[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STEP BY STEP: THE ARTEMIS PROGRAM
AND NASA'S PATH TO HUMAN EXPLORATION
OF THE MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-904 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman
RANDY WEBER, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking
JIM BAIRD, Indiana Member
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JAY OBERNOLTE, California HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
DARRELL ISSA, California ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina
SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida EMILIA SYKES, Ohio
MAX MILLER, Ohio MAXWELL FROST, Florida
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia GABE AMO, Rhode Island
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia
VINCE FONG, California LUZ RIVAS, California
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina SYLVESTER TURNER, Texas
KEITH SELF, Texas SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware
PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina LAURA GILLEN, New York
SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,
JEFF HURD, Colorado Vice Ranking Member
MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida LAURA FRIEDMAN, California
MIKE KENNEDY, Utah APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
NICK BEGICH, Alaska JOSH RILEY, New York
VACANT
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida, Chairman
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina,
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia Ranking Member
MIKE COLLINS, Georgia LAURA GILLEN, New York
VINCE FONG, California GEORGE WHITESIDES, California
KEITH SELF, Texas HALEY STEVENS, Michigan
MIKE KENNEDY, Utah ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
C O N T E N T S
February 26, 2025
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Mike Haridopolos, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Valerie Foushee, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Dr. Scott Pace, Director of Space Policy Institute, George
Washington University
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Mr. Dan Dumbacher, Adjunct Professor, Purdue University
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 34
Discussion....................................................... 42
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Scott Pace, Director of Space Policy Institute, George
Washington University.......................................... 68
Mr. Dan Dumbacher, Adjunct Professor, Purdue University.......... 76
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Mike Haridopolos, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
Aaron Oesterle, Policy Director, Space Frontier Foundation... 90
Allen Cutler, President and CEO, Coalition for Deep Space
Exploration................................................ 93
STEP BY STEP: THE ARTEMIS PROGRAM
AND NASA'S PATH TO HUMAN EXPLORATION
OF THE MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike
Haridopolos [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Haridopolos. The Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Step by Step: The Artemis
Program and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space
Administration)'s Path to Human Exploration of the Moon, Mars,
and Beyond.'' And with that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
Welcome to the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee's first
hearing of the 119th Congress. I extend my warm welcome to our
Ranking Member, Congresswoman Foushee from the State of North
Carolina, and express my enthusiasm to work with her and her
team and the returning Members of this Subcommittee.
2026 will be a defining year for the legacy of the United
States. Next April, NASA is set to launch Artemis II, a mission
sending American astronauts into orbit around the Moon for the
first time in 50 years. If we succeed, we will clear the path
for Artemis III in 2027 when American astronauts will once
again step onto the lunar surface and plant the Stars and
Stripes. This is the most significant moment of America's space
program since the Apollo program.
We stand at a crossroads. The world is watching, and our
competitors, like communist China, are racing to beat us there.
We cannot afford to fall behind. This is an opportunity to
prove that America still leads the world in exploration and
innovation. Failure is not an option.
To succeed, we need the same relentless pace and ironclad
determination today as we won the space race back in the
1960's. With each mission, NASA tested new systems, tackled new
challenges, and carried us one step closer to Neil Armstrong's
great giant leap for mankind.
At the height of the Apollo program, NASA launched seven
crewed missions in less than 2 years. That achievement was
fueled by patriotism, urgency, ingenuity, and an unshakable
belief in American greatness.
Returning to the Moon has not been without its challenges.
Over the years, changing directions and requirements have
resulted in schedule delays and cost overruns. Not only must we
return to the Moon and establish a presence, but we must do it
while spending significantly less money than the Apollo
missions. That makes every taxpayer dollar given to NASA
precious.
We aim to get the Artemis program back on track. Thanks to
President Trump, NASA has a clear direction now that we must
ensure that NASA carries out that direction in the most
efficient and cost-effective means possible. I plan to conduct
those--I plan to conduct close oversight to ensure that every
dollar NASA spends moves us closer to the Moon and to Mars.
We must remember that we are in a race to the Moon and that
there are consequences for coming in second. The Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) has set its sights on landing on the Moon
by 2030. The Nation must establish a foothold there and will
shape the norms of behavior for generations of exploration on
the lunar surface. I refuse to let the communist dictatorship
set the rules for the future of space. Now is not the time for
half measures, and the next few years are critical to our
national interests and our place in the world. We are on--in a
race to the Moon, and America must win that race.
Our journey to the Moon is in service to a greater goal,
one that President Trump outlined in his inaugural address, to
plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars. Since 2005,
Congress has backed a step-by-step path to human exploration
with Mars as the ultimate goal. A mission to Mars will be the
defining moment of our era. It will no longer--and even--it
will be longer and even more difficult than a lunar landing,
which is why we must prepare ourselves for the journey. The
Moon is our critical steppingstone, a proving ground to test
technologies, refine operations, and reduce risks for future
Mars missions. Every step we take toward the Moon is a giant
leap toward Mars.
To my fellow Americans, you deserve to know where your
dollars are spent wisely. We will conduct careful oversight to
ensure that NASA operates at the highest standards, and we will
settle for nothing less than efficiency, productivity, and
results. This is a chance to remind ourselves that we are
capable--what we are capable of when we are united behind a
shared goal. Mars is on the horizon, but the Moon is where we
first prove ourselves.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today, and
let's get to work.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Haridopolos follows:]
Welcome to the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee's first
hearing of the 119th Congress.
I extend a warm welcome to Ranking Member Foushee and
express my enthusiasm to work with both new and returning
members of this subcommittee.
2026 will be a defining year for the legacy of the United
States.
Next April, NASA is set to launch the Artemis 2 mission,
sending American astronauts into orbit around the Moon for the
first time in fifty years.
If we succeed, we will clear the path for Artemis 3 in
2027, when American astronauts will once again step onto the
lunar surface and plant the Stars and Stripes.
This is the most significant moment for America's space
program since the Apollo program.
We stand at a crossroads: The world is watching, and our
competitors--like Communist China--are racing to beat us there.
We cannot afford to fall behind, this is an opportunity to
prove that America still leads the world in exploration and
innovation.
Failure is NOT an option.
To succeed, we need the same relentless pace and ironclad
determination today that won us the Space Race in the 1960s.
With each mission, NASA tested new systems, tackled new
challenges, and carried us one step closer to Neil Armstrong's
giant leap for mankind.
At the height of the Apollo Program, NASA launched seven
crewed missions in less than two years.
That achievement was fueled by patriotism, urgency,
ingenuity, and an unshakable belief in American greatness.
Returning to the Moon has not been without its challenges.
Over the years, changing directions and requirements have
resulted in schedule delays and cost overruns.
Not only must we return to the Moon and establish a
presence, but we must do it while spending significantly less
money than the Apollo missions.
That makes every taxpayer dollar given to NASA precious.
We aim to get the Artemis program back on track.
Thanks to President Trump, NASA has clear direction. Now,
we must ensure that NASA carries out that direction in the most
efficient and cost-effective way possible.
I plan to conduct close oversight to ensure that every
dollar NASA spends moves us closer to the Moon and to Mars.
We must also remember that we are in a race to the Moon,
and that there are consequences for coming in second.
The Chinese Communist Party has set its sights on landing
on the Moon by 2030.
The nation to establish a foothold there will shape the
norms of behavior for generations of exploration on the lunar
surface.
I refuse to let a communist dictatorship set the rules of
the road for the future of space.
Now is not a time for half-measures. The next few years are
critical to our national interests and our place in the world.
We are in a race to the Moon, and America must win that
race.
Our journey to the Moon is in service to a greater goal,
one that President Trump outlined in his inaugural address:
``To plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars''.
Since 2005, Congress has backed a step-by-step path to
human exploration, with Mars as our ultimate goal.
A mission to Mars will be the defining moment of our era.
It will be longer and even more difficult than a lunar
landing, which is why we must prepare ourselves for the
journey.
The Moon is our crucial stepping stone--a proving ground to
test technologies, refine operations, and reduce risks for that
future Mars mission.
Every step we take towards the Moon is a giant leap towards
Mars.
To my fellow Americans, you deserve to know your dollars
are spent wisely. We will conduct careful oversight to ensure
that NASA operates at the highest standards, and we will settle
for nothing less than efficiency, productivity, and results.
This is a chance to remind ourselves what we're capable of
when we unite behind a shared goal.
Mars is on the horizon, but the Moon is where we first
prove ourselves.
I thank our witnesses for joining us today. Let's get to
work.
Chairman Haridopolos. With that, I would like to recognize
our Ranking Member from the State of North Carolina,
Congresswoman Foushee, and you're recognized.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am thrilled to
serve as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space and
Aeronautics. We are at an exciting time, and I look forward to
working with you and the Members of the Subcommittee and full
Committee to continue our bipartisan and critical work on
ensuring a strong and vibrant future for civil space and
aeronautics.
Before we turn to the hearing, I want to first welcome our
expert witnesses and thank you for being here to discuss
Artemis and NASA's human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and
beyond.
Through the Artemis initiative, we'll land the first woman,
first person of color, and the first international partner
astronaut on the surfaces of the Moon. And I am so proud that
Christina Koch, who attended high school in my district, North
Carolina's 4th, will be a part of this historic Artemis II
crew, marking the first return of humans to the lunar vicinity
in over half a century.
Artemis will advance our scientific understanding, test
capabilities needed for sustained lunar activities, assess
resources on the Moon, and help us prepare for an eventual
groundbreaking human mission to Mars. Artemis is also
attracting commercial innovation to advance these and other
U.S. lunar activities. Importantly, under Artemis, the United
States of America, in hand with our international partners,
will lead and shape standards, responsible behaviors, and best
practices consistent with the peaceful exploration and safe
utilization of outer space.
In 2022 NASA successfully launched the Artemis I uncrewed
demo mission that provided essential test data, including on
the Orion heat shield. Artemis II preparations are well
underway for a crewed demonstration to fly by the far side of
the Moon next year. Even today, as we are holding this hearing,
a NASA-supported commercial lunar lander, the second to launch
in just 2 months, is sitting on the launchpad ready to lift
off. Both commercial landers carry NASA instruments and will
attempt to set down on the lunar surface in early March.
Despite these important milestones, NASA's Artemis campaign
is not without challenges, including technical complexities,
affordability, and schedule delays. We can and we must seek
improvements and corrections--and I mean with a scalpel, not a
chainsaw--if we are serious about returning to the Moon with
humans successfully again. It will take all of us working
together to achieve regular, measurable progress and to ensure
that it is done so safely.
To that end, I am disappointed that NASA chose not to send
a witness to testify today, despite being invited. I certainly
hope such practice does not continue. Full transparency with
Congress and the American public on an effort as important as
Artemis is of the utmost importance.
But these are not normal circumstances. At a time when
China is laser focused on sending taikonauts to the Moon by
2030, I cannot pretend today that the chaos, confusion, and
cruelty levied on our Federal Government workforce by the Trump
Administration and its destructive Executive actions, including
the threat of mass firings, will not negatively impact the
United States and our standing around the world or its efforts
to return our astronauts, American astronauts, to the surface
of the Moon, and to do so before China.
I will not sit idly by and let our Federal Government,
including NASA, a national crown jewel, be destroyed, nor will
I stand for handing the keys to lunar exploration to China.
Doing so jeopardizes our economic and national security and our
geopolitical influence. It also risks the space research
technology and services on which we rely on here on Earth. We
must protect and enable these essential capabilities as we also
seek to push the boundaries of human exploration and activity
beyond low-Earth orbit.
