    [Senate Hearing 119-283]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-283

                        THERE'S A BAD MOON ON THE RISE:
                       WHY CONGRESS AND NASA MUST THWART
                            CHINA IN THE SPACE RACE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-738 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                           TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman
    JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi              Ranking
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    TED BUDD, North Carolina             TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
    JOHN CURTIS, Utah                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    BERNIE MORENO, Ohio                  JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
    TIM SHEEHY, Montana                  JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ANDY KIM, New Jersey
    CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
                     Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
               Nicole Christus, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                       Lila Harper Helms, Staff Director
                     Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 3, 2025................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cruz........................................     1
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     3
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    29
    Statement of Senator Kim.........................................    31
    Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    33
        Article dated March 28, 2024 from Air & Space Magazine
          entitled, ``Why Cislunar Security Must Be a SpaceForce
          Concern''..................................................    33
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................    43
    Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    46
    Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    47
    Statement of Senator Young.......................................    49
    Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................    51
    Statement of Senator Sheehy......................................    53
    Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    56
    Statement of Senator Moreno......................................    58

                                   Witnesses

    Allen Cutler, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
      Coalition for Deep Space Exploration...........................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Michael Gold, President, Civil and International Space, Redwire..     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Hon. Jim Bridenstine, Managing Partner, Artemis Group, and former
      Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration...    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
    Lieutenant General John Shaw, former Deputy Commander, U.S. Space
      Command........................................................    20
        Prepared statement...........................................    22

                                    Appendix

    Casey Dreier, Chief of Space Policy, The Planetary Society,
      prepared statement.............................................    63
    Response to written questions submitted to Allen Cutler by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    65
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    65
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    67
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    70
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    71
        Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    71
        Hon. John Fetterman..........................................    72
    Response to written questions submitted to Michael Gold by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    72
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    73
        Hon. Todd Young..............................................    75
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    75
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    78
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    79
        Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    79
        Hon. John Fetterman..........................................    80
    Response to written questions to Hon. Jim Bridenstine submitted
      by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    81
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    82
        Hon. Todd Young..............................................    84
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    85
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    87
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    87
        Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    88
        Hon. John Fetterman..........................................    88
    Response to written questions submitted to Lt. Gen. John Shaw by:
        Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    89
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    90
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    92
        Hon. Ben Ray Lujan...........................................    94
        Hon. John Hickenlooper.......................................    94

                        THERE'S A BAD MOON ON THE RISE:
                       WHY CONGRESS AND NASA MUST THWART
                            CHINA IN THE SPACE RACE

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Cruz, Fischer, Moran, Sullivan,
    Blackburn, Young, Schmitt, Moreno, Sheehy, Cantwell, Klobuchar,
    Peters, Rosen, Lujan, Hickenlooper, Fetterman, and Kim.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

        Chairman Cruz. Good morning. The Senate Committee on
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation will come to order.
        Today, we will discuss NASA's progress, its challenges, and
    the path forward on the first comprehensive NASA authorization
    bill since 2017.
        When I was Chairman of this Committee's Space Subcommittee,
    Senator Bill Nelson and I worked together on several pieces of
    space legislation that were signed into law by both President
    Obama and President Trump. Continuing that bipartisan
    tradition, this past March, my colleagues and I together
    introduced a short-term NASA authorization bill.
        All these efforts reveal an important truth, which is this:
    there exists a strong, bipartisan consensus in Congress for
    backing the critical mission of NASA. When it comes to the
    final frontier, we are not Republicans or Democrats. Rather, we
    are Americans first, and all of us know that for our Nation to
    continue doing incredible things in space, we must rely on and
    empower NASA's ingenuity and determination.
        NASA has always been one of America's greatest engines of
    innovation. From Apollo to Artemis, from the Space Shuttle to
    the International Space Station, our space program reflects the
    very best of American leadership.
        I look forward to continuing that tradition by working and
    enacting into law a longer-term reauthorization of NASA with my
    colleagues.
        This is a pivotal moment for our Nation's space programs.
    America must maintain leadership in low Earth orbit, while also
    embarking on a new era of exploration with Artemis. Make no
    mistake: we are in a new space race with China, and if we fail,
    there will be a bad moon on the rise.
        China has made no secrets of its goals. It is investing
    heavily in its space capabilities, maintaining a permanent
    presence in low Earth orbit, and working to plant its flag on
    the Moon by 2030.
        The stakes could not be higher. Space is no longer reserved
    simply for peaceful exploration. It is today a strategic
    frontier with direct consequences for national security,
    economic growth, and technological leadership. If our
    adversaries achieve dominant space capabilities, it would pose
    a profound risk to America. This is not just about exploration.
    The choices we make today will determine whether the United
    States leads in space or cedes space to an authoritarian
    regime.
        That is why continuity in NASA's programs is not simply
    good practice. It is a matter of national security. Any drastic
    changes in NASA's architecture at this stage threaten United
    States' leadership in space. Delays or disruptions only serve
    our competitors' interests.
        Congress has spoken clearly on this matter. In the One Big
    Beautiful Bill, which I was proud to champion, we reaffirmed
    strong support for NASA's exploration programs.
        At a time when some have sought to prematurely dismantle
    the International Space Station--despite China's presence in
    low Earth orbit--Congress provided ample funding to continue
    the safe operations of the ISS as well as provide an on-ramp
    for follow-on commercial stations.
        And Congress also provided the funds necessary to sustain a
    presence on the Moon. Artemis IV will deliver and assemble the
    first major elements of the Gateway station in lunar orbit, and
    Artemis V will expand surface exploration using that platform.
    These missions rely on the Space Launch System and Orion
    capsule to reach the Moon and to reach the Gateway station.
        It would be folly to cut short these missions after much of
    the hardware has already been purchased and, in some cases,
    delivered with no commercial alternative readily available. I
    look forward to working hand-in-hand with the Administration to
    ensure those funds are utilized in full accordance with
    congressional intent.
        We have seen overwhelming support for maintaining these
    programs from Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike.
    Congress supports NASA's exploration goals, and we do not want
    sudden or disruptive changes that undermine America's
    leadership.
        NASA is more than just a symbol of national pride. It is a
    strategic capability that advances our economy, security, and
    values. The milestones ahead, maintaining continuous human
    presence in low Earth orbit, returning American astronauts to
    the Moon, landing the first female astronaut in history on the
    surface of the Moon--as the father of daughters that is
    particular near and dear to my heart--and preparing for human
    missions to Mars, these are not just scientific achievements.
    They are fundamental to America's role as the world's leading
    spacefaring nation.
        America must remain the world leader in space. With steady
    leadership and clear direction, I am confident we will.
        I now turn to Ranking Member Cantwell.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad to
    join you today in this fight to say we must maintain our focus
    on returning to the Moon. It is good to see the witnesses here,
    Mr. Cutler, Mr. Gold, Mr. Bridenstine, and Lieutenant General
    Shaw. But I also want to recognize Bill Nye, also a Northwest
    Planetary Society individual, who is here today as well. I look
    forward to all of your testimony.
        Today we are here in a race with China to return to the
    Moon and stay there. Beating China back to the Moon is not just
    about bragging rights, and it is certainly not just about
    grabbing headlines. But today, it is clear that President Xi,
    President Putin, and Prime Minister Modi are all in China
    having a big national security and strategic discussion that
    could easily--easily include space and defense and security and
    defense implications.
        No surprise actually, that Kim Jong Un is also there. Let's
    just take for a consideration that he would like to figure out
    how to improve his rocket technology with more accuracy, more
    distance, more tracking. I don't like the scenario.
        The strategic value of maintaining our position to live and
    work in space is critical. It is critical to our future
    economic and national security. Returning to the Moon requires
    us to push the limits of technology to find the solutions that
    we can solve and maintain our national defense and innovation
    economy. All you have to do is look back to the 1960s and look
    at the development of technologies that created an ecosystem
    within the United States of America that led to discoveries and
    innovations that we are still now counting on today.
        So, we must not waver in this important mission of
    technology and national security defense. I believe each of the
    witnesses will tell us something about this today and why the
    consequences of failing to achieve this goal will be
    monumental. We know we need to go back to the Moon, and we know
    we need to go there before China establishes a permanent
    presence. I want to hear, importantly, about the expertise
    these individuals think that we must pull together so that we
    will not fall short of this goal. It is clear in some of your
    testimony, you are already articulating the strategic advantage
    China has of being so uniform on their government structure.
    We, on the other hand, are trying to work both within the
    government and within the commercial sector, on a partnership
    that allows all of us to creatively work together and move
    forward.
        That is why, Lieutenant General Shaw, I found your
    statement in your testimony quite compelling, quote, ``I
    believe if we do not unify and synchronize our efforts, we will
    find ourselves rather than the space leaders we are today,
    instead in a position of increasing disadvantage in space as we
    progress further into this century,'' end quote. I don't want
    to see that reality either. I want us to explore how to get the
    most out of NASA's commercial partnership and determine if
    sufficient redundancy in the provisions of commercial space are
    there to ensure that.
        The state of Washington plays a very proud role in the
    exploration of space and the space economy--about 77,000 people
    employed today, just in the space economy, obviously, more than
    100,000 employed in aerospace in general. So these are
    important companies to us, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Blue
    Origin, all working on rocket infrastructure, crew capsules,
    Gateway lunar landing orbit stations and human landers. All of
    these are so important.
        And also just a shout-out to the returning Colonel Anne
    McClain from Spokane, who just returned from serving as the
    Commander on the ISS mission from March through August of this
    year. So yes, we have a lot of people thinking about space in
    the Northwest.
        So I am concerned about the current plan and what we are
    doing to make sure that we continue to push forward. I would
    love to see the continued focus on dual landers, given how
    important they are going to be for the future. It is not just
    one time. It is many times. This is an operation where we are
    going to continue to return and be an operational system. So I
    want to make sure that we have the best. I want to make sure
    that NASA has backup plans that takes advantage and ensures
    that the already delayed mission does not slip any further.
        I don't know that it takes a genius to figure out that
    while China may be projecting 2030, or some time period, there
    is nothing to say that they won't go sooner. There are people
    we talked to in trying to brief the press about this today, who
    are betting that they are going to go sooner and that they are
    going to beat us.
        So we don't need another Sputnik moment. It has already
    happened. The only thing we have to do is make sure we in
    Congress get the budget right and support the Artemis mission.
    I appreciate everything the Chair has done in putting money
    toward the Artemis mission, and I appreciate everything that we
    are doing collectively to assure that the Administration spends
    it.
        But I also want to point out that, as Lieutenant General
    Shaw also says, this whole cislunar communication
    architecture--that is, the space between the Earth and the
    Moon--that is what China would love to do, go dominate the
    communication system between the space and the Moon. That is
    what they are already working on. We cannot allow that to
    happen. We need to continue to move forward quickly, fast, with
    these investments, because our national security and defense
    depends on it.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to asking the
    witnesses more detailed questions about this, the President's
    budget, and why we need to make sure that we are funding this
    appropriate mission for the future, not just of our innovation,
    but also for our national security. Thank you.
        Chairman Cruz. I thank the Ranking Member. I would now like
    to introduce our witnesses for today. Each witness exemplifies
    essential elements of maintaining U.S. leadership in space.
        Our first witness is Mr. Allen Cutler, President and Chief
    Executive Officer of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration,
    a national organization comprising more than 50 space industry
    businesses and stakeholders, dedicated to ensuring that the
    U.S. remains the leader in space exploration.
        Our second witness is Mr. Michael Gold, President of Civil
    and International Space for Redwire, where he leads a variety
    of commercial space activities. Prior to Redwire, he served as
    NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Policy and
    Partnerships, where he directed the development and
    implementation of the Artemis Accords and the negotiations for
    the Lunar Gateway.
        Our third witness is a good friend, the Honorable Jim
    Bridenstine, Managing Partner of the Artemis Group. He
    previously served as the 13th Administrator of NASA. Under Mr.
    Bridenstine's strong leadership, NASA launched the Artemis
    program to explore the Moon and to prepare for missions to
    Mars.
        And our final witness is Lieutenant General John Shaw, the
    former Deputy Commander of the U.S. Space Command, where he was
    responsible for conducting operations in, from, and to space to
    deter conflict.
        Mr. Cutler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ALLEN CUTLER,
                 PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                THE COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION

        Mr. Cutler. Thank you. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, members of the Committee, thank you for the
    invitation to testify today and for your consistent bipartisan
    support of NASA. That support has been critical to advancing
    our mission to return American astronauts to the Moon and
    building a sustained presence there. The most recent example of
    this support is the funding of NASA in the budget
    reconciliation bill that supports facilities and activities
    from Earth to Mars, including funds for the Artemis IV and
    Artemis V missions.
        Artemis is more than a space program. It is the statement
    of American leadership to the rest of the world. It ensures
    that the United States, not our competitors or adversaries,
    sets the rules for lunar exploration and resource utilization.
    Without a successful Artemis program, we risk ceding the Moon
    to China, a nation working diligently to land before we return
    and looking to establish control over key lunar regions and
    resources. Their intent is clear, their progress is real, and
    time is not on our side. This is a race that the United States
    cannot afford to lose.
        China's capabilities in space cannot be underestimated,
    whether in their activities orbiting Earth or its ambitious
    lunar program. China's persistence in achieving its national
    goals in space underscores its unfaltering intent to be the
    leader in space. Recent progress by China includes a successful
    static fire test of the Long March 10 rocket as well as
    successful early lunar lander tests to determine its
    capabilities.
        The United States still retains advantages with the Space
    Launch System, Orion, Gateway development, and Exploration
    Ground Systems processing, but appears to trail China with a
    critical final leg in space to the Moon surface, the
    development of a lander.
        Let me be very clear. The country that lands astronauts on
    the Moon next shapes the rules of engagement in space for
    decades to come.
        The current Artemis program is making strong progress, but
    we need every element to execute its role. The technical
    challenges that need to be overcome to land on the lunar
    surface cannot be ignored, and Congress must keep a watchful
    eye on how that effort progresses if we are to win.
        Artemis II is preparing for its crewed launch next year,
    but the work does not stop there. There is mission hardware
    being built today from Artemis III through Artemis IX.
    Factories are running, hardware is being manufactured, and
    thousands of Americans across the country are at work to make
    this campaign successful.
        Additionally, the United States is leading a growing
    coalition of 56 partner nations that are the Artemis Accords, a
    global community initiated under President Trump's first term,
    focused on supporting a set of principles for peaceful,
    sustainable, and cooperative space exploration.
        The rewards of advancing our lunar program extend beyond
    beating China. Artemis is an economic engine here at home. For
    every dollar invested in Artemis, three dollars flow back into
    our economy, supporting advanced manufacturing, creating high-
    quality jobs, and driving innovation that benefits Americans in
    their daily lives. Supporting Artemis to beat China creates
    stronger communities, a stronger industrial base, and a
    stronger America. This race is not just about the Moon. It is
    about economic growth, global competitiveness, and national
    security.
        Congress can strengthen our national capabilities with a
    robust NASA authorization bill to reaffirm our commitment to
    the current plan and make improvements where necessary. It
    should continue the direction for lunar exploration found in
    the President's Space Policy Directive One, which calls for the
    United States to lead the return of humans to the Moon for
    long-term exploration and utilization, followed by human
    missions to Mars. A multiyear authorization bill with these
    elements will provide the long-term certainty needed to keep
    NASA focused and our workforce, our partners, and our allies
    aligned.
        Great strides are being made from lessons learned after the
    Artemis I mission, and even greater efficiencies and cost
    reductions could be realized, by cutting unnecessary
    requirements that are not safety critical, requiring a plan for
    a phased approach to commercial services for future Artemis
    missions to further drive down costs, and ensuring that
    decisionmaking at NASA centers and industry sites is available
    when the work is happening, increasing efficiency.
        These steps will make Artemis more agile, more sustainable,
    while keeping the United States on track, but passing a bill on
    its own will not be sufficient. Congress must hold NASA
    accountable for implementing the laws Congress enacts.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the progress we
    have made is invaluable, the investments you have supported are
    paying off, the industrial base is ready and capable, and the
    Artemis generation is being inspired. If we lose momentum now,
    that progress will not be easily regained. But when successful,
    Artemis will deliver historic achievements that secure
    America's leadership for generations. With your continued
    support, Artemis will secure a place on the Moon before China,
    strengthen our economy here at home, and keep America strong.
        Thank you for your time, your attention, and for your
    commitment to Artemis, NASA, and America's leadership in space.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cutler follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Allen Cutler, President and Chief Executive
                 Officer, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to testify before the
    Committee, and for your consistent bipartisan support of NASA. That
    support has been critical to the progress we have made toward returning
    American astronauts to the Moon and building a sustained lunar
    presence. The most recent example is the funding for NASA in the
    reconciliation bill that supports facilities and activities from Earth
    to Mars, including funds for the Artemis IV and V missions.
        The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration represents companies of
    all sizes across the United States, from small business suppliers to
    prime contractors that constitute the critical supply chain that
    enables our national space policy of leadership in space. For nearly a
    decade, this organization has been a resource and an advocate for
    industry as the country has embarked on the goal of returning to the
    Moon and eventually expanding our human exploration horizons onto Mars.
    Artemis
        Artemis is more than a space program. It is a statement of American
    leadership to the rest of the world. It ensures that the United States,
    and not our competitors and adversaries, sets the rules for lunar
    exploration, resource utilization, and governance.
        Without a successful Artemis program, we risk ceding the Moon to
    China, a nation working diligently to land before we return and
    establish control over key lunar regions and resources.
        Their intent is clear. Their progress is real. And time is not on
    our side. This is a race the United States cannot afford to lose.
    China
        China's capabilities in space cannot be underestimated, whether in
    their activities orbiting Earth or their ambitious lunar program. For
    example, the Long March rocket is so named to signal China's
    persistence in achieving its national goals in space and underscores
    its unfaltering intent to be the new world leader in space.
        Recent tests of their lunar infrastructure demonstrate the
    systematic process they are following to accomplish a crewed landing on
    the Moon. In June, China conducted a test of its crew vehicle launch
    abort system. In August, the Long March 10 rocket successfully
    conducted a static test fire, paving the way for a test launch, and
    China also conducted a simulated takeoff; and landing of its two-person
    lunar lander.\1\ These are the hallmarks of a space program that is
    progressing towards its goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/china-is-making-serious-
    progress-in-its-goal-to-land-astronauts-on-the-moon-by-2030
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The United States currently holds advantages with the Space Launch
    System (SLS), Orion, Gateway development, Exploration Ground Systems
    processing, and other essential elements of the Artemis architecture.
    Our launch and crew vehicles have successfully flown an uncrewed test
    mission to the Moon and are poised to fly again with astronauts on
    board next year. China, on the other hand, is making steady, notable
    progress with its Lanyue lander, already testing its design for
    capabilities needed to land on the lunar surface.
    Current Status of Artemis
        To be very clear: the country that lands on the Moon first will
    shape the rules of engagement in space for decades to come. That
    leadership must come from the United States.
        The Artemis program has received strong bipartisan support across
    Administrations and Congresses, and it is already delivering results.
    Artemis II is preparing for its crewed launch next year, but the work
    does not stop there. There is hardware being built today for Artemis
    III and continuing all the way through Artemis IX. Factories are
    running, hardware is being manufactured, and thousands of Americans in
    every state are at work to make this campaign successful.
        The opportunity to win the race is there, but we need every element
    to execute to prevent China from landing the next astronauts on the
    Moon. The current Artemis architecture is making strong progress, but
    the technical challenges that remain to be overcome to land on the
    surface cannot be ignored. Congress must keep a watchful eye on how
    that effort progresses if we are to win.
        Additionally, the United States is leading a coalition of 56
    partner nations, and growing, under the Artemis Accords. A global
    community, initiated under President Trump's first term, supporting a
    set of principles for peaceful, sustainable, and cooperative civil
    space exploration from the Moon to Mars and beyond.
        Every tool at the country's disposal must come to bear if we are to
    be successful. However, we need those tools to be available. The
    proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget, with its vision of cancelling
    programs, has caused companies to question whether their role in
    supplying Artemis will continue. Industry wants a stable and
    predictable environment so that planning and investments can be
    maximized. However, the uncertainty injected into the Artemis program
    about its future has upended those plans. These actions are
    particularly destructive to the smaller companies that NASA and its
    partners rely on for their missions and could put them in financial
    jeopardy. Proactive actions limiting work on Artemis ahead of
    Congressional action are crippling our capability to produce the
    hardware needed for missions for Artemis IV and beyond. Turning off the
    existing means for continuing our lunar program when no replacement
    exists will not position us to beat China.
    The Economic Return of Artemis
        The rewards of advancing our lunar program extend beyond beating
    China. Artemis is an economic engine here at home. For every dollar
    invested, three dollars flow back into our economy, supporting advanced
    manufacturing, creating high-quality jobs, and driving innovation that
    benefits Americans in their daily lives. In the most recent NASA
    Economic Impact Report, NASA's Moon to Mars activities generated more
    than $23.8 billion in total economic output and supported an estimated
    96,479 jobs nationwide, stemming directly from $7.7 billion in Moon to
    Mars program spending.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/final-fy23-
    nasa-ecomomic-impact-report.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Supporting Artemis to beat China creates stronger communities, a
    stronger industrial base, and a stronger America. This race is not just
    about the Moon, it is about economic growth, global competitiveness,
    and national security.
        NASA's history shows that space exploration is inseparable from
    national security, as demonstrated by Apollo's technological advances,
    workforce development, and its symbolic power in uniting the Nation and
    projecting U.S. leadership. Today, with renewed competition from China,
    the same principle holds: government must lead when missions are high-
    risk, capital-intensive, and at low technology readiness levels.
    Commercial services become viable only after the government has de-
    risked the fundamentals by ensuring infrastructure, standards, and
    industrial base continuity. For Moon and Mars exploration, government
    leadership is not anti-commercial but pro-market, retiring risks that
    open the doors to industry. It has happened time and again across
    industrial sectors and is occurring today in the space sector.
    NASA Authorization
        Congress can strengthen our national capabilities with a strong
    NASA authorization bill. That bill should reaffirm our commitment to
    the current plan, with improvements as necessary. It should continue
    the direction for lunar exploration found in the President's Space
    Policy Directive-1, which calls for the United States to lead the
    return of humans to the Moon for long-term exploration and utilization,
    followed by human missions to Mars.
        To underscore our commitment to exploring the Moon and the need for
    stability in the Artemis program by maintaining a regular mission
    launch cadence, Section 10812 of the CHIPS and Science Act (Public Law
    117-167), included the following provision:

            ``After the first crewed lunar landing of the Administration's
            Moon to Mars activities, the Administrator shall, to the extent
            practicable, seek to carry out a flight rate of 2 integrated
            Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle missions annually
            until the lunar activities needed to enable a human mission to
            Mars are completed so as to maintain the critical human
            spaceflight production and operations skills necessary for the
            safety of human spaceflight activities in deep space.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf

        Current law recognizes that the current architecture and a regular
    flight cadence are the path from our exploration of the Moon to
    exploring Mars. NASA's plan as part of the Fiscal Year 2025 budget
    included annual launches of SLS and Orion after Artemis IV. It
    highlights that the stability a regular mission cadence creates also
    benefits our space industry. Injecting uncertainty at this juncture
    invites unnecessary concern and distracts NASA and its partners from
    what they should be focused on: a successful Artemis campaign.
        A new multi-year authorization bill will provide the additional
    certainty needed to keep NASA focused and our workforce, our partners,
    and our allies aligned.
        Great strides are being made from lessons learned after Artemis I.
    NASA could realize even greater efficiencies and cost reductions by:

       Cutting unnecessary requirements that are not safety
            critical. With the success of the Artemis I mission, both NASA
            and industry have found ways to do the same activities in an
            efficient manner that cuts time and reduces cost. This is being
            done within the confines of the current contracts. A provision
            allowing even greater &flexibility to cut red tape will enable
            benefits to cost and schedule to become even greater.

       Requiring a study of a phased approach to commercial
            services for future missions to further drive down costs. It
            should direct NASA to map out a phased approach to transition
            to a fixed price model for the Artemis program, including
            potential services contract approaches.

       Ensuring that decision-making at NASA centers and industry
            sites is available when the work is happening, increasing
            efficiency. To meet production schedules, NASA's industry
            partners may need to run operations outside the traditional
            Monday-Friday 9 to 5, yet work can grind to a halt when a
            decision needs to be made outside regular business hours.
            Delays of a day or hours add up over time and contribute to
            needless loss of schedule margin. If NASA and industry are
            working together on a unified goal, they should be able to
            count on each other to be there when it counts.

        These steps will make Artemis more agile, more efficient, and more
    sustainable, while keeping the United States on track to lead in deep
    space exploration. But passing a bill on its own will not be
    sufficient; Congress must hold NASA accountable for implementing
    current law and adhering to the direction in any legislation signed
    into law.
    Conclusion
        The progress we have made is invaluable. The investments you have
    supported are paying off. The industrial base is ready and capable. The
    international partnerships are real and growing in number. And the next
    generation, the Artemis generation, is being inspired.
        If we lose momentum now, that progress will not be easily regained.
    But when successful, Artemis will deliver historic achievements that
    secure America's leadership for generations.
        We must not falter.
        With your continued support, Artemis will secure our place on the
    Moon before China, strengthen our economy here at home, and keep
    America strong.
        Thank you for your time, your attention, and for your commitment to
    Artemis, NASA, and America's leadership in space. The Coalition for
    Deep Space Exploration looks forward to working together with the
    Committee on a bipartisan basis to ensure we are successful in
    thwarting China and showing what true leaders in space can accomplish.

        Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Gold, you are recognized.

             STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOLD, PRESIDENT, CIVIL AND
                      INTERNATIONAL SPACE, REDWIRE

