[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMERICA IN SPACE:
FUTURE VISIONS, CURRENT ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-7
__________
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
35-584PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma NEAL DUNN, Florida
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DON BEYER, Virginia VACANCY
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida VACANCY
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
March 13, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Ellen Stofan, John and Adrienne Mars Director, Smithsonian
National Air and Space Museum; Former NASA Chief Scientist
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Peggy A. Whitson, Technical Consultant; Former Astronaut
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Mr. Frank Rose, Senior Fellow, Security and Strategy, The
Brookings Institution; Former Assistant Secretary of State
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Discussion....................................................... 44
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Ellen Stofan, John and Adrienne Mars Director, Smithsonian
National Air and Space Museum; Former NASA Chief Scientist..... 78
Dr. Peggy A. Whitson, Technical Consultant; Former Astronaut..... 83
Mr. Frank Rose, Senior Fellow, Security and Strategy, The
Brookings Institution; Former Assistant Secretary of State..... 87
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 94
AMERICA IN SPACE:
FUTURE VISIONS, CURRENT ISSUES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order, and, without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare recess at any time. Let me welcome our witnesses this
morning, and welcome all of you to the hearing on ``America in
Space: Future Visions, Current Issues.''
I have often said that this Committee is about the future,
and I commend you to the words on the wall behind me, ``For I
dipped into the future, far as human eyes could see, saw the
world and all the wonder would be.'' I cite them, because--like
outer space, captured childlike wonder and hope for the future
that are shared by young and old. This morning's hearing,
``America in Space: Future Visions, Current Issues,'' allows us
to contemplate the visions, the wonder, and the possibilities
of our Nation's future in civil space. And I hope we don't lose
touch with that sense of wonder as we look ahead.
This year we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
Apollo moon landing. It was a monumental event in human
history. Our astronauts have continuously occupied the Space
Station in low Earth orbit for almost 20 years, and carried out
research there while learning to live and work in space. Our
scientific spacecraft have visited every planet in the solar
system, and they continuously monitor our own planet's health.
Our commercial space sector is growing, offering innovative
capabilities and potential new services.
What will our future in space look like in 10, 20, or 30
years out? Where are we going to be with human exploration in
2050? What would be the discovery of life beyond Earth mean for
humanity here on Earth? What will the roles and relationships
of government and commercial space actors be? What will our
response to the interesting--increasing numbers and
capabilities of other nations in space be?
Multiple studies and commissions have wrestled with these
and other questions. Today we are fortunate to have renowned
leaders in space science, human exploration, and international
security to share with us their perspectives. I look forward to
hearing their testimonies. I know they will help inform us of
our future oversight and legislative activities in the 116th
Congress.
A few days ago the Administration released its Fiscal Year
2020 budget proposal. Relative to the Fiscal Year of 2019
enacted appropriations, NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) budget would be cut, and it would not keep pace
with inflation in the outyears. I will have more to say about
the budget in the future hearings, but for now I will just note
that I'm not sure how much vision fits into a budget that
shrinks in real terms each year. If we want America to lead
with a visionary and effective space program, we must be
willing to commit the resources and funding stability to
achieve that.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and welcome. I especially want to welcome our
distinguished witnesses.
I have often said that this Committee is about the future,
and I commend to you the words on the wall behind me: ``For I
dipped into the future, far as human eyes could see. Saw the
world and all the wonder that would be.''
I cite them because they, like outer space, capture the
child-like wonder and hope for the future that are shared by
young and old.
This morning's hearing, ``America in Space: Future Visions,
Current Issues'' allows us to contemplate the visions, the
wonder, and the possibilities for our nation's future in civil
space.
And I hope we don't lose touch with that sense of wonder as
we look ahead.
This year we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
Apollo moon landing. It was a monumental event in human
history.
Our astronauts have continuously occupied the space station
in low Earth orbit for almost 20 years and carried out research
there, while learning to live and work in space.
Our scientific spacecraft have visited every planet in the
solar system, and they continuously monitor our own planet's
health.
Our commercial space sector is growing, offering innovative
capabilities and potential new services.
What will our future in space look like 10, 20, or 30 years
out?
Where are we going to be with human exploration in 2050?
What would the discovery of life beyond Earth mean for
humanity here on Earth?
What will the roles and relationships of government and
commercial space actors be?
What will our response to the increasing number and
capabilities of other nations in space be?
Multiple studies and commissions have wrestled with these
and other questions. Today we're fortunate to have renowned
leaders in space science, human exploration, and international
security to share with us their perspectives. I look forward to
hearing their testimonies. I know they will help inform our
future oversight and legislative activities in the 116th
Congress.
A few days ago the Administration released its Fiscal Year
2020 budget proposal. Relative to the Fiscal Year 2019 enacted
appropriation, NASA's budget would be cut, and it would not
keep pace with inflation in the outyears. I will have more to
say about the budget in future hearings, but for now, I will
just note that I'm not sure how much vision fits into a budget
that shrinks in real terms each year.
If we want America to lead with a visionary and effective
space program, we must be willing to commit the resources and
funding stability to achieve it.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. I thank you, and at this time I would
recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Lucas, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the first
space hearing of the 116th Congress. And I'd like to welcome
back Dr. Babin, the Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee,
and congratulate Representative Kendra Horn, the incoming
Chairwoman of the Space Subcommittee. As a fellow Oklahoman, I
look forward to working with you and Chairwoman Johnson.
We have a lot of work to do. These are exciting times for
the Nation's space enterprise. The investments of the past 2
decades are now coming to fruition. The commercial cargo
program continues to deliver valuable supplies to the ISS
(International Space Station). The commercial crew program took
an important step just last week with SpaceX's successful
return. We look forward to Boeing's uncrewed mission in the
coming weeks, and crewed missions later this year. We're also
in the final stages of developing the Space Launch System
(SLS), and Orion crew vehicle that will allow NASA to venture
farther into space than ever before.
We're in the early stages of developing technologies
necessary to return to the moon, as a stepping stone to Mars
and beyond. Our Earth observation and astronomical
observatories continue to provide world class science. Our
planetary probes and rovers continue to explore the solar
system. NASA is also pushing the boundaries of aeronautic
research to keep our competitive edge internationally.
Even with all these promising efforts, we also face
significant challenges. Schedule delays, cost overruns, and
technical errors not only harm individual programs, but also
impact the agency as a whole. Delays to the commercial crew
program have already forced NASA to purchase additional seats
from Russia. Delays to the Space Launch System and Orion crew
vehicle are also having impacts. NASA's recent budget request
proposes to launch the Deep Space Gateway and the Europa
Clipper mission on commercial launch vehicles for the first
time. Getting SLS and Orion on track for exploration mission
one and two is critical to the long-term viability of these
programs, as they are the systems that will push us farther
into the cosmos.
Unfortunately, challenges are not unique to human
exploration. The James Webb Space Telescope was originally
planned to cost between $1 and $3.5 billion, and launch a
decade ago, but now stands to cost roughly $10 billion, and
might launch in a couple of years. James Webb is a once-in-a-
generation observatory that will reinforce American leadership
in space science for decades to come. The delays and overruns
will also have impact on NASA for just as long. Other
observatories, such as WFIRST (Wide Field Infrared Survey
Telescope), important grant funding, and missions outside of
the field of astronomy and astrophysics, all end up paying that
bill.
Outside of civil space issues, we must also be wary of
implementing overly burdensome regulations that push nascent
space industries overseas. Companies have choices on where to
incorporate, manufacture, and operate their space businesses.
If we fail to create a competitive environment here in the
U.S., and instead implement draconian regulations on an
industry in its infancy, we stand to lose the competitive edge
we now possess. Top down space traffic management based on
incomplete data, stifling regulations on every activity in
space, would be a recipe for disaster.
I hope this Committee will continue to be a leader in
proposing creative solutions that enable, rather than stifle,
the commercial sector moving forward. But the biggest challenge
facing NASA is consistency of purpose. The National Academies
called for consistency of purpose in their 2014 report, and
more recently the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel went further,
stating, ``The lack of consistent commitment negatively impacts
cost, schedule, performance, workforce morale, process
discipline, and most importantly, safety.''
Congress has been successful in maintaining a consistency
of purpose across Administrations, but the task requires
continued diligence. In the 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2017
Authorization Acts, Congress stayed consistent, despite
Administrative, I should say numerous Administrative attempts,
to veer off course. NASA should build the systems necessary to
explore the moon, Mars, and beyond in a stepping stone approach
that maintains the multi-mission nature of the agency. I trust
the Committee's leadership will maintain this direction, and I
look forward to working with them on that goal.
And I yield back, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Welcome to the first space hearing of the 116th Congress.
I'd like to welcome back Dr. Babin, the Ranking Member on the
Space Subcommittee and congratulate Rep. Kendra Horn, the
incoming Chairwoman of the Space Subcommittee. As a fellow
Oklahoman, I look forward to working with you and Chairwoman
Johnson.
We have a lot of work to do. These are exciting times for
the nation's space enterprise. The investments of the past two
decades are now coming to fruition.
LThe Commercial Cargo program continues to deliver
valuable supplies to the ISS.
LThe Commercial Crew program took an important
step just last week with SpaceX's successful return. We look
forward to Boeing's uncrewed mission in the coming weeks, and
crewed missions later this year.
LWe are also in the final stages of developing the
Space Launch System and Orion Crew Vehicle that will allow NASA
to venture farther into space than ever before.
LWe are in the early stages of developing the
technologies necessary to return to the Moon as a stepping-
stone to Mars and beyond.
LOur Earth observation and astronomical
observatories continue to provide world-class science, and our
planetary probes and rovers continue to explore the solar
system.
LNASA is also pushing the boundaries of aeronautic
research to keep our competitive edge internationally.
Even with all these promising efforts, we also face
significant challenges. Schedule delays, cost over-runs, and
technical errors not only harm individual programs, but also
impact the agency as a whole. Delays to the Commercial Crew
program have already forced NASA to purchase additional seats
from Russia. Delays to the Space Launch System and Orion Crew
vehicle are also having impacts. NASA's recent budget request
proposes to launch the Deep Space Gateway and the Europa
Clipper mission on commercial launch vehicles for the first
time. Getting SLS and Orion on track for Exploration Mission 1
and 2 is critical to the long-term viability of these programs,
as they are the systems that will push us further into the
cosmos.
Unfortunately, challenges are not unique to human
exploration. The James Webb Space Telescope was originally
planned to cost between $1 and 3.5 billion and launch a decade
ago, but now stands to cost roughly $10 billion and might
launch in a couple of years. JWST is a once-in-a-generation
observatory that will reinforce American leadership in space
science for decades to come. But delays and over-runs will also
have impacts on NASA for just as long. Other observatories like
WFIRST, important grant funding, and missions outside of the
field of astronomy and astrophysics, all end up paying that
bill.
Outside of civil space issues, we must also be wary of
implementing overly burdensome regulations that push the
nascent space industry overseas. Companies have choices on
where to incorporate, manufacture, and operate their space
businesses. If we fail to create a competitive environment here
in the U.S., and instead implement draconian regulations on an
industry in its infancy, we stand to lose the competitive edge
we now possess. Top-down space traffic management based on
incomplete data, and stifling regulations on every activity in
space, would be a recipe for disaster. I hope this Committee
will continue to be a leader in proposing creative solutions
that enable, rather than stifle, the commercial sector going
forward.
But the biggest challenge facing NASA is constancy of
purpose. The National Academies called for constancy of purpose
in their 2014 report, and more recently, the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel went further stating. ``[t]he lack of consistent
commitment negatively impacts cost, schedule, performance,
workforce morale, process discipline, and-most importantly-
safety.''
Congress has been successful in maintaining a constancy of
purpose across Administrations, but the task requires continued
diligence. In the 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2017 Authorization
Acts, Congress stayed constant despite numerous Administrations
attempts to veer off course. NASA should build the systems
necessary to explore the Moon, Mars, and beyond in a stepping
stone approach that maintains the multi-mission nature of the
agency. I trust the Committee's leadership will maintain that
direction, and I look forward to working with them on that
goal.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Let me announce
that if there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
Now we'll introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness, Dr. Ellen Stofan, the John and Adrienne
Mars Director of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
Prior to her current position, Dr. Stofan served as a NASA
Chief Scientist, where she advised NASA administrator on
science programs and strategic planning. She's also held senior
scientist positions at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
including work on missions exploring Venus, Earth, Mars, and
Saturn. She served as chief scientist for the New Millennium
program and principal investigator on the proposed Titan Mare
Explorer. Dr. Stofan holds a master's degree and doctorate
degrees in geological scientist--sciences from Brown
University, and a bachelor's degree from the College of William
and Mary.
