has never been done before may
need a little bit of extra time that first time through and not
be overly optimistic in our schedule. So we'll build in some
time to go ahead and do those kind of things to make sure we
don't have that same kind of problem moving forward. And we've
identified those areas in the future where we see these first-
time items. We will put in place processes and procedures to
prevent what's--what occurred in the past.
Mr. Brooks. The core stage element, again, which is
currently driving the SLS program schedule, still has to
complete a major integrated test fire, which is called the
green test run. The green test run will have the core stage
integrated with its four main engines. The tanks will be filled
with cryogenic fuel for the first time, and the core stage will
be fired for about 500 seconds. The engines have been tested
individually but not all together, which creates a different
heat, acoustic, and vibration environment, and this will be the
first for the core stage. What areas cause the most concern
during this test, cryogenic fuel piping, leaks, material
stresses, et cetera?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The teams are really analyzing that test
in all its detail to make sure that we are really prepared for
that test. And one thing we learned out of this last schedule
problem is that we're going to have a dedicated person and a
team that actually will look at that test to make sure we have
accommodated and taken into account everything that might
occurred during that test. The concerns are when you--when the
rocket is designed to come off the launchpad and typically fly,
it's not designed to stay in one location for the entire
firing, so there could be some heat that builds back into the
systems. We've been analyzing that in wind tunnels. We've been
looking to make sure we're prepared for that. We've done
extensive work on a test stand to look at modeling and testing
of how we do the fluid flows. We've looked at procedures so we
bring in tankers to bring in the liquid hydrogen and oxygen
during the test in the most efficient manner. We've protected
for slips in schedules.
But we see that test coming up after the core stage gets
delivered to Stennis as one of the key tests and one of the key
risks. We and the teams, we'll be fully prepared for that test
when it occurs.
Mr. Brooks. What potential damage are you testing for that
might occur during a nominal test of this nature such as
insulation damage, internal harnesses, boxes coming loose? Just
what are you looking for?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. All those things you describe. I think
probably our biggest concern is probably thermal and potential
thermal damage to the bottom of the vehicle and what needs to
be repaired. We'll have procedures in place to go do those
repairs. We'll have alternate techniques to fix things if they
occur during that testing. So we're actively working that area,
and we will have detailed test plans and detailed mitigations
for anything that can arise.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. And, Mr. Chairman,
I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Next, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And thank
you for being with us today.
If I can be parochial for just a minute, in two days,
Orbital ATK's Antares rocket is going to launch from the mid-
Atlantic Regional Spaceport at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility
up to the International Space Station with important supplies
for astronauts living and working in space. And two of my
wonderful staff members are going in to watch the launch. So
I'm really proud of the role that Virginia plays in supporting
NASA and the ISS from Wallops because, aside from Cape
Canaveral, it's the only launch site in the United States that
supports the station, and it's supported national security
missions, including a recently announced NRO mission next year.
And just last month, an emerging small launch startup Vector
Space announced that its three initial launches will occur at
Wallops next year. We had an accident here a couple of years
ago, and Virginia has put nearly $200 million of taxpayers'
money into the spaceport. It's been a really unique, successful
public-private partnership between NASA, Virginia, and Orbital
ATK.
So, Mr. Gerstenmaier, as we look at our future space
operations, can you discuss how Wallops can contribute to
NASA's planning and operations?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, we see Wallops playing a key role
for cargo delivery to the space station. I think it's already
interesting to see how the Orbital ATK team is using that cargo
vehicle in creative ways. As you see, it completes its cargo
delivery mission. Then, that vehicle can come off the space
station and then do another mission for its own uses
afterwards. We've looked at full-scale combustion experiments
on board space station or on board the Cygnus vehicle where we
actually set a large fire inside Cygnus prior to reentry to
understand what fire detection should be like and what fire
suppression should be.
So it's pretty exciting to see the Orbital ATK team look at
creative ways of using their vehicles with a post-mission after
the cargo mission is done in creative ways and bringing other
folks in. So I think we'll continue to see a large number of
launches out of Virginia supporting that activity and growing
in that area.
Mr. Beyer. Great.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. You also notice the control center's been
upgraded. You'll notice some of the other things that we've
done in the times between the flight, so you'll see NASA's
investment in the launch site, as well as what the State of
Virginia has done.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
And, Dr. Magnus, in your testimony, you said and you wrote,
and I quote, ``The United States needs a comprehensive national
space strategy accompanied by a continuous, long-term
commitment for its execution.'' Do we not have that already?