        Mr. Gold. Thank you Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell,
    and distinguished members of this Committee. I am grateful to
    all of you, as well as your intrepid staff, for the opportunity
    to testify. But I am even more grateful for the work this
    Committee has done to support American leadership in space via
    the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
        Also, I would be remiss if I didn't thank Senator Cruz, in
    particular, for your leadership. Senator Cruz and I both share
    a strong affinity for Star Trek, and the highest compliment I
    can pay the Chairman is that he is the Captain Kirk of the
    Senate. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Cruz. Your time is extended to 10 minutes.
        [Laughter.]
        Voice. Mr. Chairman, I think that could be a new nickname
    in the Senate here.
        Chairman Cruz. Well said, Mr. Spock.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gold. Well, with your leadership we'll live long and
    prosper. And I am so grateful that while others sat down,
    Senator Cruz, Senator Cantwell, and all of you have chosen to
    stand up and to fight for this Nation's future in space.
    Specifically, for the direction of the One Big Beautiful Bill,
    NASA must complete and launch the Lunar Gateway. Just last
    month, along with NASA officials and representatives from all
    of our international partners, I watched the successful
    deployment test of Redwire's massive rollout solar arrays for
    the Gateway's power and propulsion element. These arrays, which
    will be some of the largest ever deployed by humanity in space,
    will power the Gateway, representing the pinnacle of solar
    electric propulsion technology, a key capability for both
    future civil space exploration and national security exhibits.
    Without the funding and direction of the One Big Beautiful
    Bill, this critical work would be in jeopardy. I am sure China
    would like nothing more than for the U.S. to abandon its lead
    in solar electric propulsion and to lose the benefits of
    Gateway in orbit and on the lunar surface.
        With Gateway and full commercial logistics services, the
    Artemis program can support lunar surface operations for 60 to
    90 days, enabling robust activities and transforming the dream
    of lunar resource extraction and utilization into reality.
    Without Gateway, lunar surface activities will be limited to 5
    to 7 days, dramatically curtailing the very nature of NASA
    operations.
        Additionally, while not a military facility, the presence
    of Gateway in cislunar space will provide a platform that will
    inherently allow America and its partners to monitor Chinese
    activities. A permanent spacecraft orbiting the Moon will
    project American influence and power forward, discouraging
    illicit Chinese operations that may otherwise occur in the
    shadows.
        Moreover, Gateway is critical for projecting American power
    not only in space but here on Earth. Over 60 percent of the
    Gateway's costs are being borne by our international partners,
    representing billions that have already been spent building
    hardware. Turning away from Gateway now would squander this
    unprecedented global investment in Artemis and force our
    international allies to seek partnerships with America's
    geopolitical rivals.
        Conversely, if NASA reaffirms its commitment to Gateway, we
    can unlock billions of dollars of additional international
    investments, creating even more robust capabilities for
    Artemis, along with a windful for the American taxpayer. The
    combined Gateway PPE and HALO modules can be completed and
    launched in 2027, a mere two years from now. We could achieve
    an early win in this competition if America can simply
    demonstrate that wherewithal not to give up on the race when we
    are so close to the finish line.
        Additionally, the success of our lunar and Martian
    exploration efforts depend upon maintaining a strong foundation
    in low Earth orbit. The technologies, experience, and
    partnerships that occur in LEO drives the capabilities of our
    entire space enterprise. For example, at Redwire, using our
    biofabrication facility on the International Space Station, we
    have printed the first-ever human meniscus in space. Who
    doesn't need a meniscus? We followed this up with printing live
    cardiovascular tissue, and bringing it back, still live.
    Eventually we could print whole organs in space. That would
    save countless lives.
        We are also, at Redwire, making even more progress in drug
    development, with our Pillbox system, which has now flown 32
    times on the International Space Station. We have demonstrated
    how larger and more uniformed sea crystals, things we've grown
    in space, leading to the development of advanced
    pharmaceuticals with better efficacy, longevity, and fewer side
    effects.
        There is no question in my mind that microgravity
    manufacturing will transform the pharmaceutical and biotech
    fields. The only question is will those benefits be enjoyed in
    China or here in the United States?
        Without the funding of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and
    explicit action by NASA within the next few months, we run the
    risk of reducing the number of American astronauts on the ISS
    from 4 to 3, and then down to 2. If this Committee's directives
    are not followed, for the first time in history there will be
    more Chinese astronauts in space than Americans. This should be
    unacceptable--unacceptable to Congress, unacceptable to NASA,
    and unacceptable to this Nation.
        Again, I'm grateful to this Committee for the support of
    Artemis, the ISS, and NASA science. Together we must speak out
    with one unified voice that we will not cede LEO, our
    international partnerships, and the Moon to the tender mercies
    of the Chinese Communist Party. I urge us, all of us here today
    and listening online, to fight--fight for the ISS, fight for
    Artemis, and fight for America's future in space.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gold follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Michael Gold, President,
                     Civil and International Space, Redwire
                                I. Introduction
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and distinguished Members
    of the Committee, I'm grateful to all of you as well as your intrepid
    staff for the opportunity to testify regarding America's existential
    struggle with China in the final frontier. Not only do I want to thank
    you for bringing attention to this critical competition, but I would be
    remiss if I did not thank Chairman Cruz in particular for his
    unflagging and singular leadership on behalf of the American space
    enterprise generally, and most recently, for restoring vital NASA
    funding for
        human spaceflight within the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
    Senator Cruz and I share a strong affinity for Star Trek, and the
    highest compliment I can pay the Senator is that he is the Captain Kirk
    of the Senate. Additionally, like in Star Trek, a good Captain depends
    upon their crew, and the work of Maddy Davis, Duncan Rankin, and the
    entire Commerce Committee staff on both sides of the aisle deserve high
    praise.
        Per the title of this hearing, Congress has been an invaluable
    partner to NASA in its efforts to thwart Chinese domination of space,
    and the stakes have never been higher. Space represents the ultimate
    high ground. Dominance in space brings with it incalculable scientific,
    economic, geopolitical, and national security benefits. I am confident
    that the Nation that controls the Moon will ultimately control the
    Earth, and we stand on the precipice of ceding that control to the
    Chinese Communist Party. If NASA fails to implement the vital space-
    related provisions of the OBBBA with alacrity, we will not only fail to
    beat China back to the Moon, but will suffer dramatic consequences here
    on Earth. Of the many critical provisions of the OBBBA, among the most
    important is America upholding its commitment to the Lunar Gateway.
     II. Gateway: Projecting American Power in Cislunar Space and on Earth
        Before looking forward we must look to the past. Specifically, when
    it comes to beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) human spaceflight, America has
    failed to sustain a program since Apollo. For beyond LEO, failure
    hasn't just been an option, it has been a certainty. No beyond LEO
    human spaceflight program has made the leap from one partisan
    administration to another until, for the very first time, Artemis
    successfully navigated this transition from its birth in the first
    Trump administration, to the Biden administration, and now back to
    President Trump's second term. Successful space development requires
    years if not decades of continuity, which is why the unprecedented
    bipartisan success of the Artemis program must be maintained.
        Moreover, much of the Gateway's hardware has already been built.
    For example, at Redwire, we are proud to have evolved the innovative
    Roll Out Solar Array (ROSA) technology, which was initially developed
    for and is currently being used on the International Space Station
    (ISS), to build even larger versions of these already enormous arrays
    for the Gateway's Power and Propulsion Element (PPE). This summer, with
    the support of our customer, Maxar, we conducted deployment tests of
    these arrays which unfurled like futuristic sails, filling an enormous
    high bay building at Redwire's ROSA manufacturing facility. Similarly,
    our colleagues at Northrop Grumman are in the process of outfitting the
    Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) module which will be united
    with the PPE and launched together on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket to
    lunar orbit. This could be done by the summer of 2027, a mere two years
    from now, if America can simply demonstrate the wherewithal not to give
    up on the race when we are so close to crossing the finish line.
        Terminating Gateway would result in a horrific waste of time,
    money, and effort. Conversely, if we follow the law, and continue with
    Gateway per the explicit direction of the OBBB, then the U.S. can
    become the first nation to deploy a crewed outpost around the Moon,
    achieving a trailblazing victory for NASA, the administration,
    Congress, and the American people. The alternative is to squander years
    of funding, hardware, and effort, while willingly ceding the initiative
    and control of the Moon to the tender mercies of the Chinese Communist
    Party. The right choice is abundantly clear, but can only be achieved
    if NASA abides by its legal obligations under the OBBBA.
        Continuing with Gateway also provides extraordinary benefits here
    on Earth. Over 60 percent of the Gateway's costs are being born by
    NASA's international partners, specifically, the European Space Agency,
    and the governments of Japan, Canada, and the United Arab Emirates.
    President Trump has wisely pushed our NATO allies to fund their fair
    share of defense contributions. Here we have an example of our
    international partners doing the right thing, providing robust funding
    to support American leadership yet, despite the crystal clear and
    explicit directives of the OBBBA, and even supportive language from the
    White House complimenting the space provisions of the Bill, NASA is
    still unable to explicitly reassure our international partners that
    Gateway will continue.
        NASA's waffling on Gateway has left our international partners
    confused, frustrated, and exploring alternatives to American
    partnerships. If we fail to continue with Gateway, we will force our
    partners to consider shifting support from Artemis and America, to
    China and its International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) program.
    Unlike the U.S., China has maintained strong and consistent continuity
    for its lunar beyond LEO spaceflight program, making a collaboration
    with China potentially far less risky than gambling on what, prior to
    Artemis, has been a mercurial American beyond LEO space strategy. If
    our international partners make such a shift to China, it will not only
    impact the space field but will have substantial diplomatic,
    geopolitical, and economic consequences on Earth.
        Conversely, by honoring our commitment to Gateway, and following
    the direction of the OBBB, we can gain access to continued investments
    by our international partners to support Artemis and American
    leadership. The international partners have invested roughly billions
    of dollars in Artemis thus far, and will likely be willing to invest
    billions more throughout the lifetime of the Artemis program. These
    investments by the international partners represents a windfall to the
    American taxpayer, supporting robust U.S. leadership on the Moon and
    Mars at no cost. The alternative is for these international partners
    and funds to be funneled into China's ILRS program. Again, the decision
    to continue with Gateway should be simple and clear.
        Additionally, while not a military facility, the presence of
    Gateway in cislunar space will provide a platform that will inherently
    allow America and its partners to monitor Chinese activities. A
    permanent spacecraft, orbiting the Moon, will project American
    influence and power forward, discouraging illegal and illicit
    operations by rival nations that may otherwise occur in the shadows.
        Gateway also represents an excellent opportunity for the private
    sector and for NASA to further leverage public-private partnerships.
    Specifically, the PPE and HALO will be deployed by a commercial
    vehicle, Gateway logistics will be carried out via commercial contracts
    similar to the extraordinarily successful commercial resupply services
    agreements that have worked so well in LEO. Also, Gateway can serve as
    a hub for commercial logistics, bolstering the private sector's ability
    to execute lunar missions generally and extraterrestrial resource
    extraction in particular.
        Gateway is the key to enabling vital innovative activities such as
    in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) and to ensure that America can
    successfully access the Moon's resources. With Gateway and full
    logistics services, American astronauts could remain on the lunar
    surface for 60-90 days. Without Gateway, American astronaut time on the
    lunar surface drops precipitously to a mere 5-7 days. In addition to
    enabling dramatically more robust lunar surface activities, the Gateway
    provides a safe haven for astronauts, substantially enhancing the
    safety of lunar operations and ultimately saving lives.
        Gateway, and the PPE in particular, will also help ensure American
    technological leadership over China. Gateway's PPE, powered by the
    aforementioned innovative Redwire ROSAs, and developed in a
    collaboration between Maxar and NASA Glenn Research Center, will
    represent the pinnacle of solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology.
    Mastering SEP is a critical capability for both civil space exploration
    and national security space operations. Again, it would be tragic to
    waste hardware such as the PPE ROSAs which are already constructed and
    currently undergoing testing and qualification. While bad for America,
    such a regressive decision would certainly be applauded by China since
    it clears its competitor as well as a critical rival technological
    capability from their path to the Moon.
        Gateway's benefits even extend beyond the Moon creating advantages
    for future missions to Mars. Gateway will serve as a critical testbed
    for Martian operations by providing NASA with vital experience
    operating an orbiting spacecraft in support of surface activities. The
    Apollo missions were short duration sojourns into cislunar space.
    America was dipping its toe into a vast ocean. With the long duration
    operations enabled by Gateway, we can learn to swim in the ocean of
    deep space through the use of this permanent lunar outpost.
        For all of these reasons, I thank the Members of this Committee for
    their support of Gateway, and urge the Committee to ensure that NASA
    immediately reaffirms its commitment to Gateway via explicit
    communications to both domestic commercial and international partners.
                       III. The Importance of Being First
        As the old saying in sports goes, if you're not first, you're last,
    and that is certainly the case when it comes to the Moon. The first
    nation to return to the Moon will enjoy tremendous technological,
    geopolitical, and military benefits. Additionally, there is so much
    more to be discovered on the Moon. Until 2009, we believed the Moon was
    bone dry. Today, we now know that there are vast amounts of frozen
    water ice, a resource that will support robust development and allow
    the Moon to become a fuel depot for missions to Mars and even more
    ambitious journeys of discovery throughout the solar system. If America
    isn't the first to return to the Moon, we risk ceding the best ice
    reserves to China, losing the ability to effectively create not only
    drinkable water, but air and rocket fuel. Additionally, by falling
    behind, we also risk leadership in the extraction and utilization of
    Helium-3, which already has great economic potential and, in the
    future, could support a clean and abundant power revolution. Worst of
    all, by ceding leadership on the Moon to China, we not only miss out on
    the opportunities that we understand today, but all of the unknown
    resources that are sure to be the discoveries of tomorrow.
        The Space Launch System and Orion capsule represent the best and
    only practical means of beating China to the Moon before 2030.
    Therefore, per the provisions of the OBBBA, we must continue to
    leverage these systems to both win the space race with China and
    maintain an American presence in lunar orbit and on the lunar surface.
    At the same time, we're fortunate that companies such as Blue Origin
    and SpaceX are developing human landing systems that represent a key
    commercial contribution to the Artemis architecture. These systems will
    provide affordable, sustainable, and robust lunar and even Martian
    capabilities. Fielding multiple spacecraft, or at least two
    alternatives, for lunar transportation will be vital to win the space
    race with China. Two or more lunar transportation systems will avoid
    dependence on any single spacecraft or company. This will enhance
    safety while also ensuring healthy competition that will encourage
    efficiency, affordability, and innovation.
        Moreover, the first country to return to and develop the Moon will
    ultimately write the rules of the road. The Artemis Accords, developed
    and implemented during the first Trump administration, have represented
    a historically unprecedented victory for American space policy. 56
    countries have now signed the Artemis Accords, in contrast to the 13
    that have signed China's ILRS agreements. America must lead not just in
    technology, but in policy, and the Accords have accomplished this goal.
    However, if China lands on the Moon before America, those numbers will
    likely shift in China's favor, and the actions that China takes on the
    Moon will set broad and varied precedents that will be extremely
    difficult to overcome.
        For all of these reasons, we must be first. Someone who has an
    innate understanding of this challenge is NASA Interim Administrator
    and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy who, in his short time at
    NASA, has shown strong leadership, vision, and summarized the situation
    quite well by saying ``Beijing wants to land on the Moon before 2030.
    The clock is ticking . . . but NASA is up to challenge. I have full
    confidence in our ability to get there FIRST.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://x.com/SecDuffyNASA/status/1961129995364876486.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We cannot afford to lose the space race to China on the Moon or
    Mars, and winning will require an `all of the above' strategy. We must
    come together as a united space community. Only by fighting for our
    future, instead of fighting each other, can we prevent a bad moon from
    rising.
           IV. Living Off of the Land Through Commercial Partnerships
        China will eventually outspend the U.S. government in space. Such a
    scenario may be inevitable. Therefore, America must out-entrepreneur
    the Chinese. NASA should continue to leverage public-private
    partnerships to the greatest extent possible. An excellent example of
    this is NASA's Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) program. CLPS
    has been able to take a modest government investment and substantially
    bolster it with robust private sector funding. A whole new ecosystem of
    lunar development and lunar entrepreneurship has been created by the
    CLPS program. NASA should be commended for its continued commitment to
    CLPS, and the further development of this innovative initiative via
    CLPS 2.0 and its initial work to extend the CLPS paradigm to Mars.
        Additionally, for several CLPS and even some non-CLPS companies,
    during the first Trump administration, NASA executed a historic series
    of agreements to purchase lunar regolith from commercial providers.
    This practice, of purchasing resources from lunar exploration
    companies, should no longer be the exception but should become the
    rule. Specifically, this innovative practice should be implemented with
    every CLPS mission, to encourage the continuous growth of ISRU
    capabilities and resource extraction technologies.
        At Redwire, we're building innovative technologies in collaboration
    with NASA to transform lunar regolith into useful structures.
    Specifically, via the `Mason' program we are developing a system that
    uses microwaves to sinter regolith. The potential first application for
    Mason is to create flat landing pads to support safe and successful
    spacecraft landings. This technology, which can be carried and utilized
    by a variety of mobile systems, can not only be used to create landing
    pads, but also roads, berms, and even habitats. Mason is part of the
    NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate's Tipping Point program, and
    is an example of the kind of public-private partnership that the agency
    should do more of, ideally via the use of Broad Agency Announcements
    and simple single-page initial applications, reflecting best practices
    used by DARPA.
        In summary, America's success in the race against China on the Moon
    will unquestionably be determined by which country can most effectively
    learn to live off of the land, hence the need to continue and expand
    NASA's innovative lunar resource purchases and public-private
    partnerships.
                            V. The Importance of LEO
        In any foot race, it can be won or lost by how an athlete jumps off
    the starter's block, and the race to the Moon begins in LEO. The
    technologies, capabilities, partnerships, and business cases that are
    developed and implemented in LEO will have a substantial influence on
    the overall efficacy of any nation's space program. Therefore, the
    importance of NASA's continued success in LEO cannot be separated from
    its future success on the Moon and Mars. Fortunately, the OBBBA
    provides support for LEO operations. Under the OBBBA, NASA will
    maintain four astronauts on the ISS, enabling the station to remain a
    critical testbed for Artemis activities and an engine for innovation
    and job creation.
        At Redwire we are leveraging the ISS to conduct a wide variety of
    trailblazing microgravity work. For example, using our BioFabrication
    Facility (BFF), we printed the first meniscus in space. Subsequently,
    based on our experience with the meniscus fabrication, we printed live
    cardiovascular tissue on the ISS, and returned it to Earth while the
    tissue was still alive. Additionally, the most recent cargo resupply
    mission to the ISS, which launched last month, included provisions for
    Redwire to conduct a liver tissue print with the BFF. Due to the lack
    of gravity aboard the ISS, biological tissues can be manipulated and
    used to fabricate increasingly complex organic structures. Our goal at
    Redwire is to eventually print whole organs in space, and the work that
    is being done now by the BFF is bringing that future closer to reality.
    Imagine a world where there is no organ donor list, and instead those
    in need can quickly receive an organ that was grown for them. Not only
    would such a capability save an untold number of lives in America and
    around the world, but since the organs could be grown from a patient's
    own stem cells, they would be able to avoid expensive and painful anti-
    rejection therapies.
        While organ fabrication remains a potential, albeit increasingly
    likely, capability, the future is now for the pharmaceutical industry.
    Specifically, Redwire has already flown 32 Pharmaceutical In-Space
    Laboratory (PIL) Boxes on the ISS which have tested 17 different
    compounds. These PIL Box missions have demonstrated that, under
    microgravity conditions, drug seed crystals can be created in space
    which are larger and more uniform than terrestrially grown crystals.
    These improved seed crystals can subsequently be used to create drugs
    with better efficacy, longevity, and fewer side effects. New drugs can
    be introduced and existing drugs can be improved. For example, due to
    knowledge gained from microgravity research and development, Merck has
    been able to create an improved version of a cancer treatment called
    Keytruda. The newly formulated version of Keytruda will potentially
    allow patients to avoid lengthy, painful, and expensive chemotherapy at
    hospitals or clinics, and instead enjoy the ease and affordability of
    taking a shot home for injection. Redwire's PIL-BOX experiments have
    shown example after example of the power of microgravity to create
    differentiated seed crystal results. After a collaboration with Eli
    Lilly flying insulin, Redwire was told by the company that we created
    the ``prettiest seed crystals they have ever seen''.
        Due to the success and maturity of these efforts, last month
    Redwire signed a trailblazing agreement with the pharmaceutical company
    ExesaLibero. Under this agreement, Redwire will receive a percentage of
    sales from a pharmaceutical for osteoperosis that ExesaLibero will
    develop in space. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time
    that an agreement unites the potential revenue from the pharmaceutical
    industry with the capabilities of a space company. This agreement
    therefore represents an inflection point, with space and pharma/biotech
    coming together in a manner that will transform both fields. Redwire
    has even formed a new subsidiary entity called `SpaceMD' to explicitly
    focus on the creation of new and/or improved drugs in space, and
    feeding those drugs into the pharmaceutical industrial development
    chain.
        However, at a time when we are just now beginning to realize the
    incredible potential of microgravity for pharmaceutical development and
    a wide variety of other fields, the ISS is facing budget cuts that
    could cripple its vital operations. Specifically, without the funding
    provided by the OBBB, the number of American astronauts in LEO will
    drop from four to three and eventually to only two. Falling to three
    and then two astronauts will dramatically impact America's ability to
    support innovative commercial activities, as well as damaging the
    critical industrial base created by the commercial cargo and crew
    programs. Moreover, for the first time in history, China will have more
    astronauts in space than America. Such a situation should be
    unacceptable to this Committee, NASA, and the Nation as a whole. Again,
    I applaud this Committee for fighting for American leadership in space
    and restoring ISS funding to a level that will allow the U.S. to
    continue with four astronaut in LEO. Unfortunately, while this
    direction from Congress is commendable, I fear that more vigilance and
    action by this Committee will be required. Specifically, NASA will have
    to purchase a new cargo resupply mission within, at most, the next 90
    days. If NASA does not take this action America will lose the ability
    next year to support four astronauts on the ISS, putting China in
    parity with the U.S. astronaut program for the first time in history.
        I believe dropping the number of U.S. astronauts and failing to
    take advantage of the innovations created by the commercial crew
    program would be both ill-conceived and unwarranted. As described
    previously, we are on the precipice of incredible breakthroughs in
    microgravity that could transform not only the pharmaceutical and
    biotech industries, but numerous other diverse fields ranging from
    semiconductor production to next-generation agriculture. There is no
    question in my mind that microgravity R&D and manufacturing will
    provide transformative industrial benefits. The only question is, will
    those benefits be enjoyed here in the U.S. or in China.
                                 VI. Conclusion
        Again, the space race with China is one that cannot be lost. It
    doesn't matter that we reached the Moon in the 1960s any more than a
    victory by a sports team from over sixty years ago is relevant for this
    season's performance. Space is the ultimate high ground, providing an
    environment with untold strategic advantages, as well as technological,
    geopolitical, and economic benefits. The countries that master
    microgravity and develop the Moon will shape humanity's future. When we
    go to space, we launch not just our spacecraft and astronauts but our
    values, and we must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that the future
    reflects American values rather than those of an autocracy hostile to
    human rights and the very nature of democracy. However, due to the
    courage, leadership, and vision shown by the Members of this Committee
    and its staff, I remain confident that while our journey will be to
    LEO, the Moon, and Mars, that our ultimate destination will be freedom,
    peace, and prosperity.

        Chairman Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Gold. Mr. Bridenstine.

              STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BRIDENSTINE, MANAGING
           PARTNER, ARTEMIS GROUP, AND FORMER ADMINISTRATOR,
             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
    Cantwell, and members of the Committee. It is an honor to be
    here.
        After hearing Mike Gold's testimony, I want to comment on a
    few things in my 5 minutes. Number one, everything he said
    about medicine and microgravity is correct. We are seeing
    transformational capabilities in pharmaceuticals because atoms
    and molecules organize differently in microgravity than they do
    here on Earth. There are drugs that we are demonstrating on the
    International Space Station that we can create that can do
    things like, you know, we had a drug, a Merck drug, Keytruda,
    which is for lung cancer, and we were able to make that drug so
    that instead of trying to find out within 2 or 3 months if it
    is going to be efficacious, you can find out within 2 to 3
    weeks whether or not it is going to be efficacious. Instead of
    administering it with an infusion, which takes time and is
    painful and is costly, you can do it with a pill. And that is
    just one drug that is improved. We are talking about drugs to
    treat diseases that have never been treatable before.
        To piggyback on what Mike Gold just said, we are either
    going to have that capability in the United States because we
    have a permanent human presence in space with a fully mission-
    capable space station, or we're going to cede that to China. It
    is really that simple.
        Now, that's just on the pharmaceutical side. Then we also
    talk about regenerative medicine, where we are actually 3D
    printing tissue. Mike mentioned the meniscus, where we are
    growing, in 3D, tissue like cardiovascular tissue and vein
    tissue, and other things. This type of regenerative medicine is
    critical to the future economy of the United States of America,
    and if we want to not have a fully mission-capable system, if
    we want to not have a permanent human presence in space, then
    not only does that capability go to China but all of our
    international partners go to China, as well, because they want
    that capability. This is a big deal.
        So that's on the low Earth orbit side of things. And
    Senator Cruz, I know you are getting a lot of accolades today,
    but it is absolutely true. The One Big Beautiful Bill with the
    $10 billion additional dollars for NASA human space flight was,
    in large part, your doing, and I know it was bipartisan. I know
    the One Big Beautiful Bill might not have been bipartisan, but
    that element was, in fact, bipartisan, and I know Senators on
    both sides of the aisle are grateful for your leadership on
    that. So very important.
        I would also say the purpose of this hearing is, you know,
    are we going to be able to get to the Moon first. I mean,
    that's the title of the hearing. And I will tell you, and I
    know there are going to be questions, and I will go into more
    depth later, but look at the architecture that we have
    developed to land American astronauts on the Moon. Look at the
    architecture. It is extraordinarily complex. In some cases, you
    know, it hinges on me saying here today that it is highly
    unlikely that we will land on the Moon before China. And I am
    going to explain it in the next 2 minutes.
        Number one, we have the SLS rocket, which is the most
    powerful rocket ever built, and Senator Cruz mentioned, yes, it
    has had its problems in the past. It has been expensive. It had
    overruns, all those things. But it is behind us, it is done,
    and we need to use it.
        We have the Orion Crew Capsule, which, quite frankly, is a
    shiny object in this whole thing. The Orion Crew Capsule is not
    only usable today, but ultimately the cost is going down
    because more and more of it is reusable every time we use the
    Orion Crew Capsule. Those two elements are in good shape.
        I will tell you, I have been critical of both in the past,
    in front of this Committee and other places, and I am more than
    happy to be critical of all of our contractors, just to be
    really clear. But I will say what we don't have today--here's
    what we don't have today--we don't have a landing system for
    the Moon. And there was a moment in time when we had no NASA
    Administrator. It was after I was gone and before Senator
    Nelson became the NASA Administrator, and architecture was
    selected. And I don't know how this happened, but the biggest
    decision in the history of NASA, at least since I have been
    paying attention, the biggest decision happened in the absence
    of a NASA Administrator, and that decision was instead of
    buying a Moon lander, we are going to buy a big rocket. And I
    want to be clear--we need this rocket to be successful. It is
    important for the country and it is transformational. But in
    the meantime, the architecture is as such.
        We need to launch Starship. That first Starship is a
    fueling depot that is in orbit around the Earth. Then we need
    to launch, nobody really knows, nobody knows, but it could be
    up to dozens of additional Starships to refuel the first
    Starship. So imagine launching Starship over and over and over
    and over and over and over and over and over, dozens of times,
    no delays, no explosions, to refuel the first Starship. Then,
    once it is fully refueled, then that Starship has to fuel
    another Starship that is, in fact, human rated, which that
    process has not even started yet.
        By the way, that whole in-space refueling thing has never
    been tested either. We are talking about cryogenic liquid
    oxygen, cryogenic liquid methane, being transferred in space.
    Never been done before. And we are going to do it dozens of
    times. And then we are going to have a human-rated Starship
    that is refueled, that goes all the way to the Moon.
        Now, when it goes to the Moon, we do not know how long it
    can be there because it is boiling off the entire time it is in
    orbit around the Moon, so we don't know how long it can be
    there. But while it is there, we have to launch the SLS. We
    have to launch the Orion, the European Service Module. We have
    to have astronauts and crew all ready to go. And they have to
    orbit the Moon themselves, in that window, that window when
    Starship is around the Moon, and then they have to dock around
    the Moon. They have to transfer from the Orion into the
    Starship. It has to go down and land. When it is on the surface
    of the Moon, Orion is gone for the next 7 days, until it comes
    back around in near-rectilinear HALO orbit.
        So our astronauts are right now planning to be on the
    surface of the Moon for a period of 7 days without any way
    home. This is an architecture that no NASA Administrator, that
    I am aware of, would have selected had they had the choice. But
    it was a decision that was made in the absence of a NASA
    Administrator in the last Administration. It is a problem, it
    needs to be solved, and that puts us, as a nation, at risk of
    not being the first on the Moon--I should say the first next on
    the Moon, because we did land, in 1969 to 1972.
        And Chairman Cruz, I would like to compliment you. I have
    heard that you have said that we need to put it into law that
    the Wrath of Khan is, in fact, the greatest Star Trek movie in
    history, and we are in agreement with that.
        So with that I yield back the time that I took from the
    General.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. James F. Bridenstine, Managing Partner,
    Artemis Group and Former Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space
                                 Administration
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify before you today at a pivotal time in the
    history of our Nation.
        We spent the latter part of the 20th Century in a great power
    struggle with the Soviet Union. Thanks in part to the space program, we
    came out on top and spent the last 30 years as the world's sole
    superpower. However, we once again find ourselves in a great power
    struggle, this time with China.
        I truly believe that this Administration and this Congress, on both
    sides of the aisle, share a common goal of promoting American
    leadership in space. NASA can only succeed when we look across multiple
    presidential administrations, span many Congresses, and carry out
    programs through ebbs and flows of public support. NASA Authorizations
    are key tools that provide the continuity necessary to accomplish big
    things, so I am very grateful you are holding this hearing.
    The Artemis Program
    SLS, Orion, and Landing on the Moon
        We are mere months away from sending humans to the Moon for the
    first time in over 50 years. Let me repeat that: in early 2026, we will
    send American astronauts to orbit the Moon. No other nation has been
    able to accomplish this. This is a monumental moment for the United
    States. Our leaders should be trumpeting this from the roof tops.
        Those astronauts will go to moon on top of the Space Launch System
    (SLS), inside of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. These vehicles
    represent the only human rated super heavy lift rocket and the only
    human rated capsule currently capable of taking astronauts to deep
    space. While the development of these programs has been too expensive,
    we are starting to see the fruits of those efforts come to bear. The
    One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by the President, which members of
    this Committee advanced, recognizes the importance of these systems and
    continues them through Artemis IV and V. However, it should be noted
    that the cost and throughput of SLS is not sustainable without
    significant changes.
        While the United States should celebrate orbiting the Moon in 2026,
    the United States does not have a lander. Unless something changes, it
    is highly unlikely the United States will beat China's projected
    timeline to the Moon's surface. Our complicated architecture requires a
    dozen or more launches in a short time frame, relies on very
    challenging technologies that have yet to be developed like cryogenic
    in-space refueling, and still needs to be human rated. While the
    capability could be transformational over time if payload capacity
    increases (so far it has decreased), the complexity of the architecture
    precludes alacrity.
        For comparison, Apollo landed on the Moon in 8 years. Today's
    lander is more of a large rocket. It has been under development for the
    same amount of time as the Apollo Program and needs new engines and a
    bigger core stage to increase payload capacity. It could be an
    important capability for the country but is unlikely to beat China's
    projected timeline to the lunar surface.
    The Gateway
        The Cislunar domain is the ultimate high ground for national
    security, and the Moon itself is a source of critical minerals and a
    potential solution to our long-term energy needs due to Helium-3. In
    the long term, we need permanent surface activity using in-situ
    resources. Administrator Sean Duffy is correct that we need nuclear
    fission power on the Moon and it should be accelerated.
        A key component of the Artemis Program that will allow us to
    maintain a presence around and on the Moon is the Gateway. The Gateway
    provides sustainable access to the entirety of the Moon when coupled
    with a lander. It is also the component of Artemis where our
    international partners are shouldering the majority of the investment--
    over 60 percent. If desired, it is technically possible to leverage
    funding in the OBBBA to accelerate and launch Gateway in 2028, ahead of
    the projected landing by China.
    Low Earth Orbit and Commercial LEO Development
        When the United States leaves a gap in capability, our geopolitical
    competitors fill it. The United States and the world became dependent
    on the Russian Soyuz with the retirement of the Space Shuttles and the
    9-year gap before Commercial Crew was ready. We don't want to leave a
    gap in LEO and watch our international partners join China's new space
    station.
        Fortunately, Congress, particularly the Chairman, has repeatedly,
    across multiple administrations, ensured the continuation of the
    International Space Station and prevented a gap in permanent human
    presence in low Earth orbit.
        We are close to having commercial space stations that can both meet
    NASA requirements and close a business case by providing a location for
    industry to undertake activities where we've seen incredible early
    returns on the ISS--things like pharmaceuticals, advanced materials,
    and biomedical engineering. This is a place where both Congress and the
    Administration agree: we need to transition to commercial space
    stations as soon as possible.
        Earlier versions of this Committee's NASA authorization have
    included a provision which sets permanent human presence in LEO as the
    policy of the United States. That's the right policy. I recommend the
    NASA Authorization include the following:

       No gap in a permanent human presence in LEO;

       Replace the ISS with fully mission capable (FMC) commercial
            space stations (not temporary space stations or partially
            tended space stations);

       Select 2 providers now and commit that NASA will procure at
            least a minimal set of services from those providers; and

       Require providers to compensate NASA for a portion of the
            certification. If NASA isn't the only user, NASA shouldn't bear
            the entire expense of certification.

        By doing this, we can ensure a timely LEO transition, avoid a gap
    in access, and avoid ceding LEO superiority to China.
    Science
        Finally, I do want to speak a bit on the Science Mission
    Directorate. I appreciate the Administration's focus on human
    spaceflight--if we are going to beat China, it has to be a priority.
    But there is a lot of science that is valuable to our life that isn't
    directly applicable to human spaceflight, and it should be preserved.
        Take, for instance, planetary defense. Preserving life and property
    is a critical function of the Federal government, and NASA is uniquely
    situated to carry out planetary defense.
        Unfortunately, the budget proposes to cut key planetary defense
    missions, like OSIRIS-Apex. This would be misguided. We have an
    unbelievable opportunity to study an asteroid the size of a football
    stadium passing closer than the GEO belt. The data we get on the
    behavior of an object like this will be invaluable in our understanding
    of near Earth objects and planning future planetary defense missions. I
    hope Congress maintains the mission and others like it.
        NASA Earth Science provides data we use every day--monitoring
    weather, water, fire, space weather, air quality, agricultural out
    puts, and more. These missions supply data that is vital to our economy
    and is leveraged by people and businesses alike. Not all Earth Science
    is partisan and I would ask Congress to consider authorizing agreeable
    programs.
    Conclusion
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. I look
    forward to your questions.

        Chairman Cruz. I thank the Administrator. I will say I am
    not sure we need to codify the Wrath of Khan any more than we
    need to codify gravity or that the sky is blue. There are some
    things that are indisputably true, and that would be one of
    them.
        General Shaw.

           STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN SHAW, FORMER
                 DEPUTY COMMANDER, U.S. SPACE COMMAND

        General Shaw. Great. Chairman Cruz--or do I say Captain
    Cruz?--Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the Committee,
    thanks for the opportunity today. And by the way, I am also
    grateful to share this table with some amazing people here, and
    look forward to our session and what they have to say today.
        It was the honor and time of my life to serve our great
    nation and lead our phenomenal warfighters for 33 years in
    uniform in our United States Air Force and United States Space
    Force. Throughout my military service, I also had the privilege
    to work closely with NASA, NOAA, and other governmental civil
    organizations across many endeavors. But I am also grateful to
    have had the opportunity the last 2 years, since my departure
    from uniformed service, to work with and in the commercial side
    of our Nation's space business. It has given me a fresh and
    broader perspective on how to both envision and realize our
    Nation's future in space in totality, and how to bring to bear
    our combined national strengths to best thwart China in the
    years to come in this crucial arena.
        My bottom line up front for the Committee today is that I
    am an advocate for, and a champion of, a unified grand space
    strategy for our Nation for the Earth-Moon system and beyond.
    Yet such a grand strategy--which would unify and synergize our
    national efforts across civil, commercial, and national
    security activities in pursuit of common goals, opportunities,
    and capabilities--does not currently exist. And I believe our
    mission to return Americans to the Moon can be a powerful, and
    a central driver for, as well as the beneficiary of, such a
    strategy.
        During my military career, I watched and studied--as any
    good soldier would of a potential adversary--as China slowly
    but surely developed and deployed its own civilian and military
    space capabilities and set its own agenda for space
    achievements. It is clear to me that the Chinese Communist
    Party is already employing its own integrated grand strategy
    for the Earth-Moon system, with only superficial distinction
    between civil, commercial, and national security activities,
    and all focused on a common purpose. And as the Senator has
    already made my next point, I think if we do not unify and
    synchronize efforts, may find ourselves, rather than in a
    leadership position, in a position of increasing disadvantage
    as we get further into this century.
        Human progression in any domain both has and will involve a
    robust mixture of exploration, economic opportunities and
    growth, and security activities to set conditions for success.
    Space is no different.
        And by the way, I realize I am probably representing, of
    those three things, exploration and commercial and economic
    growth, and national security, I am representing the national
    security end here. But I also want to say, I am passionately
    excited about all three of those things, and that is how we are
    going to succeed as a nation.
        A notional example goal for a grand space strategy
    objective would be to set the conditions, standards, and proper
    incentives for the establishment of an orbital and lunar
    logistics infrastructure, one that would enable increased
    capabilities and performance for space activities of all kinds
    throughout the Earth-Moon system. Such an infrastructure would
    include on-orbit manufacturing, assembly, refueling,
    replenishment, and other forms of servicing. We already know
    that we will need such an infrastructure to sustain human
    presence on the Moon, solely from just the exploration
    approach. But such an infrastructure could and will benefit
    Dynamic Space Operations for national security platforms as
    well as for commercial endeavors.
        Yet, our national approach to space logistics to date has
    appeared disjointed and inconsistent to those in the commercial
    community--and I hope my panelists maybe address this and see
    their perspective--is seen as inconsistent to those who might
    want to invest in those capabilities.
        The Chinese are already matching and perhaps even outpacing
    us in this logistics pursuit. Here is a recent example. Just in
    the last few weeks, this summer, as observed by open sources
    and reported in media, we have seen China perform a docking and
    apparent refueling operation between its SJ-21 and SJ-25
    platforms in geosynchronous orbit. Following that fuel transfer
    activity, the docked spacecraft together--this was this last
    month--performed the largest single maneuver in geosynchronous
    orbit ever yet conducted, likely in excess of 330 meters/
    second. That is a lot, actually, well, at least by today's
    standards. Some day that will be a pittance, but today that is
    a lot.
        Other examples of areas where I believe we could move
    faster and more effectively under a unified strategy include
    cislunar space domain awareness, and a cislunar communications
    architecture, both, again, necessary for sustained human
    presence on the Moon.
        I am also supportive of swiftly developing nuclear fusion
    power solutions in space, which are compelling to sustained
    operations on the lunar surface, but also could better enable
    national security activities, such as in the form of nuclear
    propulsion, and could unlock new commercial opportunities and
    benefits, as well.
        I will point out that China is developing or has already
    fielded capabilities in each of these example areas: cislunar
    domain awareness, cislunar communications, and space nuclear
    power.
        The challenges are great, the matter is urgent, but I am
    optimistic we can indeed, via a unified grand strategy for
    space, thwart China's ambitions and continue the United States'
    leadership in this ultimate high ground.
        In the words of a different Star Trek captain, let's engage
    and make it so.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of General Shaw follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Lt. Gen. John Shaw, Former Deputy Commander,
                               U.S. Space Command
        Good morning, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members
    of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
    this important topic and pursuit for our Nation. I am also grateful to
    share this table with some truly amazing people, and I'm honored to be
    here with them today as part of this session.
        It was the honor and time of my life to serve our great nation and
    lead our phenomenal warfighters for 33 years in uniform in our United
    States Air Force and United States Space Force. Throughout my military
    service, I also had the privilege to work closely with NASA, NOAA, and
    other government civil organizations across many endeavors. But I'm
    also grateful to have had the opportunity in the two years since my
    departure from uniformed service to work with and in the commercial
    side of our Nation's space business. It has given me a fresh and
    broader perspective on how to both envision and realize our Nation's
    future in space in totality, and how to bring to bear our combined
    national strengths to best thwart China in the years to come in this
    crucial arena.
        My bottom line up front for the committee is that I am an advocate
    for, and champion of, a unified grand space strategy for our Nation for
    the earth-moon system and beyond. Yet such a grand strategy--which
    would unify and synergize our national efforts across civil,
    commercial, and national security activities in pursuit of common
    goals, opportunities, and capabilities--does not currently exist. I
    believe our mission to return Americans to the moon can be a powerful
    driver for, as well as beneficiary of, such a strategy.
        During my military career, I watched and studied--as any good
    soldier would of a potential adversary--as China slowly but surely
    developed and deployed its own civilian and military space capabilities
    and set its own agenda for space achievements. It is clear to me that
    the Chinese Communist Party is already employing its own integrated
    grand strategy for the earth-moon system, with only superficial
    distinction between civil, commercial, and national security
    activities, and all focused on a common purpose. I believe if we do not
    unify and synchronize our efforts, we will find ourselves, rather than
    the space leaders we are today, instead in a position of increasing
    disadvantage in space as we progress further into this century.
        Human progression in any domain both has and will involve a robust
    mixture of (1) exploration, (2) economic opportunities and growth, and
    (3) security activities to set conditions for success. Space is no
    different.
        A notional example goal for a grand space strategy would be to set
    the conditions, standards, and proper incentives for the establishment
    of an orbital and lunar logistics infrastructure--one that would enable
    increased capabilities and performance for space activities of all
    kinds throughout the earth-moon system. Such an infrastructure would
    include on orbit manufacturing, assembly, refueling, replenishment, and
    other forms of servicing. We already know we will need such an
    infrastructure to sustain human presence on the moon, solely from an
    exploration approach. But such an infrastructure could and will benefit
    Dynamic Space Operations for national security platforms as well as
    commercial endeavors. Yet, our national approach to space logistics to
    date has appeared disjointed and inconsistent to those who might seek
    to invest in these capabilities. A clear goal with effective ways and
    means to achieve it would get us to this vital and inevitable
    infrastructure.
        The Chinese are already matching and perhaps even outpacing us in
    this particular pursuit. Here is a recent example: just in the last few
    weeks (as observed by open sources and reported in media), we have seen
    China perform a docking and apparent refueling operation between its
    SJ-21 and SJ-25 platforms in geosynchronous orbit. Following that fuel
    transfer activity, the docked spacecraft together performed the largest
    single maneuver in geosynchronous orbit ever yet conducted, likely in
    excess of 330 meters/second.
        Other examples of areas where I believe we could move faster and
    more effectively under a unified strategy include cislunar space domain
    awareness, and a cislunar communications architecture--both, again,
    necessary for sustained human presence on the moon.
        I am also supportive of swiftly developing nuclear fission power
    solutions in space--which are compelling to sustained operations on the
    lunar surface, but also could better enable national security
    activities, such as in the form of nuclear propulsion, and could unlock
    new commercial opportunities and benefits as well.
        I will point out that China is developing or has already fielded
    capabilities in each of these example areas: cislunar domain awareness,
    cislunar communications, and space nuclear power.
        The challenges are great, the matter is urgent--but I am optimistic
    we can indeed, via a unified grand strategy for space, thwart China's
    ambitions and continue the United States' leadership in this ultimate
    high ground.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to testify today. I look
    forward to your questions.

