[Senate Hearing 116-600]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-600
NASA EXPLORATION PLANS: WHERE WE'VE BEEN
AND WHERE WE'RE GOING
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION AND SPACE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DATE JULY 9, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-728 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
John Keast, Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION AND SPACE
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona, Ranking
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
ROY BLUNT, Missouri TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JERRY MORAN, Kansas GARY PETERS, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JON TESTER, Montana
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
MIKE LEE, Utah
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 9, 2019..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement of Senator Sinema...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 41
Statement of Senator Gardner..................................... 42
Witnesses
Eugene F. Kranz, Former Apollo Flight Director, Speaker and
Author......................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Dr. Christine M. Darden, Retired, NASA Langley Research Center... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Coalition for Deep Space Exploration........................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Homer H. Hickam, Jr., Author, Rocket Boys........................ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation...... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
NASA EXPLORATION PLANS: WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE GOING
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Aviation and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:04 p.m. in
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Sinema, Capito, and
Gardner.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. This hearing is called to order. Welcome.
Fifty years ago, exactly one week from today, at
approximately 9:30 a.m., three astronauts, sitting atop a
rocket the size of a Navy destroyer packing seven and a half
million pounds of thrust, took off from Kennedy Space Center in
Florida. Roughly a million people had gathered on the ground to
watch this historic event, including half of the U.S. Congress.
These three astronauts, as one of the newspapers put it at
the time, carried with them the hopes of the world. The year
was 1969, the year before I was born. The astronauts were Neil
Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, and the mission
was Apollo 11.
Armstrong and Aldrin would go on to make history a little
more than a hundred hours later when, with more than a third of
the Earth watching or listening live, they became the first
humans to ever set foot on the Moon.
The Apollo 11 mission would go on to make history again, a
little less than 100 hours after that, as the first mission not
only to put men on the Moon but to bring them home safely, as
well.
Although President Kennedy hadn't lived to see it, the bold
goal that he had set 8 years earlier had been met. To steal a
line from the flight director of that mission, ``We had shown
that what America will dare, America will do.''
Today, we rightfully celebrate the momentous occasion that
is the upcoming 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11. As President
Nixon said in a phone call to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin
while they were still on the Moon, because of what they had
done, ``The heavens had become a part of man's world.''
Indeed, not only did we succeed in putting men on the Moon
and returning them safely to Earth, but we've gone on to put
robotic rovers on distant planets, celestial observatories in
orbit that can literally peer into the beginnings of the
universe, and we've established a presence in low-Earth orbit
that is still there today.
However, while it's tempting to focus only on the historic
achievements that were Apollo 11, as some of our witnesses
today will rightly highlight, the Moon landing and the entire
Apollo Program, for that matter, didn't happen in a vacuum.
It was the result of visionary leadership, national unity,
and old-fashion American tenacity. The success of Apollo 11 and
our national space program was also due in large part to the
tireless contribution of countless women who were working
behind the scenes and whose stories have only recently become
household names.
One of our witnesses today, Dr. Christine Darden, was one
of the famed human computers at NASA. Without her work and the
work of other computers, many of them African American women,
we never could have sent astronauts into space, let alone
brought them home safely.
Unfortunately, at the time Dr. Darden and the other human
computers' contributions were hidden and they remained hidden
for far too long, relegated to the background.
After the movie Hidden Figures came out, a wonderful,
wonderful movie that I recommend to everyone, I introduced
legislation to rename the street in front of the NASA
Headquarters as Hidden Figures Way.
The D.C. City Council in turn took up the idea. Just a few
weeks ago, I was proud to join Dr. Darden and the family of
those other legendary human computers at the dedication of the
new street sign in front of the NASA Headquarters, so that a
decade, or a generation, or a century from now, when a little
girl or little boy goes to visit NASA, she or he will say who
were they? Tell me their story.
As we look at the space landscape today, we see it's far
different from the landscape of 1969. America and the Soviet
Union are no longer the only players in space. Government space
programs are no longer the only game in town, and our
technological capabilities, both in terms of our ability to
plan mission and how long these missions are, have changed
dramatically.
What will the next 50 years of space exploration look like,
and what should we seek to accomplish? We need a bold vision, a
vision that sees the commercial space industry thriving. I've
long said that the first trillionaire, I believe, will be made
in space.
In 50 years, we will have gone back to the Moon. Indeed,
the United States will return to the Moon as part of the
Artemis Program. Artemis is the twin sister of Apollo, and this
time when we return to the Moon, NASA has committed that we
will land the first woman on the Moon, an American astronaut,
and on behalf of my two young daughters, let me say thank you
and it's about time.
From there, we'll move toward having a more permanent and
sustainable presence on the Moon and then ultimately to Mars.
Just a couple of years ago, I was proud to author the
bipartisan NASA Authorization Act signed into law in which
every Member of Congress in the House and Senate and both
parties united to say that the objective of space exploration
for NASA is to go to the red planet and land on Mars, and that
the first boot to set foot on the surface of Mars will be that
of an American astronaut.
The next 50 years have the potential to be even more
consequential than the last. That's why I'm glad to be engaged
with Ranking Member Sinema, with Chairman Wicker, with Ranking
Member Cantwell, on yet another NASA Authorization Act to help
continue to lay out a bold visionary agenda for NASA and manned
space exploration so that America continues to lead the world
in exploring space and exploring the great frontiers above us.
With that, I recognize Senator Sinema.
STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Sinema. Well, thank you, Chairman Cruz, for holding
this hearing today.
As we approach the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11, it is
timely to look back at our country's accomplishments in space.
It's also important for us to look ahead at new strategies and
technologies that will maintain the United States' leadership
in space, grow our economy, and strengthen our country's
security.
Thank you, Dr. Dittmar, Mr. Hickam, Mr. Kranz, Mr.
Stallmer, and Dr. Darden, for joining us today.
In 1961, when President Kennedy announced his ambitious
goal for our country to send Americans to the Moon, we did not
anticipate the lasting impacts that mission would have on our
Nation. At the time, we didn't have the capabilities or know
what was needed for mission success.
Apollo 11 showed us what our country and NASA are capable
of, demonstrated to the world that the United States is the
leader in space, and chartered the space exploration path we
continue on today.
The most impressive part is that we developed technologies
and prepared for the mission on U.S. soil and my home state of
Arizona played a critical role.
The data collected from the Lowell Observatory in
Flagstaff, Arizona, was used to make maps of the Moon's surface
before the mission. The Apollo astronauts also spent time in
Northern Arizona preparing for the mission. They hiked the
Grand Canyon to learn about geology and visited Meteor Crater
to get an up-close look at what they would encounter on the
Moon.
During a test of the first generation space suits at Sunset
Crater, also in Arizona, NASA learned that the suits were not
thick enough to withstand damage from rocks, forcing a
redesign.
The most significant training was done at Cinder Lake, just
outside of Flagstaff. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey
developed a 500-square-foot lunar environment, including 47
craters, to test wheeled rovers, hand tools, and scientific
instruments.
These efforts show what we can do as a country when faced
with a challenge and success achieving our goal brings.
National and political support, robust funding, and
innovation made President Kennedy's goal a reality on July 20,
1969.
As we enter the next phase of space exploration and return
to the Moon, we need to continue to utilize American expertise
and ingenuity and we need to work closely with our research
universities, like the University of Arizona and Arizona State
University, that provide leadership and do important work in
these areas, and I'm looking forward to holding a hearing on
university partnerships this year in this Subcommittee.
The United States has made significant technological
advances since 1969 and we have a better idea of what is needed
to explore space, but we still face many challenges.
Our workforce is aging and we have not sent humans to space
on a NASA spacecraft in 8 years. We must evaluate the best use
of taxpayer dollars to achieve our goals and maintain our
leadership in space.
Thank you again to all of our witnesses, and I very much
look forward to your testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
I'd now like to introduce our distinguished panel of
witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Gene Kranz, who is a retired NASA
flight director and fighter pilot. In 1994, after 37 years of
legendary Federal service, Mr. Kranz retired from NASA.
After college, Mr. Kranz worked as a flight test engineer
for McDonnell Aircraft, developing the Quail Decoy Missile for
B-52 and B-47 aircraft. In 1960, Kranz joined the NASA Space
Task Group at Langley, Virginia, and was assigned the position
of assistant flight director for Project Mercury. He assumed
flight director duties for all Project Gemini missions and was
branch chief for Flight Control Operations.
He was selected as division chief for Flight Control in
1968 and continued his duties as a flight director for the
Apollo 11 Lunar Landing before taking over the leadership of
the Apollo 13 Tiger Team.
He was discharged from the Air Force Reserves as a captain
in 1972. Mr. Kranz has received many awards and honors,
including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he received
from President Nixon for the Apollo 13 mission, and his
designation as a Distinguished Member of the Senior Executive
Service by President Reagan.
Mr. Kranz received a Bachelor of Science degree in
Aeronautical Engineering from Parks College of St. Louis
University.
Our second witness is Dr. Christine Darden. It's good to
see you again.
Dr. Darden spent an esteemed 40 years at NASA, becoming one
of the world's experts on sonic boom predictions, sonic boom
minimization, and super-sonic wing design.
During her career, she was appointed as the technical
leader of NASA's Sonic Boom Group of the Vehicle Integration
Branch of the High-Speed Research Program where she was
responsible for developing the Sonic Boom Research Program
internally at NASA.
In 1999, she was appointed as the Director in the Program
Management Office of the Aerospace Performing Center where she
was responsible for Langley Research in Air Traffic Management
and Other Aeronautics Programs managed at other NASA centers.
Dr. Darden also served as a technical consultant on
numerous government and private projects. She is the author of
more than 50 publications in the field of high-lift wing design
in super-sonic flow, flap design, sonic boom prediction, and
sonic boom minimization.
She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics
Education from Hampton Institute, a Master's of Science degree
in Applied Mathematics from Virginia State College, and a Ph.D.
in Mechanical Engineering from George Washington University.
Our third witness is Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, who is the
President and CEO of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration.
A 25-year veteran of the space industry, Dr. Dittmar
assumed leadership of the Coalition in 2015. Prior to joining
the Coalition, from 2012 to 2014, she served as a member of the
National Research Council Committee on Human Space Flight.
Prior to that, she acted as a special advisor to the NASA
Astronaut Office before her appointment as Boeing Chief
Scientist for Commercial Utilization of the ISS.
Dr. Dittmar also coordinated R&D and managed Flight
Operations for the Boeing Company on the International Space
Station Program.
Dr. Dittmar is a Fellow of the National Research Society
and an Associate Fellow of the American Institute for
Astronautics and Aeronautics.
Additionally, in June 2018, she was appointed to the Users
Advisory Group of the National Space Council. In October of
that year was appointed by the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation to the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory
Committee for the FAA.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Homer Hickam, who is best known
for his memoir Rocket Boys about his West Virginia boyhood
building model rockets. The book was subsequently made into the
film October Sky.
Mr. Hickam is a Vietnam veteran of the 4th Infantry
Division and a 30-year careerist with the Army Missile Command
and NASA, where he trained astronauts on such missions as Space
Lab and the Hubble Space Telescope Repair Mission.
He rounded out his career by negotiating with the Russians
on how to train crews on the International Space Station.
Besides his career as a writer, Mr. Hickam presently is the
Chairman of the Board of the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in
Huntsville, Alabama.
Mr. Hickam received a Bachelor of Science degree in
Industrial Engineering from Virginia Tech.
And our final witness is Mr. Eric Stallmer, who is the
President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, also known
as CSF.
CSF is the largest trade organization dedicated to
promoting the development of commercial spaceflight, pursuing
ever-higher levels of safety and sharing best practices and
expertise throughout the industry.
Before working at CSF, Mr. Stallmer served as Vice
President of Government Relations at Analytical Graphics, Inc.,
AGI. Mr. Stallmer joined AGI in 2002. While there, he oversaw
all Washington operations and represented AGI's commercial off-
the-shelf products and technology to defense, intelligence,
Congress, and civil government sectors within the aerospace
industry.
For more than two decades, Mr. Stallmer has also served as
an officer in the United States Army and Army Reserves. He is
currently assigned to the Pentagon and the Office of the Deputy
Chief of Staff Army for Logist4ics.
Mr. Stallmer earned a Master's of Arts degree in Public
Administration from George Mason University and a Bachelor of
Arts degree in Political Science and History from Mount St.
Mary College.
Welcome to each of you and, Mr. Kranz, you may begin. Could
you turn your mic on, please?
Mr. Kranz. I had a green button but now it's red.
Senator Cruz. And I do have----
Mr. Kranz. Green means go.
Senator Cruz. And I do have to say I never imagined I would
be giving you technical advice.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kranz. OK. I'll start over.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE F. KRANZ, FORMER APOLLO FLIGHT DIRECTOR,
SPEAKER AND AUTHOR
Mr. Kranz. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss NASA's early and future human spaceflight programs.
You know, this is an exciting time for me and for NASA and
the space industry as we celebrate one of our Nation's greatest
technological achievements, landing two American astronauts on
the Moon and returning them safely to Earth on the Apollo 11
mission.
I was fortunate to be a part of that team for that
endeavor. Growing up, I could have never imagined I would serve
in such a role. As a young boy, all I wanted to do was fly. On
the path to becoming an aviator, however, I learned of
resilience.
I received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy, but
unfortunately I failed the entrance physical and I believed my
dream was gone.
I obtained a loan and attended Parks College of St. Louis
University and earned a degree in aeronautical engineering, and
I received an Air Force ROTC Commission.
After tours in Korea as a fighter pilot, I selected Reserve
status and in 1958 was assigned as a civilian flight test
engineer on the B-52 Program. At the completion of the Flight
Test Program, I applied to NASA and was selected to join the
Space Task Group at Langley in 1960.
Beginning with John Glenn's Mercury Mission, I served under
Christopher Kraft as the assistant flight director. Having
never met him before, our initial introduction was short and to
the point. He tapped me on the shoulder, said I'm Chris Kraft,
you work for me. I want you to go down to the Cape, write some
mission rules. When you're ready, give me a call and I'll come
down and watch. That was Redstone 1 and I had been two weeks on
the job.
As space missions became more challenging and the stakes
became higher, we grew into a stronger, more unified and
incredibly capable team.
During this period, we developed a set of values. We called
them the ``foundations,'' which have guided our operations for
the past 50 years and still apply to our work today.
For the past several weeks, I've done dozens of interviews
for local, national, and global media, and many reporters have
questioned whether we should go back to the Moon, should we go
to Mars directly and skip the Moon, can we do it again, and why
haven't we done it already? All good questions. Should we go
back to the Moon? The answer was simply yes, no questions.
There are tremendous opportunities that lunar missions
would provide our space industry, includng developing the new
capabilities and technologies for space flight missions to the
Moon and then beyond.
My answer, can we do it again and why haven't we done it
already, is much more complex. That's really why I'm here
today, to offer some perspective, based on my experience as a
leader of one of the space flight teams which accomplished
President Kennedy's 1961 mandate to land an American on the
Moon and return him safely to Earth.
The 1960s were not dissimilar to some extent where our
Nation is today. President Kennedy faced a confident Soviet
Union and a sleeping giant in the People's Republic of China.
We were at the beginning of the Vietnam War and the domestic
turmoil over civil rights was building.
Getting to Kennedy's goal was timely and masterful in
utilizing the challenge of space exploration to unify our
Nation and demonstrate the technical capabilities of the United
States.
Today, we have many of the same issues. However, one
critically important element is still missing. Kennedy's
mandate was the impetus but there was a national unity that
assured our success.
I believe that today in our country, unity is necessary for
great effort and it's lacking within our country, our
government, and within the space industry. We have an
Administration that is strongly supportive of space, that is
willing to provide the resources. We have an agency chartered
to do the mission, top level leadership in place, and a very
capable work force.
But each of the segments are philosophically divided on the
goal. There's infinitely more technological capability than in
the early programs, but there is a lack of focus and
prioritization.
I believe that the general support for space and a desire
to see our Nation explore space will continue but without
unity, the space exploration program will be grounded.
To answer the question, what made Apollo successful, it was
leadership, unity, and the team. The Mercury and the Gemini
Programs provided the knowledge, experience, and environment,
and it developed the teams and the technologies and provided
the training ground for time-critical, complex, high-risk
leadership.
The three elements of the Space Task Group were literally
incredible. They created a unique organizational energy of
classical aeronautical engineers from the Langley Research
Center. They had a team of flight test personnel from Avro,
Canada, and we had knowledgeable and energetic young recruits
from America's colleges, resulting in a program-wide unity that
was focused on a singular objective: space and the Moon.
As the programs evolved, we came face to face with various
challenges and failures. We truly began to solidify our team's
values and our values were simple: discipline, competence,
confidence, responsibility, and team work.
Toughness entered our vocabulary and it was learning the
hard way after the Apollo 1 fire and the loss of the crew.
Toughness meaning we are forever accountable for actions for
what we do or in the case of Apollo 1 what we failed to do.
The leadership inherited from Langley and the Avro group
developed organizations with leadership in all segments and
every level.
There were individuals capable of taking leader-like
actions to make their piece work. Leaders with confidence in
their ability to send word back up the line that designs,
plans, and policies needed amendment or reversal.
Our mission, one team and one voice, was present in every
aspect of our work, from the formation of the Space Task Group
through subsequent programs.
The three primary elements, however, they contributed to
success of the Apollo Program are well documented as NASA's
Special Publication 287. They're spacecraft hardware that is
the most reliable, flight mission is extremely well planned and
executed, and flight crews superbly trained and skilled.
The key that I considered most pertinent, however, to
system design is related to safety. NASA has six decades of
experience in manned space flight and has written numerous
papers related to design criteria, materials, fault tolerance,
propellants testing, and many other space system designs.
From the start of Gemini and for subsequent programs, the
NASA astronauts, safety engineers, design engineers, and my
personnel were embedded in the space system design and change
control process from the very beginning of program initiation.
This assured timely inputs to the system design, testing,
development of the flight procedures and rules, the plans, and
the correct configuration of the mission facilities and
trailers.
It is essential in today's card programs that NASA has the
insight necessary to ensure safe and successful design, test,
and operations. With the emphasis on concurrent engineering and
reinvesting NASA, we must assure that individual responsibility
is not forever lost. For all of NASA's programs, we must have
individuals accountable for design, development, and
operations.
While the world has changed dramatically since Apollo and
the Space Program since my retirement, the constant essentials
for success are unchanged. Leadership, unity, and team work.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kranz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eugene F. Kranz, Former Apollo Flight Director,
Speaker and Author
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, and Members of the
Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss NASA's early and future human spaceflight programs.
This is an exciting time for NASA and the space industry as we
celebrate one of our Nation's greatest technical achievements--landing
two American astronauts on the Moon and returning them safely back to
Earth on the Apollo XI mission.
I was tremendously fortunate to be a part of the team and that
great endeavor. Growing up, I could have never imagined I would serve
in such a role. As a young boy, all I wanted to do was fly airplanes--
that was my dream. I grew up during the depression, my father was a
World War I veteran and died when I was only seven. We lived near the
American Legion and, to support her three children, my mother opened a
boarding house for military personnel. The influence of these military
servicemen really sparked my drive to become a naval aviator.
On the path to becoming an aviator, I learned resilience, very
early. I received an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy but,
unfortunately, failed the entrance physical and believed my dream was
gone. Other than this appointment, there were no other scholarships
pursued and we certainly didn't have the financial means. But an angel
in my life, Sister Mary Mark, one of the nuns at Central Catholic High
School in Toledo, found an Elks scholarship for Parks College of Saint
Louis University. I earned a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and an
ROTC commission in 1954. I flew the first three mass produced jet
fighters, the F-80, F-86, and the F-100. After a tour in Korea, I
selected reserve status and in 1958 was assigned as a civilian Flight
Test Engineer on the B-52 at Holloman AFB.
At the completion of the flight test program, I applied to NASA and
was selected to join the Space Task Group at Langley in 1960, serving
under Christopher Kraft, as the assistant flight director for John
Glenn's Mercury mission. Having never met him before, our initial
introduction was short and to the point--he tapped me on the shoulder
and stated, ``I'm Chris Kraft, you work for me, I want you to go down
to the Cape and write a countdown and some mission rules. When you're
ready, give me a call, and we'll come down and launch.'' This was our
first Redstone launch.
While the space missions became more challenging and the stakes
higher, we grew into a stronger, more unified, and capable team. During
this period, we developed a set of cultural values which guided our
operations over 50 years ago and throughout the decades to come. These
steadfast values still apply to our space programs, today.
For the past several weeks, I have done dozens of interviews for
local, national, and global media. Besides the typica l questions,
``how do you feel about the 50th anniversary and what do you think
about the Apollo Mission Control Center restoration?'' Nearly all the
reporters have followed with questions about our current space
initiatives. Should the U.S. go back to the Moon? Should we go to Mars
and skip the Moon? Can we do it again and why haven't we already?
My answer to the question, ``should we go back to the Moon'' is
simply--yes. There are tremendous opportunities lunar missions can
provide our space industry from redeveloping the capability and honing
the spaceflight experience for missions beyond the Moon, as well as
commercial development and utilization of the resources. The benefits
go well-beyond the time available today and there are plenty of
scientists and entrepreneurs who can expound on the economic benefits.
To answer the question, ``Can we do it again and why haven't we
already,'' is much more complex. But that's why I am here today, to
offer my perspectives based on my experience from having been one of
many, key NASA leaders and part of the spaceflight team which
accomplished President Kennedy's,1961 mandate, ``to land a man on the
Moon and return him safely to Earth before the decade was out.''
The 1960s were not dissimilar to where our Nation is today relative
to geopolitics, domestic turmoil, and patriotism. President Kennedy
faced a confident Soviet Union and a sleeping giant in the Peoples
Republic of China. We were at the beginning of the Vietnam War and
domestic turmoil over civil rights was building. President Kennedy's
challenge was a timely, masterful distraction, it utilized the
challenge of space exploration to unify our Nation and demonstrated the
technical prowess of the United States.
Today, we have many of the same issues. However, unity, was
essential to our success in the 60s--one goal, one team.
However, I believe the most critical element we lack today is
unity--across our country, our government, and within the space
industry.
We have an Administration which is strongly supportive of space,
clearly stated directives to align with the goals, and a willingness to
provide the resources. We have a capable workforce and industrial base
which are engaged in various aspects of the industry, they are anxious
to explore, but philosophically divided in their business and technical
paradigms. We have infinitely more technological capability than we had
in the early programs, but there seems to be a lack of focus and
prioritization of those what are explicitly needed to accomplish the
mission. We have a Congress divided primarily down partisan lines on
just about everything but, individually, have a passion for space and a
desire to see our Nation continuing to explore.
It is my understanding that the objective of today's hearing is to
address those qualities that were contributors to the success of the
Apollo Program. Many papers have been written on this topic so my
comments should not be new.
What made Apollo a success? The Leadership. The Unity. The Team.
The Mercury and Gemini Programs provided the experience base for
the Apollo, Shuttle, and subsequent programs.
The Mercury Program provided the initial understanding of the
manned flight mission environment, the involved mission tasks, facility
requirements and capabilities, training and the nature of the personnel
most suited for the critical, high risk aspects of mission control.
The Gemini Program introduced the critical new space technologies;
computers, fuel cells, maneuvering and attitude control systems, and
the ability to accomplish rendezvous, docking, and support
extravehicular operations. Computers, satellite communications, and
improvements in display technology in Mission Control combined with
effective simulation training established the relationship between the
mission control team and crew needed for complex space operations.
Possibly the most important was that it provided the training ground
and mission experience required for making risk-based decisions during
pre-mission and mission operations.
Developing our Team and Our Values
The Space Task Group was an enterprise, with three unique
components. The foundation was provided by a small group of classical
aeronautical engineers from the Langley Research Center. This group had
the hands-on knowledge and experience from their work in the design and
test of the breakthrough aircraft during and after World War II. The
second group was composed of aeronautical engineers and flight test
personnel from the Avro Arrow project in Canada. The cancellation of
the AVRO Arrow project by the Canadian government made key engineers
and flight test personnel available to the fledgling Space Task Group.
The third component was comprised of a mixture of young engineers
recruited from America's colleges, former military personnel, and a
small group experienced in early scientific satellite programs.
Each of these groups brought with them a unique organizational
chemistry. The Langley group brought a classical aeronautical
engineering skill to the Mercury Program. The Arrow group brought an
incremental flight test approach. The third, younger group, brought a
highly energetic and impatient, ``let's get going'' approach. The
interaction of these three groups created an organizational chemistry
that was greater than the sum of its parts that I believe led to
developing the incredible and gifted leadership that provided success
during the early programs.
As the programs evolved and we came face-to-face with various
challenges and failures, we truly began to solidify our team core
values of discipline, competence, confidence, responsibility, and
teamwork (ref. Foundations of Mission Control). Toughness, emerged as a
core value, learned the hard way, after the Apollo 1 fire and the loss
of the crew. Toughness, meaning, we are forever accountable for our
actions, what we do, or, in the case of Apollo 1, what we failed to do
(ref. Kranz Dictum).
The organizational structure for future space programs must
consider the relationship between Headquarters personnel and those
assigned to mission leadership. From Gemini through the early Shuttle
Program a highly professional, personal, and friendly relationship
existed to address issues on a variety of issues before they became
problems.
Leadership
The leadership inherited from the Langley and Arrow groups
recognized that for an organization to function, leadership must exist
in all segments and at every level. There must be individuals capable
of taking leader-like actions to make their piece work, leaders with
confidence in their ability to send word back up the line that design,
plans and policies needed amendment or reversal. There was a universal
recognition that every member of the Space Task Group was responsible
to develop the next generation of leaders. During the Shuttle Program,
many organizational ``fads'' originated. Awards were given for
``flattening organizations,'' essentially eliminating mid-level
supervisors. I believe this was detrimental, mid-level positions
provide the primary training ground for higher level positions.
Teamwork and Unity
One mission, one team, one voice was present in every aspect of our
work from the formation of the Space Task Group through all subsequent
programs. There was so much to be learned, and work to be done that
unification of both NASA and contractor organizations in every activity
was universally recognized as essential to the program success. The
unity I had seen through the early Shuttle Program began to shatter,
reaching crescendo on the Space Station Program in the period after the
Space Shuttle Challenger accident resulting in lost opportunities,
schedule and cost impacts, and many good leaders deciding it was time
to retire.
Policy
The three basic elements that contributed to the success of the
Apollo Program are: spacecraft hardware that is the most reliable,
flight missions that are extremely well planned and executed, and
flight crews that are superbly trained and skilled. These policies have
guided me and my teams in all programs. NASA document SP-287, What Made
Apollo a Success, provides many of the specifics related to the Apollo
Program. This report addresses spacecraft development, mission
development, flexible yet disciplined mission planning and execution,
flight crew training, and trajectory control techniques.
A key area I consider pertinent to system design is related to
safety. NASA has six decades of experience in manned space flight, has
written numerous papers related to design criteria, materials, fault
tolerance, propellants, testing, and many other space systems design
elements.
From the start of Gemini and for subsequent programs, the NASA
astronauts, safety engineers, design engineers, and operational
personal were embedded in the space systems design and change control
process at program initiation. I had direct communications with the
prime contractors' design and test organizations. This assured timely
operational inputs to the space system design, development of flight
procedures and plans, and the configuration of mission facilities and
trainers. My controllers were some of the best systems engineers in the
world. Astronaut John Young assured the mission control cadre
participated in every major accident review and contributed to the
redesign when needed
In today's ``Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo,'' NASA gets to
see what is designed after the fact and often too late to make any
critical changes.'' I have asked NASA personnel on several occasions
who is accountable for providing oversight to the commercial crew space
systems design, test, and operations. The answers I received were not
specific.
The day I retired, I left a memo for Dave Leestma, Chief of the
Astronaut Office, containing testimony by Admiral Rickover on
accountability.
The Rickover memo described the lack of accountability for the 1963
submarine Thresher loss during a diving test with all crew aboard. This
was the environment I experienced in the post-Challenger and early
Space Station period.
``During the six years of the submarines design, the Portsmouth
Naval shipyard had three shipyard commanders, three production officers
and five planning officers.
The Bureau of Ships during this period had two Chiefs of Bureau,
five or six chiefs of the design division and three heads of the
Submarine Type desk.''
I closed my memo to Leestma with these words, ``With the emphasis
on concurrent engineering and reinventing NASA, we must assure that
individual responsibility is not forever lost. When the dust finally
settles on the trials and tribulations of our programs, we must have
individuals accountable for design, development, and operations.''
If a crew is lost on a commercial crew mission, who will be held
accountable?
While the world has changed dramatically since Apollo, and in the
Space Program since my retirement in 1994, the one constant essential
to success, is unchanged, it is leadership.
John Gardner, in the preference to his excellent book ``On
Leadership'' states, ``In order for an organization to function,
leadership must be dispersed throughout all segments, and at every
level there must be individuals capable of taking leader like actions
to make their piece work. Men and women who are not afraid to send word
back up the line that newly announced plans and policies need amendment
or reversal.''
Gardner then comments on the large numbers of people who are torn
loose from values they may have held previously, what he calls the
divergence of value systems. ``Leaders are always seeking the common
ground that will make concerted action possible. It is impossible to
exercise leadership if shared values have disintegrated.''
In conclusion, I believe the book, ``Apollo the Race to the Moon''
by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox, provides an in-depth
perspective of the programmatic, engineering, and operational elements
responsible for the success of the Apollo Program. I would recommend
that this book is made ``required reading'' for those who would assume
future leadership and programmatic functions.
Today, our National leadership and the NASA industry team are at a
critical, ``go, no-go'' point. ``Now is the time to take longer strides
. . . time for this Nation to take a clearly leading role in space
achievement which, in many ways, may hold the key to our future on
Earth.'' President John F. Kennedy
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
answering your questions.
______
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Kranz.
Dr. Darden.
STATEMENT OF DR. CHRISTINE M. DARDEN, RETIRED,
NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. Darden. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate Commerce
Committee, and Members of the Subcommittee on Aviation and
Space, I am very honored to be present today to be
participating in your committee hearings.
I am here as a child of the Space Race. On October 5, 1957,
I vividly recall the headline about Sputnik as I took the
newspaper into my high school library. I also vividly remember
May 1961 when my dormitory halls were filled with screams about
the challenge that President John Kennedy had just issued about
landing a man on the Moon and safely bringing him back before
the end of the decade.
Where have we been? It is the response to that challenge
with Apollo that makes NASA and all of us so very proud. At
that time, NASA Langley Research Center had existed as the
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NACA, Laboratory
for 40 years and had spent countless hours thinking about how
to leverage our aeronautics expertise to address the challenges
of spaceflight.