Our second witness, Dr. Peggy A. Whitson, former NASA
astronaut, and currently a space and science consultant and
Adjunct Assistant Professor at Rice University. Over her
career, she has accrued a cumulative time of over 665 days in
space, the most of any U.S. astronaut, most of any woman
worldwide, and 8th most all time. Since her first space flight
in 2002, Dr. Whitson has completed three separate long-duration
missions to the International Space Station. She served as
commander twice, and was the first female commander. She has
also conducted 10 extra-vehicular activities. Dr. Whitson
previously served in other NASA positions, including as the
Chief of NASA's Astronaut Office, where she was both the first
female, and the first non-military leader to serve in that
position. She received her bachelor of science in biology and
chemistry from Iowa Wesleyan College, and a doctorate in
biochemistry from Rice University.
Our third and final witness is Mr. Frank A. Rose, a Senior
Fellow for Security and Strategy in the Foreign Policy Program
at The Brookings Institution. His research focuses on nuclear
strategy and deterrence, arms control, strategic stability,
missile defense, outer space security, and emerging security
challenges. Prior to joining Brookings, he served as Principal
Director and Chief of Government Relations at The Aerospace
Corporation, a federally funded research and development center
focused on national security space. Mr. Rose previously served
as Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification,
and Compliance during the Obama Administration. He also held
national security staff positions in the U.S. House of
Representatives. Mr. Rose received his bachelor's degree in
history from American University, and a master's degree in war
studies from King's College at the University of London.
Our witnesses should know that each of you will have 5
minutes of spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you all have--when
you have completed your spoken testimony, we will begin
questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes question--to
question the panel. And we now will start with Dr. Stofan.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ELLEN STOFAN,
JOHN AND ADRIENNE MARS DIRECTOR,
SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM,
AND FORMER NASA CHIEF SCIENTIST
Dr. Stofan. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the future of space science and exploration. As a
former Chief Scientist of NASA, and the current John and
Adrienne Mars Director of the Smithsonian's National Air and
Space Museum, there's no topic I find as exciting or as
fundamental to scientific discovery, technological development,
and economic growth as this one.
The study of space begins and ends here on Earth. The
improvement of life on Earth has been the impetus for, and the
guiding principle behind, all space exploration. Why do we
explore? What do we hope to gain? What waits for us on the
moon, Mars, and beyond? The answer was, is, and always will be
found here at home.
Fifty years after we first set foot on the moon, we are
entering a new space age, and it is poised to be even more
transformational than the first. The commercial, scientific,
and security development of the space around Earth has been a
priority for decades, and in the next 10 years we will become
ever more dependent on our orbital infrastructure to support
our way of life here on the ground.
Consider the stunning social, economic, and security
implications of the GPS system, now entering its third decade
as a public asset. Now apply that scale of transformational
change to critical sectors, like energy and agriculture. Just
this past week, reports on the impact of saltwater intrusion on
coastal farmland, and the devastating effect it has on farmers
and their families, illustrated the imminent danger of climate
change.
As sea levels rise, and weather events become more extreme,
agricultural activities will require sophisticated data from
Earth observing satellites, and that is just one of the many
sectors that will require space-based intelligence to make
essential decisions to keep our economy moving forward as we
work to mitigate the effects of climate change. Understanding
climate change on Earth is also informed by our studies of
planets across the solar system. Comparative studies of
planets, from greenhouse gases on Venus, to interior quakes on
Mars, or volcanoes on the icy moons of the outer solar system,
moves our understanding of Earth's complex environments
forward.
But in the next 20 years, our study of worlds beyond our
own will yield a new discovery that will tell us even more
about our home in the universe. We will discover life elsewhere
in space. It will likely begin with fossil evidence on Mars,
then simple organisms under the ice on Europa and/or Enceladus.
The hydrocarbon seas on Titan could provide proof of life so
alien that it redefines our understanding of how it evolved
here on Earth, and the possibilities for life in exotic
environments beyond our own solar system.
Our solar system is the stepping stone for us to understand
the possibilities for life elsewhere in the universe, as our
advanced telescopes continue to characterize worlds around
other suns. The discovery of extraterrestrial life will be a
defining moment in the 21st century, just as the moon landing
was in the 20th. But to get there we must invest in missions
like the Europa Clipper, Mars sample return, the Webb
Telescope, and in human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. We
know where to look, and we know how to look. We have the
technology to determine if life has evolved elsewhere in the
solar system, and can easily do so within the next 2 decades.
In the next 20 to 30 years I hope that humans will have
achieved a flourishing presence in the solar system, including
a permanent presence on the moon, and a scientific outpost on
Mars. Thanks to NASA's ongoing voyages to the Red Planet, we
now know more about Mars than any other planet in the solar
system, save Earth, and learn more almost daily. Mars remains
the horizon goal, according to the National Academy of
Sciences, and I believe we can see the path to that horizon
more clearly than ever. The question before us is, are we on
the right path to realize this bright future? I'd say the
answer is a tentative yes, with opportunities and challenges.
Getting there depends on consistent investment focused
where it brings the biggest and most significant return. That
includes finding the right balance with the private sector so
NASA can do what it does best, big-picture exploration,
cutting-edge, academy-level science balanced across
astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, and planetary
science, as prioritized in the Decadal surveys, and
aeronautical innovation. It also means inspiring and investing
in a diverse, enabled workforce to bring all the creativity and
talent of our Nation to the task. This is a priority of the
National Air and Space Museum.
As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Apollo at the
museum, we have explored what it took to meet such an audacious
challenge as landing on the moon just 8-1/2 years after a young
President set the goal. It took a national commitment, steady
and reliable funding, and an understanding with giant leaps
comes risk, but that risk is what leads to great rewards, with
investments in technologies and scientific discoveries than can
transform our economy, and keep us at the forefront of the
world. The challenges and opportunities of this moment, like
those 50 years ago, can lead to amazing, enduring achievements
for the benefit of all humankind.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stofan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Whitson.
TESTIMONY OF DR. PEGGY A. WHITSON,
TECHNICAL CONSULTANT AND FORMER ASTRONAUT
Dr. Whitson. Thank you, Chairwoman, and Members of the
Subcommittee, for inviting me to give my opinions about space.
The ultimate goal must be the establishment of an undeniable
United States leadership in the exploration and privately owned
development of space. This will reap the direct benefits of
technological advancements and economic growth, while
bolstering national security. We are well past the flag-
planting stage, and it's time to make our ventures into space
both commonplace and sustainable. Twice I've had the honor of
serving as Commander of the International Space Station, living
and working there for 665 days. I can't stress enough the
importance of continued expansion of our space presence. It's
no longer a matter of national pride. It's our national
security, our future, and possibly even our very survival.
I recommend a 10-year plan for a sustainable exploration
into space that includes the following. Continued technology
development and testing onboard the ISS, prioritizing expertise
beneficial for missions to the moon and Mars while we are
establishing our presence there. The creation of a deep space
infrastructure, such as Lunar Gateway, an orbiting station
close to the moon that would facilitate robotic and human
surface operations. Further robotic exploration of Mars to
better define viable locations for human missions. And,
finally, the development of technologies to utilize local
resources on the lunar and Mars surfaces. Water, for example,
is a source of oxygen, and fuel, and minerals, and other
elements. We can't really be sure what we'll find. That's part
of the reason we want to go. So this--and inherent in all of
this is our continued expansion of international and commercial
partnerships.
The ISS in low Earth orbit is an ideal testbed for
innovative and redesigned technologies that are lighter-weight,
smaller, and more reliable. It's my belief that commercial,
private-sector expansion will open up new markets, establish
future platforms for research and technology, and the
government-led Lunar Gateway would allow us to test and assess
such things as solar electric propulsion, lunar robotic
exploration, and early stages of human habitation on the moon's
surface, while taking advantage of the local resources.
Government-supported expansion to the moon would also serve
to stoke the private sector's appetite for further
commercialization. For example, providing cargo carriers and
lunar landers to the Gateway, and the moon, and beyond,
developing and testing other capabilities, such as excavation,
drilling, atmosphere collection, in addition to manufacturing
and construction. In other words, like Robinson Crusoe, we need
to become reasonably self-sufficient up there for any plan to
be successful, and, just as importantly, sustainable.
The 20-year and 30-year plans would focus on Mars, and
include continued testing for deep space and surface
technologies aboard the Gateway and lunar surface,
establishment of a Martian infrastructure for continued robotic
missions and human surface operations, and utilization of
technologies that take advantage of resources on Mars. By 2040
or 50, I envision surface colonization and research being
conducted on Mars. In other words, I can easily imagine people
living there, and one of the astounding benefits is that people
on Earth will benefit from the technological developments
required to go where no one has gone before, and to do so in a
way that unites humanity in goals bigger than ourselves as
individuals, cultures, or countries.
To lead in space, the United States cannot isolate
ourselves. The U.S. Government-led exploration of the cosmos
necessarily must include international collaborations. It's all
these partnerships that have enabled the International Space
Station to be so successful. No matter the winds of politics,
intergovernmental ties have sustained a 20-year and counting
mission. Astronauts from around the world have lived and worked
together successfully, yes, more alike than different. Also
critical in our approach, we need to include even more avenues
for the participation of our commercial sector, taking
advantage of business-savvy people and flexible and innovative
approaches.
The biggest challenge I see in future space exploration is
enduring stability and consistency. Coming up with a plan, and
sticking to it, as we expand our human presence deeper into
space, while building the infrastructure to make it
sustainable, will lead to greater successes, maximizing
taxpayer dollars. Congressionally developed mechanisms to
protect the long-range mission with minimal setbacks, and no
gaps between election cycles, would be a huge step in assuring
a continued U.S. leadership in space. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Whitson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Whitson. Mr. Rose.
STATEMENT OF FRANK ROSE,
SENIOR FELLOW, SECURITY AND STRATEGY,
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, AND
FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Rose. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear before you
to discuss America's future in space. Let me begin by stating
that, although I am currently a Senior Fellow at the Brookings
Institution, I am presenting this testimony in my personal
capacity.
As Members of the Committee can see from my biography, the
vast majority of my work has been devoted to the national
security and diplomatic aspects of outer space, not civil or
commercial space. That said, I have increasingly come to the
conclusion that national security, civil, and commercial space
have become more intertwined, thus requiring us to address
outer space in a comprehensive manner. Indeed, access to outer
space is critical to almost everything we do here on Earth.
However, today's outer space environment is evolving
rapidly, presenting the United States and other nations with a
number of key challenges to the sustainability, safety,
stability, and security of the outer space environment. From my
perspective, some of the most pressing challenges include the
continued growth of orbital debris in various Earth orbits,
which represents an ever-increasing threat to both human and
robotic space flight, the emergence of mega-constellations of
satellites, the deployment of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons by
potential adversaries, and the rise of China as an increasingly
prominent outer space actor. Indeed, the space environment has
become congested, competitive, and contested. American
leadership is key to addressing these growing challenges in
outer space, but given the sheer scope of the challenge we
face, this is not something that the United States can address
alone. It will require active collaboration and cooperation
from our international partners.
Let me now provide the Committee with some specific
recommendations for addressing these challenges. On orbital
debris, we need to ensure a smooth transition of the space
traffic management mission from DOD (Department of Defense) to
a civilian agency. This will require Congress to pass
legislation authorizing the transfer from DOD, or--to Commerce.
In my view, passing this legislation should be one of the
Committee's top priorities. The United States should also
continue to advance international norms in best practices that
seek to reduce the growth of orbital debris, and encourage
greater cooperation on space situational awareness (SSA).
With regards to the deployment of mega-constellations of
satellites, we must ensure that the U.S. Government is
organized effectively to manage the rise of these new
constellations, and that these constellations are operated in a
way that maintains the long-term sustainability of the space
environment, especially in low Earth orbit.
The deployment and potential use of anti-satellite weapons
will have a direct impact on civil and commercial space
systems, therefore, it is critical that the Members of this
Committee have a comprehensive understanding of the issue.
Thus, I recommend the Committee receive the appropriate
briefings from the U.S. intelligence community on the evolving
anti-satellite threat.
As previously noted, China has emerged as a major
international space power, and the United States needs a
strategy for managing China's rise in outer space. Therefore, I
recommend the Committee direct the Executive Branch to develop
a comprehensive strategy for engaging China on space issues. I
also recommend continuing the U.S.-China civil space dialog,
and re-establishing the U.S.-China space security talks, which
were last held in 2016, to ensure we have channels to discuss
both areas of potential cooperation, but also places to express
our concerns.
Thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rose follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Rose. At this
point we will begin our first round of questions, and I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose, I'd like to ask a clarifying question about your
written statement. You mentioned that the space traffic
management mission would be better performed by a civil agency.
You also referred to the Department of Commerce. Is that the
civil agency you believe would be best suited for that role,
and is this something Congress should evaluate? And I think you
just said that.
