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

                       NASA's FUTURE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT:
                        CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL
                     SPACE STATION EXTENSION AND TRANSITION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-29
                                   __________

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

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    45-537PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

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

                     Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

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

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                               September 21, 2021

                                                                       Page

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

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Don Beyer, Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
      Technology, U.S. House of Representatives......................    11
        Written Statement............................................    12

    Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
      Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    14
        Written Statement............................................    15

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    16
        Written Statement............................................    17

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    18

                                   Witnesses:

    Ms. Robyn Gatens, Director, International Space Station, National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    19
        Written Statement............................................    22

    Dr. Kathleen ``Kate'' Rubins, Astronaut, National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    28
        Written Statement............................................    30

    Mr. Jeffrey Manber, Chief Executive Officer, Nanoracks, LLC
        Oral Statement...............................................    36
        Written Statement............................................    38

    Mr. Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow and Director of the Aerospace
      Security Project, Center for Strategic and International
      Studies
        Oral Statement...............................................    47
        Written Statement............................................    49

    Captain William Shepherd (USN, Ret), former Astronaut, National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................    54
        Written Statement............................................    56

    Discussion.......................................................    59

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Ms. Robyn Gatens, Director, International Space Station, National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration...........................    78

    Dr. Kathleen ``Kate'' Rubins, Astronaut, National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration...........................................    89

    Mr. Jeffrey Manber, Chief Executive Officer, Nanoracks, LLC......    93

    Mr. Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow and Director of the Aerospace
      Security Project, Center for Strategic and International
      Studies........................................................    95

    Captain William Shepherd (USN, Ret), former Astronaut, National
      Aeronautics and Space Administration...........................    96

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Letter submitted by Aerospace Industries Association and
      Commercial Spaceflight Federation..............................   100

    Letter submitted by Mr. Peter Cannito, CEO/Chairman, Redwire.....   101

                       NASA'S FUTURE IN LOW EARTH ORBIT:
                       CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL
                           SPACE STATION EXTENSION
                                AND TRANSITION

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2021

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

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m.,
    via Zoom, Hon. Donald S. Beyer, Jr. [Chairman of the
    Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Beyer. Good morning and welcome to our
    distinguished witnesses. We're very pleased to have you with us
    today as we discuss ``NASA's Future in Low Earth Orbit:
    Considerations for International Space Station Extension and
    Transition.''
        The International Space Station, ISS, has been an important
    component of America's post-Apollo human spaceflight program
    for decades. Beginning in 1984 with President Reagan's
    resurrecting the idea of developing a crewed orbiting station
    that would include our allies and our partners, followed by
    President Clinton's decision to include the Russians in a
    redesigned station, it has continued through multiple
    Congresses and Administrations with development, assembly, and
    now full utilization. In many ways, the ISS epitomizes the
    long-term continuity of purpose is that essential for our human
    spaceflight program.
        During its more than two decades of operation, the ISS has
    cemented our international partnerships, enabled knowledge of
    large structural assembly in space, supported extensive basic
    and applied research, maintained U.S. expertise in human
    spaceflight operations, enabled the development of public-
    private partnerships for cargo and crew transportation to the
    ISS, and opened space to multiple users, including commercial
    entities, academia, and other Federal Government agencies.
        And it allowed me to just recite the longest sentence I've
    ever seen.
        Perhaps most importantly, it continues to inspire our youth
    as they are born into an era that has never been without an
    American living and working in low Earth orbit (LEO).
        This Committee and multiple Congresses have shaped U.S.
    policy related to the ISS. Today, we must continue to exercise
    our responsibilities as we face important decisions on the
    future of NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's) role in low Earth orbit, the duration of ISS
    operations, what should follow, and ensuring a U.S. presence in
    LEO.
        By the way, the nice part about this being remote for many
    of you is you don't have to listen to this ``expletive
    deleted'' bell.
        Anyway, has the ISS fulfilled its purpose? If not, what
    additional objectives need to be achieved during the ISS's
    lifetime? How much time is needed? And is the ISS, as a
    facility, structurally fit to support the duration required to
    achieve those objectives?
        And if we're going to consider extending the ISS, we'll
    need assurances of its structural integrity, because, whether
    due to routine use, aging, or otherwise, the ISS structure is
    not problem-free. A debris hit to the Canadian arm, air leaks
    in the Russian segment, and the incident of the newly attached
    Russian module firing its thrusters, causing the ISS to flip
    until attitude control was regained, are recent examples.
        The 2020 annual report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory
    Panel, the ASAP, recommended that NASA document the ISS life-
    limiting systems and components through and beyond 2028 which
    are considered to be of highest risk to ISS lifetime and that
    NASA assess the engineering lead time required to develop and
    fly solutions to the highest-risk failures if they were to
    occur before 2028.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this
    matter. Whatever decision is made on the lifetime of ISS
    operations, we need a strong plan in place to ensure research
    and related activities can be transitioned seamlessly to
    alternative capabilities without a gap.
        And as we look to ISS transition, there's no getting around
    the fact that we'll need to consider the plan for deorbiting
    the facility and the cost and responsibilities for that action.
        The 2017 NASA Authorization Act directed NASA to develop a
    plan to transition in a step-wise approach from the current
    regime that relies heavily on NASA's sponsorship to a regime
    where NASA could be one of many customers of an LEO
    nongovernmental human spaceflight enterprise.
        NASA's current post-ISS plans are to use commercial LEO
    platforms, or destinations, to support its future activities in
    low Earth orbit and to purchase services from commercial LEO
    providers. While commercial activities in LEO are developing,
    multiple market studies have shown that commercial demand is
    not yet sufficient to support a commercial LEO platform or
    platforms and that NASA will need to be an anchor tenant for
    the foreseeable future.
        To that end, we'll need to understand NASA's costs and
    related commitments once ISS operations cease and what NASA
    support a private LEO platform will need, at what level, and
    for how long. We also need to understand the demand for a
    National Laboratory in low Earth orbit following the end of
    ISS.
        Because all of these decisions, while consequential from a
    U.S. policy perspective, they also come with costs and resource
    implications, we need to go in with our eyes wide open. There's
    $3 billion to $4 billion in annual costs of operating the
    station for whatever duration is decided, in addition to any
    NASA investment in commercial platform development and the
    future costs associated with purchasing commercial LEO
    services.
        And who's to pay for the sustainment of commercial LEO
    platforms, including repairs, supplies, and ground-based
    mission operations? Will commercial providers be prepared to
    bear all of these costs? And what level of savings is NASA
    anticipating to accrue from being a customer?
        Well, we have a lot to discuss today, and I look forward to
    our witness testimonies.
        In closing, our decisions about the ISS and what follows
    are not only essential to sustaining our research in LEO, they
    also concern our Nation's strategic presence in space. How
    we'll continue to engage with our international partners in LEO
    in a post-ISS era and the implications of other activities,
    including China's space station, must be considered.
        The ISS partnership is a beacon of, and a vehicle for,
    peaceful international cooperation in outer space that has
    built the foundation for our collaborative next steps in human
    exploration--Moon to Mars. Maintaining the fabric of this
    peaceful coalition must guide us as this Subcommittee and
    Committee continues to shape our Nation's policy for civil
    space in low Earth orbit and outer space.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Beyer follows:]

        Good morning, and welcome to our distinguished witnesses.
    We are very pleased to have you with us today as we discuss
    ``NASA's Future in Low Earth Orbit: Considerations for
    International Space Station Extension and Transition.''
        The International Space Station-the ISS-has been an
    important component of America's post-Apollo human spaceflight
    program for decades. Beginning in 1984 with President Reagan's
    resurrecting the idea of developing a crewed orbiting space
    station that would include our allies and partners, followed by
    President Clinton's decision to include the Russians in a
    redesigned station, it has continued through multiple
    Congresses and Administrations with development, assembly, and
    now full utilization. In many ways, the ISS epitomizes the
    long-term continuity of purpose that is essential to our human
    spaceflight program.
        During its more than two decades of operation, the ISS has
    cemented our international partnerships, enabled knowledge of
    large structural assembly in space, supported extensive basic
    and applied research, maintained US expertise in human
    spaceflight operations, enabled the development of public
    private partnerships for cargo and crew transportation to the
    ISS, and opened space to multiple users, including commercial
    entities, academia, and other Federal government agencies.
    Perhaps, most importantly, it continues to inspire our youth as
    they are born into an era that has never been without an
    American living and working in low Earth orbit.
        This Committee and multiple Congresses have shaped U.S.
    policy related to the ISS, and today we must continue to
    exercise our responsibilities as we face important decisions on
    the future of NASA's role in low Earth orbit, the duration of
    ISS operations, what should follow, and ensuring a U.S.
    presence in LEO.
        Has the ISS fulfilled its purpose? If not, what additional
    objectives need to be achieved during the ISS lifetime, how
    much additional time is needed, and is the ISS, as a facility,
    structurally fit to support the duration required to achieve
    those objectives?
        If we're going to consider extending the ISS, we will need
    assurances of its structural integrity and safety.
        Because, whether due to routine use, aging, or otherwise,
    the ISS structure is not problem-free. A debris hit to the
    Canadian arm, air leaks in the Russian segment, and the
    incident of the newly attached Russian module firing its
    thrusters--causing the ISS to flip over until attitude control
    was regained--are recent examples.
        The 2020 Annual Report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory
    Panel--the ASAP--recommended ``that NASA document the ISS life-
    limiting systems and components-through and beyond 2028-which
    are considered . . . to be of highest risk to ISS lifetime''
    and that ``NASA assess the engineering lead time required to
    develop and fly solutions to the highest risk failures if they
    were to occur before 2028.''
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this
    matter.
        Whatever decision is made on the lifetime of ISS
    operations, we'll need a strong plan in place to ensure
    research and related activities can be transitioned seamlessly
    to alternative capabilities without a gap.
        And, as we look to ISS transition, there is no getting
    around the fact that we'll need to consider the plan for
    deorbiting the facility, and the cost and responsibilities for
    that action.
        The 2017 NASA Authorization Act directed NASA ``to develop
    a plan to transition in a step-wise approach from the current
    regime that relies heavily on NASA sponsorship to a regime
    where NASA could be one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit
    non-governmental human space flight enterprise.''
        NASA's current post-ISS plans are to use commercial LEO
    platforms or ``destinations'' to support its future activities
    in low Earth orbit and to purchase services from a commercial
    LEO providers.
        While commercial activities in LEO are developing, multiple
    market studies have shown that commercial demand is not yet
    sufficient to support a commercial LEO platform or platforms
    and that NASA will need to be an anchor tenant for the
    foreseeable future.
        To that end we'll need to understand NASA's costs and
    related commitments, once ISS operations cease, and what NASA
    support a private LEO platform will need, at what level, and
    for how long. We'll also need to understand the demand for a
    National Laboratory in low Earth orbit following the end of the
    ISS.
        Because all of these decisions, while consequential from a
    U.S. policy perspective, also come with costs and resource
    implications. We need to go in with our eyes wide open.
        There's the $3-4 billion annual costs of operating the
    Station for whatever duration is decided, in addition to any
    NASA investment in commercial platform development, and the
    future costs associated with purchasing commercial LEO
    services.
        And who is to pay for the sustainment of commercial LEO
    platforms, including repairs, supplies and ground-based mission
    operations? Will commercial providers be prepared to bear all
    of these costs, and what level of ``savings'' is NASA
    anticipating to accrue from being a customer?
        Well, we have a lot to discuss today and I look forward to
    our witnesses testimony.
        In closing, our decisions about the ISS and what follows
    are not only essential to sustaining our research in LEO, they
    also concern our nation's strategic presence in space. How
    we'll continue to engage with our international partners in LEO
    in a post-ISS era, and the implications of other activities,
    including China's Space Station, must be considered.
        The ISS partnership is a beacon of, and vehicle for,
    peaceful, international cooperation in outer space that has
    built the foundation for our collaborative next steps in human
    exploration-Moon to Mars. Maintaining the fabric of this
    peaceful coalition must guide us as this Subcommittee and
    Committee continues to shape our nation's policy for civil
    space in low Earth orbit and outer space.

        Chairman Beyer. Now let me recognize my good friend, the
    Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee, Dr. Brian Babin from
    Texas.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it.
        We are at an inflection point for our Nation's space
    program. Last year, NASA once again launched American
    astronauts on American rockets from American soil. Earlier this
    summer, we witnessed two suborbital commercial human launches.
    Just last week, the first spaceflight participant mission
    achieved orbit. The Space Launch System will launch within a
    few months. And the Artemis program will return to the Moon,
    and that is underway.
        We also celebrated the 20th anniversary of continuous
    occupation of the International Space Station, the ISS, last
    November, recognizing Expedition 1 when Bill Shepherd ushered
    in the current era of space exploration. We're privileged to
    have Bill testify before us today as one of our expert
    witnesses.
        A lot has happened since then. We suffered the tragic loss
    of Columbia in 2003, grounded the shuttle fleet for over 2
    years as part of the Return to Flight effort, and completed
    space shuttle assembly of the ISS in 2011, canceled the shuttle
    program as we developed new spacecraft, and relied on the
    Russian Soyuz launches for crew transfer for far too long.
        Throughout all of this, the ISS and the international
    partnerships that enabled it remained resilient. After over 20
    years of continuous operations, however, the ISS is beginning
    to show its age. Cracks and leaks are popping up. Solar arrays
    were recently upgraded. And the space suits necessary for space
    walks need to be replaced. The first segments of ISS have a
    design life of roughly 15 years with a safety factor of 2,
    meaning that, with the appropriate life-extension measures, the
    segments can reasonably be expected to last until 2028.
        While no law prevents NASA from operating the ISS as long
    as it deems necessary, it is time to have a conversation about
    the future of the ISS and our presence in low Earth orbit.
    Section 303 of the 2017 NASA Authorization Act calls for NASA
    to develop an ISS transition plan and to update it biannually.
    And while this is a good start, no significant decisions have
    been made about the future of the ISS and our presence in low
    Earth orbit. While Administrator Nelson expressed support for
    continuing operations past 2024 at one of our hearings this
    summer and many of the international partners have expressed
    similar support, a formal agreement has not been solidified.
        Other issues include how to prioritize upgrades to the
    existing ISS space suits used for space walks and the
    development of future space suits for the lunar surface,
    engineering analysis of the lifetime of the ISS, whether we
    will reciprocate seat swaps with the Russians, and the
    development of future free-flyers and other efforts to offset
    the operational costs of the ISS. We also need to understand
    the impacts of the recent incident involving the docking of the
    Russian Nauka module.
        I proudly represent Johnson Space Center, home of the
    historic mission control and the ISS program. Many of my
    constituents have a vested and a personal interest in the
    success of the ISS. I want to see NASA not only fulfill the
    expectations of the ISS but also to carry on its legacy in
    other programs so that we do not retreat from space.
        Abandoning the ISS without a clear transition plan in place
    would only serve the interests of the Communist Chinese. Like
    in other domains, the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) seeks to
    exploit vacuums left by the great nations. If they are the only
    game in town, other nations will seek to partner with them to
    gain access to space. This would erode America's strategic
    leadership and, unfortunately for those other nations, result
    in the exploitation of their own scientific, technical, and
    strategic standing.
        The ISS is not only a bridge to space but also a bridge to
    the other nations. It binds us under the common cause of
    discovery. I am sure that all of us share the same goal of
    ensuring that the ISS and follow-on endeavors continue this
    special tradition.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]

        We are at an inflection point for our nation's space
    program. Last year, NASA once again launched American
    astronauts on American rockets from American soil. Earlier this
    summer we witnessed two suborbital commercial human launches.
    Just last week, the first orbital spaceflight participant
    mission launched and safely returned to Earth after 3 days in
    space. The Space Launch System will launch within a few months,
    and the Artemis program to return to the Moon and venture to
    Mars is underway. We also celebrated the 20th anniversary of
    continuous occupation of the International Space Station (ISS)
    last November, recognizing Expedition 1 when Bill Shepherd
    ushered in the current era of space exploration.
        A lot has happened since then. We suffered the tragic loss
    of Columbia in 2003, grounded the Shuttle fleet for over two
    years as part of the Return to Flight effort, completed Space
    Shuttle assembly of the ISS in 2011, cancelled the Shuttle
    program as we developed new spacecraft, and relied on Russian
    Soyuz launches for crew transfer for far too long. Throughout
    all of this, the ISS, and the international partnerships that
    enable it, remained resilient.
        Now, after more than 20 years of continuous operations, the
    ISS is beginning to show its age. Cracks and leaks are popping
    up, solar arrays were recently upgraded, and the space suits
    necessary for space walks need to be replaced. The first
    segments of the ISS have a design life of roughly 15 years with
    a safety factor of two, meaning that with appropriate life
    extension measures the segments can reasonably be expected to
    last to 2028.While no law prevents NASA from operating the ISS
    as long as it deems necessary, it is past time to have a
    conversation about the future of the ISS and our presence in
    low Earth orbit.
        Section 303 of the 2017 NASA Authorization Act called for
    NASA to develop an ISS Transition Plan and to update it
    biennially. While this is a good start, no significant
    decisions have been made about the future of the ISS and our
    presence in low Earth orbit. Administrator Nelson expressed
    support for continuing operations past 2024 at one of our
    hearings this summer, and many of the international partners
    have expressed similar support, but a formal agreement has not
    been solidified. Other issues include how to prioritize
    upgrades to the existing ISS space suits used for space walks
    and the development of future space suits for the Lunar
    surface; engineering analysis of the lifetime of the ISS;
    whether we will reciprocate seat swaps with the Russians; and
    the development of future free fliers and other efforts to
    offset the operational costs of the ISS. We also need to
    understand the impacts of the recent incident involving the
    docking of the Russian Nauka module.
        I proudly represent the Johnson Space Center, home of
    historic Mission Control and the ISS Program. Many of my
    constituents have a vested and personal interest in the success
    of the ISS. I want to see NASA not only fulfill the
    expectations of the ISS, but also carry on its legacy in other
    programs so that we do not retreat from space.
        Abandoning the ISS without a clear transition plan in place
    would only serve the interests of the Communist Chinese Party.
    Like in other domains, the CCP seeks to exploit vacuums left by
    great nations. If they are the only ``game in town'', other
    nations will seek to partner with them to gain access to space.
    This would erode American strategic leadership and,
    unfortunately for those other nations, result in the
    exploitation of their own scientific, technical, and strategic
    standing.
        The ISS is not only a bridge to space, but also a bridge to
    other nations. It binds us under the common cause of discovery.
    I am sure all of us share the goal of ensuring that the ISS and
    follow-on endeavors continue this special tradition.

        Chairman Beyer. Mr. Babin, thank you very much. We
    appreciate that.
        I would now like to recognize the distinguished Chair of
    the entire Space--or Science, Space, and--Science, Technology,
    and Space Committee--you see I've got my priorities correct--
    Chairwoman Johnson.
        Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you, and good morning. And,
    Chairman Beyer, I am so pleased that you set this important
    hearing on the International Space Station and NASA's future in
    low Earth orbit.
        I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses today and
    thank you for participating. I also want to thank you for your
    service. We wouldn't be discussing the International Space
    Station, its accomplishments, and the plans for its future
    without your important contributions and those of so many
    others.
        And important work remains to be done, including research
    on human health and performance in space, fundamental
    microgravity science, life-support systems for deep space
    exploration, and next-generation space suit development and
    testing.
        I certainly hope that these activities, as well as other
    research, are NASA's priorities. Because part of our
    congressional role is to consider how long the Space Station
    should operate. And while novelties such as private space
    tourist missions or movie-making on the International Space
    Station may grab media attention, they do not establish the
    case for extending this unique and one-of-a-kind orbiting
    laboratory. And as we look forward to the International Space
    Station, we need NASA to provide a clear accounting of what its
    specific requirements will be.
        I am really proud of what NASA and our partners have
    accomplished with the Space Station. It has supported humans on
    orbit for two decades, which is a considerable achievement. It
    also continues to enable an array of research and technology
    development that advances basic science and our preparations
    for sending humans to the Moon and Mars.
        I also want to say that I echo Chairman Beyer's comments on
    the importance of the Space Station to our U.S. leadership and
    bringing nations together in pursuit of the peaceful use and
    exploration of outer space. The enduring mission of peaceful
    space cooperation is more important now than ever. While
    planning for a future beyond the Space Station is important,
    the reality is that the International Space Station is still
    operating.
        In addition, as we look ahead to NASA's future in low Earth
    orbit, I hope we also continue to maintain a focus on STEM
    (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) engagement
    and inspiring youth. America's future depends on a 21st-century
    work force that can continue our science and innovation
    capabilities, including space.
        Mr. Chairman, there is so much to discuss at today's
    hearing, including the structural health of the Space Station,
    NASA's plans and cost estimates for what follows, and the need
    for a clear understanding of what NASA's requirements for the
    low Earth orbit activities will be once the International Space
    Station has retired.
        And, finally, given the important geopolitical role that
    the International Space Station has played, we need to examine
    how best we can ensure that the U.S. can continue to maintain
    the international partnerships that the Space Station has
    fostered.
        So, with that, I look forward to the witnesses' testimony,
    and I yield back. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning, and thank you Chairman Beyer for holding this
    important hearing on the International Space Station and NASA's
    future in low Earth orbit.
        I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses today, and
    thank you for participating. I also want to thank you for your
    service. We wouldn't be discussing the International Space
    Station, its accomplishments, and the plans for its future
    without your important contributions and those of so many
    others.
        I am proud of what NASA and our partners have accomplished
    with the International Space Station. It has supported humans
    on orbit for two decades--a considerable achievement. It also
    continues to enable an array of research and technology
    development that advances basic science and our preparations
    for sending humans the Moon and Mars.
        I also want to echo Chairman Beyer's comments on the
    importance of the Space Station to our U.S. leadership in
    bringing nations together in pursuit of the peaceful use and
    exploration of outer space. The enduring mission of peaceful
    space cooperation is more important now than ever.
        While planning for a future beyond the Space Station is
    important, the reality is that the International Space Station
    is still operating.
        And important work remains to be done, including research
    on human health and performance in space, fundamental
    microgravity science, life support systems for deep space
    exploration, and next generation space suit development and
    testing.
        I certainly hope that these activities, as well as other
    research, are NASA's priorities. Because part of our
    congressional role is to consider how long the Space Station
    should operate.
        And while novelties such as private space tourist missions
    or movie-making on the International Space Station may grab
    media attention, they don't establish the case for extending
    this unique, one-of-a-kind orbiting laboratory.
        And as we look beyond the International Space Station, we
    need NASA to provide a clear accounting of what its specific
    requirements will be for low Earth orbit human spaceflight
    activities, so that NASA can focus its limited resources on
    ensuring those requirements are met.
        In addition, as we look ahead to NASA's future in low Earth
    orbit, I hope that we also continue to maintain a focus on STEM
    engagement and inspiring our youth. America's future depends on
    a 21st-century workforce that can continue our science and
    innovation capabilities, including in space.
        Mr. Chairman, there's much to discuss at today's hearing,
    including the structural health of the Space Station, NASA's
    plans and cost estimates for what follows, and the need for a
    clear understanding of what NASA's requirements for low Earth
    orbit activities will be once the International Space Station
    has been retired.
        Finally, given the important geopolitical role that the
    International Space Station has played, we need to examine how
    best we can ensure that the U.S. can continue to maintain the
    international partnerships that the ISS has fostered.
        With that, I look forward to our witness's testimonies, and
    I yield back.
        Thank you.

        Chairman Beyer. Madam Chairman, thank you very, very much.
        And now let me recognize the Ranking Member of the entire
    Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I simply want to reflect on the wise and wisdom-filled
    words of my three colleagues, and I look forward to our
    witnesses and a lively discussion today.
        And, with that, I yield back, and let's proceed.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, very much.
        Let me make a couple of the housekeeping things I should've
    done at the very beginning, which is that, without objection,
    the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        We are meeting virtually. A couple of reminders. Please
    keep your video feed on as long as you are present in the
    hearing. Members are responsible for their own microphones, so
    please keep the microphones muted unless you're speaking.
        And, finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit
    for the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
    email address was circulated prior to our hearing.
        And now let me introduce, at least, our witnesses, in the
    best way that I can. Let's see.
        Our first witness is Ms. Robyn Gatens. Ms. Gatens is the
    Director of the International Space Station at NASA
    Headquarters. As ISS Director, Gatens leads strategy, policy,
    integration, and stakeholder engagement for the Space Station
    program at the agency.
        In her 35 years at NASA, Ms. Gatens has led the development
    and management of life-support and habitation systems for human
    spaceflight missions. She's also led agency strategic and
    budget planning to mature these technologies needed for future
    deep space explorations, using the ISS as a demonstration
    testbed.
        Ms. Gatens holds a bachelor of chemical engineering degree
    from Georgia Institute of Technology.
        Our second witness is Dr. Kate Rubins. Dr. Rubins was
    selected by NASA as an astronaut in 2009, and Dr. Rubins
    completed her first spaceflight on Exploration 48/49, where she
    became the first person to sequence DNA in space.
        Prior to joining NASA, she worked as a fellow/principal
    investigator at the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical
    Research, studying viral diseases that primarily affect Central
    and West Africa.
        Dr. Rubins has most recently served aboard the
    International Space Station as flight engineer for Expedition
    63/64. Across the two flights, she has spent a total of 300
    days in space and conducted four space walks.
        She holds a Bachelor of Science in molecular biology from
    the University of California and a Ph.D. In cancer biology from
    Stanford University.
        Our third witness is Mr. Jeffrey Manber. Mr. Manber has
    served as the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Nanoracks since
    2009. Today, Nanoracks has customers in over 30 countries,
    ranging from governmental agencies to universities and
    companies and, most recently, the Bishop Airlock, permanently
    docked to the International Space Station to provide deployment
    services.
        Previously, as CEO of MirCorp, which leased the Russian
    space station Mir, Mr. Manber oversaw the first commercially
    funded crewed mission to the Mir Space Station. He currently
    serves on the NASA National Advisory Committee on
    Commercialization and is the Chairperson of the CASIS (Center
    for the Advancement of Science in Space)-ISS National Lab Users
    Advisory Subcommittee on Commercial Uses of ISS.
        Our fourth witness is Mr. Todd Harrison. He's the Director
    of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic
    and International Studies. As a senior fellow in the
    International Security Program, he leads the Center's efforts
    to provide in-depth, nonpartisan research and analysis of
    defense funding, space security, and air power issues.
        He previously worked at Booz Allen Hamilton, across the
    aerospace industry, and served as a captain in the U.S. Air
    Force Reserves. He's a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute
    of Technology, MIT, with both a B.S. And an M.S. In aeronautics
    and astronautics. And our fifth and final witness is Captain
    William Shepherd. Captain Shepherd served as a Navy SEAL, NASA
    astronaut, program manager and senior government official with
    the Department of Defense.
        He started his military in 1971 as an underwater demolition
    Frogman and Navy SEAL. In 1984, he was selected as a NASA
    astronaut. Captain Shepherd flew as a mission specialist on
    three space shuttle flights. In 1993, he was selected to serve
    as Program Manager for the new International Space Station. In
    2000, he served as Commander of Expedition 1, the first crew of
    the International Space Station. And then Captain Shepherd
    returned to the Navy in 2001 and later was the first science
    advisor for the U.S. Special Operations Command.
        Captain Shepherd consults with government and industry
    organizations and is a member of Stevens Institute Systems
    Engineering Research Center. He received a bachelor's degree in
    aerospace engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy and Master of
    Engineering degrees in mechanical and ocean engineering from
    MIT.
        Wow.
        Well, as the witnesses should know, you each have 5 minutes
    for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony, which can be
    much longer, will be included in the record for the hearing.
    And when all of you have completed your spoken statements, we
    will begin asking you our questions. Each Member will have 5
    minutes to question the panel.
        And let's start with Ms. Robyn Gatens.
        Ms. Gatens, the floor is yours.

                     TESTIMONY OF MS. ROBYN GATENS,

                 DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION,

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Gatens. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Chairman Beyer,
    Ranking Member Babin, and Members of the Subcommittee, I'm
    honored to appear before you to discuss the International Space
    Station, the world's preeminent orbital microgravity platform
    for research and development.
        For more than 20 years, the ISS has supported cutting-edge
    research that benefits humanity, including in-space
    manufacturing of novel materials and lifesaving medical
    products. It has helped us to understand the Earth's climate
    and provided an unparalleled platform for science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics engagement. The ISS continues to
    be a positive example of international partnerships, and the
    research conducted on the ISS has helped to advance science and
    improve life on Earth.
        Today, with commercial crew and cargo transportation
    systems online, the ISS is busier than ever and provides the
    United States and our partners with unmatched capabilities in
    space. The ISS National Laboratory hosts hundreds of
    experiments from other government agencies, academia, and
    commercial users. Meanwhile, NASA's research and development
    onboard is advancing the technologies and procedures that will
    be necessary to send the first woman and the first person of
    color to the Moon and the first humans to Mars.
        The ISS is now entering its third and most productive
    decade of utilization, including research advancement,
    commercial value, and global partnership. The first decade of
    ISS was dedicated to assembly, and the second was devoted to
    research and technology development and learning how to most
    effectively conduct these activities in space. The third decade
    is one of results, where research capacity will be maximized.
    Deep space exploration technologies will be verified to support
    human exploration of the solar system, and medical and
    environmental benefits will continue to be returned to
    humanity.
        This decade is also when the groundwork is laid for a
    commercial future in space. NASA is already laying the
    foundation of this future, which includes careful planning to
    ensure there is no gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability in
    low Earth orbit, or LEO.
        The ISS is certified technically to continue to operate
    until at least 2028, and there are no engineering issues that
    NASA is aware of that would preclude safely and productively
    operating the ISS through 2030. Extending the operation of the
    ISS could give U.S. private industry time to develop the
    capabilities and experience to operate in LEO and to deploy the
    platforms that will meet the needs of NASA and other users
    there.
        With the introduction of Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD),
    NASA expects to realize efficiencies from the use of
    innovative, efficient, and cost-effective platforms using a
    more commercial approach to meeting the agency's needs in LEO.
    This will allow NASA to shift significant financial and
    personnel resources toward exploration objectives.
        As Commercial LEO Destinations become available, NASA
    intends to implement an orderly transition from current ISS
    operations to these destinations. NASA envisions a transition
    period of roughly 2 years, during which both ISS and Commercial
    LEO Destinations are operational, allowing gradual transfer of
    NASA activities from ISS to commercial platforms.
        NASA intends to purchase services on these commercial
    platforms for accommodating U.S. astronauts, technology
    testing, human research, and science. A continuously crewed LEO
    platform is a more cost-effective place than deep space to test
    technologies and practice protocols to prepare us for a Mars
    mission.
        NASA also plans to continue to provide support for research
    in LEO based on the successes and lessons learned of the ISS
    National Laboratory. We hope that our other U.S. Government
    partner agencies will join us in doing so. This will provide
    continuity for research institutions, U.S. Government agencies,
    and developing industries to continue their work using the
    unique environment of low Earth orbit.
        Finally, it is imperative that the United States maintain
    and expand its international partnerships during and after the
    transition to Commercial LEO Destinations. NASA operates the
    ISS in partnerships with 5 other space agencies, representing
    15 countries, offering high-profile opportunities for U.S.
    leadership in civil and robotic spaceflight.
        At a time when other nations are seeking to expand their
    abilities to operate in space, the ISS remains the premier
    example of how an international team can productively and
    successfully cooperate in space over the course of decades.
        Further details of NASA's plans for ISS transition are
    contained in our update to the ``ISS Transition Report,'' which
    we will deliver to Congress in the coming weeks.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gatens follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Beyer. Ms. Gatens, thank you very much.
        Now we'll hear from Dr. Rubins.
        Dr. Rubins, the floor is yours.

         TESTIMONY OF DR. KATHLEEN ``KATE'' RUBINS, ASTRONAUT,

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

        Dr. Rubins. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
    Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member Babin, and Members of the
    Subcommittee. I'm Kate Rubins, a NASA astronaut, veteran of two
    long-duration missions aboard the International Space Station,
    and a molecular biologist.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share details of the
    cutting-edge science we're doing on the ISS and to highlight
    the tremendous value in having a spaceborne laboratory, where
    we can do research that is not possible on Earth.
        I've spent 300 days combined on two long-duration missions
    living and working aboard the ISS. As a researcher and
    sometimes simultaneously as a test subject providing biological
    samples for further study, I can share firsthand the importance
    and the unique opportunity for scientific advancements in
    research made possible by having a research laboratory outside
    the bonds and limitations of gravity.
        The ISS is the only place we can currently conduct long-
    duration research on how living in microgravity affects the
    human body, and it's the only place we can test technologies
    that will take us further into deep space. The ISS has offered
    over two decades of human research opportunities in a way that
    no other platform has been able to accomplish.
        The things we've learned so far provide a great foundation
    for us as we reach even further away from our home planet. For
    future exploration of the Moon and Mars, we need the capability
    to autonomously monitor the microbial health of spacecraft and
    planetary habitats and to potentially identify life via DNA and
    RNA signatures as well. The ISS gives researchers an
    environment in which they can test sequencing in microgravity
    and refine the sequencing processes.
        During my first mission to the Space Station in 2016, I had
    the honor of being the first person to ever sequence DNA in
    microgravity. Eventually, we sequenced more than 2 billion base
    pairs of DNA in collaboration with a world-class team of
    researchers on the ground.
        During my most recent expedition to space this past year, I
    was able to build on the past work, conducting new DNA
    sequencing activities. With the ability to sequence DNA in
    space, astronauts could diagnose an illness or identify
    microbes growing in the ISS or another habitable spacecraft and
    determine if they represent a health concern.
        I also spent many hours during my mission with my arms in
    the Life Sciences Glovebox. We conducted the Cardinal Heart
    experiment there. My breath was taken away by the sight of
    beating heart cells in microgravity for the first time.
        Cardinal Heart studies how changes in gravity affect
    cardiovascular cells at the cellular and tissue levels. Not
    only will this research contribute to our success in future
    space exploration, but it could also impact how we develop
    treatments for heart disease on Earth. Results could provide
    new understanding of heart problems on Earth, help identify
    treatments, and support development of screening measures to
    predict cardiovascular risk prior to spaceflight or on the
    ground.
        As a third example, I took hundreds of microbial samples
    for the three-dimensional Microbial Monitoring study. This
    experiment provides sequencing and analysis on samples
    collected from over a thousand different locations within the
    Space Station. By advancing our understanding of the Space
    Station microbiome, this work helps identify potential risks
    and supports developing countermeasures to mitigate those
    risks.
        The ISS is a world-class research laboratory where we, as
    astronauts, are able to perform research developed by
    scientists across the world. It is also the most powerful
    example of collaboration that I've ever witnessed and, I
    believe, one of the most powerful examples of this world-class
    collaboration. The world needs this example of nations coming
    together for the greater good and to see how many amazing
    things can be accomplished when we work together, doing science
    and exploration in harmony.
        For more than 20 years, NASA has maintained a continuous
    human presence in Earth orbit, developing technology, skills,
    and knowledge needed for the human exploration of the Moon,
    Mars, and our solar system. The ISS is an active, vibrant
    laboratory where we are making the next steps of space
    exploration possible.
        As we set our sights on the Moon and beyond, it is the
    knowledge and the practical experience we've gained from more
    than 20 years of continuous human presence and research on the
    Space Station that will pave a successful path forward. What we
    learn also has great impacts on Earth and human health,
    technology development, and even commercial growth.
        I hope the foregoing information regarding scientific
    research operations on the International Space Station has
    helped shed some light on the value and the importance of
    having a space-based research platform for scientists and
    astronauts like me to push the boundaries of the known world,
    to inspire children, and to learn how we as a species adapt as
    we reach further into the universe.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
    Subcommittee, and I look forward to answering any questions you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Rubins follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Rubins, very much.
    Fascinating stuff.
        Now I recognize Mr. Jeffrey Manber for his testimony.

                    TESTIMONY OF MR. JEFFREY MANBER,

                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NANORACKS, LLC

        Mr. Manber. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, Chairman Beyer,
    Ranking Member Babin, and other Members of the Subcommittee, as
    well as my friends and fellow finalists--panelists--thank you
    for this opportunity.
        My insights are informed by my three decades pursuing a
    stronger commercial space marketplace, as well as being the CEO
    of Nanoracks, which conducts commercial services on the ISS for
    organizations and governments as well as thousands of students
    engaged in space research.
        I first testified before this panel and then-Chairman Bill
    Nelson in 1991. As I reviewed that testimony, it is heartening
    to realize the extraordinary progress that has been made.
        Our largest utilization challenge in the 1990's was NASA's
    space shuttle program. It is remarkable to see how far we have
    progressed, from a single-point dependence with the space
    shuttle to a robust commercial launch industry with names like
    ``SpaceX'' and ``Rocket Lab'' that are the envy of the world.
        And that is one of the key considerations as we seek the
    next steps for the International Space Station. We've been here
    before, haven't we? And that was, how and when to transition
    from the aging shuttle program.
        So many strong arguments were made to keep the program
    operational, but, finally, Congress made the bold and correct
    decision that opened the new era of the launch vehicle industry
    that is, indeed, the envy of the world. And now we must do the
    same and have that dialog with another beloved program, the
    ISS.
        The common thread in the recent extraordinary renaissance
    of space services is not advances in technology alone but also
    the repeated direction by Congress to support commercial
    participation in NASA activities. For ISS, this has been
    successfully demonstrated with the commercial cargo program
    through the use of the multiple vehicles, and so too and soon
    enough with commercial crew.
        The challenge to assure a seamless transition is more
    urgent today than with the shuttle time, as our reliance on
    space assets is far greater today, and others seek to fill even
    the perception of any voids. There is no room for error, least
    we cede leadership to other nations. The Chinese space station
    is a challenge. As part of my written testimony, I have
    submitted a list of our allies participating on the Tiangong.
        There is no dispute that, in space, when America
    participates, America leads. So I don't fear cooperation and
    competition with China. But we cannot allow even the perception
    that we will cede our 20-plus years of humans working in LEO to
    others.
        Like the debate over transitioning from the shuttle
    program, these are difficult issues. I personally witnessed the
    declined of the Mir Space Station from a productive habitat to
    a fixer-upper. The change was slow, and, soon, the Mir was less
    productive as a research platform.
        Today, there are technical issues with the ISS. Some make
    the headlines; some do not. But it is clear that, no matter the
    congressional funding, no one can predict how long the ISS will
    remain efficient.
        So our national choice is clear: Either push the ISS
    hardware far beyond the anticipated lifespan, or open the door
    to a new chapter of American leadership that will realize
    smaller, truly commercial space stations dedicated to research
    and in-space manufacturing.
        I choose the latter, because recent history has shown that
    multiplicity in space assets is the safest and most cost-
    efficient pathway. And recent history has also shown that the
    private sector, working with NASA, produces cost-efficient and
    reliable results.
        I'm less worried about losing a generation of space station
    personnel, as we are seeing companies like Sierra, Axiom, and
    Nanoracks hiring, and hiring big, from the ISS community.
        Members of the Subcommittee, I ask you to support the NASA
    Commercial LEO Destination, CLD, free-flyer program to ensure
    there is no Space Station gap and that tomorrow's stations
    will, like today's launch vehicles, be the envy of the world.
        Our parent company, Voyager Space, is investing significant
    capital in a private Nanoracks-led station dedicated to
    innovative space research. And we are not alone. Industry is
    ready to lead.
        I consider the CLD program the pathway to assuring
    continuation of American leadership in LEO and, indeed, of the
    ISS program itself, with a new generation of cost-efficient,
    free-flying platforms which will continue the ISS tradition of
    STEM outreach as well.
        We lack the luxury of our previous challenges. The space
    domain is today interwoven into the fabric of our society, and
    its continued health is every American's continued well-being.
    The lessons learned are clear. We must do all to prevent yet
    another gap in our basic space capabilities. I will say, this
    is what I fear the most, is that gap.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Ranking Member, and to
    all Members for beginning today this necessary but difficult
    dialog.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Manber follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Manber, very much.
        We'll now next hear from Mr. Todd Harrison.
        Mr. Harrison?

                    TESTIMONY OF MR. TODD HARRISON,

                       SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR

                   OF THE AEROSPACE SECURITY PROJECT,

             CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

        Mr. Harrison. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Babin, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this
    important topic.
        The fundamental question we're addressing today is what the
    role of NASA should be in this transitional period from a focus
    on low Earth orbit to farther-reaching exploration goals on the
    Moon and beyond.
        When former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine spoke at
    CSIS last year, he used the DIME framework of national power--
    diplomatic, information, military, and economic--to describe
    how he thinks about the role of NASA. I want to focus my
    testimony today on NASA's diplomatic and economic roles and how
    that should impact our thinking about NASA's future in LEO.
        NASA has a rich history of building international
    partnerships around the globe and has agreements with more than
    120 nations. These partnerships help advance U.S. interests in
    areas such as the environment, human rights, and STEM
    education.
        Cooperation in space also increases transparency. It builds
    confidence and promotes responsible behavior in space. For
    example, the coalition of nations that operate the ISS have
    tightly coupled interests in LEO. We all want to protect the
    investments we've made in the astronauts that serve aboard the
    ISS. Our mutual interests in LEO have created a strong
    incentive for us to work together to follow basic norms of
    behavior, such as avoiding destructive antisatellite testing
    and the deliberate creation of space debris. NASA's continued
    leadership of the ISS coalition is critical to advancing this
    shared goal.
        NASA's role in advancing our economic interests is another
    factor policymakers should consider. Many new commercial space
    missions are currently being planned, explored, or experimented
    with by U.S. companies, such as in-space mining and
    manufacturing. This technology could allow large structures or
    propellant stores to be built in space using materials that are
    sourced in space, effectively breaking us free from having to
    launch everything from Earth.
        NASA's role is to explore and take technological risks to
    improve our understanding of the space environment and to
    provide the enabling infrastructure that private companies can
    build upon.
        As we think about the diplomatic and economic roles of NASA
    and LEO, we must be mindful that other nations are competing
    with us in space. And perhaps our most formidable competitor is
    China. The competition with China in space is multifaceted and
    includes an important security element that the Space Force
    intelligence community encounter daily. But this competition
    also has a strong commercial and civil space element that some
    have called a new space race.
        Unlike the space race of the 1960's, however, the goal of
    this race is not a mere destination. It is not a race to see
    who can build the biggest space station, plant another flag on
    the Moon, or be the first to land humans on Mars. The real
    objective of this race is to see who can build the broadest and
    strongest international coalition. Whatever group of nations
    emerges as the leading coalition in space over the next decade
    will be the ones that set the de facto norms for the space
    commerce and exploration that follows.
        But competition with China does not preclude cooperation.
    As the Members of this Subcommittee are well aware, we
    cooperated with the Soviet Union in space throughout the cold
    war while we competed fiercely with them both in space and on
    Earth.
        Since 2011, however, Congress has placed restrictions on
    NASA's ability to collaborate with China on civil space
    programs, a provision known as the Wolf Amendment. This
    provision was originally intended to pressure China to make
    human rights reforms and to stifle development of its space
    capabilities.
        After 10 years, it is clear that China has not improved its
    behavior when it comes to human rights, and China's space
    programs, both military and civil, have only accelerated. What
    is more concerning is that China is now reaching out to other
    nations, including some of our closest allies and partners, and
    asking them to become partners in its space programs. China is
    actively building a coalition in space to rival our own.
        In conclusion, I would urge the Members of this body to
    think more holistically about the role of NASA and LEO and the
    transition plan for the ISS. A precipitous withdrawal of U.S.
    support for the ISS could create an opening for China to expand
    its partnerships and ultimately its diplomatic and economic
    influence in LEO.
        Our goal should be to strengthen and expand the ISS
    coalition of nations, while also building a new coalition to go
    to the Moon and beyond. It is my view that we should not let go
    of the ISS coalition before the Artemis coalition is fully
    assembled and operational.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Beyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrison.
        And last we will hear from Captain William Shepherd.
        The floor is yours, Captain.
        Captain, you are muted for the moment.