NASA Langley had begun Project Mercury and trained its
seven Mercury astronauts to fly in space. As preparation for
Apollo, the Gemini Program focused on rendezvous, docking, and
long-term space flight.
The Apollo Program captured the world's attention and
demonstrated the power of America's vision and technology to
inspire great achievements.
On July 16, 1969, though it was the NASA Space Centers that
were visible to the public as the Saturn 5 set poised for
liftoff, many workers from the Research Centers, like Langley,
were several years removed from the simulators that they built
for training the astronauts, from the wind tunnel tests that
they did, which is where I worked. Those tests validated the
spacecraft configuration and determined the re-entry safety.
But Apollo was in their hearts, and Apollo was supported by
this country. After 11 and a half years, Apollo ended, having
spent a record $23 and a half billion, having placed on the
Moon and safely returned 12 men, and having inspired thousands
of young engineers and space enthusiasts, like myself.
Sadly, after Apollo ended, there was a decline in the
number of American students getting higher degrees in the STEM
areas.
Where do we go from here? NASA is now poised to return
American astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024 as part of our
broader Moon-to-Mars Exploration. Artemis is the program to
prove technologies, capabilities, and new business approaches
for future missions to Mars. Through Artemis, NASA will
establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon by 2028,
inspiring the Artemis generation.
Certainly one of the necessary needs as we go forward is
the development and preparation of a strong, energetic, and
committed workforce as we had for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo.
A thriving, visible Artemis Program will do much to inspire the
next generation and to pursue STEM careers, just as I was
inspired as I saw the work being done at NASA result in Neil
Armstrong walking on and safely returning from the Moon.
After Apollo, I spent 25 years working in supersonic
aerodynamics and minimizing the sonic boom. When I retired from
NASA, two young ladies came to my party and stated that it was
because of my sharing my story of how I got to NASA and what I
did at NASA that inspired them to become engineers at NASA.
I have over the past two years spoken to thousands of
students about following their dream, about preparing
themselves, and persevering, hoping that they, too, will be
inspired to join the likes of an Apollo generation to push the
boundaries of knowledge. They will pursue groundbreaking
research to understand how to live and work on another planet.
Since retiring from NASA, I have remained an advocate for
the agency and I will work in aeronautics and exploration.
I wish to thank the Committee members for your continued
support of NASA and for the important work you are doing to
pass NASA's Authorization bill this Congress.
NASA really needs an authorization bill that supports our
Nation's plans for the Artemis Program and the overall approach
for the Moon and Mars.
In summary, this lunar destination is promoting
sustainability, a proving ground for Mars, a strategic presence
for our nation, and a foundation for building international and
commercial partnerships while also inspiring the next
generation to be prepared for the excitement and groundbreaking
new opportunities.
I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Darden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Christine M. Darden, Retired,
NASA Langley Research Center
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Members
of the Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, I am very honored to be
present today to participate in your Committee Hearing. I am here as a
child of the Space Race. I remember May 22, 1961, when President John
Kennedy issued the challenge that we would put a man on the moon and
safely bring him back before the end of the decade.
Where We Have Been
It is the response to that challenge with Apollo that makes NASA
and all of us so very proud. At that time, NASA Langley Research Center
had existed as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)
for 40 years, and had spent countless hours thinking about how to
leverage our aeronautics expertise to address the challenges of
spaceflight. NASA Langley had begun Project Mercury and trained its
seven Mercury Astronauts to fly in space. The Gemini Program focused on
rendezvous, docking and long-term space flight.
The Apollo Program captured the world's attention and demonstrated
the power of America's vision and technology to inspire great
achievements. On July 16, 1969, though it was the NASA Space Centers
that were visible to the public as the Saturn V set poised for lift
off, many workers from the Research Centers were now several years
removed from the simulators they built for training the astronauts, the
wind tunnel tests that validated the configuration and re-entry safety,
and the discussions that led to decisions on how we would get to the
moon. But Apollo was in their hearts and Apollo was supported by this
Country. After 11.5 years Apollo ended, having spent a record $23.5B,
having placed on the moon and safely returned 12 men, and having
inspired thousands of young engineers and space enthusiasts.
Where We Go From Here!
NASA is now poised to return to the Moon in the next 5 years. This
time the plan is to return to the moon as a pathway to further
exploration but not alone, rather with government, industry and
international partners in a global effort to build and test the systems
needed.
Artemis is the program to prove technologies, capabilities and new
business approaches for future missions to Mars. NASA has begun the
next era of exploration and discovery! The plan is to return American
astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024 as part of our broader Moon to
Mars exploration approach. The first American woman and next American
man will set foot on and explore the South Pole of the Moon, where no
human has ever been before.
The first Artemis flight will be a test of the Space Launch System
(SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft as an integrated system. The second
Artemis flight will ferry the crew to the Moon aboard SLS and Orion.
The third Artemis flight will deliver the crew to the lunar surface.
Through Artemis, NASA will establish a sustainable human presence on
the Moon by 2028,
Inspiring The Artemis Generation!
A thriving, visible Artemis Program will do much to inspire the
next generation to pursue STEM careers. This lunar effort will engage
the entire nation and the world--uniting the brightest minds of
academia, industry and communities of all sizes and types, from early
career professionals to our international partners. Just think about
it. The Artemis generation will push the boundaries of human knowledge.
They will dream about and eventually pave the way for reaching new
worlds and unlocking the mysteries of the universe. They will pursue
groundbreaking research to understand how to live and work on another
planet. This research will expand our knowledge of human anatomy, solar
propulsion, biofuels, geology, astrophysics, and lunar and planetary
science.
Since retiring from NASA, I have remained an advocate for the
Agency and our work in aeronautics and exploration. I wish to thank the
Committee Members for your continued support of NASA and for the
important work you are doing to pass a NASA Authorization bill this
Congress. NASA really needs an Authorization Bill that supports our
Nation's plans for the Artemis Program and the overall approach for
Moon to Mars.
In summary, this lunar destination is promoting sustainability, a
proving ground for Mars, a strategic presence for our nation, and a
foundation for building international and commercial partnerships while
also inspiring the next generation to be prepared for the excitement of
new opportunities.
Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Dr. Darden.
Dr. Dittmar.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION
Dr. Dittmar. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear
before you today with such an extraordinary and distinguished
panel to discuss my thoughts on the topic of today's hearing.
More than 50 years ago, the Apollo Program began,
ultimately resulting in one of humankind's most extraordinary
achievements. Mission readiness was the driving force of the
entire effort.
To achieve the mission, certain capabilities had to be
developed. These included standing up a human space flight
organization capable of developing and delivering a super-heavy
lift vehicle, a crew capsule, ground systems, AVA suits, cruise
systems, silence payloads, and related equipment. An entire
operations concept and an organization called Mission Control
had to be invented. I will defer here to Mr. Kranz.
The overarching goal, however, was the geopolitical one.
The Apollo Program was the means to achieve it. Involving over
400,000 Americans and at the cost of 300 billion in adjusted
dollars for the entire program, President Kennedy's challenge
was fulfilled between July 16 and 24, 1969, with the lunar
landing on July 20, 50 years ago.
With regard to today's goals, the primary objective of
NASA's Human Space Flight Program viewed through a national
lens remains a geopolitical one, although it is a different
geopolitical objective. No longer in a race to the Moon with
the Soviets, United States leadership in space depends upon
creating a foundation that provides other nations and a nascent
space-based economy with security and assurance regarding our
national intentions and long-term commitment to aspire,
inspire, and achieve, in short, to lead human space exploration
and the development of space.
If we do not do this, rest assured that someone else will.
Space remains the strategic competitive domain between nations.
Accordingly, the United States is developing core
capabilities to enable our return to deep space. A super-heavy
launch vehicle, a modern crew vehicle capable of long duration
missions when paired with habitats and consumables, and ground-
based infrastructure needed to support those missions.
Dubbed the Space Launch System, the Orion Crew Vehicle, and
Exploration Ground Systems, respectively, these strategic
assets are the foundation upon which national goals and human
deep space exploration will rest for the foreseeable future.
Similar to the development of military capabilities, these
are long lead time national assets, sustained as a guarantee
against economic downturn, policy shifts, and as a message to
the global community.
In addition, NASA's Artemis Program will engage industry
and international partners. Sticking to aligned national
objectives with those of commercial enterprises and global
collaborators in the human exploration of deep space.
The momentum established by the current Administration with
its focus on the Moon is a welcome one, but as report after
report has shown, NASA is asked to do too much with too little
and this is no exception.
Acceleration must be balanced with management of program
risk, mission assurance, and safety. Forward momentum also must
be matched by significant national investment above present
levels.
The Administration has proposed $1.6 billion to begin the
process of accelerating our Human Space Exploration Program. In
addition, the NASA Administrator has estimated it will take
between four to six billion per year over currently anticipated
funding levels to meet more aggressive timelines.
While funding increases are always a political challenge,
it is worth noting that the benefits of 10 times that amount in
adjusted dollars invested in the Apollo Program are evident to
all and form the foundation both for today's national effort
and for the growing entrepreneurial sector.
A personal aside, I actually have been on crutches for the
last two and a half years as a result of a connective tissue
disorder, and during the launch and landing of Apollo 11, I was
at home after having just gone through my fourth surgery. I now
stand before you without crutches and due to two years of work
in physical therapy using technology that was developed in the
Space Program. So for me, this is deeply personal.
NASA plans to achieve architectural flexibility at the Moon
by constructing a lunar orbital station, known as Gateway, in
partnership with industry and international partners.
Among other things, Gateway simplifies our ability to
aggregate hardware in the vicinity of the Moon, including
descent and ascent vehicles for transportation of humans back
and forth to the lunar surface.
Longer surface missions enabled by Gateway make it easier
to conduct lunar operations over time. Entrepreneurial firms
are teaming with investors and also established companies to
develop technologies aimed at building up infrastructure on the
Moon.
With regard to science, the Moon has been called the
Rosetta stone of the Solar System with evidence locked within
it that has already taught us a great deal about the formation
of the Earth-Moon system. We've explored only 5 percent of the
surface. There's a great deal more to learn.
Finally, Gateway is the next logical step in developing a
command and logistics capability that is extensible not just to
the Moon but beyond the Moon toward Mars.
The Gateway itself is a prototype, an evolution of lessons
learned over the last 50 years and, in particular, from the
International Space Station to create habitable space and
systems to support human life and work in deep space.
The Moon is an important stepping stone. What we learn
there will not only create opportunities in lunar space but
will open new discoveries and knowledge that would help us as
we look toward Mars. But the Moon is not an end goal, it's the
beginning, a next step enabling the migration of technology,
heavy industry, and humanity itself off the Earth and into the
Solar System at a scale that is no longer constrained by a
single planet, our original home.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dittmar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the invitation to appear before you with such an
extraordinary and distinguished panel to discuss my thoughts on the
topic of today's hearing: ``NASA's Exploration Plans--Where We've Been
and Where We're Going.''
Then: The Apollo Program and an Epochal Mission
More than 50 years ago, the Apollo program began, ultimately
resulting in one of humankind's most extraordinary achievements.
Undertaken as part of the Kennedy administration response to the Soviet
Union, and in the context of a perceived ``missile gap'' between U.S.
and Soviet capabilities, the effort was virtually on a war footing and
had a specific mission focus--``landing a man on the moon and returning
him safely to the Earth'' within a decade. This mission objective had a
much broader and even more urgent underlying goal, however--to
demonstrate the superiority of the technical, economic, and political
system represented by American ideals of freedom and democracy versus
that of a closed, communist state.
The mission outlined by Kennedy may not have survived had he not
been assassinated--and if it had survived it may have evolved to a
different mission, perhaps with a Russian partner. We will never know.
In President Johnson's hands, however, Kennedy's space legacy--both the
goal and the mission--became codified in a way that has never happened
since in human space exploration.
Mission readiness was the driving force for the entire Apollo
program. To achieve the mission certain capabilities had to be
developed. These included standing up a human spaceflight organization
capable of developing and delivering a super heavy lift vehicle, a crew
capsule, ground systems, EVA suits, crew systems, and related
equipment. An entire operations concept and organization called
``Mission Control'' had to be invented, in turn supporting and
supported by development and execution of procedures, schedules,
simulations, training, a logistics system (including communications and
tracking both on the ground and from ground to space and back), medical
support, and much more. Each capability was developed as part of a
learning sequence with many moving parts, each building toward the
successful landing and safe return of the crew of Apollo 11. The goal
was a geopolitical one, the Apollo program was the means to achieve it,
and the extraordinary work, time, and treasure it took to meet it--
involving over 400,000 Americans and at the cost of $300B in adjusted
dollars for the entire program \1\--was realized between July 16 and
24, 1969, with human beings setting foot on another celestial body 50
years ago on July 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2019/apollo-cost-
analysis.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now: A Focus On Capability
With regard to today's goals, it should be said from the beginning
that the primary objective viewed with a national lens remains
geopolitical, although it is a different geopolitical objective. No
longer in a race to the Moon, United States leadership in space depends
upon establishing a foundation that provides other nations and a
nascent space-based economy with security and assurance regarding our
national intentions and long-term commitment to aspire, inspire and
achieve--in short, to lead. Space remains a strategic, competitive
domain among nations. For example, China is pushing forward with
technology, science, investment, a new space station in low Earth
orbit, and lunar aspirations, and has announced development of a super
heavy lift vehicle (SHLV) for human space exploration. Russia remains
an active partner with us on the International Space Station but also
has announced plans for an SHLV. For the U.S. to push forward and
support our endeavors and those of our friends, we must be ``out
there''--physically present, with national assets at the ready, and we
must be there sooner rather than later.
The success of the Apollo program--at great cost in treasure and in
human lives--created a near-mythical template in the minds of both NASA
and the public that has been at the heart of controversy about the role
of the space program ever since, resulting in oft-repeated commentary
as to whether NASA has a ``mission''. The answer is emphatically
``yes'', but not in the same way as Apollo. Instead, we are embarked
upon a plan to create, manage, and execute deep space activities based
on the development of national capability, defined here as the ability
to achieve a variety of desired outcomes in a specific operating
environment. Much like the development of military capability, a
sustained national capability requires technical systems and equipment
needed to perform the operations for which they are designed that also
support a variety of missions that may not be known when the capability
is being developed. These are typically long lead-time national assets
that exist to perform certain functions necessary to meet operational
requirements. As such they are sustained by national investment as a
guarantee against economic downturns and policy shifts that may
accompany short-term Administration and/or Congressional priorities.
Accordingly, the United States is developing core capabilities to
enable our return to deep space: A super heavy launch vehicle (SHLV), a
modern crew vehicle capable of long-duration missions when paired with
habitats and consumables, and ground-based infrastructure needed to
support those missions. Dubbed the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion
crew vehicle, and Exploration Ground Systems respectively, these
strategic assets are the foundation upon which national goals in human
deep space exploration will rest for the foreseeable future. In
addition, the Artemis Program will engage industry and international
partners, seeking to align national objectives with those of commercial
enterprises and global collaboration in the exploration of deep space
wherever practicable.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/
ger_2018_small_mobile.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The momentum established by the current administration with its
focus on the Moon is a welcome one, but as report after report has
shown NASA is asked to do too much with too little and this is no
exception. Acceleration must be balanced with program risk and mission
assurance, and forward momentum must be matched by significant national
investment above present levels.
