[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF NASA'S PLANS FOR
THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES IN LOW EARTH ORBIT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 10, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-34
__________
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
36-914PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Puerto Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
DON BEYER, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
KATIE HILL, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
July 10, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Written statement............................................ 15
Witnesses:
Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
The Honorable Paul Martin, Inspector General, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Dr. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Emerita, University of Mississippi,
Editor-in-Chief, Emerita, Journal of Space Law
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Discussion....................................................... 59
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human
Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration........................... 84
The Honorable Paul Martin, Inspector General, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration........................... 91
Dr. Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, Emerita, University of Mississippi,
Editor-in-Chief, Emerita, Journal of Space Law................. 93
A REVIEW OF NASA'S PLANS FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND
FUTURE ACTIVITIES IN LOW EARTH ORBIT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kendra
Horn [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recess at any time.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our panel of
distinguished witnesses. I appreciate you being here, and I
look forward to our discussion today.
And before I begin with my opening statement, I do want to
acknowledge the panel and say thank you for your testimony, but
to express, just to be clear, that we didn't receive the
testimony from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration) and from Mr. Stallmer until late yesterday
evening, which, in the future--I understand we all have a lot
going on, but it really makes it easier for us to--or helpful
for us to prepare for this if we're able to review the
testimony further in advance. So I'll just make a request to
all of you that hopefully we can expedite that more in the
future so we're not cramming the night before. And as a
lifelong procrastinator, I understand, but if you all could
help us out with that, it would be very, very much appreciated
because we've got some very important issues to tackle here
today.
So to begin, beginning our hearing on ``A Review of NASA's
Plans for the International Space Station and the Future of
Activities in Low Earth Orbit.''
For nearly 20 years, the International Space Station (ISS)
has expanded our understanding of what it means to live and
work in space. Our investment in the ISS has enabled scientific
research, development, and technology demonstrations from DNA
sequencing to advanced technology for water purification
worldwide, and much more. More importantly, we haven't done
this alone. The ISS is a shining example of international
cooperation, as well as innovative relationships for
transportation services and expanded partner use of the ISS
National Laboratory.
I want to acknowledge the NASA, international, and
commercial partners who continue to ensure the safe and
productive operation of the ISS. As the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel noted, the ISS program deals with ``the
challenges of operating in the space environment in such a way
to make it seem normal business.'' That's quite an
accomplishment. However, there is nothing normal about
operating in human spaceflight. I know you all are aware of
that. And aging spacesuits and delays in the availability of
U.S. commercial crew transportation services are just a few of
the risks that need to be addressed looking forward at ISS.
In addition to dealing with these and other near-term
challenges involved in sustaining the ISS, we also need to look
at what lies ahead. While NASA has affirmed the integrity of
the ISS structure through at least 2028, the lifetime of the
laboratory is finite. What will come next? How will NASA and
the Nation ensure that the objectives for ISS are sustained
following the end of ISS operations, whenever that occurs? And
what are the steps that are needed to occur such that we can
have confidence in avoiding the gap between the ISS and a
future low-Earth orbit (LEO) facility?
NASA's International Space Station Transition Report
identifies options, including ``transitioning the ISS platform
to private industry, augmenting it with privately developed
modules, combining portions of the ISS with a new private
platform, or deploying a new free-flying platform and
deorbiting the ISS.'' I'm looking forward to learning more
about these and other approaches because when and how we
transition NASA's activities in low-Earth orbit from the ISS to
an alternative platform or operating module is critical.
NASA has made clear its plans to transition from a
government-owned and operated ISS ``to a regime where NASA is
one of many customers purchasing services from a LEO
nongovernmental human space flight enterprise.'' This leaves a
number of important and urgent questions that must be
addressed: Who are those other customers? What does NASA's
vision mean? In terms of NASA's commercial LEO development
plan, what is the value proposition for the U.S. taxpayer? What
level of investment is the private sector willing to make? Are
NASA's planned investments in stimulating a commercial market
demand and supply in LEO going to ensure a smooth transition
and prevent a gap in NASA's ISS and low-Earth orbit activities?
The challenge here is in the balance of risk and reward.
Under this plan, the commercial entities aren't the ones
assuming the bulk of the risk; that falls to NASA. And yet the
potential benefits to the government and taxpayer are uncertain
at best.
The question then is what the U.S. taxpayer will be on the
hook to fund. With no near-term market other than NASA, there
is a real question about the cost to the taxpayer. NASA
currently pays more than $3 billion a year to operate the
International Space Station, a worthwhile investment. But on
top of that, NASA's plans to fund the development of one or
more commercial space stations, subsidize commercial activity
on the ISS, and purchase services from future commercial space
stations call into question whether this plan will save NASA
money that it can apply to the moon program or if it will end
up costing us more, not less, over the next decade. I look
forward to getting more into the details.
NASA's plan may result in impacts to ISS research and
technology development that is needed to enable human
exploration of the moon, Mars, and more, which is why these
issues are so critical. We also need to understand the
potential implications of the plan for ISS and international
partnership on which NASA intends to build its future human
space exploration.
In closing, the low-Earth orbit and microgravity
environment may in time support a commercially viable market.
NASA has already taken initiatives to support commercial space
through its development of commercial cargo services,
commercial crew capabilities, and enabling research and
development in low-Earth orbit. While NASA's interest in
finding innovative approaches and stimulating a commercial
market in low-Earth orbit are well-intended, we need to be
responsible with the taxpayers' investment in the ISS as a
national and international asset, and we need to carefully
consider how we ensure a successful transition of our ISS
activities going forward.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Horn follows:]
Good morning, and welcome to our distinguished panel of
witnesses. I appreciate your being here, and I look forward to
our discussion.
For nearly twenty years, the International Space Station
has expanded our understanding of what it means to live and
work in space. Our investments in the ISS have enabled
scientific research, development, and technology demonstrations
from DNA sequencing to advanced technology for water
purification, now used worldwide.
More importantly, we haven't done it alone. The ISS is a
shining example of international cooperation as well as
innovative relationships for transportation services and
expanded partner users of the ISS National laboratory.
I want to acknowledge the NASA, international, and
commercial partners who continue to ensure the safe and
productive operation of the ISS. As the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel noted, the ISS Program deals with ``the
challenges of operating in the space environment in such a way
as to make it seem `normal' business.''
However, there is nothing normal about human spaceflight.
Aging spacesuits and delays in the availability of U.S.
commercial crew transportation services are just a few of the
risks that need to be addressed.
In addition to dealing with these and other near term
challenges involved in sustaining the ISS, we must also look to
what lies ahead.
While NASA has affirmed the integrity of the ISS structure
through at least 2028, the lifetime of the laboratory is
finite. What will come next? How will NASA and the nation
ensure that the objectives for the ISS are sustained following
the end of ISS operations, whenever that occurs? What are the
steps that need to occur such that we can have confidence in
avoiding a gap between the ISS and a future low Earth orbit
facility?
NASA's International Space Station Transition Report
identifies options, including ``transitioning the ISS platform
to private industry, augmenting it with privately developed
modules, combining portions of the ISS with a new private
platform, or deploying a new free-flying platform and de-
orbiting the ISS.''
I'm looking forward to learning more about these, and any
other approaches, because when and how we transition NASA's
activities in low Earth orbit from the ISS to an alternative
platform or operating model is critical.
NASA has made clear its plans to transition from a
government-owned and operated ISS ``to a regime where NASA is
one of many customers purchasing services from a LEO non-
governmental human space flight enterprise.''
This leaves a number of important and urgent questions that
must be addressed.
LWho are those other customers? What does NASA's
vision mean?
LIn terms of NASA's commercial LEO development
plan, what is the value proposition for the U.S. taxpayer?
LWhat level of investment is the private sector
willing to make?
LAre NASA's planned investments in stimulating
commercial market demand and supply in LEO going to ensure a
smooth transition and prevent a gap in NASA's ISS and low Earth
orbit activities?
The challenge here is the balance of risk and reward. Under
this plan the commercial entities aren't the ones assuming the
bulk of the risk, that falls to NASA yet the potential benefits
to the Government and taxpayer are uncertain at best. The
question is what the U.S. taxpayer will be on the hook to fund.
With no near-term market other than NASA, there is a real
question about the cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
NASA currently pays more than $3 billion a year to operate
the ISS. On top of that, NASA plans to fund the development of
one or more commercial space stations, subsidize commercial
activity on the ISS, and purchase services from future
commercial space stations.
Will this plan save NASA money that it can apply to its
Moon program, or will it end up costing NASA more, not less,
over the next decade? I look forward to getting the details.
NASA's plan, may result in impacts on the ISS research and
technology development that is needed to enable human
exploration of the Moon and Mars and more.
We also need to understand the potential implications of
the plan for the ISS international partnership on which NASA
intends to build its future human exploration plans?
In closing, the low-Earth orbit and microgravity
environment may in time support a viable commercial market.
NASA has already taken initiatives to support commercial space
through its development of commercial cargo services,
commercial crew capabilities, and enabling research and
development in low Earth orbit. While NASA's interest in
finding innovative approaches to stimulating a commercial
market in low Earth orbit are well intended, we need to be
responsible with the taxpayers' investment in the ISS as a
national and international asset, and we need to carefully
consider how we ensure a successful transition of our ISS
activities going forward.
Chairwoman Horn. And now I will turn to Ranking Member Mr.
Babin for your opening statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I want
to say thank you to our distinguished witnesses here today. And
also, I'd like to extend a welcome to several folks that are up
here from my district from Johnson Space Center (JSC). If you
would stand if you're out there from Johnson Space Center. Oh,
man, we've got half the room. OK. I knew there were some
familiar faces out there, but I wanted to say welcome. I hope
you're learning a lot up here about legislation and some of the
activities that we're going to talk about today are right in
their bailiwick is some of their responsibilities, so thank you
for being up here.
But anyway, thank you, Chairwoman Horn, for holding this
hearing. The International Space Station is one of humanity's
highest technological achievements. As an internationally built
and operated orbiting laboratory, the ISS conducts critical
research that helps us both on Earth and in space. As a
multinational project, this engineering marvel illustrates the
power of U.S. leadership on the frontiers of this exploration.
NASA has worked very hard to conquer the challenges of low-
Earth orbit. We have learned how the human body reacts to the
microgravity environment, and we're still learning, I might
say. And we have grown food, crystalized proteins, we've
launched satellites, we've conducted scientific observations of
the Earth and the stars above.
During the 115th Congress, I introduced the Leading Human
Spaceflight Act, which, among other provisions, would extend
the authorization of the ISS from 2024 to 2030. And I would
note that this extension would not simply swap out dates.
Rather, my bill would also call for an earlier termination of
Federal support for the ISS if a commercial alternative is in
place prior to 2030. It is vital to not only our leadership in
space but also our national security that America maintain a
continual, uninterrupted human presence in low-Earth orbit.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to ensure that we prevent another damaging
capability gap like the one we experienced at the conclusion of
our Space Shuttle program.
