[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MARS FLYBY 2021: THE FIRST DEEP SPACE
MISSION FOR THE ORION
AND SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-136 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
February 27, 2014
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George
Washington University
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
General Lester Lyles (ret.), Independent Aerospace Consultant and
former Chairman of the Committee on "Rationale and Goals of the
U.S. Civil Space Program" established by the National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Mr. Doug Cooke, Owner, Cooke Concepts and Solutions and former
NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Dr. Sandra Magnus, Executive Director, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
Discussion....................................................... 58
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George
Washington University.......................................... 80
General Lester Lyles (ret.), Independent Aerospace Consultant and
former Chairman of the Committee on ``Rationale and Goals of
the U.S. Civil Space Program'' established by the National
Academies...................................................... 91
Mr. Doug Cooke, Owner, Cooke Concepts and Solutions and former
NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate.................................................... 100
Dr. Sandra Magnus, Executive Director, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics................................... 117
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 128
Letter from Explore Mars expressing their support for a short-
term flyby mission to Mars, submitted by Representative Lamar
S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 130
MARS FLYBY 2021: THE FIRST DEEP SPACE MISSION
FOR THE ORION AND SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM?
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Mars Flyby 2021: The
First Deep Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch
System.'' I will recognize myself for an opening statement and
then the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
At a fundamental level, space exploration--the mission of
NASA--is about inspiration. This inspiration fuels our desire
to push the boundaries of the possible and reach beyond our own
pale blue dot.
For years, I have heard countless stories of how NASA
inspired students to study math, chemistry and physics and
adults to become scientists and engineers. However, some of
these same people now feel that NASA no longer inspires them,
their children or grandchildren.
Mankind's first steps to the Moon are a distant memory,
and, with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA now is
paying Russia $70 million per seat to transport American
astronauts to the International Space Station. There is a sense
that America is falling behind, with our best days behind us.
Today, America's finest spaceships and largest rockets are
found in museums rather than on launch pads.
Regrettably, the Obama administration has contributed to
this situation. Within a few months of taking office, the
President canceled NASA's plans to return astronauts to the
Moon, and in its place, the President proposed a robotic and
human mission to an unnamed asteroid. NASA's own advisory group
on asteroids derided this plan and said, ``It was not
considered to be a serious proposal.''
At a hearing before this Committee, all of the witnesses
questioned the merits of the proposed mission. While consensus
on Capitol Hill might be hard to find, there is general
agreement that the President's asteroid retrieval mission
inspires neither the scientific community nor the public, who
would foot the bill.
So what is an inspiring mission? Maybe a journey to Mars.
The red planet has long intrigued mankind. A Mars flyby with
two astronauts onboard NASA's Orion crew vehicle could use the
Space Launch System that NASA is developing. This flyby would
take advantage of a unique alignment between Earth and Mars in
2021 that would include a flyby of the planet Venus. This
alignment minimizes the time and energy necessary for a flyby.
Under the 2021 proposal, a trip to Mars would take roughly a
year and a half instead of two to three years.
We are not the only Nation interested in extending
humanity's reach into the Solar System. One of the three major
space-faring nations will reach Mars first. The question is
whether it will be the United States or China or Russia.
Great nations do great things. President Kennedy's call to
the Nation wasn't just about reaching the Moon, it was a
reminder that we are an exceptional nation. We must rekindle
within NASA the fire that blazed that trail to the Moon.
The future of this Nation's exploration efforts lead to
Mars. The first flag to fly on another planet in our solar
system should be that of the United States.
NASA, the White House, and Congress should consider this
Mars flyby mission proposal. It will focus NASA's energy and
talent over the next decade, and most importantly, it will
inspire our Nation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
At a fundamental level, space exploration-the mission of NASA-is
about inspiration. This inspiration fuels our desire to push the
boundaries of the possible and reach beyond our own pale blue dot.
For years, I have heard countless stories of how NASA inspired
students to study math, chemistry and physics and adults to become
scientists and engineers. However, some of these same people now feel
that NASA no longer inspires them, their children or grandchildren.
Mankind's first steps on the Moon are a distant memory. And, with
the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA now is paying Russia $70
million per seat to transport American astronauts to the International
Space Station.
There's a sense that America is falling behind, with our best days
behind us. Today, America's finest spaceships and largest rockets are
found in museums rather than on launch pads.
Regrettably, the Obama administration has contributed to this
situation. Within a few months of taking office, the President canceled
NASA's plans to return astronauts to the Moon. And in its place, the
President proposed a robotic and human mission to an unnamed asteroid.
NASA's own advisory group on asteroids derided this plan and said,
``it was not considered to be a serious proposal.''
At a hearing before this Committee, all of the witnesses questioned
the merits of the proposed mission. While consensus on Capitol Hill
might be hard to find, there is general agreement that the President's
asteroid retrieval mission inspires neither the scientific community
nor the public, who would foot the bill.
So, what is an inspiring mission? Maybe a journey to Mars. The Red
Planet has long intrigued mankind. A Mars Flyby with two astronauts
onboard NASA's Orion crew vehicle could use the Space Launch System
that NASA is developing.
This flyby would take advantage of a unique alignment between Earth
and Mars in 2021 that would include a flyby of the planet Venus. This
alignment minimizes the time and energy necessary for a flyby. Under
the 2021 proposal, a trip to Mars would take roughly a year and a half
instead of two years to three years.We are not the only nation
interested in extending humanity's reach into the Solar System. One of
the three major space-faring nations will reach Mars first. The
question is whether it will be the U.S. or China or Russia.
Great nations do great things. President Kennedy's call to the
nation wasn't just about reaching the Moon, it was a reminder that we
are an exceptional nation. We must rekindle within NASA the fire that
blazed the trail to the Moon.
The future of this nation's exploration efforts lead to Mars. The
first flag to fly on another planet in our solar system should be that
of the United States.NASA, the White House, and Congress should
consider this Mars Flyby mission proposal. It will focus NASA's energy
and talent over the next decade, and most importantly, it will inspire
our nation.
Chairman Smith. I am going to yield the remainder of my
time to the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee, the gentleman
from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today.
The future of human space exploration is one that is
personal to me. As other space-faring nations expand their
programs and look to destinations such as the Moon and Mars, I
consider American leadership in space as a matter of national
pride but also national security.
This Committee has been consistent in its commitment to
human exploration. Yet, over the last decade, the human
exploration program at NASA has been plagued with instability
from constantly changing requirements, budgets, and missions.
We cannot change our program of record every time there is a
new President.
My Subcommittee and this full Committee passed a NASA
Authorization Act last year that calls on NASA to develop a
steppingstone plan to Mars. We must ensure that future
exploration endeavors lay the groundwork for an eventual human
landing on Mars.
This Committee must also maintain strong support for the
next-generation deep space vehicles: the Space Launch System
and Orion crew capsule. I have visited Marshall Space Flight
Center, which is leading development of the SLS rocket, and I
have had the opportunity to see SLS engine tests firsthand at
Stennis Space Center in my own backyard in south Mississippi. I
believe we are on the right track but we must remain budget-
focused and mission-vigilant.
I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say
today. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Subcommittee on Space Chairman Steven Palazzo
Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing
today. The future of human space exploration is one that is personal to
me.
As other space-faring nations expand their programs and look to
destinations such as the Moon and Mars, I consider American leadership
in space as a matter of national pride but also national security.
This Committee has been consistent in its commitment to human
exploration. Yet, over the last decade, the human exploration program
at NASA has been plagued with instability from constantly changing
requirements, budgets, and missions. We cannot change our program of
record every time there is a new President.
My Subcommittee and this full Committee passed a NASA Authorization
Act last year that calls on NASA to develop a stepping stone plan to
Mars. We must ensure that future exploration endeavors lay the
groundwork for an eventual human landing on Mars.
This Committee must also maintain strong support for the next
generation deep space vehicles: The Space Launch System and Orion crew
capsule. I've visited Marshall Spaceflight Center, which is leading
development of the SLS rocket, and I've had the opportunity to see SLS
engine tests firsthand at Stennis Space Center in my own backyard in
South Mississippi. I believe we are on the right track. But we must
remain budget-focused and mission-vigilant.
I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say today.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
And if there is no objection, I would like to put in the
record a letter from Explore Mars expressing their support for
a short-term flyby mission to Mars to be put in the record, and
if there is no objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. And now I will recognize the gentlewoman
from Texas, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms.
Johnson, for her opening statement.
Ms. Johnson. Good morning. I want to join the Chairman in
welcoming our witnesses to today's hearing. I look forward to
your testimony.
I see that the hearing title asks the question: ``Mars
Flyby 2021: The First Deep Space Mission for the Orion and
Space Launch System?'' Given that 2021 is currently the
estimated date for the very first crewed mission of Orion,
period--not just its first deep space mission--I would guess
that the likely answer will turn out to be ``no.'' I doubt that
a flyby of Mars will ultimately be considered to be an
appropriate first shakedown flight for the new crewed
spacecraft given the risks involved in a year-and-a-half trip
to Mars and back.
However, I think this hearing does provide a good
opportunity to again stress that we need a clear, thoughtful
roadmap for our Nation's human exploration program. Successive
NASA Authorization Acts have made clear that Congress believes
that Mars is an appropriate goal for our Nation's human
spaceflight activities. It is time for NASA to tell us how they
intend to achieve that goal. What technologies will be needed,
what sequence of intermediate destinations should be pursued,
and why, and what are the risks that will need to be addressed?
We also need to hear from NASA about the progress being
made on the Space Launch System and on Orion, the two systems
that are critical to our exploration efforts beyond low Earth
orbit. What are the challenges they are facing, how will they
be used to support NASA's roadmap to Mars, and are they being
adequately funded to meet the milestones laid out for those two
programs?
Mr. Chairman, NASA has not been invited to participate in
today's hearing. That is unfortunate. I would urge you to
schedule a follow-on hearing with NASA so that we can get a
status report on the Space Launch System and Orion, as well as
hear what NASA is doing to develop a strategic roadmap for
human Mars exploration. We need to hear from NASA if we are to
properly assess its human exploration program and the funding
that will be proposed for it when the President submits his
budget request to Congress next week.