Mr. Rose. Thank you for that question, Madam Chairman--
Madam Chairwoman. What I would say is this. I fully support
transferring the mission from DOD to a civilian agency. We
looked at this at the end of the Obama Administration. The
general consensus was that this mission should go to the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration), and, honestly, I was a
little bit surprised that the Administration decided to move it
to Commerce. But I think the fundamental issue is we need to
get it right. So I don't have a hard preference one way or the
other, but you should ensure, from my perspective, that we do
it right, because space situational awareness and space traffic
management is foundational to everything else we do in outer
space.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Now, of course, in the past
FAA has been the major aviation agency. How does Commerce fit
into that?
Mr. Rose. Well, as you know, Commerce does a lot of the
licensing, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) runs probably one of the largest satellite
constellations in the world. But you are absolutely right,
there is the--I believe the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation that has a long history of working space issues.
And, as I mentioned, at the end of the Obama Administration, we
had been looking to the FAA to take the lead on this space
traffic management mission.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Doctors Whitson
and Stofan, as we think about visions for America in space, I'd
like to note that the last enacted NASA authorization set Mars
as a horizon goal for humans in space. The Act also directed
NASA to prepare a human exploration roadmap to get us to Mars.
Your written statement noted the importance of having a 10-,
20-, or 30-year plan for our space exploration program. Do such
plans exist, and have the priority tasks that need to take
place in the International Space Station, and on the moon, been
identified in a way that focuses on the horizon goal in sending
humans to Mars? Dr. Stofan, you can.
Dr. Stofan. When I was at NASA, we were working on various
architectures to get humans to Mars by--to Mars orbit by 2033,
which I've spoken to this Committee a few years ago, so, yes,
NASA has been working on architectures. The issue becomes, as
the Academy detailed in their Pathways report, there are
multiple pathways you can take to get to Mars, and so, in my
opinion, you have to use the controlling factor of what is a
reasonable budget that NASA would have, what are the
technologies that you need that are always building upon each
other to get you to the end goal, for example, the Gateway,
which allows us to do a lot of the research on life support
systems and human health that we need to do in deep space that
will be an extension of what we have been able to accomplish,
and will continue to accomplish on the International Space
Station.
But I remain, you know, as the Academy said, that Mars is
the horizon goal. We need humans on the surface of Mars,
breaking open a lot of rocks to find that evidence of past life
on Mars. And so, as we develop this architecture, as NASA
develops it over the next 10 to 20 years, I think it's very
critical to remain focused on what are the critical
technologies to invest in that get humans to Mars, because that
is the horizon goal. The more paths you go down, the more
technologies that are applicable to multiple destinations, the
more money you're going to spend, and the further and further
Mars will recede into the distance.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Dr. Whitson?
Dr. Whitson. And I'd like to pile on and add that, in
addition, that consistency of purpose and path I think is a
good one. I think if we have the appropriate commercial
interactions with commercial partners, we can use that path
as--to bring in new and innovative ideas, and maybe help us, or
assist, and speed us in that planned path to get us to first
moon, and then Mars. So I think it's all consistent. I think
NASA does have a plan to get there, and--so I'm really excited
about our future now. But I do honestly believe it's going to
need to be infused with new and innovative ideas that maybe
aren't as easy to accomplish strictly within a government path.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. My time has
expired. Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Rose, let's go back
to space situational awareness for a moment. Your testimony
recommends the Committee should make ensuring an effective
transition to a space traffic management mission to the
Department of Commerce one of its top oversight priorities for
the next year. The Department of Defense does not conduct, of
course, space traffic management, and instead provides a space
situational awareness. And I won't quote the Federal statute
that's related to, but in this construct, DOD simply provides
that data that the private sector can use to inform its
operations about coordinating with other space sectors, and
consider the other databases offered by commercial providers,
international providers.
Last year the Committee passed legislation accomplishing
that goal, laid out in your testimony, ironically. You made it
clear that you believe Congress should move quickly on this.
Can you visit with us for a moment about how we ensure that
such a transfer of SSA responsibility from DOC to the
Department of Commerce is done without creating new levels of
bureaucracy or regulatory burden that just stifle the process
for the industries?
Mr. Rose. Absolutely, sir. I think, you know, we need to
make sure that we are consulting very closely with the
commercial sector as we move forward. On, for example, many of
the norms that I worked on at the State Department, we worked
very closely with commercial industry, and they've had a lot of
input, so my strong recommendation to the Committee is, as you
develop legislation, ensuring that our commercial industry has
a say, and has input, will be key.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Stofan, flagship missions like James Webb,
Hubble, Mars Rover, Europa Clipper are awe-inspiring, and
they're costly, and face delays and technical challenges. And
these issues, as we've discussed, impact other missions at
NASA, require new missions to be deferred, research money to be
scaled back. It just re-shuffles the whole deck. And we've
heard hours of testimony at this Committee about what went
wrong on a variety of these programs, and how we should prevent
that in the future. I guess my question to you is, should
Congress accept the concept that space is hard, and learn to
live with the overruns or delays, or is there something you
would recommend to us to help prevent the overruns, or at least
mitigate their impact on the rest of the NASA agenda?
Dr. Stofan. You know, obviously this is an issue that's
frustrating to everybody, certainly in the scientific
community, and obviously to all of you, but I think the reward
that comes from flagship missions is unquestioned. When you
look at Hubble, it has rewritten textbooks. It's changed our
understanding of the universe. And so, while certainly Hubble
also had cost overruns that impacted the program over its 26-
year history, I think we've gotten a little bit more than our
money's worth out of Hubble, and I strongly believe we will
feel the same way about James Webb 10 years from now, when it
is giving us planets around other stars, telling us their
atmospheric composition, helping us understand where WFIRST and
ground-based telescopes, like the giant Magellan Telescope, can
focus their next research.
You know, these flagship missions return really important
science. I think it's on all of us, and to certainly keep going
back to the Academy, to say, are we actually implementing the
lessons learned from previous cost overruns? How do we keep
those missions in the box, and how do we sometimes make hard
decisions about de-scoping those missions in order to keep them
closer to the original box that they were put in? But this goes
to also an initial problem of how do you cost missions up front
so that we bring reasonable cost estimates to you, rather than
maybe somewhat optimistic cost estimates that just lead us to
problems down the road? So there's multiple issues there.
I think the lessons learned, and implementing those lessons
learned, are really critical, but I don't think we should step
away from flagship quality science. That's the science that
changes the world.
Mr. Lucas. Fair point. Dr. Whitson, speaking of the big,
bold, and the profound, the current budget requests the funding
of a 75 metric ton variant of the SLS. Congress directed the
agency to develop 130 metric ton vehicle in order to do deep
space exploration. Explain to the Committee, if you would, why
is a 130 metric ton vehicle necessary? We're getting back to
the elementary stuff here, but, why----
Dr. Whitson. Yes. And----
Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Do we need the bigger lifter?
Dr. Whitson. And I actually think that probably we should
take that question for the record. I think NASA would have a
much more articulate answer than I would on that one.
Mr. Lucas. OK. Well, let's go one more and see what you
think on that. Should Congress fund the continued development
of an enhanced upper stage to get to the Block 1B variant of
the 105 metric tons, and eventually develop advanced boosters
that will enable SLS to lift that 130 metric tons?
Dr. Whitson. Again, I think that the rocket development and
design is much better answered by someone more articulate on
that than I am. I'm sorry.
Mr. Lucas. Well, just from a layman's perspective, if we're
going to go way out there, we have to throw big things out
there, right?
Dr. Whitson. Absolutely. We----
Mr. Lucas. So if we're developing resources to throw
smaller things, we're either going to have to send a lot more
rockets----
Dr. Whitson. Exactly.
Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Package products, or we develop the
bigger boosters to put the big piece up in one chunk. Fair
statement?
Dr. Whitson. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Lucas. And the perspective of the Committee is let's
go, and go hard, it's been in the past, anyway, as opposed to
piecemeal. I think I made my point.
Dr. Whitson. Yes. And there's a lot of risk. With multiple
missions, you take lots of risk. You pile your risk more into
one vehicle with a bigger one, but I think there, you know, the
chances of getting multiple launches is much harder when it--
when you're talking--trying to scale it back into a finite
number of years.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. Yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. Ms. Horn.
Ms. Horn. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of
our witnesses. I would like to start circling back on the
debris issue with Mr. Rose, if we could. Looking at your
testimony, and the fact that there are now more than 600,000
pieces of orbital debris that we're contending with, can you
speak just very briefly about how dire the situation is before
right--we dive into--how to address it?
Mr. Rose. It is not good, and it's getting worse every
year. Now, we can track right now about 20,000 pieces of debris
larger than 10 centimeters. As you mentioned, ma'am, there are
probably about 600,000 that we cannot track, though that will
improve this year with the space fence, but this is a serious
problem that we need to address, because it is getting worse.
Ms. Horn. Thank you. And, to follow on that, in the
conversation and distinction between traffic management and
situational awareness, I would like to hear you speak a little
bit more about--my concern is losing capabilities in any sort
of transition about--what would be needed to move from a
situational awareness, and what's the benefit of transitioning
out of a DOD, and what kind of resources would be required to
effectively do that?
Mr. Rose. Well, the benefit about transitioning out of DOD
is this. DOD needs to be focused on the anti-satellite threat,
but, as you rightly note, most, or--if not--yes, I would say
most of our capability, from sensors to expertises there,
though NASA and other organizations have it. The fundamental
point we need to do is make sure we do this in a deliberate
manner, and that the transition includes all the key players,
whether it be from Commerce, NASA, DOD. So that's my kind of
plea to the Committee, is use your oversight powers to make
sure we're doing it the right way, because we can't afford to
get this wrong.
Ms. Horn. Thank you. That's part of my concern. I want to
transition next to workforce issues. The budget that was just
proposed, there are two things, there's the age of the NASA
workforce, and then there's the pipeline. So, with respect to
the age of the NASA workforce and the pipeline, I want to start
with the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) programs that the current budget proposes to cut.
And, Dr. Stofan and Dr. Whitson, you both, in your testimony,
have addressed that. So I wanted to ask you both briefly, what
message does this send, and what impact does a cut to STEM
programs have to the pipeline of the NASA workforce?
Dr. Whitson. I really think it's important for us to be
educating our young people, and giving them the motivation and
the desire to be part of this technology development that we
want to happen for our own country, and so I find it difficult
to say that we shouldn't do any of it. I know that NASA, by
inspiration alone, will continue that, but I do think there
should be mechanisms that exist to definitely beef up our young
group of future engineers and astronauts to support our future
programs. Otherwise, we will be at a huge disadvantage compared
to the other countries.
Dr. Stofan. When I go out and talk to the aviation and
aerospace industry, what I hear from them are huge concerns
about future workforce. And when you have educational programs
like those at NASA, like those that we have at the Smithsonian,
that undergo rigorous evaluation--they're--these are programs
that are shown to have benefit. They reach, you know, hundreds
of thousands, if not millions, of kids around this country, and
inspire them to go into STEM careers. They don't always end up
at, you know, as NASA astronauts, but they may become civil
engineers, or doctors, and go out and contribute.
So I think these programs are critically important because
we know it's a pipeline issue, especially for women, and all
people of color, that reaching those kids, keeping them in the
pipeline, is critically important.
Ms. Horn. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have many more
questions, but I'm running out of time, so thank you very much
to all the witnesses. I turn the mic back over. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Dr. Stofan, in your discussion
with Ranking Member Lucas, you made a couple of comments about
the reward from flagship missions should override the
disappointments, or something to that extent. Do you remember
that? Is that fairly accurate?
Dr. Stofan. Yes. Frankly, it's a really tough thing, so
believe me, this is not an easy thing to say. When you look at
the, you know, when you're going through the Curiosity
overruns, as I did, or, you know, again, the Hubble overruns--I
was at headquarters when we were working on Hubble--or on James
Webb, trying to keep it in the box, you know, you don't want
those overruns to occur. And I think, again, that diligence in
this is extremely important, and staying on top of these
missions, trying to keep them in the box, is something that we
should try to do. I don't want to be, certainly, cavalier about
it, but those missions change our views of the universe----
Mr. Weber. Well, sure----
Dr. Stofan [continuing]. And our solar system.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. And I appreciated your comments on
that, and I think you're on track. My question is, who is
categorizing those, as you call them, flagship missions versus
kind of the busts, if you will? Who categorizes that, who keeps
track of those, what's the ratio, and how do we learn those
lessons, and implement those lessons?
Dr. Stofan. Well, I'll take that from a couple different
points of view. Obviously, as you well know, it's the Decadal
survey that's done by the Academy that prioritize. And
certainly, for example, the Planetary Science Decadal, which
I've been involved in the last two Planetary Science Decadals,
the Decadals actually recommend, here are missions that we
think should be priorities in the flagship class, so much
larger missions, harder to implement. And then they also make
recommendations on smaller-scale missions. And, for example,
the last Planetary Decadal went into great detail about how
they thought the tradeoff should be made if budgets were more
constrained than previously thought, which that was great
advice that came from the Academy to NASA on how to make those
decisions.
NASA itself goes through a very rigorous lessons learned
process. For example, I was there when we were looking at the
lessons learned from overruns from Curiosity.