All of that being said, it is very important to note that
our financial resources for space activities are limited, and
any decision on ISS extension will result in some tradeoffs.
NASA has previously estimated that the ISS will cost taxpayers
between $3 and $4 billion annually through 2024, roughly half
of NASA's total human spaceflight budget. Each dollar spent on
transportation to, and maintenance of, the ISS is a dollar that
is not being spent on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit,
whether it is to the moon, to Mars, or other destinations.
Numerous reports from the National Academies and the NASA
Inspector General have concluded that an extension of the ISS
could result in a multiyear delay to future deep-space
missions.
So I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center, which
manages both the ISS and the Orion programs, so I am especially
aware of the trades that we have to make between low-Earth
orbit and deep space exploration.
Aside from today's discussion of the ISS, we will also hear
from our witnesses about ongoing efforts to increase commercial
activities in low-Earth orbit. NASA has engaged in a lot of
work over the last 3 years to examine potential markets and the
capacity for them. They've commissioned think-tank studies,
sought input from industry, and researched the various
architectures at length. This work informed their recent
announcement on ISS commercialization last month. Our witnesses
today will share their thoughts on how NASA can continue to
work with industry to find opportunities to develop more
commercial markets in low-Earth orbit.
Section 303 of the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act
directed NASA to conduct a transition report for ISS where NASA
would be ``one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit
commercial human space flight enterprise.'' A future where NASA
is able to act as a customer and purchase a variety of services
will allow the agency to focus on more ambitious deep-space
missions, and I look very much forward to hearing from our
witnesses how this Committee can help make this step happen.
And allowing NASA to serve as a customer rather than a
developer of basic services is a very fiscally responsible move
that will benefit the taxpayer and industry alike.
I want to thank today's witnesses for being with us, and I
look forward to your discussion. And with that, I yield back,
Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
Thank you for holding this hearing, Chairwoman Horn.
The International Space Station is one of humanity's
highest technological achievements. As an internationally built
and operated orbiting laboratory, the ISS conducts critical
research that helps us both on Earth and in space. As a multi-
national project, this engineering marvel illustrates the power
of U.S. leadership on the frontiers of exploration.
NASA has worked hard to conquer the challenges of low-Earth
orbit. We have learned how the human body reacts to the
microgravity environment. We have grown food, crystalized
proteins, launched satellites, and conducted scientific
observations of the Earth and stars above.
During the 115th Congress, I introduced the Leading Human
Spaceflight Act which, among other provisions, would extend the
authorization of ISS from 2024 to 2030. I would note that this
extension would not simply swap out dates. Rather, my bill
would also call for an earlier termination of federal support
for ISS if a commercial alternative is in place prior to 2030.
It is vital to--not only our leadership in space--but also our
national security that America maintain a continual,
uninterrupted human presence in low Earth orbit. I look forward
to working with my colleagues on both sides of the dais to
ensure we prevent another damaging capability gap like the one
we experienced at the conclusion of the Space Shuttle program.
All of that being said, it is important to note that our
financial resources for space activities are limited and any
decision on ISS extension will result in tradeoffs. NASA has
previously estimated that the ISS will cost taxpayers between
three and four billion dollars annually through 2024--roughly
half of NASA's total human spaceflight budget.
Each dollar spent on transportation to--and maintenance
of--ISS is a dollar not spent on exploration beyond low earth
orbit, whether it is to the Moon, Mars, or other destinations.
Numerous reports from the National Academies and the NASA
Inspector General have concluded that an extension of the ISS
could result in a multi-year delay to future deep-space
missions.
I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center, which manages
both the ISS and Orion programs, so I am especially aware of
the trades we have to make between low Earth orbit and deep
space exploration.
Aside from today's discussion of ISS, we will also hear
from our witnesses about ongoing efforts to increase commercial
activities in low-Earth orbit. NASA has engaged in a lot of
work over the last three years to examine potential markets and
the capacity for. They've commissioned think-tank studies,
sought input from industry, and researched the various
architectures at length. This work informed their recent
announcement on ISS Commercialization last month. Our witnesses
today will share their thoughts on how NASA can continue to
work with industry to find opportunities to develop more
commercial markets in low-Earth orbit.
Section 303 of the 2017 NASA Transition Authorization Act
directed NASA to conduct a transition report for ISS where NASA
would be ``one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit
commercial human space flight enterprise.'' A future where NASA
is able to act as a customer and purchase a variety of services
will allow the agency to focus on more ambitious deep-space
missions and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses how
this Committee can help take this step. Allowing NASA to serve
as a customer rather than a developer of basic services is a
fiscally responsible move that will benefit the taxpayer and
industry alike.
I want to thank today's witnesses for being with us, and I
look forward to our discussion.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ranking Member.
And the Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Full
Committee, Ms. Johnson, for her opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Horn
and Ranking Member Babin, for holding this hearing to consider
NASA's plans for the International Space Station and future
activities in low-Earth orbit.
As I have noted in the past, the International Space
Station is the largest and most complex science and engineering
project ever carried out in space. It plays a critical role in
carrying out human health and technological research that is
essential if we are to successfully send astronauts to Mars and
back. The ISS also serves as a laboratory for fundamental and
applied science, as well as an observation platform for
astronomical, environmental, and heliophysics research. It has
been an enduring example of international cooperation in space,
and it continues to inspire young people to excel and to
provide opportunities for classrooms across our Nation to
interact with our astronauts through live communication
downlinks.
Yet the ISS is a limited resource with a limited lifetime,
and we need to make sure that we make the best use of it while
we have it. And to me, that means making sure that its highest
priority is carrying out the research and engineering testbed
activities that can only be done in ISS. That is the lens
through which I will be looking at NASA's proposals for ISS
commercial activities.
I support efforts to create a vibrant commercial space
economy in low-Earth orbit, but ultimately it is the private
sector that will determine whether or not that will happen.
Private investment will be needed, not government subsidies, if
LEO commercialization is to be sustainable over the long term.
I believe that the jury is still out as to whether that will
happen.
In the meantime, the International Space Station has a
limited lifetime, limited crew size, and limited research
capabilities. As I said earlier, we need to ensure that those
resources are focused on those tasks that can only be done by
ISS and that are a high priority. As a result, we will be
taking a close look at NASA's proposed commercialization
initiative to see whether it meets that standard. At this
point, I'm not convinced that it does. For example, I'm
skeptical that sending wealthy space tourists to ISS is the
best or even a good use of taxpayers-funded facility.
NASA keeps saying that there are unanswered human health
research questions that can only be addressed on the ISS;
questions that need to be answered if we are to reduce the risk
of sending humans to Mars. If that is the case, our focus
should be on sending additional crew members or researchers to
the station, not well-heeled individuals seeking an exotic
vacation.
We have much to discuss today, and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses. I welcome our witnesses. Thank you,
and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Horn, for holding this hearing to
consider NASA's plans for the International Space Station and
future activities in low Earth orbit.
As I have noted in the past, the International Space
Station is the largest and most complex science and engineering
project ever carried out in space. It plays a critical role in
carrying out the human health and technological research that
is essential if we are to successfully send our astronauts to
Mars and back. The ISS also serves as a laboratory for
fundamental and applied science as well as an observation
platform for astronomical, environmental, and heliophysics
research. It has been an enduring example of international
cooperation in space, and it continues to inspire our young
people to excel and to provide opportunities for classrooms
across our nation to interact with our astronauts through live
communication downlinks.
Yet the ISS is a limited resource with a limited lifetime,
and we need to make sure that we make the best use of it while
we have it. And to me, that means making sure that its highest
priority is carrying out the research and engineering testbed
activities that can only be done on the ISS. That is the lens
through which I will be looking at NASA's proposals for ISS
commercial activities. I support efforts to create a vibrant
commercial space economy in low Earth orbit, but ultimately it
is the private sector that will determine whether or not that
happens. Private investment will be needed, not government
subsidies, if LEO commercialization is to be sustainable over
the long term. And I think that the jury is still out as to
whether that will happen.
In the meantime, the International Space Station has a
limited lifetime, limited crew size, and limited research
capabilities. As I said earlier, we need to ensure that those
resources are focused on those tasks that can only be done on
the ISS and that are of highest priority. As a result, I will
be taking a close look at NASA's proposed commercialization
initiative to see whether it meets that standard. At this
point, I am not convinced it does. For example, I am skeptical
that sending wealthy space tourists to the ISS is the best-or
even a good-use of that taxpayer-funded facility. NASA keeps
saying there are unanswered human health research questions
that can only be addressed on the ISS, questions that need to
be answered if we are to reduce the risks ofsending humans to
Mars. If that is the case, our focus should be on sending
additional crew members or researchers to the Station, not well
heeled individuals seeking an exotic vacation.
Well, we have much to discuss today, and I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And if there are Members who wish to submit additional
opening statements, your statements will be added to the record
at this point.
And let me extend my warm welcome as well again to the
witnesses. We have a distinguished panel today, and clearly we
have a lot to discuss as we're moving into this next phase to
address concerns as we move forward to prevent, as my colleague
said, a capability gap in this important endeavor.
I'll begin by introducing our witnesses today. Our first
witness, Mr. William Gerstenmaier, is no stranger to appearing
before this Committee, and we're glad to have you here today--
Associate Administrator for the Human Exploration and
Operations Mission Directorate at NASA. Prior to his current
position, Mr. Gerstenmaier served as the Manager for the
International Space Station program. He also served as the
Associate Administrator for the Space Operations Mission
Directorate during the completion of the space station. Mr.
Gerstenmaier holds a bachelor of science in aeronautical
engineering from Purdue University and a master of science
degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Toledo.
He is becoming a regular when it comes to testifying before us
and clearly has expertise related to ISS. And we are glad to
see you again, and we appreciate you being here as we consider
these important issues. So welcome, Mr. Gerstenmaier.
Our next witness, Mr. Paul Martin, Inspector General for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Mr. Martin
has been NASA Inspector General since Senate confirmation in
2009. Prior to his appointment at NASA, he served as the Deputy
Inspector General in the Department of Justice. He also spent
13 years at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, including 6 years
as the Commission's Deputy Staff Director. Mr. Martin received
a B.A. in journalism from Pennsylvania State University and a
juris doctorate from Georgetown University Law Center. We look
forward to your testimony today, Mr. Martin, and we're glad
that you're here, so welcome.
Our next witness is Mr. Eric Stallmer. Mr. Stallmer is the
President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, CSF, and
has much experience in the commercial space sector. CSF is a
trade organization dedicated to promoting the development of
commercial spaceflight and was recently appointed to the
National Space Council User Advisory Group. Before working at
the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Mr. Stallmer served as
the Vice President of Government Relations for Analytical
Graphics, Incorporated. Mr. Stallmer has a bachelor's degree in
political science and history from Mount Saint Mary College and
a master's in Public administration from George Mason
University.
Mr. Stallmer also testified yesterday before our colleagues
in the Senate, and so you've had a long 2 days but we're glad
you're joining us today and appreciate your willingness to do
back-to-back hearings in 24 hours, so welcome. Glad to have you
here.