It will also be relevant for this Committee as we move
forward on our reauthorization of NASA. Our Nation's human
exploration program can inspire our youth, advance our
technological capabilities, and support our geopolitical
objectives. However, it can only do those things if we are
willing to keep our commitment to the dedicated men and women
at NASA and elsewhere who are working hard to carry out the
challenging tasks we ask them to undertake. As a National
Academies' panel has observed, and I quote, ``There is a
significant mismatch between the programs to which NASA is
committed and the budgets that have been provided or
anticipated. The approach to and pace of a number of NASA's
programs, projects and activities will not be sustainable if
the NASA budget remains flat, as currently projected. This
mismatch needs to be addressed if NASA is to efficiently and
effectively develop enduring strategic directions of any
sort.''
The long-term goal of humans to Mars, if properly pursued
and supported, will inspire, will spur innovation, will promote
international cooperation, and will advance science. In short,
it is a goal well worth investing in.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning. I want to join the Chairman in welcoming our
witnesses to today's hearing. I look forward to your testimony.
I see that the hearing title asks the question: ``Mars Flyby 2021:
The First Deep Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch System?''
Given that 2021 is currently the estimated date for the very first
crewed mission of Orion, period--not just its first deep space
mission--I would guess that the likely answer will turn out to be
``no.'' I doubt that a flyby of Mars will ultimately be considered to
be an appropriate first ``shakedown'' flight for the new crewed
spacecraft given the risks involved in a year and a half trip to Mars
and back.
However, I think this hearing does provide a good opportunity to
again stress that we need a clear, thoughtful roadmap for our nation's
human exploration program. Successive NASA Authorization Acts have made
clear that Congress believes that Mars is an appropriate goal for our
Nation's human spaceflight activities. It's time for NASA to tell us
how they intend to achieve that goal. What technologies will be needed,
what sequence of intermediate destinations should be pursued and why,
and what are the risks that will need to be addressed?
We also need to hear from NASA about the progress being made on the
Space Launch System and on Orion, the two systems that are critical to
our exploration efforts beyond low Earth orbit. What are the challenges
they are facing, how will they be used to support NASA's roadmap to
Mars, and are they being adequately funded to meet the milestones laid
out for those two programs?
Mr. Chairman, NASA was not invited to participate in today's
hearing. That is unfortunate. I would urge you to schedule a follow-on
hearing with NASA so that we can get a status report on the Space
Launch System and Orion, as well as hear what NASA is doing to develop
a strategic roadmap for human Mars exploration. We need to hear from
NASA if we are to properly assess its human exploration program and the
funding that will be proposed for it when the President submits his
budget request to Congress next week.
It will also be relevant for this Committee as we move forward on
our reauthorization of NASA. Our Nation's human exploration program can
inspire our youth, advance our technological capabilities, and support
our geopolitical objectives. However, it can only do those things if we
are willing to keep our commitment to the dedicated men and women at
NASA and elsewhere who are working hard to carry out the challenging
tasks we ask them to undertake. As a National Academies' panel has
observed:
``There is a significant mismatch between the programs to which
NASA is committed and the budgets that have been provided or
anticipated. The approach to and pace of a number of NASA's programs,
projects, and activities will not be sustainable if the NASA budget
remains flat, as currently projected. This mismatch needs to be
addressed if NASA is to efficiently and effectively develop enduring
strategic directions of any sort.''
The long-term goal of humans to Mars--if properly pursued and
supported--will inspire, will spur innovation, will promote
international cooperation, and will advance science. In short, it is a
goal well worth investing in.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and I will now
introduce our witnesses.
Our first witness is Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space
Policy Institute and a Professor of the Practice of
International Affairs at George Washington University's Elliott
School of International Affairs. Prior to his work at George
Washington University, Dr. Pace served as NASA's Associate
Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation and as the
Assistant Director for Space and Aeronautics in the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Pace holds a
bachelor's in physics from Harvey Mudd College, master's
degrees in Aeronautics and Astronautics and in Technology and
Policy from M.I.T. and a Ph.D. in policy analysis from the RAND
Graduate School.
Our second witness is General Lester Lyles. In 2003,
General Lyles retired as the Commander, Air Force Material
Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Prior to
his command at Wright-Patterson, General Lyles served as Vice
Chief of Staff at U.S. Air Force Headquarters and commanded the
Space and Missile System Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base.
General Lyles received his bachelor's in mechanical engineering
from Howard University and his master's in mechanical and
nuclear engineering from New Mexico State University.
Our third witness, Mr. Doug Cooke, is an Aerospace
Consultant with over 40 years of experience in human
spaceflight programs. Mr. Cooke retired from NASA after a 38-
year career at Johnson Space Center and NASA headquarters,
where he served as the Associate Administrator of the
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. Mr. Cooke led efforts
to adopt the current vehicle designs for the Orion and Space
Launch System. He also had senior leadership responsibilities
during critical periods of the space shuttle, International
Space Station and human exploration, human spaceflight
programs. Mr. Cooke is a graduate of Texas A&M University with
a Bachelor of Science degree in aerospace engineering.
Our final witness is Dr. Sandy Magnus, Executive Director
of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the
world's largest technical society dedicated to the aerospace
profession. After being selected to the NASA Astronaut Corps in
1996, she flew on Shuttle missions in 2002 and 2011 and spent
four and a half months on board the International Space
Station. Dr. Magnus followed her work on the ISS and the
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters
and served as Deputy Chief of the Astronaut Office. Prior to
her work at NASA, Dr. Magnus worked for McDonnell Douglas
Aircraft Company as an engineer working on stealth aircraft.
She holds a bachelor's in physics and a master's in electrical
engineering from the Missouri University of Science and
Technology. She earned her Ph.D. from the School of Materials,
Science and Engineering at Georgia Tech.
We welcome you all and appreciate your being here and
appreciate your expertise, and Dr. Pace, we will begin with
you.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT PACE,
DIRECTOR OF THE SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE,
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Johnson, for providing this opportunity to discuss the topic of
a strategic framework for U.S. human spaceflight, and
specifically the opportunity of a human flyby and return to the
vicinity of Mars in 2021, which is only seven years from now.
A primary challenge to creating a practical and sustainable
program of human space exploration is not the lack of ambitious
goals but the difficulties in organizing a practical sequence
of projects to achieve larger strategic objectives. We also
know space agency budgets are under great fiscal and political
pressures and funds to build a large human-capable lunar
lander, much less support human landings on Mars, are unlikely
in the next decades.
Fortunately, the debates of recent years and a literal
alignment of the planets provides an opportunity to bring
together several major programs, destinations and policy
objectives into a sustained effort of human space exploration.
As you will hear, a sequence of affordable human space
exploration missions could begin with Orion and SLS flights to
cislunar space followed by a manned flyby of Mars, taking
advantage of the 2021 alignment and the SLS. The 2018 window,
of course, for Mars is even more favorable but the SLS and
other necessary capabilities are unlikely to be ready in time.
Following a Mars flyby and the demonstration of the ability
to reach Mars with humans that is feasible, the United States,
international and private partners could begin a series of
human and robotic lunar missions in the 2020s, phasing in as
the ISS reaches the end of its operational life. These missions
would build operational experience and demonstrate the
technologies necessary to eventually land humans on Mars.
The international consensus in places such as the
International Space Exploration Coordination Group has
coalesced around cislunar operations as the next logical step
beyond the ISS. There are many cooperative ventures that we
could talk about but the Mars flyby mission serves as an
interesting bridge, a potential bridge, between where we are
with the ISS, where we would like to be with Mars and where are
our international partners and commercial opportunities are
with human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit.
This approach that we are describing is consistent with the
national space policy and Congressional direction. In a
constrained budget environment, it allows major program
elements to be phased in affordably. Conducting the Mars flyby
in 2021 with a schedule firmly dictated by orbital mechanics
would drive near-term program planning and decisions on how to
rationally trade costs, schedule, risk and performance goals.
We need a vision and a strategy to be a preeminent space-
faring nation. As many know, I have argued for taking a more
geopolitical and international approach focused on the Moon.
NASA has rightly said it doesn't have the funds for a lander
right now. The White House has wrongly said that it is
uninterested in the Moon and has failed to connect the dots, in
my opinion, of an exploration strategy that serves broader
national interests. A Mars 2021 human flyby would, as I said,
provide kind of a bridge bringing together Mars and lunar
community and in many ways may offer a faster and more
efficient way of returning to the Moon.
Much more detailed programmatic planning is urgently needed
with respect to a 2021 deadline for a human flyby. Cost
estimates, risk assessments, architectural trades are needed to
see whether programmatic phasing and peak funding requirements
are indeed feasible and supportable, and if borne out, the Mars
2021 flyby should become a top priority for NASA's human space
exploration activities after the safe operation of the
International Space Station.
I thank you for your attention and I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pace follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Pace.
General Lyles.
TESTIMONY OF GENERAL LESTER LYLES (RET.),
INDEPENDENT AEROSPACE CONSULTANT
AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON
``RATIONALE AND GOALS OF
THE U.S. CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM''
ESTABLISHED BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
General Lyles. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Johnson and
Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to
speak to you today on issues concerning the nascent human
spaceflight program. I am a Member of the National Academy of
Engineers. I specifically chair the Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board of the National Research Council, which is
part of the Academy. The National Research Council was created
in 1967 to focus talents and energies of the engineering
community on significant aerospace policies and programs.
The ASEB works in concert with the NRC's Space Studies
Board. We work hand in hand, and over the past decade we have
looked at various studies associated with programs related to
space exploration and all of the activities that NASA is
involved in.
I also was a member of the 2004 President Bush Space
Commission that looked at the implementation of the United
States, new United States at the time, space exploration
policy. I was part of that activity lead by Pete Aldridge, the
former Secretary of the Air Force, and we came up with some
very strong recommendations that we think underpin the current
space exploration program that NASA is currently embarked upon.