To the NASA workforce, I want you to know that you are
valued. We cannot accomplish NASA's inspiring and historic
national endeavors without you. As the Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, I commit to keeping NASA workforce top of mind as
we work to reauthorize NASA. You are our most important
national asset.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Foushee follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am thrilled to serve as Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. We are at
an exciting time, and I look forward to working with you and
the Members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee to continue
our bipartisan and critical work on ensuring a strong and
vibrant future for civil space and aeronautics. Before we turn
to the hearing, I want to first welcome our expert witnesses
and thank you for being here to discuss Artemis and NASA's
human exploration of the Moon, Mars, and Beyond.
Through the Artemis initiative, we'll land the first woman,
first person of color, and the first international partner
astronaut on the surface of the Moon. And I'm so proud that
Christina Koch, who attended high school in my District, North
Carolina's Fourth, will be part of the historic Artemis II
crew, marking the first return of humans to the lunar vicinity
in over a half-century. Artemis will advance our scientific
understanding, test capabilities needed for sustained lunar
activities, assess resources on the moon, and help us prepare
for an eventual, groundbreaking human mission to Mars. Artemis
is also attracting commercial innovation to advance these and
other U.S. lunar activities.
Importantly, under Artemis, the United States of America,
in hand with our international partners, will lead and shape
standards, responsible behaviors, and best practices consistent
with the peaceful exploration and safe utilization of outer
space. In 2022, NASA successfully launched the Artemis I
uncrewed demo mission that provided essential test data,
including on the Orion heat shield. Artemis II preparations are
well underway for a crewed demonstration to flyby the far side
of the moon next year.
Even today, as we hold this hearing, a NASA-supported
commercial lunar lander--the second to launch in just two
months--is sitting on the launch pad ready to lift off. Both
commercial landers carry NASA instruments and will attempt to
set down on the lunar surface in early March.Despite these
important milestones, NASA's Artemis campaign is not without
challenges, including technical complexities, affordability,
and schedule delays.
We can and we must seek improvements and corrections--and I
mean with a scalpel not a chainsaw--if we are serious about
returning to the Moon with humans successfully again. It will
take all of us working together to achieve regular, measurable
progress, and to ensure that it is done so safely. To that end,
I am disappointed that NASA chose not to send a witness to
testify today, despite being invited. I certainly hope such
practice does not continue. Full transparency with Congress and
the American public on an effort as important as Artemis is of
the upmost importance.
But these are not normal circumstances. At a time when
China is laser focused on sending taikonauts to the Moon by
2030, I cannot pretend today that the chaos, confusion, and
cruelty levied on our Federal government workforce by the Trump
Administration and its destructive executive actions--including
the threat of mass firings--will not negatively impact the
United States and our standing around the world, or its efforts
to return our astronauts, American astronauts, to the surface
of the Moon, and to do so before China.
I will not sit idly and let our federal government,
including NASA--a national crown jewel--be destroyed. Nor will
I stand for handing the keys to lunar exploration to China.
Doing so jeopardizes our economic and national security, and
our geopolitical influence. It also risks the space research,
technology, and services on which we rely here on Earth. We
must protect and enable these essential capabilities as we also
seek to push the boundaries of human exploration and activity
beyond low Earth orbit.
To the NASA workforce, I want you to know that you are
valued. We cannot accomplish NASA's inspiring and historic
national endeavors without you. As Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, I commit to keeping the NASA workforce top of
mind as we work to reauthorize NASA. You are our most important
national asset.
Thank you Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Ranking Member Foushee.
Also for the record, before we move on, I would like to request
unanimous consent to submit two letters for the record. The
first is from Space Frontier Foundation, and the second is from
Coalition for Deep Space Exploration. Without objection, so
ordered.
Next, I would of course like to welcome our Chairman,
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much for being here. And with
that, I recognize the Chairman for his remarks.
Chairman Babin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
After serving at the helm of this Subcommittee for so many
years, it's going to take a hearing or two to get used to
sitting way down here at this end. But today's hearing is
especially important as America stands on the verge of
returning to the lunar surface. And as the proud Representative
of NASA's Johnson Space Center, it is also a topic that is very
near and dear to me.
Space exploration is not a task for the faint of heart.
American astronauts have accomplished great feats in space.
They have built space stations, operated the space shuttle,
and, of course, walked on the Moon. However, these programs are
significant undertakings, both in time and in resources. In
2005, Congress directed NASA to develop a sustained human
presence on the Moon as a steppingstone to future exploration
of Mars and other destinations. The name and format of the
program NASA would use to accomplish this goal changed with
time, but in each of the authorization acts that followed over
the years, Congress consistently directed NASA to pursue an
incremental approach using intermediate destinations to develop
extensible technologies that would enable humans to explore the
Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Given the time--and resource--intensive nature of any space
mission, successfully carrying out a crewed space exploration
program requires that the government maintain continuity of
purpose over the course of several years. Changing direction
isn't free, and it is incredibly taxing on the United States'
industrial base. For years, as it evolved from the
Constellation program to SLS (Space Launch System) and Orion,
even to an asteroid redirect mission, America's space program
has lacked a clear and consistent path.
And that is why I was honored to be at the President--at
President Trump's side when he signed Space Policy Directive 1,
more commonly known as SPD-1, in December 2017. This update to
United States' national space policy instructed NASA to partner
with the commercial sector and international community to
return humans to the Moon and eventually push toward Mars. SPD-
1 aligned with the congressional direction set forth in
previous NASA authorization bills and outlined a clear,
reachable goal that injected a new sense of urgency and
excitement into NASA's mission. To ensure the viability of the
Artemis program and the efforts of our commercial and
international partners, Congress cannot accept unnecessary cost
overruns or scheduled delays. We will continue to evaluate the
proposed architecture regularly and provide rigorous oversight
to ensure that the program remains on track.
With the CCP planning to send taikonauts to the Moon's
South Pole by the end of this decade, the stakes are too high
for us to fail. We cannot afford to let them beat us. And as
I've stated many, many times before, one of my greatest
concerns is that NASA astronauts will arrive on the lunar
surface only to be greeted by a sign that says ``no
trespassing'' in Mandarin.
Our Nation is uniquely suited to provide leadership on the
Moon with our commercial and international partners, and
additionally, the United States will maintain openness and
transparency in its operations on the lunar surface, something
that we can be certain the CCP will not.
We came close to sending a NASA authorization bill to the
President's desk late last year. Soon, this Committee will once
again consider legislation to provide NASA with continued
direction for human exploration and many other topics. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and our
counterparts in the Senate to finish the job this year.
We have a great panel of witnesses, and I want to thank
both of them for being here today, who are no strangers to this
Committee. And I thank them for sharing their expertise with
us, and I look forward to a very productive discussion today.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After serving at the helm of this
subcommittee for so many years, it might take a hearing or two
to get used to sitting at this end of the dais!
Today's hearing is especially important as America stands
on the verge of returning to the lunar surface. And as the
proud Representative of NASA's Johnson Space Center, it is also
a topic near and dear to me.
Space exploration is not a task for the faint of heart.
American astronauts have accomplished great feats in space:
They have built space stations, operated the space shuttle,
and, of course, walked on the Moon. However, these programs are
significant undertakings, both in time and resources.
In 2005, Congress directed NASA to develop a sustained
human presence on the Moon as a stepping-stone to future
exploration of Mars and other destinations. The name and format
of the program NASA would use to accomplish this goal changed
with time, but in each of the authorization acts that followed
over the years, Congress consistently directed NASA to pursue
an incremental approach, using intermediate destinations to
develop extensible technologies that would enable humans to
explore the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
Given the time and resource intensive nature of any space
mission, successfully carrying out a crewed space exploration
program requires that the government maintain continuity of
purpose over the course of several years.
Changing direction isn't free and is incredibly taxing on
the United States industrial base. For years, as it evolved
from the Constellation program, to SLS and Orion, even to an
asteroid redirect mission, America's space program lacked a
clear and consistent path.
That is why I was honored to be at President Trump's side
when he signed Space Policy Directive-1, more commonly known as
SPD-1 in December 2017. This update to U.S. national space
policy instructed NASA to partner with the commercial sector
and international community to return humans to the Moon, and
eventually push forward to Mars.
SPD-1 aligned with the congressional direction set forth in
previous NASA authorization bills and outlined a clear,
reachable goal that injected a new sense of urgency and
excitement into NASA's mission.
To ensure the viability of the Artemis program, and the
efforts of our commercial and international partners, Congress
cannot accept unnecessary cost overruns or schedule delays.
We will continue to evaluate the proposed architecture
regularly and provide rigorous oversight to ensure the program
remains on track.
With the CCP planning to send taikonauts to the Moon's
South Pole by the end of the decade, the stakes are too high
for us to fail.
We cannot afford to let them beat us. As I've stated many
times before, one of my greatest concerns is that NASA
astronauts will arrive at the Moon only to be greeted with a
sign that says ``No Trespassing'' in Mandarin.
Our nation is uniquely suited to provide leadership on the
Moon with our commercial and international partners.
Additionally, the U.S. will maintain openness and
transparency in its operations on the lunar surface--something
we can be certain the CCP will not.
We came close to sending a NASA authorization bill to the
President's desk late last year. Soon, this Committee will once
again consider legislation to provide NASA with continued
direction for human exploration and many other topics. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and our
counterparts in the Senate to finish the job this year.
We have a great panel of witnesses who are no strangers to
this Committee. I thank them for sharing their expertise with
us and look forward to a productive discussion today.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And now I recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee for a statement. Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren.
You are recognized.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Chairman Haridopolos and
Ranking Member Foushee, for holding this hearing to review
NASA's Artemis initiative. And I want to welcome the witnesses
back to the Committee. We appreciate you being here.
We're all excited about NASA's Artemis campaign, and we
support our Moon to Mars program, and we want the United States
to succeed in reestablishing a lunar program in preparation for
the even more ambitious goal of being the first to step foot on
Mars.
Congress has, through successive NASA authorization acts
reaffirmed a continuity of purpose for our Nation's human
exploration activities, providing a steady hand in directing a
steppingstone approach to human exploration of the Moon, Mars,
and even beyond. While important, continuity of purpose alone
will not get us to the Moon and Mars. NASA needs sufficient
resources, the necessary workforce and skills, safe and modern
infrastructure and facilities, and a viable Artemis
architecture couched in technical confidence.
With each of these requirements, I'm afraid there are more
questions than answers. We don't know NASA's funding levels
after the continuing resolution runs out on March 14, just a
short few days from now, and whether it will continue at Fiscal
Year 2024 levels or under a Fiscal Year 2025 appropriation. We
don't know if NASA will have the workforce and skills to
advance Moon to Mars after President Trump's wrecking ball of
destructive Executive actions that has led to deferred
resignations, threats of layoffs, and a remaining NASA
workforce that may be scared, distracted, and demoralized.
We don't know when a Trump Administration Fiscal Year 2026
budget proposal that lays out the Administration's priorities
and proposed funding for NASA will arrive and whether it will
include funding to rebuild aging and unsafe infrastructure or
modernized research facilities. And we don't know when the
agency will have a Senate-confirmed Administrator and Deputy
Administrator to articulate the Trump Administration's
priorities for NASA.
Finally, we don't know if Artemis III and the future human
landing approaches, with their highly complex human landing
systems and low technical readiness levels, could be viable on
a timeframe that will ensure NASA astronauts land at the lunar
South Pole and return safely to Earth, we hope in advance of
China's taikonauts.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I do hope you will consider
holding another hearing once we have a NASA official to testify
and the remaining pieces of the puzzle that I've just listed.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our witnesses'
testimony and their insights. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos and Ranking
Member Foushee for holding this hearing to review NASA's
Artemis initiative. Welcome back to both of our distinguished
witnesses and thank you for being here today.