        Chairman Cruz. Thank you to each of you.
        Mr. Bridenstine, let's start with China, a topic you
    addressed at some considerable length. China is on an
    aggressive timeline to put astronauts on the lunar surface by
    2030, and they appear on track to do so. They are also
    currently operating a space station right now in low Earth
    orbit.
        Mr. Bridenstine, China is racing to control the Moon and
    low Earth orbit, and they are not shy about using space to
    expand their power on Earth. If America doesn't beat them, if
    we cede the lunar surface or continuous presence in orbit to
    Beijing, what does that mean for our national security, our
    economy, and America's leadership?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Very important question. So here is how I
    view things, and I think the General will appreciate this, from
    my time as a lieutenant in the Navy. We did Joint Professional
    Military Education, and we learned this thing called the DIME
    Theory of National Power. And in each of those elements you
    have, you know, it's an acronym, DIME--diplomatic, information,
    military, economic power.
        When I was at the helm of NASA, my goal was to always think
    about what we are doing in those elements. How does this
    advance diplomatic power? How does it advance information
    power, military power, and economic power?
        On the diplomatic side, you mentioned the International
    Space Station and the next-generation commercial space
    stations. On the diplomatic side, we have 15 different
    countries that are operating the International Space Station
    today. We have had astronauts from, I think, 21 different
    countries at this point. We have had agreements with over--
    actively, I think, we have got over 600 or 700 agreements now,
    internationally, as it relates to missions.
        NASA is a key element of diplomatic power for this country.
    I will tell you, I don't think it is often used correctly. I
    mean, we could put it on the table for a whole host of, you
    know, kind of carrot-and-stick kind of activities, to benefit
    the United States of America and an America First policy. That
    is the way I thought about it when I was the NASA
    Administrator.
        On the information power side of things, you know, one of
    my big things, one of my first eye-opening experience at NASA,
    when we landed Insight on Mars. This was a lander that was
    going to land on Mars and help us understand Mars quakes. Like
    how does Mars, how is it organized inside?
        Well, when we landed Insight on Mars, it was on the cover
    of every newspaper worldwide. That is amazing information
    power, including one newspaper, it was the hardline newspaper
    of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran. Now, I am not
    saying we want to win their press, but at the end of the day it
    was a story about how we landed on Mars.
        Chairman Cruz. But their Sunday comics are excellent.
        Mr. Bridenstine. But it was a story about how we landed on
    Mars, and it was a story about how we did it, when we did it,
    what we were doing, and it had a list at the end, was all of
    our international partners that participated with us in that.
        This is a newspaper in Iran, where they don't get good
    information about the United States of America. But when we
    land on Mars it changes things. It changes the perception of
    young people toward this country that we love. And I think that
    is an important power, information power.
        Of course, everybody likes to talk, you know, Apollo 11,
    when we landed on the Moon and the whole world watched. You
    know, that's information power that we reference even today.
    You know, if we can land on the Moon, why can't we do these
    things, you know, that kind of thing.
        On the military side, NASA is not strong. We don't play
    military. We don't report to the Secretary of Defense. But a
    lot of our technologies and capabilities, in fact, have dual-
    use capability.
        One thing that concerns me greatly right now is the
    devastating consequences happening to the Jet Propulsion
    Laboratory out in California, JPL. They are the ones that built
    all the Mars landers. They are the ones that have landed on
    Mars nine times in history. But a lot of that technology, make
    no mistake, has military applications, and we are at risk of
    losing a lot of that. So I think that is important to note, as
    well.
        Finally, that is the military side of things, but it is
    really not where NASA plays. NASA plays in exploration science
    discovery. The E--and this goes back to the opening
    statements--the E is economic power. When it comes to
    pharmaceuticals, regenerative medicines, advanced materials, an
    article came out, China is using their space station to create
    new, advanced materials for hypersonics, materials that, my
    understanding is we don't have right now, although maybe
    somebody knows something I don't know.
        At the end of the day, we have to use microgravity where we
    know atoms and molecules organize differently. We have to use
    it to our advantage, and advanced materials, China is doing
    that. And we are not doing it the way we should, and we are at
    risk of losing it.
        So all of those elements, I think, are important when we
    think about the great power competition with China. We need to
    think about NASA being used for diplomatic power, information
    power, military power, and economic power.
        Chairman Cruz. Thank you. Gateway will be America's eye in
    the sky in cislunar space, extending our lunar surface program
    by enabling longer missions, heavy equipment delivery, and
    protection of U.S. assets, while paving the way for advanced
    infrastructure, like Interim Administrator Duffy's goal of a
    lunar nuclear reactor by 2030. Meanwhile, China has made it
    clear that it intends to build its own cislunar station as a
    platform to dominate the Moon and to pursue critical resources
    such as Helium-3.
        Mr. Gold, in your judgment, why is it critical that the
    United States lead with Gateway and cislunar before China
    builds its own cislunar station and uses it to control the
    Moon?
        Mr. Gold. Thank you, Senator. When I was at NASA I got a
    briefing on our ability, or should I say inability, to monitor
    Chinese activities in cislunar space. I didn't sleep for a
    week. You know, you hear democracy dies in darkness? Our
    freedom could die in the depth of space if we are not able to
    monitor and understand what is happening with space situational
    awareness around the Moon.
        And relative to nuclear on the Moon, you mentioned Helium-
    3, it is not just about the Moon. It is about Earth. The
    countries and companies that control the Moon will control the
    Earth. It is just a matter of time. Rare earth elements,
    Helium-3--we need to be able to extract these resources. We
    need to be able to learn to live off the land.
        I am a native of the great state of Montana. I did a lot of
    camping and fishing back in the day. I cannot imagine going on
    those camping trips if I had to bring all of my air, all of my
    water, all of my food, all of my oxygen. You cannot have a
    sustainable, robust presence or support economic activities if
    you can't live off the land.
        And we can't do that without nuclear, and I cannot praise
    Secretary Duffy enough for acknowledging that this is not just
    about going back to the Moon. This is about going back to the
    Moon, harnessing its resources for the Earth, and establishing
    infrastructure and a permanent presence. The Secretary gets
    that, and I applaud him for moving forward with nuclear, and,
    by the way, breaking news, our friend Amit is now the Associate
    Administrator of NASA.
        And again, I very much appreciate Secretary Duffy's
    decisive action, his decisive leadership, in elevating the head
    of the Moon to Mars Program to Associate Administrator, the
    highest civil servant post in NASA. That sends an important
    message, not just to NASA but to our international partners,
    even to China, that we are back. We are reigniting the torch of
    Artemis, and we are going to go forward to the Moon. I can tell
    you NASA civil servants needed to that, and again, I'm very
    grateful to Secretary Duffy for making that point.
        At Redwire we are developing a system called Mason. It is
    going to use microwaves to center regolith, to create landing
    pads, berms, roads. We need to be able to build that
    infrastructure.
        But more than anything, we need to be able to rebuild our
    credibility here on Earth. When I was negotiating the Gateway
    agreements with the European Space Agency--thank you for that
    privilege, Jim--they learned one thing about popular culture,
    maybe from the comics in the Tehran Times there, Lucy and the
    football. They told me, ``Lucy and the football. Why should we
    sign up with you? The Trump administration will be gone in a
    year and a half. We would look foolish for making that
    investment.''
        And I told them, ``You're right. Don't listen to me.
    They're justifiably skeptical. NASA has failed to sustain a
    beyond-LEO human space flight program since Apollo. Failure
    hasn't just been an option. It's been a certainty.''
        So how did I convince the Europeans? Senator Cantwell, I
    had your help. And I told them, ``Don't listen to me. Listen to
    Senator Cantwell. Listen to Senator Nelson. Listen to the
    bipartisan coalition that Jim Bridenstine created. Because if
    we lose, then they will carry forward.''
        And if we cannot show that we can be a good partner, that
    we can be a reliable partner, all the benefits that we talked
    about--diplomatically, economically--will go to others.
        We are talking a lot about Star Trek. The reason I love
    Star Trek, not just the adventure, not just the stories, but
    because it said we are not going to have just better technology
    but a better future in space. We launch not just our astronauts
    and hardware. We launch our values. And if we cannot move
    forward with Gateway, if we cannot move forward with Artemis,
    we will lose that future to the Chinese.
        Chairman Cruz. Well, thank you both for your testimony. I
    will say I was disappointed with both of you that you guys left
    Matt Damon on the surface of Mars. But other than that you both
    did an excellent job.
        Ranking Member Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    all for illuminating this issue of why we need a grand
    strategy. I think it is a good terminology that equates to the
    notion that the time is here to think bigger about the
    implementation of all the things. It reminds me, sitting here,
    of how a colleague once said to me, ``You know, your state
    should be called Jefferson.'' I said, ``My state should be
    called Jefferson?'' He said, ``Yes. It was President Jefferson
    who basically made the big decision to send Lewis and Clark at
    a critical moment in our country's history to go all the way
    across the United States to try to find if there was a faster
    path, and laid claim to the Pacific Northwest.'' Because other
    people were already there, obviously, by ship. And the
    President, Jefferson, saw the importance of America's expansion
    all the way to the Pacific coast.
        So anyway, we are still proud we are called Washington.
        But it brings up this point about the predicate of getting
    there first, and I do not know if this is you, Mr. Gold, or
    Lieutenant General Shaw. But there are areas, particularly the
    South Pole of the Moon, that are critically and strategically
    important, and getting there in a timely fashion to claim those
    resources or claim that space seems to be just as critical as
    Jefferson's decision to get us all the way out to the Pacific.
    I don't know if one of you wants to comment on that.
        Mr. Gold. Senator, I would say even more critical than
    Jefferson's decision, because this doesn't affect a country.
    This affects the whole world. And you are exactly right. The
    Moon is a large place, but the number of locations that have
    the combination of water ice, sunlight, and other aspects that
    we need are actually relatively limited, and we could lose
    those to the Chinese if we don't move quickly.
        Additionally, the countries that get there first will write
    the rules of the road, for what we can do on the Moon, how we
    act. We have had tremendous success with the Artemis Accords.
    Fifty-six countries have signed. The Chinese only have 13 for
    their International Lunar Research Station program. But if we
    are not first, trust me, those numbers will change.
        And the fear? China will eventually outspend us in space.
    It is inevitable. We must out-entrepreneur them. And that is
    why I am so grateful for one of your constituents, Blue Origin,
    for example, and for some reason this does not get, I think,
    enough play. They have spent billions--billions--of their own
    money to support the HLS system. They are going to launch a
    Mark I spacecraft to the Moon, paid for all on their own dime.
        Senator Cantwell. I am assuming everybody is for the
    redundancy of the lunar system, the lander system.
        Mr. Gold. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Gold. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bridenstine. We are grateful for your leadership to
    make that happen.
        Mr. Gold. Which we desperately need, because you have to
    have to. You need that for efficiency. You need that for
    competition. You need that for safety.
        But again, if we do not get out there and get there first,
    we will lose real estate, we will lose the rules of the road,
    and we will lose the international partnerships and the
    economic benefits. In Helium-3, that could be a new, clean
    power revolution that we are going to let the Chinese Communist
    Party have. Let's step up----
        Senator Cantwell. We do have some companies already working
    on this in the Northwest.
        Mr. Gold. Absolutely.
        Senator Cantwell. We are very proud of that.
        So Lieutenant General Shaw, so this notion--you know, I get
    up this morning and see all the headlines from China, and
    everybody is there together, including Prime Minister Modi and
    Kim Jong Un, although we do not have all the photos of them,
    and you could see that somebody could really start focusing on
    new alliances. What is it about the grand strategy that is so
    critical for us to implement, from a military perspective? How
    can you describe it in the context of losing this first mover
    advantage that would be so critical to the alliances and
    partnerships that would help us?
        General Shaw. Senator, I think as some of the other
    panelists said, this Earth-Moon system, these opportunities on
    the Moon, are not just for exploration alone, any more than the
    Lewis and Clark expeditions were just, oh, I wonder what's out
    there. No. They were about to understand the environment, to
    scope it for economic growth, and, of course, there were
    security issues along the way. I point out that Clark was a
    lieutenant in the U.S. Army. But there to provide security and
    understanding of what our borders and frontiers were.
        So we need to approach the Moon the same way, that it is
    all of these pieces, all of the DIME that Honorable Bridenstine
    mentioned.
        One of these examples that we have talked about, where I do
    not think we are--where we could do this better as a nation,
    would be cislunar domain awareness. There are going to be needs
    for that, just for human presence in and around the Moon, to
    understand that domain. What debris might be in lunar orbit? It
    is a different kind of regime than low Earth orbit that we are
    used to, but there is the possibility that there will be things
    in orbit, and we want to understand what is there. We want to
    understand what possible mischief could be going on. It is easy
    to hide things way, way out there. We want to understand that.
        So not only protecting humans and human exploration but
    there is a national security need, to understand that
    environment as part of the full Earth-Moon system. And to my
    knowledge right now, the Department of Defense isn't really
    focusing that much on that. If there is a national need to do
    it, why not have the Department of Defense perhaps be part of
    that solution and develop the capabilities it is going to
    ultimately need anyway.
        So that is this idea of where we probably could do things
    in a much more coordinated and synergistic fashion than we are
    currently doing.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I am definitely very concerned
    about our communication security writ large, and I do think
    more of defense is moving into space and satellite effects of
    communications. And then I worry that if somebody is going to
    be on that frontier of the latest, of technology communication
    in a cislunar environment, that has to be us, and we have to
    understand what the ramifications are of that system. Is that
    not correct?
        General Shaw. That is absolutely correct. And again, I
    would like to point out that China sent seven payloads to the
    Moon last year. Six of them were communications focused. They
    were not scientific experiments. They were communications
    focused, the building blocks of a communications architecture.
    So they are already demonstrating the fact that they are trying
    to build that infrastructure that I talked about before.
        Senator Cantwell. And do you have any idea what that
    infrastructure could do, that would be a military concern?
        General Shaw. The term ``dual use'' has already been
    brought up by the panel. Any capability that could be used for
    scientific or exploration or even economic purposes invariably
    is going to have some sort of national security use to it, of
    some kind.
        As an example, in this particular case, if there are
    Chinese national security payloads operating in the broader
    Earth-Moon system, they could leverage that communication
    architecture network to have continuous communications with
    those platforms, rather than relying on strictly terrestrial
    relay.
        Senator Cantwell. Oh, well, a big advantage there. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Moran [presiding]. Senator Cantwell, thank you.
    Senator Fischer.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    General, for your comments about defense. I chair the
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on Armed Services, and we have
    had numerous discussions on that since we have jurisdiction
    over space as a warfighting domain. So I appreciated your
    comments.
        You guys are really good storytellers. I have a short
    amount of time here so I would like specific answers. I need to
    leave for another hearing, and there are some things I would
    like to get through.
        Mr. Gold, I am not picking on you first, but Mr. Gold,
    should China be the first to establish a permanent presence on
    the Moon, there would be serious consequences for Americans.
    You have spoken to that in the past, as has the Administrator.
    I want to hear some specific examples from you on how the lives
    of Americans would be impacted should China establish control
    of the Moon's resources? So Americans can reach out and touch
    what would really happen to their lives.
        Mr. Gold. The potential wealth of the Moon is extraordinary
    and uncannily even unknown.
        Senator Fischer. You are telling me a story.
        Mr. Gold. Well, let me put it this way. China lands on the
    Moon. The next day we see tremendous benefits to China
    geopolitically, where our allies turn to them, not only for
    space exploration but for national security agreements, for
    trade agreements. The meeting that is occurring now between
    China, India, and Russia that you are seeing today, if China
    lands on the Moon first, that will deepen and strengthen those
    economic eyes. China is very good at leveraging space to drive
    the DIME assets that Jim Bridenstine and General are talking
    about. If they get there first, we will see a global
    realignment that will impact our economy, our tax base, our
    ability to innovate, and our national security in terms of
    diplomacy and geopolitics, that will affect security, and many
    other aspects of our daily lives.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Administrator, while
    at NASA you helped lead the Artemis Accords and established
    that framework for the principals to guide civil space
    exploration. China has their own framework, the Internal Lunar
    Research Station that is there. Can you, first of all, speak to
    the importance of the Accords, and then speak to the risk that
    we would see with those principals if they start to erode, the
    risk we have there for future deep space exploration, since
    China then would establish that permanent presence on the Moon?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Excellent question. A couple of things I
    think are important to note. When we established the Artemis
    Accords it was because--and this is important, so important--we
    went to an event where there were a lot of international
    players in the space domain, and we said, ``Hey, we are
    thinking about creating a Moon program. In fact, we are going
    to create a Moon program. If you would like to participate,
    come to a meeting.''
        We had like 26 countries show up, and they were so
    enthusiastic about being part of the Moon program it was
    overwhelming. And so when that was over, I came back and I
    called Mike Gold, and I said, ``Look, we need to figure out a
    way to use this as a compelling way to get people to behave
    properly in space, because in many ways they don't.'' And so I
    actually got Mike Gold to come to NASA to run this effort
    called, what he termed the Artemis Accords.
        And at the end of the day, what we have to have is rules.
    So if we are going to go extract resources from the Moon, there
    have to be rules around that. And those rules, I think, are
    established in law and precedent, when you think about
    international waters. You know, just because you extract tuna
    from the ocean doesn't mean you own the ocean, but you get to
    own the tuna. And if you extract energy from the ocean, you
    don't own the ocean but you own the energy.
        Those same principles should apply to the Moon. If you
    extract platinum-group metals or what we call rare earth
    metals, or in this case, rare lunar metals, if you extract that
    from the Moon and you apply your sweat and your equity and your
    effort to get those resources, you don't own the Moon. The
    Outer Space Treaty says you can't appropriate the Moon for
    national sovereignty. However, you can own the resources that
    you extract from the Moon, and I think that is an important
    principle that we, as Americans, need to be leading the world
    on. And that is what the Artemis Accords were all about. And
    that is why I got Mike Gold to come lead that effort.
        Senator Fischer. Great. Thank you. Also, Administrator,
    when we look at trying to remain competitive with China in deep
    space there is going to be an increased demand for commercial
    launches. Do you assess that demand will outstrip existing
    launch capacity, and if so, what can be done in order to expand
    that capacity that we currently have?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Oh my gosh, that is an important question,
    and very challenging. The answer is yes, we are already
    overcapacity. Our launch facilities are basically stretching
    and twisting and doing everything they can to put more launch
    capability into the same amount of space.
        A couple of things I think it is important to note. I want
    to be clear. The architecture for the Artemis program is
    strained, to say the least. I would also say that we need, in
    many cases we need Starship to be successful for a whole host
    of capabilities. It is also true that if they do what they are
    setting out to do, there are going to be over 100 launches from
    Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center per year, from
    Starship, and in each one of those launches that also means
    there is going to be testing, there is going to be landing,
    there is going to be a lot of different things happening. Each
    time that is going to end up shutting down those facilities.
    And it puts us in a position where we could end up with
    basically one launch provider, if we don't figure out how to
    solve this problem.
        I do believe that over time, you know, there are going to
    be other opportunities to launch from different locations. We
    are not there right now. I am talking about inland launch. You
    know, from Oklahoma we have a Space Port. Right now we would
    have to drop something on Kansas, and I know Senator Moran does
    not want us dropping anything on Kansas. So we do not want to
    do that.
        But I do think it is important that we try to find
    alternative solutions for launch, initially on the coast, but
    eventually we are going to have to come to inland launches.
        Senator Fischer. When you look at overall launch capacity
    and the impact that these heavy launch vehicles have on the
    existing infrastructure, I think, yes, we do have to be able to
    look beyond where we are now. And Space Force determines the
    launchpad allocations, so we have a tie-in there between these
    committees, each within their own jurisdiction, specific
    jurisdiction over different parts of what we are discussing
    here today.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Senator Moran. Senator Kim.

                      STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

        Senator Kim. Thank you all for coming on out here. You
    know, Mr. Bridenstine, I would love to just start with you.
    There has been a lot of conversation about the different
    national security implications, and I agree with that. As
    someone who has worked in national security my whole career, it
    is important that we keep our foot on the gas.
        As I am trying to explain to the people in my state of New
    Jersey what is the benefit we get out of the space program,
    especially from a commercial aspect in terms of just
    implications to people's daily lives, our economy, how do we go
    about doing that? What is the best argument that you have come
    across?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Oh my. OK.
        Senator Kim. You raise some of the potential exploration
    benefits of microgravity, of biotech. I would love for you to
    expound on this and really try to help us hit home to the
    American people the importance of this.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. I would summarize it with there
    are a lot of ways to talk about it. But I would say the way we
    communicate, a lot of use Internet broadband from space. People
    here are familiar with DirecTV, DISH Network, as well. The way
    we communicate now is highly dependent on space. Even in our
    terrestrial wireless networks, our cellphones are dependent on
    a timing signal that comes from GPS. So even our wireless
    networks are dependent on space.
        But the way we communicate, the way we navigate--GPS, for
    example, is critically important--the way we produce food, we
    are increasing crop yields, reducing water usage, the way we
    produce energy and the way we do it cleanly, the way we predict
    weather. The way we understand climate, and there is a lot of
    partisanship around the climate issue. But at the end of the
    day we have got to know what is happening. And there are ways
    that we can use our space assets to understand how the climate
    is affected by what we do here on Earth.
        Senator Kim. One thing I saw NASA do that I wasn't fully
    aware of was just how much the applications are for
    agriculture, for instance, especially when it comes to what you
    were just saying about climate and understanding crop, storm
    systems, et cetera.
        I wanted to just bring in something else. I just did a
    CODEL trip out to South Korea and Japan, and it really just got
    me thinking, as I am listening to you and this panel, thinking
    about just our space cooperation, you know, just the role that
    it plays with other countries. And, Administrator, I would like
    to start with you but open it up, just what you see in terms of
    South Korea and Japan, places where we can build upon,
    especially when it comes to accelerating Artemis, building a
    counterweight to China's space partnership with Russia.
        And look, there is no doubt we saw those images with Modi
    standing next to a lot of these leaders. How can NASA work with
    India to build on the NISAR partnership to advance shared
    space, science, and exploration goals? I am just trying to
    think about how it is that we can try to anchor that
    relationship, as well.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, wonderful question. I think when it
    comes to South Korea and Japan, Japan specifically has been a
    long partner with the United States on space exploration, from
    the International Space Station, they have modules on the
    International Space Station, they have got experiments on the
    International Space Station, they have rockets that resupply
    the International Space Station. They are among our best
    partners on the International Space Station.
        And, of course, they are one of the early adopters of the
    Artemis Accords. In fact, I think, Mike, weren't they in the
    first eight?
        Mr. Gold. They were the first to sign.
        Mr. Bridenstine. The first.
        Mr. Gold. And the reason the English is so good in the
    Accords is because of the corrections the Japanese made. They
    speak English better than we do.
        Mr. Bridenstine. There you go. So I think----
        Senator Kim. I do not know if I feel super great about
    that, what it says about us.
        Mr. Bridenstine. But I think all of those are important
    international partnership. And then, of course, on the South
    Korean side, they also signed onto the Artemis Accords, and
    they want to do more and more in space. And they have the
    capability to do that, and since they signed the Artemis
    Accords we want to bring them into that fold and have them
    participate fully in the missions.
        Senator Kim. Go ahead.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Sorry. And Senator, in regard to the
    Artemis Accords, what is really wonderful to see is it has
    created an ecosystem, a family of nations. When we were back at
    NASA during the launch of the aptly named HOPE mission by
    United Arab Emirates, that was a spacecraft built by UAE that
    was powered by a partnership that began between UAE and Korea,
    where UAE did not have the technical capability, they went to
    Korea, they helped them build these spacecrafts. Then they
    brought it domestic, and then it was launched on a Japanese
    spacecraft with American assistance from Colorado. During this
    launch we heard overlapping Japanese, Arabic, English, and even
    Korean back during some of the technical conversations.
        That is the future that we want. And when it comes to
    national security, that is the coalition that will keep us safe
    in China, if we can continue with the Artemis program.
        Senator Kim. Yes. Well look, I am almost out of time, so I
    will just say, you know, I worked in diplomacy before, did a
    lot in terms of different bilateral, multilateral
    relationships. I have never seen another issue that can really
    solidify some of these relationships and stay out of the day-
    to-day politics, stay out of some of the geostrategic
    conversations, and really just be able to have that kind of
    pure expert, science-to-science kind of partnerships. I think
    there is a lot here to build off from. I am excited about some
    of the energy I see on this Committee. So thank you for your
    testimonies today, and I yield back.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Thank you, Senator Kim. On behalf of Senator
    Cantwell, she has an article from Air & Space Forces Magazine,
    dated March 28, she would like to have admitted to our record.
    Is there any objection? Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Why Cislunar Security Must Be a Space Force Concern