And our last witness is Professor Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz.
Did I get it right? Excellent. I know Gerst. I just want to
make sure I get it right. So Professor Gabrynowicz is a
Professor Emerita of Space Law and Director of the National
Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law at the University
of Mississippi Law Center. Professor Gabrynowicz is also the
Editor-in-Chief Emerita of the Journal of Space Law. In
addition, she is the Director of the International Institute of
Space Law (IISL) and is an official observer for the IISL to
the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. She
received her bachelor's from City University of New York and
earned her juris doctorate from the Cardozo School of Law.
Welcome, Professor Gabrynowicz.
As our witnesses, you should all know that each of you will
have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony, and your written
testimony will be included in the record for this hearing. When
you've completed your spoken testimony, we'll begin with
questions, and each Member will have 5 minutes of questions.
And since you've been through this drill many times before,
Mr. Gerstenmaier, we'll start with you.
TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER,
ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN EXPLORATION
AND OPERATIONS MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Thank you very much.
ISS is the most amazing and productive space research
facility ever constructed by humankind. ISS is accomplishing
more than previously envisioned. For example, ISS' role in
CubeSat, CubeSatellite deployment and development, was
unanticipated. Who would've thought that ISS and its relatively
low altitude would be seen as the go-to CubeSat deployment
platform. The CubeSat lifetime is on the order of months at the
altitude of the space station. The lifetime constraint would
seem to reduce CubeSat developers' desire to use the space
station.
The cost of access to ISS and the ability of crews to
interact with the satellites prior to deployment made ISS a
great research platform for CubeSats. As of today, 250 CubeSats
have been deployed from the ISS. ISS has played a pivotal role
in the development of the CubeSat market.
ISS also played a strong role in lowering launch costs.
Cargo transportation to allow--to ISS allowed for new
competition to enter the launch market. ISS cargo with relaxed
launch reliability requirements allowed new competition in
launch vehicles and helped bring commercial satellite launch
back to the U.S. soil. Clearly, this role for ISS was not
envisioned at the beginning of ISS.
Last, the ISS international partnership has allowed the ISS
team to set interoperability standards for the rest of the
world to follow. The international docking standards allow
anyone building to the standard to dock with the ISS. The
standard does not dictate design but allows for docking. There
are now standards for life support, power, data, and avionics.
The ISS team is setting standards for the rest of the world to
follow in human spaceflight. These standards will be used for
our lunar activity.
Today's hearing discussing future plans for the ISS is very
timely. Just as the activities that I mentioned have surprised
us and the benefits from ISS, I think the upcoming years of ISS
operations offer the chance to see ISS contribute in ways not
yet envisioned or imagined.
The area that I would like to discuss in my opening remarks
is the ISS activity associated with creating a commercial
market for low-Earth orbit activities. Several weeks ago, NASA
announced a plan to utilize ISS to explore market development
in low-Earth orbit. Previously, NASA asked commercial industry
for their ideas to commercialize low-Earth orbit, and, based on
the input from 12 studies and 12 companies, NASA developed a
plan. That plan comprises five key areas.
First, to establish ISS commercial use and pricing policy.
That allows the commercial companies to understand where they
can use ISS and how much it will cost.
The second point was to enable private astronaut missions
to the ISS.
The third point was to initiate a process of commercial
development of low-Earth orbit destinations. This means
allowing the docking port to be used on ISS for commercial
activities and also investing--investigating new free-flying
platforms.
Fourth, we were seeking out and pursuing opportunities to
stimulate demand.
And fifth, we've been quantifying NASA's long-term needs
for activities in low-Earth orbit. With this data, commercial
companies should be able to build a business plan and determine
ways to generate revenue from low-Earth orbit.
NASA can enable U.S. industry to see the benefits and
opportunities in low-Earth orbit spaceflight. However, the
results will only come from the private sector investing and
taking risk. All companies investing in low-Earth orbit will
not be successful. It is critical that NASA create the right
environment for these potential low-Earth orbit entrepreneurs.
The ultimate goal is for NASA to become one of many customers
for activities in low-Earth orbit. Being one of many customers
will lower cost for NASA and allow us to more effectively use
the dollars that we have been provided. I stress that the
burden of creating this new market will be on the private
sector and not on NASA.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6914.017
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. Mr. Martin.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. PAUL K. MARTIN,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, NASA
Mr. Martin. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, and
Members of the Subcommittee, over the past 5 years, the Office
of Inspector General has issued 13 reports related to the
International Space Station, including reviews of NASA's
efforts to maximize onboard research, manage the $17 billion in
contracts with private companies to fly cargo and crew, and
maintain international partnerships that fund almost one-
quarter of the station's annual expenses. My testimony today is
informed by these past reviews, in particular, an audit we
issued last July that assessed NASA's utilization of the ISS.
For the past 21 years, the ISS has served as a unique
platform for humans to experience living in space while
conducting research in a microgravity environment. But while a
unique platform, it's also an expensive platform that costs
NASA between $3 to $4 billion annually or about half its human
space flight budget.
In my remarks this morning, I offer three observations
based on our oversight work. Observation one: NASA's current
plans for a more incremental approach to ISS commercialization
appear more realistic than its previous approach that set a
hard deadline of October 2025 to end direct Federal funding for
the station. That said, we continue to question whether a
sufficient business case exists under which private companies
can create a self-sustaining and profit-making business using
the ISS independent of significant government funding in the
short or midterm. From our perspective, it is unlikely that a
private entity would assume the station's operating cost,
currently $1.2 billion annually, to enable NASA to achieve its
stated goal of, quote, ``becoming one of many customers of a
commercial LEO platform.''
Observation two: Structurally, it appears the service life
of the ISS could safely be extended to at least 2028 if not
beyond. However, the larger challenge may be the yearly expense
of operating the station past 2024, an expense that may impact
NASA's ability to fund other priorities. Unless the agency
receives a substantial and sustained appropriations increase,
it will be hard-pressed to continue supporting ISS operations
under its current model while also funding initiatives such as
the Gateway, lunar landers, new spacesuits, and other
technologies required for a moon landing.
Observation three: Last month, NASA announced an interim
directive outlining use of the ISS for commercial and marketing
activities. To help companies develop business plans, NASA also
published a pricing policy under which it plans to charge
private astronauts around $1 million for a month-long stay on
the ISS or about $35,000 per day. While NASA acknowledges these
prices are substantially subsidized and represent only a small
portion of the agency's actual cost, the initiative is one
approach NASA is undertaking to foster a commercial market in
low-Earth orbit. The likelihood of success of this effort
remains unclear for a variety of reasons, not the least of
which is uncertainty about when routine commercial crew flights
to the ISS will begin and how much a seat will cost a private
astronaut.
In conclusion, one positive benefit of the Administration's
FY 2019 plan to end direct Federal funding of the ISS after
2024 was that it helped focus the conversation about the
station's future. Whether the final decision is extension,
increased commercialization, retirement, or some combination of
these options, the sooner the Administration and Congress agree
on a definitive path forward for the ISS, the better NASA will
be able to maximize use of the station and make additional
plans to commercialize low-Earth orbit. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Stallmer,
you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ERIC W. STALLMER,
PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
Mr. Stallmer. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the
Commercial Spaceflight Federation to discuss our members' views
on the state of the U.S. commercial space industry. We also
appreciate the opportunity to review NASA's plans for the
International Space Station and examine future activities in
low-Earth orbit.
In addition to NASA's utilization of the ISS, the United
States now has a vibrant, highly capable commercial space
sector that is beginning to maximize the utility of the ISS and
is demonstrating a growing LEO economy. As we look to the
future in which the government is one of many customers, it
needs to be reduced--it needs to reduce the burdens on the
system and moves at the speed of business.
Because of NASA's foresight and cultivation of this
industry, American companies support space exploration and
national security needs today in addition to the commercial
marketplace. Unlike when the first pieces of the ISS were being
launched into LEO, we now have an exciting and diverse
commercial marketplace, one which NASA can partner to achieve
its goals. Twenty years after Americans launched the first
module of ISS, the current Administration, NASA, and Congress
have established a national commitment to ensure American
leadership in low-Earth orbit to establish a permanent human
presence in low-Earth orbit and enable the development of a
commercial and industrial ecosystem.
Long-term, sustainable human presence and commercial
activity in LEO requires an integrated effort. This includes
stimulating greater demand for space-based industrial R&D and
spaceflight products and services to LEO, the development of
commercial space stations and space habitats, and routine
transportation of astronauts and cargo to and from LEO. Public-
private partnerships with commercial companies are fundamental
to developing these capabilities.
As you look to ensure America's leadership in space, you
must ensure we--this includes rapid innovation. Last month,
NASA released guidance for its LEO economy initiative. CSF
commends Administrator Bridenstine and the entire NASA team for
recognizing the success of the commercial industry,
incorporating best practices, and updating objectives to
accelerate the development of these important capabilities.
As NASA works to implement this initiative, we recommend
the following few ideas:
LEncourage NASA to adopt the best elements of its
successful efforts to commercialize space such as the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, COTS, program and
the Commercial Crew Program.
LMaintain competition throughout the life of a
program to encourage innovation and cost reduction. Multiple
providers offer redundant capabilities in the event of delays
or challenges.
LSupport of a complete utilization of the ISS
through at least 2028 in a timely, seamless transition process
toward commercial space stations to ensure that the U.S.
maintains a continuous human presence in low-Earth orbit.
LProvide certainty and predictability by
communicating a clear plan for the transition to commercial
systems. That means that if NASA is going to charge for ISS-
related services, those prices should change infrequently and
with substantive advance notice.
LAnd resist the temptation to try to make money
now at the expense of future LEO market expansion. This would
be the very definition of killing the goose that lays the
golden eggs.
Regularly engage with industry, which NASA does a great job
with, to understand and incorporate new commercial capabilities
as they evolve as opposed to requesting the business--
requesting that business fit within NASA's plans.
Grant users complete control over intellectual property
developed on ISS and avoid competing with private industry.
We are ready to take the next step with NASA, and we look
forward to continuing to work with this Committee to establish
a permanent human presence in low-Earth orbit and enable the
development of strong commercial ecosystem.
Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, I really--and
Members of the Committee, I really appreciate the invitation to
testify before you today, and I thank you for your attention. I
look forward to all your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallmer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Stallmer.
Professor Gabrynowicz.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOANNE IRENE GABRYNOWICZ,
EMERITA UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI,
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF EMERITA, JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW
Dr. Gabrynowicz. Thank you. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member
Babin, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to address NASA's Plans for the International Space
Station and Future Activities in low-Earth orbit. I am
delighted to respond. My full statement has been submitted for
the record.
This statement addresses two points of space law that are
particularly germane to plans to develop low-Earth orbit and
the station. They speak directly to U.S. national interests,
and there is a brief conclusion.
The first point is that the U.S. Government is
internationally responsible for the activities of its
nongovernmental space actors in perpetuity. The second point is
that the legal obligations of the U.S. Government continue in
force even after the transfer of station elements to
nongovernmental commercial activities.
