[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                    A REVIEW OF THE DECADAL STRATEGY
                         FOR PLANETARY SCIENCE
                       AND ASTROBIOLOGY 2023	2032

=======================================================================

                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 26, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-59

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
 
 

 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       
 
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
       
       
                         ______
 
              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
47-613 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2023
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

                   HON. DON BEYER, Virginia, Chairman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              BRIAN BABIN, Texas, 
AMI BERA, California                     Ranking Member
BRAD SHERMAN, California             MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              BILL POSEY, Florida
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          YOUNG KIM, California

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S
                         

                              May 26, 2022

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
  Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and 
  Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    10
    Written Statement............................................    11

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    11
    Written Statement............................................    13

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    14

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Robin M. Canup, Co-Chair, Steering Group, Committee on the 
  Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey, National 
  Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Assistant 
  Vice President, Planetary Science Directorate, Southwest 
  Research Institute
    Oral Statement...............................................    15
    Written Statement............................................    31

Dr. Philip R. Christensen, Co-Chair, Steering Group, Committee on 
  the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey, National 
  Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Arizona State 
  University
    Oral Statement...............................................    48
    Written Statement............................................    59

Discussion.......................................................    75

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Robin M. Canup, Co-Chair, Steering Group, Committee on the 
  Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey, National 
  Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Assistant 
  Vice President, Planetary Science Directorate, Southwest 
  Research Institute.............................................    90

Dr. Philip R. Christensen, Co-Chair, Steering Group, Committee on 
  the Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey, National 
  Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Arizona State 
  University.....................................................    95

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Letter submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, 
  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    Paula Szkody, President, American Astronomical Society.......    98


                    A REVIEW OF THE DECADAL STRATEGY

                         FOR PLANETARY SCIENCE

                       AND ASTROBIOLOGY 2023-2032

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., 
via Zoom, Hon. Don Beyer [Chairman of the Subcommittee] 
presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Chairman Beyer. This hearing will come to order. And 
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess 
at any time.
    And before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note 
that--today that the meeting is being held virtually. And a 
couple of reminders to the Members, please keep your video feed 
on as long as you are present in the hearing. And you are 
responsible for your own microphones. So, obviously, please 
keep them muted unless you're speaking.
    Finally, if you have documents that you wish to submit for 
the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose 
email address was circulated prior to the hearing.
    So good morning, and welcome to today's hearing entitled 
``A Review of the Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and 
Astrobiology 2023 to 2032.'' Thank you to our distinguished 
witnesses for joining us today, witnesses and authors and 
thinkers, and we're really excited to have you.
    Today, we're going to hear about the vision for the future 
of planetary science and astrobiology, and the vision is truly 
breathtaking--returning samples from Mars, sending envoys to 
the ice giant of Uranus and Saturn's moon Enceladus, even 
infusing planetary science into human exploratory programs. 
These are just a few of the inspiring and ambitious activities 
organized around priority science questions that set the stage 
for a planetary decadal vision.
    Before I continue, I want to take a moment to thank the 
hundreds of scientists who've contributed to the decadal survey 
process. I tried to read as much of it as I could, but I was 
astonished at how much science went into the process itself. 
And thank you to the committee that shepherded the survey and 
of course, most importantly, the co-chairs who led this, who 
put all this together who are with us today, the once-in-a-
decade undertaking.
    Decadal surveys obviously require enormous effort. They've 
got to reach a consensus on priorities and make hard choices 
about how to achieve a bold scientific vision within the 
realities of a finite budget. And while the vision inspires, 
it's the hard work, taxpayer investments, and people who turn 
that vision into reality.
    For the first time, this decadal survey makes important 
recommendations on the state of the profession, including, and 
especially, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Ensuring broad 
access and participation in implementing this decadal is 
central to its success. So I want to voice my strong support 
for breaking barriers and opening doors so that all of 
America's talent can be part of this exciting future in 
planetary science.
    The United States, with our international partners, has 
reveled in a golden age of planetary science that has allowed 
us to send probes to every planet in the solar system, to send 
spacecraft to the surface of Mars on three separate occasions 
in just the last decade, and to sample the asteroid Bennu. 
There's much more to come as NASA (National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration) and the community develop missions that 
will study Earth's fiery neighbor Venus and send an orbiter to 
Europa and deploy a rotorcraft on the hydrocarbon world of 
Titan.
    And as we look to the future, we can't rest on our past 
successes. Maintaining U.S. leadership requires that we hew to 
the carefully crafted strategy laid out in the decadal survey, 
maintain balance, manage costs, embrace innovation, and ensure 
a talented pipeline. And it's up to us in Congress to make 
those necessary investments. Really, we can't afford not to, if 
we want this Nation to lead in answering some of the most 
consequential questions for humanity: Are we alone? Is there 
life beyond our planet? Are there near-Earth objects (NEOs) on 
a trajectory headed toward Earth? And how will human presence 
in deep space affect our understanding of the solar system?
    So I want to thank again our witnesses for being here 
today. I'm eager to hear your testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Beyer follows:]

    Good morning and welcome to today's hearing, ``A Review of 
the Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 
2023-2032.'' Thank you to our distinguished witnesses for 
joining us today. We're excited to have you.
    Today, we're going to hear about the vision for the future 
of planetary science and astrobiology over the next decade. And 
the vision is truly breathtaking-returning samples from Mars, 
sending envoys to the ice giant Uranus and Saturn's moon 
Enceladus, and even infusing planetary science into human 
exploration programs. These are just a few of the inspiring and 
ambitious activities organized around priority science 
questions that set the stage for the planetary decadal vision.
    Before I continue, I want to take a moment to thank the 
hundreds of scientists who contributed to the decadal survey 
process, the committee that shepherded the survey, and, of 
course, the co-chairs with us today who led this once-a-decade 
undertaking. Decadal surveys represent an enormous effort. They 
must reach consensus on priorities and make hard choices about 
how to achieve a bold scientific vision within the realities of 
finite budgets. NASA, the scientific community, and Congress 
need and value these surveys; they keep us honest as to what is 
most important.
    While the vision inspires, it's the hard work, taxpayer 
investments, and people who turn that vision into reality. For 
the first time, this decadal survey makes important 
recommendations on the state of the profession, especially 
diversity, equity, and inclusion. Ensuring broad access and 
participation in implementing this decadal is central to its 
success. I want to voice my strong support for breaking 
barriers and opening doors so that all of America's talent can 
be part of this exciting future in planetary science.
    The United States, with our international partners, has 
reveled in a golden age of planetary science that has allowed 
us to send probes to every planet in the solar system, to send 
spacecraft to the surface of Mars on three separate occasions 
in just this last decade, and to sample the asteroid Bennu. 
There's much more to come as NASA and the community develop 
missions that will study Earth's fiery neighbor, Venus, send an 
orbiter to Europa, and deploy a rotorcraft on the hydrocarbon 
world of Titan.
    As we look to the future, we can't rest on our past 
successes. Maintaining U.S. leadership requires that we hew to 
the carefully crafted strategy laid out in the decadal survey, 
maintain balance, manage costs, embrace innovation, and ensure 
a talented pipeline.
    And, it's up to us in Congress to make the necessary 
investments. We can't afford not to, if we want this nation to 
lead in answering some of the most consequential questions of 
humanity:
    Are we alone? Is there life beyond our planet? Are there 
near-Earth objects on a trajectory headed toward Earth? And how 
will human presence in deep space affect our understanding of 
the solar system?
    I want to again thank our witnesses for being here. I am 
eager to hear their testimony.