Mr. Weber. Let me interrupt, if I can. Is there a person
that actually is in charge of tracking this?
Dr. Stofan. I'd have to take that question for the record.
That'd be a better question for NASA. I think it comes out of
the Office of the Chief Engineer, but I'm not positive, so I
should take that for the record.
Mr. Weber. Right. Well, thank you for that because, you
know, we want to be able to track that. The Ranking Member had
some great questions about the size of the delivery platform,
for example. Was that a flagship mission? Obviously it was. Was
it a success? Obviously it was. But if we had gone bigger, you
know, I'm from Texas, where bigger is better, and had we gone
bigger, would it have been better, and why didn't we do that,
and who assesses that, and gives us that assessment? Do we know
that, or is that the same person--you're going to have to get
back with us on who that is, what department that is?
Dr. Stofan. Yes, obviously--and the Space Science
Directorate at NASA is responsible for finally evaluating
missions, the final design of missions, but they are reviewed
externally within the agency.
Mr. Weber. What does that cycle look like, in length of
time? Does it take 1 year, 2 years? How quickly do we come to
that conclusion?
Dr. Stofan. Usually you go through a series--what are
called key decision points, or KDPs. And so by the time, I
think, you get to--I'm going to screw this up. It's KDP-B, I
think, where the--or maybe KDP-C, where the price is finalized.
So it's years of studies, of assessments, of external review
boards that look at the costs and try to understand what the
mission--how it's scoped. But, again, NASA can give you a much
better answer.
Mr. Weber. OK. And I appreciate that. So, in the last
minute left, this is a question for all of you, and Dr.--Mr.
Rose, I'll start with you, so you don't feel left out, and Dr.
Whitson, hopefully get to you. What should our priorities and
strategies be for the next 5 years and next 10 years in order
to regain access to low Earth orbit and maintain the
development of exploration systems? What should our priorities
and strategies be? Mr. Rose?
Mr. Rose. Addressing the orbital debris problem.
Mr. Weber. I figured you would say that. OK.
Dr. Whitson. OK. And I would say that we need to continue
research that prioritized on ISS, but prioritized for moon
missions. For instance, we need to do things like make the life
support systems much more compact. Also, there's missions like
the--the Mars 2020 is going to test the ability to take carbon
dioxide from the Martian atmosphere and make it into oxygen,
and that's great for breathing and fuel. And testing those
types of capabilities are going to be the things that enable a
sustainable future in space.
Mr. Weber. All right. And I appreciate that, and, Madam
Chair, I yield back with 2 seconds.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking
Member Lucas, and thank you to all of our witnesses. We've had
many conversations in this Committee over the years about the
role that NASA plays in sparking the imagination of the next
generation of students, especially students to pursue careers
in science and astronomy. I also know, as Member of the
Education Committee, where I'm going back and forth this
morning, talking about college affordability, which is directly
related to the workforce issues we're talking about, that we
need critical thinkers, and we need people who are inventive
and entrepreneurial.
So I am the co-Chair of the bipartisan STEAM Caucus with
Representative Stefanik from New York, where we are identifying
ways to integrate the arts and design into STEM learning to
engage more students, but also to make sure that students are
getting a well-rounded education. Former NASA astronaut Cady
Coleman, who's also a musician, she did this great flute duet
from the ISS with her flute duet partner on Earth, which I
thought was pretty amazing, in 2011, I believe that was.
Dr. Stofan, the ingenuity of our workforce will also define
our response to global problems like climate change. In your
testimony you discuss how our understanding of climate change
on Earth is informed by comparative studies of planets across
the solar system, so how can we leverage information from
Earth-observing satellites to strengthen our understanding of
climate change, and to identify successful adaptation and
mitigation strategies?
Dr. Stofan. You know, for our Earth-observing satellites,
the most important thing is continuity, so--because trying to
extend, you know, trying to extend the models, trying to always
strengthen our modeling capability for climate change, we
critically rely on a long-term data set that's consistent. And
so, supporting the Earth observing satellites, making sure
those satellites continue to go forward, I think is critically
important to give decisionmakers around the country the data
that they need to be able to make critical decisions. And so
it's not just data for the scientists, it's how do you change
that data into actionable information that can be used by
policymakers. And I just think it's critical that that continue
to be supported.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm also the
co-Chair of the House Oceans Caucus, and we've been working on
marine debris. Every minute the equivalent of a garbage truck
full of plastic is dumped into the oceans. But our oceans are
not the only place where there's debris. Of course, we have
non-functioning spacecraft, defunct satellites, and, as you
mentioned in your testimony, Mr. Rose, even a toothbrush
accumulated in our Earth's orbit. So, according to NASA, that
debris can travel at speeds up to 17,500 miles per hour. Is
that right? That seems like a problem. In the event of a
collision, for example, with the ISS, the impact could be
catastrophic. So, Mr. Rose, is there any hope to meaningfully
address orbital debris, and how can we mitigate in the future?
Mr. Rose. A couple of things. One, we have to stop the
debris environment from getting worse, specifically not doing
another ASAT test, like China did in 2007. We need to improve
space situational awareness to prevent future collisions like
the Iridium/Cosmos event, and we need to enhance best practices
internationally. The United States has very, very good domestic
legislation. Not all of our international partners do. And
then, finally, looking over the horizon, there's this whole
issue of active debris removal. Very interesting technology,
but we need to be careful because one person's debris removal
system can be another person's anti-satellite weapon. But the
bottom line is we need to address it, and we need to have a
comprehensive approach.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And also, Dr. Stofan, one of the
most commonly cited benefits of human exploration, basic
scientific research in space, is the benefits from derived
research, and, according to NASA, more than 2,000 NASA spinoff
technologies have been documented. So what would you say to
people who submit that we should, rather than spend money on
human exploration, or astrophysics, or planetary science, we
should spend it in other areas? What's the best response to
that?
Dr. Stofan. You know, the spinoffs that have come from NASA
are so comprehensive, from the nutritional supplement that's
found in over 90 percent of baby formulas that started as a
supplement for astronauts on the International Space Station,
the water purification system on the Space Station that's now--
there's a portable form of it that's taken into disaster areas
around the world. The work that is done every day at NASA,
whether it's in aeronautics, or space science, or up on the
International Space Station, has direct and practical benefits
here on Earth. And, you know, it--I think people just don't
realize how much NASA technology--literally goes from ski boots
to the shingles on your roof.
And so the fact that when you invest in something like
going to Mars, when you try to do really difficult things, we
certainly saw that from the Apollo program, it----
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Dr. Stofan [continuing]. Returned benefits in spades right
here--back here on Earth, and that will improve----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Dr. Stofan [continuing]. Going to Mars.
Ms. Bonamici. If I had more time, I would ask you all whose
job it is to convey that, but I don't, so I yield back. Thank
you, Madam----
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member,
for holding this hearing today, and also a big thank you to our
witnesses for your service to our country, and for all the work
that you put into this hearing. I have the honor of
representing northeast Ohio, which is home to the NASA Glenn
Research Center, a truly magnificent research center. It
employs more than 3,000 scientists, engineers, and technicians.
In a recent trip to the center, I spoke with Director Janet
Kavandi, also a former astronaut, and an amazing woman--I mean,
we had just the greatest conversation. But, in any event--about
the incredible aeronautic and space research conducted at Glenn
every day, and how NASA Glenn is pioneering the next generation
of space and air travel.
So Dr. Stofan first, can you just provide a brief overview
of just how important our research centers are to the NASA
program in making sure that we do, in fact, stay on the
competitive edge of space and aeronautics research?
Dr. Stofan. You know, you touched my heart there because my
father is a former director of the Glenn Research Center, and I
actually grew up literally at then Lewis Research Center, so I
am particularly passionate about centers like Langley, like
Lewis, like Ames, our NASA centers around the country that are
doing cutting-edge research every day in aeronautics, in
technology, in science. And it's that fundamental basic
research that helps move our aviation industry forward, that
helps move all kinds of, you know, create small businesses
around this country from spinoffs that come out of the
technology.
So these research centers, I think, are critical to
economic growth, especially in those areas in which they sit,
where they have strong relationships with local universities,
local businesses. Incredibly important.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And I share the sentiment of my
colleague, who just mentioned seeing all of the spinoffs that
come off of NASA research technology, and just how important
it's been to our economy writ large. It's not, you know, I
think we think of NASA as, you know, going to the moon, or
going to Mars, or what have you, but it's really fundamental to
many technologies in our economy, and just think it's
imperative that we make sure that the funding's kept in line
with the demands that we have.
So, switching gears to Mr. Rose, in your testimony you
state that China has emerged as a major international space
power, and it's certain to grow significantly in the coming
years. To me, the U.S.-China relationship will come to define
the 21st century of U.S. foreign policy. While I believe we
must work to build a stronger relationship with China, I also
believe that everything we do with China must be approached
with an abundance of caution. So could you talk specifically
about the connection between Chinese space travel, and the
Chinese military, and the national security implications to our
country?
Mr. Rose. Sir, the Chinese space program is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the People's Liberation Army, and there's been no
one more outspoken in the U.S. Government, or outside the
government now, about concerns with China's anti-satellite
program. But at the same time, we need to work with China on
things like orbital debris mitigation. That's why I think we
need a comprehensive strategy for dealing with China that links
commercial, civil, and national security space. We didn't have
one in the Obama Administration, we don't have one now. I think
we need one.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes. I share your concern. And then you also
talked about--and kind of to double down on that, the need for
greater cooperation. Can you talk about a framework that you
think would be effective in supporting that? I mean, I'm trying
to just wrap my head around--how would we even approach this?
Because if they're a fully owned subsidiary of the military,
it's hard to even see a path forward.
Mr. Rose. Now, I agree with you, but I think we need to do
is--one of the fundamental problems is there's absolutely no
trust between the U.S. and China right now on outer space.
Scott Pace, the Executive Director of the National Space
Council, said that in an article a couple of weeks ago. But we
need to build some trust. Now, we were able to do that on the
issue of debris. I talk about that in my testimony. What I
would recommend is kind of the following. One, find a couple of
specific projects that we can do on the civil side that will
not undermine national security, but build some trust, number
one. Number two, we have to have both a civil dialog to talk
about the sustainability issues, but we also need to recreate
the space security talks. We held those first ones in the Obama
Administration. Unfortunately, they have not been re-
established. I think we need to do that to provide the venue to
express our concerns about China's activities.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Wexton.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. Following up on the questions
about China and other countries, Mr. Rose, can you speak to
what other countries have done with regard to building out
their space exploration, or their space infrastructure, and
what impact that's having on U.S. leadership in that area?
Mr. Rose. In the context of China, but--or as a whole?
Ms. Wexton. On the whole, but also with China.
Mr. Rose. Well, one of the things that I'm concerned about
in the context of China is that many of our allies and
partners, to include Italy, are moving forward with cooperation
with regard--with China, and my concern is if we don't lead, we
will cede that space to China. To a certain extent, we've done
that over the last couple of decades. I think American
leadership is key, and if the United States does not provide
leadership on space exploration, I assure you the Chinese are
there, and willing to do it. They actually are using space as a
key element of their foreign policy, not unlike how we have
handled space. But my bottom line is this. If we do not lead,
China will.
Ms. Wexton. Very good, thank you. Now, I'm from Virginia,
and we have the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, and NASA
Wallops, a number of NASA facilities. Now, Dr. Stofan, and
maybe Dr. Whitson you know the answer to this as well, based on
your experiences, can you speak to the relationship between
civil space and military enterprise, and whether there's any
conflict between those two?
Dr. Stofan. I don't think there's, you know, certainly in
the context of the museum, we tell the story about the fact
that military space has been there, you know, since we started
with space 60 years ago, when NASA was founded, there has been
a military space program. We tell that story at the museum. And
I don't think there's a conflict. I think there's always issues
of overlap, you know, but the civilian space program, which is
the program that Peggy and I have come out of, I think is
critically important for this country. The research that's
done, the fact that it is done in the public sphere, I think is
critically important.
Dr. Whitson. And I just--I would like to add on that I
think that developing the infrastructure in space is--pulls a
lot of the economic growth, with commercial providers coming
in, with people like the SpaceXs, and the Boeings, and Orbital
Northrop building new vehicles that are--actually have a
targeted place to go. And I think our expansion into space will
continually build that infrastructure that will allow us to
continue. So--and none of that is going to hurt any military
aspects that I know of, but I just think all of that
development, all of that expansion, should be continued.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you. I have no further
questions, so I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm curious, if you
would explore a little bit more, Mr. Rose, the threat you see
by the Chinese.
Mr. Rose. Sir, one of the things that I would recommend is
the Director of National Intelligence's Annual Threat
Assessment--the bottom line is this. China is developing a full
spectrum of anti-satellite capabilities designed to negate
America's advantage in outer space, end stop.