                        CAPTAIN WILLIAM SHEPHERD

                     (USN, RET), FORMER ASTRONAUT,

             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

        Captain Shepherd. That never happens. Thanks.
        Chairman Beyer, Ranking Member Babin, and Members of the
    Committee and Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
    present thoughts on the Space Station and related space
    activities.
        Even before the United States had a national space program,
    engineers and scientists envisioned an orbiting station above
    the Earth that would be a stepping stone for the exploration of
    Moon and the other planets. NASA space shuttles and crews,
    using robots and space walks, built the large ISS vehicle in
    the weightless vacuum of space, traveling 17,000 miles an
    hour--a capability we cannot match today.
        Crews aboard ISS live, explore, and do research in a place
    that's not part of the Earth anymore. ISS is our foothold in
    the cosmos. In 21 years of continuous operations, ISS has
    hosted 65 expeditions, hundreds of astronauts and cosmonaut
    researchers, who have performed thousands of hours of
    scientific research. In complexity and scale, ISS is my
    generation's Apollo program.
        There are many difficulties in the design and construction
    of this station. Forming a workable international partnership
    was not easy. Many aerospace critics in the United States
    opposed putting Russian elements in ISS's critical path. Others
    said it could not be done. History has shown all of them wrong.
    ISS would not be flying today without our partners' unique
    capabilities and especially those that are Russian.
        And ISS has performed beyond its design capabilities. Many
    systems and components are operating acceptably at twice their
    design life. ISS has had no major failures or accidents.
        One could ask what the benefits are that the Russians
    brought to the partnership. Working with them, I have seen
    unique spacecraft and spacecraft system designs, excellent crew
    equipment and space suits, well-developed life-support system,
    excellent metalworking and fabrication, simple but effective
    thermal control systems, solar arrays and controls, good crew-
    to-computer integration.
        And Russian engineers taught us a most valuable technique:
    mixing the complex along the simple in their system
    architectures, creating exceptionally robust capabilities.
    Today, NASA calls this ``dissimilar redundancy.'' This will be
    a critical characteristic of our future of space missions.
        The numerous ISS changes of command have always been
    highlights. Thirty years ago, an American commander in charge
    of billions of rubles of Russian State property or a Russian
    cosmonaut in charge of a huge U.S. spacecraft would have been
    unthinkable, but this is the reality today.
        Since last fall, ISS has experienced moderate internal air
    leakage to space. Leaks have been traced to the interior of the
    transfer tunnel at the rear of the Russian service module. Leak
    sources are small surface cracks in the tunnel's aluminum hull.
        Engineers and technicians in Russia and the United States
    are working together to understand and resolve the issue, but
    the root cause of the cracking, their failure modes, and the
    impacts on ISS safety in future operations have not been
    adequately determined. Top-level NASA and Roscosmos management
    attention is needed now to focus the technical teams, provide
    the necessary resources, and drive this issue to closure.
        Technical operational integration was a major effort in the
    ISS program. This remains a significant challenge for future
    programs. Expeditions to the Moon will require crews to operate
    systems designed and built by many different companies, all
    with distinct characteristics, controls, displays, computer and
    verbal languages, et cetera.
        Small groups of astronauts on the Moon may have to make do,
    as the Apollo 13 crew did to fit their square CO2
    absorbers into round receptacles. This was a graphic
    illustration of what bad integration looks like.
        NASA's historical role integrating and verifying hardware
    and software has been diluted as we rely more heavily on work
    done by commercial space companies. Considering what we have
    learned building ISS, this is a big step backward.
        A Mars expedition will draw on the best skills and
    resources from many nations.
        And I'm going to go right to the end of my prepared
    statement.
        Space Station is the blueprint to how to do this. If ask
    you what a Mars program will look like, these questions are
    behind us.
        [The prepared statement of Captain Shepherd follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Captain Shepherd. You finished
    on a very strong note.
        And I appreciate all the testimony.
        So now we'll begin our first round of questions, and I get
    to go first.
        So, Dr. Rubins, I'm fascinated by your work on DNA
    sequencing and the Cardinal Heart studies. What kind of DNA
    were you doing? Were you doing human DNA or mouse DNA or E.
    coli?
        Dr. Rubins. Yes, so we did a mix of E. coli, mouse, and
    lambda phage. We were interested in, could we mix this DNA
    together, sequence it, and then reconstruct the genomes?
        These are the kinds of technologies that we'll be using
    when we go to Mars to look for signs of life, and they're also
    the kinds of technologies that we would use to study complex
    microbial environments. So, if you look at things like microbes
    in a hospital or microbes on the Space Station, you want to
    understand what's a human pathogen, what's dangerous to us. And
    this is the exact kind of technology that you would use to look
    at this complex microbial environment.
        We were very lucky. We were successful, and we had the
    opportunity, using the research platform of the Space Station,
    to analyze these complex microbial environments and make the
    sequencing technology work in low Earth orbit.
        Chairman Beyer. Was it easier or harder to do it in low
    gravity/no gravity? Was that an advantage, or were you trying
    to overcome the challenges of that?
        Dr. Rubins. Yes, there were challenges. There's always
    logistical challenges. And these are not things that we can
    simulate on Earth. So it's things as simple as your pipette
    tips floating away in microgravity. We have to figure out, how
    do we do laboratory research when everything is floating? This
    is one of the challenges.
        The technology actually worked incredibly well. It appeared
    to work slightly better in space than it does on Earth. So
    sometimes that microgravity environment gives us a
    technological advantage--for example, when we manufacture
    optical fibers. So it can give you an advantage that's not
    possible to simulate in Earth laboratories for a lot of these
    physical properties.
        Chairman Beyer. Looking ahead, do you see--it was mentioned
    that perhaps one day we should be establishing a formal
    National Laboratory in space, low Earth orbit. Does that make
    sense to you?
        Dr. Rubins. Absolutely.
        So we have the ISS National Laboratory through the Center
    for Advancement of Science in Space, and this allows both
    commercial companies as well as academics to send their
    experiments to low Earth orbit. This has greatly expanded our
    access and the number of participants in the International
    Space Station research community.
        And so we've seen a lot of really exciting projects. I
    think this National Laboratory is really important for allowing
    participation from academic and commercial companies and making
    sure that researchers across the United States of America have
    access to space as this really unique research environment.
        Chairman Beyer. I want to ask about your bone density after
    300 days in no gravity. But did you figure out what we're going
    do about radiation while you were up there?
        Dr. Rubins. Yes, we have done a lot of radiation studies,
    and this is one of the really important reasons for continuing
    our research on the International Space Station. We've got a
    radiation environment in low Earth orbit that we can't simulate
    right now on Earth. So we can have beams of particular
    particles, but it's very difficult to get that mix of radiation
    unless you actually go into space.
        And so our radiation research on how it affects fundamental
    mechanisms in cells, how radiation can cause cancer--there's a
    lot of parallels for these kinds of processes on Earth. This is
    really only possible in the space environment.
        The Chairman. Great. Thank you very much, Doctor.
        Captain Shepherd, first of all, thank you for the idea of
    dissimilar redundancy. That's my new word for the day.
        But I'm fascinated that, after a bunch of testimony about
    transitioning from government-to-government to commercial crew,
    commercial cargo, commercial ISS successor, you said these
    questions are behind us. Do you strongly believe that we need
    to maintain the same kind of NASA-led, government-invested
    program that we've had?
        Captain Shepherd. I think it's a big question. I'm not sure
    I can give you a short answer.
        But let me just say that one of the biggest issues that we
    worked with on ISS was integrating all the procedures,
    controls, displays, equipment, hardware, et cetera, between the
    partners and especially with Russia. It was a tremendous
    challenge.
        As an example, the crews onboard ISS in the early days, in
    one of what was three different computer environments, there
    were 2,500 separate display pages on laptops that you would use
    to control the station and its systems, and you had to know
    pretty much what every one of them did. And they were all built
    by different people.
        And so, when we talk about large programs, Artemis in
    particular but certainly going to Mars, who is going to
    integrate all this stuff? And, at the end of the day, the
    astronauts that are going to be on the mission are the final
    integrators. I think it's very unfair for programs to assume
    that this is all going to be worked out magically by a bunch of
    very smart people.
        We have to have a more directive role of the government to
    induce the contractors to not give us very disparate ways to
    interface and control all these pieces of hardware systems and
    spacecraft. Now, how NASA assumes that role in the future, I
    don't know, but somebody's got to do it.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Captain Shepherd, very much.
        Let me now yield to my friend Dr. Babin for his questions.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is going to be an
    exceedingly interesting hearing, and I really appreciate this.
        My first one, my first question is for Captain Shepherd.
        First off, I want to say thank you for your service,
    Captain. As a Navy Seal, as a father of a Navy Seal myself, I
    really appreciate that and also your years as an astronaut.
        And this question is regarding the Russian Nauka module and
    aging of the ISS.
        A Russian space official recently raised concerns about the
    deteriorating state of Russia's segment of the ISS due to out-
    of-date hardware, warning that it could lead to ``irreparable
    failures,'' quote/unquote. The official was quoted as saying,
    ``Around 80 percent of the in-flight systems on Russia's
    segment have reached the end of their service period,'' and
    concluded, ``This means that literally a day after the systems
    are fully exhausted irreparable failures may begin.''
        So, first, Captain Shepherd, you worked on the ISS program
    at the very beginning, you were the first astronaut on
    Expedition 1, and also serve as a member of the ISS Advisory
    Committee. How should policymakers view safety and mitigate
    risk as the ISS ages? And should NASA be worried about the
    stress placed on the ISS by the inadvertent firing of the
    Russia Nauka module?
        Captain Shepherd. I think the answer to this is to
    reestablish a much more intimate working relationship with our
    Russian counterparts.
        I knew Mr. Solovyov, who is the Russian official you were
    talking about. He was, at the time, the manager of their
    mission control station, or center, called the TsUP, in Moscow.
    Actually, I did not get along with Mr. Solovyov all that well,
    but I respected his judgment and his ability. But the business
    of making the Space Station work was to get close together and
    sit around the table and work out the problems.
        Part of the issue with the science module docking, the
    Nauka that you mention, is, we do not have that correlation
    with our Russian counterparts right now. I would think that the
    primary job would be for us to go into exactly how the Russians
    noticed problems with that module and what they did to
    counteract them, what the results were when they docked, and
    how did this result in inordinate motions and probably stresses
    on the Space Station.
        We have not had that discussion in intimate detail, but
    that would've been very common 20 years ago. I think that,
    whatever the reason, we've got to reignite the very strong
    integration that we had with our Russian partners. I'm not sure
    how to do it, but I believe Congress could be helpful in making
    that happen.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much.
        My next question is for Ms. Gatens.
        NASA requested information from contractors on a new
    proposal to procure space suits as a service. The rationale for
    procuring services, rather that developing a system, is that
    the contractors can then sell their system to other customers,
    which could potentially lead to lower prices for the
    government.
        A NASA 2017 report stated, ``At this time, no known
    nongovernmental entity is willing to finance and develop their
    own complete EVA (extravehicular activity) system independent
    of a government customer. As is the case with environmental
    control and life-support systems designed for spacecraft, there
    is not currently enough demand that EVA capability can treated
    as a regular commodity or a service.''
        The report continued, ``Emergency microgravity and service
    suit capability is required solely by NASA, and there is
    insufficient market to support effective co-development.''
        At our recent budget hearing, I asked Administrator Nelson
    if NASA had identified other customers for space suits, as
    required by the anchor tenancy requirements of 51 U.S.C. 50503.
    He indicated that he would look into it.
        Who are the other customers NASA has identified that would
    procure EVA suits or surface suits? Has NASA determined that
    the long-term viability of the venture is not dependent upon a
    continued government market or other nonreimbursable government
    support? And how much private capital is at risk in this
    venture?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for the question.
        As you noted, NASA put out a draft request for proposals
    (RFP) to get industry proposals on our change in strategy that
    will provide spacesuit services commercially. And we recognize
    that, as we expand the commercial economy in low Earth orbit,
    there could be other customers. We just had the private
    Inspiration-4 mission. And we anticipate, as this economy
    expands, there will be private demand for spacesuit services in
    addition to the NASA demand.
        So we believe that commercializing this procurement the way
    we commercialized crew and cargo will be the most cost-
    effective way to go forward as we explore.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you.
        I just wonder, from Captain Shepherd, if there's any other
    lessons we learned from partnering with the Russians relevant
    to a potential engagement with China.
        Captain Shepherd. Sir, if I might, can I back step just a
    bit and talk about the suits for a second?
        Mr. Babin. Certainly.
        Captain Shepherd. So one of my frustrations, after I
    finished my time at NASA, was we did very little at NASA in
    understanding and leveraging the things that we had learned
    from our experience with the Russians and the Russian Space
    Agency.
        I'd point out the Russian spacesuit, which is fundamentally
    a different architecture from ours, it is quite durable, it is
    very simple, and I think it has a lot of design attributes that
    our system does not. But NASA made almost no effort that I
    could detect to evaluate that and incorporate any of those
    design changes in our thinking.
        And this is the lost opportunity that we see over and over
    again, in particularly our relationship with the Russians in
    this partnership.
        If you would ask about the Chinese, besides the political
    aspect of that, I think there's tremendous value in seeing
    programs where scientists, engineers, and astronauts from
    different countries approach the same problem in different
    ways. I think we would gain a lot from the Chinese if we could
    have that relationship, but I'm not sure what it will take to
    make that happen.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Dr. Babin and Captain Shepherd.
        Mr. Babin. Thank you.
        Chairman Beyer. Let me now recognize the former Governor of
    Florida, Representative Crist.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here today.
        There's no doubt that the International Space Station is
    crucial to our space program, to our research enterprise, and
    our international relationships. But as we've discussed today,
    there will come a time when the Space Station has reached the
    end of its operational life, and NASA must have a plan in place
    for the next generation of low Earth orbit activities.
        As Governor of Florida when NASA was winding down the
    shuttle program, I can't help but draw a comparison between the
    retirement of the space shuttle, which resulted in the rise of
    a vibrant commercial launch industry, with NASA's current plan
    to transition the Space Station to a fully commercialized low
    Earth orbit.
        Ms. Gatens, I'm curious, what lessons did NASA learn from
    the retirement of the shuttle about transitioning to large
    programs?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for that question.
        Yes, indeed, we did experience a gap in our transportation
    system when we retired the shuttle that we do not wish to
    repeat with our U.S. human presence in low Earth orbit. And
    this is a key tenet of our ISS transition plan that NASA has
    put together. We cannot have a gap in American human space
    flight in low Earth orbit.
        And this is why NASA is committed to an orderly transition
    from ISS operations in LEO to U.S. commercially provided
    destinations in low Earth orbit. We are currently working with
    our partners in U.S. industry and just put out a request for
    proposals and received strong industry feedback on these
    requests for proposals for Commercial LEO Destinations.
        We anticipate having those destinations in place by 2028.
    And so if we extend the ISS so that we can have an orderly
    transition and an overlap between the time when we'll have
    these destinations in LEO and when we do retire the ISS, that
    will allow us to mitigate the risk of a gap.
        Mr. Crist. And how can NASA apply those lessons when
    developing a transition plan for the Space Station?
        Ms. Gatens. We can apply those lessons by planning for this
    orderly transition and planning to have an overlap in services
    so that we can ensure that we don't have a gap.
        We'll follow along as our industry partners mature their
    concepts and follow their milestones and make sure we're
    enabling them to make progress so that we can have these
    capabilities in place when we need them.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Manber, as we transition to a fully commercialized low
    Earth orbit, can you speak to the importance of having multiple
    providers and companies operating in this arena?
        Mr. Manber. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. It gets to the
    heart of your previous question as well, the lessons learned
    from space shuttle and America's dependency on one hardware
    program.
        One of the lessons that we all see from the last several
    decades of the growing public-private partnership between
    private industry and NASA is the fundamental importance of
    having different opportunities, different vendors, different
    choices. If one goes down, if there's a problem, the United
    States remains fully engaged in space.
        And so, as I said in my testimony, space is far more
    critical today than it was several decades ago. So it's
    absolutely imperative that we have multiple platforms giving us
    multiple choices that also provide the stability that is
    provided in low Earth orbit. So thank you for the question.
        Mr. Crist. Well, thank you, sir.
        And, Ms. Gatens, what is NASA doing to drive interest from
    the commercial space industry and assure the operation of
    multiple providers in low Earth orbit?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for that question.
        Well, in addition to our request for proposals for free
    flyers, we have also enabled the use of Space Station forward
    port, for Axiom to provide an attached commercial element to
    the Space Station.
        So, as Mr. Manber just expressed, we have multiple options
    and multiple pathways to getting these services that we will
    need to follow on to Station.
        In addition, we're also enabling demand. So these
    platforms, private platforms, are going to need other customers
    besides NASA. And so we're using the Space Station today to
    allow companies to bring innovative research and try new
    markets, such as optical fiber, such as regenerative medicine,
    novel materials that seem promising, to create new markets and
    stimulate this non-NASA demand that will be required in low
    Earth orbit.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Charlie, very much.
        Next we'll recognize the Ranking Member of the Full
    Committee, Congressman Lucas.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Rubins, NASA's Human Research Program tracks a number
    of risks that need to be addressed in order to enable future
    space exploration. The ISS, of course, as you noted, is a key
    asset in conducting research in mitigating these risks.
        Understanding that ISS will not operate forever, how is
    NASA doing at addressing those risks given the length of ISS
    operations, making all that work together? And maybe for a
    moment, can commercial solutions help address those risks?
        Dr. Rubins. Yes, thank you very much for the question.
        So the Human Research Program has looked at all of our deep
    space exploration risks, what we need for lunar missions and
    eventual missions to Mars, categorized those, and then assessed
    what kind of research needs to address those risks to develop
    countermeasures.
        We then ranked those research risks in terms of order of
    importance and looked at how many years we think we're going to
    need to address each of these risks.
        These risks are things like radiation encountered on the
    voyage to Mars; our closed loop environmental system, how do we
    scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, how do we recycle
    water and provide clean water to astronauts, and the human
    health risks, things like cardiovascular and bone.
        And so some of those risks are things that we've now closed
    out. We've used the ISS to discover a countermeasure to those
    risks. Some of them are risks that we are going to assess in
    the next few years, and we have studies that are hopefully
    going to close that risk within the next few years. And some of
    these are longer risks that are really going to require some
    sustained research in low Earth orbit.
        We have identified any other places that we could do the
    research to address these risks. And a lot of times there is no
    way to do that research on Earth. And so these longer-term
    risks are going to be things that we need to develop
    countermeasures for before we're going to have a successful
    mission to Mars. And we do need a platform in low Earth orbit
    to address these health risks and the really long duration
    risks.
        Mr. Lucas. My next question, I guess, goes both to Director
    Gatens, but also to Mr. Harrison, Manber.
        We've noted in several comments in this hearing that the
    international interest in low Earth orbit is not limited to the
    United States or our partners on the ISS.
        Could you tell me about the capacities of the Chinese space
    station, just as a reference point? What do we know about the
    Chinese space station, and what do we know about their
    capacities? Whoever would care to touch that first.
        Ms. Gatens. I can touch it, and then Todd can jump in.
        So the Chinese space station has gotten off to a strong
    start. They have launched their first module, and they just
    launched a new cargo mission carrying supplies. So they're
    rapidly assembling the station and have started to accommodate
    the first crew on the space station.
        In addition, I know that they are planning for a wide range
    of activities, including research in some of the key areas that
    we are doing research on, on the International Space Station.
        Mr. Harrison. I'll just add that we actually don't know as
    much as we would like to about the specific capabilities and
    technologies on the Chinese space station because we're not a
    partner with them. And so we only get to see what they choose
    to share with us. And of course one of the downsides of that is
    it naturally leads to more suspicion and mistrust on both
    sides.
        And so that's why I would urge the Congress to look at ways
    that we could forge more relationships with the Chinese civil
    space program so that we have better understanding on both
    sides of, what are they developing, what kind of capabilities
    do they have, how could that be helpful to some of our science
    and exploration goals, and, where possible, where do we want to
    partner with them to achieve our mutual science and exploration
    goals?
        Of course, I would caution, whenever you're talking about
    bringing in a party like China, we've got to be careful to make
    sure that we keep all of our existing partnerships in place on
    the ISS and make sure all of those nations are fully informed
    and are on board with what we're doing.
        Mr. Lucas. Mr. Manber?
        Mr. Manber. Yes, thank you, sir. A couple of comments, if I
    may.
        First off, looking at the program itself, it's a simpler
    platform. It doesn't have the volume of the International Space
    Station. The cargo delivery is not as robust as ours. It's
    going to make certain research more difficult. And the crew is
    not as robust, they don't have the capacity yet. So in that
    sense, it's not a one-on-one comparison. The ISS is still far
    more robust.
        Having said that, it is a formidable commercial competitor.
    I submitted into my written testimony a list of our allies that
    are working with the Chinese, organizations in Japan and France
    and in Peru. They have some extraordinarily cutting-edge
    hardware on their platform representing technology from 2015.
        And so when we talk about the aging of the International
    Space Station, it's not only the platforms itself but the
    capability for research and when do you make that balance of
    investing further in the ISS as you look at the natural decay.
        But to stay focused on your question directly, they are a
    commercial presence, they are marketing internationally. And I
    echo that we should engage in some safe way to make sure
    American presence is in the room, and commercial offers that
    opportunity in my view.
        Mr. Lucas. If the Chairman will indulge me for half a
    question.
        Are there countries who have sent future astronauts to
    China to be trained to be able to utilize the facility?
        Mr. Manber. Yes, from what I just read. I turn to my NASA
    colleagues. But I do understand that ESA (European Space
    Agency) has training going on, and Russia as well.
        So, yes, again, I believe we should be in the room.
        Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, very much.
        Now let me recognize the gentleman from Colorado, who has
    some scientific interest in this.
        Mr. Perlmutter. So I want to start with you, Dr. Rubins. I
    mean, obviously, part of your testimony today has been about
    our mission to Mars. And the ISS has played a big role, as
    you've described, in us learning about the effects of long-term
    existence in space, what it does to people, what it does to
    plants, what it does.
        Are we, given the fact--and Mr. Manber just talked about
    it--that our Space Station is aging--we've had a hole, we've
    had thruster problems--are we in a position to continue to do
    the experiments for the time that you think it's going to take
    to then help mitigate the risks when we do go to Mars? I mean,
    is this Space Station going to last long enough for us to do
    the experiments that are needed?
        Dr. Rubins. Yes, this is an excellent question. And I flew
    in 2016 and then just flew this last year. I landed in April.
    So I have seen the Space Station across the most recent 5 years
    of life.
        And it's in incredible shape. The structures that we have
    built are very robust. We have done studies at NASA that have
    proven that we can extend the life of the Space Station out to
    2028. And we really don't see any concerns structurally for
    longer extension of the Space Station.
        The equipment is--there's original equipment, but there's
    also constant addition and improvement of the equipment on
    board. And so we see things like the DNA sequencer. We are
    seeing a lot of commercial companies put things like
    microscopes up there, tools that are going to allow us to
    assess human health for long duration.
        And we're also adding things to the life support system. So
    this is one of the most important questions for Mars: How do we
    keep humans alive for this 2.5-year mission in deep space? Our
    life support is going to be absolutely critical.
        And the microgravity environment of the ISS is incredibly
    capable. It's large. It allows us to integrate new pieces of
    the life support system.
        So while I was up there, we installed several pieces of
    equipment to further refine our water processing. We're about
    90 percent closed loop, and we're increasing that element of
    closed loop water processing.
        So even today, we are adding new equipment to the Space
    Station that's going to allow us to solve these gaps and get to
    Mars safely and successfully.
        Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
        And this I will start with Captain Shepherd, I guess, but
    it's to the whole panel.
        You mentioned the ability, the need for somebody to take
    leadership in integrating all the systems, all that, and not
    expect, just because we have got smart astronauts, that they
    can do everything on the fly.
        I guess my desire is similar to what we have done with the
    Space Station, that it be public-private in certain respects,
    international in scope to the degree we could work with the
    Chinese, continue to work with the Russians. I would like to
    see the mission to Mars be that extensive.
        But what did you mean about the leadership needed to do the
    integration? Let me start with that.
        Captain Shepherd. Sir, let me give you a graphic example.
    We all use the internet. And the internet runs because somebody
    established a protocol and everybody signed up. And so now it's
    an immensely valuable thing for the civilized world. All of our
    communications protocols are the same way.
        What I'm saying is there needs to be a framework. You need
    to see these expeditions and missions to the Moon and Mars from
    the standpoint of the crews who will be at the point of need.
    The people on the surface or the people in the vehicle, what do
    they have to deal with and how complex is their job? And the
    integration has to start from that level and come out.
        And without some congregation of contractors all agreeing
    on common standards or NASA imposing or some other agency
    imposing a standard that all will salute, you are not going to
    have that. And this is what I'm talking about.
        Mr. Perlmutter. So why do you think NASA isn't going to
    impose the standard? What's the problem here?
        Captain Shepherd. I don't see it.
        Mr. Perlmutter. You just think everybody's going their own
    direction?
        Captain Shepherd. I certainly do. We tried to establish
    just standards for controls and displays on ISS 20 years ago.
    And as far as I can tell now, it's being used nowhere else.
        Mr. Perlmutter. OK. My time is expired. I yield back to the
    Chair.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter.
        I recognize the Congressman from Cape Canaveral, Mr. Posey.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairman Beyer. And thank you for
    this great hearing that really we needed to have. Thank you
    again.
        Ms. Gatens, following up on Representative Crist's comments
    and questions, when I hear the Space Station gap, I think of
    the shuttle gap between the last space launch and the first
    commercial crew launch 9 years later. It left a gaping hole in
    Florida's Space Coast economy and work force for sure, a loss
    of many, many veteran space workers, and left us to rely on the
    Russians to carry our astronauts to the ISS.
        Can you give us some idea of the platforms and the
    destinations that you expect the private sector to propose?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for that question.
        Yes, in fact, we are seeing a very strong response to our
    request for proposals for Commercial LEO Destinations. And so
    we expect to see a wide variety of concepts. And I am looking
    forward to seeing what our industry partners are proposing
    there.
        In addition, so we believe that due to the----
        Mr. Posey. Can you give us just some idea of some of the
    concepts we might expect to hear?
        Ms. Gatens. Well, I haven't seen the proposals. I have seen
    some earlier industry studies that show different free-flying
    concepts made of repurposed elements in some case, upper
    stages, and other more traditional and inflatable kinds of
    structures. So I think we have that to look forward to, but I
    have not seen the proposals yet.
        And if I might just follow up on the previous question
    regarding standards. NASA did work with our international
    partners to develop an initial set of international standards
    for our Artemis Program.
        So I do agree with Bill Shepherd, that's very important,
    and we are working toward those standards.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. And I am glad to hear that. We know
    that China is trying to change standards in all disciplines
    over the globe to favor them. And I think we need to take a
    lead on standard setting for sure.
        Do you maintain communications with our Space Force and
    other military sectors?
        Ms. Gatens. Yes. I know our Administrator routinely
    communicates with General Raymond of the Space Force. And we
    work with them, obviously, at Cape Canaveral for our launches,
    and they do our range activities. So we have a close
    communication with Space Force for our activities in human
    space flight.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you.
        What parts of the ISS are becoming dangerously outdated? I
    mean, I am wondering if there are elements of the ISS that can
    be used for other purposes besides just deorbiting.
        Ms. Gatens. Oh, yes. Good question.
        So parts of the ISS are older than others. There are newer
    modules that have a lot of useful life left that could
    potentially be detached and become part of future LEO
    platforms.
        So we're not opposed to entertaining those concepts. We
    haven't studies those in detail, but that is certainly quite
    possible.
        Mr. Posey. Is it at all feasible to move any usable
    portions to a lunar orbit or possibly the surface of the Moon?
        Ms. Gatens. I am not an orbital mechanics expert. I could
    take that question. I do not believe that anyone has really
    proposed doing that.
        Mr. Posey. OK. Thank you.
        Now, Mr. Harrison, in your written and your oral testimony
    today you mentioned the Wolf amendment and how it originally
    intended to pressure China to make human rights reforms and to
    stifle development of its space capabilities.
        Then you say, after 10 years it's clear that China has not
    improved its behavior when it comes to human rights, and
    China's space programs, military and civilian, have only
    accelerated. And we know their civilian and their military
    activities are enjoined.
        The Wolf amendment doesn't preclude NASA from working with
    China. It says that NASA must notify Congress and vet it
    through the FBI and the State Department.
        Are you suggesting that Congress and the FBI (Federal
    Bureau of Investigation) not be notified per the requirement of
    the Wolf amendment that you imply is problematic in your
    written testimony?
        Mr. Harrison. Well, I think the effect of the Wolf
    amendment has been to limit that cooperation. And so there have
    been some examples. There was some recent low level cooperation
    on the Chang'e 4 mission, Chinese mission, with the Lunar Rover
    where NASA was able to share some information with China.
        They did jump through all the hoops and go through the FBI
    and the vetting process and submit it to Congress and were
    allowed to do it.
        So certainly it's possible. The problem is that it has
    stifled that ability to cooperate.
        I mean, there are examples where NASA was being a little
    overly aggressive in enforcing those restrictions early on, not
    allowing Chinese scientists to come to conferences where NASA
    scientists were going to be participating.
        Those things have been worked out since then. But that's
    just an example of how it has really stymied our ability to
    engage in a meaningful way with China when it comes to civil
    space.
        And as you say, we can't really tell the difference between
    many of their military and civilian space activities, and I
    think that's a shame.
        We can tell those distinctions with the Russians because we
    cooperate with them on the civilian side. We don't have that
    kind of relationship with China. And, importantly from a
    military space perspective, we don't have those direct
    military-to-military space contacts that we would like.
        If we had civilian-to-civilian contacts through our civil
    space activities, that could actually be a good channel of
    communication to develop so that we don't end up with
    misperceptions and actions and potential misintended escalation
    in space in a future military crisis environment.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you for your indulgence and letting the
    witness answer my question, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired,
    and I yield back.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congressman Posey, very much.
        Now, let me recognize Representative Kim from California
    for her questions.
        Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you so much for all of our witnesses for being with
    us.
        I want to pose the questions to Director Gatens.
        NASA's 2018 ISS Transition Report states that NASA intends
    to begin shifting responsibility for meeting its needs and
    requirements in LEO by leveraging private industry capacity,
    innovation, and competitiveness that would offer the prospects
    of lower costs to the government to enable NASA to apply more
    personnel and budget resources on extending human space flights
    beyond LEO and enhancing U.S. leadership in human space flight
    around the world.
        So with that, can you provide more detail for this
    Committee on how NASA is actively working on or planning to
    reduce the operational costs of the ISS as well as more details
    regarding the private sector's role in reducing operational
    costs?
        Ms. Gatens. Yes, thank you for that question.
        So we have done some preliminary cost assessment of the
    efficiencies that we could gain from transitioning from the
    pretty complex ISS to a more simpler commercially owned and
    operated platforms in low Earth orbit. And we believe we can
    save over a billion dollars a year by purchasing services for
    what we need, we will need, NASA going forward in low Earth
    orbit, from these privately owned platforms.
        As the companies mature their concepts and we learn more
    about their capabilities and potential prices for these
    services, we can refine those estimates going forward. That's
    kind of our cost estimate right now of the savings.
        And those savings are important because we can apply those
    to expand our exploration efforts beyond low Earth orbit to
    include the Moon and Mars and on to the solar system.
        Mrs. Kim. Well, how will NASA make a final determination
    about end of life in preparation to deorbit the ISS? What kind
    of factors will drive that decision?
        Ms. Gatens. Yes, thank you for that.
        We've actually started to generate a list of what we call
    transition indicators to tell us when we will be ready to make
    this transition. The first and foremost indicator is that we
    have Commercial LEO Destinations to transition to. That may
    sound pretty obvious, but that's a prerequisite so that we
    don't have a gap in low Earth orbit.
        The second transition indicator that we'll be watching is
    the health of the Space Station. We believe it's structurally
    sound until 2028 and can go beyond that. But we will be
    watching that as we go forward.
        Other indicators we're going to be looking at are the
    development of commercial markets and the readiness of the
    private sector, besides NASA, to do activities in low Earth
    orbit.
        We also want to work with our international partners on
    this transition plan so that we can have a plan to continue our
    international partnership in LEO as we do this transition. Not
    only do we want the international partnership to continue for
    Artemis, but we want it to continue for low Earth orbit as
    well, and that's extremely important.
        So these are some of the indicators that we'll be looking
    for.
        Mrs. Kim. Well, thank you so much.
        Let me ask a question to Mr. Shepherd.
        In your written testimony, you highlight the recent leaks
    placed to the rear of the Russian service module and state:
    ``Engineers and technicians in Russia and the United States
    work together to understand and resolve this issue; but the
    root cause of the cracking, their failure modes, and impact on
    ISS safety and future operations have not been adequately
    determined.''
        So can you tell us how frequently are these cracks and
    leaks appearing, and are they easily resolved? Have they
    worsened in the past year?
        Captain Shepherd. Congresswoman Kim, thank you for the
    question. I think I should defer to other NASA technical
    experts for the exact details, but I'll tell what you I know
    based on two meetings with the Advisory Committee.
        The cracks have appeared recently. They're quite small.
    They look like scratches on the surface of the aluminum plate.
    The plate itself is very thin, but the material is quite
    ductile. So that allows it to resist basically growth of flaws
    like cracks.
        I have been in the factory where this module is made, and I
    am pretty sure I may have seen pieces of it in my earlier life.
    And as far as I know, the Russian engineers and the NASA
    engineers do not--they have analyzed it. They don't exactly
    understand why these cracks are appearing now.
        There are probably something like half a dozen of them.
    They're quite small. We've assessed that the length that they
    would need to grow to, to be a serious problem, they're well
    short of that. But we know that there are probably other cracks
    that we haven't found yet.
        And so I'm just saying that getting to the bottom of this
    is a fairly serious issue. I don't think the Station's in any
    immediate danger. But before we clear the Station for another
    so many years of operational use, we should better understand
    this.
        Mrs. Kim. Definitely. Because we don't want to jeopardize
    the long-term operation of the ISS.
        But thank you so much. I see that my time is up. Thank you.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Madam Kim, very much.
        I now recognize Mr. Webster from Florida for his questions.
        Congressman Webster? If you are there? Give you another
    couple seconds to resurface.
        And if not, we would love to move to Congressman Brooks
    from Alabama. Again, if Congressman Brooks is there.
        If not, Mr. Babin, I would love to do a second round, for
    anyone who has questions for a second round. And that might
    give Congressmen Webster and Brooks an opportunity to come
    back.
        Mr. Babin. [Inaudible] Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Beyer. Great. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Dr.
    Babin.
        So let me begin.
        I have been fascinated by the tension--the debate tension,
    not the personal tension--between the Captain Shepherd
    perspective, which I would characterize perhaps as some
    skepticism that the private sector, the commercial sector is
    going to be able to come in and provide the same level of
    coordination, diplomacy, redundancy that--the long partnership
    that the ISS has had.
        So, Ms. Gatens, since this is largely your role right now,
    No. 1, is there a larger process within NASA, within the U.S.
    Federal Government, that takes all of the Captain Shepherd
    questions in skepticism and posits it against some of the
    enthusiasm that, say, Mr. Manber has about our ability to stand
    up the commercial sector to take over the governmental role