                                 March 28, 2024

    Think of the Moon as the First Island Chain Off the Coast of Earth.
        Global powers and new space entrants are racing to the Moon and the
    cislunar regime, an area extending beyond geosynchronous orbit out to
    more than 275,000 miles. In this region of space, spacecraft
    trajectories are influenced by the gravitational pull of both the Earth
    and Moon. There, few established norms exist to govern the
    multinational players and their scientific, economic, and geopolitical
    objectives.
        Several countries are planning robotic missions, and some are
    pursuing a permanent human presence on the Moon. All told as of this
    writing, some 106 missions are planned for cislunar space this decade,
    representing the efforts of 19 countries and the European Space Agency.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Unlike the race to the Moon between the United States and the
    Soviet Union in the 1960s, this new space race involves dozens of
    countries, dynamic geopolitical tensions, and technical capabilities
    associated with sustained presence. That added complexity increases the
    urgency to view this regime in a new light: The U.S. Space Force and
    U.S. Space Command must begin taking steps today to ensure free and
    open access to cislunar space--or risk ceding the region to others who
    move more quickly.
        Already in 2024, we've seen three missions head to the Moon.
    Japan's Smart Lander for Investigating the Moon (SLIM) saw the Nation
    became the fifth nation to land on the lunar surface, though it
    suffered a power issue after landing. The U.S. commercial effort
    Peregrine, the country's first lunar landing attempt in decades,
    suffered a propellant leak once in space and burned up as it reentered
    the Earth's atmosphere. Finally, Intuitive Machines reached the lunar
    surface, marking the first successful commercial mission to the Moon
    and the return of the United States to the Moon's surface after over 50
    years. All of these efforts encountered problems, underscoring the
    complexity and challenges of this new space race.
        Even with the diverse set of nations heading to the Moon, there are
    now two main teams involved in the current race. On one side is the
    United States and an extensive group of aligned nations who have signed
    the Artemis Accords. This agreement reaffirms the peaceful intentions
    of space exploration and contains provisions on transparency,
    interoperability, emergency assistance, registration of objects,
    sharing scientific data, preservation of space heritage, extraction and
    use of space resources, deconfliction of activities, and debris
    mitigation. Many of these aligned countries enjoy advanced space
    programs, like Japan and India. They are joined by non-space-faring
    nations that support the peaceful and transparent approach outlined in
    the accords.
        On the other side of this equation, China and Russia have partnered
    in the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), along with
    Venezuela, Iran, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the nations of the
    Asia-Pacific Space Cooperations Organization (APSCO). Plans call for
    the ILRS to consist of a facility near the South Pole of the lunar
    surface and a station in cislunar space used to aid communication and
    transportation to the lunar facility.
        In this race, either the United States and its partners arrive
    first and establish customary practices of safe and responsible
    collaboration, or they risk relinquishing key interests and governing
    principles to China and Russia. Given the lack of established
    international norms, this will be just like any other era of
    territorial exploration and expansion--those who arrive first set the
    terms. China's ambition to supplant the United States as the world
    leader means it sees this race as an opportunity to shift the global
    balance of power. So, losing this race could seriously disadvantage the
    U.S. in the future.
    Understanding the Cislunar Regime
        Cislunar space is an incredibly dynamic region influenced by
    numerous forces and having caustic conditions. Mastering it demands
    collaboration from civil, commercial, and national security entities.
        Unlike operations in Earth orbit, which are predictable and follow
    stable paths due to the Earth's powerful gravitational force,
    spaceflight dynamics change dramatically as objects move beyond
    geosynchronous orbit and begin to come under the gravitational pull of
    the Moon. These competing forces greatly complicate spacecraft
    trajectories.
        In the cislunar regime, there are five special locations where the
    gravitational pull of the Earth and the Moon balance and an equilibrium
    is attained. Known as Lagrange points, their gravitational equilibrium
    enables spacecraft to remain near the points and transit between them
    while using only minimal fuel. Their positions relative to the Earth
    and Moon also offer a commanding vantage of the cislunar regime, making
    them highly valuable to future domain awareness, communication,
    navigation, and scientific activities.
        Another important aspect of the cislunar regime is its massive
    size. The average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 238,900 miles.
    To put in perspective, if the Earth were the size of a basketball
    placed directly under one hoop, the Moon would be the size of a tennis
    ball placed at the top of the 3-point line. In this comparison, the L4
    and L5 Lagrange points would be just beyond the 3-point line roughly in
    line with the free-throw line. By contrast, the geocentric regime--
    where most satellites operate today--would be a small territory just
    beyond the rim.
        That's why maintaining domain awareness in the cislunar regime will
    be so difficult. It's just a matter of sheer volume. That far from
    Earth, ground-based radars are far less useful; indeed, most existing
    space surveillance radars are useless for monitoring cislunar space. An
    entirely new architecture built from new technologies and models is
    needed to depict motion in this region to achieve situational
    awareness. These observations are essential to establishing and
    enforcing norms and standards.
        The Moon poses its own unique challenges. With no appreciable
    atmosphere, there is nothing to block or absorb radiation. Earth's
    atmosphere and magnetic field protect us and our equipment from solar
    and cosmic radiation. On the Moon, no such protective barrier exists,
    so personnel and equipment must be shielded. A second lunar hazard is
    regolith--lunar dust--formed from billions of years of meteor impacts
    and interaction with charged plasma from the Sun. Unworn by atmospheric
    or water erosion, regolith is fine, jagged, electrostatically charged
    silica particles covering the entire surface of the Moon. These
    particles caused electrical, mechanical, and even respiratory issues
    during the Apollo program. Future Moon missions could spread regolith
    hundreds of miles across the lunar surface, contaminating scientific
    instruments and experiments--or even causing damage to economic or
    historic sites, such as the Apollo landing locations. A third lunar
    challenge is the Moon's extreme temperature ranges. Moving from a two-
    week lunar day to a two-week lunar night can see temperatures vary from
    250 degrees Fahrenheit to minus 208 degrees Fahrenheit. Such an extreme
    range can leave materials brittle, and slash equipment life expectancy.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    China's Approach
        China's view of the Moon was made clear nearly a decade ago by Ye
    Peijian, then the lead for the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program. ``The
    universe is an ocean, the Moon is the Diaoyu Islands, Mars is Huangyan
    Island,'' he said in 2015, referring to disputed islands in the Western
    Pacific. ``If we don't go there now even though we're capable of doing
    so, then we will be blamed by our descendants. If others go there, then
    they will take over, and you won't be able to go even if you want to.
    This is reason enough.''
        Expert analysis of PLA programs and doctrine makes clear that China
    seeks to be the preeminent global power in space. Overtaking the United
    States and ``establishing a commanding position in cislunar space'' is
    a vital step toward that objective. And while China claims the United
    States misrepresents its peaceful objectives in space, Peijian's
    comparison of the Moon to the disputed islands in the Western Pacific
    heralds a confrontational intent. China's aggressive actions in the
    Pacific can be seen as laying bare its ambitions in cislunar space, as
    China views national power in terms of territorial control. China has
    repeatedly signed bilateral agreements regarding disputed territories
    in the Western Pacific, only to break those agreements in an effort to
    control more territory. The fact that the PLA also controls China's
    space program suggests that pattern will continue in space.
        Consider how that might play out in a research scenario: If China
    were to establish a ``scientific'' station on the moon in an area rich
    in lunar ice, it might then require a keep-out zone to prevent others
    from interfering with their scientific research. Such a zone, however,
    could effectively commandeer the entire region and the resources in it,
    while denying access to other nations. Note that China is the only
    country to land on the far side of the Moon, and it intends a sample
    return mission from there in 2024. Importantly, using the gravity of
    the Moon, China could also conduct offensive operations against U.S.
    and partner space capabilities in the Earth orbit from an unobservable
    vantage point.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The Military in Cislunar Space
        Cislunar activities are a new mission for the Space Force and Space
    Command and requires growth in funding and personnel. An initial budget
    of about $250 million annually for five years would be sufficient to
    establish the cislunar infrastructure critical to the race to the Moon,
    accelerating delivery of needed capabilities with the sufficient scale
    and effectiveness to support civil and commercial activities. It will
    also establish the necessary military means to secure those activities.
        DOD must develop a cislunar strategy to define the military's role
    and relationship to civil and commercial objectives in the cislunar
    regime. A DOD cislunar strategy would also define the military's
    primary objectives as promoting a safe and stable environment, with the
    secondary benefits to enable or accelerate civil and commercial
    cislunar space development. DOD should also detail specific military
    objectives, such as assuring safe operations at Lagrange points or
    unfettered access to the lunar surface. This strategy would inform
    Congress in its resourcing, guidance, and oversight roles and encourage
    industry to invest.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Space Force would build on that strategy, developing the skills
    and understanding to properly resource cislunar missions, beginning
    with the math, science, and expertise required. All Guardians would
    benefit from some familiarization with ``cislunar basics,'' but a small
    cadre must specialize in cislunar operations. This calls for about 200
    cislunar-focused Guardians, to be added and developed over the next
    five years, and to facilitate the rapid transition of new capabilities
    from research to operations. They would be divided into four roughly
    equal lines of effort: supporting ongoing R&D efforts, acquiring and
    fielding capabilities, conducting operations, and training and staff
    assignments.
        DOD must also develop new doctrine, concepts of operations
    (CONOPS), and requirements. Like the DOD cislunar strategy, new and/or
    updated doctrine, CONOPS, and requirements should include direct
    support to civil and commercial activities along with unique military
    requirements. Additionally, new requirements for navigation,
    maneuverability, and communication data rates will also be necessary to
    establish the needed cislunar infrastructure. CONOPS for achieving
    domain awareness or the exchange of information among military, civil,
    and commercial entities will advance transparency and cooperation.
    Within this scope of doctrine, CONOPS, and requirements, U.S. Space
    Command can identify how they will attribute potentially harmful or
    threatening behavior to promote stability and preserve interests.
        To date, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Air
    Force Research Laboratory have made the most notable DOD investments in
    this area. Early USSF participation in these efforts, and additional
    attention from the USSF in key areas will increase the probability of
    successful transition to operational capabilities.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Domain Awareness
        AFRL's Oracle program will be vital to monitoring the vast cislunar
    regime and key areas of interest such as Lagrange points and transfer
    orbits. Unfortunately, due to its complexity and funding challenges,
    AFRL recently announced a delay in the Oracle program from a 2025 to a
    2027 launch, reducing domain awareness for some 100 missions to the
    Moon planned in the next seven years and delaying the establishment of
    a robust domain awareness infrastructure for the coming decades. This
    delay drives risk at a time when adversary actions in this realm call
    for enhanced situational awareness.
    High-Speed Communication
        Assured, high bandwidth communication is another major
    infrastructure challenge DOD should tackle. Existing communication
    networks struggle to support the current mission load and will not be
    able to support the increased capacity required for the Artemis
    Accord's purposes. Laser communication seems an ideal choice because it
    can be used for high-capacity data transfers. But this won't be easy.
    The vast distances of the cislunar regime will require precise pointing
    accuracy to establish the links. The new network must also overcome
    challenges related to the relative positions and orientations of the
    Earth, Moon, and Sun, which will create eclipse periods and solar
    exclusions that necessitate multiple paths to assure uninterrupted
    communication. A series of relay satellites at Lagrange points, in
    lunar orbit, and in geosynchronous orbit will likely be necessary to
    meet the expected demand. A clear example of the viability of this
    approach is the recent achievement of a successful test message across
    nearly 10 million miles by the Deep Space Optical Communications (DSOC)
    payload aboard the NASA Psyche spacecraft.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Position, Navigation, and Timing
        Assured position, navigation, and timing (PNT) for the cislunar
    regime is another area requiring R&D and the establishment of
    standards. Leveraging its experience with GPS, the USSF is in an ideal
    position to lead and shape this area. Ongoing commercial, civil, and
    international efforts would benefit from the unifying voice of the USSF
    to establish a cislunar PNT standard. This will require reviewing
    existing and proposed methods as well as additional research to ensure
    operational requirements and interoperability among Artemis Accord
    partner nations meet actual needs.
    Propulsion and Maneuverability
        Given the longer travel distances and challenges required to lift
    spacecraft higher out of Earth's gravity well into the cislunar regime,
    it will be necessary to field vehicles with considerable propulsion and
    maneuverability. Like the Navy's transition to nuclear powered
    submarines and aircraft carriers, nuclear propulsion will likely be a
    critical enabler to empower future USSF cislunar operations. DARPA's
    DRACO is a good example of research into nuclear propulsion for
    cislunar. Because of the criticality of both rapid and efficient
    maneuver, an additional research effort into nuclear propulsion may be
    necessary to assure the delivery of viable nuclear propulsion options
    for future decision-makers. This will also reduce the risk of being
    tied to a single vendor or supply chain.
    Power Generation and Distribution
        Power generation and distribution will be another critical enabler
    for future cislunar activities. The ability to provide uninterrupted
    power to scientific, economic, or life-sustaining equipment will be
    indispensable. Options from solar to nuclear power are worth exploring.
    AFRL's Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-orbit Nuclear Power
    (JETSON) is a good example of an effort exploring alternative
    spacecraft power generation. The DOD must also consider other novel
    forms of power distribution. For example, the concept of beaming power
    to remote users will be instrumental in supporting a variety of
    cislunar missions. This could come from a solar-or nuclear-powered
    spacecraft that could beam power to a rover operating in the two-week
    lunar night or from a lunar surface station to a spacecraft in orbit
    around the Moon.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Lunar Surface Launch and Landing
        Finally, USSF and other DOD entities will need to deliver
    equipment, supplies, and astronauts to the lunar surface while limiting
    the spread of harmful regolith. Realizing these goals requires new and
    responsible methods to land on and launch from the Moon. One potential
    option is the creation of launch and landing pads such that rocket
    thrust is not directed at loose surface rock and dust. Another
    possibility could employ a tether from the lunar surface as an elevator
    to move payloads down to and up from the Moon. A third option, specific
    to launch, could be an electromagnetic rail system. Similar systems are
    already in use today on aircraft carriers and roller coasters. On the
    Moon, a system could propel a payload to a predetermined altitude off
    the lunar surface so that once rocket motors or attitude thrusters
    engage, they will not dislodge regolith.
    Field Operational Capabilities
        As technologies mature in the areas previously described, the USSF
    must rapidly transition to the acquisition and fielding of operational
    capabilities to present to U.S. Space Command for employment and
    synchronization with civil and commercial efforts. It will be important
    for the government and industry to maintain the expertise and talent
    generated during R&D efforts to streamline the transition and prevent
    harmful delays due to workforce loss. Early decisions on architecture
    and steady, consistent funding are required to realize this vision.
        Consider that Oracle or an Oracle-like system is intended to be a
    main element of the overall cislunar domain awareness architecture; it
    will likely require seven vehicles--one at each of the five Lagrange
    points and two transiting between L4 and L5 locations and the Moon.
    Deciding quickly and building it into the USSF planning, programming,
    and budgeting process early will increase the likelihood of fielding
    the capability before it is too late to support upcoming civil and
    commercial missions.
    Conclusion
        The window to make meaningful contributions in the race to the Moon
    and cislunar region is closing rapidly. It is time to act now. This
    involves Congress, the Space Force, Space Command, international
    partners, and civil actors seeking to operate in space. The prospects
    of ceding the advantage to an authoritarian and territorially minded
    Chinese and Russian program would create an even greater disadvantage--
    one increasingly difficult for the United States to overcome.
        Early additive investment by Congress to the Space Force will
    enable the development of capabilities, which will accelerate the civil
    and commercial use of the cislunar regime and enable the establishment
    of the desired norms of cooperation, transparency, and responsible
    behavior for the Moon, cislunar regime, and beyond.

        Senator Moran. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
    presence here today. All of you have served our country. Mr.
    Gold and Mr. Bridenstine, Lieutenant General.
        Mr. Cutler, you served the U.S. Senate as part of our staff
    in Commerce, Justice, Science, and I thank you all for the
    knowledge that you bring forward to us today.
        I want to start first with the appropriations process, and
    Mr. Gold, maybe Mr. Bridenstine, or others would care to
    comment. I am worried that once again we will end up in a
    Continuing Resolution. I am worried that Commerce, Justice,
    Science is stalled, and I would welcome your efforts in the
    work that you now do to make certain that is not the case by
    encouraging support from all of my colleagues. But I would like
    to have you tell me what you see occurring, good and/or bad,
    from the passage of the Commerce, Justice, Science bill,
    particularly as it relates to the funding of NASA? Mr.
    Bridenstine.
        Mr. Bridenstine. So, first of all, I think it is important
    that to the extent that we have a CR it is better than a
    shutdown, and I think we all understand that. But a CR is also,
    it's stunning to me that people are now advocating for CRs. I
    want to be clear, we need to be advocating for appropriations,
    because ultimately technology is changing, capabilities are
    changing, and we need to be able to change programs
    commensurate with the times and not just fund things the way
    they used to be. Because then we buy obsolete things, and we do
    not buy the right things.
        So 100 percent we need to do appropriations. I do worry
    that when we think about how we get NASA funded, the
    reconciliation bill went a long way to supporting human space
    flight. But there are a lot of other parts of NASA that are
    critically important. And I would say the Science Mission
    Directorate largely is not partisan. It is not political. There
    is a lot of bipartisan consensus around it.
        The gentleman behind me, Bill Nye, he does not like my
    politics. You are probably aware of this. But I will also tell
    you that he and I agree strongly that we need planetary
    defense, we need the ability to look out in space and see large
    objects that could really hit Earth and do it damage. And not
    only that but we need to be able to intercept those, if
    necessary. And that is what our space program is capable of
    doing. That is an element of the Science Mission Directorate
    inside NASA, and it needs to be funded.
        But all this capability largely comes from our ability to
    do planetary science. When we go to Mars, and we land on Mars,
    and we go to every planet in the solar system, these are unique
    capabilities that only this Nation can and has done, every
    planet in the solar system. And beyond that we have got
    missions to the sun for heliophysics, and we have got
    astrophysics.
        You know, I got beat up in this Committee, Senator, a lot
    over the James Webb Space Telescope, probably because of this
    guy down here on the end, Mr. Cutler. But I will also tell you
    that now that it is in space, everybody knows that it sets
    America apart from the rest of the world by 50 years when it
    comes to physics. Like that is the impact, 50 years when it
    comes to physics.
        People say, ``Well, why do we need to look at the stars
    anyway?'' There is a great story I like to tell about Einstein
    and his understanding of time-space continuum, which ultimately
    is critical for how we use GPS today. Basic science resulted in
    us understanding time and space in a way that we otherwise
    wouldn't, and it enables GPS to function. That is the type of
    science that we get from NASA, and that is the type of
    capability--James Webb, we are going to learn things about
    things like dark matter, which I hate to even use that term,
    because nobody really understands it or knows what it is. But
    dark energy and all these different capabilities, we are
    learning things that have never been discovered before, and it
    sets us apart.
        Senator Moran. Thank you. A couple of observations. The
    Webb came close to being terminated for lack of progress, and
    the decision was made to continue.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
        Senator Moran. And it seems well worth the difficulties
    that we went through.
        Second, I have not said this publicly, but I tend to vote
    against a CR, which would mean a shutdown, and I have said this
    in previous years. We have gotten to the point in which it is
    easier--as long as it is easier to do a CR than to do
    appropriation bills, we apparently are not going to do them.
    And it is a mistake for this Congress to get in the habit of
    continuing resolutions, and unless there is a consequence we
    are going to do them every year.
        So my hope is that I will have colleagues who join me in
    the effort to make sure the appropriations process does not end
    its early time, end its time early in this 2025 session.
        A couple of other things that I want to ask before I turn
    it over to my Democratic colleague, Mr. Lujan. Let me make
    sure, because a couple of my questions have now been answered.
    You have talked so long, Mr. Bridenstine, that I am running out
    of time.
        Mr. Bridenstine. It happens. Sorry.
        Senator Moran. And I am surprised that you have never
    served in the U.S. Senate.
        General Shaw, in your testimony you speak to the necessity
    of establishing a grand strategy, of which the Chinese have
    already adopted, to, quote, ``unify and synergize our national
    efforts across civil, commercial, and national security
    activities,'' and that we risk losing our domination in space
    without one. What are the pillars of a successful grand
    strategy capable of beating the Chinese in space? And it is
    also important that we concentrate time and energies and effort
    in knowing what follows once we get back to the Moon, and our
    long-term goals, what they should be? How does the strategy
    deal with getting us back to the Moon and then also the long-
    term strategy of what happens next?
        General Shaw. So I would think that if, in the formulation
    of such a strategy, probably the overarching objectives extend
    well beyond us returning to the Moon. It is about what do we
    want to accomplish in this century in the Earth-Moon system and
    beyond, for the benefit of the Nation. And those are not going
    to be solely exploration objections. They are going to be about
    economic growth and about the appropriate security framework to
    ensure that we can set the conditions for that economic
    success, against all of the forces that this panel has already
    talked about and against the additional challenges we face if
    China gets there first and starts to establish the ground
    rules, almost literally, on the surface of the Moon.
        So I say that if we think of it, that strategy has to be
    something that now establishes an architecture and a framework
    that lasts to the end of this century and beyond. That has to
    involve all of the elements of national power and all of those
    key pieces I mentioned in progress in any domain--exploration,
    economic growth, and security measures.
        We do not really do that today with regard to space. We do
    it sometimes by accident, but it is never by design. And I
    would love to see us approach that from a national perspective
    by design. And then, as you lay out the objectives and
    subobjectives and you have now identified the ways and means to
    achieve those objectives, assigning those to the appropriate
    part of our nation, not necessarily our government, but maybe
    we rely on industry or commercial to help with some of those,
    or the scientific community, to help with some of those
    objectives. I just lay out that framework for you, Senators,
    something that does not really exist today that could help us.
        The Chinese do have that kind of framework. They have
    exactly that kind of framework. And that is what is enabling
    them to continue to meet their milestones and goals that they
    have put out. And by the way, they are amazingly consistent.
    They predict what they are going to do, they say what they are
    going to do, and then they do what they said they were going to
    do. We should actually use that to our advantage, to really
    kind of understand how that is going to lay out.
        So I hope I have answered your question, but that is how I
    would approach such a strategy, and looking at it long-term and
    how we can bring all of the Nation to bear on that.
        Senator Moran. General, I appreciate your answer, and I
    have run out of time. But in the meantime, while we develop
    that strategy that we should already have and we implement it
    and we follow it, I worry about what happens to our supply
    chain as we provide such uncertainty in today's world, the
    current problems. And that supply chain across the country is
    really the way that we do get back to the Moon and the way that
    we continue our efforts. So a lot of long-term and short-term
    concerns.
        Senator Lujan. I recognize you. Oh, Senator Peters has
    joined us. Senator Peters.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cutler, thank
    you for being here today. Programs and contracts like those in
    the Artemis support thousands of jobs across the U.S.
    manufacturing supply chain. I am proud that Michigan is
    actually one of the top 10 states in aerospace manufacturing.
    It is home to over 600 aerospace-related companies, and we are
    looking to that to grow considerably in the years ahead.
        It is estimated that the Moon to Mars activities have
    generated over $20 billion of economic output nationwide.
    However, the President's budget creates uncertainty about the
    future, as you know, for Artemis program after the next launch.
    Abandoning this program or disrupting the existing project plan
    jeopardizes our efforts in the space race, it hinders the
    development of our domestic aerospace supply chain, and
    potentially leaves billions on the table in future economic
    benefit.
        So my question for you, sir, is the Coalition for Deep
    Space Exploration has noted its commitment to supporting the
    inclusion of small businesses in the NASA programs. In your
    experience, how have NASA programs like Artemis been beneficial
    to the small businesses in our states and to our local
    economies? And what could we do to better support efforts to
    include more small businesses in this important supply chain?
        Mr. Cutler. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator, for the
    question. If you look at Artemis, just the program itself,
    there are 2,700 suppliers that are part of the Artemis program.
    That covers everything from small mom-and-pop shops making
    valves, nuts, washers, all the way up to big integrators.
        We cannot have this program without small businesses. They
    absolutely are critical. And if you think about it, these
    missions, they need every single piece to work. It is common to
    hear something like you need a million things to go right for a
    mission to be accomplished. You just need one to go wrong. That
    stems all the way up and down the supply chain, and it starts
    with small businesses. They are making those initial components
    that make Artemis possible. So absolutely critical on the small
    business side.
        And we talked about this a little bit with Senator Moran
    when we talked about CRs. The instability that comes from
    uncertain funding, from not knowing if we are going to shut
    down, continuing resolution, are we going to continue the
    program after Artemis III, Orion? All of these things insert
    instability into a business' understanding. And when that
    happens, maybe these larger companies can weather that sort of
    things. Small businesses, that is hard.
        And I am with the Coalition. It is a small outfit. We do
    not have a massive staff. And essentially I run a small
    business. I understand what these small guys do. They are busy.
    If they are working, that is their life. It is their
    livelihood. It is the livelihood of their workers. And if we
    are not doing things to help them----
        Senator Peters. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Cutler.--as well.
        Senator Peters. Good. Thank you.
        Mr. Cutler. One of the things we have done from the small
    business side, from the Coalition, we have brought in some of
    the prime contractors. We have had them talk to our members,
    our Coalition, small businesses. What can they do?
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Cutler. Thank you. So we
    want to continue to focus on this. There is no question about
    it.
        Mr. Bridenstine, it is great to see you here today. It was
    certainly a pleasure to work with you in your previous capacity
    as NASA Administrator. And as you are well aware, in 2020, the
    President signed the PROSWIFT Act into law. I authored this
    bipartisan legislation to strengthen the Nation's ability to
    predict severe space weather events and mitigate the harmful
    events. And I appreciate you championing that with me. You were
    very helpful in getting that bill across the finish line, so
    thank you.
        As you know, a space weather event can have implications
    for power systems, for GPS, other assets in low Earth orbit.
    And on Monday, the National Weather Service Space Weather
    Prediction Center actually just recently issued a watch for a
    potential geomagnetic storm, as you are aware. Continued
    research is needed to strengthen our space weather prediction
    capabilities to ensure that we can have these accurate
    warnings. Unfortunately, the President's budget includes cuts
    to this funding that could jeopardize these efforts and could
    have major implications for those communications systems, in
    particular.
        So my question for you, sir, is can you speak to how NASA's
    science missions like the Space Weather Program play a critical
    role in our everyday lives? This is non-political. This is
    straightforward. Why do we need to make sure there is funding
    for space weather prediction?
        Mr. Bridenstine. There are a lot of different reasons to do
    it. Just from a pure human space flight perspective, when we
    start putting NASA astronauts on the other side of the Van
    Allen radiation belt in orbit around the Moon, on the surface
    of the Moon, those astronauts are in jeopardy of things like a
    solar flare hitting them or a coronal mass ejection, which
    would be, of course, even more devastating. All of that
    radiation environment that the astronauts are exposed to would
    be devastating. In fact, if you go back to Apollo 11, Neil
    Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin narrowly missed being hit with a
    solar flare that could have been devastating for their lives.
        So we did not know what we did not know back then. Now we
    have the ability to learn and predict. Thank you to you for our
    efforts to help us with that.
        But beyond that, I mean, when you think about the
    capabilities of our satellites in orbit, they become, in many
    cases, at risk from a coronal mass ejection or solar flares. So
    we need to be able to predict that. We need to be able to
    respond before. You know, it is not a lot of lead time. We are
    talking about a matter of maybe 8 minutes or 10 minutes to be
    able to respond to something like that. But the consequences of
    being hit with a Carrington Event, which was 100-and-some years
    ago now, 140 years ago or so, but if that were to happen today
    it would be far more devastating than even back them, because
    today we are so dependent on technology. And all that
    technology would be put at risk.
        So I think it is important for us to be able to predict and
    respond and defend our power grid and defend our critical
    infrastructure, and a lot of that infrastructure, including
    command and control in space, including GPS, which is important
    for a timing signal for a whole host of different capabilities
    here in Earth, we have got to be able to respond to that. And
    your bill, quite frankly, was right on point in helping us do
    that.
        Senator Peters. Great. Well, thank you for that. I am out
    of time, but if you look at the cost-benefit analysis, to cut
    the relatively small cost of the program and the cost to
    society if we do not have the warning is astronomical. So I
    appreciate your comments.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Literally astronomical.
        Senator Peters. Yes.
        Senator Moran. Senator Blackburn.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    all for being here.
        Mr. Cutler, I made some notes here. You have got 2,700
    suppliers. You were noting impediments, and talked about the
    need for a budget, not having a CR. I would like to hear more
    from you in writing, if you will. You said you all are
    constantly looking at this. What about regulations? What about
    security clearances? What about test beds? What about other
    components? And if you will submit that to me for the record.
        Mr. Cutler. Absolutely.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you so much. Mr. Bridenstine,
    always so good to see you. I am happy to see you back up here.
    Let's talk about commercial space innovation and that
    importance, because you look at where we are and you look at
    where China is. Is there anything that the U.S. should do
    immediately that we, in Congress, should do immediately, that
    is going to encourage coordination among Federal, State, and
    commercial partners in order to advance innovation?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, ma'am. That is a wonderful question.
    In keeping with the spirit of the hearing regarding the Moon, I
    think what we have got to be thinking about as a country is
    infrastructure. What is the infrastructure we can create that
    will encourage private investment on the Moon, around the Moon,
    that kind of thing? So part of that infrastructure I think
    would be--and Mike Gold has talked about it today extensively--
    is the Gateway. The Gateway is designed to be open
    architecture. It is designed so that the way we do power and
    communications and data and rendezvous and proximity operations
    and docking, all of that stuff is standardized so that
    commercial partners, if they want to build their own landing
    system that is compatible with it, they can. And, in fact,
    there are international partners that have an interest in doing
    that type of thing.
        Senator Blackburn. OK. And in the 1990s, NASA and DoD did a
    collaboration on the X-37B. Correct?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. Now, given that we are facing the kind
    of competition that we are, what about reinstating a program
    such as that and utilizing it?
        Mr. Bridenstine. I think it is a great idea. I would say we
    do have, NASA and DARPA have been partnered on some
    capabilities in space as it relates to nuclear power in space,
    for a lot of different capabilities. But we need nuclear power
    in space for sensors, and in fact, if we are going to do
    directed energy from space we are going to have to have nuclear
    power for that. If we are thinking about Golden Dome and what
    the future of missile defense looks like.
        Senator Blackburn. Well Gold Dome, Lunar landers, you know,
    those are things--I think maybe we need to think differently
    and revisit some ideas that have worked.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. And may open new opportunities.
    Tennessee had a Space Grant Consortium. They did this with
    NASA. Did it 27 years ago. And it was there to promote space
    and science education throughout the state. And 15 colleges and
    universities, two not-for-profit organizations, and today the
    UT Space Institute is one of the leading hypersonic workforce
    programs in the country, and we love the work that they are
    doing around space force, that they are doing around
    hypersonics and the testing that can be done at Arnold
    Engineering. And we think this is something that is beneficial,
    and it encourages that interdisciplinary training that needs to
    take place.
        So talk a little bit about related items of education and
    how that affects some of the workforce that could go into some
    of these programs like the program with DoD and NASA?
        Mr. Bridenstine. One hundred percent. So when you are
    thinking about NASA projects, we find that when we have a
    university as a leader of a project, you will have students
    working side by side with professional engineers in a way that
    you see a collaboration that is really beneficial to the
    students. I would also say that in a university environment you
    have the scientists side by side with the engineers. So they
    are making trades in the development of a program early.
        A lot of times you find that, you know, you start going
    down an engineering path and the science doesn't work, and it
    gets too late in the program, and it results in delays and cost
    overruns and everything else. But in a university environment
    where you have got the scientists and the engineers working
    together side by side, and you have got students in the mix,
    learning alongside----
        Senator Blackburn. And you have students who are not afraid
    to fail.
        Mr. Bridenstine. That is it.
        Senator Blackburn. They are looking for opportunities to
    try new concepts. And I think that is why UT's program has been
    so successful.
        Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Senator, I would also say if you looked at
    the university-led missions, overwhelmingly they are on budget
    and on schedule. And that is not always the case outside of
    universities.
        Senator Sheehy [presiding]. Senator Rosen.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of
    our witnesses for being here today. Quite a great conversation.
    But I have real concerns over budget cuts, because we are
    talking about research, amazing research. Scientists not being
    afraid to fail--that is how science happens, right. Sometimes a
    failure leads you to a positive result down the line. They tell
    you something.
        And so we have seen how NASA's investments in research and
    innovation, STEM education, they fuel our economy, they
    strengthen our national security, and actually they are
    inspirational as they inspire the next generation of
    scientists, engineers, dreamers and thinkers, and all of those
    things.
        We know what the space program has done for us through the
    decades. So I am concerned about the President's proposed
    budget cuts to key programs that have long delivered value,
    well, right here on terra firma, right here on Earth,
    specifically aeronautics research at the Armstrong Flight
    Research Center, ISS payload operations at Marshall Space
    Flight Center, and science missions at Goddard Space Flight
    Center, just to name a few.
        So Administrator Bridenstine, can you talk about the
    potential impacts of proposed cuts to just some of these
    programs I have mentioned, particularly as we are building on
    what everyone has been asking about, innovation, scientific
    leadership, leadership in general, our ability to respond to
    these challenges, economic competitiveness, aerospace
    advancement, climate, and national security?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Yes. So I think it is important when we
    think about, you know, when we think about NASA and the budget
    that it has, and you think about the size of the U.S. budget.
    We are talking about now an agency that has less than one-third
    of 1 percent of the Federal budget. And by the way, if you go
    back to Apollo, it was somewhere between 4 and 5 percent. So we
    are significantly smaller as a percentage of the Federal
    Government than we were back in the Apollo era.
        All that being said, not all of that is because of NASA
    cuts. I want to be clear. A lot of that is because of the
    growth of government in other areas. And I certainly understand
    we have a huge deficit problem, and we have got a debt problem,
    and I know that the President is focused like a laser on trying
    to get control over that. And by the way, I think everybody
    bipartisan understands that we have got to get control of it.
        I would also say it is really hard to balance the budget
    when you are talking about cutting a few billion dollars from
    an agency that has less than one-third of 1 percent of the
    Federal Government.
        Senator Rosen. But I would argue with you saying that the
    economic development, the inspiration--I am a child of the
    1960s and 1970s. I watched them walk on the Moon. I know people
    that went into careers because of what they saw. And that still
    happens today. So I would argue that there is probably a pretty
    good return on the investment.
        But we have a lot of other questions so I'm going to just
    try to move on in my two minutes, because I want to ask you
    again about the future this time of space station. Because the
    request for proposals for Phase II of the Commercial Low Earth
    Orbit Development Program is expected to define NASA's level of
    investment and commitment, awarding contracts to two or more
    commercial providers to ensure redundancy and competition for
    services. That is essential for driving innovation. Competition
    drives innovation and economic growth.
        So given your previous role at NASA again, Administrator,
    can you speak about the critical need for these providers to be
    operational before the ISS deorbits? We cannot wait to have
    nothing up there and then hope we are going to get something
    there. So how do we ensure the timely development and
    deployment of these systems?
        Mr. Bridenstine. I think it is important to note that we
    need to have space stations that can, in effect, replace the
    International Space Station. When I say that I mean space
    stations that are fully mission capable and have a permanent
    human presence in space. The capabilities and technologies that
    come from human space flight are significant. We have talked
    about some of them today when we think about pharmaceutical
    development to treat diseases that have never been treatable
    before, regenerative medicine, the ability to print in 3D human
    tissue to grow in 3D human tissue. All of these capabilities,
    if we do not stay in front of it our greatest competitor,
    China, will, and our international partners will join them in
    that effort.
        So it is important for us to have fully mission capable
    space stations that can replace the International Space
    Station. And I would also say when it comes to advanced
    materials, whether we are talking about semiconductors or we
    are talking about hypersonics, microgravity is critical to all
    of these capabilities, and we are at risk if we don't have a
    fully mission capable system. If we do not have a permanent
    human presence in space, we are at risk of losing that to our
    greatest competitor.
        Mr. Gold. And Senator, if I may, it is not only--you make
    an excellent point--that we avoid the gap, but we must have
    orbital capabilities that are at least equal to the Chinese. We
    have to avoid the gap and make sure that we are equal or
    superior in LEO, for all the reasons Jim just mentioned.
        Senator Rosen. Well, thank you. I think investing in
    innovation research, public-private partnerships is really
    important. Thank you for your time today.
        Senator Sheehy. Mr. Bridenstine, is that a Bill Nye-
    approved beverage you have there? Diet Mountain Dew--that is a
    first.
        Mr. Bridenstine. I am guessing not.
        Senator Sheehy. He is shaking his head. I grew up on Bill
    Nye. I am a child of the 1990s, so I grew up on Bill Nye.
    Senator Young.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks for our
    witnesses for being here, and good to see you again,
    Congressman.
        As many of you know, Indiana has deep roots within our
    Nation's space exploration history. Purdue University likes to
    call itself, I think fairly, the ``cradle of astronauts.'' I
    was up there actually over the weekend with some family
    members, and you see a lot of banners. They advertise that to
    those who visit the community. They inspire many of us,
    including the students, with their 27 astronaut alumni,
    including Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, who was a
    Boilermaker.
        So this is, of course, an effort to boast about my state,
    but it is also to highlight the opportunities, I think, that
    many U.S. universities provide to our young scientists and our
    engineers.
        So as we look to reauthorize NASA, partially authorized
    through the CHIPS and Science Act, I am proud to say, just a
    few years ago, I believe it is crucial to focus on implementing
    strategic investments in research to not only secure our STEM
    pipeline, but to maintain a competitive edge in scientific
    research and development, which will eventually lead to
    commercialization and deployment of new technologies to bolster
    our space exploration.
        Mr. Gold, thank you for your testimony and for highlighting
    the groundbreaking microgravity research that Redwire is
    advancing aboard the International Space Station. This
    pioneering work, the world should know, is anchored in
    Greenville, Indiana. It not only strengthens our state's
    economy but it also underscores the state of Indiana's growing
    leadership in space innovation.
        Mr. Gold, could you speak to how space and biotech, also
    something associated increasingly with the state of Indiana,
    are converging, and share your vision for the future of
    microgravity research in Indiana and beyond?
        Mr. Gold. Thank you so much, Senator. I believe you have
    been to our Greenville facility, and even launches, and thank
    you for your support.
        We are at a point where microgravity and pharmaceuticals
    are coming together in a way that will transform both fields.
    In my opening comments I talked about how we are printing
    meniscuses, how we are printing live cardiovascular tissue,
    bringing it back to the ISS still live. At this most recent
    launch to the ISS, just a week ago, we launched liver cells,
    and we will print with liver cells. Drink all you want--Redwire
    has got you covered. We will get you a new liver.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Gold. Enjoy some of that good Kentucky bourbon.
        But think about it. I mean, we have all had friends who are
    on the organ donor list probably, who have suffered or died.
    Not only can we change that paradigm, but because these organs
    would be grown with your own stem cells, we could avoid the
    painful and expensive anti-rejection therapies.
        Additionally, we have now flown 32 pillbox systems. These
    are growing seed crystals for drugs. Seed crystals are like a
    sourdough starter kit, that we just need to bring down from
    space a thimbleful of these seed crystals, and then they lead
    to drugs that, because in microgravity the seed crystals form
    larger, more uniform. We get new versions of drugs, better
    efficacy, better longevity, and fewer side effects.
        We partnered with Eli Lilly. We flew a version of insulin.
    Lilly said those were the prettiest crystals that they have
    ever seen. This revolution is happening, so let's not turn
    around now and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
        We are about to move into an even larger facility in
    Indiana, so I appreciate the support and reassure you that the
    road to space goes through Southern Indiana.
        Senator Young. Well, that is great. It is a road with many
    arteries, so let me sort of end by being expansive here and
    inclusive. I think your testimony here today, Mr. Gold,
    illustrates how parts of our country that people would not
    perhaps associate as important components to the space economy
    are ready to go. And they are on the cusp of achieving some
    amazing achievements, scientifically, engineering wise, and by
    extension, that will benefit the economies, regional economies,
    all around the country.
        These continued scientific investments through the CHIPS
    and Science Act, by reauthorizing NASA, et cetera, are
    critical. And I say that to a lot of my colleagues, but I also
    want the Administration to know it is OK to have a pause on
    research funding. But unless they present an alternative plan
    to fund some of these research projects that collectively
    benefit all of us, and are not internalized into individual
    companies, then we are really going to be missing the boat.
        I would also say, just to add here, and I know I am over my
    time, but we do that in the Senate, I would also say that our
    adversaries are not slowing down. I received this, so it may be
    a little choppy here, about 30 seconds before I started
    speaking. But a little social media post pertaining to a
    comment that Vladimir Putin just made. This was overheard, as I
    understand it, by a Chinese state media broadcaster. And
    evidently, Vladimir Putin, walking toward Tienanmen Square for
    a parade, his translator could be hear saying, in Chinese,
    ``Biotechnology is continuously developing.'' The translator
    added, after an inaudible passage by Putin to Xi Jinping,
    ``Human organs can be continuously transplanted. The longer you
    live, the younger you become. And you can even achieve
    immortality.''
        So these can seem like things that are abstract and removed
    from the daily lives, I know of my own citizens. But they are
    here and now, and we do not want our adversaries to get ahead
    of us in these areas of science. So all of you are testifying
    to things that I know my constituents will find compelling and
    lead many of us to continue investing in these critical areas.
    So, I thank you.
        Mr. Gold. I appreciate it, Senator. If I could make a plea.
    We will lose the momentum, if not these capabilities entirely,
    if we drop from 4 to 3 astronauts. And we need the Senate to
    stay on NASA, and your excellent staff, to make sure that we
    realize these commercial benefits and that America never, never
    drops below the number of Chinese in space.
        Senator Young. Thank you.
        Senator Sheehy. The Senator from Colorado.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank all
    of you. This is really a stellar panel, if I can be so
    graceless.
        General Shaw, you are a former Deputy Commander of
    SPACECOM, and you know better than most the threat that China
    poses to U.S. national security, and our interests in space
    especially. China's capabilities in this domain are
    accelerating rapidly, the result of which you noted in your
    testimony, a complete fusion of civil, commercial, and national
    security expertise.
        What is your assessment of the threat from China over the
    next 4 to 5 years, especially in light of their, as we just
    heard, the cozying up of Russia to China?
        General Shaw. Thank you, Senator. First, let me, just from
    a purely military perspective, what we have seen China do over
    basically the last couple of decades, is look at what we have
    done in space for our warfighters. And I am fond of saying that
    our joint warfighters today rely more on space than they did
    yesterday, and they will rely more on it tomorrow than they do
    today. That is a curve that continues to move upward. China has
    observed that. That is exactly why they have developed
    capabilities to deprive us of our space assets, and why they
    have built and deployed space weapons.
        But they have also built their own space capabilities
    mirroring ours, to enable their warfighting too. So this has
    been a progression, an emulation, and a surge. And I recommend
    that the Committee, if they are not regularly getting briefings
    from the U.S. Space Force S2 on China's capabilities that it
    might be helpful to get that classified briefing on what they
    are doing, from a military perspective.
        Senator Hickenlooper. We are getting that. It is truly
    alarming. And I am sure, as you saw yesterday, the
    Administration announced its intention to relocate U.S. Space
    Command, which is fully operational now in Colorado to Alabama,
    citing political factors such as mail-in voting, and some other
    things. The DoD inspector general said in a report earlier this
    year that it will take 3 to 4 years for the same mission
    critical systems to be established in Alabama that our
    warfighters rely on every day in Colorado.
        Given the threat picture you just shared, what is your
    assessment of the impact to readiness--we are full operational
    capability right now--to readiness that this delay would have
    or could have during such a critical geopolitical window?
        General Shaw. I would just say I know Troy Meink pretty
    well. He is the Secretary of the Air Force, and he was probably
    very closely involved in the decision. And I have known him to
    be a good thinker on those topics, and he probably made a good
    recommendation to the President.
        Senator Hickenlooper. We will see. Switching to space
    debris, Mr. Bridenstine, let me ask you, obviously you know
    today that we have got over a million space debris objects over
    1 centimeter, most of them traveling hundreds of thousands of
    miles per hour, can do severe damage to aircraft, satellites,
    at that speed almost anything. The Space Station has had to
    conduct 27 debris avoidance maneuvers since 1999. Astronauts
    had to take emergency shelter as recently as June 2024, last
    year.
        Do you believe it is a national security imperative that
    the United States develops and demonstrate technology that can
    remediate space debris?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Remediation, boy, that is really hard. I
    think it is a capability that, in some cases, makes sense, in
    other cases maybe not. You mentioned items that are 1
    centimeter and bigger. When you are talking about objects that
    are 1 centimeter and bigger, the cost of going up to space to
    remediate or bring down something like that, it is
    extraordinarily expensive for the return that you get.
        If we can see it and we can track it, remediation probably
    is not the right approach. But the alternative is if you can't
    see it and you can't track it, you wouldn't know that you need
    to remediate it. So it is a double-edged sword here.
        I would tell you the cost is really expensive. I would say
    what we have got to do, instead of remediate we have got to
    mitigate. We have got to make sure we are not putting more
    debris out there.
        Senator Hickenlooper. That too. I agree with that.
        Mr. Bridenstine. And then I also think we have got to be
    able to have space situational awareness, space domain
    awareness, and we have got to be able to maneuver. I think it
    is critically important that we increase our ability to
    maneuver. And I will also say, here is the challenge that we
    face. We are putting so many satellites into the same orbit. We
    are talking about tens of thousands of satellites going into
    one orbit, from one company and one country. Well, you start
    adding another company that wants to do it, and another company
    that wants to do it, and another company that wants to do it,
    and then you start talking about, well, Europe wants to have
    their own LEO, low Earth orbit mega-constellation, and China
    wants to have its own low Earth orbit mega-constellation, and
    each of them have numerous projects. There is no organizational
    system around it that will prevent us from getting to what
    eventually is the Kessler Syndrome.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right. No, I got that.
        Mr. Cutler, I have a question for you, as well, but I will
    put that off into the written because I am out of time. But I
    do think that some of the stuff, like the MAVEN mission out of
    the University of Colorado Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space
    Physics, collecting essential data about atmosphere on Mars and
    really getting into that deep research, there are a lot of
    things that we need to discuss about that. I will put that into
    the written.
        Mr. Gold. Let me just say, Senator, Redwire is happy to be
    in Longmont and Littleton, Colorado.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TIM SHEEHY,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Sheehy. Well, it is my turn, and I actually wanted
    to be an astronaut as a kid. I went to the Naval Academy, which
    has produced more astronauts than anyone else. Unfortunately, I
    was not smart enough so I became a Senator instead, which I fit
    in perfectly now here.
        Mr. Bridenstine, you made a comment earlier--we didn't know
    what we didn't know in the 1960s. We did not know a lot of what
    we face as far as just the physics and science of the universe
    literally that we were operating in. And, you know, it was just
    about 8 years from the time the first flight from Alan Shepard
    to when Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. And in 8 years we
    went from zero space flight capability to literally sending
    humans to another planetary body, and bringing them back
    safely, which, as you remember, was Kennedy's initial writ when
    he laid out that vision.
        And, you know, right now, this smartphone I carry, and you
    all, I am sure, have in your pocket, has 10,000 times the
    computing power of what the Apollo 5 rocket had on board as far
    as its guidance systems and ability to determine its navigation
    routes. We have computing capabilities and knowledge of the
    cosmos that far outweigh anything we thought we even could ever
    know in the 1960s.
        And yet we look at what our capabilities are now, and other
    than some bright spots, like a James Webb telescope and others,
    for the most part we are far less capable at star voyaging
    today as a nation than we were 50 years ago. And for a decade
    we were paying the Russians taxi fare to send our own
    astronauts into space. I mean, if you went back and told Reagan
    and Kennedy that, ``Hey, in 50 years we are going to be paying
    the Soviet Union $60 million a seat to take American astronauts
    to outer space,'' they would laugh in your face. There is no
    way they would believe you.
        And as a lifelong space enthusiast and someone who truly
    believes that not just our national security but our economic
    security, our fundamental stability as a nation does depend on
    our ability to continue to lead in space, I am very, very
    concerned about what the next decade looks like. And I am very
    concerned that the bureaucracy of NASA, of which I love NASA
    and I am supportive, but we have to be honest with ourselves,
    is the bureaucracy of NASA positioned to give us space
    dominance in the 21st century.
        Just like we are seeing in the DoD right now. Our legacy
    Industrial Age acquisition infrastructure is failing to keep
    pace with China. The build ships 200 times faster than we do.
    The Chinese are putting more satellites into space every day
    than we are every month. We are looking at the ability for us
    to innovate, iterate, and deploy technologies that we are just
    not keeping up with the rest of the word.
        So as we look at systems like SLS, which I agree we need,
    we look at Orion, we look at the SpaceLiner, and we say to
    ourselves, are our acquisition engineering and development
    processes within NASA up to the task?
        Meanwhile, we look across the street at SpaceX, and yes,
    NASA is involved in that, but that is a private enterprise that
    is, frankly, innovating at astounding rates. Starship's flight
    last week was a wonder to watch and incredible to see what is
    happening there.
        So assuming we all agree, which it sounds like we do, that
    we want America to lead the next space race, is NASA, as it is
    currently configured--obviously it does not have a leader right
    now; hopefully soon it does--but is NASA, as it is currently
    configured, ready to lead that race, or do we have to rethink
    how America structures our space program?
        Mr. Bridenstine. So I would say, first of all, you covered
    a lot, and I think I am in agreement with primarily everything
    you said. I think when you think about what has hindered us
    from going forward, you go back to George Herbert Walker Bush.
    We had the Space Exploration Initiative, which was a plan to go
    back to the Moon and on to Mars. And then the next
    administration came in and canceled it. And then we had--George
    Herbert Walker Bush was SEI, and then George W. Bush was the
    Vision for Space Exploration, which was a plan to go back to
    the Moon and then on to Mars. The new administration came in
    and canceled it. And then President Trump comes in and says,
    ``We're going to go to the Moon and on to Mars,'' and for the
    first time the program sustained.
        As I said earlier in the hearing, the architecture is
    challenged, significantly, in the current format. That
    architecture is extraordinarily complex. It, quite frankly,
    does not make a lot of sense. If you are trying to go first to
    the Moon, this time to beat China, it does not make sense to do
    that.
        But the question is then what do we do? And I think one
    thing we can do is we can say, look, we are not going just to
    put flags and footprints on the Moon, as we did back in 1969
    through 1972. What we are doing now is we are going to go
    forward to the Moon. Mike Gold, I think correctly, talked about
    the Gateway and how that could be basically our moon base
    around the Moon. And then we can have commercial and
    international partners join that moon base to be able to have
    access anywhere on the surface of the Moon, at any time we
    want. We can go to the North Pole. We can go to the South Pole.
    We can go to the equatorial regions. Wherever the most valuable
    spots on the Moon are that we need to go, we can go.
        But we are building infrastructure, and we are allowing
    private capital to go forward and build all of the things that
    we can do on the surface, and that means extract resources,
    whether it is platinum group metals or other precious
    materials, whether it is Helium-3 or water ice or other
    capabilities.
        I think that is transformational, and it also includes a
    lot more private companies. It includes a lot more
    international partners. And it is an open architecture system
    where we can actually have a sustainable path that goes
    forward, regardless of administration.
        So getting cast to and fro from one administration to the
    next has been very damaging over time, and that is the
    challenge with NASA. What we do is multi-decadal in nature, and
    sometimes it is multi-generational. And you can't just have it
    go back and forth all the time.
        Senator Sheehy. Well, I would be curious of especially your
    opinion, General, you know, the history of our space program,
    that there was a period of time where there was great tension
    between the Air Force and NASA as a push and pull between is it
    a military primacy or is it civilian? And, of course, we have
    always maintained that space should not be militarized. But
    that is a belief we hold. Other nations don't necessarily hold
    that outlook.
        How do you see the Space Force now weaving with NASA, going
    forward, to energize our ability to have a significant defense
    presence in space?
        General Shaw. Well, first I would point out our adversaries
    have already militarized space and developed space weapons. I
    would also point out that that sometimes is a lottery of
    progression in any domain where there are competing resources,
    competing economic growth, and general competition.
        So I have always said, when I was in the Space Force and I
    will say it today, our mission is predominantly to deter such a
    space conflict from ever happening. And if we do that job
    properly maybe it would deter a broader terrestrial conflict
    too, by just making an adversary think they cannot achieve an
    objective.
        As for the future, as I said in my opening statement, I do
    not think we ever could envision that we would do exploration,
    economic growth without some sort of security measures around
    that, for confidence, to ensure that we have transparency so
    that people want to invest. They are incentivized to do so in
    an environment that shows promise and shows security, as
    opposed to a Wild West scenario that might be dissuasive.
        Senator Sheehy. Well, I am over my time, but one other
    topic I would love to throw, and I will throw in the record,
    but hardening our space infrastructure, there is a perception
    that if it is in space, it is safe, and the reality is we are
    incredibly vulnerable from our communications- and navigation-
    based orbital infrastructure. And especially if we look at
    Golden Dome and space-based interceptors and space-based
    detection, we need to make sure we are hardening our space
    infrastructure, because it is pretty vulnerable.
        Senator Lujan is up next.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
    I very much appreciate the conversation today. One of the
    concerns that I have is the President's proposed budget slashes
    NASA's budget to levels like back to 1961. Now, I appreciate
    what Chairman Moran shared, is that the current mark of the
    Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Committee has it
    at level funding.
        Back to a concern. This Administration has been operating
    in a way where they are ignoring the law and saying if they
    want to cut something, they are going to do it, and sue me in
    court. Come find me.
        Now, one of the concerns that I have in that space, there
    has been a lot of attention brought to the incredible work that
    takes place at universities, K-12, STEM education,
    collaborations and partnerships that are strengthening
    America's competitiveness. We have now seen 3,800 employees
    that have left NASA because of the financial uncertainty, 20
    percent of the agency. That does not seem helpful.
        On STEM, states like New Mexico, clearly other colleagues
    who have spoken today, all benefit from incredible investment,
    to allow these collaborations that I pointed out earlier.
        Now, this hearing is dedicated to the United States beating
    China in a space race. My questions to each of you today is,
    yes or no, would huge cuts to NASA and its STEM efforts harm
    America's ability to compete with China in the space race? Mr.
    Cutler.
        Mr. Cutler. Absolutely. There is no question that it will
    harm our capabilities. We have seen impacts already, just by
    proposing this budget from the President in industry, where
    companies are having to look at what do we do if our business
    goes away. And project managers are looking for other jobs.
    Absolutely, just from an industry perspective.
        Right now, we need people working on Artemis, not working
    on their resumes, and that is absolutely something that should
    worry all of us, because if they are not doing the work for the
    missions to inspire those kids, where is that K-12, that STEM
    education, why are they going to go into this business? Why
    would you go into space if you see it is not going anywhere in
    China, where it is happening?
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Gold, yes or no?
        Mr. Gold. Yes.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Bridenstine.
        Mr. Bridenstine. No.
        Senator Lujan. No? You can talk more, sir, if you want. If
    you can explain to me how you complimented one of my
    colleagues, two of my colleagues, with your response as to the
    incredible importance of collaboration with student scientists
    and engineers to America's competitiveness, but you do not
    believe that this is harmful?
        Mr. Bridenstine. No. What I am saying is when you think
    about STEM education there are different ways to approach it,
    and I think NASA's missions, when they partner with
    universities, that is a great thing to do. I think, you know,
    when you think about the partnership where we have got
    scientists and engineers working side by side, and you have got
    the students in the mix, I think all of that is extraordinarily
    beneficial. But that is also within the program itself. Does
    that make sense?
        I do not know that NASA needs to be free.
        Senator Lujan. No, it takes investment.
        Mr. Bridenstine. No, I agree with that. I am in agreement
    that we need to absolutely be involving students in the
    projects that NASA does at universities. I am in full
    agreement. I just think when you think about education, we have
    a Department of Education, and we should have them focus on----
        Senator Lujan. For now.
        Mr. Bridenstine.--on education.
        Senator Lujan. All right. General.
        General Shaw. My answer is yes, and I would hope that the
    current cuts we are seeing are temporary, as I think one of the
    other members mentioned earlier this morning, and are helping
    us refocus on what we really need to be concentrating on in
    order to beat China.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Lieutenant General. I
    would agree. There seems to be strong bipartisan support in all
    of these efforts. I appreciate that response.
        Representative, during your tenure as NASA Administrator
    you created the suborbital crew or SubC program to leverage
    commercial sub-vehicle for scientific technology development.
    When fully implemented, what benefits will SubC provide to NASA
    and to the broader space economy?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Oh, I think that is a great question. When
    you talk about suborbital space flight, in general, you are
    really talking about microgravity. There are ways to get
    microgravity. We can go up a tower and we can drop an object,
    and you can get maybe a second or two of microgravity. Then we
    can put things on an airplane and put it on a parabolic
    trajectory, and you might be able to get 30 seconds to a minute
    of microgravity. Then we can go to suborbital space, and that
    is where I think we can have even more benefit, because you can
    get 4, maybe even 5 minutes or more of microgravity. And all of
    that enables us to do research and development on technologies
    and capabilities.
        And then, if all that works, then you send it to the
    International Space Station or you send it to commercial space
    stations. You put all that together.
        Senator Lujan. And just a sidebar of that, if that program
    was cut, how would the United States be ceding ground to China?
        Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I think it is important to recognize
    that without that program there will be a lot of development
    capabilities that just get canceled. And it becomes, quite
    frankly, more expensive, not less expensive, because now you
    have got to go to orbit to test things, and that is super
    expensive.
        Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I have
    other questions. I will submit them into the record because of
    time. Thank you all for your responses today. I appreciate it.
    I yield back.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE MORENO,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

        Senator Moreno [presiding]. Well, thank you. So you had
    made Senator Cruz Captain Kirk. I will be Captain Obvious. The
    need to fund NASA in the One Big Beautiful Bill was something
    that was very important. Would any of you disagree that without
    that $10 billion of funding that it would be absolutely
    devastating to what we just talked about all morning? All in
    agreement.
        Voice. In agreement.
        Senator Moreno. And again, I just want to point out there
    was not a single Democrat that voted for that bill. I think I
    just want to make sure that is crystal clear on the record. So
    as important as we all said that is, as important as we say
    this is bipartisan, yet, when the bill got presented it was 100
    percent of the Democrats voted against that bill.
        Let me just also say that when we talk about sequencing--
    how do we get to the Moon, how do we get there before China--I
    am still the optimist. I think we can get there before China
    gets there. There is sequencing that has to happen. Something
    has to happen before something else. And if we are going to
    have Moon exploration, Mr. Cutler, you are going to be in Ohio
    next week. Sorry I will miss you there. I am sure you are going
    there because you are going to celebrate the massive victory of
    Ohio State versus Texas. But while you are celebrating that
    victory, talk about the importance of nuclear fission and the
    importance of really developing that program?
        Mr. Cutler. Well, first of all, I am sure they are still
    celebrating. They have got a week, so that is great.
        Here is where I view nuclear fission. This Committee, this
    Congress has been supportive of all forms of nuclear. Like if
    you are looking at propulsion--NTP, electric--it something that
    we absolutely--if we want to open up our exploration of going
    beyond the Moon, going to Mars, going even farther in the
    universe, we need to have better propulsion. This is something
    that we need to be working on.
        So benefits? Absolutely. There is only so much you can do
    with chemical propulsion. And if we want to really sit there
    and send ourselves out into the universe, we need to do
    something different. Now, you have got that surface power. You
    need that too, for the Moon. Astronauts are going to plug--you
    go home, plug all your stuff into the wall to recharge. It is
    going to be the same on the Moon. You are going to need power.
        But this is technology that we should be working on and
    through this Committee have been supporting for years, and we
    need to up our game on that. It needs to be worked on. It is
    absolutely critical.
        Senator Moreno. And I saw you earlier talk about Secretary
    Duffy, Administrator Duffy, depending on what hat he is
    wearing, put some serious resources behind that.
        Mr. Cutler. Absolutely.
        Senator Moreno. And where would you say is the center of
    excellence of nuclear fission for space power?
        Mr. Cutler. Well----
        Senator Moreno. The only answer is Cleveland.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cutler. I know where you are going because of electric.
    Cleveland is where you go.
        Senator Moreno. There you go. Make sure that that is
    highlighted in the record.
        So in terms of, Lieutenant General, back to you, the
    coordination between the military and NASA, how important is it
    to us to really take that to the next level, to really get this
    done and to compete with China?
        General Shaw. Yes, Senator, and the first I would say, the
    Department of Defense and NASA have always cooperated, from the
    very beginning. I mean, whether it was the Mercury, Gemini,
    Apollo missions, whether it is even, under my recent commands
    that I had before I left uniformed service, the Department of
    Defense was providing the debris situation to NASA, to make
    sure that the astronauts on the ISS were safe. And we actually
    had NASA representatives in the Operations Center at Vandenberg
    Space Force Base, where I was the commanding general, that
    watched that continuously communicating with Houston, and
    letting them know if a maneuver would be necessary for the ISS.
    And there are many, many more examples. Like I said, we have
    partnered in the past.
        Those will only become more important as we look to put a
    permanent human presence in the lunar environment, as I expect
    that there will be parallel efforts for commercial capabilities
    in the lunar environment that may or may not involve humans,
    but they are going to do the sorts of things that some of my
    panel members have mentioned here before. And it is not just
    the lunar environment. It is the entire Earth-Moon system.
        Again, you do not get economic growth without security, as
    well. And I do think, as the Space Force matures, in addition
    to all the things it needs to do today to enable terrestrial
    warfighters and protect our capabilities in space, it is also
    going to involve a mission that provides awareness of hazards,
    awareness of threats, and a transparency in space that enables
    all of these activities. We are going to see that happen. It
    happened in every other domain. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast
    Guard have done it from the very beginning in the maritime
    domain. You will see the U.S. Space Force do it in the future.
        Senator Moreno. That is right. And obviously taking that to
    the next level is critically important.
        And I will wrap up the last question with you, Mr.
    Bridenstine. When you were the NASA Administrator you visited a
    lot of places. What was your favorite place that you visited
    while you were NASA Administrator? There is only one answer
    there.
        Mr. Bridenstine. Cleveland.
        Senator Moreno. Cleveland is the right answer. Perfect.
    That is good. And if you could end with us, how important is it
    for us to unleash the private sector? Because we talked a lot
    about competing with China, and certainly China is a model. It
    is not the model I would choose. It is not the model we would
    ever want to replicate. I think the advantage we have is that
    we have this strong, thriving private sector. How do we really
    integrate that to accomplish the mission that we all want?
        Mr. Bridenstine. I think that is a great point and a great
    question, and I think we have got to, as an agency, NASA needs
    to build infrastructure that the private sector can see how
    they plug in and benefit from it. And then you get these
    naturally forming public-private partnerships, for example, the
    Gateway. If they can see themselves plugging into the Gateway,
    they will utilize it, they will make investments to do that.
        When I was at NASA we created Commercial Low Earth Orbit
    Destinations. Of course, that is a capability to replace the
    International Space Station. We created Commercial Lunar
    Payload Services. That is a way to get landers to the surface
    of the Moon. We have a commercial landing system for the Moon.
    I will tell you that the architecture for that is
    extraordinarily strained, but I think it is an important
    capability, and we need to have as much commercial as possible.
        I will tell you that when it comes to commercial, we have
    got to make sure--and I said this a lot when I was at NASA--the
    only thing worse than a government monopoly is a private
    monopoly that the government is dependent on. So when we think
    about commercial, we have to have multiple providers that are
    competing against each other, on cost and innovation and
    safety, and each of those providers has to go get customers
    that are not NASA. And if they are willing to do that and
    capable of doing that, then we can have this very robust
    capability, this marketplace, that I think will be thriving.
    But I think we have got to be really careful about how we frame
    that.
        Senator Moreno. I appreciate it. Sorry, Mr. Gold, I did not
    ask you a question, but you are the most enthusiastic witness
    in the history of the Commerce Committee and my time in the
    Senate, by the way.
        Mr. Gold. Let me be briefly enthusiastic for Cleveland, not
    only great nuclear but the leader in solar electric propulsion
    on the PPE on Gateway. So thank you for the support, Cleveland
    and Glenn.
        Senator Moreno. There you go. And as we are working through
    the Commerce appropriations budget, let's make sure we keep
    that all at top of mind.
        But I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
    testimony today. Senators will have until the close of business
    on September 10 to submit even more questions for the record,
    if that is possible. Because, you know, in the Senate, not
    everybody has made a point--points have been made, but not by
    everybody, is the mantra around here. So we will see if you get
    more of the same questions. But the witnesses will have until
    the close of business September 24 to respond those questions.
        And this concludes today's hearing. You guys have stamina.
    Two hours--fantastic. And the Committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

          Prepared Statement of Casey Dreier, Chief of Space Policy,
                             The Planetary Society
        Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the U.S.
    Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
        The title of this hearing posits that Congress and NASA face a
    critical challenge from China's space ambitions. If America is engaged
    in a consequential space race for national prestige and strategic
    advantage, then the Nation cannot selectively compete. No nation can be
    preeminent in space while simultaneously retreating in its scientific
    exploration capability.
    Unstrategic and Wasteful Cuts Proposed by the OMB
        The White House's Office of Management and Budget, without
    significant consultation with Congress or NASA itself, proposed a
    draconian 47 percent cut to NASA's Science Mission Directorate in FY
    2026, which would result in the termination of fully a third of the
    agency's current and future science projects. One-of-a-kind missions in
    deep space, the outer planets, Mars, solar physics, and Earth Science
    would be switched off despite still providing valuable data; NASA's
    pipeline of future projects would shrivel to a trickle; and without
    data or funding, a generation of students and early-career scientists,
    engineers, and innovators would be lost.
        NASA's science programs positively impact every state in the union
    and 3 out of every 4 congressional districts. NASA missions are
    generative investments, demanding boundary-pushing technology
    development, new scientific theories, and international collaborations
    with our allies. They are demonstrations of our national ambition,
    vision, and aspirations--physical manifestations of our highest values.
        Space science projects are unique to NASA in the U.S. While
    commercial and private companies provide invaluable expertise and
    mission support, there are no alternative funding sources to pursue
    exploration science in space. These capabilities, once lost, cannot be
    quickly reconstituted nor replaced by private sector activities.
    China's Comprehensive Space Science Strategy
        China understands the value of space science for its long-term
    space strategy. Their program and capabilities have grown rapidly over
    the past few decades, going from a handful of missions in the 2000s to
    at least 25 planned for the Moon and beyond in the 2020s. There are
    likely to be 30 or more missions planned for the coming decades across
    every scientific discipline in the space sciences.
        The contrast to the FY 2026 budget request is stark: where the U.S.
    proposes cancellation, China has plans to explore. Where the U.S.
    limits its vision, China has ambitions to expand. This holds true for
    projects across all major divisions of space science, including Earth
    monitoring, solar physics, outer planets exploration, and deep space
    cosmology.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Congressional Leadership and the Path Forward
        We commend this Committee's leadership in developing the draft NASA
    Authorization Act earlier this year, which recognizes the importance of
    maintaining a balanced NASA portfolio including robust science
    programs. The bill's support for Mars Sample Return, the Nancy Grace
    Roman Space Telescope, and the Geospace Dynamics Constellation, among
    other priorities, demonstrates an understanding that American space
    leadership requires commitments to breakthrough scientific exploration.
    We have seen similar support from both House and Senate appropriators
    who, in their FY 2026 Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill,
    fully or mostly reject the proposed cuts to NASA science funding in FY
    2026.
        We urge the Committee to strengthen the Authorization Act by:

      1.  Forbidding the OMB from prematurely cancelling science missions
            and other congressional priorities. NASA should prioritize
            continuation of scientifically productive projects that have
            received recommendations for continuation by independent review
            committees.

      2.  Explicitly re-authorizing flagship missions under threat,
            including Mars Sample Return and the Habitable Worlds
            Observatory, areas where China is making parallel investments
            and progress.

      3.  Reinforcing the decadal survey with mandatory mid-decadal reviews
            and protections against arbitrary cuts that would undermine
            community-consensus priorities.

      4.  Further codifying planetary defense as a critical responsibility
            and providing directives to maintain the OSIRIS-APEX mission to
            study the close approach of the asteroid Apophis in 2029.

      5.  Establishing funding consistency provisions to prevent the OMB
            from pre-emptively imposing cuts that ignore clear
            congressional intent.

      6.  Maintaining Research & Analysis funding at no less than 10
            percent of each science division's budget, preserving the
            intellectual infrastructure that enables American
            competitiveness in space exploration.
    Conclusion
        If Congress believes the U.S. faces a critical space race, then the
    competition extends far beyond the Moon. It encompasses Mars sample
    return, planetary defense, solar system exploration, the origins of the
    cosmos, and the search for life beyond Earth. China's systematic
    investments across these domains suggest these are broad priorities
    that stand to provide historic scientific breakthroughs to the Nation
    that pursues them.
        The proposed NASA Authorization Act draft demonstrates the
    committee's recognition that space science is integral to American
    space leadership. The Planetary Society urges you to strengthen these
    provisions and ensure they become law.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                                  Allen Cutler
    Government and Commercial Space Partnerships
        The John C. Stennis Space Center is home to NASA's largest
    propulsion and engine test site. It also hosts commercial space
    companies. NASA increasingly relies on the commercial space sector to
    execute its mission. At the Center, NASA supports the commercial space
    industry, including by providing water and chemicals, such as nitrogen
    and hydrogen.
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) allocated over $9 billion
    for NASA, including $120 million for infrastructure projects at the
    Stennis Space Center. Outside of the OBBBA, I introduced the Engine
    Testing for Exploration Act and the Building Out Optimized Space
    Testing (BOOST) for Engines Act, which would require NASA to continue
    rocket propulsion testing at the Stennis Space Center and continue
    modernization efforts for rocket propulsion test infrastructure at NASA
    centers.
        It is important for the United States government to both grow the
    commercial space industry and maintain government activity in space,
    especially as our key competitors, China and Russia, have increased
    their space presence and developed launch vehicles capable of reaching
    all orbits and satellite constellations for remote sensing, navigation,
    and communications.

        Question. NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi serves
    as America's largest rocket propulsion test site and exemplifies how
    NASA can work with commercial space industry. The historic investments
    in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will bolster the Stennis Space
    Center's equities through critical infrastructure improvements and
    engagement with the commercial space sector. How can we continue to
    leverage government and commercial partnerships to maximize utilization
    of NASA centers and achieve our space missions?
        Answer. We can continue to maximize the value of NASA centers such
    as Stennis Space Center (SSC) by strengthening government-industry
    partnerships that align national priorities with commercial innovation
    and investment. The key is to treat facilities like Stennis not only as
    Federal assets but as national infrastructure that enables both NASA's
    exploration missions and the broader growth of the U.S. space economy.
        First, partnerships should expand the shared-use model that allows
    government programs and commercial operators to access the same testing
    infrastructure. At Stennis, this means leveraging the world-class
    propulsion test stands for both Artemis-class engines and privately
    developed launch systems. By diversifying the user base, NASA sustains
    critical capabilities, offsets fixed costs, and accelerates innovation
    across multiple programs.
        Second, NASA can emphasize flexible contracting mechanisms,
    including reimbursable Space Act Agreements, Enhanced Use Lease
    Agreements, public-private partnerships, and firm-fixed-price
    contracting for mature systems. These mechanisms reduce overhead,
    increase efficiency, and allow commercial providers to invest in
    upgrades that benefit themselves and SSC.
        Third, a stronger commitment to regional economic integration
    ensures that centers like Stennis remain vital engines of growth.
    Partnerships with state governments, universities, community colleges,
    and workforce development programs can expand the talent pipeline,
    while commercial tenancy drives stable demand and creates an ecosystem
    around the center.
        Finally, NASA should deliberately use these partnerships to foster
    resilience and sustainability in national capability. By ensuring that
    multiple companies and programs rely on shared infrastructure, NASA
    reduces single-point vulnerabilities and creates an enduring foundation
    for deep space exploration.
        Maximizing utilization of NASA centers requires moving beyond a
    purely government-led model to one where public and private actors co-
    invest, co-operate, and co-benefit. Doing so will help the center
    remain a cornerstone of America's civil space program while anchoring
    the next generation of commercial space growth.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                  Allen Cutler
    1. Kodiak's Pacific Spaceport: The Arctic Launch Advantage
        ``Alaska is home to the Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island,
    which offers rare U.S. access to high-inclination and polar orbits.
    These trajectories are critical for Earth observation, national
    security, and Arctic monitoring--but they can't be reached from most
    U.S. launch sites in the lower 48. Given that China is expanding its
    launch capability and building Arctic partnerships, how is NASA
    leveraging Kodiak's spaceport to ensure secure U.S. launch access into
    polar orbit? And what investments or partnerships should Congress
    prioritize to grow this strategic infrastructure?''
        Answer. As more entrants come into the launch market, more pressure
    will be placed on infrastructure to accommodate the growing needs of
    the launch community related to polar orbits and other science,
    exploration, commercial, and national security missions. Congress could
    direct NASA to forecast its future use of Federal launch facilities
    based on planned missions, helping determine whether projected launch
    activity will exceed current infrastructure capacity.
    2. ASF: NASA's Only SAR Data Center Is in Alaska
        ``NASA's Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the University of
    Alaska Fairbanks is the agency's only center for receiving and
    processing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite data. This data
    supports disaster response, Arctic monitoring, agriculture, and
    military logistics, and is critical in cloudy or dark environments--
    like the Arctic. China and Russia are rapidly advancing SAR satellite
    capabilities. If NASA moves forward with proposed cuts to ASF, what
    would be the national and global implications for data continuity,
    disaster readiness, and Arctic situational awareness?''
        Answer. Reducing funding for the ASF could create gaps in SAR data
    continuity, slow and degrade disaster response, and weaken Arctic
    situational awareness. These potential outcomes raise national
    security, economic, and human risks domestically and internationally.
    3. Arctic Blind Spots in Navigation and Communications
        ``Much of the Arctic still lacks reliable satellite-based
    communications, navigation, and surveillance--gaps that become more
    urgent as sea lanes open and adversaries increase activity in the
    region. Alaska's infrastructure could help bridge that gap. What steps
    is NASA taking--or should it take--in partnership with other agencies,
    to develop or deploy technologies that support persistent Arctic space-
    based coverage for communication and navigation? How can we ensure the
    Arctic doesn't remain a strategic blind spot?''
        Answer. While CDSE believes reliable satellite-based
    communications, navigation, and surveillance are important, CDSE does
    not have any insight into NASA's plans to support Arctic space-based
    coverage.
    4. Poker Flat: The U.S.' Only High-Latitude Rocket Range at Risk
        ``The Poker Flat Research Range near Fairbanks is the only U.S.
    sounding rocket range in the high latitudes. It provides low-cost,
    rapid launch capability for atmospheric and aurora research and
    supports student training and workforce development. But without
    renewed NASA investment, it may shut down by 2028. Given the national
    security implications of Arctic space weather and the affordability of
    this launch site, what is the rationale for allowing it to atrophy? How
    does NASA plan to preserve U.S. launch presence in the polar region?''
        Answer. The Artemis program and the race with China to the Moon
    utilize launch resources at Kennedy Space Center for launch. While CDSE
    understands that the Poker Flat Research Range provides unique research
    capabilities, CDSE does not have any insight into NASA's plans
    regarding this facility.
    5. Space Weather: Arctic Aviation and Infrastructure Depend on It
        ``The Geophysical Institute at UAF leads some of the most advanced
    research in space weather and geomagnetic storms, which pose serious
    risks to aviation safety, power grids, and communications--especially
    in the Arctic, where magnetic interference is strongest. With NASA
    proposing cuts to these programs, what's the potential operational
    impact on commercial and defense aviation routes over the Arctic? Can
    the U.S. afford to scale back space weather forecasting in this region
    when these disruptions are only expected to grow?''
        Answer. Space weather affecting commercial and Defense aviation
    does not fall within the purview of CDSE and its activities, which
    relate to human exploration of the Moon and eventually Mars. However,
    understanding space weather is critical to human exploration in terms
    of radiation shielding for spacecraft, space stations, and structures
    on the lunar surface. Heliophysics research also plays a role in
    understanding the space environment for communications and other
    activities around the Moon.
    6. Protecting the STEM Pipeline and National Talent Base
        ``Alaska institutions like the Geophysical Institute don't just
    conduct critical research--they also train the next generation of space
    physicists, engineers, and atmospheric scientists. But NASA's program
    mergers and delayed awards are already causing labs to lose students
    and postdocs. How concerned should we be about the long-term loss of
    this talent pipeline--not just in Alaska but nationally--if funding
    uncertainty continues to drive students and faculty out of space
    science fields?''
        Answer. There are far-reaching consequences to funding uncertainty
    in the sciences. The country has profited from the inspiration
    generated by NASA since its inception. The technical aerospace
    workforce for generations has come from watching our triumphs in space.
    That inspiration has benefited all scientific disciplines as students
    find initial interest in seeing NASA missions, but then stay in STEM
    fields as careers, even if they never work on a space mission. When
    those students see fewer grants and job opportunities because of
    funding uncertainty, the pipeline of technically trained students that
    become the country's future workforce becomes broken.
        Students seek other careers and turn their interests to other
    educational pursuits. This leads to shortages in the aerospace
    workforce for critical technical jobs and a diminished capacity for the
    country to innovate and lead for years. Our aerospace industry relies
    on this pipeline so that companies are prepared to step in when NASA
    needs the ability to explore.
    7. China's Arctic and Polar Ambitions vs. U.S. Inaction
        ``China is investing in new polar research bases, satellites
    optimized for Arctic observation, and even new Arctic shipping routes
    to advance its space and geopolitical aims. Meanwhile, core Arctic
    science and space infrastructure in the U.S.--like ASF and Poker Flat--
    is facing funding cuts or operational risk. What should Congress do
    right now to make sure the United States doesn't lose its strategic
    space foothold in the Arctic, particularly when China is aiming to fill
    any gaps we leave behind?''
        Answer. China's activities in the Arctic are similar to those it
    uses to advance its ambitions in space exploration. For Artemis,
    reducing funding at a time when our adversaries are steadily making
    investments and advancements in strategic capabilities for lunar
    exploration is counterproductive. The country stands to lose its
    position as the world's leader in science and space exploration if
    funding for these activities is reduced.
    8. Transparency and Stability in NASA Grantmaking
        ``Alaska researchers are facing major uncertainty under the new
    ROSES 2025 program restructures, with some merged solicitations seeing
    up to 75 percent funding reductions and others marked `TBD.' These cuts
    directly impact Arctic science. Should Congress require NASA to provide
    more transparency and predictability in how these funding lines are
    combined and awarded? And what safeguards should be considered to
    protect regionally essential research capacity from being lost in broad
    program reshuffles?''
        Answer. CDSE represents members of the aerospace industry, but
    their concerns are not different from academia. Program stability is
    key to being able to optimize plans and ensure that a solid foundation
    is being laid to address any future challenges. Congress should pass a
    robust NASA authorization bill that covers several years to continue
    successful policies and strengthen our investments across academia and
    industry. Continuity is key to growing our country's aerospace industry
    capabilities and sustaining global leadership in space. Similarly,
    maintaining a stable and consistent funding stream for academic
    research will allow for predictable opportunities for making grant
    proposals. CDSE encourages Congress to identify and fund research
    priorities in authorizing and annual spending bills.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                  Allen Cutler
    The Moon Race with China--How do we win
        Each of the witnesses during testimony and questioning at the
    hearing said that winning the race against China to the Moon, not only
    to land again, but to establish a permanent presence, is vitally
    important, and each witness expressed varying levels of concern that
    the U.S. is likely to lose without changes to the current approach.

        Question 1. Mr. Cutler, if we are serious about beating China to
    the moon and being a first mover when it comes to establishing a
    sustainable presence in important areas of the lunar surface, what
    three things do we absolutely need to do as a nation right now?
        Answer. First and foremost, Congress must maintain the constancy of
    purpose that has been at the foundation of the Artemis program. The
    base elements of the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion capsule, and
    the necessary Exploration Ground Systems support to launch crews to the
    Moon have been central to the program from the start. Since its
    inception, Congress has served as a stabilizing force through
    successive authorization bills, each vital to the Artemis program's
    continuity, as various administrations sought to reshape it with their
    own priorities. Amid these shifts, it was congressional unity and
    resolve that proved essential in bringing Artemis to where it stands
    today. A multi-year authorization bill continuing the path that has
    been supported by Congress and multiple Administrations is key.
        That steady presence creates an environment where additional
    national benefits can be realized. Removing whipsaw policy changes and
    an irregular launch cadence in the program allows industry, from the
    prime contractors, down to the small businesses that supply critical
    parts, to work in a predictable environment. Predictability helps to
    align supply chain management to optimize the workforce and production
    costs for each upcoming Artemis mission.
        The consistency that Congress can provide to Artemis also benefits
    our Nation's future workforce, as students see STEM workforce
    opportunities from a successful exploration program. K-12 and post-
    secondary students become excited about being a part of space as they
    see a national commitment to Artemis. Uncertainty can lead students to
    pursue alternative education paths that could have negative impacts on
    the aerospace industry for years into the future.
        For Artemis to be successful in establishing a presence on the Moon
    before China, Congress cannot disrupt the consistent support it has
    shown for many years.
        Secondly, in a multi-year authorization, Congress has the
    opportunity to create a procurement environment at NASA that will
    enable efficiency and competition across human exploration. Currently,
    NASA utilizes contracts for Artemis that require significant levels of
    agency oversight for SLS and Orion. These contracts were done at a time
    when NASA was not comfortable with a NASA insight model versus a NASA
    oversight model. The result creates significant costs that were
    intended for developing vehicles, and not for vehicles in production.
    NASA's application of its procedures is uneven across Artemis and
    contributes to higher costs and slower production schedules.
        If Congress offered an avenue for the removal of burdensome
    requirements and procedures, without compromising safety, costs could
    be reduced, and additional options for competition in the Artemis
    program could be provided.
        Finally, the country has spent decades building the infrastructure
    needed to accomplish NASA's missions. This infrastructure extends
    beyond NASA's facilities. It includes the vibrant and innovative
    industrial base that exists because NASA depends on its unique
    capabilities to achieve mission success.
        Congress should ensure that the Administration does not pursue
    policies that inadvertently damage the capabilities this Nation has
    developed and make it impossible to compete on a global stage. Once
    capabilities are lost, it can take years to recover them. As an
    example, after the space shuttle was retired in 2011, the U.S. was not
    able to fly its astronauts from U.S. soil until 2020. If we are to
    remain leaders in exploration and keep ahead of our adversaries, like
    China, we need the full capabilities of our aerospace supplier base to
    be at the country's disposal.
    Importance of NASA Science, Space Technology, and Aeronautics Funding
        NASA's exploration programs depend on steady investment in science
    and in space technology development, often carried out in partnership
    with industry.
        The President's FY26 budget proposes to cut NASA's Science Mission
    Directorate by about 47 percent and to reduce the Space Technology
    Mission Directorate by over 48 percent.
        In contrast, the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science proposal restores
    this funding, protecting the science and technology investments that
    underpin the Moon-to-Mars strategy and U.S. space leadership.

        Question 1. Without robust funding for NASA's science and space
    technology programs are we ceding our country's long-term space
    leadership to China and other competitors?
        Answer. NASA's budget represents a small portion of the total
    discretionary budget at less than half of a percent, yet strong funding
    and policies for NASA create significant results that benefit the
    country. Overcoming the engineering and technical challenges that are a
    part of NASA's science missions and investments in space technology
    development propels our Nation's technical capabilities forward. The
    technologies and missions necessary for pushing the envelope to
    accomplish missions in space create technical jobs and expertise,
    economic growth in our local communities, and inspire future
    generations to pursue STEM-related fields of study. Each aspect
    generates advantages that lead to maintaining U.S. long-term leadership
    in space. NASA's funding must account for the full spectrum of its
    activities, as each element contributes to the success of its missions
    through mutual support and integration. China is not waiting to see
    what the U.S. does; it is moving forward in all aspects of space
    exploration.

        Question 2. Do you support strong NASA-industry partnerships in the
    aeronautics sector to advance pre-competitive technologies, such as
    advanced materials manufacturing? How important are these
    collaborations for U.S. aerospace competitiveness?
        Answer. The work that NASA does across its portfolio benefits the
    agency, no matter where the investment occurs. Materials research done
    for hypersonic development or other aerospace activities brings new
    capabilities and solutions that can be applied to other NASA missions
    and spin-offs to industry. The investments in technologies that NASA
    has made over decades, and continues to do so, have created a vibrant
    aerospace industry that innovates and is prepared to take on the
    challenges of current and future missions. Partnerships with industry
    advancing our Nation's space goals continue to benefit the country, and
    NASA should ensure that early technology intellectual property directly
    funded by taxpayers remains a public good.
    Mars Readiness Projections
        There is a lot of excitement about sending humans to Mars. But a
    safe mission will depend on systems we are still developing, including
    life support for long missions, reliable propulsion for deep space
    travel, and the equipment needed to live and work on the surface. The
    Moon gives us a place to test these technologies and prepare.
        Before changing the current plan, Congress needs a clear sense of
    when a safe human mission to Mars will actually be possible.

        Question 1. Based on your experience and understanding of current
    programs, when do you believe a safe and successful human mission to
    Mars will be feasible?
        Answer. Eventually, we will be able to have a human mission to
    Mars. It will only be possible through the lessons we learn from
    sustained missions to the Moon. Power infrastructure, supply logistics,
    communications, surface structures, and systems development are all
    necessary for a human mission to Mars, but must first be proven and
    refined as part of NASA's lunar exploration program. The knowledge
    gained about every aspect of living on another celestial body will
    directly impact the ability to have a safe human mission to and return
    from Mars. Because the missions for a sustained presence on the Moon
    remain in their early stages, it is difficult to predict when a human
    mission to Mars is feasible. What is important to the timeline is that
    the building blocks are being put into place. The Space Launch System,
    Orion, the necessary Exploration Ground Systems, the Gateway orbiting
    outpost, spacesuits, and landers are in development and will form the
    basis of extending our reach to the Moon. As NASA learns from the next
    step of exploration, it will be able to develop capabilities that will
    eventually lead to a human mission to Mars.
    Designating NASA as a National Security Agency
        An August 28 Executive Order titled ``Further Exclusions from the
    Federal Labor-Management Relations Program'' reclassified NASA and
    other agencies as having intelligence or national security as a primary
    function, thereby excluding their employees from collective bargaining
    rights. This marks a significant departure from NASA's foundational
    identity, defined by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
    (P.L. 85-568), as a civilian agency exercising control over
    aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States,
    distinct from department of Defense activities peculiar to or primarily
    associated with the development of weapons systems, military
    operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research
    and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense
    of the United States). [51 U.S. Code Sec. 20102--Congressional
    declaration of policy and purpose].

        Question 1. Are you concerned that there may be unintended
    consequences of promoting this national security designation for NASA?
    For example, having a negative impact on the agency's ongoing efforts
    to pursue the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for
    peaceful and scientific purposes and pursue cooperation with other
    nations and groups of nations in the peaceful exploration and use of
    outer space for civil and commercial purposes?
        Answer. NASA, from its inception, is a civilian space agency. The
    law creating NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
    (Public Law 85-568), explicitly states:

            ``The Congress declares that the general welfare and security
            of the United States require that adequate provision be made
            for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further
            declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of,
            and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control
            over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United
            States''

        A change in NASA's primary focus to national security could
    directly impact the perceived actions and motivations of the agency.
    Numerous government agencies that conduct activities in space in the
    national security domain, and our country has been successful in
    navigating the separation between defense and non-defense space
    activities to our advantage. Historically, this specific delineation of
    activities in space allows partnerships between NASA, industry, and
    other nations that would not otherwise be possible.
    NASA Centers Funding in Reconciliation
        I want to acknowledge Chair Cruz for his work on ensuring strong
    funding for NASA human space exploration through the reconciliation
    process. However, there are aspects of the guidance to NASA in the
    reconciliation law that I do not support, including the disparity in
    construction and infrastructure funding contained in the law, with $1
    billion provided to only five centers.

        Question 1. Do you believe it is essential that all 10 field
    centers, their supporting facilities, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    receive sufficient infrastructure and construction funding to maintain
    NASA as the world's preeminent aerospace agency?
        Answer. All of NASA has significant infrastructure challenges. In
    2024, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
    included in their report ``NASA at a Crossroads: Maintaining Workforce,
    Infrastructure, and Technology Preeminence in the Coming Decades'' a
    chapter on NASA infrastructure. In that report, it was indicated that
    NASA had over $3.3 billion in deferred maintenance and construction
    activities across all of NASA's centers and associated physical and
    systems infrastructure. The funds provided in the budget reconciliation
    bill will create some relief to the overall infrastructure and
    construction backlog at NASA and may allow for resources provided in
    the annual appropriations process to prioritize remaining NASA
    maintenance and construction activities across all of NASA's field
    centers.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                  Allen Cutler
    STEM Engagement
        I have long supported programs that train students in STEM. In
    2017, my bill authorizing the NASA Administrator to encourage women to
    study STEM and pursue careers in aerospace through NASA initiatives was
    signed into law.

        Question 1. Why is it important for America to have a robust
    pipeline of talent entering the aerospace field?
        Answer. Maintaining a strong aerospace pipeline requires both
    demand for a workforce and the development of one. NASA's missions
    inspire students to pursue STEM careers and create opportunities for
    industry to contribute to national goals. NASA's 2023 Economic Impact
    Report highlights the scale of this return: $75.6 billion in economic
    output nationwide, with Artemis and Moon to Mars alone generating
    nearly $24 billion in activity and supporting almost 100,000 jobs from
    $7.6 billion in funding. A three-to-one return on investment. These
    programs create high-skill jobs, strengthen state economies, and fuel
    innovation across industries.
        Talent is distributed nationwide and across all demographics, but
    it remains underdeveloped. Women represent half the U.S. population yet
    make up only 24 percent of the STEM workforce, according to the
    National Science Foundation. Expanding participation is essential to
    meet workforce needs as STEM-related fields continue to expand.
        A shortage of aerospace talent would risk America's leadership in
    space, allow competitors like China to close the gap, and limit the
    benefits of aerospace innovation as potentially fewer technologies
    become available to be spun off to other industries. By developing and
    sustaining a strong pipeline through investment in STEM education and
    workforce development, the United States can secure its technological
    edge, safeguard national security, and maximize returns on public
    investment.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                  Allen Cutler
        Question 1. The Flight Opportunities Program is a cornerstone of
    U.S. space competitiveness, enabling researchers to rapidly test and
    refine technologies in suborbital environments that simulate the harsh
    conditions of space. By advancing these capabilities before costly
    orbital missions, the program lowers risks, reduces costs, and
    accelerates the readiness of innovations critical to NASA and
    commercial space ventures. In doing so, it strengthens the U.S.
    position in the global space race, ensuring domestic companies can
    outpace international rivals in developing and commercializing next-
    generation space technologies. How can NASA broaden collaborations with
    innovative sub-orbital commercial companies, via programs such as the
    Flight Opportunities or similar initiatives, to integrate their fast-
    iterative testing models? To match China's swift pace, what investments
    or policy reforms could NASA implement to more fully embed sub-orbital
    providers into core programs?
        Answer. Congress could encourage the flight opportunities program
    to be a part of the process for developing capabilities that can inform
    and be implemented into programs like Artemis to help maintain our lead
    over China. If appropriate, suborbital missions could allow for
    advancing technology readiness levels of technologies that are in
    development, which could be incorporated into NASA's missions or as
    standalone missions. NASA holds an annual gathering of industry and
    academia to discuss the technologies and goals for its Moon to Mars
    program. Working with experts across the agency, industry, academia,
    and the international community, the architecture's blueprint evolves
    for exploration as NASA learns and could include development via
    suborbital launches as another tool to advance humanity on its path to
    the Moon and Mars.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
                                  Allen Cutler
    NASA Science Missions Cuts
        Recently, NASA was directed to begin drafting ``close-out'' plans
    for a large number of ongoing science missions. These missions include
    the MAVEN mission, which is led by CU Boulder's Laboratory for
    Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP). MAVEN is actively collecting
    essential data about the atmosphere on Mars. Scientific discoveries
    like those MAVEN is making will be absolutely essential for
    successfully landing humans on Mars.

        Question 1. Mr. Cutler, how would cuts to NASA science funding
    undermine our ability to safely and effectively explore deep space?
        Answer. Underfunding NASA science directly undermines the
    foundation needed for safe and effective deep space exploration.
    Science missions generate critical data that informs spacecraft design,
    life support systems, and operational planning. For example, planetary
    science identifies potential landing sites and hazards, and
    heliophysics research tracks solar radiation that threatens astronaut
    health. Both are integral to the success of human missions to the Moon
    and eventually Mars. Reducing funding for these programs forces human
    exploration missions to proceed with less information, increasing risk,
    cost, and uncertainty for astronauts and hardware operating far from
    Earth.

        Question 2. Mr. Cutler, what are the short-and long-term risks of
    under-investing in this fundamental work?
        Answer. The short-term risks of under-investing in fundamental
    research include gaps in mission-critical data that directly affect
    crew safety and mission design. Reduced funding also narrows
    opportunities for industry and academic partners, weakening the
    innovation pipeline that supports near-term exploration goals.
        Long-term risks are even more consequential. Under-investment
    erodes U.S. technological leadership, allowing competitors like China
    to set the pace in lunar and Mars exploration. It also undermines the
    broader STEM pipeline by reducing opportunities for students and early-
    career scientists to engage in discovery-driven projects, creating
    workforce shortages in future decades. Over time, the Nation risks
    higher mission costs, diminished international leadership, and weakened
    returns on public investment in space.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Fetterman to
                                  Allen Cutler
        The NASA Space Grant funds pre-college and public service education
    projects in all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico, and fills a vital role
    in preparing the next generation of the space workforce. In
    Pennsylvania, the Space Grant is operated by Penn State, which leads a
    consortium of 16 colleges and universities around the commonwealth in
    space education and research programming in support of the needs of the
    NASA Mission Directorate.
        We know that Chinese universities are training a highly skilled
    workforce and have built one of the world's most advanced remote
    sensing space programs. There is bipartisan acknowledgement of the race
    we are in with respect to space exploration.

        Question 1. What actions should U.S. universities take to ensure we
    remain globally competitive, and how can Space Grant institutions best
    align with NASA's workforce and research priorities to sustain American
    leadership in space science and technology?
        Answer. Universities should look to expand their role as engines of
    talent and innovation to ensure America remains globally competitive in
    space science and technology through strengthening STEM education
    pipelines at every level, from undergraduate through doctoral training.
    Universities have the capability to broaden participation of rural and
    underserved communities that remain an untapped source of talent. They
    can also deepen partnerships with industry to provide students with
    hands-on experience that matches current workforce demands. Space Grant
    institutions are uniquely positioned to align with NASA's goals and can
    act as state and regional hubs for workforce development, expanding
    opportunities for students to enter aerospace fields.

        Question 2. What steps should Congress take to ensure that NASA's
    reauthorization provides the long-term stability and investment
    universities need to contribute fully to U.S. leadership in space,
    especially as adversaries seek to set their own rules of the road?
        Answer. CDSE represents members of the aerospace industry, but
    their concerns are not different from academia. Stability is key to
    being able to optimize plans and ensure that a solid foundation is
    being laid to address any future challenges. Congress should pass a
    robust NASA authorization bill that covers several years to continue
    successful policies and strengthen our investments. Continuity is key
    to growing our country's capabilities and sustaining global leadership
    in space. Industry needs a skilled workforce across all levels of
    education to be successful, and programs like Space Grant provide
    states the ability to identify students and programs that help grow our
    workforce to ensure we have the workforce needed in the future.

        Question 3. What are the risks to our existing workforce pipeline
    if funding for NASA Space Grants or similar K-12 STEM program is
    interrupted, withheld, or reduced?
        Answer. Actions that negatively affect program stability for NASA
    Space Grant or similar K-12 STEM programs could pose a risk to the
    Nation's workforce pipeline. It narrows access to discovery-driven
    educational opportunities that inspire students to pursue careers in
    STEM.
        Without consistent exposure and hands-on engagement, fewer students
    will advance into higher education and technical fields, creating gaps
    in the aerospace workforce that may take decades to repair.
        This disruption also undermines the broader STEM pipeline by
    reducing opportunities for students and early-career scientists to gain
    critical skills and experiences needed to transition into aerospace and
    related industries. Over time, workforce shortages will weaken the
    Nation's capacity to execute ambitious exploration missions and to
    compete globally.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                                  Michael Gold
    Government and Commercial Space Partnerships
        The John C. Stennis Space Center is home to NASA's largest
    propulsion and engine test site. It also hosts commercial space
    companies. NASA increasingly relies on the commercial space sector to
    execute its mission. At the Center, NASA supports the commercial space
    industry, including by providing water and chemicals, such as nitrogen
    and hydrogen.
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) allocated over $9 billion
    for NASA, including $120 million for infrastructure projects at the
    Stennis Space Center. Outside of the OBBBA, I introduced the Engine
    Testing for Exploration Act and the Building Out Optimized Space
    Testing (BOOST) for Engines Act, which would require NASA to continue
    rocket propulsion testing at the Stennis Space Center and continue
    modernization efforts for rocket propulsion test infrastructure at NASA
    centers.
        It is important for the United States government to both grow the
    commercial space industry and maintain government activity in space,
    especially as our key competitors, China and Russia, have increased
    their space presence and developed launch vehicles capable of reaching
    all orbits and satellite constellations for remote sensing, navigation,
    and communications.
        Question. NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi serves
    as America's largest rocket propulsion test site and exemplifies how
    NASA can work with commercial space industry. The historic investments
    in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will bolster the Stennis Space
    Center's equities through critical infrastructure improvements and
    engagement with the commercial space sector. How can we continue to
    leverage government and commercial partnerships to maximize utilization
    of NASA centers and achieve our space missions?
        Answer. The key to maximize the utility of Stennis and the
    facilities at all human spaceflight centers is for NASA to maintain
    continuity. Specifically, per my testimony, NASA must sustain the
    Artemis program and remain focused on returning to the Moon, before
    China, and ensuring robust, ongoing, and permanent operations in orbit
    and on the surface of the Moon. We must proceed with Artemis II and III
    with as much alacrity as possible, and pivot to commercial systems as
    soon as they are available (with the caveat that America should never
    be dependent on a single launch system/vehicle for its lunar
    exploration activities).
        Moreover, NASA must leverage not only commercial but international
    partnerships as well. International partnerships are and will continue
    to be critical to both Artemis and space-based entrepreneurship.
    Numerous nations are already contributing to Artemis via the Gateway
    and the International Space Station. Most of these partnerships
    represent relatively traditional barter style partnerships. However,
    several countries are looking to engage with the American private
    sector in more innovative ways. For example, Saudi Arabia, a prominent
    Artemis Accords signatory, represents a partner with incredible
    potential to transform commercial space. Specifically, Redwire was
    honored to host a visit in April from the Saudi Space Agency (SSA) led
    by His Excellency Dr. Mohammed Altamimi the CEO of the SSA. Redwire and
    the SSA are exploring how the two organizations can work together, with
    a potential focus on Redwire's trailblazing pharmaceutical and
    microgravity capabilities. Such international partnerships have the
    potential to transform the space field, since organizations like the
    SSA are concentrating on innovative space commercialization in a manner
    that could dramatically accelerate global progress.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                  Michael Gold
    1. Kodiak's Pacific Spaceport: The Arctic Launch Advantage
        ``Alaska is home to the Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island,
    which offers rare U.S. access to high-inclination and polar orbits.
    These trajectories are critical for Earth observation, national
    security, and Arctic monitoring--but they can't be reached from most
    U.S. launch sites in the lower 48. Given that China is expanding its
    launch capability and building Arctic partnerships, how is NASA
    leveraging Kodiak's spaceport to ensure secure U.S. launch access into
    polar orbit? And what investments or partnerships should Congress
    prioritize to grow this strategic infrastructure?''
        Answer. NASA should pro-actively work with existing and future
    commercial launch partners to ensure that they can and are utilizing
    the Kodiak spaceport.
    2. ASF: NASA's Only SAR Data Center Is in Alaska
        ``NASA's Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the University of
    Alaska Fairbanks is the agency's only center for receiving and
    processing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite data. This data
    supports disaster response, Arctic monitoring, agriculture, and
    military logistics, and is critical in cloudy or dark environments--
    like the Arctic. China and Russia are rapidly advancing SAR satellite
    capabilities. If NASA moves forward with proposed cuts to ASF, what
    would be the national and global implications for data continuity,
    disaster readiness, and Arctic situational awareness?''
        Answer. Potential cuts should be reversed and we should be putting
    more resources into SAR data collection and analysis. Anything less
    will cede critical military and economic benefits to China and Russia.
    3. Arctic Blind Spots in Navigation and Communications
        ``Much of the Arctic still lacks reliable satellite-based
    communications, navigation, and surveillance--gaps that become more
    urgent as sea lanes open and adversaries increase activity in the
    region. Alaska's infrastructure could help bridge that gap. What steps
    is NASA taking--or should it take--in partnership with other agencies,
    to develop or deploy technologies that support persistent Arctic space-
    based coverage for communication and navigation? How can we ensure the
    Arctic doesn't remain a strategic blind spot?''
        Answer. NASA and other Federal agencies and departments should
    partner with private sector satellite companies to fill these blind
    spots with innovative, new, and affordable systems. Additionally, the
    launches should take place from Kodiak.
    4. Poker Flat: The U.S.' Only High-Latitude Rocket Range at Risk
        ``The Poker Flat Research Range near Fairbanks is the only U.S.
    sounding rocket range in the high latitudes. It provides low-cost,
    rapid launch capability for atmospheric and aurora research and
    supports student training and workforce development. But without
    renewed NASA investment, it may shut down by 2028. Given the national
    security implications of Arctic space weather and the affordability of
    this launch site, what is the rationale for allowing it to atrophy? How
    does NASA plan to preserve U.S. launch presence in the polar region?''
        Answer. I can't speak for NASA, but I personally believe we should
    increase investment in Poker Flat and ensure that it is protected from
    adversary drone strikes.
    5. Space Weather: Arctic Aviation and Infrastructure Depend on It
        ``The Geophysical Institute at UAF leads some of the most advanced
    research in space weather and geomagnetic storms, which pose serious
    risks to aviation safety, power grids, and communications--especially
    in the Arctic, where magnetic interference is strongest. With NASA
    proposing cuts to these programs, what's the potential operational
    impact on commercial and defense aviation routes over the Arctic? Can
    the U.S. afford to scale back space weather forecasting in this region
    when these disruptions are only expected to grow?''
        Answer. Due to the growing importance of the Arctic as temperature
    rises increase access to additional land and resources, we should
    increase space weather funding rather than cutting it. The U.S. is more
    dependent on space-based capabilities for both military and economic
    health than at any time in our nation's history. Therefore, failing to
    properly fund space weather infrastructure could have disastrous
    consequences.
    6. Protecting the STEM Pipeline and National Talent Base
        ``Alaska institutions like the Geophysical Institute don't just
    conduct critical research--they also train the next generation of space
    physicists, engineers, and atmospheric scientists. But NASA's program
    mergers and delayed awards are already causing labs to lose students
    and postdocs. How concerned should we be about the long-term loss of
    this talent pipeline--not just in Alaska but nationally--if funding
    uncertainty continues to drive students and faculty out of spacescience
    fields?''
        Answer. Maintaining a strong pipeline of aerospace professionals
    will be vital if the U.S. is to successfully compete and win a
    competition with China. The U.S. is already far behind China in the
    sheer number of students and aerospace-related STEM professionals. This
    situation will only grow more acute over time if funding uncertainty
    drives students out of the space field. A lack of a capable workforce
    is a critical security threat to the United States. We must leverage
    innovative programs such as NASA's High Schools United to Create
    Hardware, space grants, and other initiatives to make sure our STEM
    pipeline remains strong for NASA, Space Force, and the private sector.
    Moreover, beating China in space will require ALL of America to
    participate, this includes rural communities and reservations in Alaska
    and many other states, which can often be ignored.
    7. China's Arctic and Polar Ambitions vs. U.S. Inaction
        ``China is investing in new polar research bases, satellites
    optimized for Arctic observation, and even new Arctic shipping routes
    to advance its space and geopolitical aims. Meanwhile, core Arctic
    science and space infrastructure in the U.S.--like ASF and Poker Flat--
    is facing funding cuts or operational risk. What should Congress do
    right now to make sure the United States doesn't lose its strategic
    space foothold in the Arctic, particularly when China is aiming to fill
    any gaps we leave behind?''
        Answer. Congress and NASA should restore any cuts and explore
    additional funding for infrastructure improvement and expansion of
    America's critical Arctic facilities beginning with ASF and Poker Flat.
    We must not cede space, or the Arctic, to China, Russia, and/or other
    geopolitical adversary nations.
    8. Transparency and Stability in NASA Grantmaking
        ``Alaska researchers are facing major uncertainty under the new
    ROSES 2025 program restructures, with some merged solicitations seeing
    up to 75 percent funding reductions and others marked `TBD.' These cuts
    directly impact Arctic science. Should Congress require NASA to provide
    more transparency and predictability in how these funding lines are
    combined and awarded? And what safeguards should be considered to
    protect regionally essential research capacity from being lost in broad
    program reshuffles?''
        Answer. Hard deadlines for reviews and responses, simplified
    application processes, and a focus on the competition with China,
    should all be implemented to reform and improve the NASA grantmaking
    process.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
                                  Michael Gold
        Question 1. Will you please detail how American companies are
    developing revolutionarycapabilities that are helping us stay first in
    space?
        Answer. I'm of course biased, but I believe that some of the most
    revolutionary work in the space industryis occurring in Greenville,
    Indiana, where, per my testimony, Redwire is on the cutting edge of
    microgravity manufacturing, conducting trailblazing research and
    development of seed crystals that could lead to next-generation
    pharmaceuticals with enhanced efficacy, longevity, and/or fewer side
    effects. Moreover, the work occurring in Southern Indiana is building
    upon the foundation for the eventual fabrication of whole organs in
    space, which would save countless lives and dramatically improve the
    quality of life on Earth. However, for this incredible work to
    continue, Congress must ensure that NASA maintains at least four
    astronauts on the International Space Station and that the Agency
    prioritizes and has the funding for supporting advanced microgravity
    biotech and pharmaceutical research.
        Blue Origin, which Redwire is proud to work with on solar arrays,
    power distribution, and cameras, is revolutionizing the space launch
    industry and, per my testimony, is contributing literally billions of
    dollars to ensure America returns to the Moon before China via its
    Human Landing System development contract with NASA. Additionally, Blue
    Origin is unilaterally funding the Mark-1 lunar lander which will
    launch later this year. A single private sector company making such
    massive financial contributions to achieving America's goal of
    returning astronauts to the Moon, this time to stay, is unprecedented,
    and should be praised and embraced by Congress and NASA.
        SpaceX has of course done an extraordinary amount to keep America
    first in space, through the development of its rockets such as the
    Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Moreover, SpaceX's Dragon capsule broke the
    deplorable American dependence on Russia for crew transportation to the
    International Space Station.
        In addition to launching crew and cargo, the private sector is now
    on the verge of building and deploying commercial space stations in
    low-Earth orbit. For example, Redwire recently announced a contract
    with Axiom Space to provide solar arrays for its first module.
        I could go on, the revolutionary contributions of American space
    companies are numerous and varied, which is important since a dynamic
    private space sector is vital to not just the American economy, but to
    our freedom. It's inevitable that China will eventually outspend
    America in space, therefore, it's imperative that the U.S. out-
    entrepreneur the Chinese. If the U.S. government continues to embrace
    private-public partnerships and maintains the continuity of major
    initiatives such as Artemis, I remain confident the revolution in space
    will be an American revolution.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                  Michael Gold
    The Moon Race with China--How do we win
        Each of the witnesses during testimony and questioning at the
    hearing said that winning the race against China to the Moon, not only
    to land again, but to establish a permanent presence, is vitally
    important, and each witness expressed varying levels of concern that
    the U.S. is likely to lose without changes to the current approach.

