[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]