Mr. Posey. Yes, we get that. I remember in the 2012
Presidential debates Newt Gingrich said we need to establish a
presence on the moon. He didn't say the Russians are doing it,
the Chinese are committing to do it, he just said we need to do
it, without going further, whereupon Santorum jumped up and
said, you're just pandering to the I-4 Corridor. Romney said,
well, that's the stupidest thing I ever heard. I'd fire anybody
on my staff that suggested that. Of course, Mike Griffin,
former NASA Administrative Supervisor, thought it was
imminently important we go back.
Finally it got to Ron Paul, and Ron Paul said, much to his
credit, it's important to our national defense. Then he joked,
we need to send all politicians to the moon, and ended the
discussion about space in the Presidential primary. Very next
day, what happened? Dr. Stofan knows, and I'm sure Dr. Whitson
knows what happened the very next day. They had to move the
ISS. Why'd they have to move it? Space debris. Where'd it come
from?
Mr. Rose. China.
Mr. Posey. Chinese satellite, 8,000 pounds. They took
target practice on it. A week later they had to move the ISS
again. Why'd they have to move it this time? More space debris.
Chinese again? No, Russian space debris. Well, why would the
Chinese and Russians shoot their own dog? Just to prove to
themselves, and the rest of the world, that they were capable
of doing that. If they can take their own satellites out, they
can take our satellites out.
So the, you know, the question that begged for an answer
is, you know, what are we doing about it, and how can we make
sure that it gets addressed? I think it's an important matter
to national security.
Mr. Rose. Sir, I think we need a comprehensive response. It
needs to include norms of behavior so we prevent activities
like China's ASAT test. It needs to include resilient U.S.
systems that can operate in outer space. And it--we need to be
able to respond if there is an attack on U.S. space assets.
Mr. Posey. Yes.
Mr. Rose. But at the same time, sir, I would just add, we
also need to find a way to cooperate on common interests with
both Russia and China.
Mr. Posey. Yes. Any of the three of you read that book,
``One Second After,'' William Forstchen's New York Times
bestseller?
Mr. Rose. No.
Mr. Posey. I highly recommend it. It's riveting, it's very
informative. It's based upon a confidential intelligence report
that Members of Congress get, and it's staggering what happens.
I mean, you know, we've got 30-some satellites that make our
credit card use possible, our cell phones, our laptops, give us
our weather reports. You know, you take a half dozen of those
things out of operation, and we're in the Stone Age, and the
consequences are lethal. They're not unfortunate, they're not
uncomfortable, they're lethal for masses of people. So I think
it's very, very important that we address this, and I thank the
Chair for bringing this up today, and hope that we'll continue
this discussion further. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to our
panel. Good to see you all, and a couple of you have seen me
hold up the bumper sticker before. And for those new Members to
the Committee, we heard from NASA a couple years ago that 2033
was doable, if Congress provided consistent resources to the
agency to get our astronauts to Mars. So, to the two doctors,
can we do it? Is it possible for us to get our astronauts to
Mars by 2033, if the resources are there from the Congress?
Which is easier said than done, but that's my job, or our job.
Dr. Stofan. Right. The scenarios that we looked at when I
was at NASA--and I was wondering--I almost brought up your
bumper sticker. I was wondering if you brought it along. So
when we looked at the issue, you can easily get to Mars orbit
by 2033. Getting to the Mars surface is harder. You would have
to make a lot more investment in entry, descent, and landing
technologies. But I think it's--it is certainly possible.
I hate to throw away that--around that word, possible, and
impossible. 8-1/2 years from President Kennedy's call to get to
the surface of the moon, and NASA did it starting from a place
so far away from where we are right now. So I think we also
have to keep that in mind. When you challenge NASA to do great
things, they have shown in the past they can do them, and I
believe we can do it again.
Mr. Perlmutter. Dr. Whitson?
Dr. Whitson. I absolutely agree, and I think political will
is a huge factor in that. It's got to be the driver. It's the
driver for China, and if we want it to be a driver, we can make
it a driver, but it is largely political will, and some
consistency in purpose, and, of course, a little cash helps.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Mr. Rose, you used an
interesting term, and we really haven't heard it on the Science
Committee until you did it. You talked about the civilian side
and the military side being intertwined. That was your term.
What do you mean by that? Because I agree with you, but I think
you're the first one that's said something like that.
Mr. Rose. Well, sir, for example, almost 80 percent of U.S.
military communications travel over commercial satellites. So,
you know, we in the community think they're our stovepipes, but
they're really not, they're integrated. For example, debris.
Debris does not discriminate from civilian versus military or
national security payloads. It is--debris is a sustainability
issue, but it's also a security issue. So my view, and I would
say General Hyten's view, the Commander of U.S. Strategic
Command, is that we have to think about space in a more
integrated manner.
Now, I will commend the Space Subcommittee, because last
year you held a hearing with the Strategic Forces Subcommittee
on the future of SSA and space traffic management. I would
encourage you to hold additional hearings jointly with the
Committee, because, again, as we move forward, there's going to
be--it's going to be increasingly difficult to separate
national security space from civil and commercial space.
Mr. Perlmutter. Let me ask you a question about--I've got a
couple other interests besides Mars, but Mars is the main
thing, to get our astronauts there. But one of them involves
sort of--the remote imaging----
Mr. Rose. Um-hum.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. And the ability to--of the
commercial sector to start taking greater advantage of that. Do
you have any comments about that?
Mr. Rose. Sir, I don't want to go there, just because it
quickly gets into classified information, but I'm thinking----
Mr. Perlmutter. Well--and that's the point----
Mr. Rose. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Is we need to have a better
system----
Mr. Rose. Right.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. That allows it to become
commercial, and not always the intelligence agencies always
saying, sorry, you can't show that stuff, even though it's my
backyard in Arvada, Colorado, which is--probably don't want
that----
Mr. Rose. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Shown, but we need to be able
to open that up more, and that's the point.
Mr. Rose. Yes. And beginning a discussion with your
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I think, would be a
good place to start.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Last thing, and just more of a comment,
but--is on space weather, which, again, where we have this
integration, or this intertwine thing, because, as we have
flares or radiation, it affects our astronauts, or Space
Station, but it affects all of the national security satellites
and things that we have. So I just appreciate your testimony.
Thank you for your service to the country, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and it is an honor to have
this panel before us this morning. I went to Rice University.
As you mentioned, Dr. Stofan, John F. Kennedy made the great
speech there on September 12 of 1962, committing this country
to go to the moon before the decade ended, and we did that, as
you said, in less than 8 years. Miraculous.
I moved right there at Kirby and NASA Road 1 in 1972. I was
there for Apollo 17's homecoming, the last manned flight we've
had since that time. I was there for the 1970s, and saw Skylab,
a great success. Remember when she deployed we tore off the
solar panel tore off the heat shield, so we had to make it
habitable and get power there. We did that, and then we started
flying the Space Shuttle, and built the Space Station. And as
you guys had mentioned earlier, that Space Station's been
occupied now for over 20 years straight by human beings.
I would like to just recognize Dr. Whitson for what she's
done. I mean, she's a true hero to all Americans, especially
young women. I could spend all my time gushing about your
accomplishments, but I'll stick with the big one. This woman
spent 665 days in orbit over multiple missions. That's a record
for a human being in America, and for a woman in the entire
world. So thank you for your inspiration. I'd like to ask you--
one thing I'm concerned about is having a workforce for the
future, which means people getting STEM educations. Dr.
Whitson, how can you help us promote women getting that STEM
education and being the next Dr. Whitson?
Dr. Whitson. Well, I think they--being the next Dr. Stofan
might be more impressive.
Mr. Olson. She's----
Dr. Whitson. But in any case, I definitely think NASA
serves as an inspiration to a lot of our young people. It does
require that we get out there and reach people at a very young
age, I believe. I was nine when we first walked on the moon,
and that's when I wanted to become an astronaut. And when I
talk to young children, it is the age group that I think--
around that timeframe that is most influenced by people telling
them they can do some things, and achieve their goals. And so I
think it's really important that we get to young people, and
try to show them all the options that are out there, because,
if they're exposed to these things, and see people doing these
things where they might be in the future, it will inspire them.
Mr. Olson. Yes, if they could see Bruce McCandless on a
jetpack out there, in his own spacecraft, go out there and
drive around the Space Shuttle, that gets them inspired,
because I saw that firsthand growing up on the Johnson Space
Center. Dr. Stofan, like to add that comment, women in STEM?
Any comments?
Dr. Stofan. I think, you know, Marian Wright Edelman said
if you can't see it, you can't be it, and so I think it's
critically important that we get role models like Peggy out
there as much--we try to tell all the stories in our museum.
It's one of our goals for renovating the National Air and Space
Museum, to make sure we tell all the stories. And I just think
it's critically important that we show girls that they can be
not just pilots and astronauts, but also someone who's building
airplanes, someone who's repairing aircraft, someone who's
building spacecraft. They can do anything.
Mr. Olson. Let's just talk about the moon mission. In my
humble opinion, I think that's the right mission for us. It was
canceled by the Obama Administration constantly. I thought that
was a mistake. But Mr. Trump has it coming back. I've heard
from experts, if we're going to Mars, to train for that, we
should probably train at the moon, in terms of gravity. You
know, Mars has 1/3 of our gravity, the moon has 1/6. I know the
pool there in Houston is great, but it's not actually training
there. Also we talked about the Space Station debris. Hey, how
about a Space Station on the moon? No debris issues. And so,
Dr. Whitson, how do you think going to the moon helps us with
here on Earth, a Space Station transition, and going to Mars
and beyond?
Dr. Whitson. Well, I think one of the most important
aspects of our future research is actually trying to understand
how we can utilize the resources either on the moon or on Mars
in order to----
Mr. Olson. Water.
Dr. Whitson. Yes, water being a prime one, but there are
lots of resources. For instance, if we can take the carbon
dioxide out of the Martian atmosphere and make it into oxygen,
these are the ways that we are going to be able to sustain our
exploration--sustain our presence. And all of it is a building
block to get to where we want to be, which is Mars, for at
least 2020--or 33, and, you know, and beyond. So I really
believe that.
Mr. Olson. Well, thank you. I'll close by saying if you
ever have a program, like taking Members of Congress into
space, like Jake Hart and Bill Nelson, I'm number one in the
line.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you----
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson [continuing]. Very much. Dr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. You know, in this
conversation about getting more women into STEM, I think--I'm
going to make note that the Chairperson of the Science, Space,
and Technology Committee is a woman, that the Chairperson of
the Space Subcommittee is a woman, and I think they're role
models to inspire that next generation as well, as the father
of a daughter. I want her to dream big.
There's so much that I want to talk about in 5 minutes. You
know, ISS, what do we do next. I know we've talked a little bit
about situational awareness, but we've touched on space debris,
how do we clean up space. You know, commercial space, as more
startup companies, et cetera, start to get into this area, and
as more international institutions get into the space--who is
the air traffic controller? How do we navigate that? How do we
do all that? I'd like the United States to write the rules of
that road, that we can then take to the rest of the world.
Obviously another one.
We talked about Mars 2033. As a child of the Apollo
missions, you know, growing up in Downey, California, which is
home of Rockwell International, and, you know, growing up with
a lot of my friends whose parents worked in the aerospace
industry, we challenged ourselves to do something we didn't
know how to do, yet we did it faster, and we put the
resources--it wasn't a Democratic or a Republican agenda. It
wasn't an Executive Branch or a congressional agenda. And if,
you know, I think it's possible for us to do Mars 2033. I think
it's at least possible for us to challenge ourselves to do
that, but it is going to take a long-term strategic vision. It
can't change from one Administration to the next.
It is going to take a cohesive Congress, working with NASA,
because you're looking at decade and multi-decadal challenges,
and--for both NASA, as well as the commercial sector, and our
partners out there, they can't make these investments if
they're going to change every 4 years, and I think that's the
challenge on us, that we ought to step up and actually put that
strategic plan together.
A colleague touched on workforce issues as well. I do want
to make sure NASA has that workforce. The impact of the
government shutdown, my understanding is we lost some critical
talent that we may never get back, and, again, I would put that
on this body not to do that again, because it is hard enough
for us to recruit the scientists that we need to fill these
critical agencies. If we lose them, we're not getting them
back. So let me ask a question, I guess.
Often in this body folks only see the allocations that
we're making, the moneys that we're appropriating. Yes, we
spent a lot of money on the Apollo mission, but we rarely
quantify that return on investment, all the technologies that
come about that. And I don't know if that's something that
we've ever actually done, and maybe, Dr. Stofan, if we think
about, you know, these aren't just cash outlays. These are
investments that we're making, and there's huge return on those
investments, and----
Dr. Stofan. There's a number of different numbers out
there. I know that NASA did one smaller-scale study looking at
technology investments through the ISS, and what the return on,
and you'll--if you Google this, which I have, you'll see
numbers between sort of $3 and $5 in return for every dollar
invested. I'm not sure there's ever been actually a rigorous
study done, except for in small individual areas of NASA, but I
think the benefit is clear. If NASA can publish a 1-inch thick
volume every single year on spinoffs that came out of the Space
Station, that's enough evidence for me.
Mr. Bera. I mean, it's pretty amazing. I had a chance to
visit the NASA Ames facility in my home State of California,
and visit a company called Made In Space that is doing 3D
printing, and learning how we could 3D print the resources that
we need, so if we go to the moon, you know, we're not going to
have to ship all the materials up there, if they could take
moon dust, turn that into the building blocks to build a
habitable place on the moon. Same thing if we go to Mars. And
the applications here at home are going to be tremendous as
well. As a doctor, what we're learning off of the Space Station
with regards to health, as we try to better understand and
address the growing impact of climate change and global
warming, what we're going to learn from space, and through the
space missions is going to be incredibly important to help us
address some of our domestic challenges.
So, I do think, for this Committee, and for the
Subcommittee, it probably does make sense for us to think about
how we articulate the investment, but the real return on
investment. How it is going to help us both economically, but
also address some of the challenges. So, with that, I'll yield
back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate all of
our witnesses being here today. I just think this kind of
discussion is extremely good as we try to make decisions about
the budget and so on, but my first question goes to Dr.
Whitson. I just want to compliment you for serving as the
Commander of the International Space Station not once, but
twice, that had to be an interesting experience. I'm not sure
I'm ready to go with Dr. Olson yet, so I think I'll take a
while to get in shape. But anyway, you make mention--I found
this interesting. You make mention about the early stages of
human habitation on the moon's surface, and--while we're taking
advantage of local resources, and then someone mentioned water
again, as you did in your testimony. So I guess my question is
how applicable is it that we make a test run to the moon,
maybe, and take advantage of some of the resources there as we
try to go to Mars? Is that an essential component to our
research?
Dr. Whitson. I think it will be. We have found so many
things in the 20 years of operating on ISS that, you know, we
have brilliant engineers, but once we get it up there, and we
test it out, we find out, well, maybe we ought to modify it to
work better. And I think doing some of that exploratory testing
on the lunar surface can help us be better prepared for what we
will find when we get to Mars, because that's a lot, lot
farther away. And so being better prepared is going to make the
mission more likely to succeed.
But I think taking advantage of those resources that we can
find on the moon potentially could even serve as a fuel depot
if we--and send us out to Mars even easier. So that's an option
for us, that we would build on the stepping stone of
infrastructure to get us further and further out into space. So
I really do feel that those steps are going to be important for
us, and it's a good place for us to learn, where we're just a
few days away from Earth, rather than, you know, 6, 8 months.
Mr. Baird. I share your concern there. That's anyway, my
second question also goes to Dr. Whitson, and that's regarding,
you know, the public's attention is drawn many times to NASA's
activities in outer space, and yet we continue to work with
critical forward-leaning technologies, such as low-boom
supersonic demonstrators and hypersonic aircraft. So the
question is, how can NASA best serve our Nation's needs for
aviation research and development, and how should we focus in
our limited resources when it comes to aeronautics?
Dr. Whitson. Well, I think definitely NASA's still doing a
lot of cutting-edge research in aeronautics, as well as space
research, so I am very supportive of what we're doing to
develop supersonic space flight. I think it'll be a great
spinoff, maybe even used by--commercially for other companies
within the United States, hopefully building new aircraft that
are going to take us further and faster, but also all of the
software and other technologies developed to keep aircraft safe
while in low--the really low Earth orbit.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. My next question, then, goes to Dr.
Stofan, and that deals with, you know, we're starting a new
Congress here, and we have an opportunity to take a critical
look at NASA's near-term goals and their aspirations. So my
first question is, what should NASA be focused on in the next
year or two, and then what issues demand the agency's immediate
attention? And I think some of that has been addressed already,
but, just for my sake, would you elaborate on that?
Dr. Stofan. Yes. I--to me the most critical thing, if you
look at NASA over the next couple years, it's going to be
maintaining the critical balance that NASA has across
astrophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and
heliophysics. Maintaining that scientific balance, making sure
the investments are being made to gather data from--space
weather came up earlier, to making sure that we're gathering
data that helps farmers around the country, helps us understand
our water resources around this country. Those data are
critical, and we need to pay attention to the--those critical
data sets.
And, as we move forward, saying, what is a sustainable,
affordable plan for getting humans into deep space is critical.
And then I'm very in favor, and happy, you brought up the
supersonic--the hypersonic work that NASA does. Those
investments really help move our aviation forward in this
country, so----
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And----
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Foster.
Mr. Foster. And thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
our panel. You know, one of the things that strikes me is the
difficulty in penciling out a, you know, sustainable,
affordable plan for a really aggressive move into space is that
in the last 50 years we've made very little progress in the
cost per kilogram of getting stuff into low Earth orbit. You
know, there's--if you look at all of the future plans, there's
very little that could not be completely understood by Wernher
von Braun, that we're up against fundamental physics limits in
the specific impulse of chemical rockets.
And you mentioned the hypersonic work. You know, there are
various ways--reusability. You know, the Shuttle was supposed
to use--to reduce the cost per kilogram into orbit. It did not
work. The cost of refurbishing space hardware to space
specifications, you know, is large. And we're--even the
proponents of reusing the booster stage, you know, claim less
than a factor of two cost reduction.
And so my question is, when you make long term plans, how
do you split your investment between just sort of using
equipment that we know how to build, and have known how to
build for 50 years, optimizing it somewhat, and investments in
fundamental transformative research, you know, things like
electromagnetic launch mechanisms, things like air breathing
systems that get most of the energy for low Earth orbit, where
you're at least getting the oxidizer from the atmosphere. And
how do you, you know, how do you split your investments, and
are we making a mistake by just, you know, doing the same thing
over, and over, and over, in terms of getting stuff into orbit?
We're now returning to heavy launch vehicles as the cheap way
to get stuff into orbit, which was the conclusion back in the
1960s.
And so it seems to me that we're underinvesting in the
long-term research, particularly in getting past the barrier to
getting into low Earth orbit. Anyone who wants to comment on
that?
Dr. Stofan. Yes. This is actually a pet issue of mine, and
it was certainly something I tried to work on at NASA. There's
always--when you're investing in future technologies, there's
always a really difficult trade into do I put my money toward a
flagship that maybe needs money to get off the ground 5 years
from now, or am I investing in truly transformative
technologies that are going to help us 20, 30 years down the
line to do the really bold things that we would like to do?
Whenever I go out and talk to elementary schools, or junior
highs, or even high schools, I tell them that they have to go
home that night and invent warp drive because of the very
issues you just outlined.
One of my favorite programs at NASA is called NIAC. It's
the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts, where they do take a
small--relatively small amount of money every year and invest
in really far out ideas. I think those technology investments
are really critical, and I would urge you, as you look at
NASA's budget, to say, OK, clearly you have to really focus on
near-term technologies, or we won't get the job in front of us
done. But taking some portion of the money and investing in
truly transformative technologies, I think, is critically
important.
Mr. Foster. And the nation that comes up with those
transformative technologies is going to own space, so it's my
opinion that we've been underinvesting in this. You see it in
national defense too. There were problems in the original Star
Wars plan, which contemplated thousands of launches to support
Star Wars, would've wrecked the upper atmosphere, OK? And this
is another fundamental problem with, you know, with chemical
rockets. And I really think it's another reason why we have to
get past just doing the same thing again and again. Any other
comments on that?
Dr. Whitson. Well, I would just add on, I do think that we
need to invest in newer technologies and research, and I think
even on the International Space Station they're planning to put
on a new ion propulsion to test.
Mr. Foster. Which doesn't get you into low Earth orbit. You
know, ion propulsion drives----
Dr. Whitson. Yes.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Have fantastic----
Dr. Whitson. That's true.
Mr. Foster [continuing]. Specific impulse, but they're
useless for getting into low Earth orbit. And related to that,
actually, is space nuclear power. There was a recent conference
that I got a chance to address it, NETS it's called, Nuclear
Engineering and Technology in Space, that was up at PNNL
(Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) a few weeks ago, and
one of the subjects there was the use of space nuclear
reactors. There are two main uses. One of them is for
propulsion, the other one is for power. When you actually go to
the moon, go to Mars, it would be nice to have a compact
nuclear reactor.
And one of the difficulties there is if all of the nations
which will be spacefaring, which might be a dozen in our
lifetimes, if they all start using high-enriched uranium, then
we will have many, many nuclear weapons' worth of weapons-grade
material used in those. And I was wondering what you think
about the usefulness of having the U.S. lead the world in
developing space-qualified reactor designs using low enriched,
non-weapons-grade uranium, and really making that the standard
for all spacefaring nations? Yes. Mr. Rose?
Mr. Rose. Sir, I don't think I'm competent to talk about
that, but I can take it for the record, if you'd like.
Mr. Foster. Yes. No, I think it's a very important issue,
which we have to face, you know, in the next few years, as we
define our space reactor R&D program. And I guess my time is
up, and--yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Babin.
Mr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
thank all of our illustrious witnesses for being here today,
and quite a record amongst the two ladies sitting out there.
And, as a father of three daughters and seven granddaughters,
that's very inspiring, so thank you for what you all have done.
On April 11, 2018, this Committee held a hearing titled,
``Scholars or Spies? Foreign Plots Targeting America's Research
and Development.'' On September 27, 2016, this Committee held a
hearing titled, ``Are We Losing the Space Race to China?'' On
20--June 20, 2014, this Committee held a hearing titled, ``NASA
Security: Assessing the Agency's Efforts to Protect Sensitive
Information.'' According to the U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission annual report, China continues to
pursue a broad counterspace program to challenge the U.S.
information superiority in a conflict, and disrupt or destroy
U.S. satellites, if necessary. Based on the number and
diversity of China's existing developmental counter-space
capabilities, China probably will be able to hold at risk U.S.
national security satellites at every orbital regime over the
next 5 to 10 years.
China also undertakes significant effort to acquire and
assimilate foreign technologies, especially from the United
States. And in 2007, China conducted an anti-satellite test,
which has already been mentioned today, that produced the
largest amount of orbital debris in a single event. NASA's
Orbital Debris Program Office estimated that roughly 30 percent
of the objects greater than 10 centimeters would still be in
orbit by 2035. In 2011 this debris passed within 6 kilometers
of the ISS.
Because of the risk posed by cooperation on space issues
with China, Section 530 of the Fiscal Year 2019 Appropriations
Act, as well as every Appropriations Act since 2011, prohibits
NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy bilateral
interaction with China unless the Administration can certify
that China does not pose a threat to U.S. technology, and that
they are no longer a violator of human rights.
So, Mr. Rose, should the Appropriations Committee revisit
this prohibition, and if so, how can we ensure the protection
of our national security, and prevent the theft of our Nation's
intellectual property?
Mr. Rose. Sir, I think you're absolutely correct, that
China is developing a full range of anti-satellite
capabilities, and I've been very outspoken on this, both----
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rose [continuing]. In----
Mr. Babin. Appreciate it.
Mr. Rose [continuing]. And outside of government. I did not
recommend in my testimony that the Congress repeal. I--what I
did recommend is that we need to manage China. We need a
comprehensive strategy, and as part of that comprehensive
strategy, the Committee should look at this. And this was
driven, my testimony, by some comments that Charlie Bolden, the
former administrator, made a couple of months ago. But I do not
discount the potential thread that China poses to our space
assets, however, we need to work with China on some of the
sustainability issues. So----
Mr. Babin. All right.
Mr. Rose [continuing]. You know, we've got to get a
balance.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you very much. I'd like to add
an op-ed here into the record, Madam Chair, if you don't mind?
``Navy Industry Partners are `Under Cyber Siege' by Chinese
Hackers, Review Asserts,'' if you don't mind.
Chairwoman Johnson. No objection.
Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you. Now, I'd also like to ask
all of you, if you don't mind, the International Space Station
is one of our Nation's greatest technological and international
achievements, and currently the U.S. and its partners are
planning to operate the ISS through 2024. According to the
National Research Council's Pathways Report from 2014, if NASA
maintains a presence on the ISS past 2024, without significant
increases to NASA's overall budget, it will lack the resources
to fund the development of systems that will push human
presence beyond low Earth orbit until late in the next decade.
This would leave the Orion vehicle without a clearly
defined mission, yet abandoning ISS could mean ceding global
leadership in low Earth orbit to other nations. How do we
resolve this dilemma? If additional funding is the answer,
where do you propose that we get the additional funding? And,
Dr. Whitson, I'd like to ask that question of you first, and
then, maybe, if we've got time, Dr. Stofan.
Dr. Whitson. Sure. I think it's a very complex question.
We've had to deal with it in the past in--for instance, we shut
down the Shuttle program with no capability to launch U.S.
citizens into orbit, and we are still waiting, 8 years later,
for that capability. So I think we have to be very careful
about how we plan a transition so that we can do it in such a
way that we still don't lose that leadership in low Earth orbit
as we transition further beyond. So I do think it's an
important question to ask.