I'm excited about NASA's Artemis campaign. I support our
Moon to Mars program, and I want the United States to succeed
in reestablishing a lunar program in preparation for the even
more ambitious goal of being the first nation to step foot on
Mars.
Congress has, through successive NASA authorization acts,
reaffirmed a continuity of purpose for our nation's human
exploration activities, providing a steady hand in directing a
stepping- stone approach to human exploration of the Moon,
Mars, and beyond.
While important, continuity of purpose alone will not get
us to the Moon and Mars. NASA needs sufficient resources, the
necessary workforce and skills, safe and modern infrastructure
and facilities, and a viable Artemis architecture couched in
technical confidence.
With each of these requirements, I'm afraid there are more
questions than answers.
We don't know NASA's funding levels after the continuing
resolution runs out on March 14th and whether it will continue
at fiscal year 2024 levels, or under a fiscal year 2025
appropriation.
We don't know if NASA will have the workforce and skills to
advance Moon to Mars after PresidentTrump's wreaking ball of
destructive executive actions has led to deferred resignations,
threats of layoffs, and a remaining NASA workforce that one
could imagine may be scared, distracted, and demoralized.
We don't know when a Trump Administration fiscal year 2026
budget proposal that lays out the Administration's priorities
and proposed funding for NASA will arrive, and whether it will
include funding to rebuild aging and unsafe infrastructure or
modernize research facilities.
We don't know when the agency will have a Senate confirmed
Administrator and Deputy Administrator to articulate the Trump
Administration's priorities for NASA.
Finally, we don't know if the Artemis III and future human
landing approaches, with their highly complex human landing
systems and low technical readiness levels could ever be viable
on a timeframe that will ensure NASA astronauts land at the
lunar south pole and return safely to Earth in advance of
China's taikonauts.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I do hope you will consider
holding another hearing once we have a NASA official to testify
and the remaining pieces of the puzzle that I listed.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony and insights.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Let me next introduce our witnesses today. Our first
witness today is Dr. Scott Pace, the Director of Space Policy
Institute at George Washington University. And our next witness
is Dr. Daniel Dumbacher, who serves as an Adjunct Professor at
Purdue University.
I now recognize Dr. Pace for 5 minutes to present his
testimony. You're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT PACE,
DIRECTOR OF SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE,
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pace. Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member Foushee, and
distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, thank you very much
for holding this important hearing.
As maybe a point of personal interest, I'd also like to
acknowledge my friend George Whitesides, newly elected to this
Congress, so--he's making me feel old. I remember when we were
both much younger in the space advocacy community. But
congratulations, sir.
As a new Congress and a new Administration provide a timely
opportunity to consider the American space enterprise, and in
particular, the role of human space exploration in service of
U.S. national interests. I have a written statement I ask
permission to be included in the hearing record and will
endeavor to keep my remarks brief.
We know space is vitally important to the United States,
but the space domain is not subject to the kind of direct
control possible with land, sea, or air domains. So how can the
United States protect its interests and values? The answer, in
part, is through international leadership. During the Apollo
era, we sought to show what the United States and only the
United States could do in space. Today, leadership is about
having other countries wanting to work with you, to be a
partner in common endeavors. We need to shape activities in the
space domain in a manner conducive to the interests of the
United States, its allies, and like-minded partners.
Space exploration is expensive and takes effort over many
years. Space policy, therefore, needs to be consistent and
sustainable, and to do so, that policy must be in line with
enduring national interests. I do--I believe we have good space
policies today, but we face serious implementation challenges.
The immediate challenges for U.S. space exploration include
ensuring more than one way of getting Americans to orbit,
managing the end of the International Space Station (ISS),
enabling one or more private space stations, creating a
sustainable return to the Moon, and building the capabilities
to place Americans on Mars.
I'd like to share two concerns for human space exploration.
First, we should pay attention to geopolitical considerations
and competition in order to ensure that our efforts support
those larger national interests. The Artemis program is not a
military program, but it supports national security purposes by
shaping the way nations behave in space. The rules of the space
environment will be made by those who show up, not those who
stay behind.
The United States landed on the Moon over 55 years ago, but
today, we are at risk of seeing Chinese astronauts on the Moon
before we're able to return. But more than being first, we need
to have a sustainable lunar presence, sustainable technically,
economically, politically. Norway was the first to reach the
South Pole, but today, it is the United States that puts some
3,000 people on the ice each year. And through its presence,
the United States shapes and guides the Antarctic Treaty System
for that remote continent today.
Second, for the U.S. leadership to be effective, human
space exploration missions cannot be one and done but must be
repeatable and sustainable with continuous presence as the
norm. These conditions lead to space architecture through
elements that are routinely reusable--in-space utilities,
power, communications, navigation, advanced biomedical
knowledge, and the use of in-space resources such as water ice
in asteroids. The technologies and practices needed for Mars
can and should benefit operations in low-Earth orbit and the
Moon.
The current Artemis program presents many challenges. A
primary concern is the Space Launch System, which is expensive
and not reusable. It's had one flight but has trouble meeting
the congressional target of two cores per year. It's time to
consider alternatives for going from the earth to the Moon and
back. Ideally, NASA should be able to buy heavy lift services
to send payloads to the Moon.
A revised Artemis campaign plan should be a high priority
for the new Administrator. There may be some painful
adjustments with industry and our international partners, but--
excuse me--but it's better to do so now than to continue on an
unsustainable and unaffordable path. The Artemis policy is a
good one, supported by Congress and multiple Administrations.
However, we need a more sustainable and credible approach to
maintain the confidence of the White House, Congress, industry,
and our international partners.
Thank you for your kind attention, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pace follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Pace.
I now recognize Mr. Dumbacher for 5 minutes to present his
testimony. You're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DAN DUMBACHER,
ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, PURDUE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Dumbacher. Thank you, Committee Chairman Babin, Ranking
Member Lofgren, Subcommittee Chairman Haridopolos, and Ranking
Member Foushee, and all Subcommittee Members for the
opportunity to discuss the need for the United States to retain
and grow its leadership in space. I refer to my written
testimony submitted for this hearing.
I am a proud civil servant to the Constitution, a long-term
NASA senior executive in human space exploration, most recently
the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and currently a Professor
of engineering practice at Purdue University. From my
experience, I have learned it's about doing the right thing at
the right time. Therefore, the discussion is not Moon or Mars.
Rather, timing dictates that we must first master the Moon and
then proceed to Mars.
I say this because we are at a key crossroads for U.S.
leadership in space. Our global competitors, primarily China
and its allies, are out-planning and outpacing us in their
drive to become dominant in space. This is a critical national
security and economic concern. This is about the long-term
drive to be present, to lead and become the first to establish
the rules of the road, thus mastering the cislunar domain for
the purposes of science, exploration, and commercial
development. Today's race is about continuous presence, values,
and technical leadership. The nation that leads is the nation
that benefits.
China is striving to lead the implementation and
development of the infrastructure, retaining the high ground,
and reaping the economic benefit. China has declared that they
will land humans on the Moon before 2030. Of note, China has
met every space milestone they have proposed within plus or
minus a year.
The United States must protect our potential economic
opportunity, protect our national security, lead the building
of the necessary infrastructure, and, importantly, lead
chartering the rules of the road. We must continue to lead the
coalition between the Earth and the Moon, and we must bring
international and commercial partners along with us.
NASA's current plan to return people to the Moon requires
approximately 35 to 40 starship launches to first demonstrate
the capability on an uncrewed mission and then execute the
first human mission planned for Artemis III. I ask this: Can 40
launches, development and demonstration of the undeveloped and
undemonstrated on-orbit rocket fuel station, and integration of
a complex operational scenario across multiple systems all
successfully occur by 2030? The probability of success for this
plan is remote at best. Further, the United States does not
have a sustainable plan for 2030 and beyond. We need to
recognize the competitive environment, admit our true technical
status and capability, provide the needed effort for success,
and engage our international partners.
Private enterprise space capabilities have grown
tremendously in the last decade and are driving our progress
with government and private investment. We must continue to
grow this competitive power. Our workforce across industry,
academia, and government--our national asset--must be
explicitly supported and grown. Today's workforce is in turmoil
when we need them the most. Our strength is tapping into the
talent across our society, clearly showing people the
opportunity for their own lives. Stability, real, challenging
objectives to be accomplished, and real problems to be solved
will keep this workforce engaged and learning all to accomplish
the future. Unnecessary workforce turmoil allows China
additional advantage.
I offer the following recommendations: One, return humans
to the Moon as expeditiously as possible by utilizing flight-
tested existing systems such as the Space Launch System, Orion
spacecraft, and existing international partnerships. This will
require extreme focus by the NASA industry Artemis team for the
goal of returning to the Moon by 2030, assuring the most
efficient and technically rigorous efforts are accomplished.
Recommendation two: In parallel, utilizing the growing
private space capabilities, government and academia immediately
initiate the planning and implementation of the sustainable and
efficient approach to retain the United States' presence on the
Moon, assuring our national security and future economic
opportunity, consistent with national priorities and policy and
the National Academy's decadal surveys.
Three: Focus the NASA industry workforce on accomplishing
the national objectives with real timelines and incentives to
incorporate new capabilities from across industry, academic
labs, and government labs with urgency and focus.
Congress must assure the funding--recommendation four:
Congressmen must assure the funding and policy stability, along
with the program sustainability, to encourage the best and
brightest of our people across our society to lead and
implement this critical enterprise for our national security
and not economic opportunity.
Thank you for your kind attention and this opportunity to
speak. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dumbacher follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you to both witnesses for
testifying today. I now reserve for myself 5 minutes for
questions.
My first question is, each Artemis mission is a complex web
of interdependent systems. I would ask Dr. Pace first. In your
view, would any changes to the current Artemis mission
architecture get us there faster, or are there more likely to
be delays in our return to the Moon?
Dr. Pace. OK. Thank you. That's a great question. One of
the things I said my testimony is I think we need to have sort
of a more immediate campaign plan. The architecture itself--I
think the idea of using public-private partnerships for going
to low-Earth orbit, landing on the Moon, all of that, I think
that is basically fine. The policy direction is fine. Where I
was particularly pointing at is a need for a more sustainable,
more reusable systems for going from the Earth to the Moon,
which is why I talked about having an on-ramp, if you will, for
alternative heavy lift options.
The Artemis II and three cores are already under
construction, being built. I wouldn't propose really changing
that. I think trying to change that and do something else would
produce more delays and would push us past 2030. But as I look
beyond that, the next II and III--Artemis II and III missions,
maybe IV, we should be thinking about other alternatives we can
have to have that sustainable presence. So the first is, can we
get back to the Moon, you know, faster? Tons of things to do to
work on that, as Dr. Dumbacher says, and then the question is,
be able to sustain that and be there over time. That's going to
require, I think, changes in what we do and bringing on new
capabilities that we do not currently have.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Pace. And, Mr.
Dumbacher, a second question. As the Committee has noted,
NASA's faced a lot of challenges with Artemis. What lessons
could we learn from our private partners who've had so much
success over the last few years?
Mr. Dumbacher. One of the lessons we can learn that would
be most beneficial would be applying the rapid urgency and
focus that we see from our private companies, the ability to
solve and rectify problems in a very timely manner, decision
velocity being much increased so that it doesn't take--we get
decisions in short weeks and not months, which all goes to cost
and all goes to affordability.
The other changes I would propose is that--similar to Dr.