Happily, this increased investment will find a much broader
portfolio in science, technology, and exploration than when the Apollo
program began 60 years ago. A revitalized space industry is building on
previous government investments and experience gained during that
extraordinary effort. New manufacturing methods, technologies, and
advanced computing capabilities are reducing costs, encouraging new
entrants, building new capacity, and attracting billions of dollars in
investment in the emerging space sector. Meanwhile, NASA has led the
development of a global spaceflight community, collaborating with
international partners while helping to open the door to human
spaceflight and space science for over 100 countries via participation
on the International Space Station.
Today's need for operational readiness is every bit as great as
during the Apollo program, but the overarching goal is less specific,
more open-ended. While the recently-announced Artemis program, with its
goal of returning Americans to the lunar surface by 2024 is a worthy
effort, the ``Artemis Lunar Landing-1'' mission does not represent
fulfillment of a policy objective in the same sense as did Apollo 11.
Today, the policy objective is to establish a sustainable, strategic
human presence beyond low Earth orbit, first at the Moon and then
beyond, with an eye toward Mars. The key words here are ``sustainable''
and ``strategic''. To succeed in this endeavor, however, several things
must change.
Timely and Sufficient Funding
In the decades since the current, regular order for authorizing and
appropriating tax dollars has been established (1974), Congress has
managed to pass all of its required appropriations measures on time on
less than half a dozen occasions.\3\ It is true that Congressional
support for NASA and for human space exploration has been consistent.
That said, for NASA programs, as for all long-lead time programs
spanning years, last-minute political maneuvering, government
shutdowns, delayed receipt of funds, and general instability and
unpredictability of funding invariably creates inefficiency in program
management and execution, forcing compromises in program planning that
add cost, schedule and risk.\4\ In addition, report after report has
found that NASA's tasking and budget are mismatched.\5\ Alternate
acquisition and procurement approaches when technologies are well
understood is a useful means to reduce costs, but relying on industry
to drive down costs while at the same time increasing speed of
delivery, or seizing upon alternate means for acquisition without
consideration of risk management implications, amounts to wishful
thinking. Such approaches do nothing to change that fact that at no
time since Apollo, with all of its extraordinary resources, has any
human-rated system been deployed less than 4 years later than
originally intended, no matter who is building it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/16/congress-has-
long-struggled-to-pass-spending-bills-on-time/
\4\ https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=794133
\5\ See, for example: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/
groups/depssite/documents/web
page/deps_080254.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration has proposed $1.6B to begin the process of
accelerating our human space exploration program. In addition, the NASA
Administrator has estimated it will take between $20 and $30B over
currently anticipated funding levels to meet more aggressive timelines.
While funding increases are always a political challenge, it is worth
noting that the benefits of 10X that amount in adjusted dollars
invested in the Apollo program are evident to all, and form the
foundation both for today's national effort and for the growing
entrepreneurial sector.
It is absolutely true that that inefficiencies in development and
execution within government programs should be addressed. Congress can
help by regularizing its own process. The hearing to which these
remarks is addressed is a welcome aspect of that process.
Acquisition and Procurement Reform
As has been recognized by Congress over the past many years, the
nature of the policy and regulatory framework guiding exploration and
development of space is crucial, providing government, industry and the
investment community alike with stable, predictable operating
environments. The importance of stability also has been recognized
across various Administrations and very recently has been reflected in
the agreement upon 21 ``Guidelines on the Long-Term Sustainability of
Outer Space Activities'' within the UN's Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space (UN COPUOS).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/topics/long-term-
sustainability-of-outer-space-activities.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hand-in-hand with stability in ``light touch'' regulation however
is the need for streamlined acquisition processes. As I testified
before the National Space Council in February of 2018, the fiscal,
programmatic, reporting and management burdens associated with
government contracting and oversight cannot be overstated. The slow
nature of acquisition and the costs and schedule associated with
program startup also pose a threat to technology development and
insertion into some of our most strategic programs, threatening U.S.
leadership and security. This is not to say that traditional
contracting should be abandoned. On the contrary, cost-plus contracts
for managing large development programs with significant R&D components
provide stability, reduce business risk and support the aerospace and
defense industrial base that is so critical to U.S. security. That
said, the ability to ramp up programs with much greater speed than
typically seen together with renewed focus on accountability and
constraints on cost and schedule growth are of primary interest in
reform.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://exploredeepspace.com/multimedia/coalition-statements/
2018-02-22/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of Other Transactional Authority (OTAs) and Public Private
Partnerships (P3) may provide more flexibility than traditional
contracting and, in some cases, offer economic incentives, but at the
cost of reduced transparency. Each of these approaches may take many
forms but their success depends upon informed allocation of risk on
each side of the government-business relationship, a realistic business
case in the case of P3 (an indispensable requirement) and the means to
align business objectives with the public (national) interest. The
rapidly-accelerating range of procurement activities in both the DoD
and NASA requires the ability to evaluate acquisition models,
understand their strengths and weaknesses for differing applications,
situations and goals, assess business cases, grasp the complexities of
risk allocation and management associated with different models, and
understand the range of economic incentives and their likely downstream
effects. Adopting an acquisition posture that balances risk, cost and
schedule with the goal of rapid development and deployment of
capabilities may require retraining the procurement workforce across
the government.
Education and Diversity in the Workforce
Preparation and development of the A&D workforce is not limited to
procurement professionals. It must begin much earlier and span a
multitude of disciplines. The United States has remained in the upper
third of countries for 4-12 grades students in math and science for the
past 15 years though our test scores remain relatively flat.\8\ Of
those students who eventually seek employment in the Aerospace and
Defense (A&D) workforce, 71 percent of young A&D professionals report
they first became interested in these careers during their grade school
years. Continuing emphasis upon superior preparation and broad
educational opportunities is critical to U.S. leadership across STEM
disciplines, including in space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/04/
07/what-international-test-scores-reveal-about-american-education/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, and despite significant effort, the diversity of the
A&D industry looks much the same as it did four decades ago. Greater
diversity in a workforce has been demonstrated time and time again to
result in higher rates of innovation, invention, and unique problem-
solving and is key to both global competition and cooperation. At the
same time, the shift in economic demographics nationwide since 2008 has
resulted in a higher proportion of Americans remaining at work. This is
also true of A&D; 29.8 percent of workers are 55 years of age or
older.\9\ On the one hand, this benefits the industry since it requires
legacy skills and experience in aerospace, electrical, mechanical and
electrical engineers. On the other, the industry also requires skills
in cognitive computing, artificial intelligence and materials. At
present, terrestrial high technology careers in these fields are
attracting the best and brightest young professionals. NASA and the
Department of Defense must not only compete with them but with quicker-
moving entrepreneurial firms.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/
AviationWeek-WhitePaper-REVISED-101717.pdf
\10\ https://spacenews.com/op-ed-talent-gap-jeopardizes-space-
business-national-security/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While job competition is good to spur interest in STEM careers and
to drive up salaries, from the point of view of national interest, the
stresses on the workforce (and the hundreds of small businesses that
provide the A&D backbone in this country) are increasing, creating
``talent gaps'' in some critical fields ranging from IT to
manufacturing talent--all of which are needed in space. Reorienting and
revitalizing human capital processes, increasing investment in trade
schools, and even embedding space into higher education curriculums in
non-traditional fields are among the means to help address the growing
workforce development issue.
The Near Future: Artemis and the Moon
Addressing funding, acquisition, and workforce development and
diversity are fundamental to get to where we are going--which is to the
Moon and then to Mars. As pointed out by the Committee on Human Space
Exploration of the National Academies, upon which I served, there are
many roads the United States and its industry and international
partners may take to create a sustainable presence beyond low Earth
orbit. The ``Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a
U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration'' report (herein after referred
to as ``The Pathways Report''),\11\ published in 2014 after two years
of study and debate, described several sequences and risk postures for
NASA's human exploration program but leaned heavily toward the Moon as
an initial destination. The Pathways report also advised Congress and
NASA to focus on ``feed forward'' development--that is, to maximize the
potential for a sustainable approach by designing in readiness and
flexibility. Among other means to achieve this design philosophy is to
develop capabilities that can be deployed over decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18801/pathways-to-exploration-
rationales-and-approaches-for-a-us-program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Policy Directive-1, signed by President Trump in late 2017,
is in alignment with the NASA Authorization Acts of 2008, 2010, and
2017 in its call for NASA to ``lead an innovative and sustainable
program of exploration with commercial and international partners to
enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to
Earth new knowledge and opportunities.'' \12\ While the
Administration's target date of 2024 for the Artemis Lunar Landing-1
mission has injected some much-needed urgency into NASA's planning and
programs, one danger of shifting our focus from developing a longer-
term capability to focus on a near term date is that we may
inadvertently sacrifice flexibility and capability for the sake of
meeting a short-term mission objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-
memorandum-reinvigorating-americas-human-space-exploration-program/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In military science, a major area of endeavor is to find methods to
achieve missions that may not have been understood when systems were
under development, using those capabilities that have since come on
line both as intended and by exercising new concepts. With regard to
deep space exploration, NASA plans to achieve flexibility at the moon
by constructing a lunar orbiting station known as Gateway in
partnership with industry and with international partners. Gateway is
not, as some have stated, a waste of money or an unnecessary way
station. Instead, Gateway is a component of a larger architecture that
increases feed forward opportunities. The Gateway greatly simplifies
our ability to aggregate hardware in the vicinity of the Moon--that is,
to provide a central hub for docking, brief habitation, emplacement of
consumables, descent and ascent vehicles for transportation to the
lunar surface, transfer vehicles, etc. It is true that these can be
aggregated in orbit without a Gateway; however, the transportation
model becomes more complex and the timing less forgiving.
For example, without a Gateway, lunar sorties with humans are
limited to four days due to the 21-day mission profile for the Orion
crew vehicle. With the Gateway, crew are not solely dependent upon
Orion's systems but can rely on habitation and access to consumables
that are present at the Gateway, enabling longer missions on the
surface. In addition, over time the Gateway will enable in-space
reusability by serving as a docking and refueling hub, greatly
simplifying transportation requirements over time.
Longer surface missions in turn will enable a variety of activities
to be undertaken by a variety of participants. Entrepreneurial firms
are teaming with investors and also with established companies to
develop technologies aimed at building up infrastructure on the Moon,
making use of lunar regolith as raw material as one example. With
regard to science, there is still a great deal to learn. The Moon has
been called ``The Rosetta Stone'' \13\ of the solar system, with
evidence locked within that has already taught us a great deal about
the formation of the Earth-Moon system but also has implications for
outer bodies. We have explored only 5 percent of the surface; there is
a great deal more to learn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1963/08/why-land-
on-the-moon/361529/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Gateway is the next logical step in developing a command
and logistics capability that is extensible not just to the Moon but
beyond the Moon toward Mars. The Gateway itself is a prototype, and
evolution of lessons learned over the past 50 years and in particular
from the International Space Station to create habitable space and
systems to support human life and work in deep space. As the Gateway
evolves, it provides an opportunity for broader international and
industry participation and utilization, providing options for
continuing deep space development that do not necessarily depend upon
descending to the surface.
Our Horizon Goal: Mars (and Beyond?)
The Moon is an important stepping stone with geopolitical,
scientific and the potential for commercial benefits. It is entirely
possible that some of us will remain there for decades--for example,
experimenting with in situ resource utilization (ISRU) technologies,
conducting science, or seeking to extend our terrestrial economy to
incorporate utilization and capitalization of resources found on or
below the lunar surface. What we learn there will not only create
opportunities in cislunar space but open new discoveries and knowledge
that will help us as we look toward Mars. The Moon is not an end goal,
but a beginning--a next step enabling the migration of technology,
heavy industry, and humanity itself off the Earth and into the solar
system at a scale that is no longer constrained by a single planet, our
original home.
The Pathways report concluded that Mars is the ``horizon goal'' for
the human exploration of space, the destination upon which the
aspirations of all international space programs converge, and the
farthest viable destination for human beings given foreseeable advances
in technology. It is essential that this be an international effort,
led by the United States in collaboration with others. The
International Space Station has taught us that a multilateral
enterprise such as Mars will bring forth intellectual capital,
scientific abilities, research, engineering and interest in peaceful
technology on the part of many nations. An international human Mars
program, led by the United States, will build and expand on the
foundation created by the ISS as well as lessons learned at the Moon.
At the same time, pushing further into deep space than humans have
ever gone before offers the potential for technology breakthroughs--
just as it did 50 years ago--unleashing American industry and
investment in new and powerful ways. The fundamental barriers and
challenges to planning and executing all large-scale enterprises--
exploring space, mitigating climate change, controlling disease, or
managing the rising global demand for clean water--are similar, whether
on Earth or in space. Two of the most important needs in space--the
availability and processing of water for life support and eventually
propellant, and energy needs--obtaining, storing, managing, and
transmitting energy or power--have direct relevance to many problems
facing today's world. With thought and proper planning, technology
opportunities and challenges on the Moon and particularly at Mars with
the constraints imposed by its vast distance from Earth can find
natural alignment with many of humanity's most pressing terrestrial
problems.
In Closing. . .
Perhaps most importantly, our Nation needs the next generation of
young scientists and engineers to advance our quality of life and
remain globally competitive. The citizens of the United States also
need a far better understanding of science and technology in order to
exercise fully the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The very
future of our democracy depends on it. Nothing stimulates interest like
truly great goals that require us to develop ourselves and advance the
human condition as well as our technology in order to achieve them.
Continuing the work begun with Apollo, returning to the Moon, and then
reaching for the horizon of Mars, is just such a goal.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Dr. Dittmar.
Mr. Hickam.
STATEMENT OF HOMER H. HICKAM, JR., AUTHOR,
ROCKET BOYS
Mr. Hickam. Good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Sinema, and Members of the Subcommittee, with a special shout-
out to Senator Capito from my home state of West Virginia,
who's probably thinking to herself, ``Oh, my gosh, what's Homer
going to say now?''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hickam. What Homer's going to say now is that I believe
most firmly that our destiny lies at the Moon. We need to go
back to the Moon. We need to put an anchor there and from that
anchor develop the Moon commercially and scientifically.
One of the stories left out of the movie October Sky, which
was based on Rocket Boys, was the fact that I met Senator John
F. Kennedy when he was running for President in the West
Virginia primary that he had to win, and since I was a rocket
boy headed toward the National Science Fair, he asked me what
we should do in space, and I answered Senator Kennedy. I looked
around at all the coal miners in the crowd and I said, ``Well,
I think we should go to the Moon and just mine the blame
thing,'' and all the coal miners, they just laughed and
cheered, and he said, ``Elect me President and maybe we will.''
Most recently, one of my books called Back to the Moon,
Vice President Pence told me that that's one of his favorite
books and we talked at length and extensively about that. The
next thing I knew, he was down in Huntsville, Alabama, at the
Space and Rocket Center, at Space Camp, saying, ``We're going
back to the Moon by 2024.''
So I'm kind of in the unique position of being able to take
credit for both the Apollo----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hickam.--and the Artemis Space Program.
I do, I really do advocate going back to the Moon. There's
a lot of work to do there. There are decades of work yet to be
done.
Where was I when Apollo 11 landed? I was in the hospital
ward at Ft. Lewis, Washington, with some fellow veterans of the
4th Infantry Division, and we watched the Apollo land. At that
point, even though my mind had been occupied a great deal by
Vietnam and all of that struggle, I realized I really wanted to
work for NASA. I was going to make that happen.
It took me a while. 1981, when the shuttle started to fly,
I got to work for NASA and I loved it. I woke up every morning
and said to myself, ``Oh, my goodness, this is great, I get to
go work for NASA today.'' It's a tremendous agency and I
absolutely loved it.
Well, here we are and what are we going to do? Well, Mark
Twain once said, ``God looks after fools, drunks, and the
United States of America,'' and that comment was never more apt
than the way our space program has evolved. Modern American
industry is now moving forward in space in astonishing ways and
just SpaceX and Blue Origin are just a couple of those bright
new companies that are coming up. They're able to come up with
new designs and be more timely and create much less expensive
ways to get in space. They're even beating out the heavily-
subsidized space programs around the world, like China's. So we
have every right to be proud of that.
Why are they able to do that? Because of a number of
parallel forces. They include modern computer systems, the rise
of the internet, new manufacturing techniques, and along other
parallel lines, we see a demand for clean and abundant energy
and awareness that Earth is in danger of being permanently
polluted, and the gradual development of a new philosophy that
seeks to put mankind in context with the universe.
As all engineers know, parallel lines never intersect until
they do. These parallel lines of force I just mentioned
intersect primarily at one place; our Moon, Luna, the small
planet that circles us, our 8th continent, torn from the Earth
a millennial ago, and so it is at this moment given to us by
the benevolent hand of Creation that all of the elements needed
to go back to the Moon and set up shop have come to us so as to
utilize its mineral wealth and discover all that is there. And
this includes, by the way, the possibility of evidence of life.
We've never looked at a single water molecule from space.
We're going to find a lot of water ice on the Moon and in there
might be evidence of life because the Earth and Luna have been
sharing DNA for millions of years because of meteors and
asteroids, sort of God's little space program. It didn't work
out for the dinosaurs but it may work out for us.
In summary, I applaud the essentials of the Artemis Program
to take us to the Moon, but I do say so with this proviso, that
what we do on Luna must make sense to the American people both
economically and philosophically, and should be designed in
such a way that it may cost the people's money to place an
anchor there but not so forever in order to sustain our
presence.
The riches on the Moon, rare earth medals, thorium,
titanium, helium3, and other minerals, should be gathered to
boost our economy and thus put money in the pockets of all
Americans. Our citizens should be assured that a base on the
Moon will make this country stronger and safer, and I have to
say I don't really much care who the next professional
astronaut on the Moon is. What I care about who the next
American plumber, electrician, construction worker, and blue
collar worker on the Moon because when that happens, we know
that we are finally a space-bearing nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickam follows:]
Prepared Statement of Homer H. Hickam, Jr., Author, Rocket Boys
Good afternoon, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, and members
of the Subcommittee: It is a privilege to come before you today to
speak on this vital topic during an exciting and dynamic new era of
space flight that I hope will result in a permanent American anchor on
the moon.
You may know me as the fellow who wrote the #1 New York Times best-
seller Rocket Boys: A Memoir which told the story of some boys in the
West Virginia coalfields of the 1950s who were inspired by Sputnik to
build rockets. As you may also know, they made a movie titled October
Sky based on that memoir which is still shown everywhere, especially in
classrooms. That book and film has inspired many tens of thousands of
young people to become engineers and/or work in the space business. For
a West Virginia boy, son and grandson of coal miners, this is the most
pleasing result possible for my work.
It should be noted that I have long been an advocate for a
permanent American presence on the moon. This goes back to 1960 when I
encountered then-Senator John F. Kennedy in McDowell County, West
Virginia. At the time, I was 17 years old and heading for the National
Science Fair with my rocket designs. He was running in the West
Virginia primary for the Democratic nomination for President, a primary
he had to win. After one of his speeches, he asked for questions and I
asked him what he thought we should do in space. This was not a
question I believe he expected in the coalfields and so he asked me
what I thought we should do and I said we should go to the moon. Then,
looking around at the coal miners in the crowd, I said we should just
go up there and mine the blame thing. The miners cheered at this and
Kennedy joined in, saying, ``Well, elect me president and maybe we
will!'' He won the primary. It is why--very wryly to be sure--I
sometimes take credit for the entire Apollo program although I know he
was much more influenced by others such as Wernher von Braun.
It was my boyhood dream to get into the space business. However,
this dream took awhile to happen. There are moments in our lives that
beg the question: ``Where were you when?'' Such moments include the
landing on the moon of Apollo 11. For me, I was in a hospital ward at
Fort Lewis, Washington to watch the landing with other veterans after,
in my case, a tour of duty with the 4th Infantry Division in the
Vietnamese Central Highlands. President Kennedy, you see, had two
important policies during his tenure, one of them was to see an
American land on the moon and return safely, and the other was the
defense of freedom around the world. Like a lot of young men of my era,
it was the latter that occupied most of my life in the late 1960s and
not the marvelous flights to the moon.
Eventually, I would come to work for NASA. This was in 1981 when
the space shuttles began to fly. I was privileged to work at the
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where I helped
design the Spacelab, a precursor to the International Space Station,
and train the astronauts who flew aboard the shuttle for Spacelab
missions. I was also on the team that trained the astronauts underwater
on the deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope and then later on the
rescue and repair of that magnificent observatory. I trained the first
Japanese astronauts and worked on the team assigned to fix the solid
rocket motors that caused the Challenger tragedy. At the end of my
career, I was on the team that negotiated with the Russians on how to
train astronauts and cosmonauts to work aboard the International Space
Station. I had a wonderful career and woke up every morning and said to
myself, ``Oh, boy! I get to go to work for NASA today!''
But I always felt like I had missed out on the great adventure that
was going to the moon. I also had the sense that our country had
foolishly and irrationally thrown away what could have been great and
wonderful things for us if we had only stayed the course on what is
essentially our eighth continent.
While I still worked for NASA, talking about the moon was pretty
much off-limits but going against this policy, I stubbornly wrote a
paper in 1993 on how we could eventually return to the moon and
construct a base there. I have provided that paper to Senator Cruz's
staff and it is available for your interest since much of it is still
applicable, technically as well as philosophically.
After retirement in 1998, I took up writing full-time which
resulted in Rocket Boys/October Sky and a bunch of other books
including four set on the moon, one of which is titled Back to the Moon
and, as it happens, one of Vice President Pence's favorite novels.
Because of our mutual interest, I have talked with the Vice President
at length about going to the moon and establishing a permanent presence
there. I found the Vice President receptive and engaged and, as the
board chair this year of the United States Space and Rocket Center
(home of Space Camp) in Huntsville, Alabama, I was privileged to
welcome him and the National Space Council in March, 2019 where he gave
the speech that launched Artemis designed to take us back to the moon,
this time to put down roots. In my own small way, I think I may have
connected the timeline between the JFK and Vice President Pence
decisions that the moon is where our destiny lies in space.
Incidentally, the Vice President's speech also directed something
else, little noted or remarked upon but extremely important. He gave
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville the lead to develop nuclear
rocket engines. If we ever want to send humans beyond the moon or want
to send robotic missions very quickly far, far away, we will need a big
boomer and not the relatively puny chemical systems of today. Boomers
and other advanced propulsion systems are the future and I hope
Marshall takes up the challenge. This would be with nuclear thermal
propulsion, by the way, utilizing only low-enriched uranium so it is
quite safe.
Mark Twain once said, ``God looks after fools, drunks, and the
United States of America,'' and that comment was never more apt than
the way our space program has lately evolved.
Modern American industry is now moving forward in space in
astonishing ways. Bright new companies--SpaceX and Blue Origin are only
the best known--are outstripping not only NASA in innovative designs
and much more timely and much less expensive ways to get into space but
they are besting the heavily subsidized space agencies of the world.
This is because of a number of parallel forces that include modern
computer systems, the rise of the Internet, new manufacturing
techniques and materials, and the imaginations stirred by popular
science fiction films and books. Along other parallel lines, we see a
demand for clean and abundant energy, an awareness that Earth is in
danger of being permanently polluted, and the gradual development of a
new philosophy that seeks to put humankind in context within the
universe.
As all engineers know, parallel lines never intersect--until they
do. Those parallel lines of force I just mentioned intersect primarily
at one place, our moon--Luna, the small planet that circles us, our
eighth continent torn from the Earth millennia ago, our friend in the
sky without which life would not have evolved on Earth and now might
sustain that life for centuries to come.
And so it is at this moment given to us by the benevolent hand of
Creation that all the elements needed to go to the moon and set up shop
have come to us so as to utilize its mineral wealth, and discover all
that is there. This includes the possibility of the evidence of life in
the water ice that we now know is so abundant there; for it is well
known that the Earth and Luna have been sharing their DNA for billions
of years through meteor and asteroid strikes which might be called
God's space program. Our rendezvous with destiny on the moon is at
hand.
Let me briefly speak of Mars. It is my belief that Mars, which is
often mentioned by NASA officials and others as the ultimate
destination for its astronauts and the moon only a stop on the way,
should stay in the future for now. The truth is the technology to go
there doesn't yet exist and for the blood and treasure it would take to
put humans there, we could place thousands of robots on its surface and
eventually artificial intelligence. Mars is interesting scientifically
but it's the moon that should be our focus for the next several decades
because, not only is there yet some great science to be done there,
Luna has the potential of creating an economic powerhouse for our
country and the world.
In that regard, I have to say I have little interest on who the
next professional astronaut on the moon might be. My interest is who
will be the first plumber, electrician, miner, or construction worker
because when our blue collar workers arrive on the moon, we will truly
and finally be a spacefaring nation and see all of our citizenry fully
engaged in this magnificent adventure.
In summary, I applaud the essentials of the Artemis program to take
us to the moon but I do so with this proviso, that what we do on Luna
must make sense to the American people both economically and
philosophically and should be designed in such a way that it may cost
the people's money to place an anchor there but not to forever sustain
our presence. The riches on the moon--rare earth metals, Thorium,
Titanium, Helium-3, and other minerals--should be gathered to boost our
economy and thus put money in the pockets of all Americans. Our
citizens should also be assured that a base on the moon will make this
country stronger and safer while also gathering knowledge for all the
world so that humanity might rise above the immaturity evidenced by our
endless conflicts, and become, as intended by our Creator, the
responsible, mature adults of the Universe we were sent forth to be.
Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Hickam, and when you invoked
the Twain quote about fools and drunks, I assume most people at
home just assumed you were talking about the U.S. Congress.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hickam. No, sir.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Stallmer.
STATEMENT OF ERIC STALLMER, PRESIDENT,
COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
Mr. Stallmer. I have a tough act to follow. Homer was there
to inspire the Apollo Program. I wasn't even born for Apollo
11. So you raised the bar quite a bit.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, and Distinguished
Members of this Committee, thank you for inviting the
Commercial Spaceflight Federation today to discuss how rapid
advances by U.S. commercial space industry can help NASA truly
honor the Apollo legacy by leading humanity into the Solar
System further and faster.
In the past two years, NASA has crystallized an ambitious
agenda to commercialize low-Earth orbit, establish a long-term
presence on the surface of the Moon, and send humans to Mars.
These goals are all linked together and collectively they will
enable an expansion of our civilization in the Solar System.
It is the breadth of this vision of space as a frontier for
all that makes the recent emergence of the strong U.S.
commercial spaceflight industry so uniquely valuable. It didn't
just happen overnight.
For two decades, NASA has fostered the development and
increasing success of this industry, sharing technologies and
expertise, co-investing in private innovation and using its
purchasing power to serve as an initial customer.
Those steps have enabled private companies to develop, own,
and operate their own human spaceflight hardware to serve the
public needs as well as the private sector markets.
These efforts were established in NASA's mandate to seek
and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest
commercial use of space, as well as the bipartisan legislation
and administrative policies under both Democratic and
Republican presidents.
Over just the past two years, Space Policy Directives 1, 2,
and 3 have strengthened this partnership between government and
industry and helped remove barriers to industry growth, and
under your leadership, this Committee has worked to facilitate
industry's development via the Space Frontier Act. We thank
you.
At the start of the Space Age, the United States
established its leadership in space with government-funded and
led exploration projects. When President Kennedy proposed
sending an American to the Moon, there were no alternatives to
the all-government strategy.
But today, five decades after Apollo, the United States is
enjoying a renaissance in space with commercial space
enterprises playing a leading role. The details are in my
written testimony but in summary, the U.S. has leapt forward in
2018 in every commercial space sector with more launches, more
spacecraft pursuing both old and new space applications
benefiting more and more stakeholders here on Earth.
So today, as we seek to further develop low-Earth orbit,
place an enduring American presence on the Moon and sending not
just two but many brave pioneers to Mars, policymakers like
yourself have newer, more affordable, and sustainable options
than just repeating Apollo.
The ingredients of a successful strategy have proven
themselves over and over in recent years. Future LEO
infrastructure, every operational element of returning to the
Moon, and most of any of any affordable Mars architecture
should be purchased commercially or developed via COTS-like
partnership.
For example, allowing the private sector to develop its own
solution for the Lunar Gateway Power Propulsion Element, NASA
was able to generate a fixed price bid that was more than $200
million less than the closest competitor.
While science is appropriately a government-led activity,
the basic engineering and infrastructure that supports it can
be provided commercially with only the leading edge tools and
instruments required by government stewardship.
NASA should specify clear high-level outcome-based
requirements and allow entrepreneurs to innovate and create
affordable and basic capabilities to meet essentially all the
operational needs, and NASA must pay for results, not effort,
on all developmental programs but the most esoteric technical
challenges.
Whenever possible, NASA should award multiple competitively
chosen funded Space Act agreements to commercial partners
willing to put up private capital at their own risk. That
leverage, plus ongoing competition, will replace any need for
the costly micromanagement and bureaucracy of typical FAR-based
contracts.
Competition also allows for greater diversity in technical
approaches and much lower strategic program risk. None of this
will be easy. Commercializing low-Earth orbit will be hard.
Human travel to the Moon is hard and staying there will be even
harder. Mars will be harder still but with even greater rewards
as we explore a different planet and its moons.
But American industry is ready to help NASA chart an
affordable and sustainable path into this challenging future.
This month, it's natural to venerate the past, but we
should also be proud of the great new things we are achieving
today and what we can do together tomorrow if we build a true
partnership between government, including Congress, and the
American people on their enterprise.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, thank you for your
invitation and attention. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallmer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Stallmer, President,
Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, and distinguished members of
the Committee--thank you for inviting the Commercial Spaceflight
Federation (CSF) to discuss our members' views on the state of the U.S.
commercial space industry. We also appreciate the opportunity to honor
the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 by looking at NASA's exploration
plans and examining how our past experiences and lessons learned can
guide space exploration efforts going forward. In addition to NASA's
world-leading space exploration capabilities, the United States now has
a vibrant, highly capable commercial space sector that can accelerate
and complement NASA's internal development efforts. As we look to the
future, true public-private partnerships between this domestic industry
and the Government represent the most effective path to rapidly,
safely, and cost-effectively return to the Moon and venture on to Mars.
CSF is the leading national trade association for the commercial
space industry, with more than 85 member companies and organizations
across the United States. Founded in 2006, CSF is focused on laying the
foundation for a sustainable space economy and democratizing access to
space for scientists, students, civilians, and businesses. CSF members
are responsible for the creation of thousands of high-tech U.S. jobs
driven by billions of dollars in investment. Through the promotion of
technology innovation, CSF members are guiding the expansion of Earth's
economic sphere, bolstering U.S. leadership in aerospace, and inspiring
America's next generation of engineers, scientists, and explorers.
NASA has embarked on an ambitious effort to commercialize low-Earth
orbit (LEO), to establish a long-term presence on the surface of the
Moon, and to send astronauts to Mars. These bold commitments should be
commended. Over the last two decades, NASA has fostered a nascent
domestic spaceflight industry into becoming a highly diverse and
capable portfolio of companies. NASA has invested in private
development, used its purchasing power to serve as an anchor customer,
and enabled private companies to develop, own, and operate their own
human spaceflight hardware to serve both public and private needs.
Because of the agency's foresight and meticulous cultivation of this
industry, American companies support critical space exploration and
national security needs today, in addition to the commercial
marketplace.
Policymakers have recognized the benefits of these kinds of
partnerships since the earliest days of the space program. The National
Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 outlines one of NASA's core missions
is areas as: ``[t]o seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible,
the fullest commercial use of space.'' National Space Policies from
both Democratic and Republican administrations have stressed the
importance of the commercial space sector. And Space Policy Directives
1, 2, and 3, each issued over the past two years, take further steps to
strengthen the partnership between Government and industry and to
remove barriers to industry growth. And, under your leadership, this
Committee has taken important steps to facilitate commercial space
industry development, most recently with its efforts on the Space
Frontier Act.
Today, I will outline CSF's perspectives as to how we all can
collectively advance our Nation's space goals through innovative,
strategic partnerships with American industry.
I. America's Vibrant, Highly Capable Commercial Space Sector
The United States established its leadership and dominance in space
with government-funded and government-controlled space exploration.\1\
When President Eisenhower founded NASA and President Kennedy outlined a
goal to send Americans to the Moon, there was no other choice; NASA
literally had to invent whole new fields of technology, not just new
hardware. The agency's accomplishments are a marvel for the ages,
progressing from sending an American into space for the first time in
1961 to landing a crew on the Moon just eight years later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Space, The Final Economic Frontier, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Matthew Weinzierl, Spring 2018. Available at: https://
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.2.173
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks in large part to NASA's leadership, pathfinding, and
partnerships with the private sector in the decades since, a broad and
dynamic space industry has emerged. Since 2000, investors have
supported 375 private space companies with nearly $19 billion of
private capital.\2\ As NASA continues to drive the frontier outward
with groundbreaking research in space, the commercial sector is making
space affordable and accessible to everyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Proprietary Data, Space Angels, September 30, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the United States is enjoying a renaissance in space, with
commercial space enterprises playing a leading role. To update the
Committee on the commercial space industry's recent major milestones:
Last year, U.S. commercial space companies achieved an
unprecedented 32 licensed orbital and suborbital launches as
well as 14 licensed reentries. SpaceX conducted the majority of
those licensed activities, with 21 launches and 12 first stage
landings. American commercial providers of medium-to-heavy lift
launch services now represent a supermajority of global
commercial launches each year.
Over the past several years, there has been a surge of
progress from dedicated small orbital class launch vehicles. In
2018, Rocket Lab conducted the first successful launch of its
Electron rocket. Rocket Lab has already launched three more
times in 2019, orbiting 35 satellites--including two for U.S.
Special Operations Command. Relativity Space is building an
autonomous rocket 3D printing factory in Mississippi, expanding
capabilities at NASA's Stennis Space Center. Vector Launch and
Vox Space (a Virgin Orbit subsidiary) have been selected to
compete for DARPA's Launch Challenge. And, Virgin Orbit has
completed several captive carry tests of its LauncherOne
vehicle attached to a 747 aircraft in preparation of flights to
space in the near future.
A growing number of companies are restoring and expanding
America's human spaceflight capabilities. This year SpaceX--in
close partnership with NASA--will launch American astronauts to
space in an all-American system, ending the country's drought
on orbital human spaceflight capability left by the retirement
of the Space Shuttle in 2011. Already, SpaceX and NASA
conducted a successful flight qualification mission of the Crew
Dragon spacecraft in March. Virgin Galactic successfully
launched three spaceflight participants on its spacecraft--
SpaceShipTwo--into space for the first time, reaching an apogee
of 51.4 miles. Blue Origin has conducted a series of uncrewed
suborbital test flights on its New Shepard vehicle and plans to
conduct a test flight with crew soon. Both companies plan to
fly spaceflight participants to space for revenue by the end of
the year.
American companies continue to make significant progress
commercializing the International Space Station (ISS) and LEO.
Sierra Nevada Corporation's (SNC) Dream Chaser
spacecraft--in an uncrewed cargo configuration--passed a
key milestone in its development to be the third commercial
cargo vehicle for the International Space Station.
Nanoracks has supported more than 750 payloads at the
ISS to-date and has deployed 243 satellites through a
commercial dispenser, in partnership with NASA. The company
is also building the first-ever commercial airlock,
designed to be integrated with the ISS in the coming years.
The ISS National Lab has facilitated more than $150
million in external, non-NASA funding to support the full
ISS National Lab portfolio--a 50 percent increase in FY18.
Axiom and Bigelow are developing commercial space
habitats, and each has made major technical progress over
the past year.
Made In Space, TechShot, and Space Tango continued to
demonstrate additive manufacturing and other interesting
commercial applications in microgravity.
Planet, Blacksky, and Maxar Technologies deployed dozens of
new commercial remote sensing satellites to orbit.
Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), University of Colorado,
Boulder, and Maxar Technologies were selected by NASA to build
three new lunar science and technology payloads to fly on
future flights through NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services
(CLPS) project. NASA selected three commercial Moon landing
service providers that will deliver science and technology
payloads under CLPS as part of the Artemis program.
The first licensed flights to space of two American
suborbital reusable launch vehicles: Blue Origin's New Shepard
and Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. I emphasize the word
licensed, because a license allows the company to earn revenue
from the flight, unlike an experimental permit.
World View performed its longest flight to date of its
stratospheric balloon, demonstrating its ability to carry out
missions traditionally reserved for satellites.
And, in May, NASA has entered into partnerships with 11
companies--including CSF members Blue Origin, SpaceX, Sierra
Nevada, and SSL (a subsidiary of Maxar Technologies)--to
conduct advance development on human lunar lander concepts.
These recent achievements are just a few of many by the commercial
industry, and they set the stage for even greater accomplishments the
rest of this year and beyond for a broad set of stakeholders.
II. Apollo 50th: Partnerships with Commercial Industry are Fundamental
to Achieve a Sustainable Return to the Moon
50 years after Americans first stepped on the surface of the Moon,
President Trump, NASA and Congress have established a national
commitment to return Americans to the Moon--not just to plant
footprints and flags, but to establish long-term habitation and
sustainable activity on the lunar surface. This will provide the
spaceflight community a valuable proving ground for NASA's goal of
sending astronauts to Mars.
This ambitious objective should be applauded and, if executed
appropriately, will serve to reinforce American leadership in space as
international competitors like China, Russia, and India focus their own
exploration efforts on the Moon. In January 2019, China achieved a
major milestone in its lunar space exploration program, landing the
Chinese space agency's Chang'e-4 spacecraft on the far side of the Moon
for the first time in history.\3\ This achievement builds on the
China's 2013 success of landing its first rover on the Moon, joining
the United States and the Soviet Union as the only nations to have
carried out a soft landing on the Moon. In September this year, India
hopes to become the fourth country to soft land on the Moon.\4\ The
United States should ensure it remains the leader in space
exploration--and private industry is here to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The New York Times, ``New Chapter in Space Exploration as China
Reaches Far Side of the Moon,'' January 2019. Available at: https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/world/asia/china-change-4-moon.html
\4\ CNN, ``India hopes to become fourth country on the moon in
September,'' June 2019. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/13/
india/india-moon-mission-intl/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-term, sustainable exploration on the lunar surface, and
ultimately Mars, requires an integrated effort that includes the
development of capable landers, the operation of robust deep space
habitats, and routine transportation of astronauts and large cargo.
Public-private partnerships with commercial companies are fundamental
to developing these capabilities. NASA's Fiscal Year 2020 budget
request and budget amendment prudently highlight partnerships with
commercial providers as a key tenet of this strategy.
Undeniably, the systems that brought Americans to the Moon during
the Apollo program were and remain a marvel. But, as we consider our
options for the future, we should look not only to technologies of the
past, but to the new advancements of today. CSF companies are proud to
be playing a role in this new era.
III. Flexible COTS-like Development Agreements and Firm, Fixed-priced
Services Contracts
These capabilities are already helping to support NASA's
exploration goals, and they will continue to support NASA as it works
to return to the Moon. As this Committee looks to how best ensure the
country's ongoing leadership in space, it must carefully review
development and acquisition efforts to ensure responsible use of finite
taxpayer dollars and to encourage, rather than hamper, rapid
innovation.
True commercial partnerships for development and operation of some
elements of the exploration architecture represent the most rapid and
cost-effective path to return to the Moon. In these partnerships, NASA
outlines high-level mission objectives and safety requirements, but
does not dictate system designs. Companies are required to compete for
awards and to self-invest; and they are paid on a fixed-price basis
only upon achieving milestones. Further, these industry-led
partnerships allow NASA to be one customer of many, stimulating a
vibrant, commercial lunar economy. Already, due in part to the
stability that NASA brings to the market as a customer, numerous
private companies are developing lunar systems and signing commercial
contracts with customers around the world.
NASA should consider the Commercial Cargo program and its
development effort--Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)--
as the ideal model as it looks to structure the lunar lander and
habitat elements of its exploration architecture. By even the most
conservative independent evaluation, the COTS Commercial Cargo public-
private partnership saved the agency hundreds of millions of dollars
and allowed NASA to redirect those savings towards funding its other
priorities, including earth observation and deep space exploration.
Numerous independent reviews of the program have repeatedly praised
this partnership for its significant savings for the taxpayer. In
August 2011, NASA, using the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM),
determined that had the agency saved between $1 billion and almost $4
billion by using the COTS model as compared to a traditional
procurement approach.
A 2014 NASA report further praised the program's use of innovative,
flexible Space Act Agreement (SAA) development arrangements:
``[b]ecause these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA
leveraged its $800M COTS program budget [for both providers combined]
with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch
vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the
efficiency of such partnerships.'' \5\ A 2017 NASA Cost Analysis review
was more direct: ``the COTS development and later the operational
Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) are significant advances in
affordability by any measure.'' \6\ Simply put, this approach works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NASA, ``Commercial Orbital Transportation Services: A New Era
in Spaceflight,'' February 2014. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/
sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf
\6\ Zapata, Edgar. An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA
COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 23 Oct. 2017, https://
ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf, pp. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As NASA looks to define a development and acquisition approach for
its lunar lander and habitat systems, it should adopt a COTS-like
structure that would:
Leverage the commercial industry's ability to innovate
quickly, improving safety and reliability. The sector's high
cadence of development and test-like-you-fly approach provides
for far greater system maturity than relying purely on
simulations and ground tests. This approach was what NASA
followed during the Apollo era, and it should return to its
roots.
Establish clear, high-level, milestone-based requirements
that enable creative, innovative, and cost-effective solutions
and avoid overly-specified and ever-changing Government
requirements. This structure forces the Government customer to
get the requirements right and clearly communicate priorities
at program start.
Use firm, fixed-priced, pay-for-performance, milestone-based
agreements that drive toward a successful conclusion and focus
on an outcome-oriented commercial service. This commercial
structure incentivizes companies to provide the deliverable at
the time, place, and price negotiated with the Government, and
discourages continuous Government requirement changes that add
costs and delay schedules.
Maximize competition throughout the entirety of the program.
Competition is critical to accelerating progress, driving value
and performance, and improving the quality of service to the
customer. Price competition obviates the need to levy
expensive, anti-competitive, non-value added requirements for
certified cost or pricing data.
Require a significant private capital contribution to the
overall program. Commercial partners should share costs and
provide a significant percentage of the overall investment,
resulting in lower costs to the Government and enabling it to
stretch its budget further.
Tolerate programmatic risk and allow easy termination for
failure to meet early requirements. The Government needs the
flexibility to terminate contracts and cut bad actors when
programs go far over budget and behind schedule.
Encourage new, non-traditional companies to work with NASA.
Traditional FAR-based contract requirements are complex and
costly, which often deters small, less-experienced companies
from working with the Government. As a result, the Government
is often not at the cutting edge of new commercial technology
offerings. The use of COTS-like contracts can help enable such
companies to do business with the Government.
Facilitate the development of new markets and leverage
market-driven pricing to support Government requirements and
missions.
Not only must NASA plan prudently to save money, it likely must
also anticipate and plan for funding levels below its requests to
Congress, due to budget issues entirely unrelated to the agency.
Indeed, NASA is already anticipating and planning for such a scenario.
When faced with budget shortfalls, NASA often attempts to make up
for the shortfalls by: 1) drawing funding one part of the agency to pay
for another part of the agency; and 2) deferring, de-scoping, or
discontinuing lower priority programs and activities within the agency.
Both options are demonstrably bad choices and lead to even worse
results for the agency--undermining support for the Moon initiative,
destabilizing other programs and missions, and leading to increased
costs and schedule delays across the agency.\7\ Instead, the Committee
should encourage NASA to follow a third way that avoids these pitfalls:
public-private partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NASA Office of Inspector General, ``NASA Cost and Schedule
Overruns: Acquisitions and Program Management Challenges'', June 2018.
Available at: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/CT-18-002.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
True commercial partnerships for development and operation of some
elements of the exploration architecture represent the most rapid and
cost-effective path to return to the Moon. Pay-for-performance creates
the proper incentives on both sides of the Government/company
relationship. Here, the GAO has reported: ``[f]irm-fixed-price
contracts place the onus on the contractor to provide the deliverable
at the time, place, and price negotiated by the contractor and the
government. In addition, firm-fixed-price contracts place the maximum
risk on the contractor as well as full responsibility for all costs and
any resulting profit or loss.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Government Accountability Office, ``NASA: Acquisition Approach
for Commercial Crew Transportation Includes Good Practices, but Faces
Significant Challenges,'' December 2011, (GAO-12-282). Available at:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To succeed, NASA must employ fast, flexible, lean contracting
agreements like SAAs to incentivize rapid and affordable development of
U.S. transportation and habitat systems to safely land humans on the
Moon by 2024.
IV. Lessons from Apollo: Constant Innovation and an Eagerness to Test
New Concepts
By any accounting, the Apollo program represents humankind's
greatest and most inspirational technological achievement. It was an
enormous undertaking, costing about $177 billion in 2019 dollars. Only
the building of the Panama Canal rivaled the Apollo program's size as
the largest non-military technological endeavor ever undertaken by the
United States and only the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb
in World War II being comparable in a wartime setting.\9\ As we honor
the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, CSF commends the Committee for
examining how our experiences and lessons learned can guide space
exploration efforts going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/Apollo.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several important lessons from Apollo need to be remembered and
should guide space exploration efforts going forward. Iterative,
evolutionary, and risk-tolerant development was the cornerstone of
NASA's Apollo-era progress:
From 1958 to 1963, the Mercury program conducted twenty
uncrewed development test flights, and six successful flights
with astronauts. Mercury's early uncrewed test flights helped
NASA find and fix problems. For example, of the twenty uncrewed
test flights, half of the flights resulted in failure or
partial success. But, the agency learned how to put astronauts
in orbit around Earth. It learned how people could live and
work in space, and it learned how to operate a spacecraft in
orbit.
Following Mercury, during a 20-month span of the Gemini
program from March 1965 to November 1966, NASA flew ten Gemini
crews to Earth orbit, each testing new capabilities in
preparation for the landing on the Moon.
And, of course, Apollo followed these programs. From 1961 to
1966, NASA launched increasingly capable iterations of the
Saturn rocket 14 times to learn valuable insights into the
complexities of building and launching a large cryogenic system
so that, before the decade was out, they had the capability to
land people on the Moon.
The Apollo-era attitude that enabled NASA to land on the Moon 50
years ago was based on constant innovation and an eagerness to test new
concepts. These are the same principles that underpin the success of
the commercial spaceflight industry today. For example:
Small-, Cube-, and Nano-Satellites are increasingly
effective and efficient platforms for remote sensing and
communication applications, and commercial providers developing
and operating these systems are revolutionizing the satellite
industry.
From 2013 to 2018, Planet, an Earth imaging company,
launched nearly 300 satellites into orbit, 150 which remain
active. Combined, they constitute the largest constellation
ever put into orbit.
Planet is not alone, companies like Advanced Space,
Amazon, Astranis, BlackSky, Maxar Technologies, and SpaceX
are each developing their own systems, with SpaceX
launching the first 60 satellites of its Starlink broadband
constellation this past May.
Thanks to the advances by the commercial space
industry, NASA is now utilizing these platforms to augment
and support the scientific investigations carried out by
the agency's larger flagship missions.
Suborbital reusable launch vehicles are providing low-cost
and frequent access to suborbital space for humans and research
payloads that are contributing to NASA's science, exploration,
and technology development missions. During a six-month span
from December 2018 to May 2019, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic
flew to space and back four times, carrying 54 research and
technology payloads, 24 of which were NASA-sponsored payloads
testing new capabilities for the agency.
The commercial industry has established and self-funded the
world's first marketplace of diverse reusable rockets, both
suborbital and orbital, which successfully launched for
commercial and government customers.
Commercial landers: successfully hotfired large lander
engines, which have been under development for several years,
and exclusively developed with private capital;
Commercial heavy lift: successfully launching the world's
most powerful operational rocket by a factor of two,
exclusively developed with private capital; and successful
test-firings of large methane rocket engines and development of
heavy lift launch vehicles;
The need for flexibility serves as another important lesson for
Apollo. For example, NASA was the was the first Federal agency to be
granted Other Transaction Authority (OTA) in the 1958 Space Act, in
order to provide NASA with the full flexibility to beat the Soviets in
the space race to the Moon.\10\ Now, as then, NASA must adapt when new
technologies and architectural approaches are introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``This was 1958 and NASA was a big deal,'' said Ralph Nash, a
government procurement law expert and founder of the Government
Contracts Program at George Washington University's National Law
Center, where he is a former dean of graduate studies and professor
emeritus. ``We were in a space race with the Russians and President
[John] Kennedy said we would get to the moon in this decade,'' he
explained. ``This was there to give them full flexibility.'' See here:
https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/03/otas-scary-new-
contracting-model-isnt-scary-or-new/146964/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Conclusion
With the technological advancements and increased knowledge
achieved through decades of work by NASA in deep space, including Mars,
the United States is now well-positioned to build upon and surpass our
past achievements in space. With NASA resources and expertise, coupled
with American ingenuity, the principles of free enterprise, and the
benefits of competition, the United States can do more in space than
has ever been accomplished previously. We just need to appropriately
recognize and leverage our advantages.
As the Nation commits to returning to the Moon by 2024, it is
buoyed by a vibrant commercial space industry powered by agile and
innovative development processes, flexibility and some level of risk
tolerance, private capital co-investment, and more intensive
innovation. In its return to the Moon, NASA does not need to go it
alone, nor should it. The most efficient and realistic way of returning
to the Moon is a hybrid approach between Government and commercial
partners.
Going to the Moon is hard. Staying there is harder, and moving
beyond to Mars is harder still. But American industry stands ready. The
Commercial Spaceflight Federation supports NASA's Fiscal Year 2020
budget request and budget amendment to more fully utilize public-
private partnership programs and commercial service buys to accelerate
cost-effective deep space exploration objectives, including sending
landers and astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024.
It is now time for the United States to build on Apollo's important
legacy. To do so, CSF recommends the following:
1. Use flexible development agreements like SAAs for development
activities and firm, fixed-price contracts for services;
2. Focus procurement approaches and requirements on an outcome-
oriented integrated commercial service rather than a government
owned or operated systems;
3. Competitively awarded, firm, fixed-price contract with payment
for meaningful deliverables and milestones, not just for
effort;
4. Maintain competition throughout--two or more companies should
proceed through the flight demonstration phase for each program
element and into follow-on service phase;
5. Eliminate Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) when there is
competition and fixed price contracting--CAS degrades speed and
adds costs without improving contract performance. Fixed-price
milestone contracts place risk on the contractor for costs and
schedule, obviating the need for cost reporting elements. Cost
Accounting Standards also serves as a barrier to entry for non-
traditional firms, artificially limiting the competitive pool;
and
6. Mirror commercial terms and conditions to the maximum extent.
Eliminate all other FAR-derived provisions that are not
essential to incentivizing the core outcome.
These are exciting times in spaceflight. We should all be proud of
what the American space enterprise--both the Government and the private
sector--is achieving. The challenges we face to achieve our goals today
are not small, but we have the ability and opportunity to address them
in a thoughtful and impactful manner given Congress' and the
Administration's support.
Indeed, NASA's budget amendment states that to ``achieve our goals,
we will not go forward alone,'' and ``strong commercial partnerships
will accelerate our human exploration plans.'' We are ready to take
that step with NASA, and we look forward to continuing to work with
this Committee to the Nation sustainably returns to the Moon and
ventures to Mars. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Sinema, I appreciate
your invitation to testify before the Committee today. Thank you for
your attention, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Stallmer. Thank you to each of
the witnesses for your testimony today.
As we sit here today reflecting back on the last 50 years
and the journey that America has traveled and that space
exploration has traveled since that giant leap for mankind, I
think it is also appropriate for us not just to look backward
but to look forwards and to ask what do the next 50 years hold?
In the year 2069, perhaps our kids or grandkids will be
participating in another hearing marking the 100-year
anniversary of man landing on the Moon, and so my first
question I want to ask the panel is in the next 50 years, what
should we hope to accomplish in space? What should our
objectives be? What should we be looking forward to?
Mr. Stallmer. I think what is paramount is that over the
last 50 years, we could have and should have done a lot more.
As young people that looked at the Apollo era 50 years ago and
said, gosh, we landed a man on the Moon, in 1985, what are we
going to do, and 20 years later what could we be doing, and
what have we done? We haven't really returned back to the Moon
as humans.
I think we really need to accelerate and not think as much
the next 50 years but maybe the next 20 years what we can do
and I think we have all the ingredients to do it properly.
I think this reinvigorated look to the Moon, to the
exploration, to setting up a base on the Moon, what Gateway
will provide, and the outlook and future vision for what we can
do on Mars. I don't think we should focus so far in 50 years,
but I think in the next 25 years, when a lot of these young
people in this room behind me are coming of age and these
engineers that they will have that opportunity to live and work
in space and develop the new businesses that are going to help
promote--I mean, the global space market right now is a $360
billion industry.
I agree with you that it's going to be a trillion dollar
industry, probably within a decade, and we have to look at what
are those commercial opportunities that are going to be
available in space and that's what excites me.
Mr. Kranz. I think from my standpoint, we had an excellent
plan that was written by Tom Paine. It was probably the most
widely distributed plan with participation from industry,
commerce, academia, right on down the line. It was called
Pioneering the Space Frontier.
I think the key thing that we have to do is establish a
plan and stick with it. Since then, there have been at least
three other plans. It was interesting in that Pioneering the
Space Frontier, Gateway was discussed but never showed up in
any of the subsequent plans.
So the question is, is that there's good work out there.
What we have to do, I think really this Administration should
do to fit into the Artemis plans here, is truly take a look at
those plans that have been written and see what parts still are
viable, what parts fit together, because you're talking about a
direction well beyond the Moon. You're talking about a
direction for the future and this plan was really--the
Pioneering the Space Frontier was a 50-year plan, I believe. I
think it's worthwhile to address.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Kranz, in your testimony, you stated that
you don't see the same national unity that we saw in the 1960s
that led to the successful Apollo Program.
Mr. Kranz. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Can you elaborate on that----
Mr. Kranz. Well, this----
Senator Cruz.--and what we need to do to achieve that unity
once again?
Mr. Kranz. I could talk for hours on this. I've finished
writing a book. I don't know if it'll get published because
I've addressed my perspective of the agency and our work in
space since the time I joined back in 1963 through actually the
first four decades. It was very influential from my standpoint.
I was trying to figure out why--I was director of Mission
Operations for a while and why we got such confusing change of
plans, directions, right on down the line. Aaron Cohen in the
oral history described the period after Challenger as the time
worse than chaos. He was one of the center directors. He'd been
up at headquarters. That was his part of his oral history.
Dick Truly did the same thing. He talked about rough seas,
steadying the course. So it's really a question that I go back
into the leadership focus that we need within the agency but it
starts at the very top and says this is what we're going to do.
What I want you to do is give me a set of plans to
accomplish that objective. I'll work with you to pick the
people but we need to find leadership. We ought to go to the--
you know, when I was growing up in space, we had very
competitive industries. We had incredible aircraft and
aerospace industry in there. We were able to get people from
McDonnell Aircraft, John Yardley to come down and show us how
to start a program and get it started. He was teaching us the
business of program management.
Dale Myers came in, the same thing. I hated the Falcon
telcons, but they were places where we learned the business
from the professionals of the business. So I think the key
thing is the future is there. A lot of the plans are there. We
have to establish which plan we're going to subscribe to and
get on with it and then find the leaders to implement it.
Senator Cruz. So final question. In your judgment, what are
the benefits to Americans of returning to the Moon and
establishing a sustainable habitat on the Moon? Mr. Hickam, you
addressed this already.
Mr. Hickam. Yes, you know, I was raised in a little town of
Coalwood, West Virginia, and in places like Coalwood,
bituminous coal was brought up in the early 20th Century that
basically fueled the American economy and really the
civilization of this country.
So what would I like to see in 50 years? I'd like to see
Coalwood on the Moon. I'd like to see families raised on the
Moon. I'd like to see blue collar workers, miners, getting
money in their pockets and essentially creating a space-based
economy because I agree with you; the first trillionaire is
going to be from space. The place to go to make that happen is
the Moon, and how can we make that happen?
When Mr. Carter who built Coalwood first went in there, he
went on the back of a mule but that mule went--first, he got
off the railroad, took the mule and him on the railroad to a
certain station, then got off of that on a road that was built
that took him into Coalwood and there he sunk the shaft and
brought up about a million tons of coal.
Then it's the government's responsibility, in my opinion,
to do very much the same on the Moon. We need to put an anchor
on the Moon, a place where people can go, companies can go,
countries can go, and from there they can branch out and
develop Coalwoods on the Moon and basically cause a real space
economy to develop.
Senator Cruz. Well, and I'm looking forward to seeing the
space suit that we can fit a mule into.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hickam. Me, too.
Senator Cruz. Senator Sinema.
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again
for your testimony.
My first question is for Dr. Darden and Mr. Kranz. Both of
you worked at NASA leading up to and during the Apollo missions
and can offer a unique perspective on how NASA achieved its
ambitious goal in the 1960s.
What lessons do you believe NASA's current leadership and
workforce can learn from your experiences at NASA during the
Apollo missions as we prepare to return to the Moon?
Dr. Darden. Well, when I went to NASA, they were two years
away from walking on the Moon, I went in 1967, but I think his
comments about the leadership, the commitment, and the
background that they had in working with the other programs,
Project Mercury and Gemini, I think all of those were factors
of how these persons pulled together and were committed to
making that a successful program, successful project.
Mr. Kranz. From my point, I think that there was the mutual
sharing of knowledge. When I first got to NASA, I told you I
didn't know anything about rocket spacecraft, Mercury
spacecraft, but I could walk around Hangar S where the
spacecraft. I could go down to the Block House, talk to the
booster people. I could go over to the Marine Safety people.
So it was a question. There was so much to do and so much
to learn that literally everybody spent the entire day telling
everybody what they learned and vice versa.
So I think we have to re-establish this passion, the
energy, the imagination in our organizations, and I think this
starts right at the top in the leadership. I think somewhere
along the line our leadership values have sort of been subtly
changed. It might be generational to a great extent, but I
think the generation I came from, I call it the Apollo
generation, the sons and daughters of the Greatest Generation,
I think they had a, what I'd say, growing up, born in the
Depression.
I think we have to sort of like--we constitute what our
Nation is and what it stands for and what we expect from our
people. What are the expectations we have for all employees at
NASA, Federal Government, right on down the line?
And Mission Control, right after the Apollo 1 fire, which
was disastrous, many of us lived through that 18 seconds, but
we sat down after we finished and wrote up the searing
impressions we had in such a fashion that we would never go
through this again and we call it The Foundations. In fact,
it's on the Internet and I get requests for this every day but
I'm surprised going to Fortune 500 companies and see it on the
wall.
I see the Kranz Dictum where I was angry, passionate,
accept responsibility for the Apollo 1 fire. The crew could
have called it off. I could have called it off. The touch
conductors could have called it, but nobody said stop, it's not
right.
So it's a question we have to redefine expectations that we
have for ourselves, our organizations, our people, and our
leadership, and I think it's there. What we've got to do is put
it in words. We need to establish some shared values that we're
all working to.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. GAO's 2018 Assessment of Major
Projects at NASA pointed out that more than half of NASA's
workforce is over the age of 50 and 21 percent of NASA's
workforce is already eligible for retirement.
Workforce challenges exist beyond NASA. Since the Shuttle
Program ended in 2011, many of the commercial manufacturers and
suppliers who had for decades supported NASA missions were left
to close up shop and many of the skilled employees who worked
to support NASA programs went and found work elsewhere.
So my next question is for Dr. Dittmar and Mr. Stallmer. As
the United States prepares again to send Americans into space
and return to the Moon, do you believe the current workforce at
NASA and its commercial partners is sufficient to support a
long-term series of American space leadership?
Dr. Dittmar. So in my written testimony, I did address this
to some extent, but let me just sort of recap briefly.
There have been several studies recently that have looked
at when people first become interested in going into aerospace
and about 71 percent of them become interested while they're in
grade school.
The pressure that you're describing with regard to people
continuing to work, stay in the workforce longer does make it
difficult for younger people to enter. At the same time,
however, there are terrestrially based activities, IT,
computing, advanced artificial intelligence, a number of those,
and those high-tech firms, they actually have been attracting
for some time some of the best and brightest in the country.
So the situation that we're facing is we have an aging work
force. We do have positions opening up but a lot of those
positions are being competed for by other industries that are
very attractive and so as a country, I think it's very
important that we focus on making sure that we continue to
provide educational opportunities, that that education is top-
notch.
The United States remains in the third, the upper third by
almost every measure I've seen in the last 10 years, we haven't
moved very much, the upper third of other nations with regard
to STEM education. Upper third is OK. It's better than the
lower third, but it's not where we should be.
So I think a national focus on making sure that our folks
are actually prepared to go into this work, continuing
development of jobs, both through national programs and through
commercial development, I think is very important, so we open
up opportunities for people to be able to come into that.
The same is true for science. We underfund science in this
country to an extraordinary extent. That's been noted for the
last 20 years, since the Augustine Rising Above the Gathering
Storm. Actually it's a little bit older than that now. I'm
getting older than that. And so I think for quite some time,
we've had a lot of indications that we really need to remain
focused on this.
I do think aerospace and defense continue to inspire and I
think the sooner we get back to the Moon and start doing some
great things on the Moon, the more we'll be pulling people into
these industries, but we need to make sure that they have the
basis to come and work.
Diversity also, forgot to mention that, also that's another
problem, is that in the last 20-30 years, the face of the
workforce really hasn't changed very much and people have
worked on it very hard in aerospace and defense and yet it's
about the same as it was 40 years ago, yet we know that a more
diverse workforce is actually a more competitive work force. So
this is another issue that it's a tough-to crack but it's one
that we need to keep on working on.
Mr. Stallmer. Yes, I think it's a great question and I see
it a little differently.
I see NASA as really one of the marquee government
agencies. I just traveled to Europe and everywhere you go,
people are wearing NASA logo tee-shirts. NASA is a brand. It is
an inspirational brand, and I understand the aging workforce
issues.
Why I say I see it a little differently, from the
commercial companies that I represent, companies like SpaceX
and Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic, they can't hire enough
people and there's a line out the door for people that want to
work for these type of companies, these innovative, cutting-
edge companies that are really pushing the envelope in a
fantastic way that's really moving the needle for our
industries.
We also represent universities. There are two universities
in Arizona that we represent, Arizona State University, where
we'll be having our next board meeting, and U of A out there,
and the programs that they're having, the innovative programs
and studies, the space studies programs that they have are
fantastic and they're really preparing these students well to
go into the workforce.
I caution myself to tread lightly on this next issue, but
there is an immigration problem that we have or maybe a visa
problem. We're the most generous country in the world. We
educate people from all over the world and we give them one of
the finest educations, some of the advanced educations,
doctorates in aerospace engineers, and we're so generous that
we give them a diploma and we also give them a ticket home.
Those are the people that we want to keep, some of the best
and the brightest, instead of sending them back to China and
India and elsewhere. Let's keep those people. They can help the
work force. As Mary Lynne said, the diversity of the work
force, I think we're making efforts. I'm not going to turn
around and look, but I know that this week, there's a program
called the Brooke Owens Fellowship Program that gets 36 young
women from across the country.
Is there anyone from the Brooke Owens Fellowship Program
behind us or alumni? I think there are some here.
But they're all coming into town. There are internships all
across the country and I think we're doing a better job of
inspiring young women to go into the fields of math and
science. We're not there yet, but I think the effort is being
made and I see a lot of the companies that I work with trying
to advance that, as well.
Senator Sinema. Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Mr. Hickam. Can I just add? Just as the Chairman of the
Board of the Space and Rocket Center, that includes Space Camp
and Space Academy. So I would like to add that we have kind of
a shadow space workforce program down there. We've trained
hundreds of thousands of young people, including 11 astronauts,
all women, by the way, so far. So that program down there
completely self-funded is doing a remarkable job of getting
young men and women interested in STEM.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Capito.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
Ranking Member Sinema. It's great to be here to listen and to
see my good friend, Mr. Hickam, here, Homer.
You'd be surprised that West Virginia has a great history
of space. We started--we didn't start but we do have Chuck
Yeager, who was quite a wild one and he's still around. We also
had John McBride, who was a commander on the shuttle, and then
our mathematician, Katherine Johnson, and then Homer, as well.
I just had the honor of dedicating, renaming the NASA IV&V
Center in Fairmont, West Virginia, in honor of Katherine
Johnson, and I've heard some very much concern today about the
next generation, but I'm going to tell you we had about 250 to
300 people there and by far the greatest majority of them were
younger people that were so excited to see and, of course, it's
a cross-section of sort of the media and the book but to
recognize her and her great accomplishments at NASA over her
lifetime.
Roy Lee Cooke was there because we weren't able to get you
to come and Roy was waiting for you but, anyway, he's doing
well. He's doing well, I report. He was another rocket boy.
The other thing we learned on the Artemis, there was quite
a lot of discussion about the Artemis Project because the
Administrator was there and did a great job to sort of inform
everybody, people don't know about this. This is a problem, I
think. Maybe we're not tuned into it, but we're not--I had
never heard of Artemis until I walked into that dedication
later in the day and it talked about the sustainability of the
mission and how we're going to have a long-term presence in and
around the Moon.
I said of course we are because it's going to be the first
one where a woman is going to go to the Moon and we will
sustain it for you guys. So don't worry about that.
Also, Yvonne Cagle was there, who's an astronaut, and she
was expressing her desire to go to Mars, which to me sounds
just so are you kidding me, go to Mars? You know, I'm having
trouble going back and forth from West Virginia to Washington
and I said why do you want to go to Mars? Why do you really
want to go to Mars? She goes I really want to see what effect
it has on my body. She's a physician. So she's very curious
about the science of what it would have on her own body and is
willing to do this for her but also for the country and for the
advancement of science.
In the back of the room, there were robotics teams. There
were about 15 of them from high school and middle school and It
was interesting because in the robotics teams, they all had
mentors who was either a parent or somebody who did something
else and did this in their free time once a week, twice a week,
and during the competitive times more than that, and I think,
you know, about you, Homer, and I think about your book and how
the emphasis you had on your teachers in Coalwood and
everything, and I thought why aren't we incorporating more of
this into the regular curriculum of our schools so that the
teachers are there.
Mentors are great, but they're volunteers, and it's tough
for them. They have another job. They have other family
responsibilities. So I would just like to ask you, Homer, if
you could talk about the influence of your teacher and your
mentors on you and your investment in science and how you see
that now in the context of what we want to do in the future.
Mr. Hickam. Thank you, Senator Capito, for the question.
Of course, one of the major elements that I wrote about in
Rocket Boys was our teachers, especially one teacher, our Ms.
Riley, who was our science teacher at Big Creek High School,
who so influenced us, who brought us a book that was called
Principles of Guided Missile Design when we were trying to
figure out how to build rockets.
I later saw that book in a Ph.D. program for rocket
science. It required a working knowledge of calculus and
differential equations and I personally was having trouble with
algebra at the time. But Ms. Riley said all I've done is give
you a book. You've got to have the courage to learn what's
inside of it.
So she and other inspiring teachers right there in little
McDowell County, West Virginia, were pretty amazing and they
raised a generation of coal miners' kids who went out and did
some pretty great things, I'd have to say, not me especially,
but we have captains of industry that came out of that era
before, of course, the coal industry ran into problems.
Now the way I look at it now is and try to support that
again is that Space and Rocket Center, Space Camp, and Space
Academy, Honeywell, Grumman, and other aerospace companies send
and pay for teachers to come to Space Camp and I make a special
room on my calendar to go out and talk to those teachers when
they come in and, my goodness, they are so enthusiastic about
the space program. And the neat thing about a teacher, you
know, we can teach a young person at Space Camp and Space
Academy and they will have all this knowledge, but if you teach
a teacher, my goodness, you think of the hundreds and thousands
of students that they then are able to pass this knowledge
along and the enthusiasm for the space program.
So we must never forget our teachers. God bless them all.
Senator Capito. Thanks. Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Gardner.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
hosting this hearing today.
This is a pretty incredible panel for a kid who grew up on
the Eastern Plains of Colorado and wanted to be an astronaut. I
failed miserably at that, but I'll never forget the letters
that I wrote to NASA and the pictures I got back from NASA.
Mr. Kranz, Dr. Darden, Mr. Hickam, there's a reason people
wrote books about you and made movies about you, that you're
featured in our culture and our ideas and our society. It's
because of the impact you've had on kids like me.
Turn around and look at the young people in this room.
Please turn around. Look at them all. Raise your hand if you've
been inspired by the work that any one of these have done on
the panel. Please raise your hand right now if you want to lead
better lives because of the people on this panel.
[Majority of the room raising their hands.]
Senator Gardner. This is what it's about. You didn't just
change the 1960s. You've changed the world with an impact that
will last forever.
I mean, Mr. Hickam, all I've done is given you a book. You
have to have the courage to find out what's inside it. That
comment that your teacher made is so powerful. Thank you for
being here. Thank you for the work you've done, and I hope that
as we look at things like the Rising Above the Gathering Storm
and the America COMPETES Bill and the American Innovation and
Competitiveness Act, the work that we will continue to do to
rise above the storm that often is Washington, we'll make every
single one of the people that raised their hands in this
auditorium, this committee room proud of the policies this
Congress pursues and this country pursues because the day that
somebody else lands on Mars and not the United States, the day
that somebody else invents the next better light bulb, the day
that somebody else has created the next better internet, the
next better algorithm, is the day that those jobs, those ideas,
those teachers, those people go somewhere else, and the power
of that innovation, the power of that idea, that thought is no
longer here.
We have to maintain that incredible power that is the
United States and not the military prowess but the power of the
people sitting before this committee, what's in your head, the
knowledge that you have that you've given to this country.
Thank you for the work that you continue to do to inspire,
to dream, to hope, to aspire, to create, because you've made
this country a great place.
Thanks. That's all I have.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Gardner, and thank you for
in particular pointing out all the young people here and all of
us who are inspired.
Dr. Darden, I wanted to ask a follow-up question. As I
mentioned in my opening, you and I visited a couple of weeks
ago at the dedication of the new street sign in front of the
NASA Headquarters, Hidden Figures Way, and so now NASA
Headquarters is on a street named after you and named after
your colleagues and fellow pioneers and as you and I discussed
then, I'm particularly inspired because like you, my mom was a
mathematician who became a computer programmer in the 1950s and
1960s, and indeed at the Smithsonian helped work on computing
the orbit of Sputnik and when I went to see the movie Hidden
Figures, I took my mom and my wife and both my daughters, and
afterwards, I was talking with my girls and telling them that
Meme, their grandmother, had been doing much the same as you
were doing and your colleagues.
I was commenting--I asked my mother at the time. I said,
``All right, how accurate was the movie in terms of what it was
like to be a woman and a mathematician in the 1960s?''--or in
her case starting in the 1950s. And her reaction was she
thought it was quite accurate, and I said one of the odder
things to me listening to it was seeing people called
computers.
You know, we think of a computer as a hunk of metal on a
desk, not a human being who's computing, and my mother began
laughing and she said when she came out of Rice in 1956 and
went to work at Shell, her first job title was computer and so
I would just ask you, Dr. Darden, if you could tell this
Committee what it was like to be a human computer, to be
helping drive the incredible success of NASA all these years?
Dr. Darden. Well, I think we worked with great people. I
would say to you, and it's a confession, I did not like being
called a computer.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Darden. But the support work that we did--I could
program when I went there. So the support work that we did with
engineers and everything was very great. I think that what
really inspired me is to know what the work that I was doing,
the equations I worked with, what they were doing to the real
world,----
Senator Cruz. Right.
Dr. Darden.--how they were evaluating the wind tunnels
there, such that when we used that data to go fly, everything
was correct, and so that really inspired me, but I worked with
wonderful people and so that's when I--and I went there as a
data analyst, but soon after, about the time that the Apollo
Program ended, I began asking to be switched to an engineer and
I switched to the engineer at about a year after super-sonic
flight across the Continental United States had been banned by
law and the SST Program had been canceled, and so that became
my life after that and, I mean, I kind of dreamt that and lived
with it for 25 years and still hoping that the airplane that
Lockheed-Martin builds will be able to have us get rid of that
law. We can have supersonic flight in this country.
So it was great. Certainly when Apollo was going up and
everything, it was just fantastic to see these things happening
in our lives and my vision for the space in a few years, I
guess, is that we can actually start operating in space like we
operate the airplanes on Earth. So I actually dream of that
kind of mobility within space.
Senator Cruz. I look forward to that.
Mr. Stallmer, in your testimony, you mentioned that ``since
2000, investors have supported 375 private space companies with
nearly $19 billion in private capital.''
Like you, I think that is a wonderful development. I think
that is key to expanding into space at the level we need to.
My question for you, and Dr. Dittmar, feel free to chime in
here, as well, if you have thoughts, what should we be doing
turn that $19 billion to increase it tenfold and then a
hundredfold to get the resources invested that will be needed
to go to the Moon and build a habitat and go to Mars and go to
Europa and explore space?
Mr. Stallmer. I think it's critical for investors to see
that the government is a partner, not an adversary, and I
wouldn't say that any such agency, you know, is deliberately
trying to impede what we are doing, but when you have that
partnership, that stability of working with these various
government agencies, it provides a sense of assurance, I think,
for other investors.
There are a lot of investors out there, not just in the
U.S. but around the world, and of that $19 billion, over $4.3
billion of that came from last year alone. So 71 unique
investors, you know, that have invested in space companies in
the last two years alone. So there's money out there. They want
to see the stability of the government.
I think that what the Senate has done with your committee,
the bipartisanship of your committee working together has been
a real beacon for many to see. I think the President's
enthusiasm on the space program with the creation of the
National Space Council, the UAG, which Homer and Mary Lynne and
I all serve on, and the passion, the reinvigorated passion, I
should say, for the Space Program, I think that's sending a
great message to investors and the regulatory environment, and
I think this was highlighted in the Space Frontier Act.
Now how do we streamline this regulatory environment to
make it more accessible and streamlined, you know, to access
space? A lot of the rules and regulations that we're under
under the current regime go back to the 1980s when there wasn't
a commercial space industry at all. It was all government
space. So how do we adapt to that, and I think your Committee
has done a fantastic job on trying to address these issues, and
I thank you both for that.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Dr. Dittmar, did you have----
Dr. Dittmar. Yes, no. I'll just agree with everything that
Eric has said.
I think in my testimony I made some references to
essentially how we go forward with government. Government
acquisition processes make a lot of sense when you have very
long lead time. Programs take a long time. They have a heavy
R&D component using traditional acquisition processes under
those circumstances make sense, although accountability is also
very important and should not be lost.
But I think also the Nation needs to have a conversation
with itself about what are the goals with regard to developing
an off-Earth economy, however it is you want to talk about it.
Right now, that's sort of been left with NASA, right,
because, I mean, it's the space agency, but I think there are
reasonable questions to be asked. We need to talk about
economic development of low-Earth orbit, for example. NASA is
not an economic development agency. It's a space agency.
So it recently rolled out--because Eric's going to talk
about this a little bit tomorrow, but NASA recently rolled out
some commercial development ideas on July 7th. Does all that
belong in NASA's hands? Should we be talking to the Department
of Commerce? Does it make sense to sort of get some other--
including NGOs, I mean, to sort of look at this?
This is really significant. We're talking about doing
economic development off the Earth. I mean, let that sink in
for a minute. We're not so hot at it down here. It could take
20 years, it could take 20-30 years, and we don't have the sort
of barriers that we have once we're trying to launch.
So I think there needs to be a serious conversation
probably in the halls of government, perhaps in Congress and
other places, about how do we really go about doing that and
how much investment do we want to make in that and what kind of
investment? Do we want to start talking about government=backed
loans? I mean, there are lots of means to talk about economic
development. How do we go about doing it?
Senator Cruz. Well, thank you very much, and let me thank
each of the witnesses for, I think, very helpful and productive
testimony. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your careers
and lifetime that has inspired so many young girls and young
boys and augers well for the future.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks, closing
on July 23. During that time, Senators are asked to submit any
questions for the record and upon receipt, the witnesses are
requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as
soon as possible.
And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]