[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]