    Chairman Beyer. And I'd now like to ask for unanimous 
consent to enter into the record a letter from the American 
Astronomical Society. And if there are no objections, I will so 
order it.
    And now let me recognize my friend Dr. Babin from Texas for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate 
this. I'm looking forward to this hearing. And I see my Ranker 
on there. Mr. Lucas, thank you very much, and really appreciate 
all of you. Looking forward to hearing this expert testimony.
    I'd also like to thank our esteemed witnesses for appearing 
today. The decadal survey process is no small feat. Not only is 
the subject complex from a scientific and technological 
standpoint but from an organizational and coordination, and 
that--those aspects are just as daunting. The task of producing 
a consensus position among brilliant minds that informs the 
next decade of investments in cutting-edge exploration cannot 
be understated.
    Many of us on Capitol Hill are accustomed to the day-to-day 
realities of politics, but the decadal process reminds me of 
the old joke that academic politics is the most vicious and 
bitter form of politics because the stakes are so low. I 
disagree. The stakes for planetary science are high. The issues 
that we are discussing influence norms of behavior in space for 
future generations. The goals we set inspire our children and 
our grandchildren to pursue challenging fields of study like 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The 
technologies that we develop to enable these discoveries enable 
our economic and national security. And that's why the work 
that you do is so very important.
    The task set before you should be fully appreciated. The 
questions, destination, and concepts that you evaluated and 
prioritized were vast and very, very complex. And they involve 
not only planetary science but also cost estimation, 
management, budget formulation, supply chain risk, 
international relations, national security, market analysis, 
and many, many other aspects that are so critical to a 
successful portfolio of programs.
    Previous decadal surveys initiated missions that inspired 
all and piqued our curiosity and drew front-page attention as 
the world's--on the world's newspapers and nightly news 
features. From roving and flying on Mars to sampling asteroids 
and returning dramatic images of distant Pluto, planetary 
science missions capture our imaginations and beckon us to 
explore farther into the cosmos. This decadal survey continues 
that tradition.
    In addition to reaffirming support for a Mars Sample Return 
mission and a Europa mission, it also recommends a mission to 
Uranus, a mission to Saturn's moon Enceladus, and calls for a 
lunar rover mission to collect large samples over long 
distances and then deliver them to the Artemis astronauts for 
an eventual return here to Earth.
    The report also provides important support for a near-Earth 
object survey mission to identify potentially hazardous 
asteroids that can impact Earth and have catastrophic effects 
on all of us. The recommendation to fully support the 
development, timely launch, and subsequent operation of the 
NASA--excuse me, of the NEO Surveyor mission is particularly 
important as NASA proposes to slash the NEO Surveyor mission 
budget and even reprogram existing appropriated funds from the 
current fiscal year (FY). These missions recommended by the 
report will advance science, maintain global leadership, and 
protect our precious planet.
    Bold and ambitious plans are important. As we saw over the 
last two years, China successfully landed a rover on Mars and 
returned samples from the Moon. Their plans are very ambitious. 
Ours should be even more so, more ambitious. But we must be 
vigilant in how we implement these recommendations and to carry 
out these plans. To the Academies' credit, they also 
recommended alternative programs and funding--if funding is not 
available to support their aspirational goals. This will enable 
NASA and Congress to make informed decisions throughout the 
decade. As we've seen over the years, these decision criteria 
are important to have when difficult decisions have got to be 
made.
    In order to turn these recommendations into a reality, we 
must ensure strong program management and, above all, 
accountability. Cost overruns impact other missions and 
programs within the division and can delay future missions. We 
can't afford to have one program eat the lunch so to speak of 
other important activities, and that's why Congress will have 
to closely examine the recommendations to alter the cost caps 
for Discovery and New Frontier class missions. I'm also 
interested in better understanding the panel's thoughts on how 
to limit the risk of international participation cost overruns 
and schedule delays for the Mars Sample Return mission, as well 
as the panel's thoughts on how to best use NASA's current 
astromaterials curation facilities at the Johnson Space Center 
for Mars samples. I proudly represent Johnson Space Center.
    Once again, I want to thank you for your service and your 
time today, and I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

    Good morning, and thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this 
fascinating hearing.
    I'd also like to thank our esteemed witnesses for appearing 
today. The decadal survey process is no small feat. Not only is 
the subject complex from a scientific and technological 
standpoint, but the organizational and coordination aspects are 
just as daunting. The task of producing a consensus position 
among brilliant minds that informs the next decade of 
investments in cutting-edge exploration cannot be understated.
    Many of us on Capitol Hill are accustomed to the day-to-day 
realities of politics, but the decadal process reminds me of 
the old joke that ``academic politics is the most vicious and 
bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low.'' I 
disagree. The stakes for planetary science are high.
    The issues we are discussing influence norms of behavior in 
space for future generations. The goals we set inspire our 
children and grandchildren to pursue challenging fields of 
study like science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 
The technologies we develop to enable those discoveries support 
our economic and national security. That is why the work you do 
is so important.
    The task set before you should be fully appreciated. The 
questions, destinations, and concepts you evaluated and 
prioritized were vast and complex. They involved not only 
planetary science, but also cost estimation, management, budget 
formulation, supply chain risk, international relations, 
national security, market analysis, and many, many other 
aspects that are critical to a successful portfolio of 
programs.
    Previous decadal surveys initiated missions that inspired 
awe, piqued curiosity, and drew front-page attention on the 
world's newspapers and nightly news features.
    From roving and flying on Mars, to sampling asteroids, to 
returning dramatic images of distant Pluto, Planetary Science 
missions capture our imaginations and beckon us to explore 
farther into the cosmos. This decadal survey continues that 
tradition.
    In addition to reaffirming support for a Mars Sample Return 
Mission and Europa mission, it also recommends a mission to 
Uranus, a mission to Saturn's moon Enceladus, and calls for a 
lunar rover mission to collect large samples over long 
distances and deliver them to Artemis astronauts for an 
eventual return to Earth.
    The report also provides important support for a Near Earth 
Object Survey Mission to identify potentially hazardous 
asteroids that could impact Earth and have catastrophic 
effects. The recommendation to fully support the development, 
timely launch, and subsequent operation of the NEO Surveyor 
mission is particularly important as NASA proposes to slash the 
NEO Surveyor mission budget and even reprogram existing 
appropriated funds from the current fiscal year.
    These missions recommended by the report will advance 
science, maintain global leadership, and protect our planet. 
Bold and ambitious plans are important. As we saw over the last 
two years, China successfully landed a rover on Mars and 
returned samples from the Moon. Their plans are ambitious. Ours 
should be even more ambitious.
    But we must be vigilant in how we implement these 
recommendations and carry out these plans. To the Academies' 
credit, they also recommended alternative programs if funding 
is not available to support their aspirational goals. This will 
enable NASA and Congress to make informed decisions throughout 
the decade. As we've seen over the years, these decision 
criteria are important to have when difficult decisions must be 
made.
    In order to turn these recommendations into reality, we 
must ensure strong program management and accountability. Cost 
over-runs impact other missions and programs within the 
division, and can delay future missions. We can't afford to 
have one program ``eat the lunch'' of other important 
activities.
    That's why Congress will have to closely examine the 
recommendation to alter the cost caps for Discovery and New 
Frontier class missions. I am also interested in better 
understanding the panel's thoughts on how to limit the risk of 
international participation cost overruns and schedule delays 
for the Mars Sample Return mission, as well as the panel's 
thoughts on how to best use NASA's current astromaterial 
curation facilities at the Johnson Space Center for Mars 
samples.
    Once again, thank you for your service and time today. I 
yield back.