        Question 1. Mr. Gold, if we are serious about beating China to the
    moon and being a first mover when it comes to establishing a
    sustainable presence in important areas of the lunar surface, what
    three things do we absolutely need to do as a nation right now?
        Answer. 1. Secretary Sean Duffy should be nominated and quickly
    confirmed as the permanent NASA Administrator. We cannot beat China
    without strong and focused leadership. Secretary Duffy has already
    demonstrated an unwavering focus on beating China to the Moon, won the
    trust of the NASA workforce by elevating a talented space architect to
    the role of Associate Administrator, and has begun cultivating a
    constructive relationship with Congress while still providing NASA with
    a leader that maintains a close relationship with the President, which
    is invaluable to the agency. Time is of the essence, and we do not have
    the luxury of the months, if not longer, that identifying a new
    nominee, going through the vetting and confirmation process, and
    subsequently undergoing yet another review of NASA activities and
    shifting priorities that a different Administrator could bring.
    Additionally, there are many synergies and benefits to the Secretary of
    Transportation also leading NASA, such as coordinated space traffic
    management and leveraging a broader array of tools for international
    relationships. Secretary Duffy is the right leader at the right time,
    and his position should be made permanent with alacrity.
        2. We must publicly reaffirm America's commitment to the Gateway.
    NASA should immediately communicate this to our international partners
    and domestic contractors. This will prevent China from peeling off our
    global support for Artemis, while ensuring that the cornerstone of a
    sustainable and robust American presence in cislunar space and on the
    surface of the Moon, the Gateway, is deployed as soon as possible.
    However, this is not to say that changes shouldn't be made. A rapid
    review of Gateway should be conducted to determine how the system and/
    or its orbit could be optimized to support lunar surface as well as
    commercial operations (e.g., the refueling of commercial landers).
    Additionally, NASA may want to consider the potential benefits of
    shifting the launch of Gateway international elements to commercial
    heavy lift vehicles.
        3. We must also reaffirm that NASA will maintain a continuous
    crewed presence in low Earth orbit (LEO) and will avoid a space station
    gap. Moreover, the American space station(s) that succeed the
    International Space Station (ISS) must be more capable than any
    existing or future Chinese LEO platform. It's important to acknowledge
    the connectivity between Artemis and crewed LEO operations.
    Specifically, the experience, technologies, commercialization
    activities, and global partnerships formed in LEO serve as the
    foundation for Artemis's lunar and Martian capabilities.
    Importance of NASA Science, Space Technology, and Aeronautics Funding
        NASA's exploration programs depend on steady investment in science
    and in space technology development, often carried out in partnership
    with industry.
        The President's FY26 budget proposes to cut NASA's Science Mission
    Directorate by about 47 percent and to reduce the Space Technology
    Mission Directorate by over 48 percent.
        In contrast, the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science proposal restores
    this funding, protecting the science and technology investments that
    underpin the Moon-to-Mars strategy and U.S. space leadership.

        Question 1. Without robust funding for NASA's science and space
    technology programs are we ceding our country's long-term space
    leadership to China and other competitors?
        Answer. Absolutely. In stark contrast to making cuts, we should be
    increasing the funding for NASA's science and space technology
    programs, and I applaud the Senate Commerce Committee for supporting
    NASA's science and space technology budget. However, changes should be
    made to optimize the efficacy of both NASA science and space technology
    endeavors, specifically:

       Science and space technology projects should be reviewed and
            prioritized based on relevance to our geopolitical competition
            with China;

       Fiscal discipline needs to be applied to NASA's Science
            Mission Directorate. Programs such as James Webb which ran
            roughly $9 billion over budget (a 10x cost increase over
            original estimates) can no longer be tolerated due to, if
            nothing else, the negative impact that such massive cost
            overruns have on the broader science portfolio; and

       The Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) should be
            reorganized to become the dynamic nexus of NASA and the private
            sector that it was always intended to be. For example, in lieu
            of Tipping Points, STMD should create standing Broad Agency
            Announcements (BAAs) in order to capture the best ideas that
            industry has to offer in a flexible and ongoing fashion.
            Moreover, the BAA procurement process should reflect best
            practices by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency by
            utilizing an initial single page proposal process to reduce the
            burden on companies. Such a process will broaden the ability of
            small and medium-sized businesses to engage with NASA and allow
            them to avoid wasting time developing lengthy proposals that
            the government does not have an interest in.

        Question 2. Are there specific areas of technology where we already
    lag behind China that NASA should prioritize now?
        Answer. There are numerous areas of technology that must be
    prioritized to avoid falling behind China. Specifically, NASA should
    prioritize microgravity R&D and manufacturing (with an initial focus on
    biotech and pharmaceuticals), quantum-based communications and other
    quantum applications (e.g., quantum sensors), the extraction and
    utilization of space resources, solar electric propulsion, very-low
    Earth orbit satellite systems, and space diplomacy in the Middle East,
    Africa, and South America.
    Mars Readiness Projections
        There is a lot of excitement about sending humans to Mars. But a
    safe mission will depend on systems we are still developing, including
    life support for long missions, reliable propulsion for deep space
    travel, and the equipment needed to live and work on the surface. The
    Moon gives us a place to test these technologies and prepare.
        Before changing the current plan, Congress needs a clear sense of
    when a safe human mission to Mars will actually be possible.

        Question 1. Based on your experience and understanding of current
    programs, when do you believe a safe and successful human mission to
    Mars will be feasible?
        Answer. I believe that a safe and successful human mission to Mars
    could be attempted as early as the next 10-15 years. However, such an
    ambitious schedule presumes that we proceed with alacrity to implement
    the Gateway, which will serve as a Mars spacecraft analogue and provide
    NASA with vital experience in deep space operations generally, and
    using an orbiting spacecraft to support surface operations
    specifically. Moreover, we must maintain our international
    partnerships, and not cede the global Artemis coalition to China, in
    order to properly fund and implement a safe and successful human
    mission to Mars before 2040.
    NASA Aeronautics Research
        NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate has helped make the
    U.S. a global leader in aerospace by developing technologies that drive
    commercial aviation.
        But to stay ahead, we must keep investing in innovation. Right now,
    we're falling behind in a critical area: advanced thermoplastic
    composites--materials that make aircraft lighter, stronger, and more
    fuel efficient.
        That's why NASA launched the HiCAM project, in partnership with
    industry, to speed up the development of these materials and apply them
    to the manufacture of air vehicle components. In my home state of
    Washington, a consortia of companies, universities, and workforce
    training organizations are pursuing a Tech Hub to keep the U.S. at the
    forefront of advanced aerospace manufacturing.

        Question 1. Do you see potential applications for thermoplastic
    composites in space vehicles or on-orbit space platforms that could
    reduce cost or improve performance?
        Answer. With apologies, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the
    benefits of thermoplastic composites to address this question.
    Designating NASA as a National Security Agency
        An August 28 Executive Order titled ``Further Exclusions from the
    Federal Labor-Management Relations Program'' reclassified NASA and
    other agencies as having intelligence or national security as a primary
    function, thereby excluding their employees from collective bargaining
    rights. This marks a significant departure from NASA's foundational
    identity, defined by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
    (P.L. 85-568), as a civilian agency exercising control over
    aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States,
    distinct from department of Defense activities peculiar to or primarily
    associated with the development of weapons systems, military
    operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research
    and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense
    of the United States). [51 U.S. Code Sec. 20102--Congressional
    declaration of policy and purpose].

        Question 1. Are you concerned that there may be unintended
    consequences of promoting this national security designation for NASA?
    For example, having a negative impact on the agency's ongoing efforts
    to pursue the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for
    peaceful and scientific purposes and pursue cooperation with other
    nations and groups of nations in the peaceful exploration and use of
    outer space for civil and commercial purposes?
        Answer. This is a challenging question since NASA's success or
    failure, particularly relative to the lunar competition with China and
    activities in LEO, will have significant national security
    repercussions. Therefore, there is a nontrivial argument to be made
    that NASA requires the exclusion from the Federal Labor-Management
    Relations Program per the Executive Order.
        However, while such an exclusion is likely necessary, it should
    remain explicitly clear that NASA's purpose is to support the peaceful
    exploration and utilization of space for civil and commercial purposes.
    Unlike China, the U.S. separates its civil and national security space
    enterprises. This separation should be maintained to ensure the U.S.
    continues to show global leadership in support of peaceful,
    responsible, and transparent space exploration and utilization, as
    opposed to the opaque, dangerous, and militaristic space program that
    China is currently conducting.
    NASA Centers Funding in Reconciliation
        I want to acknowledge Chair Cruz for his work on ensuring strong
    funding for NASA human space exploration through the reconciliation
    process. However, there are aspects of the guidance to NASA in the
    reconciliation law that I do not support, including the disparity in
    construction and infrastructure funding contained in the law, with $1
    billion provided to only five centers.

        Question 1. Do you believe it is essential that all 10 field
    centers, their supporting facilities, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    receive sufficient infrastructure and construction funding to maintain
    NASA as the world's preeminent aerospace agency?
        Answer. I do not believe that maintaining ten NASA field centers,
    their supporting facilities, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory are all
    inherently necessary to the success of NASA. Instead of making cuts to
    vital exploration and science programs, I believe that NASA should
    explore saving funds and increasing efficiencies by consolidating the
    number and nature of its facilities across the U.S.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                  Michael Gold
    Pharmaceutical/Biomedical Breakthroughs in Space
        In your testimony, you describe how we are on the precipice of
    truly incredible breakthroughs in microgravity that could transform the
    pharmaceutical and biotech industries.

        Question 1. What additional legislation would be helpful from
    Congress to advance these breakthroughs?
        Answer. Thank you for the question and there are a wide variety of
    ways that Congress can ensure that these breakthroughs occur, and that
    they occur here in America instead of China, specifically:

       Congress should continue to explicitly require NASA to
            maintain a continuous crewed presence in LEO.

       Congress should provide NASA with robust funding for
            Commercial LEO Destinations (CLDs) and require NASA to both (1)
            avoid a gap in American crewed activities in LEO, and (2)
            ensure that NASA's crewed facilities and capabilities in LEO
            substantively exceed China's.

       Congress should provide increased funding for microgravity
            pharmaceutical and biotech-related research and manufacturing
            activities by authorizing and appropriating $130M or more for
            the agency's Biological and Physical Sciences (BPS) Division.
            Moreover, regardless of overall budgets, NASA and CASIS should
            prioritize funding, as well as up and down mass and crew time,
            for pharmaceutical and biotech-related R&D and prototype
            manufacturing activities that have strong commercial potential.

       Additionally, more flexibility should be provided by
            Congress to the BPS Division that would enable BPS to: contract
            directly with CLDs to host payloads, provide up and down mass,
            and crew time. Also, BPS should be granted authority to place
            experiments and payloads on Gateway, cislunar spacecraft,
            spacecraft traveling to Mars, and on the surface of Mars.

       NASA should pro-actively collaborate with the National
            Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the
            Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and
            any other relevant agencies and departments to utilize and
            become customers for the breakthrough capabilities and products
            that commercial space companies achieve on the ISS.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                                  Michael Gold
        Question 1. China has announced not only that they plan on landing
    on the moon by 2030, but they also want to establish a permanent crewed
    lunar station by 2035, and an $11 Billion Earth-Moon economy by 2050.
    According to the NASA Inspector General last year, SLS will only be
    able to carry out 1 Orion mission every two years for the foreseeable
    future. Currently, international partners fly crew to and from the
    International Space Station about 5 times per year. While a lunar base
    crew might be smaller to start, could a lunar base be functional with
    fewer than two missions per year? Will this cadence allow us to build a
    growing U.S. human presence on the Moon and dominate lunar development
    and settlement? If not, what frequency would be required?
        Answer. Although the Inspector General (IG) has justifiably cited
    cost overruns and schedule delays with the SLS and Orion, I am not
    aware that the IG ever stated that ``the SLS will only be able to carry
    out 1 Orion mission every two years for the foreseeable future.'' NASA
    is currently planning to launch one SLS per year beginning in 2028. The
    launch of commercial lunar spacecraft could add to this launch cadence.
    I believe that a single launch per year, potentially augmented by
    commercial transportation vehicles, will be sufficient to ``build a
    growing U.S. human presence on the Moon and dominate lunar development
    and settlement.''
        However, per my testimony, robust lunar development can only be
    achieved if Gateway is deployed. With Gateway and full commercial
    logistics services, crewed lunar surface activities can occur for 60--
    90 days, enabling astronauts to conduct significant development and
    settlement activities including resource extraction and utilization, as
    well as building and deploying infrastructure such as solar arrays,
    nuclear reactors, landing pads, roads, and habitats. Without Gateway,
    crewed surface activities will be limited to 5-7 days, severely
    curtailing development and settlement activities and constructively
    ceding the lunar surface to China.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
                                  Michael Gold
    Microgravity Research in Space
        Since 1999, the International Space Station has operated as the
    only U.S. National Lab that operates in space. The ISS and its unique
    microgravity environment allows proteins to grow into larger crystals
    than on Earth. This research contributes to breakthroughs in drug
    design for muscular dystrophy and certain cancers. The United States
    needs a steady presence in space to continue essential microgravity
    research.
        NASA has already invested in the development of research platforms
    on commercial space stations; and developed plans to safely deorbit the
    ISS.

        Question 1. Mr. Gold, how would you describe NASA's efforts thus
    far to maintain the United States' continuous presence in LEO? Would
    you have any recommendations to offer for NASA to improve our
    transition to commercial microgravity platforms?
        Answer. Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I would describe
    NASA's efforts to maintain a continuous crewed presence in LEO as slow
    and inconsistent. Until Secretary Duffy became NASA Interim
    Administrator, there were indications that NASA was moving toward no
    longer supporting a continuous crewed presence in LEO, ceding the field
    to China. Moreover, after years of discussion and analysis, NASA has
    yet to execute commercial contracts with private sector partners to fly
    government astronauts on CLDs. Per language in the One Big Beautiful
    Bill Act, Congress is directing NASA to proceed with alacrity and has
    established deadlines to begin implementing the actual procurement of
    CLDs. I applaud Congress's pro-active engagement on this matter and
    hope that this Committee and your colleagues in both chambers remain
    vigilant to ensure that NASA proceeds with sufficient priority and
    urgency to prevent ceding crewed LEO activities and all of its benefits
    to China. Additionally, NASA should fully implement a commercial
    paradigm wherein the agency provides its needs and leaves the private
    sector to develop its own solution to address them. Moreover,
    programmatic and operational requirements that the Agency levies upon
    CLD providers should be limited as much as possible and, after
    agreements are executed, must remain frozen. In the meantime, while
    CLDs are being developed, on the ISS, NASA should prioritize relevant
    available funding, up and down mass, and crew time in support of
    microgravity activities such as biotech and pharmaceutical work, that
    could make substantive contributions to the business case for CLDs.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Fetterman to
                                  Michael Gold
        The NASA Space Grant funds pre-college and public service education
    projects in all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico, and fills a vital role
    in preparing the next generation of the space workforce. In
    Pennsylvania, the Space Grant is operated by Penn State, which leads a
    consortium of 16 colleges and universities around the commonwealth in
    space education and research programming in support of the needs of the
    NASA Mission Directorate.
        We know that Chinese universities are training a highly skilled
    workforce and have built one of the world's most advanced remote
    sensing space programs. There is bipartisan acknowledgement of the race
    we are in with respect to space exploration.

        Question 1. What actions should U.S. universities take to ensure we
    remain globally competitive, and how can Space Grant institutions best
    align with NASA's workforce and research priorities to sustain American
    leadership in space science and technology?
        Answer. U.S. universities need to redouble their efforts to monitor
    and ensure that researchers are not working for or with Chinese
    entities when utilizing NASA or other Federal government funds.
    Moreover, while not ignoring fundamental science, universities should
    focus on applications for space science and technologies that will
    support commercial space activities that create jobs, innovation, and
    generally improve life on Earth.

        Question 2. What steps should Congress take to ensure that NASA's
    reauthorization provides the long-term stability and investment
    universities need to contribute fully to U.S. leadership in space,
    especially as adversaries seek to set their own rules of the road?
        Answer. The best step that NASA can take is to ensure that the
    Artemis program is sustained. NASA's inability to sustain a beyond-LEO
    human spaceflight program since Apollo has been devastating for the
    stability of investments by the agency and all of its university
    partners. I applaud the yeoman's work that was done in the One Big
    Beautiful Bill Act to restore Artemis funding and to support ISS
    operations as well.
        In regard to setting the rules of the road, it's an excellent point
    to raise since NASA and America must lead not just in technology but in
    policy. Therefore, NASA and the Department of State must continue to
    increase the number of Artemis Accords signatory nations. In order to
    do so and ensure that we do not start losing Accords signatories to
    China (which has already happened in a few instances), we must quickly,
    strategically, and creatively find ways for Artemis Accords signatories
    to contribute to and become a part of the Artemis program.

        Question 3. What are the risks to our existing workforce pipeline
    if funding for NASA Space Grants or similar K-12 STEM program is
    interrupted, withheld, or reduced?
        Answer. One of if not the most challenging aspect of our
    competition with China is workforce size, expertise, and development.
    China's aerospace workforce dwarfs our own and China also enjoys a
    cultural focus on engineering, science, and math that has atrophied in
    America since, and in no small part because of, the short-sighted
    termination of the Apollo program. Therefore, to compete with China, we
    must do everything possible to bolster programs such as the NASA Space
    Grants and similar K-12 STEM initiatives. This means that all of
    America must participate and we cannot leave any region or demographic
    behind. Currently, the Space Grant consortium is the only way NASA
    directly touches universities and student populations in many rural
    states and tribal territories. We must continue to fund Space Grants in
    part to ensure that rural America isn't left behind.
        Moreover, we should focus such efforts on providing students with
    real hands-on space hardware experience. For example, the High Schools
    United with NASA to Create Hardware (HUNCH) program, which has been
    utilized by Redwire, enables students from rural states and
    reservations to build equipment for the ISS. Due to HUNCH, students
    from rural areas who weren't even expected to graduate high school,
    have gone on to become aerospace engineers, making contributions to
    Gateway and numerous other human and robotic spaceflight systems. It's
    through programs like HUNCH that we can ensure that America maximizes
    and optimizes its aerospace workforce, enabling NASA, Space Force, and
    the commercial space sector to survive and thrive.
        While I fully support robust funding for Space Grant Consortiums
    and other K-12 initiatives, the impact of such funding would be
    substantially diluted if NASA does not sustain Artemis. Per my
    testimony, NASA has failed to sustain a beyond LEO human spaceflight
    program since Apollo. . .until Artemis. Artemis is the first beyond LEO
    human spaceflight program since the 1960s to successfully make the
    transition from one partisan Presidential administration to another.
    Therefore, the most important action that NASA can take to support K-12
    education is to show this Nation's students that we're going back to
    the Moon, this time to stay and, if we can do that, it will inspire a
    new and robust aerospace workforce.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
    Government and Commercial Space Partnerships
        The John C. Stennis Space Center is home to NASA's largest
    propulsion and engine test site. It also hosts commercial space
    companies. NASA increasingly relies on the commercial space sector to
    execute its mission. At the Center, NASA supports the commercial space
    industry, including by providing water and chemicals, such as nitrogen
    and hydrogen.
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) allocated over $9 billion
    for NASA, including $120 million for infrastructure projects at the
    Stennis Space Center. Outside of the OBBBA, I introduced the Engine
    Testing for Exploration Act and the Building Out Optimized Space
    Testing (BOOST) for Engines Act, which would require NASA to continue
    rocket propulsion testing at the Stennis Space Center and continue
    modernization efforts for rocket propulsion test infrastructure at NASA
    centers.
        It is important for the United States government to both grow the
    commercial space industry and maintain government activity in space,
    especially as our key competitors, China and Russia, have increased
    their space presence and developed launch vehicles capable of reaching
    all orbits and satellite constellations for remote sensing, navigation,
    and communications.

        Question 1. NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi
    serves as America's largest rocket propulsion test site and exemplifies
    how NASA can work with commercial space industry. The historic
    investments in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will bolster the Stennis
    Space Center's equities through critical infrastructure improvements
    and engagement with the commercial space sector. How can we continue to
    leverage government and commercial partnerships to maximize utilization
    of NASA centers and achieve our space missions?
        Answer. Over the past 70 years, the American people have made great
    investments in facilities and infrastructure to accomplish space
    missions. As the entrepreneurial spirit of this country has manifested
    itself in a robust commercial space industry, we have been able to
    leverage these capabilities to meet national objectives. If we are
    going to lean on them to accomplish big things for our country,
    allowing commercial partners to leverage legacy and new investments at
    NASA centers is common sense. Stennis Space Center has been a leader in
    the types of partnerships that facilitate access to NASA facilities and
    properties.
        To ensure maximum utilization Congress should pass legislation that
    simplifies the processes for companies to gain access to labs and test
    stands. Simplifying Enhanced Use Leasing authority and transfer of un-
    utilized property from NASA to an industry partner is also important.
    While these processes have all improved over the last decade, thanks in
    part to Senator Wicker's leadership, we still see friction and red tape
    as industry goes through them, and that should be reduced as much as
    possible.
    Artemis Program
        The Artemis Program, announced in 2017, is NASA's mission to return
    to the moon and prepare for future Mars exploration. The Artemis
    program emerged from earlier initiatives such as the Constellation
    program and represents NASA's work on human lunar exploration after a
    previous focus on the International Space Station (ISS). The spacecraft
    for the Artemis mission is the Space Launch System rocket (SLS) with an
    Orion Spacecraft, which will carry humans to the moon. The One Big
    Beautiful Bill Act included $4.1 billion for the Space Launch System
    for Artemis Missions IV and V. As you know, all engines in the Artemis
    program are tested at the Stennis Center. Your visits to the Stennis
    Space Center and its commercial tenants as NASA Administrator
    highlighted that great work.

        Question 2. Why is it important to continue the Artemis program in
    the wake of the race to the moon with China? What architecture in the
    Artemis Program needs to change to be able to sustain and replicate
    missions to the moon?
        Answer. After Apollo, we have had too many stops and starts in our
    attempts to go back to the Moon. Changes in administrations lead to
    changes in priorities, and previous lunar architectures failed to
    secure the bipartisan buy-in needed to survive across election cycles.
    The Chinese government, run by a single authoritarian party, does not
    have that problem. They can keep their ambitions on track over the time
    horizons needed to conduct lunar missions.
        This is why I am proud of the work we did during my time at the
    helm of NASA to secure support for the Artemis program. We have now
    seen it survive two administration changes and multiple shifts in the
    balance of power in Congress. Ending it now would be devastating, as we
    would lose the progress we have made--progress that will see America
    sending astronauts back to orbit the Moon in early 2026--and there is
    no guarantee any future program could be built to survive across
    changes in government.
        We have a human-rated super heavy lift rocket and we have a human-
    rated deep space capsule. What we do not have is a lander, and given
    the time frame that China has stated as their lunar landing goal--
    before 2030--I believe it is highly unlikely there is anything we could
    do to beat that timeline.
        In the near term, we need to focus on beating them to cislunar
    space, and we do this by launching the Gateway as soon as possible. If
    decisions are made right now, it is feasible for the Gateway to be
    launched to the Moon by 2028. This will allow us to be the first to
    have permanent human access to cislunar space and provide a platform to
    closely monitor Chinese surface activity if and when they land. We can
    also leverage the immense capabilities of industry, through CLPS or
    other appropriate programs, to begin landing infrastructure and cargo
    on the surface that will support future human landings.
        In parallel, Congress should support the procurement of a human
    landing system that does not require complex refueling procedures and
    multiple launches to make it to the Moon. While in-space refueling will
    be a transformational technology that will enable us to take huge
    amounts of mass to the surface, it is not the fastest path to the Moon.
    A simpler system will allow us to not be too far behind China on the
    next series of landings.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
    1. Kodiak's Pacific Spaceport: The Arctic Launch Advantage
        ``Alaska is home to the Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island,
    which offers rare U.S. access to high-inclination and polar orbits.
    These trajectories are critical for Earth observation, national
    security, and Arctic monitoring--but they can't be reached from most
    U.S. launch sites in the lower 48. Given that China is expanding its
    launch capability and building Arctic partnerships, how is NASA
    leveraging Kodiak's spaceport to ensure secure U.S. launch access into
    polar orbit? And what investments or partnerships should Congress
    prioritize to grow this strategic infrastructure?''
        Answer. We are already at a point where some of our traditional
    launch sites that NASA leverages are stretched thin, and the ranges are
    doing yeoman's work to find additional capacity but we're clearly very
    close to the limit. This problem will be made even worse if decisions
    are made that allow a singular launch provider at the Cape to
    essentially shut down operations of every other launcher, including
    NASA, nearly every day. NASA will need to leverage additional launch
    sites in this country.
        NASA's Launch Service Program is supposed to encourage a mixed-
    fleet approach, and this could include launch providers who operate out
    of Kodiak. Unfortunately, the reality is that NASA's procurement
    practices have not aligned with that goal and we are much closer to a
    monopolistic position.
        Congress should limit the amount of launches NASA can award to any
    one provider in order to promote a robust launch industrial base. There
    is precedent in the National Security Space Launch program, where
    Congress has required a minimum amount of launch vehicle diversity to
    guarantee assured access to space.
    2. ASF: NASA's Only SAR Data Center Is in Alaska
        ``NASA's Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the University of
    Alaska Fairbanks is the agency's only center for receiving and
    processing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite data. This data
    supports disaster response, Arctic monitoring, agriculture, and
    military logistics, and is critical in cloudy or dark environments--
    like the Arctic. China and Russia are rapidly advancing SAR satellite
    capabilities. If NASA moves forward with proposed cuts to ASF, what
    would be the national and global implications for data continuity,
    disaster readiness, and Arctic situational awareness?''
        Answer. Like space, the Arctic has become an increasingly contested
    domain, especially as glacier ice has melted and opened new navigation
    lanes for shipping (and security). There are clear security and
    economic competitiveness issues at play, and NASA plays a key role.
    While I appreciate the Administration's focus on human exploration,
    NASA has a diverse mission set that has direct implications on American
    dominance. I would encourage Congress to work with the Administration
    to maintain missions and facilities with clear national implications.
    3. Arctic Blind Spots in Navigation and Communications
        ``Much of the Arctic still lacks reliable satellite-based
    communications, navigation, and surveillance--gaps that become more
    urgent as sea lanes open and adversaries increase activity in the
    region. Alaska's infrastructure could help bridge that gap. What steps
    is NASA taking--or should it take--in partnership with other agencies,
    to develop or deploy technologies that support persistent Arctic space-
    based coverage for communication and navigation? How can we ensure the
    Arctic doesn't remain a strategic blind spot?''
        Answer. Low Earth orbit satellite communications can serve the
    Arctic, but there must be a competitive market with numerous providers
    competing on cost and innovation. The FCC should ensure that satellite
    communications spectrum is not concentrated in one company. Resilient
    position, navigation, and timing capabilities are being developed by
    the Department of War through the procurement of commercial PNT in
    unique orbits utilizing different parts of the electromagnetic
    spectrum. Resilient PNT and competitive LEO satellite communications
    will ensure the Arctic is not a strategic blind spot.
    4. Poker Flat: The U.S.' Only High-Latitude Rocket Range at Risk
        ``The Poker Flat Research Range near Fairbanks is the only U.S.
    sounding rocket range in the high latitudes. It provides low-cost,
    rapid launch capability for atmospheric and aurora research and
    supports student training and workforce development. But without
    renewed NASA investment, it may shut down by 2028. Given the national
    security implications of Arctic space weather and the affordability of
    this launch site, what is the rationale for allowing it to atrophy? How
    does NASA plan to preserve U.S. launch presence in the polar region?''
        Answer. The Arctic is an increasingly contested--and important--
    domain. Any decisions to stand down capabilities in the region should
    not be taken lightly. Again, NASA has many mission sets that have
    direct security and dominance implications, and I would encourage the
    Administration to work with Congress to ensure NASA has a robust budget
    to continue critical missions and capabilities.
    5. Space Weather: Arctic Aviation and Infrastructure Depend on It
        ``The Geophysical Institute at UAF leads some of the most advanced
    research in space weather and geomagnetic storms, which pose serious
    risks to aviation safety, power grids, and communications--especially
    in the Arctic, where magnetic interference is strongest. With NASA
    proposing cuts to these programs, what's the potential operational
    impact on commercial and defense aviation routes over the Arctic? Can
    the U.S. afford to scale back space weather forecasting in this region
    when these disruptions are only expected to grow?''
        Answer. Space weather forecasting is a topic I have been concerned
    about since my time in Congress. Solar flares and geomagnetic storms
    from the sun threaten everything from satellites in orbit and
    airplanes, to our electrical grid and astronauts in space. The U.S.
    cannot afford to scale back space weather forecasting, especially in
    the Arctic.
    6. Protecting the STEM Pipeline and National Talent Base
        ``Alaska institutions like the Geophysical Institute don't just
    conduct critical research--they also train the next generation of space
    physicists, engineers, and atmospheric scientists. But NASA's program
    mergers and delayed awards are already causing labs to lose students
    and postdocs. How concerned should we be about the long-term loss of
    this talent pipeline--not just in Alaska but nationally--if funding
    uncertainty continues to drive students and faculty out of space
    science fields?''
        Answer. I believe the best way to grow the STEM Pipeline is to
    ensure robust funding across NASA's programs and mission sets, and as
    part of that funding, for the programs and missions to bring in
    students to participate meaningfully in mission execution. This gives
    students real, hands-on operational and flight experience before they
    enter the workforce. Not only will this be inspiring to those students,
    it will also make them extremely attractive candidates once it is time
    for them to seek employment.
    7. China's Arctic and Polar Ambitions vs. U.S. Inaction
        ``China is investing in new polar research bases, satellites
    optimized for Arctic observation, and even new Arctic shipping routes
    to advance its space and geopolitical aims. Meanwhile, core Arctic
    science and space infrastructure in the U.S.--like ASF and Poker Flat--
    is facing funding cuts or operational risk. What should Congress do
    right now to make sure the United States doesn't lose its strategic
    space foothold in the Arctic, particularly when China is aiming to fill
    any gaps we leave behind?''
        Answer. I've previously mentioned my belief that the Arctic has
    become an increasingly contested domain. Near the end of my time in
    Congress, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, we were
    beginning to pay closer attention to our adversaries' increasing
    ambitions in the regions. NASA capabilities certainly play a role, but
    I would recommend the NDAA include provisions that maintain a robust
    presence in the Arctic.
    8. Transparency and Stability in NASA Grantmaking
        ``Alaska researchers are facing major uncertainty under the new
    ROSES 2025 program restructures, with some merged solicitations seeing
    up to 75 percent funding reductions and others marked `TBD.' These cuts
    directly impact Arctic science. Should Congress require NASA to provide
    more transparency and predictability in how these funding lines are
    combined and awarded? And what safeguards should be considered to
    protect regionally essential research capacity from being lost in broad
    program reshuffles?''
        Answer. Having served in both the Legislative and Executive Branch,
    I can assure you that transparency between the branches is critical for
    our government to function. As a legislator, the only way we can make
    informed decisions is by receiving adequate information. As a member of
    the Executive Branch tasked with carrying out programs and initiatives,
    you want to earn buy-in from the members of relevant Committees in
    order to gain support for big initiatives.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
        Question 1. How should Congress think about the balance between
    funding exploration and science programs to ensure the U.S. retains
    both technological and geopolitical leadership in space?
        Answer. While I understand--and agree with--the Administration's
    attempts to get our debt and deficit under control, that is not going
    to be accomplished through the budget of an agency that represents
    around one third of one percent of the Federal government. Human
    exploration is and should be a priority, but a robust science budget is
    critical for American competitiveness. In the first Trump
    administration, I was proud that the Science Mission Directorate had
    some of the most robust budgets in NASA's history. I think healthy
    budgets across NASA's mission sets are key for U.S. leadership.

        Question 2. China is rapidly expanding its space science portfolio,
    positioning themselves to answer fundamental scientific questions
    before us. What risks does the U.S. face if our cadence of scientific
    missions within the Science Mission Directorate fails to keep pace with
    China?
        Answer. There is a lot of science that NASA carries out that
    directly affects how we produce food, produce energy, communicate,
    navigate, conduct commerce, predict weather, understand climate, and
    protect hardware and astronauts from space weather. These are key
    components to American competitiveness and preeminence, and we must
    maintain our capabilities.

        Question 3. NASA plays a unique role in inspiring the next
    generation of American scientists and recruiting top-class STEM talent
    from around the world to advance American leadership in space. What
    steps should NASA and Congress take to ensure these highly skilled
    individuals remain in the U.S. workforce rather than returning abroad
    to potentially strengthen our competitors?
        Answer. NASA should undertake stunning achievements that inspire
    workers to stay in the United States.

        Question 4. What are your perspectives of China's efforts to
    develop reusable rockets, and how should the United States compete with
    that?
        Answer. The United States uses and leads in reusable rockets today.
    However, reusability is not ideal for high energy orbits--the kinds
    that are preferable for unique, bespoke national security assets. We
    also lead the world in access to high energy orbits.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
    The Moon Race with China--How do we win
        Each of the witnesses during testimony and questioning at the
    hearing said that winning the race against China to the Moon, not only
    to land again, but to establish a permanent presence, is vitally
    important, and each witness expressed varying levels of concern that
    the U.S. is likely to lose without changes to the current approach. You
    were especially clear and thorough with your concern about the current
    Artemis architecture's reliance on the extremely complex and untested
    Starship lander.

        Question 1. Mr. Bridenstine, if we are serious about beating China
    to the moon and being a first mover when it comes to establishing a
    sustainable presence in important areas of the lunar surface, what
    three things do we absolutely need to do as a nation right now from
    your experience as former NASA Administrator?
        Answer. 1) We should accelerate the launch of the Gateway to as
    early as possible in 2028 in order to be the first country with
    permanent access to cislunar space; 2) We should explore acquisition
    models that allow for crew transportation as a service so that Orion
    does not have to wait for another SLS to take astronauts to the Gateway
    and puts astronauts at the Moon before China lands, and 3) We should
    procure a near term landing system that does not rely on in-space
    refueling and can be ready to take our astronauts from the Gateway to
    the lunar surface so that we are not far behind on surface presence. As
    part of this, we should also look at how orbital transfer vehicles can
    help simplify the Artemis architecture.
    Importance of NASA Science, Space Technology, and Aeronautics Funding
        NASA's exploration programs depend on steady investment in science
    and in space technology development, often carried out in partnership
    with industry.
        The President's FY26 budget proposes to cut NASA's Science Mission
    Directorate by about 47 percent and to reduce the Space Technology
    Mission Directorate by over 48 percent.
        In contrast, the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science proposal restores
    this funding, protecting the science and technology investments that
    underpin the Moon-to-Mars strategy and U.S. space leadership.

        Question 1. Without robust funding for NASA's science and space
    technology programs are we ceding our country's long-term space
    leadership to China and other competitors?
        Answer. There is a lot of science and R&D that NASA carries out
    that directly affects how we produce food, how we produce energy, how
    we communicate, how we navigate, how we conduct commerce, predict
    weather, understand climate, protect astronauts and hardware from space
    weather, and so much more. These are key components to American
    competitiveness and preeminence, and we must maintain our capabilities.

        Question 2. Do you support strong NASA-industry partnerships in the
    aeronautics sector to advance pre-competitive technologies, such as
    advanced materials manufacturing? How important are these
    collaborations for U.S. aerospace competitiveness?
        Answer. Yes, the more collaboration between industry and
    government, especially when industry can bring resources to the table,
    the better. We know that China is leveraging space and microgravity for
    advanced materials with a specific focus on hypersonics. NASA and
    industry should be working together to make sure we stay ahead. A key
    piece of this is moving forward with Commercial LEO Development,
    downselecting to two fully mission capable platforms that can be
    leveraged by both NASA and industry to do exquisite R&D and
    manufacturing in microgravity.
        Additional aerospace collaboration activities that will keep the
    United States ahead of competitors include: 1) transonic truss-braced
    wing technology; 2) small core engines for higher bypass rations; and
    3) more electric architectures for propulsion.
    Mars Readiness Projections
        There is a lot of excitement about sending humans to Mars. But a
    safe mission will depend on systems we are still developing, including
    life support for long missions, reliable propulsion for deep space
    travel, and the equipment needed to live and work on the surface. The
    Moon gives us a place to test these technologies and prepare.
        Before changing the current plan, Congress needs a clear sense of
    when a safe human mission to Mars will actually be possible.

        Question 1. Based on your experience and understanding of current
    programs, when do you believe a safe and successful human mission to
    Mars will be feasible?
        Answer. I agree with you that the Moon serves as an ideal place to
    draw down risks and learn lessons for missions to Mars. I also think
    the Moon serves as a great strategic location for multiple reasons and
    should be prioritized. Based on this and the current state of
    technology, I don't think we can attempt a mission to Mars until the
    2040s.
    NASA Aeronautics Research
        NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate has helped make the
    U.S. a global leader in aerospace by developing technologies that drive
    commercial aviation.
        But to stay ahead, we must keep investing in innovation. Right now,
    we're falling behind in a critical area: advanced thermoplastic
    composites--materials that make aircraft lighter, stronger, and more
    fuel efficient.
        That's why NASA launched the HiCAM project, in partnership with
    industry, to speed up the development of these materials and apply them
    to the manufacture of air vehicle components. In my home state of
    Washington, a consortia of companies, universities, and workforce
    training organizations are pursuing a Tech Hub to keep the U.S. at the
    forefront of advanced aerospace manufacturing.

        Question 1. You were very supportive of NASA aeronautics research
    as Administrator--assuming that is still the case, are you comfortable
    with a 37 percent cut to NASA's aeronautics budget?
        Answer. The work done in the Aeronautics Mission Directorate is so
    critical for American competitiveness, especially as China is making
    inroads selling airplanes to customers who typically buy from American
    companies. While I understand--and agree with--the Administration's
    attempts to get our debt and deficit under control, that is not going
    to be accomplished through the budget of an agency that represents
    around one half of one percent of the Federal budget.
        Investing in aeronautics has resulted in tremendous economic growth
    for the United States, which has the effect of reducing deficits.
    Designating NASA as a National Security Agency
        An August 28 Executive Order titled ``Further Exclusions from the
    Federal Labor-Management Relations Program'' reclassified NASA and
    other agencies as having intelligence or national security as a primary
    function, thereby excluding their employees from collective bargaining
    rights. This marks a significant departure from NASA's foundational
    identity, defined by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
    (P.L. 85-568), as a civilian agency exercising control over
    aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States,
    distinct from department of Defense activities peculiar to or primarily
    associated with the development of weapons systems, military
    operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research
    and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense
    of the United States). [51 U.S. Code Sec. 20102--Congressional
    declaration of policy and purpose].

        Question 1. Are you concerned that there may be unintended
    consequences of promoting this national security designation for NASA?
    For example, having a negative impact on the agency's ongoing efforts
    to pursue the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for
    peaceful and scientific purposes and pursue cooperation with other
    nations and groups of nations in the peaceful exploration and use of
    outer space for civil and commercial purposes?
        Answer. The DIME theory states that there are 4 pillars of national
    power: Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic. NASA is
    relevant to all 4 pillars in various ways.

       D--we partner with other nations on space missions, like the
            ISS and Artemis, keeping them in our sphere of influence

       I--NASA missions are news around the world. I shared an
            example of the Insight Lander making the state news of Iran.
            Not exactly the biggest friend of ours, and a NASA mission put
            America in a good light for people who never see the United
            States in a positive way.

       M--many technologies developed for NASA are dual-use and
            have applicability for national security purposes.

       E--NASA missions provide data that directly affect our
            ability to produce food, produce energy, communicate, navigate,
            transport, and more. NASA plays a major role in U.S. economic
            competitiveness.

        NASA clearly is a key instrument of American power, including
    national security. However, I do think that it is important for NASA to
    remain a civil agency focused on exploration, discovery, science, and,
    especially, diplomacy. The technologies will have natural national
    security benefits.
    NASA Centers Funding in Reconciliation
        I want to acknowledge Chair Cruz for his work on ensuring strong
    funding for NASA human space exploration through the reconciliation
    process. However, there are aspects of the guidance to NASA in the
    reconciliation law that I do not support, including the disparity in
    construction and infrastructure funding contained in the law, with $1
    billion provided to only five centers.

        Question 1. Do you believe it is essential that all 10 field
    centers, their supporting facilities, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    receive sufficient infrastructure and construction funding to maintain
    NASA as the world's preeminent aerospace agency?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the intent of the
    reconciliation funding was to focus on human exploration, which is why
    the centers which received funding were the ones which are primarily
    focused on that part of NASA's mission.
        I do agree with you that there are other critical missions being
    carried out at other NASA centers and facilities. For example, in the
    hearing I highlighted the work being done at JPL and the need to
    maintain the workforce and expertise there. I strongly recommend
    Congress work through the appropriations process to ensure adequate
    funding throughout the agency.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
    Preserving the Science Mission Directorate
        NASA's Science Mission Directorate invests in over a hundred space
    science missions and thousands of scientific research awards. In your
    testimony, you advocate for the preservation of these investments in
    space missions and scientific research.

        Question 1. Why is it important to maintain investments in this
    valuable science?
        Answer. There is a lot of science that NASA carries out that
    directly affects how we produce food, how we produce energy, how we
    communicate, how we navigate, how we conduct commerce, predict weather,
    understand climate, protect astronauts and hardware from space weather,
    and so much more. These are key components to American competitiveness
    and preeminence, and we must maintain our capabilities.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
        Question 1. China has announced not only that they plan on landing
    on the moon by 2030, but they also want to establish a permanent crewed
    lunar station by 2035, and an $11 Billion Earth-Moon economy by 2050.
    According to the NASA Inspector General last year, SLS will only be
    able to carry out 1 Orion mission every two years for the foreseeable
    future. Currently, international partners fly crew to and from the
    International Space Station about 5 times per year. While a lunar base
    crew might be smaller to start, could a lunar base be functional with
    fewer than two missions per year? Will this cadence allow us to build a
    growing U.S. human presence on the Moon and dominate lunar development
    and settlement? If not, what frequency would be required?
        Answer. I have made it no secret that I think SLS, as the only
    human-rated super heavy lift rocket, is our only chance to be
    competitive in the near term. However, I agree that the current cost
    and throughput of SLS is unsustainable in the long run and I do not
    think the cadence is enough to allow us to dominate lunar development.
        To build a robust surface presence, we will need to procure super-
    heavy launch commercially from multiple providers--and SLS should have
    a chance to compete. We should also consider procuring Orion directly
    as a service. Orbital transfer vehicles should be leveraged to ship
    supplies to and from cislunar space, and to shuttle landers from the
    Gateway to low lunar orbit and back.
        Near term, SLS represents the best way for us to establish a
    presence in cislunar space by returning astronauts to lunar orbit for
    the first time in over 50 years. Long term success will require
    significant rethinking of the Artemis architecture.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
    Earth Observation Satellites
        For years, NASA has developed satellites to monitor our Earth and
    advance the state of the art in science. NASA has expanded its Earth
    observation efforts in partnership with commercial companies to procure
    and democratize access to high-quality datasets of Earth imagery.
        During your time leading NASA, partnerships for sharing Earth
    observation datasets progressed from a small pilot to a sustained
    Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA) Program.

        Question 1. Mr. Bridenstine, how does NASA's scientific research in
    Earth observation provides benefits not only to the commercial sector,
    but also advances national security interests and enhances research in
    academia?
        Answer. I have long been a proponent of leveraging commercial data
    and doing data buys. More data allows for better modeling, prediction,
    and analysis. Understanding Earth systems such as the cryosphere, the
    hydrosphere, the lithosphere, atmosphere, and the biosphere are
    essential to preserving life and property and maintaining
    competitiveness.
    STEM Education
        NASA's Office of STEM Engagement funds high impact programs like
    Space Grant and after-school enrichment. The Colorado Space Grant
    Consortium brings together 21 colleges, universities, and institutions
    around our state and connects students to real-world, hands-on NASA
    projects. The President's Budget Request completely eliminates the
    Office of STEM Engagement, wiping out Space Grant along with other
    programs, under the guise of saving money.

        Question 2. Mr. Bridenstine, how will the elimination of these
    kinds of opportunities for our students impact our Nation's ability to
    provide a skilled workforce that can return humans to the Moon and
    continue on to Mars?
        Answer. I believe the best way to grow the STEM Pipeline is to
    ensure robust funding across NASA's programs and mission sets, and as
    part of that funding, for the programs and missions to bring in
    students to participate meaningfully in mission execution. This gives
    students real, hands-on operational and flight experience before they
    even enter the workforce. Not only will this be inspiring to those
    students, it will also make them extremely attractive candidates once
    it is time for them to seek employment. I fully support robust funding
    for this purpose.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Fetterman to
                              Hon. Jim Bridenstine
        The NASA Space Grant funds pre-college and public service education
    projects in all 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico, and fills a vital role
    in preparing the next generation of the space workforce. In
    Pennsylvania, the Space Grant is operated by Penn State, which leads a
    consortium of 16 colleges and universities around the commonwealth in
    space education and research programming in support of the needs of the
    NASA Mission Directorate.
        We know that Chinese universities are training a highly skilled
    workforce and have built one of the world's most advanced remote
    sensing space programs. There is bipartisan acknowledgement of the race
    we are in with respect to space exploration.

        Question 1. What actions should U.S. universities take to ensure we
    remain globally competitive, and how can Space Grant institutions best
    align with NASA's workforce and research priorities to sustain American
    leadership in space science and technology?
        Answer. We have seen many examples of universities who have led
    NASA missions come in on time and under budget. I think more
    universities should seek to prime contracts versus being part of a
    team. I also think NASA should make adjustments to its acquisition
    processes to provide more opportunities for university-led missions. On
    top of saving money and executing missions on time, university-led
    missions will have significant student involvement, providing
    experience for a future workforce that can enter NASA or the space
    industry after school.

        Question 2. What steps should Congress take to ensure that NASA's
    reauthorization provides the long-term stability and investment
    universities need to contribute fully to U.S. leadership in space,
    especially as adversaries seek to set their own rules of the road?
        Answer. Congress should consider setting a requirement when
    awarding missions that the winning contractor should include some level
    of direct student involvement in mission development, production,
    integration, operations, and/or analysis. Additionally, along the lines
    of my previous answer, Congress could require a certain percentage of
    missions to be university-led.

        Question 3. What are the risks to our existing workforce pipeline
    if funding for NASA Space Grants or similar K-12 STEM program is
    interrupted, withheld, or reduced?
        Answer. In my view, students in primary and secondary school are
    inspired to enter STEM fields when they see NASA accomplish big,
    stunning achievements. NASA should have a robust budget to undertake
    these efforts that get kids excited about STEM fields, and those
    achievements should be properly communicated by NASA so that kids can
    learn about them.
        Once we get into post-secondary education, that is where missions
    should be bringing in direct student involvement, perhaps even being
    required by Congress to have direct student involvement. Funding NASA
    across its mission portfolio and bringing in students from universities
    across the country into those missions will significantly bolster our
    STEM workforce pipeline.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
                               Lt. Gen. John Shaw
    Government and Commercial Space Partnerships
        The John C. Stennis Space Center is home to NASA's largest
    propulsion and engine test site. It also hosts commercial space
    companies. NASA increasingly relies on the commercial space sector to
    execute its mission. At the Center, NASA supports the commercial space
    industry, including by providing water and chemicals, such as nitrogen
    and hydrogen.
        The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) allocated over $9 billion
    for NASA, including $120 million for infrastructure projects at the
    Stennis Space Center. Outside of the OBBBA, I introduced the Engine
    Testing for Exploration Act and the Building Out Optimized Space
    Testing (BOOST) for Engines Act, which would require NASA to continue
    rocket propulsion testing at the Stennis Space Center and continue
    modernization efforts for rocket propulsion test infrastructure at NASA
    centers.
        It is important for the United States government to both grow the
    commercial space industry and maintain government activity in space,
    especially as our key competitors, China and Russia, have increased
    their space presence and developed launch vehicles capable of reaching
    all orbits and satellite constellations for remote sensing, navigation,
    and communications.

        Question 1. NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi
    serves as America's largest rocket propulsion test site and exemplifies
    how NASA can work with commercial space industry. The historic
    investments in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will bolster the Stennis
    Space Center's equities through critical infrastructure improvements
    and engagement with the commercial space sector. How can we continue to
    leverage government and commercial partnerships to maximize utilization
    of NASA centers and achieve our space missions?
        Answer. The John C. Stennis Space Center (which I had the privilege
    to visit during my military career) is a national treasure that should
    continue to be a centerpiece of rocket development for the Nation. I
    would support NASA efforts to incentivize commercial companies to more
    actively leverage Stennis (and other NASA centers) through more
    aggressive public-private partnerships to better share risk but also
    harness the engines of commercial innovation.
    Beating China in Space
        The development of the People's Republic of China's (China)
    civilian and military space programs over the last few decades has
    proceeded alongside its broader rise in the international system. China
    is rapidly advancing its activity in space to land astronauts on the
    Moon by 2030 and establish dominance in space. On August 15, 2025 China
    completed a ground test of the first-stage propulsion system of its new
    rocket, the Long March 10, to send people to the moon. China is also
    developing a variant launcher to send astronauts to its space station.
    The country is running other tests for crewed spacecrafts.
        China is heavily investing in other research and development
    programs to increase its space technology and capabilities. China's
    successes in space are significant and notable achievements include
    crewed space platforms, reliable space launch vehicles and satellites,
    and landing a lunar probe on the far side of the moon. China's space
    ambitions are inherently dual-use in nature: it would like to increase
    its civilian technological capabilities and build up its military space
    program to advance its strategic interests.

        Question 2. Lt. Gen. Shaw, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is
    executing a long-term strategy to exploit U.S. capabilities to build up
    its space programs and advance its strategic interests at the expense
    of the United States. What actions does the United States need to take
    to beat China to the moon and deter China from truly achieving space
    dominance?
        Answer. As I mentioned in my testimony, we need a unified grand
    space strategy of our own, to match China's. Our national (both
    government and commercial) space endeavors in the Earth-Moon system as
    projected over the next decade are not synchronized and lack the
    synergy that could be gained by harnessing civil, national security,
    and commercial in a more integrated manner. An example is lunar space
    domain awareness. We will need such capabilities to sustain a human
    presence in the lunar environment (whether in lunar orbit, on the lunar
    surface, or both) but no organization--govt or commercial--is actively
    pursuing a lunar domain awareness architecture in a strategic manner.
        One possible approach (among many options) to remedying this would
    be for Congress to commission a bipartisan blue ribbon panel to propose
    the framework for such a unified strategy, to include recommendations
    for both the Executive and Legislative branches for implementation.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                               Lt. Gen. John Shaw
    1. Kodiak's Pacific Spaceport: The Arctic Launch Advantage
        ``Alaska is home to the Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island,
    which offers rare U.S. access to high-inclination and polar orbits.
    These trajectories are critical for Earth observation, national
    security, and Arctic monitoring--but they can't be reached from most
    U.S. launch sites in the lower 48. Given that China is expanding its
    launch capability and building Arctic partnerships, how is NASA
    leveraging Kodiak's spaceport to ensure secure U.S. launch access into
    polar orbit? And what investments or partnerships should Congress
    prioritize to grow this strategic infrastructure?''
        Answer. First, I was privileged to visit Alaska many times in my
    military career, mostly to inspect bases and capabilities for which I
    was responsible (e.g., Clear AFS, Ft Greeley). Alaska has much to offer
    our Nation's space endeavors across the spectrum of missions.
        I am not deeply knowledgeable about NASA's current leveraging of
    Kodiak's spaceport. But I firmly believe our Nation needs far more
    space launch sites than it currently has, for industrial capacity,
    resilience, and redundancy, particularly in wartime. Alaska's Kodiak
    spaceport should be a high priority for whole-of-nation investment and
    use for all of these reasons.
    2. ASF: NASA's Only SAR Data Center Is in Alaska
        ``NASA's Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF) at the University of
    Alaska Fairbanks is the agency's only center for receiving and
    processing synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellite data. This data
    supports disaster response, Arctic monitoring, agriculture, and
    military logistics, and is critical in cloudy or dark environments--
    like the Arctic. China and Russia are rapidly advancing SAR satellite
    capabilities. If NASA moves forward with proposed cuts to ASF, what
    would be the national and global implications for data continuity,
    disaster readiness, and Arctic situational awareness?''
        Answer. I am proud to have worked on Synthetic Aperture Radar
    systems during my military career. Synthetic Aperture Radar data and
    products are, in my view, ripe for a new level of exploitation (perhaps
    even a revolution) with the rise of some Artificial Intelligence
    methodologies that can analyze SAR data in ways and at speeds/scales
    that humans cannot. As suggested in the questions, such new
    exploitation can benefit a wide spectrum of human activities and fields
    of analysis, including Arctic situational awareness and much more.
    Given this looming opportunity, the government must encourage continued
    interest and investment in this sector, whether it is NASA or other
    govt organizations that help unlock new civil and commercial
    applications.
    3. Arctic Blind Spots in Navigation and Communications
        ``Much of the Arctic still lacks reliable satellite-based
    communications, navigation, and surveillance--gaps that become more
    urgent as sea lanes open and adversaries increase activity in the
    region. Alaska's infrastructure could help bridge that gap. What steps
    is NASA taking--or should it take--in partnership with other agencies,
    to develop or deploy technologies that support persistent Arctic space-
    based coverage for communication and navigation? How can we ensure the
    Arctic doesn't remain a strategic blind spot?''
        Answer. From my time as Deputy Commander of U.S. Space Command and
    my close collaboration with U.S. Northern Command, I am familiar with
    the challenges of awareness and operating in the increasingly busy
    Arctic (both U.S. Space Command and U.S. Northern Command have
    considerable mission responsibilities in the Arctic). The Department of
    Defense is pursuing some solutions to these challenges, but a unified
    whole-of-government approach that includes NASA (and NOAA and others)
    would be better. I would encourage NASA to work with the DoD on this
    approach and bring the right expertise and resources to bear to assist
    in this strategic area.
    4. Poker Flat: The U.S.' Only High-Latitude Rocket Range at Risk
        ``The Poker Flat Research Range near Fairbanks is the only U.S.
    sounding rocket range in the high latitudes. It provides low-cost,
    rapid launch capability for atmospheric and aurora research and
    supports student training and workforce development. But without
    renewed NASA investment, it may shut down by 2028. Given the national
    security implications of Arctic space weather and the affordability of
    this launch site, what is the rationale for allowing it to atrophy? How
    does NASA plan to preserve U.S. launch presence in the polar region?''
        Answer. Similar to Kodiak, Poker Flat offers additional capacity,
    resilience, and redundancy in our access to space and near-space--all
    of which are increasingly needed. I would encourage NASA to work with
    the DoD on this approach and bring the right expertise and resources to
    bear to assist in this strategic area.
    5. Space Weather: Arctic Aviation and Infrastructure Depend on It
        ``The Geophysical Institute at UAF leads some of the most advanced
    research in space weather and geomagnetic storms, which pose serious
    risks to aviation safety, power grids, and communications--especially
    in the Arctic, where magnetic interference is strongest. With NASA
    proposing cuts to these programs, what's the potential operational
    impact on commercial and defense aviation routes over the Arctic? Can
    the U.S. afford to scale back space weather forecasting in this region
    when these disruptions are only expected to grow?''
        Answer. I hope and expect the cuts we have seen to NASA's science
    research and space technology programs are temporary. I would also hope
    to see more consistent and comprehensive focus in these programs in the
    future, all pursued in an integrated and connected fashion to get after
    the strategic challenges and opportunities we see in space (such
    pursuits have NOT always been integrated and connected in the past).
    6. Protecting the STEM Pipeline and National Talent Base
        ``Alaska institutions like the Geophysical Institute don't just
    conduct critical research--they also train the next generation of space
    physicists, engineers, and atmospheric scientists. But NASA's program
    mergers and delayed awards are already causing labs to lose students
    and postdocs. How concerned should we be about the long-term loss of
    this talent pipeline--not just in Alaska but nationally--if funding
    uncertainty continues to drive students and faculty out of space
    science fields?''
        Answer. Again, I hope and expect the delays and cuts we have seen
    to NASA's science research and space technology programs are temporary.
    As an engineer myself, I believe we should absolutely be concerned
    about any circumstance where our technical competitive advantage vis a
    vis the rest of the world, particularly our adversaries, is eroded. We
    are already far behind China in quantity/numbers of engineers and other
    STEM-related fields that graduate from universities every year. Quality
    of that talent is harder to measure though I expect the United States
    still has the edge, but numbers have a quality all their own. . .
    7. China's Arctic and Polar Ambitions vs. U.S. Inaction
        ``China is investing in new polar research bases, satellites
    optimized for Arctic observation, and even new Arctic shipping routes
    to advance its space and geopolitical aims. Meanwhile, core Arctic
    science and space infrastructure in the U.S.--like ASF and Poker Flat--
    is facing funding cuts or operational risk. What should Congress do
    right now to make sure the United States doesn't lose its strategic
    space foothold in the Arctic, particularly when China is aiming to fill
    any gaps we leave behind?''
        Answer. Our big-picture approach to facilities--from research/
    development to operational--should be a key part of a unified grand
    space strategy. If we have sound strategic objectives in that arena,
    then the ways/means (who, what, where), whether civil, commercial, or
    national security, can be better focused and synchronized. Congress
    should endorse such a strategy, perhaps by (but not limited to)
    commissioning a bipartisan blue ribbon panel to propose the framework
    for such a unified strategy, to include recommendations for both the
    Executive and Legislative branches for implementation.
    8. Transparency and Stability in NASA Grantmaking
        ``Alaska researchers are facing major uncertainty under the new
    ROSES 2025 program restructures, with some merged solicitations seeing
    up to 75 percent funding reductions and others marked `TBD.' These cuts
    directly impact Arctic science. Should Congress require NASA to provide
    more transparency and predictability in how these funding lines are
    combined and awarded? And what safeguards should be considered to
    protect regionally essential research capacity from being lost in broad
    program reshuffles?''
        Answer. Yes, I believe Congress should request that of NASA. And as
    part of that request, ask for the strategic approach that weighs the
    value of all research capacity, wherever it is, as it contributes to
    focused, strategic goals.
                                     ______

         Response to Written Questions Submitted by Maria Cantwell to
                               Lt. Gen. John Shaw
    The Moon Race with China--How do we win
        Each of the witnesses during testimony and questioning at the
    hearing said that winning the race against China to the Moon, not only
    to land again, but to establish a permanent presence, is vitally
    important, and each witness expressed varying levels of concern that
    the U.S. is likely to lose without changes to the current approach.
        Question 1. General Shaw, if we are serious about beating China to
    the moon and being a first mover when it comes to establishing a
    sustainable presence in important areas of the lunar surface, what
    three things do we absolutely need to do as a nation right now?
        Answer. First, we should begin to develop and pursue the unified
    grand space strategy I described in my Prepared Statement and during my
    testimony. NASA--by itself and with only its budget--is highly unlikely
    to keep pace with Chine on a sustained human and autonomous presence in
    and around the moon. The Apollo program was not just NASA--it was an
    effort across the U.S. government and beyond,
        Second, we need to get accurate assessments of the current status
    of all of the architectural pieces needed for a sustained lunar
    presence. Some (such as lunar space domain awareness and lunar
    communications, as I mentioned in my testimony) appear to me to be
    woefully behind where they need to be. Once a holistic assessment is in
    place, a clear-headed campaign plan can be put in place to align the
    total architecture.
        Third, we need to explore more creative ways of pursuing public-
    private partnerships to achieve the objectives of the above needs. NASA
    has tremendous symbolic influence and an abundance of soft power. I
    expect there are many actors that would relish being a part of NASA-led
    efforts, and would accept value propositions that vary widely from
    traditional contractual arrangements. It is time to leverage and
    exploit these possibilities. . .
    Importance of NASA Science, Space Technology, and Aeronautics Funding
        NASA's exploration programs depend on steady investment in science
    and in space technology development, often carried out in partnership
    with industry.
        The President's FY26 budget proposes to cut NASA's Science Mission
    Directorate by about 47 percent and to reduce the Space Technology
    Mission Directorate by over 48 percent.
        In contrast, the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science proposal restores
    this funding, protecting the science and technology investments that
    underpin the Moon-to-Mars strategy and U.S. space leadership.

        Question 1. Without robust funding for NASA's science and space
    technology programs are we ceding our country's long-term space
    leadership to China and other competitors?
        Answer. I hope and expect the cuts we have seen to NASA's science
    and space technology programs are temporary. I would also hope to see
    more consistent and comprehensive focus in these programs in the
    future, all pursued in an integrated and connected fashion to get after
    the strategic challenges and opportunities we see in space (such
    pursuits have NOT always been integrated and connected in the past). If
    we do this, I expect we will sustain our long-term space leadership.

        Question 2. Are there specific areas of technology where we already
    lag behind China that NASA should prioritize now?
        Answer. Absolutely. We need to develop a unified strategy (across
    civil, commercial, and national security) to pursue a robust in-domain
    logistics infrastructure within the Earth-Moon system, as well as an
    integrated lunar space domain awareness architecture.
    Mars Readiness Projections
        There is a lot of excitement about sending humans to Mars. But a
    safe mission will depend on systems we are still developing, including
    life support for long missions, reliable propulsion for deep space
    travel, and the equipment needed to live and work on the surface. The
    Moon gives us a place to test these technologies and prepare.
        Before changing the current plan, Congress needs a clear sense of
    when a safe human mission to Mars will actually be possible.

        Question 1. Based on your experience and understanding of current
    programs, when do you believe a safe and successful human mission to
    Mars will be feasible?
        Answer. I am personally enthusiastic about human missions to Mars
    and I sincerely hope I will see those happen in my lifetime!
        As a lifelong engineer, I foresee many different capabilities that
    will need to come together in a unified way to make a truly robust
    human mission to Mars possible, and even more for a permanent human
    presence on Mars.
        If we pursue a unified grand space strategy that coordinates and
    synchronizes civil, commercial and nation security efforts towards
    common goals, a sustainable human mission to Mars is possible by 2040.
    NASA Aeronautics Research
        NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate has helped make the
    U.S. a global leader in aerospace by developing technologies that drive
    commercial aviation.
        But to stay ahead, we must keep investing in innovation. Right now,
    we're falling behind in a critical area: advanced thermoplastic
    composites--materials that make aircraft lighter, stronger, and more
    fuel efficient.
        That's why NASA launched the HiCAM project, in partnership with
    industry, to speed up the development of these materials and apply them
    to the manufacture of air vehicle components. In my home state of
    Washington, a consortia of companies, universities, and workforce
    training organizations are pursuing a Tech Hub to keep the U.S. at the
    forefront of advanced aerospace manufacturing.

        Question 1. How critical is on-shoring advanced aerospace
    manufacturing technologies to advancing U.S. economic and national
    security?
        Answer. I am more familiar than most with the aerospace industry
    and manufacturing ecosystem in Washington State--I completed my
    graduate work in aerospace control theory at the University of
    Washington, leveraging many local aerospace efforts for my research and
    case studies during my time there. As the number of engineers and
    scientists our competitors produces each year increases and eclipses
    our own, it is increasingly critical we maintain the global lead in
    this and other technology sectors.
    Designating NASA as a National Security Agency
        An August 28 Executive Order titled ``Further Exclusions from the
    Federal Labor-Management Relations Program'' reclassified NASA and
    other agencies as having intelligence or national security as a primary
    function, thereby excluding their employees from collective bargaining
    rights. This marks a significant departure from NASA's foundational
    identity, defined by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
    (P.L. 85-568), as a civilian agency exercising control over
    aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States,
    distinct from department of Defense activities peculiar to or primarily
    associated with the development of weapons systems, military
    operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research
    and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense
    of the United States). [51 U.S. Code Sec. 20102--Congressional
    declaration of policy and purpose].

        Question 1. Are you concerned that there may be unintended
    consequences of promoting this national security designation for NASA?
    For example, having a negative impact on the agency's ongoing efforts
    to pursue the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for
    peaceful and scientific purposes and pursue cooperation with other
    nations and groups of nations in the peaceful exploration and use of
    outer space for civil and commercial purposes?
        Answer. I do think there are significant elements within NASA and
    pursuits by NASA that have national security implications and
    applications, and I do not believe you can completely sever NASA from
    the United States' national security focus and objectives. This would
    go against my proposed unified grand space strategy.
        That said, I am not privy to the current administration's policy
    thinking on this Executive Order.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
                               Lt. Gen. John Shaw
        Question. Thank you for your opening statement regarding a unified
    space strategy to coordinate civil, commercial, and national security
    efforts. I share your enthusiasm for modernizing how the Federal
    government works with private sector companies to promote agility and
    enable innovation. I've been happy to co-lead several bipartisan bills
    aimed at this topic. The U.S. military increasingly relies on
    commercial partnerships for communication and intelligence, yet we
    don't have a coherent strategy on how to best harmonize the public and
    private interests. Given your experience on both the defense and
    private side, what are the biggest barriers to these partnerships? What
    can Congress do to ensure both parties' interests are well-served?
        Answer. First, as I answered to Sen Cantwell's question, we need to
    explore more creative ways of pursuing public-private partnerships to
    achieve mission objectives of the above needs. The Dept of Defense
    also, in addition to NASA, has tremendous symbolic influence and an
    abundance of soft power. I believe there is substantial capital
    available to contribute toward innovative value propositions that vary
    widely from traditional contractual arrangements.
        Also, the U.S. government could improve the way it signals interest
    and potential commitment to commercial providers as they demonstrate
    and develop capability. An example of this is the National Security
    Space Launch contracting approach of multiple ``lanes'' and providers.
    As launch companies demonstrate capability, they can be onboarded into
    initial lanes, and then, as they demonstrate more capability and
    maturity, move to higher lanes of greater value and national security
    importance. This approach helps to bridge that ``valley of death'' that
    many commercial companies fall into with current approaches.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
                               Lt. Gen. John Shaw
    Access to Spectrum
        Space is an increasingly contested domain that requires 24/7
    vigilance. To enhance communications, civil space agencies (NASA, NOAA)
    and our national security leaders across the DOD rely on access to
    spectrum to perform key functions such as transmitting mission critical
    alerts, capturing high-resolution imagery, and operating advanced radar
    systems.

        Question 1. Lt. Gen. Shaw, do you believe it is essential that
    civil space and national security agencies maintain reliable access to
    spectrum without harmful interference?

        Question 2. Lt. Gen. Shaw, do you have any concerns about the
    potential interference to Federal missions as a result of new timelines
    and targets authorized by Congress to auction Federal spectrum to
    commercial users?
        Answer 1. In short, absolutely, some sections of the
    electromagnetic spectrum should be prudently reserved for government
    use.
        I have observed throughout my military career the impact of ever-
    present unintentional electromagnetic interference on military
    operations--even when spectrum boundaries are relatively clear with
    sufficient guard bands. We risk an ever-increasing interference
    environment without some measure of spectrum protection for civil and
    national security uses. I believe the spectrum carve-outs in the GHz
    bands in the 2025 reconciliation bill were prudent and necessary
    measures--they may not, however, have been sufficient for the long
    term.
        Answer 2. In short, I do have concerns. I support the ability of
    the FCC to have the right authorities to auction spectrum in a forward-
    thinking and fully-informed way that encourages innovation and drives
    economic growth. But this needs to be done in a thoughtful, coordinated
    fashion acknowledging current and future government needs.

                                      [all]