Pace is let's use the--as I say it, the tools in the toolbox we
already have, the hardware online with Artemis, and we might
have to build a lander. We might have to scale down the current
lander opportunities, examples that we have in work so that we
get to that 2030 landing. But most importantly is get the
decision velocity dramatically increased and get the efficiency
and the urgency and focus clear all throughout the program.
Chairman Haridopolos. My next question is, how can the
United States continue to leverage commercial partnerships to
outpace international rivals in lunar exploration and beyond,
Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. I think that's really one of the key things. In
Space Policy Directive 1, the President put in commercial and
international partnerships because it represents a very
different way of doing business today than it did during the
Apollo program. So we need our international partners to shape
the environment. We need commercial partners to actually
provide the innovation necessary to--in an affordable and
sustainable way make progress toward the Moon and Mars.
I think the partnership there is not just simply one of
money going back and forth and who builds what, but also in
terms of just cutting down the kind of regulatory oversight
that doesn't really always add value. You have small companies
around the United States who be happy to build a couple of
hydrogen valves for us, but really don't because the paperwork
is just ridiculous, and they just really can't do it.
There are a lot of reforms that the DOD (Department of
Defense) is looking at in terms of acquisition. Those similar
kind of reforms are ones that NASA looks at in acquisition
because what we need to do is shape an industrial base that
provides the capability for the United States to explore and go
where it wants, when it wants. And one of the things really
standing in the way is ourselves, the way we do business. The
old styles that we did business that worked, I think, during
Apollo, Shuttle, and even Station are not ones that really work
today. We need more commercial companies willing to work with
the government and provide things to the government. In many
cases, they're not because of the burden that regulatory
processes that we require impose on them. So we obviously need
to have better transparency. It's not just buy and trust, but
we need to find ways that reform the way we integrate and work
with the private sector to get them to want to be part of us.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Pace. And let me ask a
point-blank question to Mr. Dumbacher. You mentioned a lot of
these concerns. If Artemis doesn't work in 2026 as we all hope
it will, what would you recommend we do?
Mr. Dumbacher. First of all, I'm confident that Artemis II
will work, knowing the technical workforce that's behind it and
making it happen. It's a matter of doing it quicker and getting
to Artemis III quicker. I think right now our problem is, is
because of our lander designs and other opportunities, we have
developed this complex, multiple-launch scenario that keeps us
from getting humans to the Moon by 2030. And so what we need to
fix is how we execute Artemis III and get Artemis II flying as
quickly as possible.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you very much.
And with that, I now recognize our Ranking Member from
North Carolina for 5 minutes for questions. You're recognized.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud that
North Carolina-raised Christina Koch has been named to the
Artemis II crew and will be the first woman to travel beyond
low-Earth orbit. I am appalled that the Trump Administration's
attack on any effort to even acknowledge the
underrepresentation of women and people of color in STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields, let
alone addresses the issue.
Mr. Dumbacher, why is it so important that our astronaut
corps is representative of our Nation and that NASA engages all
Americans of every background in its mission?
Mr. Dumbacher. Congresswoman Foushee, the--one of the
things I learned very directly as the CEO of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and also one of the
reasons I went back into teaching is because it's about people
need to see themselves, and they need to see the opportunity.
They need to know that people like them can accomplish and
execute, and they--the more they see of that, the better it is.
And it also is critical that those people and their support
networks, their family, their friends, their relatives, also
see that opportunity. So being representative of society, as
the AIAA worked to do over the course of our strategic
planning, is absolutely critical so that all of our Members of
our society are engaged and included in what we do.
Mrs. Foushee. So a follow up to that is, how will actions
that turn away talent and discourage the next generation affect
NASA's efforts to return humans to the Moon and land the first
astronauts on the surface of Mars? Many of the probationary
employees who are being considered for layoffs are just getting
started in their careers.
Mr. Dumbacher. It is a--very much a concern, and in fact,
over the weekend, I had the chance to talk with former
students, NASA employees, that are scared. They are concerned
because of the turmoil. And believe me, they are some of the
smartest people. I am more than happy to turn over the future
to them. And they are concerned, and they see that, and they
are actually questioning, what are they going to do for their
careers and looking at other opportunities, which I think is
terribly sad because of the national imperative that we have
and the global competition that we are engaged in. As Dr. Pace
has alluded--has discussed and I have discussed, we are in a
global competition, and if we don't take advantage of all of
the talent across the society, across the United States, then
we do that at--we give up that capability at our peril.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that acknowledgement.
Dr. Pace, in your written statement, you note that space
leadership is about having other countries wanting to work with
you to be a partner in common endeavors. I share your
sentiment. However, recently, Mr. Musk abruptly asserted that
the International Space Station, a beacon of international
space cooperation between multiple nations, end operations 3
years earlier than planned so that we can go to Mars. Are you
concerned about the impact of this type of comment, what it
might have on our ISS partners, many of whom are also involved
in Artemis?
Dr. Pace. So I saw the comment, and interesting. I guess I
would say, first of all, that it's not really fully accurate in
the sense that we've gotten all the value we can out of
Station. There's lots more value still to be had of doing
research and work on board. Just as one example, the
environmental life support system aboard Space Station is
mostly closed. Over 90 percent of air and water is being
recycled. They can do that for up to 3 years. That's important
for going to Mars, and so being able to demonstrate life
support systems for that.
On the other hand, I would say that that Mr. Musk has a
point about being prepared to deorbit. We have problems aboard
the Russian segment of the module. We have an air leak. I was
woken up at 6:30 in the morning in 2019 to be told that there
was, you know, an air leak and that we needed to pay attention
to it, and we started worrying about crew safety. So this has
been going on for a while.
I have concerns about whether or not the station will, in
fact, be safe and habitable. It is now, but whether that be
through to 2030. So I think it's wise to be prepared to come
down sooner. I just don't think it's because there's not more
to do. There's plenty to do. But we do need to be prepared to
come down sooner if need be for safety reasons.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that. A final comment, I have
said before that the safety of NASA's astronauts is always top
of mind for me and for everyone involved in overseeing our
Nation's space program. NASA is increasingly turning to
commercial services--commercial service models, rather, for
human space flight. I believe it is critical for the agency to
have well-crafted and targeted oversight procedures that can
ensure its contractors are every bit as committed to a culture
of safety as NASA itself.
I wish that NASA had agreed to testify here today so that I
could ask them directly, but I would like to still hear from
you, Mr. Dumbacher, as you have had a long career in human
space flight programs at NASA. How do you see NASA's ability to
evaluate and ensure that human spaceflight contractors maintain
a robust safety culture commensurate with the risks of deep
space exploration and extremely high stakes, the lives of our
astronauts?
Chairman Haridopolos. And if you could please keep it
brief. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Dumbacher. Certainly, astronaut safety is key. I wear
today my silver Snoopy pin to recognize that. It is--it's about
appropriate oversight and insight, not overbearing, and getting
to that right balance is the key. And we have drifted to
overbearing, very risk-averse, and we need to back--we need to
rebalance so that we get more--the proper insight at the proper
risk and be able to move on with decision velocity quickly.
Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. And I recognize the
Representative from Florida, Congressman Webster, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for having this
hearing, and it sounds like it's very important to be done
right now.
And, Dr. Pace, you mentioned that the Artemis program
needed revision, and you later said, maybe it doesn't need that
much revision. What do you--what does that entail?
Dr. Pace. I think the--one of the primary things it entails
is, what do we do after Artemis II and III? I think the Artemis
II mission is underway and keep going. Artemis--the other
missions for landing, I think, to beat their--beat the Chinese
back I think are fine. But I think, looking beyond that how do
I make sure we're able to go back and forth to the Moon in a
sustainable way and buildup the capabilities necessary, really,
to go to Mars?
So I would say the immediate campaign plan, if you will,
for the next several missions is going to be important to get
there ahead of the Chinese, and then we need to be able to
think and how are we going to stay there in a way that's
sustainable and affordable? So, as I said, I think the policy
direction is fine. I think the major elements are fine. We need
alternatives for heavy lift in the case of the SLS because it
simply hasn't been able to produce enough of them, which the
Congress has directed it to do, to provide more opportunities.
And other than that, it's we got to go fly. We got to go
get experience. And if we just simply sit on the ground, we'll
have a lot of hangar queens, but we won't really get the data
that we need. So I think the program is at the point where it
really is about to fly. It needs to fly more, and I'd like to
see us get that experience.
Mr. Webster. So would you say that this would be a high
priority for the new NASA Administrator?
Dr. Pace. I think probably the--I would suggest that his--
one of his highest priorities is to really get a group of
people together and in fairly short order, not a yearlong
study, not another, you know, large effort, but to say, OK,
what are we really going to do to meet the directions that the
Congress and the White House have given to us? And if I may be
so bold, I think you could come up with an answer in about 60
days or less, so--people have all the reports necessary, and
the data analysis is all sitting on the shelf now. It's a
matter of that decision velocity, as Dr. Dumbacher said, to
pull a lot of that stuff together and to really report back to
you and the White House as to what needs to happen in the
President's budget request, what needs to happen in the
authorization bill. And if we're--unfortunately suffer under a
continuing resolution, what things to prioritize in that
environment, so--because you all have some really important
decisions to make.
Mr. Webster. Well, you've kind of answered that. The next
question would be, what process would there be for revising the
Artemis program? So that would be the idea of making haste,
making it happen, making it fast. Is that correct?
Dr. Pace. Yes, because if we want to go to Mars, we have to
learn a lot of things that are necessary for going to the Moon.
The step-by-step approach, the incremental approach that this
Committee has talked about and really this Congress has
supported since 2005 represents, I think, a bipartisan
consensus that is correct. We have to do a lot of work. There's
no shortcut. There's no easy way to learn how to live and work
and operate in space and get to Mars. So we have to do the
work. And the sooner we do the work, the sooner, you know,
we're going to get there.
Mr. Webster. OK. Well, I think you're right. Get to work.
Thank you so much for your time. I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Representative Webster.
Next, we recognize the Congresswoman from California.
Congresswoman Lofgren, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much, and thanks to the
witnesses for this thoughtful testimony.
I am concerned about the impacts of the chaos of recent
weeks on our NASA workforce. For example, I think that the 20-
something hackers may not realize that when you get a merit-
based promotion, you are put on probationary status for the
merit-based new job. Those are the people targeted for layoffs,
the people who are most meritorious. I mean, this is chaos.
The NASA acting Administrator said at a commercial space
conference recently that NASA is focused on implementing the
Executive orders. Instead, I think that NASA's workforce needs
to be focused on getting the NASA mission done. I see this
first-hand from my constituents who work at Ames Research
Center, which is outside my district, of course. But the chaos,
the confusion, the whiplash, intimidation, and bullying of the
workforce is agency- and governmentwide. And every day, NASA
employees are worried that they or their colleagues are going
to be arbitrarily fired, or they're reportedly getting told to
hide pride stickers in their cubicles. They don't even know if
the Administration is going to tell them to abandon the Moon
altogether.
And when it comes to Artemis, I'm also concerned about the
unprecedented influence Elon Musk seems to have on strategic
direction in this Administration. Ranking Members Foushee,
Sykes, and I have sent letters questioning NASA on so-called
DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) and the potential
conflicts of its leadership at NASA. And even though SpaceX has
contracts worth billions for developing human landing systems
for the return of our astronauts to the Moon, Mr. Musk keeps
talking about heading straight to Mars. Beyond the obvious fact
that this approach is--could serve his personal interest, I
think it's bad policy.
And I'd like to ask both of you, Mr. Dumbacher and Dr.