    that we've had in the last couple of decades?
        Ms. Gatens. Yes, thank you for that question.
        This is something that we consider at NASA as we think
    forward into our procurement strategies. And we have learned
    that our industry can be quite strong in developing those
    capabilities and their ability to take over.
        The government's role is to do the hard things, and we have
    paved the way in low Earth orbit and brought our industry
    partners along with us. And right now in the Space Station
    there are over 20 commercial facilities that are owned and
    operated by gentlemen like Mr. Manber and other companies, and
    they're bringing customers to those facilities.
        And so we know that the response from industry is strong,
    and we believe that they will be ready for this next step in
    low Earth orbit, and enabling NASA to move on to the next hard
    thing, exploring the Moon and Mars and the rest of the solar
    system.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you.
        And to Captain Shepherd, I defer to you for your thoughts.
        Captain Shepherd. I would like to ask Ms. Gatens and maybe
    anybody else from NASA how NASA has incentivized the
    contractors who are currently performing commercial space
    activities involving NASA astronauts, how NASA has incentivized
    these companies to best integrate their systems with the
    astronauts and with each other. I'm not sure I see that.
        Chairman Beyer. I would welcome both, either Ms. Gatens or
    Mr. Manber, to respond to that.
        Ms. Gatens. I was going to invite my colleague, Mr. Manber,
    to respond to that since he has those facilities as well.
        Mr. Manber. Well, thank you.
        I'm a little bit surprised at this late stage in the
    growing public-private partnership that we have enjoyed with
    NASA. We see the ability of SpaceX to take contractor funding
    and grow and self-invest.
        At Nanoracks, we're far smaller, of course, but we have the
    European Space Agency as a customer, the German space agency as
    a customer, UAE (United Arab Emirates) Space Agency. We've
    self-invested it. They're using our hardware. And it's pretty
    accepted that the use of commerce as a tool of American power
    and influence is an important part of that diplomatic, almost
    soft diplomatic tool.
        And so the maturing, for me--for me, the maturing of the
    public-private partnerships with NASA is a sign that America's
    presence in space is both robust and adhering to our core
    American values.
        Chairman Beyer. Mr. Manber, let me jump in, because I only
    have a minute left.
        Mr. Manber. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Beyer. I will just posit two questions.
        Number one, as we have seen with SpaceX versus Blue Origin,
    essentially freezing of the Moon to Mars as we work through
    first the protests and then the lawsuit, and because--and I'm a
    huge fan of commercial, but we're seeing right now that that
    commercial thing is really disrupting Congressman Perlmutter's
    2033 schedule.
        And then, number two, as a businessman myself over many
    years, what happens when there's no capital, there's not a
    profitable business model? What keeps us from being in the chip
    industry, say, in space, that gets to where chips are right
    now, where you just can't fulfill the need because they didn't
    build the factories enough?
        Mr. Manber. Well, no method is perfect. We've all endured
    the delays of the more traditional government contracting.
        I agree with you that--I share with you the concerns of
    having, let's say, too much influence in the hands of a
    commercial sector. But we've also seen that the pathway of
    government contracting has produced problems in and of itself.
    But over the history of this country, I think commercial
    markets have shown the most resiliency.
        And, quickly, the second part of your question. That's the
    whole point of multiplicity of platforms, multiplicity of
    vendors. And it's just part of the maturing process. So I think
    commercial gives us the most robustness.
        Chairman Beyer. Great. Thank you very much. Interesting
    debate. So I am sure it's not over.
        Congressman and Dr. Babin, the floor is yours.
        Mr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to
    be going back through with a second round here.
        I wanted to ask Director Gatens another spacesuit question.
        The NASA IG (Inspector General) recently issued a report on
    spacesuits and stated: ``With the evolving and competing
    requirements of the eXMU's (Exploration Extravehicular Mobility
    Unit's), stakeholder programs and the agency's uncertainties
    about mission priorities, NASA is at risk of awarding a
    contract without clearly defining key technical requirements.
        ``Additionally, NASA has yet to formalize its acquisition
    strategy for next-generation spacesuits.
        ``According to Federal guidance, agencies are required to
    perform acquisition planning, including identifying the
    milestones in which decisions are made and addressing all the
    technical, business, management, and other significant
    considerations that control an acquisition.
        ``Awarding a contract before technical requirements and an
    acquisition strategy are solidified could result in numerous
    modifications to the contract, increasing cost and schedule.
        ``As our prior work has shown, entering a contract before
    completing development work can exacerbate cost and schedule
    risks, particularly if issues are discovered late in the
    development effort and require costly rework.''
        So does NASA plan to issue a final RFP, or will it issue a
    new draft RFP that addresses these significant concerns and to
    have contractors express concerns with the draft RFP?
        Yes, ma'am?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for your question. Although I'm not
    directly involved in the RFP process, I believe our initial
    plan was to issue an RFP this fall. But I'm happy to take your
    question and talk with those folks.
        I honestly have not seen the industry comments. So I cannot
    comment on those concerns. But happy to take that question.
        Mr. Babin. OK. Yes, we would certainly love to have some
    answers there.
        OK. Also to you as well, Director Gatens. NASA recently
    announced that an astronaut would not be returning on a Soyuz
    landing as planned, and that he would remain on the ISS for
    another 6 months.
        In a few weeks, Russia will launch an actress and a
    director to film a movie aboard the ISS and they will return
    after a short stay. This would have been the U.S. astronaut's
    seat home.
        When did you know that the U.S. astronaut will not be
    returning to Earth on the fall Soyuz return? Was it before he
    launched this past spring? And can you provide Congress with
    the Flight Planning Integration Panel, the FPIP?
        Ms. Gatens. Yes, thank you for that question.
        So we knew that this would be a potential possibility for
    Mark Vande Hei's stay, and he was informed of that before he
    launched and was perfectly willing to travel to the Space
    Station with that flexibility in mind, he and his family.
        So we knew that possibility. We didn't know it was for sure
    until recently when the Russians did ask NASA to formally
    extend his stay to allow the space flight participant mission.
        And regarding the flight planning, I believe we have worked
    an alternative product that we have been transmitting to
    Congress to show you our near-term flight planning and our
    notional longer-term flight planning.
        The internal FPIP document has a lot of preplanning dates
    on it, and so we prefer to keep that one internal. However, if
    the product that we've been sending over is not sufficient,
    we're happy to discuss that further and see how we can give you
    what you need.
        Mr. Babin. We would certainly like to have that, because I
    don't believe that that was sufficient.
        Ms. Gatens. OK. Well, happy to discuss that.
        Mr. Babin. If you could have that forthcoming, we would
    appreciate that.
        OK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield back the balance
    of my time. Thank you.
        Chairman Beyer. Thank you, Congressman Babin, very much.
        Mr. Perlmutter, Congressman Perlmutter, you're recognized
    if you have additional questions.
        Mr. Perlmutter. I don't. I just enjoy listening to the
    panel. And I'm sure that once I tell you I don't have any
    questions, I'll think up 10.
        But I just appreciate everybody's testimony, and just thank
    you for your service to our country and for the development of
    the space program, both as a national program as well as the
    commercial efforts that we're making.
        So I just am proud of all of you. So I'll just leave it at
    that. Thanks.
        Chairman Beyer. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter, very
    much.
        Is Mr. Webster, Congressman Webster or Congressman Brooks
    available for questions before we cutoff?
        And then, let's give it--Mr. Weber from Texas had waived on
    to the Committee and I believe is trying to sign on right now.
    So let's give Congressman Weber a minute to do this.
        Ms. Gatens, while we're waiting--are you ready, Congressman
    Weber?
        Mr. Weber. I am, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
        Chairman Beyer. OK. Well, then the floor is yours.
        Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you so much.
        This question is for Robyn Gatens. I apologize for being
    late. But at any rate, I'll start there.
        The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Transition Authorization Act of 2017 required NASA to provide
    Congress with a transition plan for the ISS to address several
    specific topics. Quite frankly, NASA delivered a plan that was
    less than adequate. It was supposed to provide an update this
    year.
        I guess my question for Ms. Gatens is, where is that plan?
    And will it include all the elements which were required under
    the previous act?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for that question.
        Yes, we are working on the update to that transition report
    right now. It's actually going through agency review, and we
    will be sending it over to Congress in the coming weeks.
        I believe that you'll find that it is a much more thorough
    strategic and tactical plan for ISS transition to Commercial
    LEO Destinations, as we've been describing. It has evolved
    since the initial report to include many more details, cost
    projections, transition indicators, our requirements in low
    Earth orbit going forward.
        So I think it's a more comprehensive report than we
    previously had due to the maturation of our planning here. So
    we look forward to sending that over very soon.
        Mr. Weber. Well, that's good news.
        The second question is, ISS has flown, as we're all aware,
    over 100 projects from 100 different nations. Now the Chinese
    are using their space station to attract partnerships and
    engagement with other countries while ISS' final years and
    post-ISS planning remains uncertain. I'm glad to hear reports
    can be that extensive.
        The question is, isn't NASA risking leaving low Earth orbit
    to the Chinese by setting up development programs to begin in a
    year or two when it has already had one follow-on station and
    developed Axiom, for example. Question: Why not double down on
    that station?
        Ms. Gatens. Thank you for that question.
        So we believe we need multiple paths so that we have the
    greatest chance of success for one or hopefully more commercial
    LEO platforms in low Earth orbit.
        So the Axiom commercial element on Space Station is one of
    those paths. We had always intended to follow that with a
    commercial free-flyer solicitation, which we have now done, and
    we have seen strong industry feedback to that request for
    proposals. So that tells us that was a good strategy on our
    part. There is strong interest in multiple platforms in low
    Earth orbit.
        Mr. Weber. Well, I don't see the clock. So how much time do
    I have, Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Beyer. Just about 2 minutes. Just a little less.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, sir.
        So I am going to follow up with that question for you, Ms.
    Gatens, if I can.
        Do you agree that NASA should be able to assure the U.S.
    scientific and research community, as well as our international
    partners, that there is a plan moving forward, together, which
    provides for the continuity of scientific and research
    collaboration in space that does leave the world relying on
    China for activities in microgravity? What do you say to that?
        Ms. Gatens. Yes. Thank you for that.
        Our plan absolutely emphasizes that plan so that this
    important microgravity research can continue. When we define
    what we, NASA, are interested in purchasing services for from
    private space stations, it not only includes NASA research, but
    also includes the same kinds of things that we're enabling
    through the ISS National Laboratory today. So other government
    agency research, private industry, incubation kinds of
    commercial research, education, academia research.
        So all of those things we think are important to continue
    as well as our international partnerships. And we're doing that
    planning right now to define and refine those forecasts so that
    we can provide industry with an updated plan for the kinds of
    services that the government will purchase.
        Mr. Weber. Well, thank you for that answer.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me piggyback on your
    Committee. I appreciate it. I yield back.
        Chairman Beyer. Congressman Weber, you are always welcome.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you.
        Chairman Beyer. If our Committee Members have no more
    questions, then I want to thank our five witnesses very much.
    It's been really, really interesting questioning. We never even
    got to Point Nemo in the Pacific. So we will have to come back
    and talk about how Ms. Gatens plans to deorbit what's left of
    the Space Station after everything else has been sorted out.
    But we really, really appreciate that.
        Formally, the record will remain open for two weeks for
    additional statements from the Members and for any additional
    questions the Committee may ask the witnesses.
        With that, again, my hearty thanks. The witnesses are now
    excused. And we are now adjourned. So thank you very much, and
    enjoy the fall equinox.
        [Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Ms. Robyn Gatens

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Dr. Kathleen ``Kate'' Rubins

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. Jeffrey Manber

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Mr. Todd Harrison

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Responses by Captain William Shepherd (USN, Ret)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

      Letter submitted by Aerospace Industries Association and Commercial
        Spaceflight Federation, referenced in Chairman Beyer's questions

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                Letter submitted by Mr. Peter Cannito, Redwire,
                    referenced in Chairman Beyer's questions

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]