And where are the holes in that?
Dr. Magnus. Yes, I think some of it--some of the holes came
out during the National Space Council meeting. You know, we
have--NASA has a comprehensive strategy for how they want to
continue doing exploration, you know, that initial phase of the
bubble, and they've been working with the private sector and
the development stage, sort of that middle stage, but there's a
lot of work the FAA is still working on with respect to the
licensing. There's discussion about the on-orbit piece, there's
discussion about laws, there's tax incentives, there's--so
there's all kinds of the other pieces when you think about what
you have to do to develop a healthy economy or a stable economy
or help one get off the ground. It's not just about the rockets
and the habitats. There's legal frameworks, there's
regulations, things like this.
So--and then you also have to fold in the piece of what do
we want from our international cooperation? What do we want to
encourage in our private industry? How do we want to help the
innovation succeed? How do we want to make sure that the
government has its mission and stays focused on its mission? So
there's all these pieces that I think they're out there, but
it's not clear to me they have all been brought together
comprehensively.
Mr. Beyer. So connected to that, Mr. Gerstenmaier, as you
know, one of the ongoing debates that we hear on our Space
Subcommittee is should--do we go directly to Mars or do we go
to the Moon first and use that as the launching part for Mars?
I noticed in your testimony you talked about how such a program
would, quote, ``lead the return of humans to the Moon,'' the
long-term exploration. So is it already decided that we go to
the Moon first?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think, as we--I described
earlier, this stepping-stone approach where we use the Moon as
a training ground to move further out is a good approach, and I
think that's consistent with the authorization language that
we've received and the direction from Congress and the
Administration. So it's a stepping-stone approach of where we
use the Moon to learn the things, learn skills, learn things
that we need to help us advance, but ultimately, we're moving
human presence into the solar system with the ultimate goal
towards Mars.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you. Dr. Magnus, I just want to quote from
your written testimony. ``The current budgeting process,
including the regular use of continuing resolutions, threat of
government shutdowns, lack of a stable budgetary environment
prohibits this kind of trade space to be used.'' I just want to
say amen. Thank you for putting that in writing. The entire
federal workforce, the government contracting community, the
military, everyone agrees with you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Now, I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
calling this informative meeting. And I want to thank the
witnesses, both of you. It's always a pleasure to hear from you
and gain your insight.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, would you say that reaching Mars is the
top priority of NASA right now?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I--the way I describe it is moving
human presence in the solar system, but it's one of the
stepping-stone approaches as we move human presence into the
solar system.
Mr. Posey. I mean--but, I mean, as a priority basis, how
would you prioritize things?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think we need to be careful, and
I don't pick destinations. I talk more about kind of building a
capability or the expanding bubble that Sandy described where
we kind of move out into the solar system and we bring the
commercial sector, the economy with us as we move. So I'm
looking for a much longer strategic vision than a particular
single destination. And I see this as a continuum of gaining
the skills that we need to have as we move further into the
solar system.
Mr. Posey. Well, I really appreciated hearing you use the
words stepping-stone in reference to the Moon just a few
moments ago in answer to that question, and I think that
Congress has kind of expressed they'd like pretty much
everything you do in space to be a stepping-stone to Mars, that
that ought to be a goal. And you know and I know that if
everything's a priority, nothing's a priority, and so I'd
really like to hear it acknowledged that reaching Mars is a top
priority, and everything that we do is in fact a stepping-stone
to reaching that goal for a number of reasons.
You're familiar with Buzz Aldrin's Cycler program. He's my
constituent, and I hear about that plan frequently. Would you
just take a moment to share with me why the plan that you're
pursing is superior to the plan that he suggests with his
cyclers?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think in our world we often like
to contrast things and show how they're different and we try to
pick one or the other. If you look at the approach that we've
laid out where we have potentially some kind of crew-tended
platform around the vicinity of the Moon and we use that as a
staging ground to go to Mars, that's very--that has very
similar aspects to many of the cycler concepts that Mr. Aldrin
talks about. It doesn't continually cycle, but we're using the
Moon potentially and the high elliptical orbit around the Moon
as a staging position to go to Mars rather than returning
directly back to the Earth.