    Chairman Beyer. Dr. Babin, thank you very, very much.
    Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Beyer. At this time, I'd like to recognize 
Congressman Lucas if Congressman Lucas as Ranking Member would 
like to offer any opening statements.
    Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy, but I'm 
enthusiastically waiting for our panel, so I will pass.
    Chairman Beyer. All right. Thank you very much, Congressman 
Lucas.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    Good morning.
    Thank you, Chairman Beyer, for holding this hearing, and 
welcome to our distinguished witnesses. We are fortunate to 
have both co-chairs of the decadal survey with us today. I know 
we are all eager to hear about their vision for the future and 
what planetary scientists hope to learn in the next decade 
about the formation, evolution, and interactions of planetary 
bodies. I also look forward to hearing about the next steps and 
key questions in the search for life beyond our planet.
    The National Academies' decadal surveys are widely 
respected and highly influential. Each survey is a monumental 
effort, with the input and involvement of hundreds of 
scientists. This decadal survey ensures that the Nation's 
investments in planetary science and astrobiology are guided by 
the highest priority and most compelling science questions.I'm 
also glad to see that for the first time ever the survey 
addresses diversity, equity, and inclusion in the planetary 
science field. Improving access, diversity, and inclusion are 
critical to realizing the decadal survey's vision and to 
sustaining our leadership in scientific research.
    NASA has made groundbreaking discoveries in planetary 
science in recent years. The first powered and controlled 
flight on another planetary surface and the ongoing return of a 
sample from the asteroid Bennu are just two examples. If these 
successes are any indication, I know that the new decadal will 
bring equally inspiring and important results.
    To fully realize the decadal strategy, however, we need to 
ensure that NASA maintains a focus on project management best 
practices and cost controls. NASA has struggled to manage cost 
and schedule for its large planetary science missions. The 
implementation of this new decadal survey will suffer if 
project management challenges continue.
    Finally, as we look ahead to the exciting planetary science 
that awaits us, it is important that we reflect on why this 
great nation pursues such ambitious, complex programs in the 
first place. Sixty-one years ago, yesterday, President John F. 
Kennedy laid out to Congress and the nation his audacious goal 
to land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth by the 
end of the 1960s. As we did back then, so can we now push the 
boundaries of what's possible in science, technology, 
engineering, and math. Doing so will inspire generations to 
come and lead to new knowledge and terrestrial benefits.
    I again want to welcome our expert witnesses, and I look 
forward to their testimony.
    Thank you, and I yield back.

    Chairman Beyer. So in the absence of our major Chair, let 
me now introduce our witnesses. Dr. Robin Canup is Assistant 
Vice President at Southwest Research Institute where she leads 
the Planetary Sciences Directorate in Boulder, Colorado. Dr. 
Canup is a theoretician, and she studies the formation and the 
early evolution of planets and their moons. She's modeled many 
aspects of the formation of the Moon and has also developed 
models for an impact origin of the satellites of Pluto and 
Mars. Another major area of Dr. Canup's work has addressed the 
origin of the systems of rings and satellites around the outer 
giant planets. Now, Dr. Canup is the co-chair of the 2023 to 
2032 Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey. That's 
why she's here. And she earned her Ph.D. and master of science 
in astrophysics and planetary sciences from the University of 
Colorado Boulder. Doctor, it's wonderful to have you here. It's 
so rare to have anything good come out of Colorado, that it's 
really terrific.
    Dr. Philip Christensen is the Regents Professor in the 
School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State 
University. His interests--research interests focuses on the 
composition, processes, and physical properties of Mars, Earth, 
asteroids, Europa, and other planetary surfaces. Dr. 
Christensen has built seven science instruments that have flown 
on NASA's Mars Observer, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, 
Mars Exploration Rover, OSIRIS-REx, and Lucy missions and the 
UAE's (United Arab Emirates') Hope Mars orbiter. He is also co-
chair of the 2023-2032 Planetary Science and Astrobiology 
Decadal Survey. Dr. Christensen received his Ph.D. in 
geophysics and space physics from the University of California 
at Los Angeles.
    So as the witnesses know, you will have each five minutes 
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony, much longer, 
will be included in the record of the hearing. And when you've 
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with these 
rigorous questions. And each Member will have five minutes to 
question the panel.
    So with that, we'll start with Dr. Robin Canup, and I hope 
you will tell us how to correctly pronounce your name.

                TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBIN M. CANUP,

                   CO-CHAIR, STEERING GROUP,

               COMMITTEE ON THE PLANETARY SCIENCE

                AND ASTROBIOLOGY DECADAL SURVEY,

                NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

                   ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE;

                   ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT,

                 PLANETARY SCIENCE DIRECTORATE,

                  SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE

    Dr. Canup. That is correct, and thank you for the very kind 
introductions.
    Good morning, Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member Babin, and 
Members of the Subcommittee. We are deeply appreciative of the 
opportunity to speak to you today about our decadal report. And 
perhaps we could bring up the first slide.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Ten years ago, Dr. Steven Squyres came here and argued for 
an ambitious program of planetary exploration. Thanks to the 
generosity of Congress, that program became a reality and 
ushered in a decade of unprecedented success. Our Sample Return 
and Europa Clipper are now underway and will revolutionize our 
understanding of the early habitable Martian environment and of 
the habitability of an icy ocean world. These flagship missions 
have been accompanied by a vibrant program of missions at 
varying cost levels, as well as new partnerships between NASA 
and the private sector that are increasing access to space and 
its affordability.
    Against this backdrop of incredible accomplishments and 
with awareness of efforts being undertaken by other space 
agencies around the world, we put forth an aspirational plan 
for the next decade to ensure groundbreaking scientific 
advances, as well as our Nation's continued leadership in solar 
system exploration.
    Next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    We began our task by defining the most important scientific 
questions that motivate our endeavors, which fall within three 
scientific themes.
    And next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    The first theme, origins, addresses how the primordial disc 
of gas and solids that orbited our young sun evolved to yield 
the outer giant planet systems and Kuiper belt objects and the 
inner asteroids and terrestrial planets, including our own 
Earth-Moon system.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    The second theme, worlds and processes, considers ongoing 
gravitational interactions and bombardment, the interior, 
surfaces, atmospheres, and climates of solid planets, the 
properties of gas-dominated Jupiter and Saturn, as well as the 
ice giants Uranus and Neptune, and the many diverse systems of 
moons and rings.
    Next slide.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    The third theme, life and habitability, addresses how life 
on Earth emerged and evolved, other habitable environments 
across the solar system, and the central question of whether 
life formed elsewhere and how to detect evidence of it. Related 
to all these themes is the study of planets orbiting other 
stars, which can help us better understand whether Earthlike 
planets are common or rare in the universe.
    Answering such fundamental questions requires a highly 
skilled and creative work force.
    Next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
  
    Broad access and participation, as well as equitable 
processes, are needed to recruit, retain, and nurture the best 
talent to work in our field. Our report makes numerous 
recommendations to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in 
our profession, including actions to minimize the effect of 
biases in our processes to enhance outreach to underrepresented 
communities, and to foster respectful and inclusive work 
environments.
    It is basic research and analysis (R&A) that provides the 
intellectual foundation that ensures that NASA's activities are 
optimized to advance scientific knowledge. In addition, the 
openly competed R&A programs support broad access and entry 
into our profession. While NASA's planetary program has grown 
substantially in the past decade, the per-year fractional 
investment in basic R&A has decreased from 14 percent in 2013 
to less than 8 percent currently. It is essential to the 
continued success of our Nation's planetary science program 
that this trend be reversed and that a minimum of ten percent 
of the annual program budget be invested into R&A.
    Turning now to missions, the committee reaffirms the broad 
scientific and strategic importance of Mars Sample Return and 
recommends that it be completed as soon as is practically 
possible as the highest priority of NASA's robotic exploration 
efforts.
    One of the most exciting new missions recommended in our 
report involves increased cooperation between NASA's science 
and human exploration endeavors. The Artemis program calls for 
landing humans on the Moon starting in the 2020's with 
increasingly sustained operations on the lunar surface. The 
committee strongly supports this visionary program and argues 
that it is imperative that Artemis be accompanied by a 
similarly visionary scientific program. To not do so would be a 
missed opportunity for NASA and the Nation that would undermine 
the tremendous potential value of the Artemis program.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    To that end, we prioritize a transformative mission, a 
robotic human partnership we call Endurance-A. This lunar rover 
mission would complete 1,000-kilometer, 300-mile traverse 
across the South Pole-Aiken (SPA) basin of the Moon on the 
Moon's far side collecting a large suite of samples along the 
way. The rover would then deliver these samples to a location 
on the lunar surface for return to Earth by Artemis astronauts. 
This mission would revolutionize our understanding of the Moon 
and the history of the early solar system recorded in its 
oldest impact basin.
    Thank you for the invitation to testify, and I'll be happy 
to answer any of your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Canup follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Canup, very much. I'm 
looking forward to our questions, too.
    Dr. Christensen, the floor is yours.

              TESTIMONY DR. PHILIP R. CHRISTENSEN,

                   CO-CHAIR, STEERING GROUP,

               COMMITTEE ON THE PLANETARY SCIENCE

                AND ASTROBIOLOGY DECADAL SURVEY,

                NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES,

                   ENGINEERING, AND MEDICINE;

                    ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Christensen. Thank you very much. Chairman Beyer, 
Ranking Member Babin, and distinguished Members of the 
Committee, it is indeed a pleasure to get a chance to talk with 
you today.
    One of the key tasks that our committee was given was to 
prioritize the large flagship planetary missions that NASA 
should undertake in the coming decade. As you just heard from 
Dr. Canup, there's a remarkable array of science questions that 
we wish to answer, and the flagship missions provide the best 
means to make fundamental progress toward doing so.
    We selected the Uranus Orbiter and Probe as our highest 
priority flagship.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Uranus is an ice giant that has far more ice and rock than 
the gas giants of Jupiter and Saturn. The ice giants may be 
among the most common planets in the universe, and yet they 
remain the only planets in our solar system that have never 
been studied in detail. Uranus is an intriguing body whose low 
internal energy atmospheric dynamics and complex magnetic 
fields present major puzzles. It is unclear when and where 
Uranus formed and may have actually swapped positions with 
Neptune during early solar system migration. And finally, 
Uranus's largest icy moon are potential ocean worlds in 
themselves.
    The next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Our second priority flagship is the Enceladus orbiter and 
lander. Enceladus is an icy moon of Saturn with active plumes 
that bring water from the subsurface ocean to the surface where 
we can study them. Orbilander will address one of our most 
fundamental questions: Is there life beyond Earth. The Cassini 
spacecraft detected methane, ammonia, and other simple organics 
in the plumes but could not measure the complex molecules 
associated with life. Orbilander will spend two years on the 
surface beneath an active plume and study that ocean material 
as it rains down upon the lander.
    Our committee also evaluated more than 25 medium-class or 
New Frontiers missions and prioritized the most promising 
candidates.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    New Frontiers missions are competitively selected and 
provide the science community with the opportunity to bring 
forward their most innovative concepts. From this amazing set, 
we've selected nine themes. These missions include sample 
returns from a comet to study the role comets play in 
delivering water and organics to Earth and a mission to Ceres, 
a large ice-rich asteroid to study its formation and 
habitability.
    Another mission would land an orbit on a primitive ice rich 
centaur asteroid, and another would probe into Saturn. 
Together, these would improve our understanding of giant planet 
formation and the composition and nature of the early solar 
nebula. Our set of missions also includes a network of landers 
on the Moon to gain insight into its origin and interior state, 
and a mission to Venus to investigate its atmosphere and how 
that interacts with the surface. Finally, there are missions to 
the amazingly complex ocean worlds Enceladus, Titan, and Triton 
in order to assess their habitability and to search for 
evidence of life.
    Planetary defense is an international--next slide, please.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Planetary defense is an international enterprise aimed at 
providing protection to the people of the world from 
devastating asteroid and comet impacts. Advancement in 
planetary defense will require enhancements in asteroid 
detection and characterization and the ability to rapidly 
assess newly identified hazards. We recommend that NASA fully 
support the development and timely launch of the NEO Surveyor 
to achieve the highest priority goal of asteroid detection and 
characterization.
    In summary, our report outlines a portfolio of activities 
that will significantly advance the frontiers of planetary 
science and astrobiology in the coming decade.
    [Slide.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Our recommended program defines an integrated suite of 
flight projects, research activities, and technology 
development that will produce transformative advances in our 
knowledge. This program is balanced across missions of 
different sizes and destinations and includes key 
recommendations for cooperation with NASA's human exploration 
program, as well as U.S. industry and international partners. 
The recommended program is both aspirational and inspirational 
and enables the robust training of a diverse science and 
engineering work force, drives technology, and maintains strong 
U.S. leadership in space exploration across the solar system.
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Christensen follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    
    Chairman Beyer. Dr. Christensen, thank you very much.
    We'll now begin a round of questions. I will begin.
    Dr. Canup, you talk about a minimum of 10 percent of the 
annual program in research and analysis activities. How do you 
differentiate that from what NASA is doing overall? Is this--
I'm trying to--just differentiate between is this planting-flag 
missions versus trying to understand what--exactly what's going 
on?
    Dr. Canup. So the R&A program has several parts. One is 
data analysis essentially, taking the data produced from our 
missions and analyzing, determining essentially what it means. 
A second part involves basic research to develop new hypotheses 
based on that data and new ways to test those ideas. And then 
the third element is really developing the conceptual 
underpinnings for future endeavors. Based on what we know, what 
are the new questions, what are the instruments and techniques 
and measurements needed to address those, and what are the next 
suite of missions to address those questions. So the R&A 
program, which is largely done through relatively small, highly 
competitive individual investigator grants, serves all of those 
roles within the portfolio.
    Chairman Beyer. And that's just making sure that we 
understand all the data that we've gathered through these big 
experiments?
    Dr. Canup. Absolutely. And synthesizing that data into an 
actual rethinking of these questions and our understanding of 
the solar system at large.
    Chairman Beyer. Yes. You talked about the 1,000-kilometer 
traverse across the South Pole-Aiken basin, which reminded me 
of all the stuff we've read about people who went to the South 
Pole in the first part here in the--on this planet, Roald 
Amundsen and the like. Will there be human beings in that or is 
that going to be just a robotic rover?
    Dr. Canup. The rover itself will be robotic. The plan would 
be to land it through a CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload 
Services) delivery service on the Moon and the complete 
traverse, much like our traverses on the surface of Mars, will 
be robotically driven. But then ultimately, it will bring back 
the samples to a location where the astronauts can return them 
to Earth.
    Chairman Beyer. I have a friend who's a retiring 
Congressman from Colorado who would like to drive that rover on 
the 1,000-kilometer mission.
    Dr. Christensen, I was fascinated by all the many things 
you both have offered, but the planetary defense, you know, in 
a world with climate change and a world where we've had the 
threat of nuclear war, we're very aware of the extinction 
events that asteroids have caused in the past. Is there enough 
attention being paid to the possibility of asteroid hits and 
the awareness of what it could do to life on Earth?
    Dr. Christensen. There's certainly a lot of research on 
that. We know a lot. And we've characterized the largest 
objects that could hit the Earth, but what we need to 
understand is the next range, the 50- to 150-meter size that 
could cause significant damage on the Earth. And that is the 
class. We know there's a lot of them out there, and we're still 
in the process of trying to identify them and we have a long 
way to go. And so we strongly recommend that we complete that 
characterization just so that we know what the threat is and 
then we can begin to do something about that threat if it turns 
out to--something is going to hit in the near future.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you. You know, one thing I love about 
this job is I learn amazing new things every day. How did you 
ever--you guys ever figure out that Uranus and Neptune may have 
switched positions?
    Dr. Christensen. I'll leave that to Robin.
    Dr. Canup. It turns out that the early models for the 
origin of the solar system presumed that the planets formed 
largely in their current orbits where we see them today. And 
over time we've grown to appreciate that, as planets form 
within these primordial discs around their star, their orbits 
migrate. They move a lot. And as we've built models that 
incorporate those migration effects, many of them involve 
substantial migration of the outer planets, and we see evidence 
of that migration in the properties of the Kuiper belt object 
directly. And a lot of those models that produce solar systems 
that look most like our own actually start with five giant 
planets in the outer solar system with three ice giants and 
often eject one, and Uranus and Neptune end up changing places. 
So these are some of the theoretical models that we try to 
track--we try to test with various types of constraints.
    Chairman Beyer. Great, thank you very much, fascinating, 
fascinating work. I am instructed that our next questioner will 
be the distinguished Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And continuing along 
the discussion about the near-Earth objects--and I would 
address my questions to the panel, whoever is appropriate and 
would care to answer. In 2005, Congress tasked NASA to identify 
90 percent of the 140-meter potential hazard near-Earth objects 
by 2020. NASA missed the deadline and remains years away from 
achieving that goal, but observations from the National Science 
Foundation's (NSF's) Rubin Observatory, coupled with a new 
space-based infrared mission, have accelerated that survey. And 
additionally, NASA established the Planetary Defense 
Coordination Office in 2016 to help coordinate their efforts 
for planetary defense.
    However, NASA's FY '23 budget request cuts and delays the 
space-based infrared mission known as NEO Surveyor. Your 
report, along with the previous 2019 report from the Academies, 
recommends maintaining that NEO Surveyor mission. Should 
Congress allow NASA to reduce funding from FY '22 
appropriations for the NEO Surveyor? I asked you a nice 
question.
    Dr. Christensen. I'll start. Clearly, our report strongly 
endorsed that mission. We spent a lot of time discussing it, 
and the consensus was very much that this is an important 
mission, it's crucial to the people here on the Earth, we need 
to understand and identify these objects. And so we clearly 
strongly endorse it, and we continue to urge NASA and Congress 
to ensure that that mission gets funded and launched in a 
timely fashion.
    Mr. Lucas. So that obviously means my next question about 
should Congress maintain funding for the NEO Surveyor in 2023 
is an obvious yes, I would assume.
    Dr. Christensen. Yes, we think that it needs to happen and 
should happen quickly.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you. The report also indicates that the 
Mars Sample Return mission cost grows more than 20 percent--if 
the mission cost grows more than 20 percent above the $5.3 
billion estimate or to more than 35 percent of the Planetary 
Science Division's budget in any given year, NASA should seek 
budget augmentation. That's a really polite way to put that, a 
budget augmentation to cover the cost rather than take money 
from other planetary science efforts. Where should that 
augmentation come from other than NASA?
    Dr. Christensen. Well, that's a very good question. We 
spent a lot of time--one of the--as one of you mentioned, one 
of the big concerns that the planetary science community has is 
that these large missions grow in cost and complexity and they 
begin to dominate and upset the balance of missions across the 
portfolio. And so rather than impact other planetary science 
missions, our report recommends that this portfolio be 
maintained and that money be found elsewhere. Now, obviously, 
that's a difficult task. We didn't go into where that money 
should come from, but we were trying to maintain the integrity 
of a balanced program.
    Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, and I appreciate that completely. 
And you can imagine in Congress our discussion of where such 
funds would come from. I mean, we're going to look at non-NASA 
science and technology activities, you know, there are things, 
energy, environment, basic research, just a variety of things. 
But I appreciate that.
    Last question----
    Dr. Canup. If I may add----
    Mr. Lucas. Please.
    Dr. Canup. If I may add quickly, we also considered the 
strategy of delaying the overall mission to reduce the per-year 
cost but felt that ultimately that increases the total cost, 
and so that was not the recommendation of our report 
accordingly.
    Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. NASA's increasingly leveraging novel 
ways to acquire science data such as data buys, hosted 
payloads, rideshares, CubeSats. Can you speak to the merits and 
risks of these approaches of acquiring additional science data?
    Dr. Canup. Sure. We talk in the report about the important 
role of some of the smaller CubeSat-like programs. Simplex is 
one example of that. These are programs that, by their nature, 
can respond nimbly. They can tolerate more risk, which allows 
us to develop new technologies, and so we see those as playing 
a key role. We encourage the use of the small missions and 
rideshares to flexibly accommodate additional science and 
technology development as budget profiles allow.
    In terms of data buys, there are definitely some areas 
where those may be relevant. I don't think we speak too much to 
that in the report, but Phil can add if I'm misstating on that.
    Dr. Christensen. No, they're not.
    Mr. Lucas. So it is fair to say that sometimes these novel 
approaches have the potential of helping NASA carry out their 
priorities in the overall decadal survey, so things worth 
looking at.
    Dr. Canup. Correct.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you very much, and with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, very much.
    Now, let me recognize the distinguished Congressman from 
Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. All right. I was going to say go Buffs, and 
that's--I will say go Buffs. And I'll say no offense to the Sun 
Devils.
    I guess my question--and this is to my colleagues--you 
know, you talk, Dr. Canup, about the overall percentage of the 
R&A or the research budget, the science budget, planetary 
science has shrunk. It's grown but it's shrunk compared to the 
rest. In terms of the Artemis program, you also mentioned that 
you didn't feel there was enough science being integrated into 
the system. So can you talk to me a little bit about where you 
see these budget constraints, and can you talk to me about what 
needs to be done to do some more science in the Artemis 
mission? And then I've got an idea where there's more money to 
be found that I want to talk to my colleagues about.
    Dr. Canup. Sure. Right now, our assessment is you have the 
Artemis program being defined and driven naturally by the Human 
Exploration Directorate, and there is consideration about what 
opportunistic science in a sense might be done, along with 
those plans. What we emphasize is that that kind of add-on 
approach of science is probably unlikely to produce truly 
transformative science that we think is worthy of this program 
and the historic level of investment that is going to be 
associated with it.
    What we argue for in the report is that there be some type 
of structure organizationally within NASA that gives the 
Science Mission Directorate and particularly the Planetary 
Science Division--they currently have the responsibility for 
executing lunar science, but they don't have the authority to 
implement any requirements on the Artemis program. And so the 
report argues that the organizational structure needs to be--
needs to evolve so as to give the Science Directorate at NASA 
that authority to--and--to actually have a true integration of 
the requirements from both human exploration and science.
    And we make some suggestions. Although we're not overly 
prescriptive on that, we leave it up to NASA to address this, 
but we make some suggestions such as a new entity at the 
Associate Administrator level in NASA that would be in charge 
of coordinating the different directorates that are all 
involved in the Artemis endeavor. And so that's the type of 
recommendation we make there.
    In terms of the R&A program, we incorporate that 
recommended 10 percent level investment. We see that in the 
same way a private company will allocate a certain amount of 
its budget to investment in its future development. NASA should 
be investing a fixed percentage in its analysis of data and its 
future development as well. So we incorporate that in our 
budget plans, and we get to that increase by a progressive 
ramp-up in the first few years of the decade. Hopefully, that 
answers your question.
    Mr. Perlmutter. I guess what I was going to suggest because 
I want to see the science integrated here, and that really is 
NASA's mission and obviously your mission in putting this 
report together. Part of what's going on with Artemis--and this 
also applies to, you know, future operations that include 
Mars--is that there is a national security component to all of 
this that is taking up part of the budget. And so to my friend 
from Oklahoma, I don't see this as really a zero-sum game 
within NASA where we need to have our security parts of the 
budget to participate in this. So NASA can do its science and 
isn't having to front national security money as part of this 
whole program.
    So I've spoken to Adam Smith and others about integrating 
some of the defense sums, which to the scientists I'm sorry 
that we might integrate some national defense money in here, 
but we need to do that to cover the cost of the program. And it 
would only be appropriate because that's what we're doing.
    I'll--I don't know if we're going to get to do a second 
round, but I have lots of questions about the use of the Webb 
telescope for sort of this planetary study that we have, but 
I'm curious what the--what you all thought about that.
    And I'll yield back to the Chair, but please don't be 
bashful when I'm gone to talk to the defense folks about some 
money for this. Goodbye. I'll yield.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congressman Perlmutter. And it 
is my intention to do a second round as long as we have enough 
people hanging around.
    And with that, let me reduce our Ranking Member, Dr. Brian 
Babin.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate it.
    The U.S. taxpayer made significant investments in the 
Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office at the Johnson 
Space Center for past and future Sample Return missions. This 
includes the documentation, preservation, and preparation of 
samples from the Moon, asteroids, comets, solar wind, and the 
planet Mars. Their highest priority is to secure the future 
availability of these samples for the worldwide scientific 
community. Understanding the Mars Sample Return mission may 
require additional capabilities, should NASA leverage those 
existing capabilities rather than starting from scratch and 
building a new facility? I'd like to hear what each of you has 
to say there. Thank you.
    Dr. Christensen. Sure, I'll start. The report is very 
focused on creating the minimum facility to receive the 
samples. These are samples that may have life or organics in 
them, so we have to treat them very carefully. But we make the 
recommendation that that initial receiving facility be the bare 
minimum necessary to verify that the samples are safe to then 
distribute to the scientific community. And that's the real key 
part, to get them out to the community. So we advocate not 
building a new facility with a lot of capability, but the 
minimum needed to do that biocontainment and biohazard 
detection.
    We also argue strongly that NASA needs a plan for how to 
curate these samples. We weren't specific in where that 
curation should occur, but we clearly expect NASA to do a very 
careful evaluation and do what's the most--makes the most 
sense, is the most cost-effective way of providing a long-term 
curation and that the Houston facility is obviously a very 
strong candidate.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you for saying that. OK. Any--how about 
you, Ms. Robin?
    Dr. Canup. The key is assess the safety of the samples as 
quickly and cost-efficiently as you can and get them to a 
curation facility to start having them accessible by the 
scientists. This is the legacy of that program, this amazing 
sample set.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you so much. Next question, 
international partnerships are a very important aspect of these 
scientific missions, but when international partners are placed 
on the critical path for missions, it often leads to delays, as 
we've seen, and cost overruns. We saw this with the Mars 
InSight Lander, the European Service Module, the first module 
for the International Space Station, and many other instances. 
Should NASA plan on international partners providing key 
elements for the Mars Sample Return mission, and if so, what 
should NASA do to mitigate the risk of these partner delays and 
overruns? And if delays and overruns are caused by 
international partners, what should the Planetary Science 
Division cut in order to manage the division's overall budgets?
    Dr. Christensen. One of the key elements of the Mars Sample 
Return is that it is a very modular approach. So, for example, 
we currently have a rover collecting and caching samples. There 
will be another lander that contains the ascent vehicle, and 
the Europeans are currently building the return orbiter that 
would bring those samples back to Earth. The nice thing about 
that architecture is that if there are delays in any of the 
elements, the architecture is--can still go forward. So, for 
example, if we put the cache in orbit around Mars and there 
were delays or difficulties with that return orbiter, they can 
stay in orbit for a long period of time. And so it's--they're a 
key partner, but they're not on the critical path in the sense 
that the mission would fail if that partnership didn't come 
forward. So I think that is the type of partnership that 
actually works really well.
    Dr. Canup. And there have been success cases like the 
Huygens probe on Cassini and--where these partnerships have 
worked really well and of course helped to balance the 
sometimes sizable cost of these total endeavors.
    Mr. Babin. All right, thank you very much. I think--I'm 
going to try to get one more in here. The decadal recommends 
increasing the cost cap for Discovery class missions from $500 
million to $800 million and New Frontiers class missions from 
$1.31 billion to $1.6. Inflation was 2.4 percent annually over 
the period of the last decadal. Did launch vehicle costs go up 
or down over the last 10 years? I thought they went down. Did 
spacecraft costs go up or down over the last 10 years?
    Dr. Canup. I'll take this one. So the launch vehicle cost 
thankfully have generally gone down largely due to----
    Mr. Babin. Right.
    Dr. Canup [continuing]. Involving the private sector. In 
the last decade, the cost structure for the Discovery and New 
Frontiers missions with those prior cost caps was changed so 
the cost cap only applied on essentially development through 
launch, and it did not include the operations phase, what you 
do when you're actually at your target. In our new enlarged 
cost caps, we once again include all the phases in the cap, so 
the intent here is to try to get the cost cap back in line with 
what the true lifecycle cost for these missions is turning out 
to be. When we look at the recent missions selected at both 
Discovery and New Frontiers, even though their cost caps were 
different, their lifecycle cost are consistent with the cost 
cap structure we propose in the report this time.
    Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. And I see, Mr. 
Chairman, I'm out of time. I appreciate the information, and I 
will yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Babin.
    Let me now recognize the gentleman from Florida, 
Congressman Posey.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairman Beyer, and I appreciate you 
holding this hearing on what is arguably the most enjoyable 
Committee in all of Congress.
    Dr. Canup and Dr. Christensen, you can alternate back on 
these. I just--I have three questions really, four--maybe four. 
What would you recommend NASA and the National Science 
Foundation do to create a close relationship so that the 
ground-based observations can be leveraged more effectively to 
ensure goals are being met?
    Dr. Canup. Sure, I'll take that one. The report talks about 
how important those ground-based facilities are to solar system 
research, not just to astronomy and astrophysics overall, as 
well as the future facilities as well. One of the key NSF NASA 
recommendations in the report is that currently it is not 
straightforward to fund projects of mutual interest, so in 
other words, there are funding mechanisms through NSF or 
through NASA, but there are often projects of mutual interest 
and we recommend that those agencies work together to try to 
develop structures to support those endeavors.
    And then we talk a lot in the report about how observations 
from those ground-based facilities, how ALMA (Atacama Large 
Millimeter Array) observations are revolutionizing our 
understanding of how our solar system formed by looking at 
forming solar systems around other stars, for example. So 
there's a lot of discussion about the key science that those 
facilities will bring and that recommendation related to 
increased coordination.
    Mr. Posey. With the loss of Arecibo Observatory, which was 
important for hazardous asteroid characterization, how would a 
more formalized collaboration possibly assist in helping with 
the near-Earth orbit survey, which is required by law?
    Dr. Christensen. We--the report discusses Arecibo, and we--
rather than come up with a specific recommendation of what 
should be done, we emphasize that NASA and NSF need to work 
together to develop a plan to replace the capabilities that 
were lost at Arecibo, not necessarily a new facility but, for 
example, how could existing facilities be enhanced or augmented 
to get back that capability? And so we recognize it's 
fundamental to the study of asteroids and near-Earth objects, 
and we encourage those agencies to come up with a plan to do 
that.
    Mr. Posey. Should we develop and launch an asteroid 
mitigation spacecraft in advance of a threat so we could 
rapidly respond if a hazardous asteroid is detected?
    Dr. Canup. In our report we recommend that after NEO 
Surveyor, which is the survey mission, that the next highest 
priority planetary defense mission should be what we call a 
rapid flyby reconnaissance mission. We think the next step is 
to develop the ability to do a rapid mission flyby to 
characterize a threat that we just learned about, so an object 
that we just found out existed and we're ready to launch a 
craft, a flyby to get a characterization, which is the key 
information you need in order to decide on a mitigation 
technique to implement. And of course the DART (Double Asteroid 
Redirection Test) mission is going to, later this year, attempt 
one of those mitigation techniques, a direct impact into an 
asteroid to look at the kinetic deflection method for changing 
an orbit's trajectory.
    Mr. Posey. Do you think there should be a formal agreement 
between NASA and the U.S. Space Command to exchange information 
concerning near-Earth objects to ensure that future 
capabilities can discover objects in cislunar space?
    Dr. Christensen. We talk about the potential for inter-
agency synergies, including a finding that increased 
cooperation between U.S. Space Command and NASA's Orbital 
Debris Program Office would provide useful information on NEO's 
to aid in planetary defense objectives.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. I see my time is about to expire. 
I'll yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congressman Posey.
    I now recognize the Congressman from Florida, Governor 
Crist.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Chairman Beyer. It's great to be with 
you this morning, and I want to thank our witnesses Dr. Canup 
and Dr. Christensen.
    While NASA's science programs can sometimes be overshadowed 
by flashy human exploration goals, I believe that too often 
they go in hand--hand-in-hand rather. This question is for 
either of the two of you. Can you discuss how NASA's human 
exploration program, known as Artemis, could help to meet some 
of the science priorities laid out in this latest survey, and 
what actions could NASA take to more effectively merge its 
science missions with the Artemis program?
    Dr. Canup. Sure, I'll be happy to take that. So the 
Endurance-A rover mission that we talk about, the goal here is 
to really do a thorough exploration of the far side of the Moon 
that's not represented by the samples that were returned from 
the Apollo set. The far side of the Moon is generally older, 
and in particular this enormous South Pole Aiken basin is 
thought to be the oldest impact large crater on the Moon.
    What those samples that the rover will collect will do, 
first, is it will constrain what we think was the very heavy 
bombardment rate, the very early solar system, the first half-
billion to billion years of Earth's history when we think life 
was evolving, it'll tell us--it'll constrain that bombardment 
rate. That also in turn constrains the models of how the solar 
system formed that we talked about earlier that involve the 
giant planet migration of orbits because that migration drives 
or we think drove big impacts into the inner solar system. So 
Artemis with this Endurance-A component, the rover would not 
only be able to date the SPA basin but also date the old basin 
impacts that are superimposed on it.
    We don't have any samples of the Moon's mantle, the 
interior of the Moon in either our meteoritic or our Apollo 
sample. They're all from the crust. We think the most likely 
place to find samples of the lunar mantle again is on the far 
side exposed by this big impact basin. The rover would also be 
searching for and acquiring those samples. Those will tell us 
about the bulk composition of the Moon. That constrains the 
origin of the Earth-Moon system.
    And finally, there's a big asymmetry in the geology and 
the--even the shape of the Moon's far side versus the near 
side, and there's a lot of fundamental geology and questions 
that relate to the origin of that asymmetry that those samples 
will also address. And like the Apollo sample set, this sample 
set from Endurance-A would be this incredible hundreds-of-
kilograms legacy not just for these science questions that we 
envision now but also for future generations and techniques 
that we haven't even conceptualized yet.
    The fundamental challenge is always how to integrate 
science into the human exploration plans. These are two 
independently appropriated directorates. They have different 
goals. We acknowledge these challenges in the report. We make 
suggestions about aspects of how the organization needs to 
work, that the responsibility and authority to implement 
science needs to be coherent in the organizational structure to 
make these top priority science goals happen. So when we land, 
we don't just get the sample from the site where we landed. We 
get this incredible sample set selected carefully over the 
whole surface of the Moon.
    There's the suggestion I mentioned of a new entity at the 
AA level to coordinate and make this happen, but again, we 
tried to not be overly prescriptive in telling NASA how to 
achieve the needed management structure but rather to focus on 
the principles that the management structure needs to reflect 
in order to be effective.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you. Dr. Christensen, I'm curious. Can you 
discuss what priorities laid out in the decadal survey--am I 
saying that word right, decadal? What does that mean?
    Dr. Christensen. One decade.
    Mr. Crist. Oh, a decade. OK, great. In this one-decade 
survey can only be accomplished by sending humans to the 
surface of the Moon and/or Mars like in 2033, Ed?
    Dr. Christensen. I'm a geologist, and, you know, it's 
amazing what a human can do in a very short amount of time. And 
so I think all of us eventually want to see human explorers, 
scientists, astronauts on the Moon, on Mars doing what humans 
are really good at, making quick decisions, working, you know, 
very, very intelligently.
    And so what we really hope to see is an integration of 
NASA's spectacular robotic program with this inspirational 
human exploration program and bringing those two together 
because there are--humans are hard to keep alive and safe, but 
they can do incredible things once they get there. So hopefully 
these--this will eventually be the goal, that we'll learn 
enough from robots that it's safe and effective to send humans.
    Mr. Crist. Great. Doctor, thank you very much. I appreciate 
both of you this morning, and Chairman Beyer, thank you for the 
opportunity, and I yield back.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you----
    Mr. Crist. God bless you all.
    Chairman Beyer. Thanks, Congressman Crist, very much.
    Now, let me recognize the gentlewoman from California, 
Congresswoman Kim.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you, Chairman, for having me. You know, 
sometimes missions are delivered under cost. In order to 
incentivize cost-effective development of principal 
investigator-led missions, should NASA explore the 
possibilities to allow the principal investigators to use 
underruns on development for research and analysis activities? 
Either one of you can address this or both of you can address 
this.
    Dr. Canup. That wasn't a topic that we touched on in the 
report, but we clearly talk about the importance of 
incentivizing both the cost structure of the original proposal 
announcements to--and as well as operations and implementation 
of missions so as to incentivize maximizing that scientific 
return per total mission cost, right? So, we didn't 
particularly address the topic you raise, but it's an 
intriguing one.
    Ms. Kim. Mr. Christensen, do you have any input in that?
    Dr. Christensen. Not much, just to say beyond what Robin 
said, there have been missions, there have been examples in the 
past, ones that I've been part of where that was done, where 
underrun was allowed to be used and carried forward into the 
science operations phase. As Robin said, it's not something we 
discussed, but it certainly is something that should be 
considered.
    Ms. Kim. Great, thank you. You know, NASA, it plans on 
leveraging public-private partnerships to explore the Moon, and 
they've also stated that that will take a more commercial 
approach. So the question to you both is what customer other 
than NASA do you see on the horizon that would make this 
commercial?
    Dr. Christensen. I'll start. That's a very good question. 
It's one that we've been struggling with as a community for a 
very long time. I mean, clearly, we're scientists. We see the 
scientific potential. I think it's very difficult to say, but 
maybe it's communications, maybe it's resources, maybe--you 
know, I think there's a lot of potential commercial 
applications for the Moon and, yes, even for Mars. I think in 
the report we strongly encourage NASA to continue these 
commercial partnerships to enable this capability and then let 
the entrepreneurial commercial worlds take over and come up 
with really good ideas.
    Dr. Canup. If I might add, one way in that we're seeing 
benefits outside of planetary science already is in launch 
vehicle development, because NASA is one customer, and we 
benefit from improvements and reduction in cost, but we're not 
the only customer. Just getting satellites into orbit and other 
more distant and more efficient ways of reusing launch 
vehicles, those benefit science, too, even if they're not going 
to the same place we want to go.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you very much for both of you. I know I'm 
jumping back and forth here because I was at another meeting, 
just jump in, but I want to thank you so much for both of you 
and for the work that you are doing. It's critically important, 
and I appreciate all your work.
    With that, Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congresswoman Kim. And we're 
going to do a second round, so you're welcome to stay if you'd 
like. It may just be Mr. Perlmutter and I, but that's totally 
fine.
    So let me begin. By the way, I want to pile on just 
editorially with Congresswoman Kim's comments about the 
commercial sector. I know it's a little harder to figure out 
because they're in the business of making money. We had a 
hearing a week or two ago on space situational awareness and 
space traffic management, orbital debris, and it was very clear 
most of the discussion was about where on the bell-shaped curve 
between totally commercial or totally governmental should 
reality lie? I think a lot of us would be in a very different 
place when it comes to the kind of planetary observations that 
you're trying to do, but good to keep it in mind in any case. 
They certainly are developing lots and lots of capabilities.
    To Dr. Christensen, you talked about is their life beyond 
Earth and how all these missions could contribute to that. Is 
it safe to say we're just thinking about organic biology, 
astrobiology, in this solar system, that you're not really 
expecting to learn anything that's extrasolar from this?
    Dr. Christensen. Well, one of the things that we included 
in the report was the discussion of exoplanets. Much of that 
resides in the field of astronomy but there's tremendous things 
that our solar system can inform us about looking for life 
outside our solar system and vice versa. So our report was 
focused primarily on destinations in our solar system, but we 
clearly, in the search for life, in the thinking of life, you 
know, how does what we learn here inform our search outside and 
vice versa? We clearly see this strong interaction between the 
search for life locally and the search for life in the 
universe.
    Chairman Beyer. It is fascinating, the old Enrico Fermi 
question, if there's life in the universe, why do we feel so 
alone? Where are they?
    So, Dr. Canup, in looking at the nine themes, you dedicated 
your life to this planetary science and understanding it. Which 
is your favorite?
    Dr. Canup. My personal area of work relates strongly to 
that first theme on origins, so that's my personal favorite. 
What transitions from this disc of gas and dust into a 
planetary system and what affects that and how much is 
stochastic and kind of random in its outcome, and what are the 
more deterministic outcomes that one could predict.
    As we worked to develop those themes and priority science 
questions, big questions emerged from the whole committee as we 
discussed this and we talk about in the report, the--and this 
gets to your question to my Co-Chair. How does the solar system 
and our ability to actually bring back samples and study things 
in situ, how does that provide our ground truth constraints so 
we can understand more broadly the formation of solar systems 
throughout the universe? That's one theme.
    Another theme, yes, we know there are habitable 
environments elsewhere in the solar system, but did they or do 
they have life? And that--wanting to make that step to get to 
actual life detection in this next decade was a huge priority 
of this committee that came out in the report. And so there's a 
lot of passion behind that question I would say.
    Chairman Beyer. How disappointed will you be if we don't 
find any signs of life--no fossils, no organic materials?
    Dr. Canup. If you found life, obviously, that would be one 
of the, if not the, greatest discoveries of science ever, but 
now that we know that there are these other environments where 
we have energy and we have the nutrients and we have liquid 
water, if we find a complete lack of evidence of life, that's a 
really interesting question, too, because then the question is 
why not? If you had these other environments where you had all 
of the pieces that we think we understand as being the key 
things for life and you don't see it, why didn't it emerge? So 
to me this is a question that doesn't have an uninteresting 
answer, but of course it would be more exciting to see evidence 
of life.
    Chairman Beyer. And certainly when you look at how many 
different ways life has expressed itself and endured on this 
planet, you know, if you figure out what the first star is--by 
the way, I've read that if you get a room full of scientists 
and say how many believe there's other life in the universe, 
every hand goes up, which is pretty interesting.
    Dr. Canup. That's true. I think that's accurate.
    Dr. Christensen. I agree.
    Chairman Beyer. Let me ask my favorite scientist to raise 
his hand right now, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Perlmutter.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. So I was going to say my 
favorite of your three topics, your themes, was life and 
habitability. And I'm just--you know, this--all of this stuff 
excites me so. You know, here I am a bankruptcy lawyer and, you 
know, I just love this stuff. And when you two are talking 
about it, it just--I just really appreciate it.
    So let me focus. Somebody mentioned the Atacama Large 
Millimeter Array, ALMA, and Webb. How--you know, I'm thinking 
of those two things looking deep into the universe and knitting 
together black holes. How do you see them helping you two in 
studying our solar system?
    Dr. Christensen. I'll just comment. I think, you know, my 
colleagues who work on James Webb, for example, have an 
incredible set of questions of their own, so I think that 
particular observatory will be focused on, you know, big-
picture questions of star formation and looking deep into the 
universe. I think it will be a very long time before that's, 
you know, applied specifically to planetary questions. But as 
Robin said, it's--you know, what goes on in our solar system is 
identical physics to what's going on in other solar systems, 
and so those telescopes, those observatories will tell us a 
tremendous amount of information about what goes on elsewhere 
that is directly relevant to us back here.
    Mr. Perlmutter. So you haven't bought time yet on Webb or 
anything like that to study, you know, a microscopic thing on 
Uranus or Saturn or something?
    Dr. Christensen. We've tried but so far haven't succeeded.
    Dr. Canup. But in the same way that our solar system, 
because we can get samples from objects, we can learn things 
about the detailed chemistry and compositional constraints that 
the astronomers will not be able to access for an exoplanetary 
system. But there's a converse relationship, too. The 
astronomers, they can look at stars that are just being born. 
They can look at planetary systems that are just being born. 
They can actually see discs that have gaps in them with a newly 
born planet in one. This can give us the ability to essentially 
look back in time and to tell us what the processes in our 
early solar system were like, and then we combine those with 
our understanding of the oldest parts of meteorites, and you 
can start to get a more complete picture of how solar systems 
formed and evolved. So they're very complementary.
    Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Looking back at the last decadal 
report, what do you two think we accomplished the best? I mean, 
what answers or what things did we do to, you know, satisfy the 
areas of interest in the last report? What--give me the 
successes.
    Dr. Christensen. As Robin touched on at the very beginning 
of her talk, I think the last decadal was outstandingly 
successful, again, thanks to Congress and the American public 
for making that happen. But the highest priority was let's get 
started on Mars Sample Return. We're doing that. The second 
priority, which many of us thought would not happen in the 
decade, let's do a Europa orbiter. That's happening. The New 
Frontiers missions, we've made tremendous progress there. So 
from my view it's a success story up and down the report, and 
there's very few things that haven't come to pass.
    Dr. Canup. In addition, they were--the last report really 
developed, I think, this idea of programmatic balance, meaning 
not just going to different places but having different scale 
activities, small missions that can incorporate more risk and 
be implemented with a high cadence that can be very responsive 
all the way up to flagships and everything in between. I think 
the current planetary program has done a really good job with 
that, in addition to the New Frontiers program that Phil 
mentioned. The Discovery program, I think we've done an 
excellent job of maintaining that. It's a high cadence program, 
very innovative. Here's your cost cap. Go anywhere. Propose the 
best science you can imagine and see what the proposers come up 
with. And that's been a tremendous driver of innovation in the 
last decade as well.
    Oh, you saw the--really the development of planetary 
defense, a substantial effort in this last decade, and the 
lunar discovery and exploration program also has developed 
during this past decade, and the whole development of the 
commercial sector in terms of providing both launch services 
and delivery hopefully to the lunar surface on a regular basis, 
so outstanding set of accomplishments across the board.
    Mr. Perlmutter. Well, thank you. And I'd say to my 
Chairman, you know, we were out to see you a couple weeks ago 
with the Science Committee. We visited the university. I just 
want you to know, whether it's Arizona or Colorado, the West 
has some great scientists. And it's not all on the East Coast, 
Mr. Chairman. You should come west sometime.
    Chairman Beyer. Which direction is that? Anyway--go ahead, 
please.
    Mr. Perlmutter. No, no, I was going to yield back. I just 
thank you two for working on this report and putting it 
together for us and, you know, I'm very excited to see what we 
do over the course of this next decade.
    Chairman Beyer. I do thank you, Congressman Perlmutter.
    And thank you both, Dr. Canup, Dr. Christensen, really 
interesting, fun hearing but also extraordinarily important. 
And thank you for giving so many decades of your life on these 
decadal surveys. These--you know, there are so many tough 
things in America today from the kids getting killed by guns 
and the COVID and the division between right and left and, you 
know, it's sometimes hard to stay up. And I'm trying to make 
all my speeches about all the good things surrounding us, you 
know, the 11 1/2 million jobs advertised, the 17 States with 
the lowest unemployment rates in their history, but it'll be so 
much fun in the months to come to talk about the Decadal Survey 
for Planetary Science and Astrobiology because this is really, 
really good news for humanity.
    So we're--thank you for all the work you've spent putting 
the survey together, the thousands of scientists that you had 
to manage, which I'm sure is difficult. So thank you for 
testifying before the Committee.
    Formally, let me say that the record will remain open for 
two weeks for additional statements from the Members and for 
any additional questions the Committee may want to ask of our 
two witnesses.
    Witnesses, you are now excused. The hearing is now 
adjourned. And let me just finish with a great thanks. We are 
done.
    Dr. Canup. Thank you. It was an honor.
    Dr. Christensen. It was very much an honor.
    Chairman Beyer. Thanks, all. We will look forward to 
continuing to follow your progress in the years to come. Thanks 
so much. Bye.
    [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions




                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Robin M. Canup

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


Responses by Dr. Philip R. Christensen

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record




              Letter submitted by Representative Don Beyer
              
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]