I also had the honor in 2009 to be part of the Augustine
Committee. Norm Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin,
as you well know, was asked by the Administration and by the
Congress to look at the civil space program and human space
program for the United States. We were chartered specifically
not to come up with recommendations but to look at options on
how we might conduct space exploration for the United States.
And then finally, I had the honor in 2009 of chairing an
independent National Academies study titled ``America's Future
in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National
Needs.'' The formal task of that commission, rather, was to
look at the rationale and goals for our civil space program for
the United States, and we specifically came up with
recommendations to align our space program to the national
needs of the United States. Hopefully during questions and
answers I'll get a chance to elaborate on each one of those
previous studies.
I will go back and mention that the Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board has not specifically addressed all of the
questions that you are interested in in this particular
hearing. However, we have done a lot of things, I think, that
touch upon the key elements and key concerns and opportunities
associated with going to Mars, associated with space
exploration, and certainly associated with the Mars flyby
opportunity.
In 2012, specifically, the Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board, the National Research Committee and the
National Academy itself completed reviewing a series of NASA
space technology roadmaps. We provided NASA with what we
considered to be a very comprehensive list of technologies that
need to be addressed if there was going to be any chance of
getting to Mars even in the year 2030, 2020 time frame. We
provided that to NASA. They embrace it, as I understand, and
our recommendations for a technology roadmap are the
underpinnings for the current technology programs that NASA has
embarked upon. Those technology roadmaps indicated that there
are several high-priority technologies that require further
development in categories such as radiation mitigation for
human spaceflight, environmental control, life support systems,
space propulsion, et cetera. It was a very, very comprehensive
activity conducted over a year-and-a-half time frame, and
again, it underpins most of the technology programs that NASA
is currently embarked upon.
Relative to the Mars flyby task that we are specifically
looking at here, in my personal opinion, the Inspiration Mars
proposal provides, I think, an exciting opportunity for our
space exploration program and certainly for NASA. It certainly
is one that would provide vision. It addresses many of the
concerns that each of the studies I participated in was
concerned with including technology and technology maturation
but, in my opinion, and based on my experience of 35-1/2 years
in the Air Force, mostly developing space systems or high-
technology systems, it does have high risk associated with it.
Scott Pace just described some of the things that need to be
addressed--looking at cost, looking at risk and looking at
technologies--but to me it is something that needs to be
addressed. I think it fits in some respects with most current
space policy and certainly with the things that were addressed
in the studies that I touched upon.
Mr. Chairman, I will stop my remarks there. I have provided
some specific written comments, and I look forward to your
question and the opportunity to talk about some of the previous
studies in more detail in the Q&A. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Lyles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, General Lyles.
Mr. Cooke.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DOUG COOKE, OWNER,
COOKE CONCEPTS AND SOLUTIONS
AND FORMER NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR EXPLORATION SYSTEMS MISSION DIRECTORATE
Mr. Cooke. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson and Members of the Committee for this unique
opportunity to discuss with you the exceptionally important
need for a space exploration roadmap and specifically how a
human Mars flyby mission in 2021 contributes to long-term
exploration goals.
It is long past due for the United States of America to
have a cogent, meaningful plan for human space exploration. At
a time when there is so much potential to make significant
progress, I am more concerned than ever about the future of
human space exploration due to the current void in long-term
direction. We are, in my opinion, in dire need of a strategic
plan consisting of logical goals supported by tactically placed
specific missions that lead to landing of astronauts on Mars.
Logically sequenced missions should address science
exploration and other objectives. International collaboration
is essential but the United States must lead. Capabilities and
technologies should be developed incrementally and paced with
available budgets. Every mission undertaken and every
capability developed should contribute to long-term exploration
objectives. Investments in current NASA human spaceflight
programs are important, providing a balanced and solid
foundation for human space exploration including the
International Space Station, crew and cargo transportation to
low Earth orbit and the Space Launch System Heavy Lift Rocket
and Orion capsule. These are the critical building blocks of an
exploration infrastructure.
Additional enabling capabilities, technologies and research
including advanced in-space propulsion, space radiation
research and protection, cryogenic fuel storage, closed-loop
life support systems, spacesuits, entry, descent and landing
technology and others should be the focus of NASA technology
programs.
First, we need a long-term roadmap that can gain traction
through debate and refinement by stakeholders and advocates of
the various approaches beginning with human Mars-Venus flyby
mission in 2021, a unique mission opportunity with a free
return trajectory made possible by the exact Earth-Venus-Mars
planetary alignment. It is the least complex profile for
reaching the Mars vicinity. The next comparable flyby
opportunity is not until 2033. The mission provides an
opportunity for an incredible first step that will make travel
to Mars real to the people of the world, demonstrating
previously unimaginable possibilities in the span of a few
short years.
The essential capabilities for such a mission are an SLS
vehicle with a fully capable upper stage, a habitat with an
advanced life support system and an Orion capsule with an
advanced heat shield. A human mission to a large asteroid in
its own orbit would be achievable with these same capabilities.
The most logical next steps for the 2020s are mission to our
own Moon. Space-faring nations including China and Russia are
all very interested in the Moon. Astronauts would collect
samples in high-priority locations already identified by
scientists to learn about the history of the sun, Earth and
solar system. They will employ certain operational techniques
and test systems in the hostile lunar environment that will
prepare for future human Mars surface operations.
After initial lunar missions, Mars' moons Phobos and
Deimos, become logical destinations. Missions will require
efficient propulsion, possibly through evolution of solar
electric propulsion technology used today, nuclear electric
propulsion, electric plasma engines or nuclear thermal
propulsion. Astronauts will be in close proximity to Mars for a
period of weeks harvesting science samples and operating robots
on the surface with minimal communication delays. A mission to
Phobos and Deimos would inspire and prepare us for an ultimate
landing of crews on the Martian surface.
A human landing on Mars will require a large lander capable
of atmospheric entry, surface habitat, nuclear surface power,
lightweight spacesuit, a rover and other assets. Human missions
to Mars will be challenging and tremendously momentous as
astronauts explore the planet most like our own.
There is a logical progression and meaningful missions. I
believe Americans will be motivated to support appropriate but
reasonable budgets that are commensurate with the value of the
plan and the work needed to accomplish it. We cannot afford to
delay or prolong the debate because timing is critical to catch
the unique planetary alignment that makes the first step
possible in 2021. NASA should seriously consider these concepts
and challenges and objectively examine how they can be
accomplished.
With a long-term plan, we can provide our youth and the
rest of the world a future marked by technological progress and
discovery that will inspire all to higher aspirations. In the
process, we will regain U.S. leadership in space exploration
with a cadence of achievements.
I thank you for inviting me. I also want to thank this
Committee and your staff for your continued leadership in human
spaceflight. I will be happy to answer questions.
I do have a short video clip if you have time. It is 40
seconds.
Chairman Smith. Why don't we proceed and hear the video
clip? Is that all right with the Ranking Member? Okay. Yes.
Mr. Cooke. This video clip will show the mission, the
mission trajectory starting from Earth, and then show what it
might look like to go past Venus and Mars. So you will see a
trajectory path hopefully that gets to the Venus vicinity by
April of 2022. This is what the crew would look and see--Venus
as it flies by, not this fast, and then a Mars flyby in October
2020-2022. They would have about 40 hours of looking at Mars
when it is at least as big as the Moon is from the Earth, and
there would be an Earth return in June 2023.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. That is great. That is the first time I
have seen it sort of the practical application of the proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Cooke.
Dr. Magnus.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SANDRA MAGNUS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
Dr. Magnus. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and
distinguished members. I want to thank you for the opportunity
to address you today concerning the future of human
spaceflight.
I was asked to address the importance of having an
exploration architecture and strategic framework to guide
NASA's investments in space. In order to understand how
important this is, I think we need to examine the trajectory of
human spaceflight program over the previous decades.
As we all are very well aware, President Kennedy's famous
speech to Congress on May 25, 1961, challenged the country to
land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth within
the next decade. Even though Kennedy's proposal was a noble
goal, it was just that: a goal. Underlying that goal was
neither a long-term strategy nor vision let alone political
consensus for how or what the United States should do in space,
and because of this view, our space program has since suffered
in the absence of a long-term strategic vision. We instead
planned and executed short-term tactical goals outside of a
larger defined stable framework, and this is the operational
load we are still working under today.
So what has been at the heart of the problem of identifying
and committing to a consistent national long-term strategic
plan for the United States space program? Unfortunately, I
believe that part of the problem is buried in human nature and
our difficulty as humans in focusing in general on the long
term and coupled with our inherent short-term attention spans
as the Federal Government turns over at least a fraction of its
governing structure every two, four or six years and the
barriers to a long-term consistent strategy become painfully
apparent.
It is important to acknowledge these issues and overcome
them together as we determine the course for our country and
space for the next few decades. We live in interesting times.
We find ourselves at a pivotal point where private enterprise
leveraging off of the foundational and groundbreaking work that
the government has been conducting for the last five decades
feels that it understands the risk-reward equation well enough
to start engaging in activities in low Earth orbit. But
government has a role that it must continue to play in space
exploration and utilization. The role of the government is to
do the hard things: invest in the research and development the
industry cannot and to take on the tasks and push the
boundaries the private sector will not. Our strategy should
consider how do we want the United States to be leveraged for
future roles in space both in commercial and civil and low
Earth orbit and beyond. It should not be an ``or'', it should
be an ``and.'' Our plan, our vision needs to be long term and
stable in nature and comprehensive in scope, well thought out
and well-articulated, and most importantly, fully resourced and
executable. And finally, we need to maintain our long-term
focused and steadfast commitment to our strategy on the order
of a decade or so at a minimum.