Pace, you're both experts, so please, in your opinions, why are
we going to the Moon while keeping our sights on Mars, and what
would it mean to abruptly change the longstanding Moon-to-Mars
approach?
Mr. Dumbacher. I will take it first and then turn it over
to Dr. Pace. I think why we are going to the Moon is to, as
Scott has said, learn. It's also about making sure we are there
and present for the long term to help establish the rules of
the road, reap the economic benefits, and help retain the high
ground. This is an important--we need to learn along the way,
and we need to recognize that the global competition is
occurring from the Earth to the Moon and to the lunar surface.
There is not a global competition yet for Mars, so we need to
take right--the right thing at the right time, Moon first, then
Mars.
Dr. Pace. Thank you very much for that question. I would
say--well, first of all, you know, leadership in space today is
different than Apollo. Apollo is about, look what we can do by
ourselves. Today, it's about, look what we do that gets----
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Dr. Pace [continuing]. Other people to want to be with us.
I would also submit that the idea of going directly to Mars
actually was already tried. It was tried during the Obama
Administration when they abandoned the Moon and said, well,
let's go to Mars. Of course, I was very critical of this, not
because I was critical of Mars, but because I was critical of a
program that I thought was disconnected from geopolitical
reality. Other countries really couldn't cooperate with us.
And so when SPD-1 was--after it was signed, I had the
opportunity to be in Tokyo at a major space meeting, and the
tenor of the room was completely different. People were like,
oh, we can do the Moon. What do you need? How can we help? What
can we be part of? Yes, they're with us on the idea of Mars as
the goal and build forward to that. But to do that separate
from where other people are, I think, left the United States in
a worse geopolitical position, not intentional, but it left us
in a worse position as a result.
So I think while people can have their personal interests
in how to go about space exploration, I think the national
interest is one which really enhances the position of the
United States, and the sequential steps that the Congress has
laid out are, in fact, in those national interests.
Ms. Lofgren. So we need to put our national interest ahead
of our personal interests. And I appreciate your insight. And I
hope that our Committee will maintain its bipartisan effort to
support the plan that is workable in the national interest, is
likely to beat our major competitor China, and not go off on
wild tangents that appear not to be well thought out.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. I now recognize the
Representative from Georgia, Mr. McCormick, for his 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on
your new position.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.
Mr. McCormick. I am really excited to be here today and
talk to you folks about what works. We are in increasingly
difficult times when it comes to global competition. And even
countries who are not traditionally known for space travel have
done very well with India putting an aircraft on the far side
of the Moon for under $100 million. I don't think we could get
an organization together to talk about making a spaceship for
under $100 million. I mean, that's just the reality of it. We
can't get through the administrative process for that much
money, let alone actually put metal together and put rocket
fuel in something and actually get the technology to work.
We're not efficient at all. I think we'd all agree on that.
And that's one of the reasons that we're falling behind China.
You mentioned today about how we're falling behind China,
because they meet their marks. When they set a goal, they
actually get there because, of course, they have a unified
government, because one person kind of calls the shots, and I
get the efficiencies of that.
But what I'm looking for is solutions because, right now,
this doesn't affect just getting to the Moon or getting to
Mars. This is the way we face intelligence in armed services.
We're talking about EMPs (electromagnetic pulses). We're
talking about space weapons. We're talking about the ability to
defend ourselves and be on the offense when it's necessary to
take out something that's going to harm American citizens. This
is about everything that we hold near and dear. It's not just
one thing.
My question is, in a time where we're continuing to advance
rapidly in the commercial industry but we're falling way behind
in every government contract we do, why isn't--why aren't we
turning to more outside-the-box thinking when it comes to
collaboration, when it comes to--when we can see one program is
obviously failing, and then you got one man who's putting more
spaceships into outer space than all other nations combined and
actually bails NASA out when we leave somebody stranded. Why
aren't we doing better collaboration? And what can we do better
specifically? And I'll give you the first crack, Dr. Pace. I
love your comment, by the way, on the hangar queen. As an
aviator, that's near and dear to my heart. Hangar queens come
from inefficiencies. When we have parts problems or people
problems, we get hangar queens. That's what we have right now.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Dr. Pace. Well, thank you. I think one of the things we
need to do and one of the ways to--going back to inspiring the
workforce and to keep them sort of focused is to give them real
and tangible things to go do. When you do flight test, when you
do hardware, it kind of drives out nonsense. It doesn't clog up
the system when you're actually sort of working and flying. And
we put a lot of nonsense in the way of people getting their
jobs done.
And so the reason why we have acquisition issues is because
we often prioritize our bureaucratic processes over and above
the mission. The mission becomes secondary to making sure the
paperwork is filled out directly. You'll have tons and tons of
specification documents, disclosures and so forth on, you know,
cost-plus contracts. All of it's there and required. It's been
built in. But you really ask, is this really adding value?
I think one of the things that I would worry about both on
the NASA side and on the DOD side is that we're not able to
take advantage of the innovation that's there and potentially
available for us in the private sector because people really
won't want to work with us. You look at the number of companies
that sell to the commercial sector, versus selling almost
exclusively to DOD, in the past, during--you know, back in the
1990's--prior to the 1990's, companies would sell to both
government and industry. Today, there's an increasing number of
the larger companies that sell really only to the government,
and so there's been kind of a separation in the U.S. industrial
base in the economy. We need to sort of take down those
barriers to where private companies are more willing to partner
and work with the United States so we can get that innovation
that we need.
Mr. McCormick. And you would agree that the private sector
is vastly outpacing our capabilities in the government sector?
Dr. Pace. I would say there are some tremendous
capabilities in the government sector that don't exist in the
private sector, OK, but the innovation that the private sector
is able to do is because they don't have the other burdens that
government carries with it. So there are really some smart,
capable----
Mr. McCormick. You're talking about regulation. I couldn't
agree with you more.
Dr. Pace. Regulatory relief and acquisition streamlining is
probably one of the most important things common to both
defense and NASA's----
Mr. McCormick. And that's been holding us back, both in
private and government space exploration?
Dr. Pace. In a world that is much more innovative and
moving much faster than it ever did before.
Mr. McCormick. I got about 30 seconds for you to wrap us
up, sir.
Dr. Dumbacher. Well, I think to pull a thread a little bit
further, I think, actually, if you give the leadership and the
team at NASA and in government a little bit more leeway to go
do their job, they will go do it. I have seen first-hand
examples inside the agency, and I lived it myself where, given
the right leeway, given the right motivation, and given the
right resources, we went off and accomplished things--vertical
landing before it became commercial--can actually be done in
the government and can be done quickly if given the right
leeway.
Mr. McCormick. I couldn't agree--and just a summary point,
Mr. Chair, is that basically when people who are doing the hard
work are left alone--because they want to be safe. I want to
survive my mission. If we're left alone to actually accomplish
our missions, we'll be the safest people alive. But if you
overregulate us, you overburden us, we will fall behind, and
this is a global competition.
Thank you so much, gentlemen. And thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. And with that, I recognize
the Representative from California, Mr. Whitesides, for his 5
minutes of questions. Welcome.
Mr. Whitesides. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
working with you, as well as Ranking Member Foushee. It's so
good to be here for this first meeting. I also want to say I'm
looking forward to working with Ranking Member Lofgren and
Chair Babin.
I also want to call out somebody who's been to space here
in this hearing, which is Pam Melroy, former astronaut and
Deputy Administrator. We're thankful for your service for the
Nation and for all you've done, so thank you, Pam.
I want to recognize the witnesses. I think, Dan, your
leadership in engineering and your work at AIAA is super
important for the Nation. And, Scott, I think your tenure as
Executive Secretary was one of the best-run periods of space
policy, and so I want to recognize you both.
I want to start by sending a message to the NASA employees
out there, which is that we hear you, we support you. As you
said, Dan, people are scared. And I think we as a Committee
have a strong interest in a workforce that is supported, that
feels able to conduct its mission, and that is not running
scared. And so I know that I have been getting many messages
from folks who feel under attack. They don't know if they're
going to get fired after we have a confirmation of the next
Administrator. This is not the situation that is conducive to
expanding our leadership in human spaceflight. And so to those
folks, I want to say we're going to do everything we can to
support you, and we are going to do everything we can to build
an agency that that continues to do great things.
I'm particularly concerned for the NASA centers in my area,
NASA Armstrong and JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). We've had
various folks who are already affected by the different
employee actions that the Administration has pursued. And of
course, we're very concerned about the specter of probationary
firings. So let's start there.
Dan, you talked about this a bit in your testimony. Now,
probationary employees are sometimes people who have been
promoted, but often they are the younger generation. How
important is the next generation to pursuing an ambitious space
exploration program?
Mr. Dumbacher. The next generation is absolutely critical
because they need to replace old guys like me. They--that's
going to be the long-term talent, and it takes time to build
the talent. We are talking about dealing and addressing the
challenges that human beings have not addressed until this
generation. The combination of the private enterprise power
capability, the combination of the government and academic
communities is critical, and the young people are our future.
And getting them and bringing along young people throughout our
society to tap into those--to tap into that talent we haven't
tapped into in the past is absolutely essential for this global
competition we're in.
Mr. Whitesides. Thanks a lot. All right. So next question--
and I think this is potentially an issue where we can keep
returning to--is the issue of risk. And, you know, if we are to
compete with the Chinese, which we absolutely need to, and if
we are to just do anything because we've been trying to go
beyond low-Earth orbit for over 50 years with humans, I think
we need to look at our Nation's risk posture, and that is going
to be a national conversation that we need to have.
There's the old phrase that failure is not an option, and I
think that that has been toxic to America's space program
because the reality is that if you're trying to do hard things,
you're going to fail sometimes. And of course, we want to make
sure that everyone is safe on board, and we need to make sure
that we are--we're pursuing a structure that enables us to take
smart risk.
And so I was wondering, Scott, if you might want to talk to
that, or Dan. You both have a lot of experience in it.
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, let me start since Scott let me. I
look at the statement as failure is not an option when I have
people on board. Failure is an option when I'm on the test day
and trying to understand the limits and I'm trying to figure
out where fail--where those limits are so that I can protect
the people that are onboard that launch vehicle or in that
spacecraft.
I think risk, we have become more risk averse over time.
Our workforce has essentially been--on the human spaceflight
side has been hired since Challenger and Columbia where failure
is not an option has been the mantra. Science community has an
ability to learn how to go through these programs in the full
life cycle. We do--we have not had that opportunity as much on
the human spaceflight side, and our workforce needs to have
those opportunities and those flight tests and flying hardware
like Scott alluded to earlier so that we can get that
experience and get that capability rebuilt.
Mr. Whitesides. Thanks. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you very much. I now recognize
our Chairman from Texas, Dr. Babin, for his 5 minutes. You're
recognized, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Pace, Congress directed NASA to establish the Moon
to Mars Program Office as part of the last NASA Authorization
Act signed into law. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's,
ASAP's, most recent report recommended that, and I quote,
``NASA would benefit from formalizing a Design Reference
Mission, or a DRM, for Artemis to define the concept of
operations.'' A DRM is a detailed conceptual framework that
outlines how a mission will be conducted, specifying
objectives, the systems involved, and operational processes.
Your testimony states, ``NASA needs an integrated exploration
campaign plan with detailed systems engineering for a simpler,
more suitable''--excuse me--``more sustainable architecture.''
How could a Design Reference Mission inform such a campaign
plan?
Dr. Pace. Thank you. That's a great question. And--first of
all--and thank you to the Congress for creating the Moon to
Mars Program Office. I think that was amazingly helpful. It
produced more integration across the different elements. And so
hopefully, you'll have someone from the Moon to Mars Program
Office testify maybe at a future session. I hope that is
because I think there are some great people there.