I'm not sure where the money comes from, but I think if we
can encourage commercial, and maybe even more international
partnerships, maybe that could help us decrease the funding
from the ISS----
Mr. Babin. OK.
Dr. Whitson [continuing]. And allow it to go----
Mr. Babin. Can we indulge, Madam Chairman, Dr. Stofan?
Dr. Stofan. I agree with Peggy. I mean, the problem is,
obviously, it's been long recognized that you need that wedge
of funding that goes to the ISS, and certainly a deep space
gateway would be a destination for Orion. So I do think you
have to balance that retirement. And, as Peggy said, I think
commercial and international partnerships are critical to say,
how do we maintain a presence--a human presence in low Earth
orbit while NASA focuses its resources on the next destination?
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mrs. Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking
Member Lucas, for holding this important hearing today, and
thank you to the really excellent witnesses that we've heard
from testifying here this morning on the future of America in
Space. As a native Houstonian, I grew up proud to hear Neil
Armstrong's voice throughout my childhood saying, ``Houston,
Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.'' And, as a
Representative from the Houston delegation, along with my
colleagues here on the Committee, we all share that same pride
as a leader in space, and as a real home for NASA.
From the early days of the Gemini and Apollo missions,
through the Space Shuttle Program, and the International Space
Station, the Johnson Space Center continues to play, as it has,
a pivotal role in leading, managing, and operating America's
major human space programs. Additionally, the Johnson Space
Center is a positive force in the greater Houston region, and
plays a vital economic role in our community. The dollars spent
in procurements, grants to educational institutions and non-
profits, and aerospace contractors enhances business
development, and creates jobs in our region. And, as we've
heard today, investment in technology returns benefits that
many of us don't even realize as we use them, everything from
baby formula to ski boots. So I appreciate the testimony that
we've heard. We're committed to that.
But we are seeing a change--some changes in the industry,
and, Dr. Stofan, I'd like to hear from you a little bit more.
In your testimony you talked about finding the right balance
with the private sector that would allow NASA to focus on big-
picture exploration and cutting-edge science in aeronautics.
NASA is the second largest Federal employer in the Houston
area, with nearly 3,000 civil servants, and more than 7,000
Federal contractors. So what do you think is the best way to
foster cooperation that benefits NASA and the private sector as
we head into this commercialized area in the space industry?
Dr. Stofan. I think it's really thinking about roles and
responsibilities. So what is the private sector best suited to
do, and I think we've seen that with commercial crew coming
forward. We've certainly seen that amply demonstrated with
commercial cargo, where you've had SpaceX and Orbital Northrop
Grumman delivering cargo to the Space Station, and we're soon
to see SpaceX and Boeing sending crew to the Space Station.
And then, as we move to the moon, I think the question
becomes ever more complex. What should NASA be investing in,
where's the private sector going to put their investment, and
how does that balance out to, again, make sure that NASA can
continue its important science programs, its important
aeronautical research, and continue to move humans outward? And
so I think it is all about balance, and it's about looking at
what is the private sector willing to take on? And I think
we're going to see this, especially in the next decade, in
terms of low Earth orbit. We've made a lot of investment on
research on the Space Station. Is there an economic case, for
example, for manufacturing, for drug development in low Earth
orbit, where private companies will be willing to put the
majority of their dollars because they see a profit motive. And
that, I think, is going to play out over the next decade, and I
think it's not clear what's going to happen.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. Would anyone else like to weigh
in on that question?
Dr. Whitson. I'd just like to add, I do think the
International Space Station, on my last mission there, we were
conducting a lot more complex, and--what I would call cutting-
edge research. And I think there's going to be, you know, we
were growing stem cells of various types, and doing research on
new drugs and applications. And I do think that there can be a
commercial presence, or a commercial outcome, that will be
beneficial to pharmaceutical companies, or others like that, in
the future. And so I--but I think it's going to take some
advertising, I guess, to make that a reality.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. And, Mr. Rose, maybe I can take
part of that question and kind of apply it to something that
we've talked about, and you've been asked about a lot already
this morning, which is the discussion about the debris that
we're seeing. Do you think that there is potentially a role for
some of the private sector to deal with cleaning up space
debris, and preventing potential hazards and collisions from
occurring?
Mr. Rose. Absolutely, ma'am, but I think we need to do it
in a way to ensure it's consistent with our national security.
But the bottom line, you already have a number of companies and
private entities that are looking at debris removal capability.
So the bottom line is yes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank each of you
for being here with us today. Last year I participated in a
panel on space in Arizona. It was--two major missions were a
major focus of the conversation, and one of those missions is
Osiris-REx. It's being led by the University of Arizona, and
has already made contact with the asteroid Bennu. Another
mission, called Psyche, which will head out to an all-metal
asteroid of the same name, is scheduled to launch in 2022. That
mission is being led by Arizona State University (ASU),
notwithstanding our, you know, the recent developments on
bribery, and getting into universities, and they didn't want to
go to ASU. That's a shame, if they were interested in space, or
partying, apparently.
But you will see that there's a common thread to both of
these missions. They're both university-led missions. Osiris-
REx came in on time and on budget, and so far it looks like
Psyche's on time, and will probably be on budget as well. So my
question to you, our esteemed panel, great knowledge and
experience on this panel, and I am delighted to be able to ask
you this question, is--given that university-competable
missions have an impressive record, do you think we, as
policymakers, should encourage more of these joint efforts like
this? And, if so, what do you see is the best way to facilitate
that, both from the policymaker point of view, and also from
the agency point of view?
Dr. Stofan. Principal investigator (PI)-led missions--and
I'm a big fan of both of the missions you mentioned, Psyche and
Osiris-REx, incredible missions that are really going to help
us understand the fundamental building blocks that made our own
planet. These PI-led missions at NASA, whether it's in
planetary science, astrophysics, heliophysics, or Earth
science, where we do have a competed line--NASA does have
competed lines, you are right, those missions have a wonderful
track record of coming in on time and on budget.
And part of the reason is those missions have to go through
a pretty rigorous proposal process. And so, when I spoke
earlier about that upfront costing of a mission, and the effort
that has to go in, that's a big reason why those missions tend
to be--stay on budget. They go through a rigorous competition
process, and they really have to hone their estimates. And they
don't tend to try to do things that are really pushing
technology, really pushing what we can do.
Face it, when you look at the design of James Webb, it is
pushing every technology, from the sun shade to the mirrors
themselves, and so you're going to get into trouble because
there are so many unknown unknowns. With PI-led missions,
that's been driven down to a much smaller box.
Mr. Biggs. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the panel.
I want to focus a little bit more on the Earth. In 2009. the
National Academies published a study, ``America's Future in
Space,'' which listed, among other things, that NASA and NOAA
should lead the formation of an international satellite
observing architecture capable of monitoring global climate
change and its consequences. I am troubled, angry, a little bit
frightened by the fact that the Trump budgets have consistently
scaled back on those programs in their budget proposals,
including the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE)
mission, and the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity
Observatory (CLARREO) pathfinder mission, both of which were
designed to really study how our climate is changing, and what
we need to know to try to stay ahead of this, rather than
falling behind.
First question is for Dr. Stofan. Are we doing enough
currently to meet the recommendations made by the National
Academies in 2009, and if not, what kinds of investments should
we be prioritizing to make sure we're on top of climate science
in space?
Dr. Stofan. PACE and CLARREO were both recommendations of
the previous Decadal Survey, as you said, and there has
actually subsequently been a Decadal that came out a year ago
that had subsequent recommendations, but certainly I think it's
critically important for NASA to implement the Decadal, because
you've got scientists that come from around the country, really
put aside their own specific research and say, how do we really
pick the best missions to move the science forward? That's
where PACE and CLARREO came from. Those missions are critical
to help us understand this planet, and the recommendations of
the subsequent Decadal, when we now know so much more about
climate change, and so much more about how the effects of
climate change are affecting us right now, from increased
severe weather, to impacts on agriculture. Too much water in
some places, too little in other places. So the missions that
the scientific community recommends are really critical not
just to helping us understand and model climate change, but to
help us mitigate the effects that we are already seeing, not
just in this country, but around the world.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. You'd mentioned mitigation, and
watching, I want to focus somewhat more narrowly now on the
actual emissions release, and--for non-CO2
greenhouse gases. In 2014, a European Space Agency (ESA)
satellite found, between 2003 and 2009, a methane hot spot in
the four corners region. It was tied to natural gas production,
and the numbers that I was just blown away by was that, after
they had actually crunched the data, it turned out that the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) estimates of fugitive
emissions were off by 50, 75, 80 percent. Without ESA's
satellite, we never would have even spotted the leak, much less
have had a sense of that.
In 2015, there was a gas leak at a facility in Aliso Canyon
Oil Field in Southern California that released 100,000 tons of
methane. And methane, as you know, but it's, you know, it's
about 80 times as potent a greenhouse gas over 10 years as
CO2. The satellite technologies deployed together
within the private sector, and those proposed for use in the
Environmental Defense Fund's methane sat could easily detect
those kind of leaks.
My question for you all is, do we currently have a
satellite network that's necessary to detect that, or are we
going to rely on other governments or the private sector to
keep an eye on that?
Dr. Stofan. Right now that is the situation, and that--I
believe methane was--monitoring methane was something that came
out of the most recent Decadal. So the fact the private sector
is coming forward with a satellite--methane is very hard to
measure from space. Getting the right resolution, making sure
that you're accurately measuring it is tough, so it's been an
area that's needed technology development that's been going on.
But, as you say, the Europeans had come forward with a
satellite. The U.S. has been studying methane monitoring. And,
as you say, it's all about intelligence. If you can measure
things on the ground, you can then make the decisions that you
need to make. If we don't know what's happening, especially
with methane, which is such a potent greenhouse gas, as you
say, you know, you're working in the blind. So these satellite
data are incredibly important not just for the scientific
community, but for decisionmakers who have to decide how to
best manage the environment locally, regionally, and in this
country.
Mr. Casten. And question for all the panelists, would it be
fair to conclude that relying on that data from the private
sector and other governments, both in the climate space and for
other purposes, frankly, is a risk to our national security, to
our wellbeing, and ultimately to our competitiveness?
Dr. Whitson. Well, certainly to the competitiveness, I
think. We need to be able to--we need to lead, if we're going
to lead. We have to be there.
Mr. Rose. I don't have anything to add, sir.
Mr. Casten. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just to echo some of
the other sentiments of my colleagues, I was just on the floor
of the House in commemoration of National Women's History
Month, and also, as a son of a single mother, and father of a
15-year-old girl, I truly applaud the groundbreaking, ceiling-
breaking work that both of you have done.
This Committee, I think, really has--and all of us really
have, I think, a mission and a mandate to continue to explain
to all Americans, and to educate all Americans, how dependent
our modern way of life is on space, from over-the-horizon
navigation, to our banking system, to how we communicate, all
things that we've talked about today. But I don't think that is
fully realized by everyone, and I commend your work to continue
to do that, and I certainly take that on as one of my missions.
But then also, at the same time, as we've talked about, how
fragile that infrastructure is. It's not built for redundancy,
it's not built for survivability, and it truly, I think, is a
national vulnerability at this point.
I do want to take a moment, though, to applaud this
Administration for breathing new life into the Space Council,
the space policy directives, my colleagues, and their op-eds.
Along those lines, I do think it's worth noting that NASA is
the only civilian agency in the President's budget that just
came over that is not looking at a potential cut. And, of
course, we're so excited about the private sector. I represent
Northeast Florida, and space is in our DNA, and I think that
triangle between Cape Canaveral, Daytona, and Embry-Riddle,
which is an aeronautical university which is in my district in
Orlando, truly can be at the heart of the future space
industry. So, to questions.
I wanted to give you, Mr. Rose, a chance to also weigh in
on this perception, perhaps reality, that there's this kind of
zero sum, from a budgetary standpoint, in sustaining the Space
Station, and having the resources to truly make the moon and
deep space a reality. Is that a viable path to expand the
partnerships, and to truly make that available for commercial
use in the timeframe that we need, in your opinion?
Mr. Rose. Sir, to be honest with you, I don't know. As I
mentioned----
Mr. Waltz. OK.
Mr. Rose [continuing]. Earlier, I'm kind of a military
space guy, so I don't----
Mr. Waltz. OK.
Mr. Rose [continuing]. Know the answer, sorry.
Mr. Waltz. That's OK. But I was just out at the National
Reconnaissance Office and, for me, what was so telling there
was how interdependent all of these things are. I mean, just
the things that they're able to do now because of what the
private sector is doing, and the affordability of launch, all
of those things, is really fantastic.
Then maybe I'll open it up to a broader question. How can
NASA do things better? I mean, it's one thing to say we need
more, you know, more is always better in terms of resources, I
got it, but there is an efficiency component here, and there's
a perception, at least coming to me, someone who's new to the
Committee, that NASA sees each of its programs as somewhat
siloed, or maybe they are siloed, as competing for limited
resources. So how do we change that sentiment, if you agree
that it exists, to cultivate a more streamlined agency, and how
can we help?
Dr. Whitson. Well, I think one of the best ways we can do
that is to expand on what we've done with commercial cargo and
commercial crew, to try and take advantage of the innovative
ideas out there, and have them developed in part by private
agencies, giving them a platform and a place to go. In essence
we pay for it, but much less than what it would cost us if we
had done it ourselves. So I think we need to expand on those
capabilities throughout--wherever we can, whether it's other
technologies that we can develop on the moon for----
Mr. Waltz. Do you sense that--or is government being a
hindrance or help? And----
Dr. Whitson. I think----
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. I mean, what can we do from, you
know, from our foxhole here?
Dr. Whitson. Overall I think the government provides the
leadership--NASA provides the leadership that is required. And
even our international partners that we work with say, well,
when's NASA going to have the definitive plan, so that we can
get on board? Because they expect us to be the leader, and we
need to serve that role as a leader. I think NASA is that role.
Mr. Waltz. So having, or better communicating, the--those
long-range objectives----
Dr. Whitson. Yes.
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Right, that the private sector can
then----
Dr. Whitson. Yes.
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. You know, make sensible investments
into. Is that a fair statement?
Dr. Whitson. And to integrate it with the plans in such a
way as to optimize the outcome, and get----
Mr. Waltz. Should the private sector be part of the
planning process, or is it, you know, we plan, and then we'll
let you know what it is?
Dr. Whitson. I don't think it would hurt to have the
private sector as a part of the planning process.
Mr. Waltz. OK. Thank you. I yield my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Just want to make
a comment, there was a 2.3 decrease in the budget. Thank you.
It really doesn't keep up with inflation. Ms. Stevens.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you so much, and thank you to our
distinguished panelists for joining us for this exciting
hearing on ``America in Space: Future Visions, Current
Issues''. I represent a district in southeastern Michigan, the
suburbs of Detroit, known for its auto industry, known for what
we do here on planet Earth, but our robust supply chain is also
deeply connected to aerospace. Some of NASA's prime
contractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, are
responsible for many contracts, many awards, and, in fact, we
have up to 80 companies in Michigan alone that have helped to
build NASA's space exploration systems to the moon, Mars, and
beyond. So deeply appreciate the big visions that we have
discussed today, particularly as tied to another asset that we
here in Michigan appreciate, and that is the technical
workforce, and the best-in-class workforce. And I know that
workforce development and skills training has come up today,
along with commercialization, which we'll continue to push on.
My first question is for you, Dr. Stofan. I read through
your testimony, and appreciate everything that you packed in in
what is the 5 minutes that you get to do your testimony. One
line in particular jumped out to me, the discovery of
extraterrestrial life, as you described, being a defining
moment in the 21st century, just as the moon landing was. And,
for those of you watching at home, I imagine, you know, we have
visions of what extraterrestrial life is. Movies tend to define
it, but I was wondering, from your scientific standpoint, could
you kind of give us a description of what extraterrestrial life
might be?
Dr. Stofan. Yes. And I'm afraid for so many people
listening at home they might be a little disappointed that I'm
not talking about little green men, especially if we're looking
at fossil evidence of life on Mars, if we're looking under the
icy crust of Europa. We're probably talking about microbes, and
I'd have to take you back to the fact that life here on Earth
evolved in the oceans. It stayed in the oceans for over a
billion years, and it really didn't get much past single cell,
you know, pond scum, algae, for a really, really long time, so
billions of years to get very complex life. So when we look
outward in our solar system, we're really anticipating we're
going to find sort of single cell, maybe very simple multi-
celled organisms.
So you might say, well, then, why are we looking? That's so
boring. It's not boring, because we have these fundamental
questions. Do they--does it have cell structure that--like our
life here on Earth does? Does it have RNA, does it have DNA,
and how can we use that information to better understand life
here on Earth?
Ms. Stevens. And what would it mean for us--and I don't
know if this was your testimony. I know it's come up today. But
what would it mean for us to kind of look to put some sort of
colony on Mars, or some long-term colonization on Mars?
Dr. Stofan. You know, Mars is really hard, and Peggy can
answer this better than I can, but, you know, Mars is hard. So
when you think of those initial scientists, engineers, doctors
going to Mars, think a little bit more like an Antarctic
outpost. You know, Mars is tough. It's--there's a lot of
radiation on the surface. It's a tough environment for humans,
so it's going to start small, and grow over time.
Dr. Whitson. And I think the--that it will be successful if
we can take advantage of those resources we can use there. So--
because the more we have to send things to orbit, the more
expensive it gets. And if we can, you know, make our own oxygen
out of the CO2 in their atmosphere--and think about
what--that might have impacts here on Earth too. But if we can
remove the oxygen from the--or the CO2 from the
Martian atmosphere and make oxygen, you know, that'll be a huge
savings for us. And just that development of making
structures--three dimensionally making structures out of
materials that are found there, that will make a plan like that
feasible. Otherwise, it just--it's not going to be feasible. It
would just take too many launches and too much money to get us
there.
Ms. Stevens. We frequently say on this Committee that the
Science Committee is the best kept secret in Congress, and I
think saying make your own oxygen is another example of how
that can be the case. With just the last remaining seconds, Mr.
Rose, I wanted to get you in here. We really appreciated your
comments on bilateral--multinational relationships, and I think
that gets important as, you know, even if it's microbes, as we
talk about, you know, longstanding presence on Mars, what--
could you speak to that?
Mr. Rose. Ma'am, I would say international cooperation is
key to everything we do in the future with regards to space,
whether that's civil or national security.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. I'll yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I really appreciate you being here. I
echo the comments, this is the fun committee to be on. This is
Plan B for me. I initially wanted to be an astronaut, so I'm a
little jealous. But, you know, for us the challenge is, you
know, I want to kind of look at the national security
competitive aspects to the situation, and I've been committee
hopping, so I apologize if I'm repeating anything. But the
challenge for us is it's our job to manage the checkbook, and
so we're looking at national security issues. No doubt space is
important from our commerce, from military assets, from having
the high ground on information, how integrated it is with our
phones, and, you know, just--GPS, and everything we do
nowadays, but yet many defense experts are now looking at our
national debt, they'll list that as the primary concern from a
national security standpoint.
And so, you know, we all buy into how awesome flagship
missions are, not debating whether they should be, but then, at
the same time, we've seen this explosion in the commercial
space industry of innovation, and being able to do things--and
it's grown pretty quickly, in the sense of being able to be
innovators, and do things efficiently. And even your comments,
in the sense that seems to be where the innovation is, or a lot
of it, at this point, is in the commercial space industry, and
being able to do things efficiently and effectively. You know,
I think back to the failure is not an option days. I would've
thought NASA is the primary innovator. So how do we kind of
bring that together? I can't help but wonder, is there a
culture issue, in a sense, that, you know, we have James Webb
on one hand, we have explosion of innovation on the other hand.
Is there something NASA can do to be innovative, to begin to do
things more efficiently? Is that even a question, or do we kind
of fall back on the flagship argument? Which is a valid one,
not debating it, but----
Dr. Stofan. You know, I think NASA is doing things
innovatively, and I think when you look at the design of Webb,
that's innovation in and of itself. And I would remind you, you
know, we're trying to image within a few million years of the
Big Bang. We are measuring the atmospheres of planets around
other stars. We are doing amazing things, and that's what 60
years of leadership at NASA has done. It has made us the world
leaders in astrophysics, in Earth science, in planetary
science, in heliophysics. It puts us in an amazing position,
and with each of those innovations comes leadership and
technology, and those technologies spin off in ways that
benefit our economy.
Dr. Whitson. And I'd just like to add on, just to clarify
my previous statement about--commercial providers are doing
things very innovatively. They can do them faster than NASA.
NASA is also doing things in an innovative way, but we have a
different focus, a different mission, that we're looking
further into the future for. And so I think that is the
distinction between the two. NASA is an incredible problem
solver. We're taking the really, really big problems and trying
to bite them--make them into bite-size pieces. And I think if
we can hand some of those pieces off to commercial to do a
faster turnaround, then together I think we can be the problem
solvers that will get us to the lunar----
Mr. Cloud. I've talked to some people in the private space
industry that, of course, most of those came from NASA, and,
you know, the brain trust has been dispersed in a sense, and
asked them specifically, like, what's the difference? And just
the ability to move quicker, I think, was part of it. And I,
you know, I don't know if there's stuff that we could do to
make that simpler on you either, and I'd be open to those kind
of ideas.
Mr. Rose, in a recent article advocating for the creation
of U.S. Space Command, you acknowledged that both Russia and
China are developing anti-satellite weapons to threaten the
U.S. and our allies. Are we prepared to respond to an anti-
satellite attack?
Mr. Rose. Sir, we are getting better. And I want to stress
that this is something that the Obama Administration was
working on, and I give a lot of credit to the Trump
Administration for highlighting public attention on this. We
need to do a couple of things. One, we need to enhance our
diplomatic efforts to develop norms of behavior, but second we
need to enhance the resiliency of our space architectures. One
of the reasons Russia and China are developing these
capabilities is because they believe we have an asymmetric
vulnerability.
So going to one of your first points, I think it's in
critical--it's critical that we provide sufficient budgetary
support for enhancing the resiliency of our national security
space architectures.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Madam Johnson--Madam Chair. Thank
each one of you for taking your time to come here. We value
your service.
Mr. Rose, I--you made a comment that we need more civil
dialog, and I think norms of behavior. I'm from South Carolina.
We have Shaw Air Force Base. I got a front row seat to China
when I went in that small company in Chesterfield, South
Carolina that had a center of the business walled off. I said,
can I get in--can I go see it? No. Why not? Well, we had a
particular person who had the magic patent that knew how to
make this particular item. Lo and behold, a month later, he was
gone. Lo and behold, when they did the research, he was hired
by a China firm. They're now competing with--they paid him a
lot of money. I had a front row seat when I went up in that F-
16, and the pilot, when you mentioned China, his face, not only
did it get red, it got--and he wouldn't say anything. He just
said, we've got a problem.
And I guess what I would add is China is a dictatorship.
They're not choir boys. They don't sell Girl Scout cookies on a
daily basis. I guess I would ask, and this is kind of in line
with Congressman Cloud, the only thing that I think they
understand is leverage, and the only thing--you can have all
the civil dialog that you want. I agree in being civil, but the
bottom line, if they can make money, if they can steal your
patents and your product, you see that as a problem?
Mr. Rose. I certainly--sorry. I certainly see that as a
problem, and my point is, sir, civil dialog alone is not going
to solve the China problem. It needs to be part of a package
that includes military capabilities. Very much with regards to
the Soviets in the 1970s, you know? In the 1970s we had a very
strong deterrence posture against the Soviets, but we also had
opportunities for civil cooperation, the Apollo-Soyuz mission,
for example.
So my bottom line is we have to go into this with our eyes
wide open about China. I believe that we are in a great power
competition, but dialog needs to be part of our response, not
just military capabilities. Military capabilities, but they're
not enough.
Mr. Norman. Which do they respond to more, dialog or
military capability?
Mr. Rose. I think we need to have solid military
capabilities to ensure we have successful dialog.
Mr. Norman. OK. Thank you. One thing--in my State of South
Carolina, NASA has had a tremendous impact. All three major
research universities receive funding from NASA. NASA is often
thought to be confined to the States of Texas and Florida, and
it's obvious to me that NASA research should be done across the
Nation. Can any of you expand on the benefits and why we need
that?
Dr. Stofan. You know, the strong NASA research takes
place--in astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, and
planetary science takes place in universities all across this
country, and that's critical because the best brains are
located all across the country. And that investment, also, is
encouraging the next generation to get involved in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. So I believe
the creative research, the innovative research that's taking
place out at universities around the country, that NASA sends
the far bulk of its research dollars out the door into the
academic system, out to industry, is critically important for
the health of the agency, but for the health of the country.
Mr. Norman. Dr. Whitson?
Dr. Whitson. I concur with Dr. Stofan. And, you know, we
have 10 NASA centers throughout, you know, the United States,
and the contractors that provide all our supplies for Space
Station, you know, it's--almost every State has a contributor
in some form or fashion. And so I think we are very
distributed--NASA is very distributed throughout our Nation.
Mr. Norman. Thank you. Mr. Rose?
Mr. Rose. Nothing to add.
Mr. Norman. Great. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. That concludes our
last questioner. Let me express my great appreciation to our
witnesses, Dr. Stofan, Dr. Whitson, and Mr. Rose. We appreciate
you being here, and for all you've done.
And before we close the hearing, I want to announce that
the record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional
statements from the Members, or for any additional questions
the Committee may ask the witnesses. Our witnesses are now
excused, and the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Ellen Stofan
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Peggy Whitson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Frank Rose
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Representative Brian Babin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]