So the question being addressed today is, can the Mars
flyby mission be a candidate for deep space mission for the SLS
System. I would say it is certainly one of many possible
missions that could result but once again let me caution you:
let us not return to the misguided lessons of the past. Any
mission chosen cannot be done merely with the mindset of
accomplishing a goal without clearly being tied to an
overarching strategy. A mission such as the Mars flyby or an
asteroid retrieval or a lunar base should be put in the context
of required longer-term strategy. In the context of a coherent
strategy, the appropriate missions will be defined logically
based on the requirements developed within that strategic
framework. The Mars flyby, thus, can only be discussed in the
context of a larger strategy and the associated missions and
operational goals.
I would like to underscore that any plan, whether its goal
is to retrieve an asteroid, establish a lunar base or send
people to Mars, is doomed to failure without the resources to
support it, resources provided in a sustained and sustainable
manner based on realistic projections.
NASA has found itself often in a position where it is given
tasks to perform but then provided inadequate resources to
fulfill them. Failure to adequately resource such large-scale
endeavors from the outset inevitably leads to higher costs and
inefficiencies. We must have a long-term commitment.
Currently, NASA gets about five-tenths of a percent of the
U.S. budget. If we are going to be a Nation that has a future
in space, a nation with a strong strategic plan and the will to
execute it, five-tenths percent of the national budget is
simply not adequate. The Nation has some major budgetary issues
to address. I will not deny that. But the heart of our budget
problems does not lie in an increasingly small fraction of the
budget available to discretionary programs like NASA.
I believe a strong, stable, strategically directed and
appropriately-resourced space program is vitally important to
our country. A sustained national commitment to such a program
will not only benefit our country economically but also will
serve as a strong motivation for our younger generations to
pursue challenging and exciting careers in science, math and
engineering, an intangible benefit but an important one.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to address this
Committee, and thank you for your continued support of the
United States space program. I look forward to discussing this
issue with you further, and I am happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Magnus follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Magnus.
I will recognize myself for questions, and let me address
my first one, Dr. Pace, to you, and that is, how does the
possible Mars flyby benefit from the continuing development of
SLS and Orion? Are they a good fit for each other?
Dr. Pace. Well, yes, I believe they are a good fit. I mean,
one of the things that is the challenge for Mars flyby is of
course on return, that you are coming in at a very, very high
speed, so some of the experience from the Orion program
developed for a lunar return, high speed, is also applicable to
the high-speed returns you would require from Mars. The size
and volume of the SLS is also very helpful. Many payloads on
long-term exploration architectures--Doug Cooke can speak to
this even better than I can--you wind up being volume
constrained, so the large volumes than an SLS can place up also
are very helpful for our lunar and Mars exploration efforts,
and of course, the propulsion capabilities that the SLS
provides are really going to be quite impressive, and I should
note that one of the requirements in here is a high-performance
upper stage, a dual-use upper stage, to provide the kind of
trans-Mars injection velocities that you are going to need. But
if we are going to be a spacefaring Nation, going to the Moon,
going to Mars, asteroids and other destinations, then a
workhorse heavy lift capability like this is integrally
necessary to the Nation to have.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr.
Pace.immovableimmouable? Are we going to be able to stay on
track with SLS and Orion? What would be required for us to meet
that deadline?
Mr. Cooke. Yes, sir. I believe that 2021 is possible if the
focus is put on getting that mission on our books. I think the
development of the SLS is well underway. It would take a
commitment to develop the upper stage in the time frame that we
are talking about. We would need a small hab, perhaps using an
existing structure but with advanced life support, which
actually the Inspirations Mars Foundation contributed money to
develop in the last year, and Orion would have to get there.
But there are enough years ahead of us that I believe it is
definitely possible but obviously you have to focus on it near
term in order to accomplish it.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cooke.
General Lyles, I appreciate your encouraging comments, and
wanted to ask you and Dr. Magnus a question, but if I may set
it up first. Even though you are encouraging, we all recognize
that there are challenges there to achieving this particular
mission. There are risks and technological challenges that
would include, for example, trying to figure out a way the
radiation would not be as dangerous, carrying sufficient fuel
and food and water and so on.
Dr. Magnus, you mentioned JFK's announcement in 1961 about
getting to the Moon within a decade. He beat that by a couple
of years. But the point is that when Apollo was announced, no
one had any idea how to accomplish that mission. The
technological challenges were almost thought to be
insurmountable and yet we achieved them. So I guess I don't
feel like the challenges here are any greater than NASA faced
in 1961 and yet did a magnificent job of achieving the goal
that had been set by President Kennedy.
General Lyles, do you think even though we have these
challenges, do you think that it is possible that we can make
the technological breakthroughs, that we can accomplish what we
need to do in order to meet the 2021 deadline?
General Lyles. Mr. Chairman, I think my personal opinion is
yes, we can. I would never underestimate what the American
spirit can do and American innovation and American interest in
technology can do.
My concern, tempered a little bit by experience in looking
at previous programs, not just NASA programs but Department of
Defense high-technology programs, you never know for sure
exactly what you are going to encounter, those unknown unknowns
to quote one of our former Secretaries of Defense.
Chairman Smith. Right.
General Lyles. There was a comment that we made in the
Aldrich Commission, the President Bush space commission, that I
think is very applicable here. It was a pay as -- excuse me --
go-as-you-can-pay sort of strategy. It was looking at a
specific goal, whether it is going to a flyby of Mars or
whatever it might be and making sure that every step that you
are taking advances towards that goal and being flexible enough
to take advantage of technological achievements that we can't
estimate right now or even some technological challenges that
we probably can't estimate right now. The focus, somewhat like
Doug Cooke mentioned, is to make sure we have a long-term goal
and to focus on getting there and not be deterred in terms of
that is our mission. I think the American spirit is such that
we can do that but we have to have the focus.
Chairman Smith. Right. Thank you, General Lyles.
Dr. Magnus, anything to add? I know you mentioned the
strategic vision as well as the practical, but do you think we
can do it?
Dr. Magnus. Well, I would certainly echo General Lyles. We
can do anything we put our minds to, and it seems like my whole
adult life we have been 20 years from going to Mars, and it
really just comes down to a matter of national will and
commitment. If we decide as a country that it is important for
us to go to Mars, we will do that because we will be given the
community, the resources and things like that.
But I would like to comment. As we discussed what going to
Mars means, we have to be aware of, once we get to Mars, what
are we going to do there. I mean, one of the problems with the
lunar program, which was a great program, I am not certainly
implying anything negative came out of that, but we went to the
Moon and it was like okay, we have been to the Moon, now what,
you know, we have been there, done that, and we shouldn't go
back again. So we need to have a big-picture plan. What are we
going to do? We are going to do Mars and we are going to do X,
so we just don't go to Mars and then we stop going to Mars
because we have now been to Mars. So that is why when I was
speaking about a long-term strategy, that is what I am talking
about.
Chairman Smith. The larger vision.
Dr. Magnus. The bigger picture, our goals, our objectives,
what are we going to do there, things like this.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Magnus.
The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
General Lyles, what criteria should Congress use to assess
the adequacy of an exploration roadmap such that it can garner
sustained support and funding from successive Congresses and
Administrations and how can Congress ensure that the roadmap is
adaptable to evolving technologies tied to scientific
discoveries and can be a source of inspiration to future
generations?
General Lyles. Congresswoman, I think Congress is owed in
some respect a better definition of what NASA's technology
roadmap is today. I would mention again the technology roadmap
that was provided by the National Research Council, the
National Academy to NASA in 2012, and I think if we look at
that very closely, it gives you sort of a measure, is NASA
really focusing on the kind of technologies that the academic
community has mentioned are the right things to do if you are
going to advance space exploration. That gives you sort of a
barometer, if you will, a measuring stick to see if they are
doing the right kind of things or even if the resources are
adequate to do that.
I would also recommend, Congresswoman, the study that I led
on rationale and goals for our civil space program. We
specifically titled the report that we gave back what aligning
the civil space program to national needs. Whether those
national needs, those greater national needs are energy,
climate, health, environment, I think is an opportunity to
ensure that our civil space program even going to Mars as a
flyby has adjuncts to it that relate to the other greater
national needs that are of such importance to the citizens of
the United States, and knowing and understanding that linkage
is another barometer that Congress can look at to see if these
programs are indeed not just giving us an opportunity to go to
Mars but also addressing things that are critically important
to the United States.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
What is your assessment of the progress being made by the
SLS and Orion, Mr. Cooke?
Mr. Cooke. I believe that great progress is being made. As
I understand it from reports, SLS is ahead of schedule. They
will have their critical design review this year. There are
parts, pathfinder parts for the tanks being made as well as
flight hardware. I think that there is a pathway forward this
year to get to qualification motor firings for the boosters.
They have had successful tests of the test motors, very
successful that were predicted and resulted in--they had
results right on the money. The Orion vehicle is being worked
out at the Cape right now down at Kennedy Space Center, getting
ready for a test flight in, I believe it's planned in September
at this point. Ground facilities are being modified and gotten
ready at Kennedy Space Center as well, so the programs, I
believe, are making very good progress.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Dr. Pace, would you like to comment?
Dr. Pace. Thank you. I guess I don't have anything to add
to what Doug Cooke has said about the SLS programming. I have
the same impression that he has in terms of the progress being
made in terms of people focused on hardware. As we sometimes
said in NASA, head down, coloring hard. People are working away
at it.
What I would like to add is to echo a comment from Dr.
Magnus on the need for a larger context for all of these
things. I think that is absolutely true for asteroid retrieval
missions, it is true for a lunar base, it is true for a Mars
flyby mission, and I think that the larger context that we are
often missing is some of our national security and our foreign
policy interests in civil space cooperation. Civil space
cooperation is not something done just for fun or even just
only for inspiration, as important as that is. It is also a way
of drawing other countries to us and having them work and
cooperate and participate with us. We as a country are more
dependent upon a peaceful, quiet and stable space environment
than any other nation in the world. There are many, many new
players coming into the world who are active in space and many
of them don't have the kind of experiences that we have.
So how do we bring them into the community of spacefaring
nations, to act in responsible ways? Getting them involved in
cooperation, getting them involved in caring about having a
peaceful and stable space environment is something that I think
is deeply in our national security and foreign policy interest.
So to the extent that we can create cooperative opportunities
on the Moon, Mars, asteroids that provide opportunities for
other countries to work with us, we will be protecting our own
national security and that is a long-term geopolitical interest
this country will have.
President Kennedy met a short-term geopolitical interest
with his lunar decision. We have, I think, an opportunity to
serve our long-term national security and geopolitical
interests with a program of space exploration.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, the Vice
Chairman of the Committee, is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
when I first heard about this concept of the flyby with Mars,
human flyby, it was presented to me by a man who I deeply
admire, Dennis Tito, who is a man who has inspired many, many
Americans with his own courage and his own vision accomplished
years ago and then over the years has been very, very creative
in his approaches to space. But one of his first -- and it was
a great idea, but his proposal to me was -- and to us was a
project that was fully funded by the private sector, and now
all of a sudden it is not funded by the private sector anymore.
It is the same mission but now it is going to come out of the
public sector money. And while I thought it was a great idea,
people were willing to take the risks and spend the money in
the private sector, I think this is a foolhardy use of very
limited government resources as compared to if private people
want to put their money up.
General Lyles, good to see you again, sir. Always great to
see you.
And you talked about 35 years in the Air Force and how you
understood high risk that is associated with various projects.
There is a very high risk associated with this, is there not?
General Lyles. Congressman, yes, there is----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
General Lyles. --whether you are talking the technology
itself or even from a policy perspective and certainly the
funding aspect of it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The--both the technology end of it, both
the funding end of it, and both the actual accomplishing the
mission is just--there are many, many risks, a lot more risks
than other things that we might accomplish in space with the
limited dollars that we have if we expended those dollars
toward those other goals. Isn't that the case?
General Lyles. Congressman, I would not disagree with that
but I think that is one of the reasons why I think it is very
important to look at how that particular idea, a Mars flyby,
could be linked to other things that we are already doing. The
program that we are currently embarked upon, whether you call
it asteroid retrieval or whatever the right title is, there are
aspects of the technology we are developing for the current
program, obviously SLS, Orion, that could be applied to a
mission such as the flyby. I am not quoting a specific time----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
General Lyles. --so I think it could be linked to other
things.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, but that is just for the Space
Launch System, undo other things. General, when we are talking
about the risk, what would you say? Would you--if you had to
put your own money into this, let's say you had to bet your
mortgage money, would you bet your mortgage money on the
success of this mission?
General Lyles. Congressman, my money wouldn't get us very
far, probably at all. But the answer is right now in terms of a
vision, innovative idea, I like it. In terms of understanding
all the risks, I would be reluctant to put my own money into
that until I better understood what all the challenges are.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much being very frank
with us on that.
And, Dr. Pace, the--you just mentioned the cooperative
efforts, how important that is and for all nations to
participate. Are there any other nations involved with putting
money into this project?
Dr. Pace. No.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. That is it. Thank you. I appreciate
that. There isn't.
Mr. Cooke. Could I----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is correct. There are not. And----
Mr. Cooke. Could I add one thing?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Cooke. There were initial conversations on the
possibility of contribution of a habitat structure. I mean
obviously all those kind of things have to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Cooke. --play their course, but there have been some
initial discussions----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Cooke. --internationally.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There are some discussions. All right.
When we go from some discussions to actually commitments, so
there is a lot of space between those two.
Now, let us note that this is a mission that has to be
accomplished in seven years. I mean we have to do this within
that seven-year period. All of these factors have to be
together. And then the technology has to work, and I think
isn't this mission the very first mission that an SLS is going
to have and it has got to happen within that seven year period?
Would you like to give us your estimate as to--guesstimate as
what the chances of--I mean you have followed programs. How
many have really met their deadline in last few years? Yes?
Dr. Magnus. I am sorry. I wasn't aware you were addressing
it--well, I think, again, if we really wanted to do this and we
committed to do it, we could do it, but that means it has to be
fully resourced with the appropriate manpower and money----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Now, when you said----
Dr. Magnus. --and everything else.
Mr. Rohrabacher. --the word--the most important words you
use and you used when you testified was the word ``can'' and
``could.''
Dr. Magnus. Yeah.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is a lot different than ``will.''
Dr. Magnus. Exactly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And the fact is that do you really see
that the--right now that there is a commitment in this country
so that we don't start down this trail, spending a lot of money
and then at the end of the trail not an accomplished mission
because the will wasn't there?
Dr. Magnus. Yeah, that is the big problem. We don't have a
really strong commitment for a long-term vision for our space
program----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So we don't have it now but we should move
forward on this even though we don't have that? Well, now----
Dr. Magnus. If you recall in my testimony, I commented that
any mission that we do, whether it is a lunar mission or an
asteroid mission or the Mars flyby all needs to be in the
larger context of what are we trying to do long-term as a
country in space----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah----
Dr. Magnus. --and we need to make that plan----
Chairman Smith. The gentleman's time has long since
expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Give the gentleman just----
Chairman Smith. And----
Mr. Rohrabacher. --10 seconds, and that is just to say
there are many great space projects that we need to fund.
Dr. Magnus. Um-hum.
Mr. Rohrabacher. There are many of them and this----
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Not funding this would mean--not that we
are retreating from space.
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman from California, Dr.
Bera, is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking
Member, for calling this important hearing today.
You know, I think we have done our job as Congress and as
this Committee and Subcommittee really codifying this
commitment to future deep space exploration and we want to see
that happening. I think in the opening remarks by the Chairman
and Ranking Member, as well as the opening remarks for all the
witnesses, there is a consistent theme here. We need a vision
and a strategy. And, Dr. Magnus, you talked about having this
broader strategic vision, you know, where do we want to go and
then setting concrete goals. And I couldn't agree with you
more.
I mean I grew up in a time--many of us grew up in a time
when we were curious. We set goals. We didn't how we were going
to get to that goal. You invoked President Kennedy setting out
that goal. We grew up in a time where we talked about what we
could do as Americans. General Lyles, you talk about if we want
to do this, we can do it. We don't shy away from that
challenge. In fact, we can meet that challenge if in fact that
is what we want to do. So we have got to set that goal.
We have had the opportunity to meet with Administrator
Bolden a few months ago again expressing this commitment to
set--for NASA to set a goal, for the Administration--the
President to set a goal. We are working--with this Committee we
have drafted a letter to the President because we want to see
that commitment. We want to see a clearly articulated strategy
from the President that says here is what we are going to do,
here is the time frame we are going to do it in, and here is
how we are going to get there. We need that as a time frame.
Dr. Pace, you touched on this is just not about going to
Mars. It is in our geopolitical and national security interest
to also, you know, continue to reaffirm our commitments and
our, you know, leadership in space because it is increasingly a
national security issue. It is increasingly a geopolitical
issue. With that, I look forward to working with our Committee
and Subcommittee as we push the President to clearly articulate
a commitment to deep space exploration.
With that, let me ask, you know, some of my questions. Dr.
Magnus, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to have a
strategy here and that we have to have clearly defined goals.
What would you articulate as the President were sitting right
here, what that strategy should be?
Dr. Magnus. Well, clearly, there has been enough discussion
around Mars that the consensus in the community is that is our
ultimate place to go. I think we still need to flesh out the
what are we going to do when we get there and what is going to
be our sustaining effort on Mars? Are we going to set up a base
and have people visit it occasionally? What kind of science are
we going to do? What kind of technology do we need to develop
there to move even further beyond? So I think we still need
some discussion about that.
But in that context, then, I think the questions you need
to ask are what the kind of--what technology needs to be
developed, what capabilities are important for our country to
develop versus how we might leverage international cooperation,
because I think it will be an international effort so we have
to look strategically at the capabilities and the technology
and the types of experience we want our country to lead in and
then build that into the plan. Then we have to look at where we
are from an industrial viewpoint, how we want to leverage the
architecture to continue the utilization of low Earth orbit,
and then what series of missions do you use to build up these
capabilities and demonstrate them to reduce the risk of going
to Mars? And those are the questions that would frame that
plan.
Mr. Bera. Fabulous. In a matter of 30 seconds you have laid
out a strategy, a goal, and some steps to reach that long-term
goal.
Part of this also is all the additional benefits we get
when we stretch our goals. I am a physician by training. I can
think of innumerous medical benefits as we deal with how we are
going to deal with the radiation risk, how we are going to deal
with the subzero temperatures and so forth. And there are tons
of applications that are going to come off of this, tons of
jobs that will be created off of this.
So, again I wholeheartedly encourage the President and
again with this Committee and look forward to working to push
the President to clearly articulate what that strategy is, that
goal is so then we can do our job in Congress working towards
hitting that goal.
And again, I would say we are country that doesn't shy away
from challenges. If we set a goal and we clearly articulate
that goal, I think to quote General Lyles, never underestimate
what the American spirit can do. And I wouldn't. If we want to
do this in seven years, we will do it in seven years, but let's
actually make that commitment. Thank you. I will yield back,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Dr. Bera.
The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo, is recognized.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It has often been said that space exploration is a ``go as
we can afford to pay'' endeavor. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
Congress has consistently provided more funding for the Orion
and Space Launch System than the Obama administration has
requested over the past several years. Congress has placed a
higher priority on human spaceflight than the Obama
administration. The current schedule for NASA's first manned
flight is 2021 on the Orion and SLS, but that is based on the
President--on President Obama's budget plan, not the higher
budget level that Congress has authorized and appropriated over
the past several years.
So my question for Dr. Pace is in terms of affordability
for a Mars 2021 flyby or other space exploration endeavors like
a return to the Moon, it is about setting budget priorities. In
your opinion, what priority has the Obama administration's
budget proposals given to human spaceflight compared to other
priorities for NASA?
Dr. Pace. Well, I think there has been a decline in the
overall NASA budget certainly over the last several years. It
has been quite volatile. The top line has vibrated quite a bit
and exploration monies have declined. So monies have shifted
over into other priorities, certainly climate change research,
technology work, all of which are perfectly reasonable and
important things to do, but human space exploration has seen a
long-term decline.