So it's a--there's pieces of what he describes in our plan.
It may be not as much as he would like. He would like to have
the pure plan the way he describes it with a large cycler in
place, but I think we look--and we look to the community to get
good ideas from everyone. We look to academia. We look from our
Apollo astronauts. We look from commercial industry. We want to
take all those great ideas and put them together and then build
the strategic plan that was--we've been describing here to keep
us moving forward.
So I don't see it as one or the other. I'm not going to say
our plan is superior to his or his is superior to ours. There's
advantages and disadvantages of both, but possibly a hybrid
between those two might be the actual best solution for all of
us.
Mr. Posey. That's a pretty good answer, and I assume
funding approvals play a big part in that.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Definitely. If we're constrained by the
financial environment. You know, we're given the adequate
resources to do what we need to go do, but we need to reflect
that in our planning, that we don't try to build a program that
requires more funding then is reasonably available, and that's
a consideration and a concern as we do the planning.
Mr. Posey. Dr. Magnus, do you care to weigh in on this?
Dr. Magnus. Yes. I would just like to comment that we have
to quit talking about either the Moon or Mars because, as Bill
mentioned, it's an ``and.'' And if you think about the model
that I presented, if we're--and--if we're really thinking
carefully about how we're, you know, moving that initial
phase----
Mr. Posey. I think everyone here in this room understands
we want to go Mars for a number of reasons, as a launching
area, the potential of fuel there. I mean, at one time there
was quite a bit of opposition to it, and people who were
opposed to it that said been there, done that have pretty much
acknowledged that to go further, that's the smartest way to do
it.
Dr. Magnus. Right. And we can do it to--in a way that, as
we bring industry behind us, they can, you know, expand that
development phase out to the Moon. The government continues to
go to Mars and leaving that charge if you will, so there's a
smart way to do this where you pass through the Moon, you do
the things that you need to do there to continue to build your
operational capability to go to Mars. The government keeps
expanding to Mars, and you bring that economic system behind
you so that it's stable and provides the additional capability
to continue that outward thrust. There's a way to do this.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Yes, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thanks, Dr. Babin. And I'll just put up my
prop for one second.
And to be parochial, in three days or four days from
Vandenberg Air Force Base we will launch the JPSS, which that
satellite was built in Colorado up on the United Launch
Alliance rocket, which was also built in Colorado. So each of
us from an economic point of view but also just from a point of
view of pride has a stake in our space program, period. And all
of us up here are pretty much on the same page when it comes to
getting us to Mars.
I don't care how we get there; just get there by 2033, if
not a lot earlier. And so my job, whether it's a stepping stone
to the Moon or we use a hyperloop or we--you know, somehow
somebody comes up with beaming us over to Mars, I just want our
astronauts on Mars. Orion and SLS are the main vehicle we have
to do this now.
And, Mr. Gerstenmaier, you've heard me talk about this, and
obviously, our job up here is to get you the funding so you can
have that constancy of purpose on a 16-year project. And we
don't have that yet, and it's our responsibility to do that.
But for me, I'm a results-oriented guy, okay? I don't know what
the best engineering and the best science and, you know,
exactly how to do that. That's your responsibility, Dr. Magnus.
That's your responsibility, Mr. Gerstenmaier. Me, I got to try
to find you the resources so that you can do that.
But others up here are more sort of accountant types and,
you know, want to make sure we hit our benchmarks and the
milestones, as do you, your engineers. I mean, that's how you
guys operate. So the anxiety that some feel that we're already
missing kind of a milestone early in this 16-year journey is
something I think we all have to take seriously. But our
responsibility as Members of Congress are to provide you the
resources to get this done and for you--let me just ask a
couple just basic questions.
In sort of developing this program, how do you see us
adding international partners? Has there been any discussions
with other countries about partnering with us in a major
project like this, Mr. Gerstenmaier?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. There's been quite a bit of work
discussed with an overall framework. There's a Global
Exploration Roadmap that'll be published next January, and that
kind of provides a framework of moving forward and of which is
consistent with everything we're building. They see SLS, they
see Orion, they see what we're doing with space station as part
of that overarching framework.
The activities around the Moon where we talk about
potentially a crew-tended activity in the vicinity of the Moon,
the international partners are extremely interested in that, as
well as commercial industry, so we're working with both
commercial industry and international partners.