I would say the DRMs would be very much helpful--very
helpful. Design Reference Missions were created for the space
shuttle. There were about four of them that the program was
designed around. When we did the Artemis program, got it
started during the first Trump Administration, one of the
things that I wanted was a three-ring binder with a bunch of
Design Reference Missions in it to say what was going to
actually happen. So I think NASA has done a lot of great work
thinking about its architectures and variations in it. But for
the really immediate term, having a set of Design Reference
Missions to organize your campaign plan around, I think, would
be very helpful, and I think the Moon to Mars Program Office is
something that could probably do that.
Chairman Babin. OK. Thank you. Ten years ago, a National
Research Council report titled ``Pathways to Exploration''
stated, ``The human spaceflight program in the United States
had experienced considerable programmatic turbulence, with
frequent and dramatic changes in program goals and mission
plans in response to changes in national policies. The changes
had a high cost in program resources and opportunities and
imposed what many feared was an intolerable burden on already
constrained human exploration budgets.'' A later ASAP report
stated that ``NASA faces another challenge that has
historically led to disruption and inefficiency and arguably
has impact on safety and good systems engineering.'' This is
the challenge of starting over with new programs and directions
following Administration change.
As in prior reports, the ASAP urges constancy of purpose.
Failing to stay the course with current programs of record will
make it an even longer, costlier, and potentially less-safe
trip to Mars. Another ASAP report, once again, expressed this
sentiment by stating the ASAP, it reiterates the need for
consistent program goals, funding, and schedules, also known as
constancy of purpose. Human spaceflight and exploration are
inherently challenging and risky and require far-reaching,
long-term national commitment to capitalize on painstakingly
achieved knowledge and to realize the results of resource
investments. The lack of consistent commitment negatively
impacts cost, schedule, and performance, workforce morale,
process discipline, and most importantly, safety.
Mr. Dumbacher, to address this issue, President Trump
issued Space Policy Directive 1 during his first Administration
that maintained constancy of purpose and reaffirmed NASA's goal
to return to the Moon. Can you speak, please, to continuity of
purpose at this stage of the Artemis program?
Mr. Dumbacher. Absolutely, I'm happy to. Thank you,
Chairman Babin, for that question. And I will also highlight
that your--the National Academies report you referred to I use
in my class for the students on purpose. The--because that
constancy of purpose that has been demonstrated from SPD-1, the
NASA Authorization Acts, the bicameral, bipartisan support is
absolutely critical on the execution side. That purpose,
knowing what the target is and continuing toward that target is
critical. The funding and the resources have to come with it.
But first is the purpose. It helps keep people aligned. It
helps keep people knowing where we're going, what the roadmap
looks like, and where we're eventually headed.
Constancy of purpose doesn't mean I can't change down the
road. As new capabilities come online, I need to be flexible. I
need to take the opportunity--as new private enterprise
capabilities come in, I need to be able to include those and
maybe get rid of some things and bring in new. That's OK, but
the purpose is still the same. I still have the constancy of
purpose, and if I still have the resources, we can go make it
happen.
Chairman Babin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time. I
may submit this last one--last question for the record.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Babin. Thank you.
Chairman Haridopolos. Next, I recognize the Representative
from Oregon, Ms. Salinas, for her 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Chair Haridopolos and Ranking
Member Foushee, and thank you to our witnesses for being here
today.
My district includes multiple NASA contractors and
subcontractors for the Artemis program. Companies like Blue
Origin, Axiom, and others support a vibrant ecosystem of small
businesses that contribute key components to NASA missions.
From machinists like Machine Sciences and Tektronix, and
software companies like Mentor Graphics and Timbercon, Oregon's
6th District really is a hub for this kind of work.
Can you expand on the value of engaging a broad aerospace
supply chain, and how does it affect the cost of Artemis
programs, and more broadly, what are the implications for
America's economic competitiveness?
Mr. Dumbacher. The industrial--Congresswoman, that's an
excellent question, and thank you. It highlights a very
important point, that it's not just scientists and engineers,
it's the entire workforce that's needed to go make this happen.
The industrial base, as we've seen it, has been weakened over
time. We have to build it back, and major programs like Artemis
and what we do on the national security side are facing those
challenges every single day.
It is critical that we get the skilled technical labor that
builds this hardware, that turns the ideas into reality, get
them brought along. It's just as important as other Members on
the team, and we have to continue to build that. We build it by
doing things. We do it by building hardware, by flying
missions, by making things happen. We don't build the
industrial base by talking about it.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I agree. So, of course, these small
suppliers hire local talent and support good jobs in my
community. And when I've had the opportunity to meet with these
workers, it's inspired me how inspired they are to play a role
in a literal moonshot. And last Congress, I introduced a
resolution to establish July 20, the anniversary of the first
Apollo Moon landing, as National Moon Day because the
importance of this inspirational quality of these missions I
don't think should be overlooked.
Space exploration is something that brings Americans
together, and it truly inspires young people to pursue careers
that are critical to our economy and to technological
advancements that benefits all of society. So what specifically
should we be doing to better leverage NASA's space exploration
and science missions to inspire children to pursue careers in
STEM and ensure Artemis can similarly bring Americans together
and inspire us for generations?
Dr. Pace. Well, I have a lot of students, of course, who
come to university who want to get involved in space, sort of
obviously engineering and policy and economics and so forth.
But I think what Dr. Dumbacher was saying about we need all
kinds of people to build things, you know, down in Texas, you
have steelworkers building spaceships. I mean, how really cool
is that? As we have new levels of technology, additive
manufacturing, more flexible production lines, we want to be
able to tap everybody in the U.S. economy who can potentially
contribute. And so when we have regulatory burdens that get in
the way of that, there's really then not that opportunity.
So we inspire students and young people by saying, here's
something you can work on, but then we have to follow through
and say, and by the way, the company you work for that's able
to do this is--competes on the strength of what it produces,
not on its ability to fill out the paperwork. And so opening up
more opportunities for competition then makes that dream of
participation a reality. So the two really go together, both
the education part and seemingly dull things like regulatory
reform.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And so I just--so I think it goes
hand in hand, and I don't--and I know we've talked a bit about
this, so building on that, recent reports have indicated that
approximately 5 percent of NASA's workforce took that fork in
the road. Deferred resignation offer and additional layoffs
could be in the works, and NASA has canceled programs aimed at
engaging diverse populations. So I want to make sure to be very
clear about, you know, giving that inspiration, but then being
realistic, how will these actions from the Trump Administration
affect career opportunities for early career professionals in
aerospace fields in the short term, and what are the long-term
workforce implications?
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, I will also--I'll go ahead and
reiterate some points made at the full Committee hearing on
February 5, that it--the more--the less uncertainty, the
better, and that people need to see the opportunity for their
careers. They need to see how it benefits them, they need to
know it's stable, and they want to know that they're working on
real problems and real challenges that matter. So I think
making sure we do that is critical, and continue to build it so
that we get the real work done.
The turmoil that is occurring now is causing people to
question, and these are bright people that are--we need for the
long haul. And what we are doing is inadvertently slowing down
our ability for them to learn because they're worried about
their future and that we're not over here doing and learning.
So we need to get them back to the doing and learning.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you so much. My time has expired. I'll
yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. I now recognize the
representative from Texas, Mr. Self, for his 5 minutes of
questions.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am new to this
Committee, so I'm--as I tried to prepare, I wanted to go back
to in my reading, George Bush--George W. Bush in 2004 said we
would go to the Moon by 2020. Well, immediately after that, we
had President Obama, who canceled programs, who--I think you
mentioned Mars. I think there was an asteroid in there. Real,
real simple question, how many years did the Obama destruction
of this program cost us? Here we are in 2025. George W. Bush
said we'd go to the Moon by 2020. How many years are we now
into delay because of the Obama cancellations of programs and
distractions about asteroids and Mars? Simple question, how
many years delay? Y'all have been at this far longer than I
have. What's your expert assessment?
Dr. Pace. Well, we were hoping to be on the Moon by 2024,
so I would say certainly 20 years, if not more. I would say,
you know, maybe a decade or so lost. There was progress, I
would say, during the Obama Administration on some things,
commercial crew capabilities.
Mr. Self. I just asked you one question, sir.
Dr. Pace. I would say----
Mr. Self. How about----
Dr. Pace. I would say about a decade.
Mr. Self. A decade. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Dumbacher?
Dr. Dumbacher?
Mr. Dumbacher. Congressman, I'll put it in the category of
probably about 5 years, given what we had to go from the
transition of Constellation to what's now Artemis and what it
took us, that down--that dip down and that restart is--was
critical, but I would say 5 years, and then it's been a matter
of how we've executed since then.
Mr. Self. Yes, thank you for that. Dr. Dumbacher, you said
that 2030 is remote at best. We've--I've heard a lot about
speed here from the two of you, and you've been at this a long
time. We've heard about the Chinese discipline in their--and I
think the--what I'm getting from the two of you is you expect
them to meet 2030. Yes. So in every Committee that I belong to,
I hear a lot about inputs. We do this, we fund this, we study
this, we--the outputs is what almost every Committee I'm more
interested in than the inputs, the outputs.
So simple question to the two of you, how do we get to
2030? So talk about maybe commercial versus NASA. How do we get
to 2030? Because if we've lost this decade, 5 years to decade,
how do we now get to our--how do we get there?
Mr. Dumbacher. Excellent question, Congressman, and I will
tell you, it's a topic of debate, but I'll give you my opinion.
Mr. Self. Sure.
Mr. Dumbacher. My opinion--my hopefully informed opinion,
is, No. 1, I take advantage of the hardware I already have in
the barn in the hardware available in Artemis II and III to go
make it happen. No. 2 is, I get myself a simplified lander so
that I can get to the Moon that does not require multiple
launches. The--my 40 number comes from demonstrating it twice.
I have to do the whole mission twice, once uncrewed and then
crewed.
Mr. Self. Right.
Mr. Dumbacher. I need to get that number of launches
dramatically reduced. I need to go simple. So use the hardware
I have available. I have to go get a small new lander to go do
that----
Mr. Self. OK.
Mr. Dumbacher [continuing]. And--and this is another
important part--I have to give the team at NASA and industry
the laser focus and the urgency to make sure that I only deal
with what I need to deal with. I cut back on the
administrative--administrivia that they may be dealing with,
dial back the risk aversion like we've talked a little bit
about so that that team has the leeway to go accomplish the
mission objectives, utilizing what we have available, and then
go figure out what I do beyond that for the long-term
sustainability.
Mr. Self. Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. I think that's right, if I would simply only add
one thing to that is something overlooked is communications and
navigation. The Chinese are sending up relay satellites now for
communicating and operating around the Moon. We have our own
systems set up. There's going to be international conferences
in the next 2 years looking at confirming the frequencies we're
going to be operating at. So the ability to navigate, create
infrastructure in and around the Moon is going to proceed
whether or not humans land there. It's not going to be like the
old days for Apollo. And so shaping that infrastructure, those
decisions are happening really right now, and so faster
progress on communications, navigation, flying, some of these
experiments--I could go into some more other technical details
if you want, but I think getting the organization back to where
it's flying more routinely builds a culture. You can't just
tell people, go take more risk.
Mr. Self. Right.
Dr. Pace. They have to have some experience doing that.
We've got to give them opportunities for flying and, as I said,
just go do it.
Mr. Self. My time is up, but I will point out we've heard
regulations, we've heard risk aversion, so that's Congress'
duty. How do we cut down on the regulations and the risk
aversion?
I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. I now recognize the
Representative from Michigan, Ms. Stevens, for her 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you so much. And it's a delight that
it's February 26, and I'm finally speaking in a Science
Committee hearing. You know, we've got a lot of important
topics here. And, Chair Haridopolos, we want to welcome and
congratulate you to Congress. You're filling big shoes with Mr.
Posey, who we loved serving with on this Committee. And we
deeply care about the U.S. space race. And of course, it's also
a delight to have Mr. Babin as our Chair, Zoe Lofgren still in
her role, Mr. Whitesides here. We got Salinas. I love all these
people. You know, we're a collective Committee.
But as I was thinking about this topic of ours, and as
someone who is a very dedicated Representative from Michigan,
obviously, we've got a strong automotive ecosystem,
manufacturing sector, a lot of it is diversified into the
supply chain of space and our grand competition. I just can't
remember when we were last as a Congress talking about a space
race. And maybe that was--you know, we did the 50-year
anniversary of landing on the Moon when I was in my first term.
That was in 2019. Now we're a handful of years on.
But when we were going into that history, we weren't
looking at it from the lens of major cuts to public health. And
last night, we just passed--not me, but we saw the majority
unanimously--nearly unanimously vote to pass a budget
resolution that would cut $880 billion potentially for Medicaid
for people. And I look at that and I think, holy smokes. You
know, we want to win the race to the future.
I got a lot of technical questions for you guys. Maybe I'll
have to submit them as questions for the record, but I just
wonder how we can be competitive and successful in this area
when we can't give people the benefits they've earned, when we
look at families with children who have medically complex
challenges, and we're going to say you're not going to have
your healthcare. And I--look, I don't often bring up healthcare
in this Committee. I mean, we've been passing CHIPS bills and
science bills up the wazoo. Building Blocks of STEM Act was
signed by President Trump into law in--on December 24, 2019,
and that was an equity bill. It was my bill with Dr. Jim Baird
and some partners in the Senate.
But I just think this is really important to bring up here
because if we're really going to lead as a nation, what we see
and what I know that's happening back home reminds me of what
was happening when COVID hit. You got an efficiency effort,
which is important, because we want the best efficiency. The
last hearing we had on the Space Subcommittee before the end of
the last term--Chairman, you weren't here yet--but it was
really important. I mean, we're looking at the bureaucracy
driving us crazy in terms of sending people into outer space.
And we love the idea of getting more people to the Moon. It's
inspiring, it's aspirational, and it's important to our
technology.
But I don't know if we can do it at the expense of people
back home having heart palpitations if their school is still
going to have special education, when people aren't going to be
able to work. And these are my workers in Michigan. You have
to--I mean, I got a company called Detroit Flex. They make
these great tubes that go into the engines. They were selling
in automotive for years and years, and then one of these
amazing commercial space companies, you know, has access to it.
So I think that's how I wanted to use my 5 minutes here is
to make that point in this audience of very dedicated
individuals who are tied in to this Artemis, which I don't want
this program to flop. I wish we were talking about ways in
which we could effectively use the dollar to keep it going, to
trim our bureaucracy, to make us more efficient, to have
leadership.
But what I'm hearing from home is you got a government that
feels really unstable right now. And we're trustees of that
government. We're all--you know, everyone at this dais is an
elected trustee of that government.
So I'll be submitting the more technical questions for the
record, and I thank you, gentlemen, for your previous service
and your time here today. And I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. I now recognize the
Representative from California, Mr. Fong, for his 5 minutes of
questions. You're recognized.
Mr. Fong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
hosting this important hearing today. I look forward to working
with you on this Committee.
First, I wanted to highlight--I want to highlight my
community's contributions to the Artemis program, specifically
at the Air Force Research Laboratory's Rocket Lab at Edwards
Air Force Base. Blue Origin and the Air Force have established
a partnership where Blue Origin is able to use certain Air
Force facilities to test Blue Origin's BE-7 engines. This helps
ensure the Artemis program is successful but also leverages the
private sector's speed and innovation. And to meet the
challenges ahead, our Nation needs more public and private
partnerships so that we can work together to achieve great
things.
I did want to ask--I want to ask both of you, in your
testimonies, you described the global competition, the need to
act with a sense of urgency for America to win this space race,
especially with the competition coming from China. You describe
some of the importance that--you described the importance of
leadership in space exploration in terms of our U.S. economic,
national security, and scientific interest. In light of my
colleague's just--statement before--maybe we can take a step
back. Can you outline the importance to everyday Americans why
we need to engage, why we need to win this new space race?
Dr. Pace. Well, I think at a very high level--and part of
it's academic--is we need to win it in order to make sure the
environment we depend on--space is critical to our economy,
space is critical to our military. And if we're second in
space, then we're second in being able to shape a domain that
our life depends on. You can just imagine the number of ways
you use space every day, everything from your GPS (Global
Positioning System) to your evening news to your weather
predictions to your electrical power systems, all these things
that we have an infrastructure that we depend on, so we need to
protect the space environment. We need to make sure the rules
are there that are conducive to our interests.
But at another level, more at home in the United States and
industry, space is the most important school you can go to.
That is, in order to master things in space, you have to master
pretty much every aspect of technology and science to do well.
And then to bring that all together into a mission that
involves humans is even more driving. So it is something that
drives your education, that drives your ability to manage
large-scale systems. It drives manufacturing. It drives the
ability to get people inspired for the next generation.
If you look at what China is doing in space, it's for a
number of reasons that are fairly self-evident. They want more
influence, they want to drive their industry, they want to
inspire their own population, and they want to gain skills so
they can dominate in other technical fields, not illogical
reasons. And so we are in a large-scale competition and
struggle in the world, and space is one of those things that
gives us the tools necessary to win.
Mr. Fong. So I couldn't agree more. America has to win this
space race. You, in your testimony, mentioned that our missions
can't be one and done. They have to be repeatable and
sustainable. And you've kind of touched on the regulatory
burdens. You've touched on barriers. You've touched on
acquisition streamlining.
I did want to ask specifically if there were specific
regulations or specific provisions that you could mention, if
we can dive into the weeds a little bit, that we need to
examine. And I don't know if there's a level of tiers of
priority that you would have. And that goes to both of you, if
both of you want to answer that.
Dr. Pace. I'm sure we could bore everyone in the room by
tiering down some of the regs. I think the No. 1 thing that I
would say is to push responsibility down and--to the agencies
and hold them accountable. Don't have a one size fits all. Take
a scalpel, not just, you know, a grenade to those things and
give the agencies both the leadership direction and the top
cover necessary to go and experiment.
I think, as Dr. Dumbacher said, we can actually do a lot of
amazing things in getting stuff done if people think that
they're not going to be penalized for trying and doing that. So
I think agency accountability, I think pressing things down to
a lower level in the agencies, and I think those might be
questions that will come up in Mr. Isaacman's confirmation
hearing.
Mr. Dumbacher. And, Congressman, I'm fully with Dr. Pace's
answer. I think we recently--we're having the right kind of
conversations about regulation for human spaceflight and other
things via the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) activities
and some of the others that I've been familiar with, and we're
working through that. And I think we need to, as Scott has
said, give people the leeway and hold them accountable to go
experiment, and this Nation can accomplish great things.
Mr. Fong. I want to thank you for your testimony and
guidance. My time has run out, but this is critically
important, especially, I think we need to tell the story of how
our lives, our daily lives are impacted with space and how we
need to continue to invest and continue to be dominant in this
arena, especially with the competition that comes from China.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. I recognize the
Representative from New York, Ms. Gillen, for her 5 minutes of
questions.
Ms. Gillen. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you Chairman Mike
Haridopolos, my new fellow freshman, and thank you to Ranking
Member Foushee, and thank you to our witnesses. I'm very much
looking forward to working together in a bipartisan manner with
my colleagues on this Subcommittee to strengthen the American
leadership in space.
Mr. Dumbacher, as you know, the United States and China are
in a race to get our astronauts back on the Moon, which has
enormous stakes for our national security. I'm very concerned
that, because China uses its space program to conceal military
intentions under the guise of research, what are the
consequences for our national security, if the U.S. and--for
the United States if China is the first to land crewed mission
or even establish a lab on the Moon?
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, again, as we've discussed, it's about
the presence, and it's about being there, and by being there,
that's how you establish your value system, your leadership,
and the rules of the road for our Nation. I think it's
absolutely critical. It's also critical, even from a technical
perspective and a programmatic perspective because we want to
be the ones to help figure out the technologies that are so
critical, not just for what Artemis needs and what NASA needs,
but also for what our national security, U.S. Space Force, and
others are going to require, on-orbit propellant depots;
communications; power; position, nav, and tracking, all of that
we want to be in the forefront so that we can build it and for
the policy reasons of establishing the rules of the road via
our presence.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you. And just to follow up, earlier in
your testimony, you talked about making sure that we--Congress
gives you the funding you need to maintain and have our space
program excel and making sure that we have the best and the
brightest involved in our space program. I'm curious. We're
lucky enough to have folks like my colleague beside me, Mr.
Whitesides, who is a leader in our space program. What can
Congress do to make sure that we have a pipeline of real talent
to get our program where it needs to be and to be the future of
space?
Dr. Pace. I would point out it's been more than 20 years
since the Congress passed the 2004 NASA workforce bill, which
produced some liberalization, allowing people to come in, some
more flexibilities. I think a topic for the next Administrator
is a new NASA workforce bill to look at how maybe people can go
more easily to industry, from industry back in to government in
a disciplined sort of way. There's been a lot of changes, and I
know Dr. Dumbacher, from his AIAA experience. I think if that
gets folded into a NASA authorization bill, great, but I think
relooking at the NASA workforce bill after 20 years might be a
good use.
Ms. Gillen. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. I now recognize the
Representative from Utah, Dr. Kennedy, for his 5 minutes of
questions. You're recognized.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to be with
you and with this Committee. It's very exciting. Thank you to
the witnesses for being here to consider us going to the Moon
and beyond.
So in the State of Utah, Northrop Grumman's state-of-the-
art facilities are central to the development of solid rocket
boosters for some of the most ambitious missions we've embarked
upon. These boosters are key to propelling spacecraft like
NASA's Space Launch System, which is set to carry astronauts
deeper into space than ever before, including the planned
missions to the Moon under the Artemis program and eventually
to Mars.
So, Mr. Dumbacher, if you would help me, how will the
Artemis technology and knowledge for the Moon mission be
leveraged for future missions to Mars and beyond?
Mr. Dumbacher. Well, the technology that we do for the Moon
is essential for being able to go to Mars because, one, we're
going to learn. From a technology perspective, the
transportation systems, as you've mentioned, the communication,
the power, the nav, we need to realize something. Going to the
Moon, I'm days away from home, going to Mars, I'm months away.
It's 240,000 miles versus 35 million. So I have to learn not
just the technical, how to do the communications, how to do the
power, how to do the environmental control and life support. I
also have to learn how to do the operations. I have to learn
where the decisionmaking needs to be because of the time delays
in the communication, and that the astronauts will have to
react onsite and not be able to have as much help from home
because of the time delay. I need to think--I need to work
through all of that, and I do that by operating at the Moon,
trying--going through the new mission scenarios, and then
eventually going out to Mars with that knowledge.
My analogy for it is, I don't take my Girl Scouts and Boy
Scouts out to the Grand Canyon on their first camping trip. I
take them to the local backyard State park, and then I might go
out to the local national park before I take them to the Grand
Canyon. It's the same kind of thing where we need to learn
along the way, and the Moon is that steppingstone for us so
that we can learn how to do those things and then go to Mars.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for that answer.
And, Dr. Pace, if I can ask you this question. We're, in
the State of Utah, privileged to have the Space Dynamics
Laboratory (SDL) at Utah State University. The SDL's talented
workforce includes scientists, engineers, and business
professionals dedicated to providing solutions that support all
mission phases, from concept to completion. Utah State has been
working closely with NASA on the robotics portion of Artemis.
One of the programs they are working on with NASA's Jet
Propulsion Lab is specifically a heterodyne OH lunar miniature
spectrometer--go and say that three times fast--looking for
water on the Moon, which is an important function associated
with manned missions.
There are some major challenges that need to be overcome to
go to Mars. Some close to the Administration have publicly
advocated for going straight to Mars, bypassing the Moon,
dismissing it since we have already been there. So my question
is, is this a serious consideration by the Administration, or
will the Moon continue to be the immediate focus?
Dr. Pace. Well, since I'm in academia, I really can't speak
for the Administration, you know, on these things. I would say
that I would look to the guidance that the Congress has already
laid out. I would look to the existing space policy in SPD-1
and space policy for 2020 that's still there. And I would think
I would look to the logic of, you know, what we need to do to
succeed. So I think it's fine for people to push and say, why
can't we do this, why can't we do that, not simply to take
things as a given, so I think responding to those questions is
perfectly fine, but I think the steppingstone approach that
this Congress has done over a few decades still remains the
right direction.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. And thank you for not speaking for
the Administration. There's a lot on the left that seem to want
to speak for the Administration on a regular basis about what's
happening around here, but I appreciate your restraint in
holding off on that.
A follow up question on that, if the Moon continues to be a
focus, will emphasis be placed on the manned or robotic part of
Artemis, or will it be a balanced portfolio? And either one of
you, if you have an opinion about that, I'm open to it.
Mr. Dumbacher. I think, Congressman, my thoughts on that
are that it needs to be the balance program because I need to
go figure out where the resources are, how much is there, and I
can do a lot of this robotically, and the proper synergy
between a robotic program and the human program is how we get
to the best benefit. I send the scouts out robotically, and
then I bring the humans, and I think the balanced portfolio is
the proper answer.
Mr. Kennedy. Thanks. I love the scout analogy. I enjoyed
being a Boy Scout myself, and it sounds like you're doing good
work for the young, which actually is my final question is
we've had two Utah student teams in the past 2 years who were
funded under the BIG Idea Challenge, which has a yearly theme
to contribute to the future of the Artemis program with
specific challenges in lunar operations. The 2024 BIG Idea team
was from Brigham Young University, my alma mater times two, and
they developed an untethered and modular inflatable robot for
lunar operations. What can NASA do to enhance academic
partnerships which contribute to our mission to go to the Moon,
Mars, and beyond? What, in your opinion, do you think about
that?
Mr. Dumbacher. I think I will actually point to--the Office
of STEM Engagement at NASA has done a tremendous job over the
last several years strategically and all the way through
implementation of growing that capability. They have done a
masterful job of marshaling the resources, doing it efficiently
and quickly, and right now, their hindrance is funding that's
holding them back from being able to do more. We just need to
do more.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for those answers. My time has
expired. Mr. Chair, I'll yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Kennedy. I know we're
waiting for Ms. Rivas. She's on her way, my understanding, the
Congresswoman from California. We'll give her a little time, no
problem.
I now recognize the Representative from California, Ms.
Rivas, for her 5 minutes of questions. Welcome.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to waive
on to today's hearing in your Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee.
I have deep concerns about the Trump Administration's
attacks on our Federal workforce and how it will impact NASA
and the Artemis campaign. Just outside my district is NASA's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The space workforce in and around my
district understand the disruption and difficulty of layoffs in
the space sector all too well after JPL laid off almost 850
people last year. Any reduction to the space workforce will
negatively impact our communities, our future, and our
country's competitiveness.
In fact, it was the team at JPL that brought a methane leak
in my district to the public's attention in 2020. JPL's report,
which used airborne sensors to observe methane sources, found
that the station in my district had been leaking more than
10,000 cubic feet of methane per hour for the last couple of
years, equivalent to the emissions of 30,000 cars.
The Administration's proposed NASA firings and Federal
funding freeze will negatively affect NASA centers and
federally funded research and development centers like JPL by
cutting science programs and missions that are in operation,
inhibiting NASA's ability to push innovative boundaries.
Mr. Dumbacher, in your opening statement, you talk about
how our workforce must be nurtured and how our strength is
being able to bring out the best minds from across the country.
In your experience in the space engineering industry, what will
happen to our Nation's progress if the current Administration
continues to move forward with their plans to reduce the space
workforce and their continued insistence on the removal of the
word ``inclusion'' as a core value of NASA?
Mr. Dumbacher. Our workforce, the national asset that we
have built in--built and invested over time requires, one, to
know that there is stability for their careers and for their
lives. And by us continuing in the bicameral, bipartisan way
that this Congress and SPD-1 and other things have set the
constancy of purpose, that's an important element. Then the
funding has to come to go execute the programs. And what's
important for our workforce is for them to see that they have
real challenges, real problems to go solve, and they'll go do
it. And then they will learn, and we will--and our society will
reap the benefits. That's the important part.
And we also have to realize that in this global
competition, we need to tap all of the resources across this
country to be able to compete with others. Just because China
has a larger population than we do, we graduate 10 to 20
percent of the number of engineers on an annual basis at the
undergraduate level compared to the Chinese. We need--we're not
going to win the numbers game. What we need to do is get the
perspective, the talent, and tap into those communities that we
haven't tapped into before to help make sure we're bringing all
of the talent to bear across this country.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you. I agree. You know, as you may know,
I'm the only Latina in Congress who is an engineer. I'm also
the Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Congressional STEM Education
Caucus. And, you know, ensuring that all Americans, especially
women and girls of color, can see the first woman and the first
person of color land on the Moon is essential to the vision of
this campaign. Your written opening statement mentioned that
only 10 percent of our engineering graduates are Hispanic. In
your view, what needs to be done to improve this number?
Mr. Dumbacher. What I've learned Congresswoman, is that,
No. 1, they have to see the opportunity, and they have to see
themselves as being able to accomplish that opportunity, and
they see it through their mentors and people like them that are
actually--are the astronauts, are the program managers, are the
engineers, are the scientists, even the attorneys. And they
need to see that capability, and then their networks, their
support structure, their families, their friends, their
relatives, need to also understand the opportunity and see that
as an opportunity to help build it. And then we also need to
help them through their educational journey because it's a
challenge, and it always will be. And we need to help them
through that, at the end, making sure that they see the
opportunity and the real challenges and the real problems they
get to solve.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you. You know, as you can tell, these
issues are personal for me, for my State, for my district. I
agree that, you know, family, teachers, educators all need to
be part of the solution. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. And I believe Congressman
Collins is en route, so I'll give him a little bit of time, as
we did for Congresswoman Rivas as well.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you.
Chairman Haridopolos. I now recognize the Representative
from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate you
giving me a few minutes to get in here. Somehow--I've only been
coming here 2 years, but I got lost. Anybody figure Rayburn?
No.
I kind of wanted to tee off of a couple things that y'all
were saying in your opening testimony, and I also want to kind
of intertwine that with the hearing that we had yesterday in
Natural Resources because I think they kind of go hand in hand.
And as far as my background, I'm a small business person,
been an entrepreneur all my life, and just started this in the
118th Congress. So I like to look at things from a small
business and entrepreneurship type of frame. And I know in
today's age that we are in a different light, as the Chairman
said, just not productivity and efficiency, but saving the
American taxpayer money, being productive, but yet being
efficient at the same time. And we know that Artemis has had a
few setbacks and a few problems.
But I just want to go and take a look at what's out there
and what's available and where the world is going. And
yesterday, when we had our hearing, there were two companies
there, and I don't know if y'all--y'all may not know them or
may know them. One of them was AstroForge, who is doing deep
space exploration, and the other one is Starpath. And Starpath,
I thought, had a really unique look on what they're--and
they're simply a mining company. And we're talking about mining
critical minerals and, in this case, rocket propellant fuel.
And their whole niche was to make it cheaper to get to the Moon
and back. In their words, they were going to be a gas station
on the Moon. You know, the rocket ship, SpaceX, whoever comes
lands, NASA comes and lands, and while they're doing their
business, people like Starpath will check the tires, the oil,
and fill them up with propellant fuel to get them back, which
we all know would save weight and save fuel.
And so what I kind of want to--and I guess, Dr. Pace, I'll
ask you this question, and then I want to ask both of you the
same thing. But, you know, because NASA programs, they often do
struggle with staying on schedule and staying on budget. And so
what is needed? And I can go over some other examples on some
other Committees, where we do appropriations every year for the
same project, and it just gets really crazy because it doesn't
work. But what are some realistic budget program architectural
things within NASA that may help?
Dr. Pace. Sure. I think something that was done in the last
Trump Administration, we were trying to get the NASA budget up
to roughly where it was at the end of the cold war. And if we
had the same budget power today that we did around 1992, the
NASA budget would be $30-33 billion, so there's been a long-
term decline in the NASA budget over time.
When talking about that, the pushback that I got was,
great, happy to see more money going to NASA, but show me where
the innovation is. Give me something that's innovative and new,
not just another program of record. I mean, that was really the
challenge. So I think if you're challenging NASA to say, OK,
you need more resources, first, tell me how are you going to do
this in a more sort of innovative kind of way?
I think one of the ways you save money is by thinking about
those things that only the government can do versus those
things the private sector can do. Just like we have a U.S.
Geological Survey to go out and do some basic information, I
think that NASA has a role in doing basic science,
understanding what resources might be there on the Moon, but as
soon as possible transition over to where NASA simply buys
those resources, buys it as a service from these kind of
commercial companies.
So the way you do it, one is by pushing for innovation, and
two, making sure that NASA only does those things that really
only the government can do, and, if at all possible, to give
the private sector a shot, they should get that shot.
Mr. Dumbacher. So let me--I'm going to come from my
personal experience. Scott just said the things that NASA ought
to be doing when they're doing them, do it with the right size
team, with a team that has the leeway to go execute on that
program and has the discipline to manage that program and to
make it happen on the schedule and to meet the technical
objectives.
I have personal experience that I managed personally and
had a small team that delivered on the objectives on schedule,
10 percent under budget, and it was the first vertical landing
rocket that this country had done, and that workforce then went
to SpaceX and Blue Origin. It can be done with the right
discipline--the right people, the right leeway, and the right
discipline.
Mr. Collins. Right. And I would agree with you, and I think
that's where I was alluding to like with--even with Starpath.
Is that--have I burned 5 minutes? Holy cow. I knew I talked
slow being from the South, but--and I think that's where I was
going with things like Starpath. I mean, they're talking about,
they could potentially be on the Moon by 2026. That's their
goals, and to set up and start mining.
And anytime you can take a public--and I didn't know what
else you saw out there, public-private partnerships that might
be available that we need to be looking at up--from up here.
So--well, I'm out of time. I see that. I had another question,
but----
Chairman Haridopolos. Well, thank you----
Mr. Collins [continuing]. That's OK.
Chairman Haridopolos [continuing]. Congressman Collins.
All right. And with that, that is all of our Members here
today. I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and candid opinions as well. Thank you. I want to
also thank the Members for their thoughtful questions, and I
look forward to working with my Ranking Member as we proceed
this year. I appreciate the thoughtful comments today.
And the record will remain open for 10 days for additional
comments and written questions from Members. And with that,
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Scott Pace
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Responses by Mr. Dan Dumbacher
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Letters submitted by Representative Mike Haridopolos
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT