[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]