As was described earlier, I think this is really a team
activity where NASA does a piece. We have the Space Launch
System that can take 45 metric tons to the vicinity of the
Moon, but then we can use commercial launch vehicles to take 5
or 10 metric tons of cargo routinely to the vicinity of the
Moon, so SLS doesn't have to be every flight to the Moon. The
rockets you talked about from Colorado, the United Launch
Alliance Stuff, what's being done by Falcon, what's being done
with Blue Origin, those can all be used as part of this
architecture so----
Mr. Perlmutter. And we better not forget Sierra Nevada and
the Dream Chaser----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. And Sierra Nevada, who has----
Mr. Perlmutter. --or I'll be in real trouble.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. And they have a drop test on the 14th of
this month to look at their vehicle coming back. All that fits
together as part of this interactive framework, and I've seen
tremendous interest from all partners in seeing how they can
participate, how they can be part of this endeavor.
Mr. Perlmutter. Dr. Magnus, in your position with the
association, what are you seeing in terms of the willingness by
the private sector, as well as when you're doing outreach to
other countries? How do you see us building the team that will
help us, you know, get to Mars?
Dr. Magnus. There's a huge amount of interest in the
private sector in the United States to participate in this
project in any way, shape, or form. There are a lot of small
companies that are engaging in space that never existed before.
There are established companies who are taking innovative
approaches to how they want to engage in space. There's a lot
of energy out there. There's a lot of great ideas out there. I
have no doubt that we can do it.
Internationally, I think they look to us, our international
partners look to us to provide the vision and the energy and
the drive, not necessarily to be the dictators and direct
everybody what to do, but Bill mentioned the roadmap. There's a
lot of enthusiasm to have the United States--``You guys, you
know, this is great. You've got this vision. We all want to
take a part of it. Let's figure out how we can do that.'' So we
can do it if we just keep constancy of purpose and funded.
Mr. Perlmutter. And at the bottom of it, it says, ``We can
do this.''
Dr. Magnus. Right. There you go.
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.--Dr. Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always a
lot of fun to come here and listen to the interesting and
intelligent people that you bring to these hearings. I have a
thousand questions and 5 minutes, so I'm going to jump right
in.
We spoke earlier. You know my background as a surgeon, so
I'm going to ask a lot of questions about life sciences if I
can. So what are the special risks or are there special risks
in deep space missions that differ from long-duration, low-
Earth orbit missions?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Probably the biggest risk that occurs is
the risk to radiation and radiation exposure to take humans in
deep space. Around the Earth, we're shielded somewhat from some
of the radiation by the magnetosphere. In deep space, that
shielding is gone, so we're going to have to go look at
techniques to shield the crews and look at the--if there's any
other techniques we could even do in terms of medication and
other things to help with radiation during their journey. It's
not an insurmountable problem, but it's a problem that we need
to address that we can't look at as easily around the Earth as
we would like.
Mr. Dunn. So you're already opening up new avenues of
research in life sciences for the extended deep space missions.
That's exciting.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. Can--and of course some of that can obviously
translate to Earth, too? So what interesting things have we
learned from the Kelly astronaut twin experiments? And you
don't have to go too long. I mean, I know how about the
telomeres and all that.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, I think that's the exciting thing is
looking at how the genome changes just exposed to microgravity.
And we believe that it's a microgravity change that is causing
changes to the----
Mr. Dunn. Microgravity, not radiation?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. And they can differentiate between
radiation and microgravity changes and why certain genes
upregulate some way. They downregulate when exposed to
microgravity. That's a fascinating research subject. I would
have to bring some of the researchers here that are much better
versed than myself, but they can explain to you what they're
seeing. And it's really opened up a whole new line of
questioning. And this is how I think science and medicine
really advance, that new questioning, something you never
thought about and now you're exposed to it, it puts into--calls
into question your basic theory. Then, that basic theory
changes, and now, you're going to develop a brand-new way to go
solve some problem or to do something in the future. So this is
a very exciting phase of research.
Mr. Dunn. Yes, we look forward to hearing from that side of
your shop as well. How does this affect it? There some
interesting design modifications for deep space missions then
that vary from our low-Earth orbit. What are you doing with
that Orion capsule to make that more habitable?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, one big thing is the radiation
environment, again, we look at some potential shielding. When
we took Orion on the exploration flight test, we flew radiation
sensors on it. When we take it on Exploration Mission 1, it
will also fly radiation sensors. We'll also fly a mockup of a
human torso inside the capsule, and embedded in the human torso
will be radiation monitors to simulate the various organs
inside the human. And then we'll look at a radiation protection
vest on the outside of the human on Exploration Mission 1 to
gain insight to see if that provides some protection for our
crews. But I think there will be some type of storm shelter or
radiation shelter design into our future deep space vehicle.
Mr. Dunn. Well, we talked about changes in DNA in long-
duration microgravity and radiation. Are we going to put animal
experiments on the----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We presently----
Mr. Dunn. --unmanned Mars missions?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We presently don't have any--I don't
believe we have any animal missions on the Exploration Mission
1, the first mission. We just have the instrumentation and the
hardware, but we----
Mr. Dunn. It'd be interesting.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. --could look at that. We don't have the
life support system there, so we'd have to put some kind of
life support system on that first test flight to accommodate
some animals, but we're doing significant animal research on
board space station. We have all the basic animal models, which
you're familiar with----
Mr. Dunn. Or tissue cultures even, something with----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. And tissue cultures----
Mr. Dunn. --DNA in it. Right.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes.
Mr. Dunn. So, Dr. Magnus, you have kind of a personal
relationship with radiation in space, so can you comment on
this?
Dr. Magnus. No, I found--you know, I was on space station
for 4-1/2 months, and I felt like the exercise protocols that
we had were sufficient. I came back with no bone mass or muscle
loss----
Mr. Dunn. No loss of bone density?
Dr. Magnus. No. So I think we've got that licked, and
it's--I think Bill's right; the radiation is the key issue, and
we still are learning a lot about what can happen in a
radiation environment. I think the ability to do some work
around the Moon will inform us a little bit more about what we
don't know and, as Bill mentioned, give us new lines of inquiry
to make sure we've got our bases covered before we go to Mars.
Mr. Dunn. Well, you have an excited and engaged, interested
committee here, so keep us in your thoughts and keep us
informed. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you for those good
questions.
And now, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
apologize for having--you know, you have to jump between
various events that you're committed to, and so I will go back
and look at the testimony we've had so far.
I am on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as the
Science Committee, and I am very interested now what our next
major step into space as to what we see it as an international
goal and not just an American goal meaning when we're talking
about going to the Moon and establishing a long-term presence
on the Moon, we--in the space station we have people from other
countries and other countries have partnered with us. Are we
planning anything like that for our moon presence?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, we are, and in fact, as we discussed
earlier, the service module that provides the propulsion and
life support gases for the Orion capsule come from the European
Space Agency, and that's being manufactured by them. And this
is their contribution in the real way to the first steps in
exploration.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And does the Administration have any plans
on this? Do we--that we need to know about?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I don't know that we've--you know, we've
got some--we had the 45-day report action that came out of the
Space Council. We continue to work on that and see and refine
details, but I think there's been a general agreement that
international support is a good thing for deep space, and we'll
continue to build off of what we've done with the space station
and look for ways that we can continue that same partnership as
we move out towards the Moon and out towards Mars.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would hope so. You know, I--when I first
got here, we've both been around a long time, and I remember
that my vote was actually very instrumental in the space
station. And if I had switched my vote, it would--the station
would not have moved forward. I'm actually very pleased with
how that turned out and how my vote actually made a positive
difference.
I would hope that we actually have a plan that is a little
bit more detailed in terms of the Moon and what we're planning
to do there now that we've made that decision because up until
now, we've had a great deal of debate as to whether we're going
to go right on to Mars and how--you know--and now, I think
we've reached a consensus that the Moon is the step to Mars
and--but I need to--I would hope that we get a little bit more
details exactly what we're planning to have on the Moon, what
type of cooperation--if it's an international effort, what type
of cooperation we can expect and how much money of course it
will cost us to accomplish the specific goals that we have in
our Mars mission next but in a Moon mission now.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We have an exploration report that's due
to Congress in December, and in that report, we'll start to
show you some of the specifics of the kind of questions and
agreements and how we'll do some of these things
internationally in that report when you see it in December.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Now, I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I very much appreciate your appearance before this
Committee today. We're all united in our enthusiasm for moving
this program forward, and we all have many questions and very
little time.
I represent Louisiana. The Michoud facility in New Orleans
has developed a friction stir welding process. Mr.
Gerstenmaier, could you explain that, please, for the
Committee?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The--there's a large facility, the
largest in the world that essentially welds our large--the
tanks, the hydrogen tank and the oxygen tank for the Space
Launch System. The way reaction friction stir welds are, the
two plates of aluminum are together; then, there's a spinning
rod and then self-reacting--instead of having a tool behind it
that holds the two plates together, there--the pin itself goes
through and it actually spins at high RPM and actually melts
and fuses the two pieces of aluminum sheet together. It's
different than fusion welding when you use like an arc or a
tool to weld and the fact that there's no heat distortion, it
actually just molds and puts those two pieces of structure
together.
Mr. Higgins. And this is the latest welding technique on
the planet, am I correct, and provides a very, very strong weld
and allows you to use new, thinner layers of steel that allows
them to be sufficient and strong, stronger than in the past and
yet lighter, is that correct?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, it provides a superior weld
performance and the fact that the defects are typically less,
and the fact that there's no heat distortion allows for the
components to be joined together and put together in a much
stronger manner than they could through another process.
Mr. Higgins. All right. Thank you. And let me jump forward
to manned presence on the Moon, as we have discussed earlier,
as a stepping-stone to Mars. Have landing sites, lunar landing
sites been discussed and determined?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. From a robotics standpoint, I think what
we're interested in now is if you look at the Apollo missions,
they--most of those missions were equatorial, around the
equator of the Moon. We see potential water or at least water
in the north and south pole of the Moon. That could be very,
very important to us as we think about moving forward. If we
don't have to carry all our resources with us as we move into
the solar system, if we can get water from the Moon, that would
be very interesting to us. So we see some permanently shadowed
regions in the north and south pole of the Moon that we would
like to investigate maybe first robotically and then
potentially if it makes sense with humans in those areas. But
as soon as we can understand how that water's potentially held
in the lunar regolith, that can be really important to a market
and how we use that and how we move presence into the solar
system.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. Regarding shelter for human presence
on the Moon for extended exploration and extended periods of
time on the Moon's surface, one of the major challenges is
developing habitant, you know, protected areas where the
astronauts could stay. Last month, the Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency discovered a large and stable lava tube
beneath the surface approximately 300 feet deep, 300 feet wide,
accessible through what they refer to as skylights, areas where
the ceiling or the roof of the tube had collapsed. Does this
change the paradigm of what you and your team might be
considering regarding human habitation?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think it's definitely something to be
considered because if you can take advantage of the radiation
shielding provided by the lunar regolith and you can have a
structure or a location to actually go into for storm shelters,
that could be interesting. So I think that's something that we
need to continue to keep looking at and see how that fits
into----
Mr. Higgins. And this could be explored robotically. Am I
correct?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. You could definitely do it
robotically. We've talked sometimes about having an orbiting
crew-tended capability around the Moon. You could do that, and
then you could use astronauts on board this gateway concept
that we've talked about to actually command rovers to drive
into these potential lava tubes, explore them, understand
what's available prior to committing humans to go to----
Mr. Higgins. Yes, sir. And one more thing regarding these
underground caverns and tubes. As opposed to on Earth because
of the low gravity of the Moon, it's been stated by reputable
scientists that these tubes could be as large as two or three
miles in diameter. Do your studies concur with that?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I'm not familiar with those studies, and
I'd have to go research that or ask someone.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for your response. Could you--if
that information becomes available during the course of your
studies, sir--and thank you for your continued research--could
you possibly provide that to this Committee?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, we will.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
They've called votes, so I'm--there's several of us that
had questions, and we're going to take a minute apiece, one
minute apiece.
I'm going to go quickly. The recent slip in the un-crewed
launch of the Space Launch System seems to be the result of
many factors, which we've mentioned today, hurricanes,
tornadoes, the core stage welding issues. What impact will a
delay in delivery of the Orion service module by the Europeans
have on the December 2019 date? And what tools does NASA have
to ensure that the European Service Module does not lead to
further delays? If you can answer that, please, Mr.
Gerstenmaier?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We're working extensively with the
European Space Agency. They've committed some extra funding to
make sure that they can do it from a schedule standpoint, be
prepared. We know there's some high-pressure helium valves that
are actually manufactured in the United States for the
Europeans. We know those valves are having trouble being
manufactured. We've sent some of our people to the plant to
actually help with that activity, to help mitigate that
concern. We actually have a NASA design for a valve, which we
may manufacture and provide for that application. Lockheed
Martin has also gotten State Department approval to send some
of their technicians to Europe to actually assist with some of
the manufacturing of the European Service Module.