But even more critical than the money I think has been the
lack of a sense of, well, what do you do next? For example,
what comes after the space station? What are the next steps
that we are going to engage with other countries in?
I generally have a very positive view of the President's
national space policy, which by and large I think is a very
well-written and thoughtful document. The section of it that I
disagree with is one on exploration because I don't think it
sets out a clear set of milestones; it doesn't set out a clear
set of priorities. So it is understandable that the monies that
NASA does get often get diverted into other things other than
human space exploration because the national policy itself
doesn't really clearly articulate what those priorities ought
to be.
Mr. Palazzo. Mr. Cooke, in your assessment, approximately
how much more money would be needed beyond the President's
budget plan to accelerate the first crewed flight on the Orion
and how much more money would be needed to meet the 2021 flight
to Mars?
Mr. Cooke. I would say at this point there is more work
that needs to be done on the 2021 mission. A fair amount of
work did go into studying the technical aspects of the 2018
mission by the Inspiration Mars Foundation. I think that
questions should be asked of NASA to go look at this mission
seriously and get to an understanding of what it takes, along
with taking advantage of the work that has been done in the
2018 mission. But to my knowledge there has not been a detailed
cost analysis of this. I would hesitate to state a number.
But I would say that the directions that would be taken in
terms of developing the large upper stage for SLS is what is
needed long-term. There are synergies that can be brought into
that because of the work currently going on in the core stage
of the vehicle in tooling and actually in the design process.
The--there are structures that can be used for the habitat.
There is work that has gone on, on a more advanced life
support, which is important for this flight, and the Orion
vehicle was designed for missions beyond Earth orbit.
So I believe there are steps that are not unreasonable and
could--with a commitment--as has been discussed, with a
commitment, I think it is a reasonable approach, but the
mission needs to be looked at in the terms, once again, of a
long-term plan so we know how it feeds forward. And I believe
it does.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you.
Dr. Magnus, as a former astronaut and Deputy Chief of the
Astronaut Office, as well as an accomplished engineer and
Executive Director of the world's largest technical society
dedicated to the global aerospace profession, how would a Mars
flyby mission be perceived by those individuals responsible for
designing and flying such a mission? And understanding that you
do not officially speak for them, would astronauts be
comfortable with the risk posed by such a mission?
Dr. Magnus. Well, I can state quite frankly any mission
that you can come up with that sends people into space, you
will have plenty of volunteers to go. That is unquestionable. I
mean there are people signing up to go one way to Mars
regardless of the definition. That is the pull of spaceflight.
That is the pull of space exploration on everybody.
Now, as an experienced astronaut, the questions that I
would ask at this moment where the mission definition is coming
together is what exactly does the life-support system look
like? You know, how were--how is it working? What kind of
redundancies are you going to have? The radiation question is
still a big question, understanding--we are getting some data
from Curiosity of course in its traverse. And even currently I
would want to understand a little bit more about how we are
going to design to fix the radiation problem.
And then after I came back, if I was going to be exposed to
a lot of radiation and accept that as a risk, what were you
going to do to take care of me long-term if ten years from now
some weird thing happens to my body? I would ask those kind of
questions.
I would also ask, as someone who is going to be an operator
on a mission like this, what am I going to do during the
mission itself? There is a lot of work to do on the Space
Station. We are extremely busy on the Space Station. We do have
time to relax and sort of decompress a bit. And you guys have
very challenging work schedules here and I think you understand
that when you are busy, time is flying by. You are feeling like
you are very useful and you are contributing to something. But
if you are sending two people to Mars on a flyby, they are
going to need something to occupy their time. They are going
to--so I would want to know what am I going to be doing during
the mission as well?
I would want to understand the systems and the mission
parameters. You know, you are asking me to take this risk and
what are we going to get out of it? What is the goal? What
context is it in? What comes next? How does this work into the
bigger plan? So these are the kind of questions that I would be
asking.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo.
The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking
Member and to the witnesses today for your testimony.
I have to say it has been interesting to listen to the
concerns that have been expressed about the budget because, of
course there were people who were perfectly prepared to see
NASA operate under sequestration levels that would certainly--
would never get us to an overarching vision to make our way to
Mars and back. And so I am glad that we have tried to change
this conversation a little bit and look realistically at what
it is that the space community needs to do, the scientific and
research community, but also NASA.
I have been really--and I am, Dr. Magnus, one of those
people who would probably certainly volunteer to leave this
committee and the Congress and go to Mars and not return, but
nonetheless, I do think that there are some questions that we
need to answer and I think, Dr. Magnus, you have laid those out
quite well.
I am really--I am curious as to what you all think the
Congress needs to do in terms of directing NASA in terms of a
timeline to provide a roadmap that would be reasonable then if
we were to proceed along this goal to 2021 and then into the
2030s. So do we need to be more directive in terms of asking
for something back from NASA by a date certain? And do we need
to say to the Agency you and who else around the table should
come up with the roadmap and the plan?
My fear is that it might be left to Members of Congress who
have no real scientific expertise at all to be able to
determine whether it is the Moon or a Lagrangian point, the
International Space Station, or an asteroid that makes most
sense for precursor missions to get us on our way to Mars. And
so I would hate to leave it to us to do that, and I would like
you to help me think through who needs to be around the table
and by when do we need something so that we can begin the kind
of planning that we need for budgets and programming.
So any of you, if you have some comments about that.
General Lyles. Congresswoman, let me just take a quick stab
at that if you will from perhaps a little different perspective
than some of the other witnesses might espouse. I would hope
that the Congress would look at NASA as an agency from an
enterprise perspective, and by that I mean when I go back and
look at President Bush's original space exploration program
that was laid out and the Commission that I served on as part
of that, we looked at the broader sense of space exploration.
Even the space policy, the new space policy that Scott talked
about looks at space in a holistic sense. Human spaceflight is
just one element of that and I would hope that the Congress,
when considering budget needs and budget concerns for the
Agency, would look at the broader context of space exploration
and even if I add for the first A in NASA, the aeronautics
needs for this Nation and look at it from a broad sense of
understanding how all of those contribute to the needs for the
United States, whether it is addressing other national needs,
as I mentioned earlier, whether it is addressing the broad
needs of space exploration, but look at it all in a holistic
manner, not just human space and going around Mars.
Ms. Edwards. Thanks, General Lyles.
Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. Thank you. I would actually say that the 2010
NASA authorization bill, certainly at the policy level in terms
of framing what the Congress' priorities are, is really quite
good. I mean I would personally like to see some of that
language maybe incorporated into the national policy. So in
terms of a philosophy and a priority, I think that is already
there.
I think we know some of the constraints that bound the
analysis that NASA would have to do, continuing the space
station through 2024, the capabilities of SLS and Orion being
available. We know the international community longer term is
interested in Mars, but we also know the international
community in the near term has coalesced around cislunar space.
The global exploration strategy, the technical discussions that
the international space exploration coordination groups have
done, they all see cislunar space as an area that is
challenging but reachable for them to do. So those major
pieces--space station, Mars, the cislunar space operations,
where the international community is--those major pieces are
actually all largely in place. So the analysis that needs to be
done is more at the cost, schedule, and risk standpoint, which
I think is within what NASA can do. And if you add----
Ms. Edwards. So when should we expect something like that
back so that we can begin to act on it?
Dr. Pace. I think if you ask--if you tasked NASA to
generate some architectural trades like that and they put some
series of efforts into it, I think on the order of a few months
would be perfectly reasonable. Tons of these architectural
works have already been done. Doug Cooke has done and read most
all of them. I would be hard-pressed to think of one he hasn't
read. And so the material and information is there. I think it
is really the cost and the budget analysis and programmatic
phasing of what is sustainable is really the most--biggest
uncertainty.
Ms. Edwards. So is it a matter of simply giving NASA a
directive and a time frame so that we can then begin on the
process----
Dr. Pace. With some clear constraints and that if certain
requirements can't be met or certain budget caps and whatever
can't be met, then a prioritization of what you relax, so a
sense of priorities in order for programmatic management trades
to take place.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being
here. I appreciate so much your work and this important topic
of really creating vision for our future. I especially want to
thank my fellow Illinoisan, Dr. Magnus, for her amazing work
and amazing story. I just love reading your biography and all
that you have done. So I appreciate you being here and
appreciate your great work.
I want to address my first question to Mr. Cooke. In your
written testimony you say that a long-term plan should be
adaptable based on discoveries and budget realities. In order
to provide consistency to long-term goals, the Committee has
passed the NASA Authorization Act. It calls for the exploration
roadmap to be updated every four years. I wonder should the
plan change more often than that or do you think that risks and
leads to instability?
Mr. Cooke. Well, I think it depends on what level of change
you are talking about of course, and I think it is valuable to
ask for an update on a regular basis. I believe that if
discoveries are made that are really profound, that we will all
be talking about it when that happens. And those are the kind
of things I am talking about.
The Mars Science Program is an example where they have had
roadmaps for years and they adapt almost after every mission
because they make discoveries and it points new directions. It
doesn't mean that you want to throw away everything that you
are doing in terms of an infrastructure. You want to understand
this long-term plan such that it is adaptable. You want to have
the heavy lift rocket on the front end. That is a critical
first step, the capsule you need no matter what. But I think a
long-term plan helps guide you in what your infrastructure is.
You can, as you go along, foresee some changes. But I think it
all can be done if you keep in mind that the flexibility should
be there.
Mr. Hultgren. So just to clarify, for our responsibility,
would you endorse flexibility to be written into its design
that allows for updates on an as-needed basis? And I wonder if
you could just talk quickly about how could a Mars flyby fit
into that type of roadmap?
Mr. Cooke. Yes. And--so I do believe that there should be
flexibility, as I said. And in my written testimony I went into
a lot more detail than I was able to do in five minutes on all
of this. And, in fact, back in May I testified and put together
how you might go about putting together a long-term plan.
I believe that the Mars flyby mission does fit. I mean I
can view a series of steps I outlined very quickly here, but I
can view a series of steps that builds capabilities as you go,
and each step contributes to the next step and builds on what
has already been done. The Mars flyby mission, in my view,
brings the Space Launch System capability up to a level of
performance that will be needed longer-term than the initial
test flight capability.
I believe that the life-support system in a small hab is
usable. If there are to be asteroid missions, you can use it--
you would want it in going to an asteroid. It would be valuable
in cislunar space. That is a capability that has long-range
benefits. Then bringing the Orion capsule to its full
capabilities is beneficial for a series of missions and a
roadmap----
Mr. Hultgren. Let me jump on that if that is okay and open
this up to everybody else as well, whoever might have a
response in my last minute or so here. Dr. Paul Spudis' written
testimony from last year's hearing notes the shift to the
flexible path for human exploration that focused on the
development of technology rather than a destination. What would
you say were the most important exploration technology
achievements of the past three years and how do you think these
achievements would have differed if our space program were
guided by a specific destination? Any of you have any thoughts?
Dr. Pace. I think--first of all, I don't think there is any
disagreement that NASA needs to develop new technology. There
is a ton of new technology needs that should be put--made
available to us and NASA is working a lot of them. The problem
is, is how do they prioritize, you know, those technologies
because you can't do everything at once? So then the question
is, is how do you prioritize? What is the policy objective?
When people talk about destinations, they often do it in terms
of a physical destination, you know, Moon, Mars, asteroid, as
if it is either/or.
And I think what you are hearing from this group is, well,
we sort of want all of the above but the destination we are
trying to get to is not just a physical destination in space.
It is actually a capability for the country, the ability to
operate anywhere we want in cislunar space, the ability to lead
other countries in exploration missions beyond Earth orbit. And
so in order to prioritize those technologies, we need to set
costs and schedules and risks and tradeoffs and decide what is
more important than something else.
That is where the longer-term context and plan comes in.
And I think that if we have a larger policy objective of where
we want the United States to be, the physical destinations fit
into a sequence. You can then say and these are when we need to
hit various technology milestones.
One of the great flaws of the current capability-driven
approach and flexible path and all that sort of thing is that
people then argue for whatever their favorite technology is and
it is not against an external metric, an external customer that
you are trying to meet. It is people just working on really
neat and important things. And in a fiscally constrained
environment, that isn't really terribly helpful.
So having a policy context and then a series of
destinations as policy destinations is probably the most
efficient way to spend taxpayer dollars and prioritize those
technology investments.
Mr. Hultgren. I appreciate that. Again, thank you all so
much. Thanks, Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Lyles, you mentioned in your comments earlier that
NASA--that Congress was due or owed a technology roadmap from
NASA, and then you also said in your opinion there was four
national needs: energy, climate, health, and environment. Where
did you get that outline?
General Lyles. Congressman, my first comment about old--the
technology roadmaps sort of stem from the research and study
done by the National Academies a couple years ago and provided
to NASA. It laid out technologies that we thought were critical
towards achieving the objective and the goals somewhat
articulated by Dr. Pace and Dr. Magnus of space exploration and
making sure we understand the kind of things that we need to
address if this Nation is going to advance towards that broader
goal of achieving and maintaining superiority in space
exploration.
So the--I think since we provided it--we the Academy have
provided that to NASA and it really is the underpinning for the
technology things that NASA is doing today. I think the
Congress needs to better understand what it is they are doing
and what was provided to them from the National Academy of
Engineers.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, the reason I am asking is it seems
to me that there is a fifth item that is probably missing. You
don't--and I don't know if you all considered it or discussed
it, but you didn't mention national security and I would argue
that some of the things we gain by having an understanding of
space and space superiority, you know, as you know, in military
the--whoever occupies the high ground has the upper hand and
there is no higher ground in space.
General Lyles. Well, Congressman, I agree with that 1,000
percent. In our report that I was quoting from about those
other national needs, national security is the first one. I
didn't mention it in my notes but it is the first one. And, as
an example, other things like health, environment, climate, et
cetera, believe me, I resonate with the need to ensure that
whatever we are doing in space underpins and supports our
national security needs for the United States.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Well, I just wanted to ask that because I
wrote those down when you said that and I thought it was
conspicuous by its absence. And I agree with you that Congress
needs to understand--there are a lot of things Congress needs
to understand--better understanding of.
And then you also said that Congress needs to look at NASA
from an enterprise perspective, and you said the aeronautic
needs for the Nation and the space exploration needs for the
Nation, but again, you didn't say anything about national
security. So I want to make sure in this context that we make
that clear that it is important for our national security.
General Lyles. Congressman, I agree with you 1,000 percent.
As I mentioned earlier, most of my career in the Air Force
dealt with developing space programs, and believe me, they were
all focused on national security needs.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And then, Dr. Pace, you said earlier that
what is needed is an analysis of a cost schedule and a risk
analysis. Define risk.
Dr. Pace. Well, there are a number of different aspects of
risk. I mean the first and probably the most important one is
what do we know about the risks to human life? That is can we
provide informed consent for the people who are going to be
volunteering to go out there? We have some missions upcoming,
one year long expeditions aboard the space station that I think
will give us some more information about long-term human
spaceflight that will be helpful. So human life I think is
number one.
The next one is sort of really cost and schedule risk. That
is what is the probabilities of hitting certain cost and
schedule targets? Cost estimates are always probabilities. They
are never just point estimates. There are certain confidences
that you have and you can trade cost and schedule and risk with
each other. That is if you want to put more money into
something, you can buy schedule. If you don't have that money
and you need to stretch schedule, you can do that, so those
kind of tradeoffs.
What is interesting about the 2021 flyby is the orbital
mechanics pretty much set that schedule. And so within an
affordable profile, can we hit that schedule with some
confidence? Now, the time between 1961 and 1968 when we flew
Apollo 8 around the Moon was seven years, but that was in a
very different budget environment. On the other hand, we know a
lot more today than we did back then----
Mr. Weber. Well, and that----
Dr. Pace. --so that is the trade.
Mr. Weber. That is getting to the heart of my question,
too, when you are talking about budget analysis and risk
analysis, of course Congress working on two year terms per
session, has there been discussion or thought about what is the
optimal--pardon me--budget? In other words, we would love for
NASA to have a clear, concise goal and without the politics of
having the budget go up and down all the time, which I
understand we are constrained by the money that we have as
well. Is it feasible to say that we ought to be able to set a
policy area of four years, six years. I mean, certainly, we
don't want--the longer, the better. What do you foresee? Can we
set a plan in motion and maintain it for four to six years
budgetarily speaking or is that just--pardon the pun--pie in
the sky?
Dr. Pace. Well, I think it is actually perfectly possible
to set relatively stable, long-term budget plans if they are
tied to long-term national interests. We have been able to
support science programs over fairly long-term. We support
military space programs over very--fairly long-term. So it is
really only in the area, I think, of human spaceflight where we
have seen a large and I think excessive amount of volatility
because it hasn't been tied to enduring national interest,
whether national security, international diplomatic outreach,
scientific ties, or even promotion of private sector sets of
interests, economic interests. I think there are these
interests out there. I think we can make a more explicit
linkage. And if we did that, we would find it easier--not easy
but easier--to sustain stable budgets, as we have in many other
areas of space.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And I am past my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, who represents
Kennedy Space Center.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
One of the fears that I have is that we even regress
further. You all are familiar, I am sure, as this Committee is,
with over two dozen multibillion-dollar programs to nowhere
that were started by one administration and stopped by another
or started by one Congress and stopped by another. And so, you
know, the first thing I think we all try and--tried to do is do
no harm, first of all, and stop us from regressing.
Someone mentioned earlier that our share of the budget for
space now is about 1/2 of one percent, which is correct. The
public perception on survey after survey is it is around 20
percent of the total budget. So, you know, if we could get just
half as much as the public thinks we are getting, we could
really make some big strides in space.
One other thing I think we need to note when we try and
compare Apollo with missions of today is, you know, they used a
slide rule during Apollo. They didn't have the computer
capabilities that we have now. The IBM computer mainframe is
maybe 1/3 as big as this room and, you know, you can buy a
little credit card-sized calculator at Wal-Mart for five bucks.
It will do more than that would back in the day. So we have
advanced greatly in the technological ways, and I think it is
only a matter of money that will determine how far and how fast
we can go in our manned space program.
But what I would like to ask for you--from each of you
briefly, if you would feel comfortable with it is, is to share
with us what you think the order of milestones, missions,
targets should be in the next 5 to 10 years. Like if you think
we should go back to the Moon, if you think we should go to the
Lagrange point, you think we should have colonization of the
Moon and then another Space Station halfway to Mars, a Mars
flyby in '21 or '31, landing and colonization--you know, what
order of targets would you establish if you were able to make
those decisions? We will start with Dr. Pace and go down.
Dr. Pace. Thank you, sir. I have been an advocate of
returning to the Moon, international human landing on the Moon
with international partners and also with private sector
partners. We have a whole separate discussion about cargo
delivery to the lunar surface that can be done in a commercial-
like manner. But the reason--and I think Mars is a longer-term
objective with asteroids in between. The reason for that
sequence is that the Moon provides the greatest number of
opportunities for public and private sector partnership with
the United States.
The reason why I think the Mars flyby deserves a look is
because it demonstrates a lot of technologies that are useful
across the board. It would put the United States in a position
of leadership, and it would--the timing of it would fit, I
believe, within the budget profiles that we see going forward.
We don't have enough money in the near term to support
development of a major lunar lander. We are still developing
SLS. We still have the ISS program. So I think from a
programmatic and a technical development standpoint, the flyby
fits if it is placed in a context of a larger mission. But I am
a fan of returning to the Moon first and then moving outward.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. General?
General Lyles. Congressman, I am a sort of guided by the
Augustine Committee report because I was one of the signatories
on that and a member of that activity. We looked at options for
our space exploration, human exploration program, whether it
should be Mars first, Moon first then Mars, or a flexible path.