Regarding the first point that the United States has
international responsibility for its nongovernmental space
actors, Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty provides that
states, parties shall bear international responsibility for
activities carried on by nongovernmental entities. It is
crucial that article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty become central
to the plans for commercial LEO development.
What constitutes responsibility is part of a growing body
of law that has strengthened and matured in recent years. The
United States Government and, through it, the United States
taxpayer, will ultimately be responsible if it is deemed
necessary because of events--will ultimately be deemed
responsible for reparation if it is deemed necessary because of
events arising from U.S. nongovernmental activities.
The government's responsibility exists in perpetuity.
Withdrawing from or altering the Outer Space Treaty can change
this, but that is an option that is not favored either by the
space industry itself or by the United States Department of
State.
A risk-sharing regime has been established for launching
and reentry services. An analogous risk-sharing regime should
be developed for all stages of the planned U.S. exploration
roadmap in which nongovernmental actors will be part of the
roadmap space activities.
The second legal point is that the United States' space
station obligations remain in force even after transfer of
station elements to nongovernmental commercial entities. The
IGA, the International Space Station Intergovernmental
Agreement, is a remarkable space law achievement. It has
governed space station cooperation for 15 states over 3
decades, and it is described in more depth in my statement.
An essential feature of the International Space Station
Agreement is that the transfer of ownership shall--and I quote,
``The transfer of ownership shall not affect the rights and
obligations of the parties,'' end quote. Therefore, if the
space station transition will include, quote, ``transfer of all
or parts of the station itself to commercial entities,
including exercise of ownership or equipment,'' end quote, then
the United States will still have the same rights and
obligations that were in force prior to the transfer.
Changing post-transfer obligations will require at a
minimum renegotiating post-transfer rights and obligations
among space station partners. This moves the issue of U.S.
post-transfer obligations more into the realm of politics than
law, increasing uncertainty regarding the degree, the nature,
and the duration of U.S. obligations.
In conclusion, there are legal and economic forces at play
that can expose the United States Government and the U.S.
taxpayer to substantial, recurring, long-term obligations that
can result in hard-to-quantify financial obligations.
Development of low-Earth orbit and the station is beginning at
a time when the current value of the space economy is being
questioned, when recent U.S. national space law increasingly
places more of the cost of industry risk-taking onto the U.S.
taxpayer, and when recently enacted U.S. national space law has
created an uncertain legal environment by the use of illusory
language that is mostly aspirational and repetitive and creates
little black-letter law. It is in the U.S. national interest
for the Subcommittee to consider these forces going forward.
Thank you for your work to develop the law of space.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gabrynowicz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Gabrynowicz.
And before we move into questions, I'm going to take a
moment of personal privilege to recognize two young women that
are here today who I think are attending their second hearing
in 2 days. And as we talk about these important issues, we have
Elsa and Phaedra Curry, who I know have grown up in this area,
that we talk about the importance of investing in the future
and inspiring future generations, so I just want to take a
moment--go ahead and stand up and say hello. Yes. This could be
our next generation of scientists.
OK. Now at this point we'll begin our first round of
questions.
So clearly there are many issues that we have to tackle,
and it's important that as we're looking forward, we take all
of these things into account about how we do this in a way that
is sustainable, that is fiscally responsible, that encourages
economic development, that allows NASA to move to a new
iteration of what it means for us to explore and do science in
space. So I'm going to try and get through a number of
questions as quickly as possible because I think we've got a
lot of important issues to tackle.
So, Mr. Gerstenmaier, I would like to start with you
because when we're considering this transition and how we're
going to ensure that our national interests and activities in
low-Earth orbit can continue without, as Ranking Member Babin
put it, a capabilities gap, I think that's one of the major
questions that we have to face, as well as the legal issues in
how we make that transition. There are many questions that need
to be answered. I'm going to run through a few of them and I
will submit some for the record but highlight a couple just to
set the stage.
One, what are the costs to NASA and international partners
of NASA's proposal to transition its ISS activities to
potential commercial space station?
Two, have you carried out a cost-benefit analysis of all of
the potential options for an ISS transition, including a NASA-
developed smaller follow-on platform to handle NASA and
international partner research?
Three, did you carry out a market analysis of commercial
activity in low-Earth orbit?
Four, what is the value proposition for the U.S. taxpayer
of NASA's planned investments in stimulating commercial LEO
market supply and demand?
Five, how much is the commercial sector willing to invest?
Who would own a commercial platform and who would own the data
from NASA research conducted on a commercial space station? How
much money would the commercial plan save as compared to NASA's
current ISS expenditures, and when would those savings be
realized?
And finally, what is the plan B if commercial platforms or
alternative models of ISS operations don't prove feasible
either technically or financially? So those are the stage
setting.
I'd ask, Mr. Gerstenmaier, if you would address if you've
carried out a cost-benefit analysis and if you know how much
the commercial sector is willing to invest.
And, Mr. Stallmer, I'd ask that second question of you to
follow on.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. So the way we're kind of approaching this
is last month we've--first of all, we spent 1 year asking the
commercial sector what their interests were in low-Earth orbit
and what they needed from NASA to understand the environment.
And what we got clearly from those 12 studies was there was
lots of uncertainty about what was available, what the
constructs were, what they could do on station, how much it
would cost, those kind of things. So what we did a month ago is
we tried to define for them all these key parameters that they
said they needed through these studies. So we gave them the
five things I described to you that they have available. Now
it's up to them to see if they can put together a business
plan, generate revenue from that, where they see the market
potential.
We define what NASA's long-term needs are, what NASA needs
to spend annually for space station activities in the future.
So we believe we've given the private sector now all the
parameters they need to give us back a business plan, and then
we can start to begin to answer that series of questions that
you asked us about cost-benefit and analysis, et cetera.
So we've done our part. We've identified what's available,
what we need, how much it will cost to find the constraints.
It's now up to the private sector to give us back business
plans that we can then start evaluating to turn that back
around into cost-benefit analysis type of activities you
described.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Mr. Stallmer?
Mr. Stallmer. From a commercial perspective since 2000,
right around the time that the space station was--became
functional, the private sector has invested $20 billion, and
much of that investment has gone to low-Earth orbit. As we're
projecting on what the rate of return will be for the shuttle
given NASA's investment cost, the global space community right
now, the worldwide figures I think are--range anywhere from
$360 to $380 billion of the global space economy.
Within the next decade, several major institutions, Goldman
Sachs, J.P. Morgan--or, I'm sorry, Morgan Stanley and others
have projected that the commercial marketplace or the global
space marketplace, which is all of space, to be a $1 trillion
business. So, you know, short of the business plans that--I
don't have them in hand to present to NASA right now, but the
companies that are working with the International Space Station
on the International Space Station are projecting this I think
into the future.
But I think the most important thing is the stability of
knowing that the station will be there, beyond--it's hard to do
a business plan for something that may not exist and how do you
project out? So if we're talking about, you know, the space
station going away in 2024, well, that's 4 1/2 years from now.
If we can do 2028 or beyond I think makes for a better case for
investment.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. Professor
Gabrynowicz, I think you've hit on a couple of very important
points, and I just want to reiterate and ask a question about
your observation regarding the legal challenges in the next
generation of what we're looking at and that the development of
LEO and ISS is beginning at a time when the current value of
the space economy is being questioned. But to get to the last
part of it right at the heart where the risk and reward and the
liability lies, that the space law has created and the movement
has created an uncertain legal environment that there's very
little black-letter law.
And so my question to you is, what do you see as an
effective pathway to addressing those issues and creating an
effective and enforceable body of law?
Dr. Gabrynowicz. Well, to begin with, if we have black-
letter law, it is law that actually authorizes, requires, or
prohibits action. What we have had since about 2014, 2015 are a
number of statutes that rely on reaffirmations and sense-of-
Congress provisions. None of these create law. There's a
pattern in these statutes where there's a congressional finding
or the sense of Congress, and then the requirement is to
produce a study and to bring it back to the relevant committee,
and so there's a lot of activity going back-and-forth--
regarding studies that are intended for future action, but most
of these statutes don't actually authorize, prohibit, or source
action. And if one were to go over these statutes, you'd see
large chunks of numbered pages that are simply opinions and not
law. Even a sense-of-Congress provision, even if it's
incorporated into a bill, it does not create law. And I don't
remember the numbers now, but I've gone through these statutes,
and a number of them have 15, 20 sense-of-Congress provisions
in one bill.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. I have many more
questions, but we're going to pass the time, so turn it over to
Ranking Member Babin for his.
Mr. Babin. NASA just released details highlighting its
plans for the low-Earth orbit commercialization. The intent of
the plan is to facilitate private-sector use of low-Earth orbit
to offset the government's costs on LEO so that NASA can focus
on deep space exploration. And the focus of the plan appears to
be focused on selling access to the ISS.
And, Mr. Gerstenmaier, will this offset NASA's costs for
ISS transportation and operations, and if so, by how much? And
if not, then why decrease NASA's utilization?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, so the intent is not to lower NASA's
cost for this activity. The idea is to essentially allow the
commercial sector to experiment with revenue-generating
activities on board station. And for that we want to recoup
some of the cost associated with the activities for which
they're using on station, and that was the pricing policy that
we placed for them. It's not an absolute pricing policy, but
gives them an idea of how to build a plan. And the idea is then
can they then look at--from that determine were there a private
station on their own that they built could be used, and then
that's something NASA could then acquire services from in the
future.
Mr. Babin. OK.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. So the purpose of that was to allow them
to essentially experiment with revenue-generating options and
concepts moving forward, and we didn't take things away. We
made available to them 5 percent of the available time on ISS,
and that 5 percent we can remove from our other activities and
move forward so we still protect our basic research, we still
protect the fundamental research needed for exploration and
human health and other aspects.
Mr. Babin. OK. Will revenue derived from the ISS
commercialization plan go back to the Treasury or will it stay
with NASA? And what oversight will Congress and the taxpayer
have on funds derived from the taxpayers' significant
investment in the ISS?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, our focus really isn't on
capturing revenue.
Mr. Babin. OK.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The intent is to allow them to
experiment----
Mr. Babin. Sure.
Mr. Gerstenmaier [continuing]. And then later in the future
where they now have their space station to serve other purposes
other than the government's purpose, then we're one user of
many. Then we're buying from a larger service, and that lowers
our cost for future activities. But the intent is not to
generate revenue from ISS.
Mr. Babin. I understand. And, Mr. Martin, recent reports
from your office have highlighted the need to develop new
spacesuits both for future use in the microgravity environment
of LEO for extravehicular operations and for future deep space
missions and surface operations. Our current extravehicular
mobility units were designed in the late 1970s, but astronauts
have nearly drowned from water leaking into their helmets, and
the current astronaut corps would very much benefit from a
larger variety of suit sizes.
Future spacesuits for surface operations were postponed
years ago after a contract protest and deferments under the
previous Administration. How important is the ISS for NASA's
testing of the next generation of spacesuits?
Mr. Martin. It's critical. It's critical for testing the
EMUs (Extravehicular Mobility Units)----
Mr. Babin. OK.
Mr. Martin [continuing]. And I think NASA has a plan to get
the next--it's called the xEMU suit up on station by 2023.
Mr. Babin. OK. Great, thank you. Good news.
And then, Mr. Stallmer, recent IG (Inspector General)
reports and a report from the Science and Technology Policy
Institute were pessimistic about the potential of the private
sector offsetting government's funding in LEO. Can you comment
on the private sector's perspective of LEO commercialization,
and is this something that the private sector could provide
private capital for or does the private sector see this as
another opportunity for more government money?
Mr. Stallmer. Yes, I saw that report, and I somewhat
disagree with the assessment, the pessimism of what markets are
there. As we were talking about offsets, I don't think the
station was designed as this economic engine, you know, for--in
low-Earth orbit. It started off as a scientific platform. But I
do see the investment that the private-sector community is
making.
For instance, the Space Angels network, which is--started
off as a small group of small investors into space making
minimal--smaller investments is now over 200 individual
investors that are investing in these companies that are going
to be doing work on the International Space Station.
So I don't see a trend of companies coming up to the Hill
to ask for more and more money for the station. I think it's
what we're looking for is stable policies that we know that we
can work within the boundaries of the space station. So----
Mr. Babin. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And, Dr. Gabrynowicz, NASA's plans allow for private
astronauts on the ISS. Current law allows for government
astronauts under the current statute. What is a private
astronaut under the current statute, and what are the
differences in these names from a practical perspective and
also from a legal perspective?
Dr. Gabrynowicz. Thank you. Well, as the designations
indicate, a government astronaut is an employee of the Federal
Government, and as such, there are legal rights and privileges
that astronauts have as well as restrictions. It's roughly
analogous to being a member of the military. You have certain
rights and obligations that a civilian does not have. A private
astronaut would not be a government employee. Their
relationship would be based on for whom they work or if they
work for themselves, at whose direction are they taking
instruction. Are they acting as an agent for an entity? And
therefore that person's rights and obligations are going to
arise from that relationship.
But then there's the additional overlay that if you have a
private-sector astronaut who is a nongovernmental actor, then
ultimately the United States is responsible for that astronaut
anyway. There's that additional overlay.
And I just want to give you a little background as to why
that responsibility exists because it's very important to the
United States' values. When the Outer Space Treaty was being
negotiated, it was the position of the Soviet Union that only
nation-states were legitimate space actors. And of course the
United States couldn't agree to that and said no, private
entities are also legitimate state actors.
Well, a compromise was made between the Soviet and the
American position, and that compromise was that nongovernmental
space actors will be authorized and continually supervised by
the Nation that is party to the treaty. So that supervision,
that authorization is the source of the right of the private
sector to be in space.
And the flipside of that coin is because they have to be
authorized and continually supervised, they are--the United
States is internationally responsible for them. So that
responsibility goes hand-in-hand with American values of
private activity.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Thank you. Very fascinating. I
appreciate it. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. And thank you, Dr.
Babin. I think one of the things that is clear from the
questions from me is that you ask many of the remaining
questions I had that are very important, although there are
more that--these are clearly very much a bipartisan issue in
the best interest of NASA.
And the Chair recognizes Chairwoman Johnson for 5 minutes.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
In line with the questioning that just happened,
Professor----
Dr. Gabrynowicz. Joanne.
Chairwoman Johnson [continuing]. Gabrynowicz, as we
consider the Administration's proposal for the ISS
commercialization, I was struck by your statement that there
are legal and economic forces at play that can expose the U.S.
Government and the U.S. taxpayer to substantial recurring and
long-term obligations that can result in hard-to-quantify
financial obligations. What do you think are the most
significant potential financial obligations that need to be
considered before we sign off on NASA's commercialization
proposals? And what legal risk are we should be concerned that
the U.S. Government might be assuming?
Dr. Gabrynowicz. OK. The--I cannot speak to what are the
most significant risks. Those are engineering and science
questions. And I would have to direct you to speak to the
engineers and the scientists who would tell you where the risk
is, what can go wrong in terms of science and engineering.
In terms of what the United States would be responsible
for, again, this is why it's unknown. This is all going to be
very fact-dependent on what happens when, where, and what the
results are. As I'm sure you're aware, the elements in--of the
space station are registered by the nations who put them in
there, so if you're in the American--one of the American
modules and you go to the Japanese module, you're going from a
place where U.S. national law applies to a place where Japanese
law applies. They're like little tiny embassies. Well, not so
tiny; they're pretty big.
But it's going to be very--they make great hypothetical
questions on my exams because it's very fact-dependent as to
what the U.S. has to be prepared for. But the bottom line is
there must be the awareness that under the Outer Space Treaty
the United States is internationally responsible for whatever
that fact pattern may arise to be. And under the International
Space Station Agreement, the obligations will continue after
transfer unless there is a new agreement reached with the
partners that supersedes the current International Space
Station Agreement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Gerstenmaier,
reducing the risk of human missions to Mars and other
destinations have long been a prime justification for
continuing operations for the ISS. Mr. Martin's prepared
testimony notes that there are a series of human health risks
and technology gaps required for future missions to the moon
and to Mars that will not be completed on the ISS by the mid-
2020s. At the same time, NASA's low-Earth orbit commercial
development plans propose providing commercial entities access
to NASA's available crew time, power, and other resources that
otherwise could be used to make progress on the human health
and technology research.
Given the limited life of the ISS, how do you justify using
NASA's constrained ISS resources to try to stimulate commercial
activities such as space tourism and marketing rather than
using these resources to reduce the risk of human missions to
Mars?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We are very focused on reducing the risk
associated with Mars both technically and also from a human
physiology standpoint. That is our primary focus. We're
spending a lot of research time on both of those activities.
But what we've done is we've created this 5 percent piece
beyond that of which we can allow this experimentation and
commercialization. We think that's important because then at
some point this station will wear out. We've identified a long-
term need for us to do this technology development and research
in the future. We're going to need some other facility to do
that. What we'd like to do is not be in the position where NASA
and the U.S. Government have to build that facility. We would
like to be able to use a private facility. So we think this
small portion at a the time being available to prepare for that
future allows us to ensure that we can keep a research facility
in low-Earth orbit to investigate the technology into human
factors we need to get ready to go to Mars.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is
expired.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The Chair now
recognizes the Full Committee Ranking Member Lucas for 5
minutes of questions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, let's step back and look at a broader
perspective. NASA recently released summaries of the private
sector's low-Earth orbit commercialization plans. Did NASA
learn anything from these studies that it did not expect? Were
you surprised by anything?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. I think the takeaway that we saw
from the plans was the diversity and the options of what the
companies thought. For revenue generation, what they thought
the cost would be associated, there were a lot of differing
opinions from their perspective of what they saw the benefits
of space research were. So I think the diversity of the
responses we got surprised us. We thought they would be more
aligned in one specific area, so that's why we pursued this
five-point plan----
Mr. Lucas. So I assume that was a pleasant surprise then?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It's interesting because--but it's hard
for us now to pick then a concrete path to go forward from
those studies.
Mr. Lucas. Along that line, Mr. Gerstenmaier, in 2015 we
saw reports that the Russians intended to detach their modules
in 2024 to form their own habitat in low-Earth orbit. If in the
event this were to happen, how should the U.S. engage its
international partners? And along with that, would a Russian
departure from the ISS require further U.S. investment in ISS
to keep it running without a Russian segment?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think that's an interesting
hypothetical discussion. There's lots of dependencies between
the Russian segment and the U.S. segment. We provide power to
them, we provide--approximately 1,000 commands a day to go
through USS--U.S. assets, and those are Russian commands going
to their side. So I think in reality we're going to have to
stay together as an international partnership whether we really
want to or not. And we can talk about things hypothetically,
but in reality we're part of the international partnership that
needs to work together, and we'll continue to work together in
the future.
Mr. Lucas. So we're hooked at the hip then? That makes
sense.
Mr. Stallmer, does maintaining a presence in low-Earth
orbit necessarily mean the presence must be a NASA presence or
could American companies maintain that presence? And along that
line, does maintaining any sort of crew presence in low-Earth
orbit necessarily mean maintaining a presence on the ISS in
particular?
Mr. Stallmer. Sir, I think it's both. I think that NASA
should retain a permanent presence in low-Earth orbit, but I
think there's also a commercial element as we're seeing
private-sector habitats being developed and potentially private
space stations being developed. I think you can't have it both
ways. I think the commercial sector will provide services, and
I think NASA eventually will be a customer of those services.
So I think it's a good balance that we have to look forward to.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, using my precious
time precisely, I now yield back the balance.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Crist for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
panelists, for being with us today.
I think we can all agree that performing research in
microgravity is critical to achieving scientific and
technological advances, which is why I support an extension of
space station operations beyond 2024. However, there will
eventually come a time when the station is no longer usable
simply because it has reached its operational lifespan.
Mr. Gerstenmaier--and I apologize if I mispronounced it--
when this occurs, what do you envision for the future of
microgravity research? Specifically, do you see the need for
some sort of national space-based lab to support research and
development beyond the useful life of the space station?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes, in the plans we provided to
commercial industry, we identify what we believe is NASA's
long-term needs for space research. And included in that is a
continuation of doing research for NASA's needs, both
technology development and also microgravity research.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. Again to you if you don't mind, I
assume that increased commercialization of low-Earth orbit will
result in additional traffic to and from the station. Can you
discuss NASA's plan for space traffic management under a
commercialized low-Earth orbit situation?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Even today, we have a visiting vehicle
specification that essentially defines the operating
environment around space station. So we have certain zones
where vehicles can transit and come into, but they need
authority to come into those, so there's a very methodical
approach of how we do vehicle traffic management in a way
almost similar to an airport here terrestrially but it's around
space station. I propose we would use that same kind of thing
in the future for another space station or the space station as
it moves forward. But it's becoming a very busy environment for
us, and the monitoring and activities of the folks at the
Johnson Space Center are critical for those----
Mr. Crist. Thank you, sir. Mr. Stallmer, as you know, NASA
announced last month that it will allow two flights to the
space station each year for private astronauts. Do you believe
it's feasible to begin these flights with an all-commercial
astronaut crew, or would it be better to start with missions
that include both NASA and private astronauts to help build and
establish this market?
Mr. Stallmer. I think it would be the latter. I think using
NASA astronauts as well as commercial astronauts is a prudent
approach. I think we're seeing in many different markets--later
this year, we're going to see Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin
large commercial astronauts in a suborbital fashion. And of
course with the Commercial Crew Program coming online I think
it's going to increase the access to utilization of the space
station. I think it's a great way of NASA leaning forward to
try to greater utilize the International Space Station for
commercial astronauts and the science they can do.
I think if you look at it from a research perspective, if
the private company pays for that astronaut to go up to the
International Space Station and conduct studies, I think that's
part of the economic engine that we're looking to develop from
generating more revenue from the space station. So I think it's
a very prudent approach by NASA.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. And then my last question for any of
the panelists, what in your opinion can NASA do to help
encourage a commercial astronaut transportation market? If you
have an opinion.
Mr. Stallmer. For NASA to encourage the greater utilization
of commercial astronauts?
Mr. Crist. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stallmer. I think it's--to highlight the opportunities
for the science that is up there. I think when we see some of
the breakthrough technologies--and NASA has done a great job of
showcasing the breakthrough technologies that have been
developed on the International Space Station. But if companies
can see this as a platform for research, whether it be
pharmaceutical research or, as the Australians were talking
about, having--to be able to consume beer in space, you know,
and they're working on that diligently, or if it's just the
technology to hit a golf ball 10 yards further I think, you
know, understanding the technology that microgravity offers,
it's limitless on what we can do. So I think as NASA and the
partnership with commercial sector I think working together to
promote that and the possibilities, I think that's what's going
to really encourage this market to grow.
Mr. Martin. I guess a note of caution just to point out
that any--at least the initial steps of commercialization of
low-Earth orbit is heavily subsidized by NASA, so the figures,
the cost figures that NASA put out, the $35,000 a day for an
astronaut or $1 million for a 1-month stay, that's extremely
heavily subsidized almost as a loss leader to get--to entice
and encourage the market.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. There's a few interesting biological
things that we've seen on station I think that have tremendous
benefit. One is a lab--it's called essentially lab on a chip or
biology on a chip. It turns out that, for whatever reason, some
functions happen faster in space like immune system
degradation, et cetera, so there's an idea that you can
actually take liver cells, which are used to determine whether
a pharmaceutical product will be toxic to you or not, in the
microgravity environment because those processes are speeded
up, it would typically take a year to get results on the Earth,
can occur in several months on station. So we think there's a
huge benefit potentially for pharmaceutical companies to bring
drugs to market faster by doing this lab-on-a-chip kind of
technology on station.
We're also looking at 3-D printing of organs in space.
Because there's no gravity, you don't have to have any material
to make the organs actually resist gravity, so now you could
actually print essentially organs of much larger size. So the
idea is for us to expose the private sector to these
interesting innovative ideas that are transformative and then
let them take that through their ingenuity and innovativeness
and then turn that into a marketable product to move forward.
But those are some of the aspects that are very intriguing.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Crist. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Brooks for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Mr. Stallmer, the national lab is a key driver
of private activity on board the International Space Station.
What setbacks have you seen or experienced that have held back
the commercialization of low-Earth orbit, ISS activities?
Mr. Stallmer. I wouldn't say setbacks per se, and I'm sure
others can speak to technical setbacks that they may have had.
I see more of opportunities. I think from a timeline
perspective certainly the funding questions and the timeline
with the extension, streamlining some of the policies that
we're looking at in some of the space policy directives on
streamlining policies, that's been slower than we would hope
for.
But from a more optimistic perspective, I see the progress
that commercial industry has made. When I--one of the reports
was cited that were pessimistic of the growth of, you know, on
commercial industry. I also read a report about 10 years ago
that was pessimistic about reusable launch vehicles, and 5
years later we had reusable launch vehicles. And now we have
over 22 vehicles that were launched and reentered the Earth's
atmosphere, and we're reusing them again, reducing the cost to
access to space.
I see the growth in industry from what companies do--
startup companies, whether it be electric propulsion, you know,
for satellite--small satellite boost or the things, you know,
that are going on in the space station, companies like Techshot
and Space Tango about this manufacturing human cells and things
of that nature.
So will there be setbacks and have there been? Absolutely,
and there's different timetables. And I think we're moving at
an aggressive pace, but I think we need to as a Nation. I think
we--for 50 years, as we celebrate Apollo, you know, next week
and what we've done over the past 50--what we did 50 years ago,
I think it's a little disappointing what we've done in the last
50 years, not--the space station is a remarkable modern marvel,
and I'm not knocking that at all, but I think as a Nation we
can do better. I think we can do a lot better. And I think--and
I know the commercial sector will be helping do that.
Mr. Brooks. This is a question for any who wish to opine on
it. In your judgment, either in percentage terms or dollar
terms, how much of a taxpayer subsidy is there for
commercialization at the International Space Station?
Mr. Martin. Over the past 12 to 14 years NASA has invested
approximately $17 billion to help the commercialization of both
cargo transportation and crew transportation. That does not
mean that the companies involved in both of those enterprises
also don't have skin in the game. They have significant
resources but $17 billion investment in that. As we've all
indicated, it costs upwards of $3 to $4 billion per year to
maintain and operate the station, so, as you can see,
significant subsidies.
Mr. Brooks. My hometown is Huntsville, Alabama. We like to
call ourselves the birthplace of the American space program.
And, as such, I've heard projections but rather optimistic on
occasion that we're just around the corner from having
commercialization of space that does not involve much in the
way of taxpayer subsidies either by our country or others as
the case may be with a joint facility like the International
Space Station. What needs to be done to truly make
commercialization a solely private venture? Is there anything
Congress can do where we can eliminate these taxpayer subsidies
of these private efforts?
Mr. Stallmer. I think when you categorize it as subsidies
I'd like to look at more of the advancements that the
government assistance has created. And, as we see, you know,
for instance, on the commercial cargo program, with the
government--you know, the investment that the government has
made on that program coupled with the investment of these
private companies, we now have two fully capable launch
vehicles that are providing routine access and routine, you
know, resupply to the International Space Station.
So to put a price tag on that investment, well, now we
have, you know, these two vibrant companies that are providing
services, as well as a--that we're going to see cargo with
Boeing and SpaceX later--I'm sorry, crew with Boeing and SpaceX
later this year. The U.S. dominates the global commercial
marketplace now. You could not say that 10 years ago where we
had less than 10 percent of the global market.
So now the U.S. industry, on launch, on small sat, on
spacecraft, we are the dominant leader. So whatever that number
of investment that the government has made I think it has paid,
you know, tremendous dividends to the American public, and I
think it will continue to pay that with the investment that we
have in the International Space Station.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. The Chair now
recognizes Congresswoman Hill for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hill. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, earlier this year, NASA and partners work
to upgrade the batteries on the International Space Station to
provide greater efficiency and power to the growing number of
users on the station, as well as to prepare for continued
upgrades in the years ahead. This is just the latest example of
ongoing efforts that have been made to continue to improve ISS
based on new technologies and grow its capabilities. What other
efforts is NASA taking to improve power, life support systems,
and other elements to ensure that ISS continues to support
astronauts and science needs for the years ahead?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Today, we're actually testing the next
generation of life support systems that will be used
potentially on journeys to Mars, so they're much more efficient
from a water-use standpoint, recycling carbon dioxide. We've
also just recently increased the bandwidth coming down from
space station to 600 megabits per second. That is now the
standard every day, and we've increased the number of video
channels coming down so we can do more interactive and virtual-
reality activities with space station. So those are some of the
examples of the improvements. And we have more battery upgrades
coming this fall.
Ms. Hill. Great, thank you. Also, Mr. Gerstenmaier, as you
know, the Senate has voted repeatedly to extend the ISS through
at least 2030, and the majority of the House voted for a
similar provision last year. As this issue comes up again in
the new Congress, how important is certainty of ISS extension
to you, our international partners, and other users as they
plan for crewed missions and experiments in the years ahead?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We just had a discussion on how we could
help commercial industry transfer or take over more of the role
in low-Earth orbit. I think that's very difficult to predict
exactly when that's going to occur. I think that timeframe is
going to be hard. It's going to take longer to create a new
economy than I think we've envisioned, so I think we need to be
careful we don't set an arbitrary or artificial deadline. We
need to essentially provide some certainty so industry and the
commercial sector can understand what's coming in the future,
they can plan for that, and then they can move forward. So I
think getting a plan of how that moves forward and when that
occurs, then we have a chance of envisioning this world where
the commercial sector is taking a larger portion of the cost
associated with low-Earth orbit.
Ms. Hill. And right now, we don't have that certainty or
that plan of transition?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. No, we have varying numbers depending on
where we talk, between what Congress says, the Administration
says, what NASA's plans are, et cetera, I think some certainty
about that. But again, not setting an arbitrary deadline but
maybe more setting criteria such that we don't create this gap
that was talked about earlier.
Ms. Hill. Right.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The gap would be unacceptable, but we
need some plan to do that.
Ms. Hill. Right. And, Mr. Martin and Mr. Gerstenmaier, I
understand that NASA and partners have already worked to
certify the ISS for use through at least 2028, and these
studies indicated that its lifespan could extend well into the
2030s. Can you talk about the status of these studies and what
other steps NASA is taking to ensure that ISS can be extended
and healthy for many years?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We've done the structural studies through
2028. We've done other studies. These improvements I talked to
you about earlier, those are all part of essentially allowing
us to do more with station. These life support systems we're
checking for the future, actually allows us to have more crew
on board station.
The thing that we've got to weigh again is, you know, we
are spending money in low-Earth orbit that we could be spending
in deep space, so we need to make sure that we have the right
balance between those two moving forward.
Mr. Martin. And I guess I would emphasize that these are
opportunity costs. If you continue the station for any number
of years past 2024, that is approximately $3 to $4 billion you
don't have available to pursue other exploration goals such as
lander developments, such as Gateway, such as preparing and
bending metal for moving to Mars, so it is a--it's a choice. No
one disputes that the ISS is just a critical element up there,
but it's a question--again, absent substantial and sustained
funding increase for NASA.
Ms. Hill. Got it. Well, thank you all so much. I really
appreciate it, and I yield back.
Ms. Horn. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman Hill. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Posey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, what are the main cost drivers for the $3
to $4 billion operational cost of the ISS?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The major cost driver is crew and cargo
transportation to and from ISS, and it's about the $1.8 billion
of the $3 billion that----
Mr. Posey. OK. Which factors affect the shelf life of the
ISS?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think we've been doing a pretty
remarkable job of maintaining station and upgrading systems and
components through use of our crews and astronauts and
engineering expertise. There are some components structurally
that may wear out over time, and we need to watch those and
monitor those, but we're actively tracking those and then
looking on a----
Mr. Posey. What kind of components would they be?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. They'd be some of the truss elements,
some of the large structural pieces. Solar rays will need to be
replaced at some point and augmented, and we have plans to do
that.
Mr. Posey. OK. Could the ISS be mothballed?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Space station is designed to be crew
operated, and so a lot of the systems really require a crew
presence on board station, so essentially shutting station down
and removing crew for an extended period of time would make it
very difficult to ensure that we could bring the station back
up when crew came forward or crew were available in the future.
So it's not easy to essentially stop operations without the
crew. We need to keep the crew presence on board station to
keep the vehicle maintained.
Mr. Posey. Would it be feasible even remotely to relocate
the ISS, say, to an orbit around the moon?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We've looked at that. It's attractive but
physically it just doesn't seem practical. The amount of energy
to do that isn't there. The number of orbits if you even have
low propulsion, you'd have to circle through the Van Allen
belts multiple times over multiple months. And then by the time
you get there, it's not physically possible to maneuver large
pieces of station. You might be able to deconstruct and use
small pieces of station, but generally, you're probably going
to want to use those small pieces in the same roughly
inclination orbit that space station is in today.
Mr. Posey. OK. Mr. Martin, you mentioned that we've
invested about $17 billion in the ISS.
Mr. Martin. Seventeen billion in commercial cargo and crew
transportation.
Mr. Posey. OK.
Mr. Martin. Significantly more in the ISS, upwards--the
number is--what you're counting, but it could be $80 to $100
billion over the 21-year life of the station.
Mr. Posey. OK. What kind of investments have our partners
made?
Mr. Martin. The international partners pay for
approximately 23 percent of annual station costs.
Mr. Posey. OK. Mr. Stallmer, from an industry perspective,
how has the public-private partnership benefited the ISS and
LEO missions?
Mr. Stallmer. I think it's greatly contributed. Companies
like NanoRacks has invested $40 million. I think they're one of
the larger investors on the International Space Station
creating--they will be developing their own airlock for the
International Space Station. I think that's going to be
delivered in 2020, in that timeframe. So I think they're--you
know, again, when you talk about--the numbers that Mr. Martin
is talking about, yes, it is a large contribution, but I think
it's what the vision of NASA is. Was NASA designed to be, you
know, an economic driver or was it designed to be an agency for
exploration? And I think we've got to look at what our
priorities are and what NASA's priorities are in working with
the commercial sector on this. And I think the partnership
with--that NASA has had over the past 2 decades working with
the commercial industry, the information sharing and the
service sharing that we've had, I think it's only going to
grow, so I'm very optimistic about that.
Mr. Posey. How do you think the relationship could be
improved?
Mr. Stallmer. The--I think just the communication on the
pricing, the stability on pricing, as they've recently
released. I think--I think greater access--I think once we're
able to launch American astronauts from American soil on
American vehicles, I think that that type of partnership that's
going to open up of having routine access to space I think
we're going to see a lot more opportunities.
I was inspired by Scott Kelly's book Endurance and what it
took for a year on the space station and the challenges that
they had and routine challenges, just regular preventive
maintenance they need to do. And I think having this commercial
access and not being dependent on a foreign nation to provide
our astronauts access to space at, you know, rather large rates
and the cost savings that will have, I think is going to
greatly enhance the capabilities that the commercial sector and
NASA can greater partner with. But I think we have a very good
partnership, and I think Mr. Gerstenmaier's leadership has been
outstanding on that front.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our four
expert witnesses.
One thing we all agree upon, the activities of the ISS must
keep going and expand in the future. We can't go back one step
back. We can't do that. The question is without its future be
the ISS, some expansion, some new experiment platform, maybe
something here on the moon or something based on the moon? We
avoid human debris fields for sure, but that's very expensive.
And so, regardless, the International Space Station has been a
great asset.
I want to remind everybody what this space station has
done. Every single day since November 2, 2000, we've had a
human being in orbit on the International Space Station 230
miles above our planet. And in fact our two honored guests over
there, these two amazing ladies weren't born when the station
went into orbit and became active, but we're here to make sure
you have a space station or something like that to go to when
you walk on the moon or walk on Mars and wave to us and say,
hey, Energy Committee there, Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, I'm on Mars, I'm on the moon.
We all know, too, the ISS has done great wonders, great
experiments we can't do here on Earth. A couple of examples,
the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, AMS, it's been up there since
2013, and it may have discovered the start of dark matter. As
you all know, most of our universe is dark matter, and that's a
huge benefit for human life.
Also, as you guys talked about, the benefits for human
health that we've learned through the International Space
Station, for example, learning how to deal with muscle atrophy,
also bone density loss and fluid shifts and just what we've
learned, we've learned that Scott Kelly can now call his twin
or could call his twin Mark shrimp for a few weeks because
Scott was 2 weeks taller than Mark when he came back home after
almost 1 year in space.
I want to talk about going forward and making sure we keep
this in International Space Station. That means we have a plan
to stop fly or something by 2024 right now that could be
extended. I want to ask the question of all of you starting
with you, Gerst. How are our international partners engaged in
this--do they want us to extend it, how long, what will they
pay? I mean, again, we've got Japan, China, Russia, America,
including the Republic of Texas, European Space Agency,
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, all these nations
are involved right now in the Space Station. How are they going
forward with our plans? Do they want to go to 2024, longer, and
what will they put up to help us go make those things happen?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. I think in general the international
partnership wants to continue using station. They see it still
as a resource that has plenty of life in the future, and they
want to continue to use it.
There's a European ministerial at the end of this year, in
November of this year, and at that time we should see a formal
position from the European Space Agency (ESA) about their
position of using station beyond 2024.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Martin?
Mr. Martin. Again, just a caution, every space agency, like
every government, has a limited budget, so ESA's budget, while
significant and important to maintenance of the International
Space Station, is much, much smaller than NASA's. I've--from
what I've read, they've shown some interest in being part of a
Chinese--a planned Chinese space station set to launch and
begin construction in 2022. I just don't know that their budget
is large enough to continue their current commitment to the ISS
past 2024, as well as partake in perhaps the Artemis mission
with the U.S. or the Chinese space station activities.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Stallmer?
Mr. Stallmer. The United States is the global leader in
space, and I think we need to continue to be that way. I think
the international partnerships that we have on the space
station are critical and most necessary, and I think we should
continue to engage our global partners. But do keep in mind
when you walk around the United States, the Republic of Texas,
all over the world you see people wearing NASA T-shirts. It's a
brand. You don't see people wearing other space agency--the
Polish Space Agency or anything else, T-shirts. So I think
that's critical to keep in mind. The leadership that NASA
provides the world is imperative.
Mr. Olson. And not to butcher your name, but Dr. G, any
comments on----
Dr. Gabrynowicz. That's what my students call me. Please
feel free.
And as a Gabrynowicz, I do not like you dissing the Polish
Space Agency.
Mr. Stallmer. I only do that because they're one of the
newest space agencies around, and I don't know----
Dr. Gabrynowicz. OK.
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. What their logo is, but I'm
fully supportive of the Polish Space Agency and all global
space agencies, except for two.
Dr. Gabrynowicz. OK. Coming from a space law perspective,
the reason why we have the Outer Space Treaty and other
treaties is because the world faced its worst fears at the
time, placing nuclear weapons in space. And people forget that
the Outer Space Treaty prohibits putting nuclear weapons in
space, which makes it one of the most important treaties of the
20th century.
But the treaty also provides for our highest aspirations--
that space is dedicated to peaceful purposes for all humankind.
When the space station was first proposed by President Reagan,
it was the height of the cold war. The Soviet Union was our
enemy, and then a funny thing happened on the way to the space
station. The cold war came to an end and the Soviet Union
became the Russians and the Russians became a partner, and now
here we are in the era of globalization. And we've had a space
station for 30 years in which we have learned how to work
together with one another. And each country that is in that
station is making a commitment--financially, technologically,
and otherwise--that, relative to their assets, is just as great
as what the United States provides.
And I would point out that Canadarm is a fantastic example
of that. The Canadarm in terms of dollars is a relatively
smaller contribution than some of the other bigger elements,
but we would not have a space station without the Canadarm. So
I think we need to think of the space station in terms of
quality as well as quantity, and the quality of the
relationships we have with 15 other nations through the
International Space Station Agreement is not to be understated.
Mr. Olson. I'm aware of my time, Chairwoman. I thank you so
much. I want to remind you, though, there's a special countdown
happening right now around Johnson Space Center in Houston,
Texas. It's T minus 94 days and counting until the Texas
Longhorns repeat and beat the Oklahoma Sooners. They boom them
in Dallas, Texas. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. I think you're being overly optimistic.
And let's just be clear, it's OU-Texas, not Texas-OU for all of
the Texans in the room.
See what you started, Mr. Stallmer, you know, Polish Space
Agency. Of course, Mr. Olson, thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Waltz. Hopefully, the Floridian
won't cause quite as many problems as our Texan over here.
Mr. Waltz. Well, I do have to say thank you, Madam Chair.
And we've heard a lot about Alabama is the home of space and
the Republic of Texas, but I think we all know where space DNA
really resides, which is in Florida and excited to celebrate
the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 coming up.
So a lot of discussion today around the international
aspects of the ISS. I am very focused also as a Member of the
Armed Services Committee on what the Chinese in particular are
doing in space. I think it is always worth remembering and
reminding that the Chinese military is behind every major
component of what the Chinese are doing in space, whether
that's in their new space station or if they have manned
research station on the moon. I put research in air quotes--on
the moon. And that basically everything that NASA has done
going forward or looking backward has not been in the same type
of competitive and potentially hostile environment that we will
look at going forward.
So I think we all agree that American and NASA leadership
in space must continue. We must maintain a low-Earth orbit. And
please interject if you disagree that we must maintain LEO and
we must maintain a presence and particularly if it's a
competitive space going forward.
But the disconnect seems like the white elephant in the
room is whether this plan will actually work with
commercialization and whether it will work in the timeline. And
I'm hearing from the Inspector General some skepticism. Is that
fair to say, that the plan will actually work to be able to
take on that O&M budget of operating the space station in the
timeline proposed?
Mr. Martin. Skepticism is in an Inspector General's job
description.
Mr. Waltz. Sure. I know it's built-in.
Mr. Martin. It is. It's a real concern. The $1.2 billion
operation and maintenance annual cost of maintaining station.
Mr. Waltz. Right.
Mr. Martin. Correct.
Mr. Waltz. So President Reagan put forward a plan
approximately 10 years in advance. What is NASA's plan B? I've
heard you ask when are we going to see that plan B that if the
figures don't work and the private sector can't take it on,
what's the decision point to extend beyond 2024, and then
what's the decision point to extend beyond 2028 or to have a
new platform in place? Mr. Gerstenmaier?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We have some time to decide for the new
platform in place. That's not an immediate problem. I think we
need to----
Mr. Waltz. What is the time, is it 6 years then? If it's
not 10, then is it 5 years, 6 years? In the military we
forecast, right? What's that decision point?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It's probably about 6 years out or so, so
that would probably be 2030 kind of lifetime and then back that
up 6 years.
Mr. Waltz. Assuming the 4-year extension?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes.
Mr. Waltz. OK.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. And so--but I think the more
important thing is we need some stability and understanding for
the commercial sector so they can plan. I think it's also
probably not appropriate to assume that the private sector is
going to take over all the cost of the capability we have in
low-Earth orbit, but we can reduce that cost by using the
private sector where we're now--we're not the only agency
taking people to space. The private sector is doing that on
their own through private astronaut missions, et cetera. So
we're one of many customers. That reduces our cost some amount.
How much we reduce that cost is important to us. We don't--I
don't think we can predict that, but we need to try to drive to
that situation.
What we need to avoid is we need to avoid the gap, as we
discussed here, especially in light of the Chinese space
station, which could be in orbit, a portion of it even as early
as this year or next year. We need to make sure that we don't
create a gap where we the U.S. don't have a facility in low-
Earth orbit----
Mr. Waltz. Absolutely.
Mr. Gerstenmaier [continuing]. And there's only the
Chinese.
Mr. Waltz. Absolutely. Hundred percent agree.
Mr. Stallmer, in the time I have remaining, the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration)--switching tracks here. The
FAA recently released a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
regulatory reform for launch and reentry of commercial
vehicles. Obviously, launch is critical to everything we've
discussed today with projections of getting up to 50-plus
flights by 2021. What are your thoughts on how industry views
the draft rules that are out? What needs to be addressed moving
forward to enable American companies and private sectors to
operate efficiently?
Mr. Stallmer. That's a great question. In short, we have
concerns. We have concerns. There is a directive put out that
we're going to streamline, you know, the regulatory burden that
a lot of the industry is facing. And I say burden. It's a
burden because it hasn't been updated. The--what the launch
industry was back in the mid-'80s is different from what the
launch industry is today in 2019. There's more commercial
launch vehicles than ever. We have, just for NASA alone, four
vehicles, you know, that will be servicing the space station
with reusability.
So these issues need to be addressed, and I think with this
rulemaking process I think the FAA really needs to hear--
especially the Office of Commercial Space Transportation really
needs to hear what industry has to say on how their industry is
being regulated. It has to--it can be so--it has to be
performance-based rather than so prescriptive-based. And I
think the FAA needs to work more with industry in understanding
what their needs are. And we're trying to get there. We're
trying to get there. We do have a deadline of July 30, which is
closing in on us.
Mr. Waltz. Madam Chair, if you'll indulge me, could you
submit a more fulsome response for the record?
Mr. Stallmer. I certainly can.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
Mr. Stallmer. I certainly can. Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as a card-carrying
member of the Republic of Texas, regarding the Texas and
Johnson's Space Center's preeminence, let me just say that my
colleagues can feel free to express their confusion and lack of
understanding anytime they want to.
And, Madam Chair, without objection, I'd like that read
into the record. I'm just saying.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, when we partner with industry, how do we
ensure that we don't take jobs away from our NASA facilities?
Let me qualify that. My district, half a mile south of the
Johnson Space Center has thousands of people that work in my
district. It's huge for us as a country and national security,
and I'll talk about that more. But how do we ensure that we
don't take jobs away from NASA? And I like to think about the
NASA T-shirt by the way. All you see is NASA T-shirts. Who was
that other smaller space agency?
Mr. Stallmer. I don't recall.
Mr. Weber. Oh, you don't recall? OK. All right. For
example, Boeing is subcontracting back to JSC to handle mission
control for the Starliner missions. My district is home to many
of those great NASA employees who work there, and some 50
percent of the JSC jobs are tied to ISS. So I think it's
critical that we ensure that the commercialization of ISS will
still model that of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs where
integration, operations, and other activities are still done.
Did I mention Johnson Space Center is close to me?
So Mr. Gerstenmaier, how do we ensure that that happens,
that we don't want those jobs to go away?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. You know, again, I think the right role
for NASA is to do the long-term research, technology, and
exploration, so the activities around the moon, those kind of
things that we don't really know how to do, to build the next
generation of rocket engines, to build the next-generation of
flight control strategies, those kind of things of how we
operate independently from the Earth, those are the roles of
the government to do that, to establish that first where
doesn't make sense. We're building the heavy lift launch
vehicle, as you know, the Space Launch System. There's not
really a market for that if you look at that. That's really
unique to what we need to do around the moon and other
activities. But then once that market then comes behind it,
then we can use the private sector.
So I think the role of the civil servants are to do these
really hard research, cutting-edge technology development that
don't make sense at all for industry. It's good for the
government to own that because then we can distribute that to
industry as a whole and they can use that moving forward. So I
think there's a strong role for the civil servants in the
government to continue to do those research activities.
Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that. And, Mr. Martin, you
said the Chinese space station is set to be operable 2022? Was
that the year you said?
Mr. Martin. I believe it's going to be--portions will be in
orbit by 2020, Bill?
Mr. Weber. Is it 2020?
Mr. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Weber. OK. Mr. Stallmer, I want to fix one thing that
you said in your comments. You said that you think the U.S.
needs to be the leader in space. The USA----
Mr. Stallmer. We--yes, sir.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Needs to be the leader in space.
Mr. Stallmer. We are and we need to continue to be----
Mr. Weber. Yes.
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. Our leadership.
Mr. Weber. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to point out. And
then, Dr. G, discussing his dissing of the Polish Space
Agency----
Mr. Stallmer. It was just noting another space agency----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. That does not have T-shirts.
Mr. Weber. It's no big deal, Mr. Stallmer. It's just
something people are going to remember about you for a long
time.
Mr. Stallmer. I get hate mail. I get hate mail, I got to
tell you.
Mr. Weber. Yes, welcome to the club.
Mr. Stallmer. Can you strike that from the record, Madam
Chairwoman?
Mr. Weber. And I appreciate you talking about the
international agreement, no nukes in space, but I do want to
point out military experts know that in any military conflict,
whoever occupies the high ground has the upper hand. There is
no higher ground than space. And so while I appreciate that in
the words of nuclear nonproliferation or in terms of nuclear
nonproliferation, I still want the United States of America to
have preeminence in space. I absolutely do.
And I remember a great one-liner from Senator Graham who
said that if the lamb is going to lie down with the lion, we
want America to be the lion. So space is important to us, we
want to have that preeminence and make sure that we maintain
that.
A couple of small questions I have in my time left over.
Mr. Gerstenmaier, you said that we had increased the bandwidth
some 600 percent did you say?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. The bandwidth is 600 megabits.
Mr. Weber. Six hundred megabits. What was it?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. It was I think about 100 megabits per
second.
Mr. Weber. So that's a substantial increase, so we're
making progress. OK. Well, I appreciate all of you all being
here to testify, and I will close by saying, Madam Chairwoman,
let me wish you a happy belated birthday yesterday.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. It was actually June, but thank
you.
Mr. Weber. OK. Madam Chairwoman, would you strike the
comments from the record?
Chairwoman Horn. I will be happy to.
Mr. Weber. OK.
Chairwoman Horn. You got the date right----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Chairwoman Horn [continuing]. But so very close, and thank
you very much.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. I think we can all point to Mr. Stallmer
as having started the trouble with his comments about the
Polish Space Agency.
I've got a couple more questions. I want to sincerely thank
all of the Members on this Committee and all of the panelists.
As you can tell, this is an issue that is critical. I know it's
not news to any of you, but it's also an issue that is critical
to all of us, that we are attempting to ask and frame these
important questions about how we move forward, about how we
avoid capability gaps in the future and in absence of a space
station, in the absence of the ability to do research and
exploration in low-Earth orbit.
The issues surrounding certainty and the investment of our
taxpayer dollars and how we get there, where is the role of an
emerging commercial sector and how much we subsidize these
priorities that are critical to all of us, as well as, Dr.
Gabrynowicz, the legal structure and the legal questions that
will inevitably face us because, Mr. Weber, I agree with you,
absolutely, we absolutely have to invest and be intentional
about maintaining our investment and our preeminence in space.
It is important for our scientific advancement. It is important
for our national security and for our commercial sector and our
ability to move forward.
So having said that, I've got just a couple more very quick
questions before we close out this hearing that have been
raised for me. Throughout the questions, I've seen a few themes
from all of you and from all of us, the capability gap in the
transition, how we navigate that and what the extension is, the
need for certainty both from NASA and from the commercial
sector for us to plan because space and complicated issues
require ongoing planning, how we prioritize and where we have
to make those hard choices about the pathway forward, and
finally, the risk and the legal structure and the need to ask
all those questions and for us to give authorization and put
that into law on the legal side but also a framework.
So, Mr. Martin, there's a question that I wanted to ask you
about, the cost and the subsidies for commercial. And so my
question is what is the percentage of subsidy as a part of the
commercial LEO development plan? We've talked about different
aspects of it, but can you speak to the percentage of NASA
subsidy?
Mr. Martin. You're talking about the newly released----
Chairwoman Horn. Yes.
Mr. Martin. Eighty-five percent.
Chairwoman Horn. Eighty-five percent, OK. And, Dr.
Gabrynowicz, one additional question. When we're speaking about
the U.S. Government responsibilities and legal obligations
under the Outer Space Treaty and looking forward with
commercial astronauts and other commercial entities, what level
of ownership does the U.S. Government need to have in order to
ensure sufficient oversight of a commercial space station?
Dr. Gabrynowicz. That's not an answerable question at this
point because the law doesn't speak in degrees. It speaks in
principles at this point.
Chairwoman Horn. Could you speak to some of those
principles that need to be taken into consideration or used to
create that legal framework then?
Dr. Gabrynowicz. Well, regarding the Outer Space Treaty is
the principle I raised about international responsibility. That
is a principle that the United States Government is responsible
for its nongovernmental space actors. The degree and kind of
responsibility is going to be defined by what actually happens,
and we don't--these would be cases of first impression, so we
don't know what it's going to be.
Then the other principle is in the International Space
Station Agreement, which says even with the transfer of
elements, the obligation of the partners still remains. So,
again, that hasn't been done yet, so we're going to figure that
out as we do it. But the principle is already there.
Responsibility will continue to be--I'm sorry, rights and
obligations will continue to be in force even after the
transfer of elements.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much. Mr. Gerstenmaier,
would you care to comment?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Again, I think her points are valid. I
think it's--the rights and ownership responsibility of
governments are important because it cuts the other way, too.
If one of the other international partners want to remove, they
can't remove themselves from their rights and responsibilities,
so I think it's a good benefit both ways.
Another thing we should talk a little bit about at some
point is also the potential and maybe the role of the Commerce
Department in some of these activities as we talk about
economic development. We're not really an economic development
agency. We're doing cutting-edge research and exploration.
We're doing our best to move forward, but there may be a role
for Commerce in this activity that should be thought about, as
well as potential funding sources. Maybe it's not the burden of
NASA to fund all this stuff. Maybe some of these transportation
costs and other things may come from other areas of the
government, but those should be discussed as well.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you for raising that point. Yes,
there are very clearly issues surrounding commercial
development in the Department of Commerce that this Committee
and others will need to tackle moving forward.
So, Mr. Babin, do you have further questions?
Mr. Babin. I have no other questions except to say this has
been a great hearing. I've enjoyed listening to the expert
answers. Thank you for having this.
I also want to say thank you to the Johnson Space Center
folks that came up here to visit and get a little continuing
education, and I'm proud of you for being here and all the
great work you do back home. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Babin. And yes, thank you
to all of our civil servants and the work that you've done. And
thank you to our panelists. I agree; this is an important
topic, and your insights were incredibly valuable as we tackle
this critical issue about how we make the transition.
And I want to thank the Committee, as well as all of the
witnesses, for your participation and note that the record will
remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the
Members and for any additional questions the Committee may ask
of the witnesses.
And the witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]