So I think we're doing everything we can. I think the
current service module delivery date is supposed to be April of
next year. I think we're very likely to see that schedule slip
a little bit maybe to May or June, and then we're looking at
what we can do to help with that downstream. So we might do a
simulator on top of the SLS when it goes to Florida to do a
modal testing instead of having the actual Orion and European--
--
Chairman Babin. Okay.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. --Service Module on top, but we're well
aware of that. That is probably one of our key risk areas.
Chairman Babin. Yes.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We're doing everything we can, but it's
really just this first-time manufacturing that's causing us the
problems that we're seeing.
Chairman Babin. It is a great concern. Thank you very much.
Now, the gentleman from California, Dr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you.
Quick question. One of the exciting parts of this is I'm
looking at newer propulsion systems as well, and one that we
certainly have talked about is solar electric propulsion as
part of SLS and Orion. Could either one of you talk about the
importance of why solar electric propulsion's important,
particularly as we want to go into deeper space and----
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Sure. I can start and Sandy can help. I
think that the big advantage is that in terms of efficiency and
the amount of propellant that needs to be there to actually go
move things, it's very, very efficient to move large masses
throughout the solar system. And so you can move--if we have
this crew-tended facility around the Moon, it can be in one
orbit. Then, we can use electric propulsion to move it to a
totally different orbit. So we can be in an equatorial; we can
go to polar. It takes a long time to do that. It may take up to
a month, but if the crew's not on orbit or with the vehicle, it
can move. So I think the big advantage is it allows us to move
large masses, although slowly, throughout the solar system, and
that's the advantage to us in the architecture.
Dr. Magnus. Yes, I would just add, you know, in the context
of our discussions that were more strategic, because NASA's
developing this system, it'll be technology that's available
for everyone to use, and so it's one of those feeders if you
will that will allow our economy to advance and other companies
to take advantage of that kind of capability.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. And I might add we just recently awarded
some study contracts to typical communication satellite
manufacturers to see if they would have interest in using the
next generation of electric propulsion thrusters in a higher-
powered propulsion bus. So we might actually be enabling the
commercial communication satellite industry to get a jump over
other foreign competitors by advancing the state-of-the-art in
electric propulsion and power generation beyond where they are
today. And we--so we gain--they gain directly from what we're
trying to do, and then we get a capability we can use around
the Moon for our needs, so this is kind of a win-win between
industry and us.
Chairman Babin. Yes, sir. Now, I think Mr. Rohrabacher
has--from California has one question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, you just mentioned commercial
activities and I had asked before what we thought about
international cooperation. Is there anything part of the plans
for this extended moon presence that we're talking about now
that would include the private sector? And we know now--you
know, 20 or 30 years ago we didn't have these private companies
like SpaceX and all the others making their contribution. Do we
expect there to be private involvement and commercial
involvement in a way that will help bring down the cost as
well?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, we currently have the NextSTEP Broad
Agency Announcements where we're working with five companies to
go look at habitation capability around the Moon, and we're
actively engaged with them. They're very interested in what
they can do with us, and then they may have application for
that in low-Earth orbit as maybe a follow-on to the
International Space Station. So we're actively very much
involved with them.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. As I described earlier, SLS meets a
unique niche. It can carry large mass to the vicinity of the
Moon along with crew, but we will definitely use expendable
launch vehicles, new vehicles that are coming online, the
Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Heavy, New Glenn, all those capabilities,
United Launch Alliances, they build their rockets. All those
will be used. So I think what's interesting as we look to this
whole suite of launch capabilities and commercial capabilities
and how do we build a plan that involves all of them? So just
like you described, we do the best of international, the best
of commercial. We put it together in a plan to allow us
collectively as a nation to move forward.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That's terrific. Thank you for that
answer. And I hope maybe Bigelow might have a little play in
that as well.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. He's one of the Broad Agency
Announcements----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. --participants in the habitation
activity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Babin. All right, sir. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
I want to thank the witnesses for this very, very
interesting hearing and your valuable testimony, and I want to
thank all the members for their questions.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
comments and written questions from the members.
So with this, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]