And all of us sort of decided that the flexible path, we
thought, was the best option for the United States given our
technological presence today and what we need for the future.
It gave us an opportunity to visit sites that we have never
visited before, to extend our knowledge of how to operate in
space, and whether you consider Lagrange points, asteroids, or
orbiting Mars, which is one of the options that we laid out in
our report, we think having a flexible strategy allows you to
be able as you gain knowledge, gain technological knowledge and
understanding, gives you the option to do any one of those we
think is really the right answer.
Mr. Posey. Yes. Well, I just hope we don't study our navel
for the next two decades, that we set some targets and some
goals and we attack it.
Mr. Cooke?
Mr. Cooke. I personally believe that we should have a path,
and I was one who started the flexible path idea because we
needed to start the SLS and Orion when I was still at NASA.
However, once those are underway because those are two critical
steps that you lead off with. Once you have that, you do need a
plan because it helps you make decisions on those designs and
even in terms of where you go and what you do. It influences
how you design things. And so I have always thought that the
next logical step is the Moon.
Now, in this case, we are talking about a Mars flyby. I
don't think that that is contradictory. It does feed forward
and the capabilities feed forward to the next steps. This just
happens to be a unique planet alignment that allows this
mission in the near term, but certainly, lunar exploration----
Mr. Posey. That is good.
Mr. Cooke. --is important.
Mr. Posey. Dr. Magnus?
Dr. Magnus. So, again, I would go to the first question,
what is the overall goal? If the overall goal is to go to Mars
and we are going to define what we are going to do on Mars,
whether we are going to establish an outpost there to do
specific kinds of science and kinds of exploration, then you
backup from that, what is the logical set of progressions,
steps you need to take to get there and what are the
capabilities and the operational parameters you need to develop
and demonstrate to build up that capability to go to Mars and
do whatever it is you are going to do there?
So we have got this great orbiting platform called the
International Space Station. We can do a lot of technology
demonstration and development there. There are probably things
that we cannot do on the space station. We have the Moon in our
backyard three days away. If you are going to test out
technology that you want to demonstrate to reduce the risk of
going further away, you are going to test it in your backyard
first.
Whether you stay on the Moon and establish a settlement
there, it depends upon how that fits into your long-term goals,
but I could argue if we establish a beachhead on the Moon to do
technology demonstration, why would we not encourage our
private enterprise partners to come and establish work there as
we continue to move that boundary out? I mean think of it as an
expanding bubble with the government leading the edge of that
bubble with private enterprise and industry filling in behind
us. That is what we are supposed to do as the government is all
of these hard things and break down these barriers. So you go
to the Moon, you test what you need to do on the Moon, but as
the government, you keep pushing that boundary. Our planet
should keep pushing that boundary.
Do you go to cislunar space? Perhaps if there are
capabilities you need to develop there. Do you do a flyby of
Mars? Perhaps if that demonstrates the buildup of that risk
reduction and the technology demonstration you need to do in
order to put people on the surface. So it builds out very
logically and it is in a higher strategy of how you bring
everybody on with you internationally and in the private
enterprise. That is how I would approach it.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you. All good answers. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman, is recognized.
Mr. Stockman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions. I know I don't have a lot of time so
I am going to put them together and they are disjointed
somewhat. I was interested in the solar electric propulsion and
I think, Mr. Cooke, you could probably address this in terms of
how it could change the dynamics of space. And the other
question I have is the abdication of the United States it--an
apparent abdication to allow the Chinese to go forward with
this space program. If we continue on the path where we are not
in the forefront of space, how could that lack of leadership
set the dynamics for our country and our economy?
Mr. Cooke. I can address the--actually both questions in
my--from my own view. I believe that solar electric propulsion
is one of the technologies that can have a big impact. When we
go to Mars, the masses are pretty big for sending a crew there.
And studies that we have done in the past, solar electric
propulsion, plasma engines, nuclear thermal, nuclear electric
are propulsion techniques and capabilities, technologies that
reduce the amount of fuel that you have to put in low-Earth
orbit in order to go. It actually can reduce the mission mass
for the human mission to the Mars surface and back by a factor
of two, in terms of 1/2 of the mass it would take with current
chemical engine technologies would be needed if you used one of
these advanced technology approaches. So electric propulsion or
one of those is actually an enabling capability for a Mars
mission.
Now, I believe that--personally believe that our Nation
needs to remain a leader in space--in human spaceflight. I
believe that in history the nations that have retreated from
leadership in exploration have retreated from the world
forefront, and you can name countries like Spain and Portugal.
Great Britain ruled the seas one point. It no longer does. They
were explorers. Exploration goes with a national drive and
incentive and motivation that is sometimes maybe looked at a
little disconnected from exact needs on Earth or in society,
but it is something that great nations do. So I think if we
retreat from these kind of aspirations, we will retreat in the
world.
Mr. Stockman. General Lyles?
General Lyles. I certainly agree with, I think, everything
that Doug just articulated, particularly about the specific
solar electric propulsion. That has been one of the key areas
that the Department of Defense has worked on in its space
technology programs because of the obvious benefits to not just
human spaceflight, which is not our regime in DOD, but even to
unmanned activities and space station--keeping--a bunch of
other things that we need for national security space. So I
agree with that.
On the second comment, I am a 100 percent believer in
making sure that we the United States maintain our leadership
in space, maintain our leadership in aviation and aeronautics,
which is why I mentioned the other A in NASA in my earlier
comment. To me, if we don't, we literally run the jeopardy of
becoming a second-rate power, too, which is something we do not
want at all.
Mr. Stockman. I have--I am going to add my own two cents in
there. There are some projections that China is going to exceed
us in the next 15 years militarily where NASA and the military
seem to be separated. There is a wall there--somewhat of a wall
there. There is some crossover, but the PLA and their space
program is very closely tied. As you know, they shot down a
satellite. And I am alarmed at the rate at which the Chinese
are accelerating their expenditures and their technology.
And I agree; historically, throughout world history, the
people that abdicate the science of a venture advocate their
responsibility as a world leader, and I really dread the day
that we see that China supplants the United States, which is
not a democratic country.
General Lyles. But, Congressman, let me just add, I agree
with you 1,000 percent there. I think as the other witnesses
can attest and certainly some of the Members of the Committee,
there is probably greater cooperation between the military and
NASA, civil space and NASA security space than people know. But
I am a big advocate of the--that there needs to be more,
particularly in the area of technology and technology
development in space. I constantly remind people that the
missions may be different but the physics are the same and
there is a lot more that could be done between the two agencies
to, in some respects, leverage their combined budget.
Mr. Cooke. May I add one comment? There is a strong
connection in terms of our aerospace industrial base. Both
military and NASA use the industrial base that supports both,
and it is somewhat underutilized at times and they are
downsizing. It is--all of this--it is important to have that
capability as a country. It is one of our strengths.
Mr. Stockman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stockman.
Does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, want to be
recognized again?
Mr. Weber. Please.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is recognized for a minute.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. I am fascinated by the electric--
solar propulsion. Are there private industries doing it? You
said half--50 percent of the fuel would be less if you went
solar propulsion, Mr. Cooke? Are there private industries doing
this as well?
Mr. Cooke. Industry is definitely involved in development
of this technology, and the technology in electric propulsion
is being flown. It has flown on science missions. Deep Space 1
and Dawn were science missions that it has flown on. It is
being evolved to higher levels of power.
Mr. Weber. Would you consider this a game-changing
technology?
Mr. Cooke. I would consider it a game-changing technology
when it may make the difference between human missions to Mars
and not going to Mars.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And should this be a priority for NASA?
Mr. Cooke. It should be one of the key technologies that is
pursued. I agree.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Oh, I am sorry, Mr.--Dr. Pace, do you want to be
recognized?
Dr. Pace. Please, sir.
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Dr. Pace. I just wanted to add on to Mr. Cooke's comments.
When we had the government shutdown last year in October, there
was a conference happening at my university on electric
propulsion. And so without--with no government attendees there,
we still had 400 people from around the world all from
industry, academia because electric propulsion is generally--
solar electric propulsion is a bit more advanced but electric
repulsion is something that the communications satellite
industry is very, very interested in. It is something that will
be changing the future of the market. It will be affecting
launch services. And so there is certainly a lot of excitement
in private interests, certainly in academia and industry right
now on that technology and applying it.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Pace.
And the gentlewoman from Maryland wants to be recognized
and is recognized.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And just really briefly, I just want to express to the
panel that I think that this has been an excellent panel of
witnesses, and I always like it when I can come to a hearing
and actually learn some things and I really did today. And so I
really appreciate your testimony.
I appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member calling
this hearing because I would like us to be more invested as a
committee and a Congress and really to help do what Dr. Magnus
described, which is set of vision, a strategy, something that
all of us as Americans can really embrace about our space
program, and I think that you all have done an excellent job
today of helping to crystallize our thoughts around that. So
thank you.
Chairman Smith. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
And we have no more Members to ask questions, so that does
conclude our hearing, but I too want to thank the witnesses for
being here today and you have contributed significantly to our
understanding of the pros and some of the risks involved with
the Mars flyby and everybody seems to consider it to be a
viable option. That is encouraging. And, of course, we need to
have that overall strategic plan, Dr. Magnus, as you mentioned,
as well. And we hope NASA can produce that. Dr. Pace, you
mentioned we might be able to get that in just a matter of
months, and of course that would be helpful as well.
More than anything, we just need for NASA to come--to pick
missions that--and fund missions that are going to contribute
to our knowledge, that are going to inspire the Nation, and we
hope to get to that point.
So thank you all again for being here, much appreciated. We
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Scott Pace
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8136.054
Responses by General Lester Lyles (ret.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Mr. Douglas R. Cooke
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Responses by Dr. Sandra Magnus
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement for the record by Representative Donna F. Edwards
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8136.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8136.013
Letter from Explore Mars expressing their support for a short-term
flyby mission to Mars, submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith