[Senate Hearing 112-501]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-501
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SPACE
TO NATIONAL IMPERATIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 18, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-567 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas,
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts Ranking
BARBARA BOXER, California OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BILL NELSON, Florida JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROY BLUNT, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TOM UDALL, New Mexico PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK WARNER, Virginia MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARK BEGICH, Alaska KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
Bruce H. Andrews, General Counsel
Brian M. Hendricks, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Todd Bertoson, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas, Ranking
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MARCO RUBIO, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
MARK WARNER, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 18, 2011..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 3
Statement of Senator Boozman..................................... 4
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 5
Witnesses
Christopher F. Chyba, Ph.D., Professor of Astrophysical Sciences
and International Affairs and Director, Program on Science and
Global Security, Princeton University.......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Frank L. Culbertson, Jr. (Captain, USN, Ret.) Commander,
International Space Station Expedition 3....................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Elliot Holokauahi Pulham, Chief Executive Officer, the Space
Foundation..................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Frank Slazer, Vice President, Space, Aerospace Industries
Association.................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Appendix
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 49
Response to written questions submitted to Christopher F. Chyba,
Ph.D. by:
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 49
Hon. John Boozman............................................ 51
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey
Hutchison to:
Frank L. Culbertson, Jr...................................... 51
Elliot Holokauahi Pulham..................................... 52
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Elliot Holokauahi Pulham....................................... 54
Response to written questions submitted to Frank Slazer by:
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 56
Hon. John Boozman............................................ 57
CONTRIBUTIONS OF SPACE
TO NATIONAL IMPERATIVES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Science and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Good morning.
Just a couple of weeks ago, we celebrated the fiftieth
anniversary of human space flight and the first flight into
suborbit by Alan Shepard. And then the President's bold
statement to go to the Moon within the decade, and that was
within 9 years. And that was announced just 3 weeks later.
I remember years ago, when I was a young Congressman, one
day I was on the floor of the House, and the Speaker, Tip
O'Neill, saw me, and he motioned me over to sit down with him.
He knew of my participation in the space program, and he says,
``Billy, let me tell you.'' He says, ``One of the times I was a
young Congressman from Boston and I was down at the White
House,'' and he said, ``I had never seen President Kennedy so
nervous.'' He said, ``He was just pacing back and forth like a
cat on a hot tin roof.''
And he says, ``I called over some of his White House aides,
and I said, `What is wrong with the President?' '' And they
explained to Tip that we were getting ready to launch Alan
Shepard on a Redstone rocket. The Soviets had surprised us
weeks earlier by putting Gagarin in orbit, and here we were on
a rocket that didn't have enough throw weight, save to get that
Mercury capsule up into suborbit, and the whole prestige of the
United States was on the line.
And of course, the rest is history. Alan Shepard flew. Then
Gus Grissom flew, even though his capsule sank in the Atlantic,
and he had to swim for it.
In the meantime, the Soviets put up Titov, a second orbital
flight. And then, 10 months later, here we put that Mercury
capsule on top of an Atlas rocket, and John Glenn climbed in,
knowing that it had a 20 percent chance of catastrophe. And
then, of course, the rest is history.
These successes in space have become an expression of our
technical prowess, announcing to the rest of the world just how
capable we can be and how the spirit in this country, this can-
do spirit can overcome extraordinary obstacles.
Well, we have enjoyed a steady stream of benefits that have
come from the concentrated investments in enabling the
technology and producing space applications--basic research,
human exploration, Earth observation, national defense--just a
few of those that have resulted from us being a leader in the
global space economy. And as a result, the spinoffs have
improved the livelihoods of all of us earthlings.
The technologies spawned over the last 50 years have
changed the way we live. Space-based technologies have become
pervasive to the point that many times we don't even realize we
are relying on them. And I am just astounded over and over that
people say, well, NASA needs to advertise more what it does.
Well, NASA does. Every year they put out a book of spinoffs.
And you think about this book being put out for several
decades, just how many of those technologies that have spun off
have added up. Not only GPS, but look at the data for NOAA and
what that has done for weather and prediction of storms. Look
at the NASA satellites that complement the Earth-based
observations on not only weather, but climate change.
The space assets have changed the way we defend this
nation, and they have been integrated into nearly every aspect
of the U.S. military as well as the intelligence operations
that now we see the fruits of in blending the intelligence
community with a surgical military operation. And these
benefits, along with the numerous spinoffs and the efficiencies
gained through the application of space technology, have
provided this nation with a significant return on investment.
Now, we have gathered up some high-powered folks here to
talk about the importance of space activities and the
contributions of these undertakings to our national priorities.
Frank Culbertson, a retired astronaut; captain, U.S. Navy
retired. He is a veteran of three space flights and served as
the commander of the International Space Station during
Expedition 3.
By the way, that is another thing. I am just amazed, Frank,
when you talk to people, somehow they have gotten the
impression that the space program is being shut down. We have
got a Space Station up there that has six astronauts on it. And
when the Space Shuttle docks, it is going to have a lot more
astronauts on it.
Captain Culbertson. Twelve now.
Senator Nelson. And it is 120 yards long. You think looking
in the stands of a football stadium down at the field, from one
end of the end zone to the other is how big the International
Space Station is. And so, we are looking forward to you sharing
your experience of logging 146 days in space.
Frank Slazer, Vice President of Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association. This organization was founded in 1919.
It is a leading trade association representing aerospace and
defense manufacturers.
Elliot Pulham, Chief Executive Officer of the Space
Foundation since 2001. He leads a team providing services to
educate and inform Government officials, industry, news media,
and students about the space industry around the world.
And Dr. Chris Chyba, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences
and International Affairs at Princeton, where he directs the
Program on Science and Global Security. He was a member of the
Review of the U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, also
known as the Augustine Committee, and is now a member of the
President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology
(PCAST).
So I want to welcome all of you. We are delighted that you
are here. We want to get out on the record your thoughts on
what we can do for the future. We have a lot of penetrating
questions.
I want to turn to our ranking member, Senator Boozman. And
then, of course, I want to turn to our colleague, the ranking
member of the full committee, Senator Hutchison.
Senator Boozman. With your permission, I will go ahead and
yield to my Ranking Member.
Senator Nelson. Of course.
Well, while we are waiting on Kay to approach the
microphone, I just want to say the successes that we have had
in the NASA bill being passed last year, as well as a lot of
the funding that has now implemented the NASA authorization
bill, this lady, this young lady is responsible for a lot of
that.
So thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. We have
worked very hard to try to move NASA forward, and I think that
the authorization bill that brought together the need for the
commercial investment and the commercial opportunity, along
with the use of our workforce that has the experience of so
many years in building the rockets and the launchers, that
together we believe that we have a good way forward.
And what I hope we can hear from you today is that we need
to adhere to the authorization strategy and that that is the
way that we should be proceeding. I think the Chairman and I
and Senator Boozman and Senator Rockefeller are all very
concerned about how slow everything seems to be moving.
And in about a couple of months, we are going to be relying
on the Russians to take Americans into space. And we have one
more Shuttle that will be going up this summer. But after that,
we are looking at maybe 10 years, if we don't really start
focusing on this and making better progress, of Russian taxiing
our astronauts to the Space Station, where we must use the
opportunity for the unique research in that Space Station if we
are going to reap the benefits from the investment that we have
made.
So I am hoping that we can hear from those of you who do
have expertise in this area on how we can move more
expeditiously and assure that we get our vehicle up and running
sooner rather than later and, second, to fully utilize the
Space Station and the research capabilities that it has.
And we have astronauts in space right now, and we are all
just wishing them well. We are very excited. It was really this
committee that first heard from Dr. Ting about the spectrometer
and the ability to use that for the study of dark energy, the
study of the dark matter and the cosmic rays, possibly even for
future energy resources, and that excited this committee.
And now, because of the work of many of us on the
Committee, including, of course, the Chairman, we are going to
see that spectrometer be a part of the Space Station. And so,
now we just need to make sure that we can get our astronauts
there and on our own ticket, I hope, very soon. And we are
going to look to you all to help us figure out how we can move
it a little more quickly than it is moving right now.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I do want to also thank Senator Boozman for jumping in
on this subcommittee, and he has just been the greatest
advocate and quick study. And he is enthusiastic, and we really
appreciate you being on the Committee and all you are bringing
to it.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Senator Boozman?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Well, thank you. And I appreciate the
opportunity to be part of the Subcommittee and to help us move
forward.
The Chairman and I were at a meeting this morning, and one
of the emphasis at the meeting was that we needed to work
together. And I think the relationship that you and--Mr.
Chairman--the Ranking Member, Senator Rockefeller, have had in
regard with this issue is a great example of that. And this is
something that we all agree is so important to our country.
So I really appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing today to help further inform the subcommittee and the
record on the importance of our nation's participation in the
global space economy and the tenuous hold that we may have on
our position of leadership in that realm.
I am grateful that the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, Senator Hutchison, is with us today. Her
longstanding dedication and commitment to the Nation's space
program is both an example and an inspiration to me, as I
settle into the work of this subcommittee as its Ranking
Member.
I also want to acknowledge the successful launch on Monday
of the Shuttle mission commanded by Mark Kelly. I wish the
entire crew of the Shuttle and those already aboard the Space
Station success in carrying out this very important mission to
expand the scientific capability of this unique national
laboratory and provide essential spare and replacement parts
and other supplies to ensure the health and vitality of the
Space Station systems.
I had the pleasure of going to the Kennedy Space Center at
the end of last month for the planned launch of the mission.
Unfortunately, the electrical problems with the auxiliary power
unit prevented that launch attempt. So I was unable to see the
launch.
But my experience during that visit was very meaningful.
Not only was I able to see and talk with some remarkable
skilled and dedicated workforce, but I was able to see
firsthand some of the facilities and features of our Nation's
and the world's premier spaceport.
I also was able to sense the spirit and dedication of the
workforce, as well as their strong desire to have clear
guidance and direction from their agency's leadership, as well
as Congress and the administration, for the future. These
people know how to do what needs to be done to ensure this
Nation's leadership in space, and all they need is direction
and resources to go do it. And they need that now.
As you know, Senator Hutchison has noted many times in
committee we are at a crucial point of transition in our human
space flight programs and are already slipping quickly to a
point where our viability to develop and operate a national
space launch system will be in doubt. We simply cannot allow
that to happen.
The Congress provided a clear path to move the nation away
from that precipice in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. It is
past time for the provisions and requirement of that act to be
implemented, and I strongly support the Committee's efforts to
ensure that that is done.
I look forward to the hearing and the witnesses and more
about the great benefits that we receive as a nation from our
space program, and a reminder, again, of what is at stake.
And with that, I yield back.
Senator Nelson. Senator Rubio, did you want to make a
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding these
hearings on America's space program. They are critically
important.
Thank you for the members of the panel for being here at
such an important time, as we are nearing the last launch of
the Shuttle program and continue to ask ourselves what the
future of the space program is for America.
As I reiterate everywhere I go, America's space program is
not simply something we do for fun. It has deep commercial
impact. It has a significant national security component. And
it really helps across industries. I know Senator Nelson will
tell you that in Florida, we have all kinds of industries who
exist because of the space program. They are spinoffs of things
we learned along the way.
The only caveat, and I don't think we will answer that
question today, but the only concern that I have--and it is a
deep one I think I share with other members of the
subcommittee--is where are we headed, literally and
figuratively, as a program? What is our goal in the near term
and in the long term for the program?
Because I think this program has always functioned best
when it knows where it is going, whom it knows where its
destination is. Not just the place, but its purpose for
existing. And I think the sooner we can have that question
answered, the sooner we can fully understand what American
space exploration is going to mean in this new century in terms
of where we are destined to go and where we want to be, the
easier I think it will be to move toward that goal, and I hope
that we will make some progress on that during this year.
But thank you for holding these hearings, and thank you to
the members of the panel for being a part of it.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
OK. I am just going to arbitrarily go by alphabetically. If
you all could just keep your comments as much as you can to
around 5 minutes? We want to have plenty of time to get into
questions.
And so, alphabetically, it would be Dr. Chyba.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER F. CHYBA, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF
ASTROPHYSICAL SCIENCES AND INTERNATIONAL
AFFAIRS; DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ON SCIENCE AND GLOBAL
SECURITY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Chyba. Senator, I was hoping you would begin at the end
of the alphabet.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Chyba. Chairman Nelson, Senator Hutchison, Senator
Boozman, Senator Rubio, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to testify on this important subject.
In 2009, as Senator Nelson noted, I had the honor of
serving on the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans
Committee, which issued its final report in October of that
year. The Committee formally ceased to exist on December 2009.
So, today, I am speaking solely in my personal capacity, though
I do wish to recall some of the Committee's most important
findings.
The Human Spaceflight Committee was established to review
NASA's program of record and to offer possible alternatives.
The Committee examined NASA's planned architecture, the
Constellation Program, and concluded that it could not be
executed for reasons that were primarily budgetary.
The Committee considered a variety of alternatives. Five
principal integrated options were evaluated against 12 metrics,
including science knowledge, technology innovation, economic
expansion, workforce impact, public engagement, and mission
safety. But no architecture would provide missions beyond low-
Earth orbit until close to 2030 under the Fiscal Year 2010
budget profile.
But I believe that the most important contribution of our
committee's report lies in the framework it suggested for
thinking about human space flight. First, the report emphasized
that the choice facing us is one of goals, not destinations.
The debate over human space flight should not begin as an
argument over destination, for example, should we go back to
the Moon; or should we go to Mars? Framing the discussion this
way risks choosing a destination and then searching for reasons
to justify that choice.
The Committee concluded that human spaceflight serves a
variety of national interests. Certainly, inspiring the next
generation, furthering national security, driving technology
innovations, and other areas are important among these. But
sending human beings beyond low-Earth orbit with the enormous
expense and long timelines that that entails does not make
contributions to these areas that are so unique or cost
effective that they, in themselves, justify the decision to go
beyond low-Earth orbit.
Rather, sending humans beyond LEO has as its fundamental
goal charting a path for human expansion into the solar system.
This goal embraces the International Space Station as a means
to an end, rather than a destination that we have left behind.
Second, the report insists on scientific integrity. Human
space flight should not be justified with exaggerated claims
about its scientific payoff.
We live in a time of extraordinary discoveries about space.
We have learned that early Mars had standing liquid water on
its surface and that the resulting sedimentary rocks, which
could retain records of early life on Mars, are still
accessible. We have learned that there are many other ocean
worlds in our solar system--moons of the outer planets that
host liquid water oceans beneath their ice covers, oceans that
are as big as our own. We have learned that other solar systems
are common, and we have learned that most of the mass energy of
the universe is not made up of the kind of matter we are
familiar with here on Earth and that we don't know quite what
this more exotic mass energy is.
Human spaceflight should be an ally in and certainly not a
budgetary opponent of these momentous discoveries.
Third, the Committee's report called for the Government
space agency to concentrate on the hardest technical problems
associated with our goals in space flight. For the rest,
including sending astronauts into low-Earth orbit, the
commercial sector should play a bigger role. The commercial
sector should fill in behind NASA, while NASA spearheads
exploration out into the solar system.
And fourth, the Committee's report noted that a problem
forever confronting NASA is that it seemingly can have either
the budget to develop a new human spaceflight architecture or
it can have the budget for ongoing astronaut operations, but
not both. To afford a major new launch system, NASA has to stop
flying.
This is the ultimate reason for the upcoming gap in U.S.
launch access to the International Space Station. Indeed, to
develop Constellation, NASA had planned both to stop flying the
Shuttle and to terminate the International Space Station in
2016.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 declares that the long-
term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of
NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-
Earth orbit. At this highest level and in many details as well,
the 2010 Authorization Act is consistent with our committee's
framework.
An important objective identified by the Authorization Act
is to ``sustain the capability for long-duration presence in
low-Earth orbit, initially through continuation of the ISS . .
. and through assisting and enabling an expanded commercial
presence in, and access to, low-Earth orbit, as elements of
low-Earth orbit infrastructure.''
There will always be arguments over relative and absolute
levels of funding, but the vision in the authorization bill of
LEO becoming an economic zone sustained by Government
activities, but with increasing commercial opportunities,
provides our best chance of bringing costs down and creating a
vibrant human space flight future in low-Earth orbit.
Beyond LEO, the 2010 Authorization Act calls on NASA to
develop a heavy-lift vehicle to preserve the Nation's core
capabilities in space launch and to provide a final backup,
should it be needed, for cargo or crew delivery to the ISS. We
want to ensure that funding to maintain this core capability
does not prevent the development of a commercial ecosystem in
LEO that may be our best longer-term hope for a robust human
future in space. If there is one place where new resources
should be targeted to mitigate NASA's budget dilemma, it may be
here.
To conclude, 40 years later, the decade of Apollo is still
remembered as NASA's heroic age. But the NASA of the heroic age
was spending almost $20 billion annually in Fiscal Year 2009
dollars on human spaceflight, not $10 billion. Evidently, we
are not going to spend $10 billion per year more for human
spaceflight. Our committee argued that $3 billion per year more
could enable exploration beyond LEO on a reasonable timescale.
Evidently, that, too, is not going to happen. And if not,
then experience--our experience of the last four decades--
should triumph over hope--and we should embrace a model
different from the Apollo model as we move forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Chyba follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher F. Chyba, Ph.D., Professor of
Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs and Director, Program
on Science and Global Security, Princeton University
Introduction
Chairman Rockefeller, Subcommittee Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member
Boozman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify on this important subject. In the summer and
fall of 2009, I had the honor and responsibility of serving on the
Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (sometimes informally
called the ``Augustine Committee'' after its chair, Norm Augustine),
which issued its 156-page final report in October 2009.\1\ The
committee formally ceased to exist on December 1, 2009.\2\ Therefore my
testimony today does not (and cannot) represent the views of the Human
Spaceflight Committee. I am speaking solely in my personal capacity. Of
course, my views are informed by the intensive data-gathering and
analysis that our former committee undertook in summer 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Norman R. Augustine, Wanda M. Austin, Christopher Chyba,
Charles F. Kennel, Bohdan I. Bejmuk, Edward F. Crawley, Lester L.
Lyles, Leroy Chiao, Jeff Greason, and Sally K. Ride, Seeking a Human
Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation, October 2009.
\2\ Electronic mail, subject ``Committee Termination,'' from Philip
McAlister at NASA to members of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans
Committee, December 2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The testimony that follows begins by briefly reviewing our
committee's mandate, and a few of its programmatic findings and
options. A second section presents my own views of the most important
characteristics of our report, those that go well beyond programmatics.
Media accounts of the report naturally highlighted its programmatic
options and implications, yet I believe that the report's most
important findings are those framing an overall approach to human
spaceflight regardless of details about launch vehicles or crew
capsules. The final section of my testimony brings this discussion to
bear on the situation today.
I close this introduction with a personal remark. I am a planetary
scientist who has been fortunate to be directly involved in the
spacecraft exploration of the outer planets, in NASA mission planning,
in the search for life in our Solar System, and in the scientific
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Half of my academic
appointment is in astrophysics; the other half is in international
affairs and, in particular, nuclear and biological weapons
nonproliferation and arms control. I believe that human spaceflight has
relevance to both science and security, but I do not consider it to be
central to either endeavor. Nonetheless, I support human spaceflight
and favor our long-term expansion into the Solar System. One of the
ultimate objectives of hearings like this, it seems to me, is to help
ensure that the United States, and human civilization, has that future
in space.
The Human Spaceflight Committee: Mandate and Programmatic Findings
The Human Spaceflight Committee was established to review NASA's
human spaceflight Program of Record and to offer possible alternatives.
Its mandate was to provide options, rather than make recommendations,
for different possible exploration architectures. This mandate did not
include an evaluation of the value of human spaceflight vs. robotic
exploration.
The Committee examined NASA's existing architecture for going
beyond low-Earth orbit--the Constellation program--and concluded that
Constellation could not be executed at planned budget levels. The
reasons for this were primarily budgetary. These included that
Constellation's Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) of 2005
assumed that human spaceflight funding would increase until reaching a
steady state of about $10 billion per year. But the first post-ESAS
budget, the FY 2007 budget, provided significantly lower funding for
the Ares I rocket and the Orion crew vehicle than ESAS had anticipated.
Pushing programs out into the future always increases costs.
Differences between anticipated and actual budgets, plus technical
problems in the Ares I and Orion programs, had significant impact. The
FY 2009 budget was lower than that anticipated by ESAS by at first $1
billion per year, and then lower with a growing disparity that reached
$2 billion per year in the steady state. The FY 2010 President's Budget
Submittal was lower still, anticipating a final steady state level of
funding of about $7 billion per year--some $3 billion below the annual
$10 billion against which ESAS had originally planned.
Moreover, it was intended that Shuttle would complete its final
flight in 2010, and that the International Space Station (ISS) program
would be terminated in early 2016, with corresponding savings becoming
available for Constellation. But the ISS termination itself was not
budgeted. Yet termination would have to entail the safe de-orbiting of
this 350 metric ton structure, requiring either the design,
construction and flight of a new de-orbit module to accomplish this
task, or the piecemeal de-orbit of the structure via disassembly.\3\
Taking all this into account, the Human Spaceflight Committee concluded
that under the FY 2010 funding profile, the Constellation program would
at the least be greatly stretched out in time. The planned heavy-lift
vehicle (Ares V) would not be available until the late 2020s, and lunar
return could not occur until well into the 2030s, if at all. In short,
the Constellation program was not executable at its existing budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Committee requested an independent assessment of this task,
and found projected costs of $2 billion or more, depending on the
method of de-orbiting required. Augustine et al., Seeking a Human
Spaceflight Program, p. 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee considered a variety of integrated scenarios:
Constellation and variations thereof; less demanding returns to the
Moon; and a scenario of increasing deep-space capability that it called
``the flexible path.'' Five principal integrated options (with sub-
options) were evaluated against twelve metrics, including science
knowledge, technology innovation, economic expansion, workforce impact,
public engagement, and mission safety.\4\ The flexible path had the
budget profile advantage of not requiring the simultaneous development
of both heavy-lift capability and lunar-landing vehicles. But no
architecture would provide missions beyond LEO until close to 2030
under the FY 2010 budget profile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A Mars-first scenario had also been considered, but was
evaluated to be so expensive that it did not make sense to examine it
out to this level of detail. The five options considered (along with
sub-variants) were a baseline case, founded on the Constellation
program, a case in which ISS was extended and the development of Ares I
was foregone, lunar-oriented strategies, and flexible-path strategies.
The twelve metrics used for evaluation were exploration preparation,
technology innovation, science knowledge, expanding and protecting
human civilization, economic expansion, global partnerships, public
engagement, schedule and programmatic risk, mission safety challenges,
workforce impact, programmatic sustainability, and life-cycle cost. See
Augustine et al., Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program, Chapter 6,
``Program Options and Evaluation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In historical context, this is not surprising. A plot of the human
spaceflight annual budget (in FY 2009 dollars) through time shows a
sustained peak during the Apollo years in the 1960s of nearly $20
billion per year. That budget is now, and has been for nearly two
decades, at a level of half this or less. The Committee concluded that
sending astronauts beyond LEO in the 2020s would require ramping up to
a steady-state augmentation of NASA's budget by some $3 billion per
year.
Beyond Programmatics
I believe that the most important contribution of the U.S. Human
Spaceflight Committee report lies neither in its finding that the
Constellation program was not executable at its existing budget, nor in
its options for future programs, but in the framework it suggested for
the future of human spaceflight. This framework provides the lens
through which I view the current situation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The discussion in this section draws, in part, on a McClatchy-
syndicated op-ed the author published in late November 2009. See, for
example, Christopher Chyba, ``Report Provides Roadmap for Human Space
Flight,'' Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 29, 2009, available at
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/11/
report_provides_roadmap_for_hu.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the report emphasized that the choice facing us is one of
goals, not destinations. The debate over human space flight should not
begin as an argument over destination--for example, ``Should we go back
to the Moon?'' or ``Should we go to Mars?'' Framing the discussion this
way risks choosing a destination first, then searching for reasons to
justify that choice. At least in part, that is what went wrong with the
International Space Station, a destination in low-Earth orbit (LEO)
that is still searching to explain its purpose.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Because NASA does not have a compelling vision for how it
will use the ISS, many American citizens do not have a clear idea of
what it is for.'' Augustine et al., Seeking a Human Spaceflight
Program, p. 56. Italics in the original.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the Station's purpose was difficult to identify is
demonstrated, I believe, by the Constellation program's intention to
simply terminate Station in early 2016--almost immediately after its
completion. Dropping the ISS into the ocean upon completion suggests
that it was viewed as no more than a gigantic white elephant. But such
a plan makes some sense, in a disheartening way, if one's destination
had once been the Station itself, but now one's destination has
shifted, say, to the Moon. (Even in this context the plan is
questionable, since the diplomatic price that would have been paid with
our Station partners would have been steep, and this would have damaged
our prospects for future international cooperation in lunar return.)
Instead, the Human Spaceflight Committee report argued that we
should decide on our goals for human space flight, and then have
destinations flow from these goals. The committee concluded that human
space flight serves a variety of national interests--and certainly
inspiring the next generation, furthering national security, driving
technology innovation, and other areas are important among these. But
sending human beings beyond low-Earth obit, with the enormous expense
and long timelines that this entails, does not make contributions to
these areas that are so unique or cost effective that they in
themselves justify the decision to go beyond LEO. Rather, sending
humans beyond low Earth orbit has as its fundamental goal charting a
path for human expansion into the Solar System. This is ambitious, but
if this is not our goal, we'd best just restrict ourselves to
destinations in LEO. Human expansion into the solar system is a goal
worthy of a great nation working in concert with other space powers.
Choosing this as our long-term goal, while trying to maximize
spaceflight's contributions to all areas of society as we proceed,
provides the context for making decisions about our next steps. And it
also embraces the ISS as a means to an end rather than a destination
that we've left behind.
Second, the report insists on scientific integrity. Each option
presented for consideration was examined for its impact on science, and
all else being equal options that did a better job furthering science
were rated more highly. But human spaceflight should not be justified
with exaggerated claims about its scientific payoff. Exploration with
astronauts can have significant scientific benefits in several areas
beyond the tautological justification of studying what happens to
humans in space. As was emphasized by scientists' testimony to the
Committee, astronauts have a tremendous advantage over robot spacecraft
when it comes to field geology in particular. The ability to pick up a
rock, turn it over, expose a fresh surface with a hammer and then use
geological expertise to decide whether to move on or instead to ``dig
in'' and examine the current site in detail is a human capability that
far exceeds anything robot rovers can currently do. In a similar way,
the ability to service and repair space observatories that face
unanticipated problems favors the astronaut over the robot.
But astronauts are also far more expensive than robot spacecraft or
rovers, and have their greatest advantage in the most complex
environments and circumstances. Mars is the most complicated surface
environment we will face in the foreseeable future, so it is where
astronauts will provide the greatest advantage. But it will be decades
before humans walk on that world--if we are lucky--and for most other
science in space, humans often get in the way.
Moreover, if NASA's space science budget is not protected, it could
be raided to fund cost overruns in the human program. Human
spaceflight, if it is to be justified and sustained, needs to be
aligned with national priorities. Were key space-based research to be
cut to fund human spaceflight, human spaceflight would be put into
opposition with those priorities. This would serve neither science nor
the future of human spaceflight well.
We live in a time of extraordinary discoveries about outer space.
We have learned that early Mars had standing liquid water on its
surface, and that the resulting sedimentary rocks are still accessible.
These are the kind of rocks that can contain information about the
early martian environment, or even microfossils should life ever have
existed on that world. We've learned that there are many other ocean
worlds in our Solar System--moons of the outer planets that host liquid
water oceans beneath their ice covers that are as big as our own. We've
learned that solar systems are common, and that the arrangement of
planets in our own is but one of a vast array of possibilities. And
we've learned that most of the mass-energy of the Universe is not made
up of the kind of matter we are familiar with here on Earth--and that
we don't quite know what this more exotic mass-energy is. Human
spaceflight should be an ally in, and certainly not an opponent of,
these momentous discoveries.
Third, the Human Spaceflight Committee report called for the
government's space agency to concentrate on the hardest technological
problems associated with our goals in space flight. For the rest,
including sending astronauts into low-Earth orbit, the commercial
sector should play a bigger role. The commercial sector should ``fill
in'' behind NASA, while NASA spearheads exploration out into the Solar
System. In fostering a robust commercial sector, NASA's role would
include funding, in a disciplined way, the development of capabilities
by a number of commercial actors, developing the technologies to
underpin future exploration, and providing an ongoing market pull for
the commercial sector by providing destinations--whether this is the
ISS or destination projects, such as the development and implementation
of potentially game-changing capabilities such as fuel depots in space.
Fourth and finally, the Committee report called for budget and
schedule reality. The report argued that the budget then foreseen for
human spaceflight--$99 billion over ten years--would not allow NASA to
do anything beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA could afford to pay for the
new rockets and crew vehicle that would replace the space shuttle and
make it possible to journey outward, but not for systems to land on the
Moon or for operations on a path to take astronauts to asteroids or to
fly around Mars. The report suggested that in order to do both--to
develop the new systems and to fly them to destinations beyond low-
Earth orbit--would require an increase in NASA's budget of around $3
billion per year.
A problem forever confronting NASA is that it seemingly can have
either the budget to develop a new human spaceflight architecture, or
it can have the budget for ongoing astronaut operations--but not both.
To afford to develop a major new launch system, NASA has to stop
flying. This is the current budget dilemma in a nutshell, and the
ultimate reason for the upcoming ``gap'' in U.S. launch access to the
ISS. Indeed, to develop Constellation, NASA planned both to stop flying
the Shuttle and to terminate the ISS.
You might also notice that the Human Spaceflight Committee's report
contained few inspiring artists' conceptions of our dramatic future
with human explorers in space. Some past reports have been full of
pictures of rocket launches, space cities, and astronauts with rocket
packs flying all over. I respect those reports' optimism, and want to
share it. But there have been too many glorious images of our exciting
future in space unmatched by the budget for a realistic path to that
future.
Current Issues
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 declares that ``The long term
goal of the human spaceflight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be
to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit and to do so,
where practical, in a manner involving international partners.'' \7\ At
this highest level, and I believe in many details as well, the 2010
Authorization Act is consistent with the sense of the Human Spaceflight
Review Committee's framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act of 2010,'' Pub. L. No. 111-267 (Oct. 11, 2010), Section 202(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important objective identified by the Authorization Act is to
``sustain the capability for long-duration presence in low-Earth orbit,
initially through continuation of the ISS . . . and through assisting
and enabling an expanded commercial presence in, and access to, low-
Earth orbit, as elements of a low-Earth orbit infrastructure. . . .''
\8\ The bill embraces the development of commercial cargo (Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services, COTS) and crew (Commercial Crew
Development, CCDEV) capabilities. There will always be arguments over
relative and absolute levels of funding, but the vision in the
Authorization bill of LEO becoming an economic zone (from the point of
view of human spaceflight; of course it is this already with respect to
unmanned satellites) sustained by government activities (e.g.,
servicing ISS, development of new capabilities such as fuel depots) but
with increasing commercial opportunities, provides our best chance at
bringing costs down and creating a vibrant human spaceflight future in
low-Earth orbit. The COTS model in which NASA pays the commercial
providers by milestones, rather than in a cost-plus manner, already
suggests that this new approach brings concrete advantages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ibid., Section 202(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond LEO, at this point the government must take the lead in
developing deep-space capabilities, but we can do so with the hope that
the commercial model may ultimately mature to the point where it can
play a role analogous to the one it is just beginning to play in low-
Earth orbit. That remains to be seen, but the optimists' view of our
future in space is that this, too, will prove credible. For now, the
2010 Authorization calls on NASA to develop a heavy-lift vehicle to
preserve the Nation's core capabilities in space launch, and to provide
a kind of final backup, should it be needed, for cargo or crew delivery
to the ISS in the event that other commercial or partner-supplied
vehicles fail to meet these needs.
NASA is to build as much as practical on existing capabilities and
create a heavy-lift vehicle in the 70-100 tons-to-orbit range. This
system is to be evolvable to a 130-ton-to-orbit system.\9\ However, the
Authorization bill also states that: ``Human space flight and future
exploration beyond low-Earth orbit should be based around a pay-as-you-
go approach. Requirements in new launch and crew systems authorized in
this Act should be scaled to the minimum necessary to meet the core
national mission capability needed to conduct cislunar missions. These
initial missions, along with the development of new technologies and
in-space capabilities can form the foundation for missions to other
destinations. These initial missions also should provide operational
experience prior to the further human expansion into space.'' \10\ We
should not lose sight of this ``minimum necessary requirements''
criterion, and do our best to ensure that funding to maintain this core
national capability does not prevent or overly impede the development
of the commercial ecosystem in LEO that may be our best longer-term
hope for a robust human future in space. If there is one place where
new resources should be targeted to mitigate NASA's budget dilemma, it
is here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid., Section 302(c).
\10\ Ibid., Section 301(a)(7). Italics are mine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Forty years after Apollo, the decade following President Kennedy's
pledge to land a man on the Moon is still remembered as NASA's heroic
age. We cannot help but admire the achievements of that time. But it
may be that the power of this memory and admiration can also work
against us. It is sometimes said that NASA isn't the agency that it was
in 1965. But in FY 2009 dollars, that agency then was spending nearly
$20 billion, not $10 billion, per year on human spaceflight.
Twice since Apollo, U.S. Presidents have announced Apollo-like
projects. President George H. W. Bush declared his Space Exploration
Initiative in 1989 to send astronauts to Mars, but no corresponding
budget was forthcoming. President George W. Bush announced his Vision
for Space Exploration in 2004, but the budget not only was not
sustained, it was not quite there from the beginning. We should learn
from the four decades after Apollo as much as from the decade of
Apollo. And the lesson of those four subsequent decades seems to be
that we cannot hope to be successful by declaring new Apollo-like
programs for space exploration.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Roger Handberg, ``Small Ball or Home Runs: The Changing
Ethos of U.S. Human Spaceflight Policy,'' The Space Review, January 17,
2011, available at http://www.the
spacereview.com/article/1759/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the dramatic artists' renditions in our reports or powerpoint
slides won't make it so. We are not going to spend $10 billion per year
more for human spaceflight. Our Committee argued that $3 billion per
year more could enable exploration beyond LEO on a reasonable
timescale. Evidently that, too, is not going to happen. If not, then
experience should triumph over hope and we should embrace a different
model.
That model would be one where we systematically assemble the
capacity and infrastructure that will, over time, enable our expansion
into the Solar System. We would maintain key national capabilities and
develop the heavy-lift capacity that will be needed--and develop it in
a way that is evolvable to greater demands in the future. But we would
also strongly support the robust growth of a space-launch-to-LEO
``ecosystem'' of cargo and crew capabilities, and recognize this as a
model for the future that we want to encourage. Synergistically, NASA
would develop technologies that might prove to be game-changers, or at
least game-evolvers, such as fuel depots in low-Earth orbit or beyond.
We would work toward human operations in cislunar space,\12\ then move
out. But this time, as we went, we would try to create a human
spaceflight ecosystem in the wake of our exploration. Let's see if we
can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Cislunar'' space is defined to be the region of space around
Earth and out to and including the region of space around the surface
of the Moon.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Dr. Chyba.
So now we are at $18.5 billion per year, projected flat
line for at least a few years. So that is the constraints we
are looking at.
Dr. Chyba. For the entire agency. Yes, sir.
Senator Nelson. Yes.
Captain Culbertson?
STATEMENT OF FRANK L. CULBERTSON, JR. (CAPTAIN,
USN, RET.) COMMANDER, INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
EXPEDITION 3
Captain Culbertson. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Hutchison,
Ranking Member Boozman, and Senator Rubio.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the significant
and tangible contributions of the space program to our national
imperatives and the vital need to maintain our leadership on
this endless frontier, especially since this hearing occurs in
the same month we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Alan
Shepard's first American space flight and President Kennedy's
speech to Congress committing our nation to land on the Moon.
I had the privilege and honor on two Space Shuttle missions
and one expeditionary mission to the International Space
Station of logging 144 days in space. And while it is true that
every day spent in space is memorable, there was 1 day while
onboard the International Space Station that will remain seared
in my memory as long as I live. And you will see in a moment
why I refer to this.
To me, this day serves as a constant reminder of why
America's commitment to peacefully explore and utilize space
for the benefit of our citizens and people around the world is
so vital to our collective future and why we must not retreat
from our leadership in space, especially in light of recent
events.
Ten years ago, I was serving as commander of the third
expedition aboard the ISS and was the only American physically
in orbit. On the morning of September 11, 2001, I had just
completed medical examinations on my fellow crew, Vladimir
Dezhurov and Mikhail Tyurin, and called our flight surgeon with
the results. Dr. Hart replied with the chilling words, ``Frank,
we are having a very bad day down here on the ground.''
We were stunned as he described events in New York City,
Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania as they unfolded. I saw that
our flight path was taking us over New England. So I was able
to grab a video camera and focus in horror on the spreading
smoke and dust enveloping Manhattan. In a few hours, we found
out that we had just witnessed the second tower's fall.
Later, after being assured by my wife, with NASA's help,
that our scattered children were safe, I learned sadly that the
captain of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the
Pentagon, was my Naval Academy classmate, fellow fighter pilot
and friend, Chic Burlingame. It became very personal to me at
that moment.
The next night, I wrote a personal letter to my academy
classmates, who were gathering for our long-planned reunion.
The letter concluded with, ``It is horrible to see smoke
pouring from wounds in your own country from such a fantastic
vantage point. The dichotomy of being on a spacecraft dedicated
to improving life on the Earth and watching life being
destroyed by such willful terrible acts is jolting to the
psyche, no matter who you are. And the knowledge that
everything will be different than when we launched by the time
we land is a little disconcerting.''
``I have confidence in our country and in our leadership
that we will do everything possible to better defend her and
our families and to bring justice for what has been done.''
My confidence that justice would be served began a month
later, as I observed the invasion of Afghanistan from space, as
my classmates and friends entered harm's way to punish those
who had harmed us, and was even better fulfilled three weeks
ago. The dichotomy I wrote about after September the 11th
between a vile and doomed ideology bitterly opposed to freedom
and progress and our peaceful venture to utilize the
International Space Station for the noblest of human purposes
serves as a useful point from which to discuss the critical
need to have a strong and vibrant space program.
As I said, everything was different after we landed, but
also different onboard. We had a job to do, as did the brave
and committed team on the ground, but our relationship with the
ground changed. We spoke with and to an even larger number and
variety of people than had been planned preflight, from royalty
and prime ministers to special people, such as Walter
Cronkite--twice, because he had more questions--and school
children displaced by the events at Ground Zero. I spoke to
over 40 schools during the time I was up there.
Always it was as if they were looking to us to prove that
humanity can build together, can do great things, even in the
midst of the unthinkable. You see, they wanted to look to the
sky for an example of something good, something positive they
could point to for others. An international project worth
pointing your children toward. And they wanted to hear that the
world still looked OK from up there.
Some in this room were around when we went to the Moon from
1969 to 1972 in the midst of that other war, Vietnam, and while
trying to heal wounds and solve issues with civil rights and
civil liberties in our own country. It was an extremely
difficult time, but we still had the ability and the courage to
expand our boundaries in space while changing society on Earth
and dealing with the reality of that conflict.
And everyone remembers the significance of the Moon landing
and how proud it made them to be alive at a time like that. It
proved that despite the biggest challenges we can imagine on
Earth, we can still do great things. We can maintain our
leadership and do great things beyond the Earth, beyond the
horror we have to deal with day-to-day.
Today, we should be equally proud that we now have a
permanent presence in space, a place for our children to aspire
to work and to use as a stepping stone to their own new
boundaries. The Space Station has been permanently manned for
over a decade.
The International Space Station, which NASA Administrator
Charles Bolden rightly calls the centerpiece of our human
spaceflight endeavors for the coming decade, our anchor for
human exploration, is not only one of the most amazing feats of
human engineering, but also one of the greatest examples of
productive international cooperation.
Through use as a research facility will improve the lives
of millions and help pave the way for humanity's next great
leaps to the Moon, to the asteroids, and onward to Mars. Space
exploration currently led by the United States of America is
the true march of progress.
The ISS, a cooperative project between the U.S., Canada,
the nations of the European Space Agency, Japan, and Russia, is
a tremendous example of soft power. The ability of the United
States and our partners to expand our influence and
capabilities because of the attractions of our values, goals,
and technological leadership.
I was well aware of that type of power projection as a
career naval officer and saw the benefits of it in port of
calls to almost 40 countries around the globe. As the second
manager of the Shuttle-MIR Program, the precursor to the ISS, I
also saw the incredible benefits of partnering with our former
adversaries, learning their capabilities, and together
beginning to build the station that has provided humanity with
a permanent presence in orbit for the past decade.
I believe the ISS is an ideal platform for conducting
valuable scientific research and developing and simulating the
operations, technologies, and techniques for executing more
ambitious and lengthy missions to the Moon, Mars, and other
destinations.
This morning, Endeavour, my last ride home from space,
docked with the Space Station for the last time. The crew of
Endeavour and the crew of the Space Station are working
together now to continue the job that was begun many, many
years ago.
I want to, at this time, give my tribute to the Shuttle
team that has made all of this possible for so long. The
dedication and the commitment, the long hours, the do-overs,
the listening to the public, the listening to the media,
criticism and praise, they have done a fantastic job. My hat is
off to them.
But like almost all the military aircraft I flew and all
the aircraft carrier I landed on, the Shuttle is ending its
mission. All my former aircraft are now static displays, and my
aircraft carriers are museums. This happens, and now we are
transitioning to a new phase.
ISS is now outfitted with 15 pressurized modules, the
volume of a five-bedroom house. To give you an example of its
scope, the solar array that powers the facility at 84 kilowatts
has a surface area that could cover the U.S. Senate chamber
three times over. Some of you suggested they do that.
[Laughter.]
Captain Culbertson: The ISS capabilities include 34
research racks and 22 external locations for experiments. It is
now capable of accommodating 100 to 300 payloads with crew
science support of 2,000 or 3,000 hours a year.
Even though we are just reaching the point of near full
assembly and the full potential can be utilized, research has
already demonstrated its promise, and my written statement
contains several references to all that has been done up there
and is being done on Earth.
But it will require in the future a robust system for both
resupply and crew transport. We can debate the timetable we are
on, the details of who provides what, but in the end, NASA and
the U.S. space industry are aggressively pursuing systems that
will--no, must be safe and reliable.
A combination of commercial endeavors and government
endeavors will need to work to make a balance of research for
long-duration human space flight with frequent visits by
experimenters and observers. I personally think we need to go
to the station as often as possible with as many spacecraft as
we can.
This will require the solid support of Congress, government
leaders, and the American people. And the authorization bill, I
think, moves us in that direction.
With respect to how much we invest in the space program, I
would imagine that members of the Committee probably share my
frustration. The survey shows the public vastly overestimates
NASA's budget. Yet this is somewhat understandable, given the
high profile of the missions.
I was simply astounded the other day, however, when I read
a recent Congressional Quarterly cover story on the space
program in which the author wrote that NASA's budget has
hovered at around 1 percent of the total budget since the mid-
1970s. If only that were the case.
Alas, the reality is that today NASA's budget represents
less than 0.5 percent of the budget. If it were a mere 1
percent, actually, we probably wouldn't have to have this
hearing.
Finally, a discussion of NASA's contributions to national
imperatives must include the subject of which nation will be
the first among nations in leading peaceful human and robotic
exploration of the solar system while learning how to live and
travel more safely, efficiently, here on Earth.
It is not a foregone conclusion that the United States will
remain the preeminent space-faring nation and will reap the
benefits of leading the march of progress toward low-Earth
orbit. That is why I am gratified that this hearing is being
held, and I am honored to sit alongside people who care as
deeply about our future in space as I do.
In closing, I am proud that our nation continues to inspire
people throughout the world. My mother and father's generation
after World War II took on responsibility of leading the world
as a great nation. They assumed the leadership. They assumed
the responsibility.
But when you assume that responsibility, a lot goes with
it. And to me, the space program is a part of that
responsibility. You have to set an example. You have to shine a
light on the unknown, and you have to put beacons in the sky,
such as the International Space Station, which can easily be
seen with the naked eye. Great nations do great things. We need
to continue doing that.
I feel a special responsibility, because of my unique
position as the only American who was off the planet on
September 11, to spread the world that our leadership in space
is vital to our way of life and our future. It is a hard-won
accomplishment and one we should never consider surrendering
easily.
In space, we inspire respect and sometimes envy, but always
we show we are leading. Our freedoms allow us to do that. This,
to me, is the abiding lesson of my unique experience.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Captain Culbertson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank L. Culbertson, Jr. (Captain, USN, Ret.)
Commander, International Space Station Expedition 3
Good morning Chairman Nelson, Committee Ranking Member Hutchison,
Ranking Minority Member Boozman and members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate this opportunity to participate in this very timely hearing
concerning the ongoing significant and tangible contributions of the
space program to our national imperatives, and the vital need to
maintain our leadership on this endless frontier, especially since it
occurs in the same month we commemorate the 50th anniversary of Alan
Shepard's first American Spaceflight and President Kennedy's speech to
Congress committing our Nation to land on the moon.
I had the privilege and honor on two Space Shuttle missions and one
expeditionary mission to the International Space Station, of logging
144 days in spaceflight. And while it is true that every day spent in
space is memorable, there was one day while onboard the International
Space Station that will remain seared in my memory as long as I live.
To me this day serves as a constant reminder of why America's
commitment to peacefully explore and utilize space for the benefit of
our citizens and people around the world is so vital for our collective
future, and why we must not retreat on our leadership in space.
Ten years ago, I was serving as commander of the Third Expedition
onboard the ISS, and was the only American physically in orbit. On the
morning of September 11, 2001, I had just completed medical
examinations of my fellow crew, Vladimir Dezhurov and Mikhail Tyurin,
and called our flight surgeon with the results. Dr. Hart replied with
the chilling words, ``Frank, we're having a very bad day here on the
ground. . . .'' We were stunned as he described events on the ground in
New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania as they unfolded. I
saw that our flight path was taking us over New England, so I was able
to grab a video camera and focus, in horror, on the spreading smoke and
dust enveloping Manhattan. We found out in a few hours that we had just
witnessed the fall of the second tower. Later, after being assured by
my wife that our scattered children were safe, I learned sadly that the
Captain of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the
Pentagon, was my Naval Academy classmate, fellow fighter pilot and
friend Chic Burlingame.
The next night, I wrote a personal letter to my Academy classmates
gathered for our long-planned reunion. The letter concluded with,
``It's horrible to see smoke pouring from wounds in your own country
from such a fantastic vantage point. The dichotomy of being on a
spacecraft dedicated to improving life on the earth and watching life
being destroyed by such willful, terrible acts is jolting to the
psyche, no matter who you are. And the knowledge that everything will
be different than when we launched by the time we land is a little
disconcerting. I have confidence in our country and in our leadership
that we will do everything possible to better defend her and our
families, and to bring justice for what has been done.''
My confidence that justice would be served began a month later as
my classmates and friends entered harm's way to punish those who harmed
us--and was even better fulfilled three weeks ago. The dichotomy I
wrote about after September 11th between a vile and doomed ideology,
bitterly opposed to freedom and progress, and our peaceful venture to
utilize the International Space Station for the noblest of human
purposes serves as a useful point from which to discuss the critical
need to have a strong and vibrant space program.
As I said, everything was different after we landed, but also
different on board. We had a job to do, as did the brave and committed
team on the ground, but our relationship with the ground changed. We
spoke with and to an even larger number and variety of people than had
been planned preflight--from royalty and prime ministers to special
people such as Walter Cronkite (twice) and school children displaced by
the events at Ground Zero. Always, it was if they were looking to us to
prove that humanity can build together, can do great things, even in
the midst of the unthinkable. It seemed they wanted to look to the sky
for an example of something good, something positive they can point
others to: an international project worth pointing your children
toward--and they wanted to hear that the world still looked okay from
up there.
Some in this room were around when we went to the moon from 1969 to
1972, in the midst of that other war--Vietnam--and while trying to heal
wounds and solve issues with civil rights and civil liberties in our
own country. It was an extremely difficult time, but we still had the
ability and courage to expand our boundaries in space while changing
society on earth and dealing with the realities of a conflict. And
everyone remembers the significance of the moon landing, and how proud
it made them to be alive at a time like that.
Today we should be equally proud that we now have a permanent
presence in space, a place for our children to aspire to work, and to
use as a steppingstone to their own new boundaries. The International
Space Station, which NASA Administrator Charles Bolden rightly calls
``the centerpiece of our human spaceflight endeavors for the coming
decade, our anchor for human exploration,'' is not only one of the most
amazing feats of human engineering, but also one of the greatest
examples of productive international cooperation, whose use as a
research facility will improve the lives of millions and help pave the
way for humanities' next great leaps to the moon, to the asteroids and
onward to Mars. Space exploration, currently led by the United States
of America is the true march of progress.
The ISS, a cooperative project between the U.S., Canada, the
nations of the European Space Agency, Japan and Russia, is a tremendous
example of ``soft power''--the ability of the United States and our
partners to expand our influence and capabilities because of the
attraction of our values, goals, and technological leadership. I was
well aware of that type of power projection as a career Naval officer
and saw the benefits of it in port calls to almost forty countries
around the globe. As the second manager of the Shuttle-Mir Program, the
precursor to ISS, I also saw the incredible benefits of partnering with
our former adversaries, learning their capabilities, and together,
beginning to build the station that has provided humanity with a
permanent presence in orbit for the past decade.
In addition, I believe the ISS is an ideal platform for conducting
valuable scientific research and for developing and simulating the
operations, technologies, and techniques for executing more ambitious
and lengthy missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations.
Outfitted with 15 pressurized modules the ISS has the volume of a
five-bedroom house. To give you one example of its scope, the ISS solar
array that powers the facility at 84 kw, has a surface area that could
cover the U.S. Senate Chamber three times over. The ISS's capabilities
include 34 research racks and 22 external locations for experiments.
The Station is capable of accommodating 100-300 experimental payloads
with crew science support of at least 2,000 to 3,000 hours per year.
When I returned to Earth from the Expedition-3 mission I came home
on the Space Shuttle Endeavour. And this morning, the Endeavour--now on
its final voyage--is once again at the International Space Station,
adding to its capabilities with delivery of the Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer, a particle physics experiment that will measure cosmic
rays and in an example of science at its most daring look for evidence
of dark matter and antimatter in the far reaches of the universe. This
scientific instrument owes its place on the space station directly to
actions taken by the Senate.
Even though we are just reaching the point of near full assembly
and the full potential of the ISS can begin to be utilized, research
onboard the Station has already demonstrated its promise. Thus far
there have been 214 published results from specific payloads and
projects, and 20 publications on the ISS and future exploration
technologies. I am very thankful this facility will operate at least up
to the end of this decade and perhaps to 2028.
A few examples illustrate the stations promise. One of the most
compelling ISS research results is confirmation that the ability of
common germs to cause disease increases during spaceflight, but that
changing the growth environment of the bacteria can control this
virulence. An experiment identified the increased virulence of space-
flown Salmonella typhimurium, a leading cause of food poisoning. Future
ISS research will target a vaccine for this disease.
Another ISS experiment demonstrated a new and powerful method for
delivering drugs to targets in the human body. Microgravity research on
the station led to the development of miniature, liquid-filled balloons
the size of blood cells that can deliver medicine directly to cancer
cells.
The work to develop the Station's regenerative water recycling
system to provide safe drinking water for crews onboard the Station has
resulted in technology that can help in disaster recovery in areas
where water purification is a significant issue after earthquakes and
other natural disasters. The system has been used to provide purified
water to Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq and for earthquake relief in
Pakistan.
In a different area of research, ISS tests of how spacecraft
materials withstand the harsh space environment have been used to
develop longer duration solar cells and insulating materials for future
commercial station cargo ships. This experiment has significantly
reduced the time needed to develop new satellite systems, and paved the
way for materials to be used in new NASA spacecraft that will send
crews beyond Low Earth Orbit.
In one of my favorite examples, NASA built a facility at its Glenn
Research Center to bombard materials planned for the ISS with atomic
oxygen to test their durability. Atomic oxygen is an elemental form of
oxygen that does not exist in Earth's atmosphere, but is common in Low
Earth Orbit, and is known to corrode spacecraft. NASA engineers Bruce
Banks and Sharon Miller realized their facility could be used to remove
unwanted material from surfaces without ever needing to touch or rub
them. Their invention was used to restore two 19th century religious
paintings damaged by an arson fire at St. Alban's Church in Cleveland
Heights, Ohio, and a vandalized Andy Warhol painting.
I'm confident that these promising research results are only the
start of what we are going to see come out of ISS research. And thanks
to the work of this committee and others in Congress, the 2005 NASA
Authorization Act designated the U.S. segment of the ISS as a National
Laboratory. This designation will enable a non-profit organization to
allocate valuable ISS experimental space for the most promising
research proposals in the fields of biology, chemistry, medicine,
physiology and physics as well as for astronomical and meteorological
observation. The non-profit will invite research proposals from NASA,
other governmental organizations, university researchers or the private
sector.
I personally see the ISS as, at least, the virtual jumping off
point for us to begin to send crews out to explore further in the solar
system. And frankly, I wish we would be more aggressive in getting more
crews up there to conduct more research.
The ISS is a vital research platform to understand the effects of
the space environment on humans, with research aimed at protecting
future explorers from the harmful effects of radiation in space, and to
reduce the rate of bone and muscle loss that astronauts experience over
lengthy periods of time in zero gravity. The ISS serves as a test-bed
for developing spacecraft hardware and closed-loop life support
systems, and to test operations for missions that will extend for
millions of miles and years at a time. ISS crews will simulate our next
great leaps in space, and help mature our understanding of human
factors and the ability of explorers from diverse backgrounds to work
in concert with each other in close-quarters for extensive periods of
time. The ISS will help us learn the skills of deep space logistics
management, conducting remote medicine and managing communications when
contact with Mission Control is minutes rather than seconds away.
With this knowledge we can be confident when the time does come to
return humans to the Moon, to explore the asteroids, and eventually
land on the surface of Mars.
Of course all this will be true only if we have Federal policies
that support a robust space program over a sustained period of time, if
we maintain a highly-skilled and dedicated workforce, and if we
continue to inspire the next generation of explorers to aim high for
goals worth striving for.
NASA has been looking for innovative ways to develop new
capabilities in space and has developed a government-private industry
partnership for providing logistical support to the ISS. That
partnership, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or
COTS, will come to fruition in the very near future with new ground and
space infrastructure to support ISS operations well into the future at
a cost significantly less than the cost of a traditional government
procurement.
With respect to how much we invest in the space program, I would
imagine that members of the Committee probably share my frustration
that surveys show the public vastly overestimates NASA's budget, yet
this is somewhat understandable given the high profile of our space
missions. But I was simply astounded when I read a recent Congressional
Quarterly cover story on the space program in which the author wrote
that NASA's budget ``has hovered at around one percent of the total
budget since the mid-1970s.'' If only that were to be the case. Alas,
the reality is that today's NASA budget represents less than one-half
of one percent of the budget. If NASA's budget were actually a mere one
percent of the Federal budget this hearing would be almost unnecessary.
Today, I have focused my testimony on the value of the
International Space Station. Of course a more richer understanding of
NASA's contributions to our national imperatives must include a
discussion of the agency's work to advance weather forecasting and
understanding of our planet's dynamic climate, to warn of solar storms
and spot potentially devastating Earth crossing asteroids, and to
assist in natural disasters--with NASA satellite support for relief and
recovery efforts following the Japanese earthquake and tsunami and
Alabama tornadoes being recent examples.
It would also be worthwhile to discuss how NASA's science missions
to Mars, like the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory, the ongoing Dawn
mission to the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, and orbiting NASA
observatories like the Keppler Space Telescope and soon to be launched
James Webb Space Telescope will advance our understanding of the solar
system and universe and the profound search for evidence of life in and
outside the solar system, thus benefiting our Nation's reputation as
the pacesetter of scientific discovery.
And by all means, it's worth discussing how NASA contributes to
economic growth through the thousands of jobs and hundreds of new
industries created as a direct result of NASA innovation. To illustrate
this point, when USA Today published a list of the ``Top 25 Scientific
Breakthroughs'' that occurred in the newspaper's first 25 years, nine
of them came from space and eight directly from NASA. Indeed, the term
``spinoff'' was invented to describe specific technologies developed by
NASA for its missions that are transferred for commercial use or some
other beneficial application. Thus far, NASA has documented more than
1,500 spinoff success stories related to health and medicine,
transportation, public safety, consumer goods, environmental and
agricultural resources, computer technology and industrial
productivity.
There is one other aspect of spaceflight that was brought home to
me in deep and sometimes very personal ways virtually every day I spent
in orbit--and still now as I'm stuck on the ground. That is the effect
of space exploration on the educational goals of our youth. Most of the
people of this country--and of most other countries--especially the
young people, see eventual access to space as part of their future, and
maybe even as much a right as access to airlines and highways. It's not
clear that many people have a realistic understanding of the challenges
of maintaining and growing our presence in orbit, much less through the
solar system, but the ultimate product of that interest is the benefit
to our educational system, the motivation for students to excel in STEM
subjects, and hopefully to help maintain our leadership in the world on
many fronts. I know from speaking to schools around the globe, both
from space, and on my feet, that the space program's influence on
education is profound, but still not fully capitalized upon. As
Administrator Bolden said, ``Through the science, research, and
technology demonstrations conducted on the National Lab [in space], we
will build foundational knowledge, advance economic competitiveness,
and prepare for the grand journeys ahead.
Finally, a discussion of NASA's contributions to national
imperatives must include the subject of which nation will be first
among nations in leading peaceful human and robotic exploration of the
solar system while learning how to live and travel more safely and
efficiently here on Earth. It is not a foregone conclusion that the
United States will remain the preeminent spacefaring nation, and will
reap the benefits of leading the march of progress beyond Low Earth
Orbit. That is why I am gratified that this hearing is being held, and
I am honored to sit alongside people who care deeply about our future
in space.
In closing, I am proud that our Nation continues to inspire people
throughout the world for our commitment to freedom, creativity,
exploration, and commerce, and through our leadership in the frontier
that will define the future of human civilization. I feel a special
responsibility because of my unique position as the only American who
was off the planet on September 11, 2001, to spread the word that our
leadership in space is vital to our way of life and our future, is a
hard won accomplishment, and one we should never consider surrendering
easily. In space we inspire respect, and sometimes envy, but always we
show we are leading. Our freedoms allow us to do that. This, to me is
the abiding lesson of being in space on September 11.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this important
hearing.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Mr. Pulham?
STATEMENT OF ELLIOT HOLOKAUAHI PULHAM,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE SPACE FOUNDATION
Mr. Pulham. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Nelson, members of the Committee, committee staff,
I would like to thank you for your service to our nation. And I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony
today on the impact and importance of U.S. space programs.
Space Foundation's mission is to advance space endeavors to
inspire, enable, and propel humanity. Implicit in this mission
is our understanding that the exploration, development, and use
of space really does inspire our nation and the world, really
does enable us to dare greatly, achieve our goals, and propel
us confidently into the future.
First, let me address the global space economy. The data I
am citing today is from The Space Report 2011. I have a copy
here, and I think most of the staff already have copies of
this. It is our most recent annual report on the industry.
Over the past 6 years, the global space economy has grown
by 48 percent, from $164 billion in 2004 to $276 billion in
2010. The average annual growth rate of the industry increased
from about 5 percent to nearly 8 percent last year. That is one
heck of a strong industry and a good investment.
The space economy comprises products and services in both
terrestrial and space-based infrastructure. While government
space activities continue to play a major role, the space
economy today is predominantly commercial.
Commercial satellite services, commercial satellite
infrastructure together accounted for $189 billion in 2010.
That is nearly 70 percent of total space activity. Nonetheless,
with civil and national security space programs totaling some
$64.6 billion in 2010, the United States remains by far the
largest government player.
Now space is a tremendous economic engine, as my colleagues
have referred to. The space products and services have, indeed,
become an integral part of daily life. Whether during work or
leisure hours, most people reap the benefits of space systems
and technology continuously and, as you said, Senator, without
probably knowing it.
The degree to which U.S. national investments in space have
proven to be high-impact investments of tremendous national
benefit cannot be overstated. After all, today's robust
commercial space industry has its origins in government space
investment.
DirecTV, Sirius XM Satellite Radio, CNN, ESPN, Monday Night
Football, and countless other satellite services are all the
grandchildren of America's investment in the Telstar Program.
Google Earth, satellite weather, commercial imagery from space,
and countless related value-added applications are the
descendents of the Corona Spy Satellite Program.
The U.S. aerospace industry, which, by some estimates,
accounted for 50 percent of the new wealth generated in America
between 1962 and 2002, built its muscle on Government space
investments, like Dyna-Soar, X-15, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, X-
24A, M2-F3, HL-10, and the list goes on--Space Shuttle,
International Space Station.
Uniquely, however, U.S. national investments in space have
spawned new technologies and new industries that could not even
have been imagined when those investments were made. Because
spacecraft needed a renewable source of energy on orbit, today
we have a photovoltaic solar power industry, renewable energy.
Because spacecraft needed to be guided and controlled, today we
have accelerometer technology used in everything from
triggering seatbelts and airbags in our cars to orienting
SmartPhones.
Because NASA needed to accurately dock and undock
spacecraft, today we have precision-guidance technology that
enables Lasik eye surgery. Because NASA needed to protect the
environment at Kennedy Space Center, today we have advanced
environmental containment and cleanup technologies.
Because the Air Force required a precise global positioning
system, today GPS is the fundamental underlying architecture
for commerce, finance, logistics, inventory management,
commercial, military, law enforcement, emergency services, and
personal navigation around the world. And because NASA required
unprecedented turbo pump capability to power the Space Shuttle
main engines, today we have lifesaving heart pump technologies.
None of these outcomes were expected. These technologies
and more than 40,000 others are the result of our previous
focused national investments in space.
A third point I would like to touch upon is space and
foreign policy and national security. The funding of national
space programs has brought tremendous benefit to U.S. foreign
policy and national security. Our leadership in space has been
a preeminent factor in American soft power since the dawn of
the space age.
While President Kennedy's speech at Rice University is
often quoted for its inspirational values, less quoted are the
political and national security realities that America was
coming to grips with at that time. ''Man,`` said Kennedy, ''in
his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot
be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we
join in it or not. And no nation, which expects to be the
leader of other nations, can expect to stay behind in this race
for space.``
Whether our objective is to win the cold war, as in Apollo;
extend a hand in friendship, as in Apollo Soyuz; incentivize
collaborative behavior, as in the Shuttle-MIR Program; or build
a broad-based international community, as in the International
Space Station Program; the soft power of space programs is
often one of our best foreign relations and national security
tools.
All Americans know about the successful mission to get
Osama bin Laden. I wonder how many of us will ever know how
huge a role space played in that accomplishment.
Finally, it must be recognized that our national
intellectual capacity is directly affected by our investment in
space programs. As the Apollo Program was gaining momentum,
enrollment in graduate studies in science and engineering was
also gaining momentum. In fact, the Apollo Program was both
expected and intended to double the number of American
scientists and engineers.
Doing the hard things requires our best and brightest
minds. Developing this intellectual capacity requires
inspiring, challenging, and exciting work to do. When America
has made that investment, we have never failed to achieve our
capacity for greatness.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pulham follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elliot Holokauahi Pulham, Chief Executive
Officer, the Space Foundation
Senator Nelson, Members of the Committee, and Committee Staff,
thank you for your service to our nation, and thank you for the
opportunity to offer testimony on the impact and importance of U.S.
space programs--both in meeting the needs of humanity, and achieving
the strategic goals and objectives of the United States. The Space
Foundation is a 501(c) 3 non-profit operating foundation, and our
mission is ``to advance space-related endeavors to inspire, enable and
propel humanity.'' Implicit in this mission is our understanding that
the exploration, development and use of space really does inspire our
Nation and the world, enable us to dare greatly and achieve our goals
and propel us confidently into the future.
Growth of the Global Space Economy
First, the global space economy. The Space Foundation pursues our
mission by educating and informing. The bedrock of our ability to do
this is our commitment to providing accurate, fair, impartial and
nonpartisan data and analysis. The Space Report, our annual publication
on the global space economy, is the authoritative guide to global space
activities. The data I am citing today is from our most recent report.
Over the past six years, the global space economy has grown by 48
percent--from $164 billion in 2004 to $276 billion in 2010. The average
annual growth rate of the industry increased from about 5 percent to
nearly 8 percent last year.
The space economy comprises products and services, and both
terrestrial and space-based infrastructure. While government space
activities continue to play a major role, the space economy is today
predominantly commercial. Commercial satellite services and commercial
satellite infrastructure together accounted for some $189 billion in
2010--nearly 70 percent of total space activity. In addition to being
heavily commercial, space is very international. Of the 25 largest
satellite communication companies in the world, only one is
headquartered in the United States. Roughly three quarters of all
commercial satellites are manufactured outside the U.S. Global space
employment has been stable over the past couple of years, with job
increases in Japan, India, Germany and other nations offsetting job
losses in the United States. Nonetheless, with civil and national
security space programs totaling some $64.67 billion in 2010, the
United States remains by far the largest government player.
Space systems today form the essential infrastructure of modern
life, providing everything from routine weather forecasts, driving
directions, entertainment and telephone service to inventory tracking,
resource management and telemedicine. There is increasing awareness of
the value of space as an economic engine that is crucial to many other
economic sectors.
In 2010, as the global economy continued to battle back from
recession, the space industry not only maintained its growth, but
actually gathered momentum. The commercial sector flourished, adding
billions of dollars to the economy. The commercial sector has long been
involved in national space programs, primarily as contractors and
service providers. This role is expanding due to new government
policies that encourage greater reliance on commercial providers,
particularly in the United States. These policies provide opportunities
that have generated significant interest among traditional aerospace
companies, as well as newer space actors, as the commercial sector
seeks resources to develop its technological capabilities.
Additionally, more countries are becoming involved in space or are
revitalizing dormant space programs, with Australia, South Africa and
Iran as recent examples. In many cases, these space actors are
incorporating a deliberate commercial element in their space programs
that targets economic development and technology creation.
The role of civil society in space activity is also evolving. The
emergence of smallsats and cubesats is lowering costs and barriers to
entry, offering civil actors new avenues to engage in space activity.
When smallsats are networked, the opportunities for new science and
commercial applications can grow exponentially. Commercial human
spaceflight also opens an avenue for people to experience space on a
personal level, and it furthers public interest in space activity even
for those who do not leave the ground. The growing engagement of
society in space pursuits not only stirs our imagination, but also
brings us closer together--researchers, scientists, business
professionals and government officials--to explore the practically
limitless opportunities that space promises.
Space as an Economic Engine
Space products and services are an integral part of daily life,
expanding each year into new areas of human activity. In one dramatic
example, space technology and expertise helped to ensure the survival
and rescue of a group of Chilean miners trapped underground. This
experience was but a single instance of how the knowledge gained from
human activity in the challenging environment of space can be applied
to life on Earth. In more commonplace situations, new space
applications are helping people communicate with each other and access
entertainment as they travel by ground, sea or air. Satellite-enabled
Internet connections are becoming commonplace as airlines outfit their
fleets with the latest equipment. Navigation applications for cell
phones can combine input from built-in cameras and GPS chips, enabling
users to view directions as an overlay on an image of their
surroundings. GPS tracking systems installed on race cars allow people
playing computer games to participate in virtual competitions against
professional drivers during real racing events. Whether during work or
leisure hours, most people reap the benefits of space systems and
technology as an integral part of their daily lives.
The commercial sector continues to incorporate space technology
both in its manufacturing processes and in its products. The glass
manufacturing industry is incorporating techniques used in the analysis
of data from the Hubble Space Telescope and the semiconductor industry
is creating more powerful microchips using technology developed for
building ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray observatory. Consumers can purchase
clothing made from textiles originally developed for use by astronauts
or have their hair styled with tools that smooth and soften hair using
nano-ceramic technology developed by NASA. Not only does space
contribute to the wealth of products available to consumers, it also
enables companies to estimate consumer activity by observing the ebb
and flow of customer traffic in the parking lots of retailers by means
of satellite imagery.
On a more global scale, satellites offer a unique perspective that
helps to explain the human relationship with the environment. From
enabling forestry managers to track the spread of tree-destroying Rocky
Mountain pine beetles to helping coordinate cleanup efforts after the
Gulf of Mexico oil spill to monitoring the effects of the earthquake in
Japan, satellite data is critical to managing natural resources and the
response to manmade disasters. It is almost unthinkable now to consider
the prospect of facing a natural disaster without the communications
and imaging capabilities provided by space systems.
Individuals, companies and nations continue to create new space-
related products and services, capitalizing on the intellectual and
financial investments made in space technology. Many governments have
realized the benefits of using space technology as a tool for carrying
out their responsibilities and as a means of generating economic
growth. These governments play an important role in developing new
space technology, with methods such as financing commercial companies,
transferring government technology to the commercial sector and
creating a supportive regulatory regime.
Regardless of the exact measures undertaken, it is clear that
governments recognize the need for further growth of space
capabilities. Government space spending around the world increased to
$87.12 billion in 2010. The U.S. government space budget, which
accounted for 74 percent of worldwide governmental space spending, was
flat at $64.63 billion. Numerous governments announced their intent to
expand their national space programs in 2010, including Canada,
Germany, Israel, Japan and India. As these policies translate into
budgets and program activities, they will increase total government
spending on space globally; to the extent that funding for U.S. Federal
space programs remains flat, both inflation and increased spending by
other nations will erode U.S. leadership.
The degree to which U.S. national investments in space have proven
to be high-impact investments of tremendous national benefit cannot be
overstated. After all, today's robust commercial space industry has its
origins in government space investment. DirecTV, Sirius/XM radio, CNN,
ESPN, Monday Night Football and countless other satellite services are
all the grandchildren of America's Telstar program. Google Earth,
satellite weather, commercial imagery from space and countless related,
value-added applications are the descendants of the Corona spy
satellite program. The U.S. aerospace industry, which by some estimates
accounted for 50 percent of the new wealth generated in America between
1962 and 2002, built its muscle on government space programs like Dyna-
Soar, X-15, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the X-24A, M2-F3, HL-10, the Space
Shuttle and the International Space Station.
Uniquely, however, U.S. national investments in space have spawned
new technologies and new industries that could not even have been
imagined when those investments were made. The act of doing things
``not because they are easy, but because they are hard'' \1\ leads to
the creation of capabilities that have not previously existed; these,
in turn, can lead to entirely new industries. Take, for example, the
cordless tool industry. Prior to NASA having a requirement for cordless
power tools on the Moon, the power tool industry was content to
continue manufacturing longer and longer extension cords. The unique
NASA requirement gave birth to a solution that no one had imagined;
NASA contractor Martin Marietta hired Black & Decker, and the rest is
history. Today cordless power tools are manufactured in Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas and
Texas--and increasingly in Japan, China and Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other
things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because
that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies
and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to
accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to
win.''--John F. Kennedy, Rice University, September 12, 1962
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very important phenomenon to understand: that investing
in research to support a specific desired outcome will generate
solutions and technologies that otherwise would not develop.
Take the humble, modern microwave oven. Research directed at
improving the common oven would likely have resulted in ovens that are
better insulated, more energy efficient and so on. But such efforts
would probably not have resulted in a microwave oven. The use of
amplified microwaves, initially in a device called a Klystron, came not
from the oven or appliance industry, but from a directed effort to
develop defense radar.
This is the way that invention and discovery works, and this is why
America's past investment in space programs has yielded such stupendous
returns:
Because spacecraft needed a renewable source of energy on
orbit, today we have a solar power (photovoltaics) industry.
Because spacecraft needed to be guided and controlled, today
we have accelerometer technology used in everything from
triggering automotive seatbelts and air bags to orienting smart
phones.
Because NASA needed to accurately dock and undock
spacecraft, today we have precision guidance technology that
enables LASIK eye surgery.
Because NASA needed to protect the environment from toxic
chemicals associated with rocket launching, today we have
advanced environmental containment and clean-up technologies.
Because the Air Force required a precise global positioning
system, today GPS is the fundamental underlying architecture
for commerce, finance, logistics, inventory management and
commercial, military, law enforcement, emergency services and
personal navigation around the world.
Because NASA required unprecedented turbo-pump capability to
power the Space Shuttle main engines, today we have life-saving
heart pump technologies.
None of these outcomes were expected. These technologies, and more
than 40,000 others, are the result of our previous national investments
in space.
Space and Foreign Policy, National Security
The funding of national space programs has also brought tremendous
benefit to U.S. foreign policy and national security, both directly,
and indirectly.
U.S. leadership in space has been a leading contributor to American
``soft power'' since the dawn of the space age. The nation's entry into
the space race is often seen only as a reaction to the Soviet Union's
launch of Sputnik; the doctrine behind this reaction is worth
remembering. Kennedy's speech at Rice is often quoted for its
inspirational and humanistic value. Less often quoted are the political
and national security realities that America was coming to grips with:
``. . . man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is
determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space
will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of
the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects
to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in
this race for space.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Kennedy continues: ``Yet the vows of this Nation can only be
fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to
be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our
hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as
others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries,
to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's
leading space-faring nation.''
The mastery of space has always carried with it the not-so-subtle
message to friend and foe: This is what we are capable of. You want to
work with us. You want to be our friend. You want to follow our lead.
You do not want to challenge us.
The message of the Apollo program was very clear--the U.S. triumphs
over the Soviet Union and democracy triumphs over communism. We win. We
are the leader. Follow us.
Whether our objective is to win the Cold War (Apollo), extend a
hand in friendship (Apollo-Soyuz), incentivize collaborative behavior
(Shuttle-Mir) or build a broad-based international community (ISS), the
soft power of space programs is often one of our best foreign relations
and national security tools.
Certainly, space programs have also been inextricably linked with
``hard'' power. Our current expendable launch systems descend from ICBM
boosters. The Space Shuttle was configured so that it could carry out
clandestine military missions. Friendly American satellites that carry
out environmental monitoring and commercial satellites that deliver
exquisite images of earth from space have their origins in Department
of Defense space programs. Indeed America's largest secret space
program, for decades, was the National Reconnaissance Office.
The ability to observe other nations, share intelligence instantly
around the world and, when necessary, to strike, are all dependent upon
our investments in national space programs. All Americans know about
the successful mission to get Osama Bin Laden. They should also know
that CIA Director Leon Panetta specifically praised the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and its role as providing the
essential satellite imagery of Bin Laden's lair that enabled the raid
to take place.
Space and Our National Intellectual Capacity
Finally, it must be recognized that our national intellectual
capacity--the brain power we can bring to bear on any problem, issue or
challenge--is directly affected by our investment in national space
programs. As the Apollo program was gaining momentum, enrollment in
graduate studies in science and engineering was also gaining momentum.
In fact, and again citing Kennedy's speech at Rice, the Apollo program
was expected and intended to double the number of American scientists
and engineers \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that
the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact
that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years
in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a
whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the
unanswered and the unfinished still far out-strip our collective
comprehension. . . . During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and
engineers in this area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doing the hard things requires our best and brightest minds.
Developing this intellectual capacity requires inspiring, challenging,
and exciting work to do. When America has made that investment, we have
never failed to achieve our capacity for greatness.
Senator Nelson. Mr. Slazer?
STATEMENT OF FRANK SLAZER, VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE, AEROSPACE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Slazer. Thank you, Chairman Nelson and Ranking Member
Boozman and the distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
It is both an honor and a pleasure to be able to testify
before you here today on the importance of NASA's space
exploration program and the role of space in addressing
America's national priorities.
I am here on behalf of the Aerospace Industries
Association, an association of over 300 aerospace companies
representing over 90 percent of the U.S. industry. Our industry
sustains nearly 11 million jobs nationwide, including many
high-skilled, high-technology positions.
Our organization was disappointed that the President's
Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposes to underfund NASA by nearly
$800 million below the $19.4 billion authorized level, a level
agreed upon just last fall. Given the current fiscal
environment, however, AIA believes the level of NASA funding
proposed by the President, $18.7 billion, is the minimum
required for its programs.
When allocating this funding, AIA's position is that the
funding distribution should reflect the budget priorities as
outlined in the Fiscal Year 2010 NASA Authorization Act.
Despite the clear bipartisan direction provided in the 2010
Authorization Act and the 2011 year-end continuing resolution,
substantial uncertainty remains over the direction NASA will
take, most specifically on the new heavy lift space launch
system. The impact of the long-delayed CR, the current budget
climate, and the impending gap in America's ability to launch
crews into space are causing ripple effects throughout the
space industrial base and its highly trained workforce.
Now that the Space Shuttle is being retired and the U.S. is
paying Russia over $60 million a seat to get crew to the
International Space Station, it is critical that NASA's
exploration and crew transportation programs be adequately
funded to remain on track.
Two generations of Americans have never known a time when
our nation was not engaged in human spaceflight. But let us be
clear. This is a legacy, not an entitlement. Without continued
investment, this could become the last generation of Americans
to be part of a space-faring society.
The on-again, off-again plans for Shuttle's replacement
over the past decade have led to considerable workforce
uncertainty across the entire industrial base, where firms are
faced with wrenching decisions to let highly skilled personnel
go due to lack of funding and/or clear direction. In addition
to workforce impacts, fluctuating budgets and delays take their
toll on schedule, production capability, and industry's ability
to manage programs, sending mixed signals to industry and
placing these complex space programs at risk of overruns or
cancellation and jeopardizing the prior taxpayer investments.
Interruptions or cancellations negatively impact large
companies and can be catastrophic to smaller firms, often the
only entities with unique abilities to produce small, but
critical components on which huge portions of our economy,
infrastructure, and national security depend.
As an example, only one firm in the United States produces
a chemical called ammonium perchlorate, which is necessary for
solid rocket propulsion. It is used in the Space Shuttle solid
rocket motors, other space launchers, and a wide variety of
military systems. The Shuttle's retirement is already impacting
a wide range of users, as costs rise due to this smaller
business base.
Whenever government budgets are cut significantly, U.S.
space industrial capability shrinks. This capacity loss could
potential leave the industry incapable of building civil or
national security space systems in the future.
Developing the aerospace workforce of the future is a top
issue for our industry. NASA's space programs remain an
excellent source of inspiration for our youth to study the STEM
disciplines--science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics--and to enter the aerospace workforce.
AIA is committed to STEM education and, just last weekend,
hosted over 600 students from all across the country at a
rocket-launching competition, the Team America Rocket
Challenge--TARC--in Virginia. While the students there are
clearly motivated, for many students, the lack of program
continuity is impacting the attractiveness of the aerospace
professions.
For example, in 2009, a survey was done where 60 percent of
students in STEM curricula in colleges found the aerospace
industry to be an unattractive place to work. One of the
reasons for lack of interest in aerospace may be the
uncertainty of NASA programs.
Just as the recent Wall Street crisis turned young people
away from financial careers, uncertainty and a lack of job
security in aerospace also hurts recruitment. A commitment to a
robust human space flight program will help attract students to
STEM degree programs and hold on to the current workforce,
while also benefiting national security space programs, many of
which, while very exciting, are classified.
A robust and sustainable space exploration program is
essential to building our future economy. AIA believes that a
fundamental driver of economic growth since the 1960s has been
our Nation's investments in space-driven technology and
inspiration. In fact, today, a number of new commercial space
systems are being developed by entrepreneurs who have made
their fortunes in information technology or other fields, but
whose intellectual development was inspired during the Apollo
era.
In conclusion, the U.S. space program is at a critical
juncture. While cutting the Federal deficit is essential for
our economic future, cutting back on space investments is a
penny-wise, but pound-foolish approach that would have an
infinitesimal impact on the deficit, even as emerging world
powers are growing their space capabilities.
Instead of the embarrassing situation of buying crew
launches from Russia 50 years after our first manned space
flight, our nation's future will hopefully include one or more
commercially developed American crew vehicles supporting the
International Space Station and possibly new commercial space
stations, along with a robust NASA multipurpose crew
exploration vehicle and a heavy lift launch system for missions
of exploration beyond Earth orbit. But this bright and
inspiring future is dependent on our nation continuing to make
the investments necessary to lead in space.
I thank the Committee for their time, and I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slazer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frank Slazer, Vice President, Space,
Aerospace Industries Association
Introduction
Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Boozman, distinguished members of
the Subcommittee. It is an honor and a pleasure to testify before you
today on the importance of NASA's space exploration program and the
role of space in addressing America's national priorities.
I am here on behalf of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)--
an Association of over 300 aerospace manufacturing companies and the
highly-skilled employees who make the spacecraft, launch vehicles,
sensors and ground support systems employed by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Defense, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), and other civil, military and intelligence
space organizations. This industry sustains nearly 11 million jobs,
including many high-skilled, high-technology positions. The U.S.
aerospace manufacturing industry remains the single largest contributor
to the Nation's balance of trade, exporting $80.5 billion and importing
$27.2 billion in relevant products in 2010, for a net surplus of $53.3
billion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau, Merchandise Trade Exports/Imports Quarterly
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the efforts of Congress to keep our commercial, civil
and national security space programs healthy. We are pleased that
Congress recognizes that space capabilities have increasingly become
part of everyday life and that virtually every part of the U.S. economy
has been touched by their applications.
Space programs are essential to our national, technological and
economic security. U.S.-developed space technology and its many spin-
offs have fueled our economy and made us the unquestioned technological
leader in the world for two generations. U.S. economic and
technological leadership enabled us to prevail in the Cold War and
emerge as the world leader in a new era.
AIA was disappointed that the president's Fiscal Year 2012 budget
proposal underfunds NASA by nearly $800 million below its authorized
level--$19.4 billion--agreed upon just last fall. Given the current
fiscal environment, AIA believes that the level of funding proposed by
the administration for NASA provides at least the minimum required for
its important programs. It is therefore imperative that NASA receive
the full amount of the president's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request of
$18.7 billion. When allocating this funding, AIA's position is that
funding for NASA should reflect the budget priorities as outlined in
the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 as closely as possible.
The Need for Program Stability
Despite the clear bipartisan direction provided in the NASA
Authorization Act of 2010 and in the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing
Resolution (CR), substantial uncertainty remains over the direction
NASA will take--most specifically on the new heavy-lift space launch
system. The impact of the long delayed Fiscal Year 2011 CR, the current
budget climate and the impending gap in America's ability to launch
crews into space--after decades of ever increasing capability--are
causing ripple effects throughout the space industrial base and highly
trained space workforce in both private and public sectors.
Fluctuating budgets and delayed programs take their toll on
schedule, production and maintaining a skilled workforce--exacerbated
by the winding down of the space shuttle program. This funding and
programmatic instability may result in the permanent loss of this
highly skilled, unique human capital by reducing the options for
retaining this specially trained and skilled workforce. Our nation's
aerospace workforce is a perishable national treasure; experienced
aerospace talent, once lost, may be unrecoverable and new workers
without this critical experience may take years to train.
Unfortunately, the on-again off-again plans for the Shuttle's
replacement over the past decade have led to considerable uncertainty
not only at NASA--where civil service positions are protected--but
across the entire industrial base where firms are faced with wrenching
decisions to let highly skilled personnel go because of the lack of
clear direction.
At a time when the space shuttle is being retired and the United
States is paying Russia over $60 million a seat to get crews to the
International Space Station, it is critical that NASA's new programs
for exploration and crew transportation be adequately funded to remain
on track. Fifty years after astronaut Alan Shepard became America's
first man in space, two generations of Americans have never known a
time when we were not engaged in human space flight. But let us be
clear, this is a legacy not an entitlement--without continued
investment, this could become the last generation of Americans being
members of a space faring society. In addition to workforce impacts,
failure to stick to a space program funding plan makes it difficult to
manage them effectively; sends mixed signals to an industry making long
term investments; and places these programs at risk of overruns or
cancelation--jeopardizing the investments already made by taxpayers.
NASA's research and development efforts have consistently produced
ground-breaking technologies with benefits for nearly everyone on the
planet. Investments made in NASA have produced invaluable benefits to
our national security, economic prosperity and national prestige and
should be pursued as sound economic stimulus.
NASA Space Investment Benefits All Sectors, Including National Security
The U.S. military and national security communities rely on the
space industrial base to provide them with capabilities required to
keep our Nation secure. Our space industrial base designs, develops,
produces and supports our spacecraft, satellites, launch systems and
supporting infrastructure. These systems are often produced in small or
even single numbers. We need to keep this base healthy to maintain our
competitive edge.
Interruptions or cancellations negatively impact large companies
and can be catastrophic to smaller firms--often the only entities with
the unique abilities to produce small but critical components on which
huge portions of our economy, infrastructure and security depend. As an
example, only one firm in the United States produces ammonium
perchlorate--a chemical used in solid rocket propellants including the
space shuttle solid rocket motors, other space launchers and military
applications. Retiring the shuttle will impact all these other users as
costs rise due to a smaller business base.
The U.S. military and national security communities rely on the
space industrial base to provide them with capabilities they require to
keep our Nation secure. Due to export restrictions on space technology
and limited commercial markets for space systems, key elements within
industry often must depend on stable government programs for survival.
This two-way, symbiotic relationship means that in order to keep our
overall national security strong, both sides of this relationship are
critical.
Given the lack of a large external space market, such as exists in
civil aviation, if government spending pulls back from investing in the
space domain--be it in NASA, the Defense Department or Intelligence
Community--the industrial base will shrink accordingly. This will mean
capacity loss and potentially leaves the United States incapable of
building certain national security assets in the future.
Investing in NASA Benefits STEM Education
Developing the aerospace workforce of the future is a top issue for
our industry. NASA's space programs remain an excellent source of
inspiration for our youth to study the STEM disciplines--science,
technology, engineering and math--and to enter the aerospace workforce.
In fact, the exciting periods of our space program history are
reflected in the demographics of our industry and the influx of young
workers they engendered.
Unfortunately, the state of education for our young people is today
in peril, including poor preparation for STEM disciplines. American
students today rank 25th in math and 17th in science internationally.
Low graduation rates of students in those fields and an overall lack of
interest in STEM education contribute to a looming shortage of workers
qualified to become professionals in our high tech industries.
A recent study, Raytheon found that most middle school students
would rather do one of the following instead of their math homework:
clean their room, eat their vegetables, go to the dentist or even take
out the garbage. This lack of interest extends into interest in
aerospace. For example, in a 2009 survey 60 percent of students
majoring in STEM disciplines found the aerospace and defense industry
an unattractive place to work.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 2009 Experience Industry Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the reasons for the lack of interest in aerospace and
defense could be the uncertainty of NASA programs. \3\ Just as the
recent Wall Street crisis turned young people away from financial
careers, lack of job security in aerospace will hurt recruiting
efforts. The video gaming industry has captured the magic to attract
young people, while space--despite its history and potential--has
lagged behind. In some instances, our own employees discourage their
children from pursuing careers in aerospace engineering due to the
uncertainty of future programs and career prospects. A commitment to a
robust human spaceflight program will help attract students to STEM
degree programs and help retain the current workforce--which also
benefits national security space programs, many of which are not in the
open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2007 National Academies: Building a Better NASA Workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While AIA and NASA are vigorously engaged in the ``supply'' side of
the equation--exciting and inspiring students to study math, science
and engineering--it's the ``demand'' side that needs Congressional
action by providing the resources needed for visible and inspiring
aerospace projects. These, in turn, provide young people with exciting
programs to work on in the near future and on an ongoing basis. A
robust and sustainable space exploration program is essential to
building a future aerospace workforce capable of technological
innovation and economic competitiveness.
Investments in NASA Have Increased Economic Prosperity
Since its beginnings, NASA has been at the forefront in developing
new technologies to meet the challenges of space exploration and much
of what has been developed has had benefits in other areas. The list of
NASA-derived innovations is impressive and wide-ranging, including
memory foam cushions, video image stabilization technology, cordless
power tools, power sources for heart defibrillators, ventricular assist
pumps for heart disease, portable breathing systems for firefighters
and many others. These NASA-enabled innovations are not just old
history; for example, today the International Space Station is enabling
us to develop new vaccines to protect people from Salmonella and MRSA
pathogens by exploiting the organism's response to the weightless
environment.
Past NASA investments such as the Apollo moon landing program
stimulated technology development like the miniaturization of
electronic circuits. Electronic computers were first created during
World War II, but miniaturization in the 1960s enabled the first
personal computers to be created in the late 1970s and early 1980s--by
a generation of inventors who grew up during the Apollo era. In fact,
today a number of new commercial space systems are being developed by
entrepreneurs who have made their fortunes in information technology or
other fields, but whose intellectual development was inspired during
Apollo.
NASA is a Source of National Pride
And then there are space program benefits that don't have a dollar
figure attached--those unquantifiable ``know it when you see it''
benefits that reap long-term rewards--increasing our Nation's pride in
our abilities and garnering attention from across the globe. These
include the already mentioned Apollo program, the space shuttle and
International Space Station, numerous planetary spacecraft which have
revealed the wonders of our solar system as well as spacecraft which
have helped us understand our home planet and the universe. If there is
one area where the world unquestionably looks to the U.S. for
leadership, it is in our space program.
Conclusion
The future of U.S. space investments are threatened due to our
constrained fiscal environment. While cutting the Federal deficit is
essential to assuring our economic future, cutting back on exploration
investments is a penny-wise but pound-foolish approach that will have
an infinitesimal impact on the budget deficit. Cutting exploration
further threatens our economic growth potential and risks our continued
national technical leadership overall--even as emerging world powers
increase their investments in this important arena. China, India, South
Korea and other rapidly developing economies are investing in space
technology.
In the decade ahead, our Nation's future in space will likely see
one or more commercially developed American crew vehicles supporting
the International Space Station and potentially new commercial space
stations, as well as a robust NASA multipurpose crew exploration
vehicle and new heavy lift launch system that will be getting ready for
new missions of exploration beyond Earth orbit. But this bright and
inspiring future is dependent on our Nation continuing to make the
critical investments in programs and technologies needed to lead in
space.
In conclusion, the United States human spaceflight program is at a
critical juncture. As a nation we can choose to continue our leadership
in manned exploration and innovation or inevitably fall behind.
I thank the Committee for their time and would be happy to answer
any questions.
Senator Nelson. And all of your written statements will be
put in and made a part of the record.
I would like to start with you, Dr. Chyba. I am just going
to ask one question, and then I am going to flip it to you,
Senator Hutchison.
Dr. Chyba, you participated on the Augustine Commission,
and one of their recommendations was the Flexible Path, which
informed a great deal of the authorization bill that Senator
Hutchison and I worked on. So how would you respond to the
criticisms over the incremental approach or headlines that come
out about a rocket to nowhere?
Dr. Chyba. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that question.
As you know, the Augustine Committee made--presented a set
of possible options. It didn't make recommendations among those
options.
But the Flexible Path was one of those options. And if you
look at our analysis, as I am sure you have, sir, of the
different possible options according to the metrics against
which we evaluated them, Flexible Path contained the other
options. It ranked best in virtually--along virtually every
metric. So I am not surprised that, in the end, it was the
option that was chosen.
It also had the great advantage--or has the great advantage
of providing the best budget profile. If you imagine a scenario
in which you are going back to the Moon quickly, you not only
have to develop the heavy launch vehicle, but you have to
develop the landers. And the Constellation Program, that was a
very capable, a very capable lander, the Altair lander. With
the Flexible Path, you do not have to up front develop all the
lander infrastructure along with the heavy lift vehicle.
But the path, I think if it is not framed well, it is easy
to level the criticism you just mentioned. But I think that, in
the end, we have to think more carefully about what our future
beyond low-Earth orbit looks like.
I said in my brief comments that everyone looks back on the
Apollo Program with admiration. But we also need to draw
lessons not only from that program, but from the 40 subsequent
years of human space flight.
Twice since Apollo, there have been efforts made by U.S.
Presidents to launch an Apollo-like initiative. George H.W.
Bush--President George H.W. Bush announced his Space
Exploration Initiative, but the budget wasn't there. That was
an initiative to go to Mars. President George W. Bush had his
vision for space exploration, which led to Constellation.
Virtually immediately, the budget was below that to which
Constellation was planning.
They had been planning--they were planning against an
ultimate steady state of $10 billion a year. That was lower
virtually instantly, as well as not taking into account the
costs of de-orbiting station, which they were going to have to
do in 2016. And ultimately, with the President's--President
Obama's budget, we were looking at something closer to $7
billion a year.
So I think we have learned from experience that that kind
of Apollo vision, as desirable and inspiring as it is, is not
working for us as a vision for the future for NASA. So we need
a different approach.
And I think the right approach is an approach in which we
still keep our eye on the human move out into the solar system,
on that inspiring vision. I want to get there as badly as
anybody else. But we are not going to do it--our experience
says we are not going to do it by announcing an Apollo-like
program.
What we have to do instead I think is twofold. We have to
develop a kind of infrastructure--or you might even call it an
``ecosystem''--in low-Earth orbit that has a variety of ways of
encouraging the advance of human space flight and cost-cutting
in human space flight. And that includes encouraging this
robust commercial sector.
But in order to do that, the government is going to have to
provide demand-pull, where it is going to have to provide the
station as a destination. And not for make-work, but for
important experiments and developments that will further enable
human space flight.
And also, let us hope--let us hope--this remains to be
demonstrated, but let us hope there will turn out to be a
commercial market, both with respect to suborbital flights and
perhaps also with an additional private station-like inflatable
entity that people want to go to. That remains to be seen. But
I think that the government demand-pull alone is probably
sufficient to get that ball rolling.
But simultaneously, because the commercial sector
independently is not there yet, we have to have the heavy
launch vehicle capability that is going to allow us to move out
beyond low-Earth orbit. So I favor, I absolutely support the
authorization bill's approach to this.
This is not--Flexible Path is not a mission to nowhere. It
is a mission to expand human civilization into our solar
system, the most ambitious possible space objective. But it
tries to do it in a way that I think has the hope of being
sustainable, of actually providing us with that future.
If you look back at some of the reports that have been
issued in the last 40 years about our future in space, too many
of them, in my view, included dramatic artist's renderings of
what our future was going to look like, with rocket ships
flying everywhere and astronauts in backpacks going in every
possible direction. I respect and admire that vision, but I
think that our citizens and our children need more than
PowerPoint depictions of what that future looks like, and I
think Flexible Path is our best hope of obtaining that future.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Dr. Chyba.
Senator Hutchison?
Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate that very much because we tried to make
the balance right within our budget constraints of a flexible
way forward that does support private innovation, but also
keeps the base of our expertise and what has already been
proven also as an ongoing effort. And we hope we got the
balance right.
But here we are. The Chairman and I and Senator Boozman are
all very concerned about the delays, the indecision, the
seeming unmotivated approach to modifying contracts so that you
keep the industrial base. From 14,000 contractors and civil
servants that have been in the Space Shuttle workforce, we are
now down to about 7,000.
So we have cut our expertise and workforce in half, but
what we were trying to do in the authorization bill was create
a new vehicle where these people could be transferred and keep
their expertise rather than have them leave and not be able to
get them back.
I would ask Dr. Chyba, Mr. Slazer, and either of you as
well--maybe, Captain, you as well--what can we do to motivate
real movement and decisiveness in NASA that does keep the basic
workforce for the goals that we all have? Because we share
everything that you have said today, and yet have the private
sector continue to innovate, but to keep the balance that we
have tried to create and see some success?
I would just ask any of you who would want to step up to
the plate. Because we are getting fairly frustrated.
Mr. Slazer. Yes. I don't have a good answer for what the
right technical solution is for NASA's launch vehicle. They are
working that with a lot of people in industry, and they have
undoubtedly got several workable options to proceed with.
But one thing I will give you from my experience watching
the Space Station Program in the 1990s was that after it was
redesigned for the umpteenth time, after about a decade of
winning by one vote on the floor of the House to keep the
program alive, it was decided to fund the Space Station at a
fixed level of about $2 billion a year from about 1993, the
early part of the Clinton administration. And it pretty much
kept to that development funding level.
And by keeping to that level, although development programs
really want to look like a bell curve, they don't--you know,
optimally, you do them most efficiently like a bell curve. But
if you know what your funding is going to be and if an effort
is made by the White House and by Congress to protect that
flat-line budget to allow them--protect a budget to allow them
to manage to it effectively, we have this remarkable asset that
is in space today.
And here it is less than 6 months after the authorization,
and the President's request did not reflect the authorization.
And then, on top of that, the Shuttle pension came in as a one-
time expense. Well, we had a one-time expense prior to this,
back in the 1990s--actually, back in the 1980s, after the
Challenger was lost, where we made a one-time appropriation to
cover funding the Endeavour. And that came in under budget, and
the rest of NASA's program was not disrupted at the time.
If you throw disruptions into the funding plan, it makes it
more difficult for NASA. It makes it more difficult for
industry, and it makes it longer and more frustrating at the
end to get a program.
So I don't know what the right answer is, as far as the
NASA program. I know you have got a letter you have sent to
NASA to try to figure it out, what their response is on that.
But I will tell you that once a plan is agreed upon, sticking
to that funding profile is the most important thing you can do
for them and for industry.
Senator Hutchison. Do you think that we still have the
expertise in the employees that are left? There's been another
round of lay-off notices following when the Shuttle shuts down,
do we have enough to fulfill the NASA part of the mission, or
are we just getting bled to death so that all we will have is
the private sector?
Mr. Slazer. I guess my observation would be that many of
the people that are being let go now are on the operations
side, who are very expert at operating the Space Shuttle
system. While we certainly need to have operational
capabilities for new systems, one of the critical things--and
it is the small tip of the spear, if you will--are the design
engineers and scientists that can actually develop new systems.
And I think on that level, we may be doing pretty good
because, right now, we have got at least three different
commercial cruise systems being developed. We have got the
Orion multipurpose crew exploration vehicle, and there are a
number of activities still tied to Constellation relative to
the launch vehicle that are going, as well as the upgrades
being made to the EELV Program.
So I wouldn't say we are super healthy right now, but with
the program we have got going now, at least that pointy end of
the spear is there. But we need to figure out that transition
of workforce because operational expertise is important as
well. You need to be able to run these systems.
Senator Hutchison. Well, we have one more Shuttle. Is there
anyone that is concerned--who is concerned about whether we
still have the capability to do the last Shuttle, which is our
cleanup Shuttle, to make sure we have everything on the Space
Station that a Shuttle can take? Because when we go to Soyuz,
we will not have much capability to take things to the station.
Captain Culbertson: Senator, I think I can address most of
your question. I am pretty close still to the people at KSC,
JSC, the other NASA centers, and talk to them frequently about
how things are going and what is happening with the missions
and the countdowns, et cetera.
Your first question was, do we still have the expertise
within NASA to safely conduct the missions? And my answer is
yes. There are a lot of really, really good people still there.
It is unfortunate that people are being laid off. And it is
not just in the government workforce. In fact, the major hit is
to the contractor workforce. But these are people who have also
been in the program for decades, who have the same corporate
knowledge and expertise as what we attribute to NASA as a
whole, and they are basically the arms and legs, and in many
cases the brains, of what goes on.
So that is an issue, and it is a concern. It is one that we
have seen coming for a while, and hopefully, people have done
the best planning they could, both on a personal and
professional basis, to prepare for these changes.
But the remainder of the workforce on both the government
and industry side that I see is still extremely competent,
still capable of leading, still capable of making the right
decisions, and conducting operations safely, as well as moving
out on the programs that are currently in the authorization
bill. I believe that we have the people on both sides of the
table to execute what has been asked of the country.
We do need to continue to have bipartisan support on that.
One of the problems has been the continuous debate over what
many would see as partisan issues over exactly what the details
of NASA's direction should be. And I think we need to get that
behind us and decide that we now have a plan that can be
executed and that people need to move rapidly on it.
It will be a mix of commercial endeavors and government-led
endeavors and I think we will need that going forward.
We need to continue to focus on the technological
capabilities of the plans and teams that are working on them.
And the business cases and business experiments that might be
out there, we need to be cautious about. But by the same token,
we need to encourage access to space by many, many people and
many, many companies.
As I said before, the measure of whether we are remaining a
great nation or not is whether we can get through this
difficult time and maintain our leadership in space. It is
going to require some hard decisions, and it is going to
require commitment, bipartisan commitment from both the
Congress and the government leadership.
Senator Hutchison. I think when you are referring to
bipartisan, the Congress is speaking very forcefully of one
mind, bipartisan. However, Congress and the administration, I
think, is what you are referring to as not being in sync, which
is clear.
Captain Culbertson. I am just a witness.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think when you said----
Captain Culbertson. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Hutchison.--what we need is bipartisan, a
bipartisan effort, we had one.
Captain Culbertson. Yes.
Senator Hutchison. We passed an authorization bill
overwhelmingly.
Captain Culbertson. Well, and this committee particularly
was a leader in doing it in a bipartisan fashion. And I think
the whole government needs to take a lesson from that.
Senator Hutchison. I agree with you. Thank you.
Mr. Pulham. Senator, if I may, I share your frustration in
this regard. Whether you support the Flexible Path or not, the
fact is that we have an authorization. That authorization sets
out where we are going and what level of funding there is going
to be for each component of where we are going.
And NASA has not always had that. They have not always had
an authorization bill. And the Congress has taken great pains
to set forth what is now law that says this is what NASA should
do.
And I am just astounded that someone from NASA isn't
sleeping on a couch in each of your offices and working this on
a daily basis. Because it gives NASA the opportunity to get the
enterprise focused around what the law of the land says will be
done.
So I think the letter that you have sent to the
Administrator is a good step. I think some additional meetings
are clearly called for to make sure that the agency is
implementing what they have given to implement.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Dr. Chyba?
Dr. Chyba. Senator, if I may, I will make one specific
comment that is not as broad-reaching as my colleagues'
comments. The Subcommittee has just been given a commercial
market assessment from NASA that was requested in the 2010
authorization bill. There is a one-page appendix, Appendix B,
in that market assessment that I would suggest would prove very
useful to examine in greater detail.
And that is an appendix in which the agency looks at the--
does a cost evaluation of the Falcon 9 spacecraft. And they
cost out how expensive it would have been for NASA to have
built that rocket. And with two different assumptions, they get
an answer of $1.7 billion at the low end and $4 billion at the
high end. They also state that they examined SpaceX's costing
of it and have confirmed it, and it cost SpaceX $400 million.
So that, to me, suggests two things. One is that--well, if
that is real, if that difference is real, that is encouraging
about the future. And it would be good to learn as much as one
can from that for how to do things differently in the future.
It may mean that, ultimately, though not in the near term, the
commercial sector could play a much more ambitious role.
But the other thing that I think one would want to
understand in some detail would be why would it have been that
much more expensive, somewhere between 4 and 10 times more
expensive for NASA to do this? Especially at a time when the
claim is that--when the statement is that--one of the issues
facing NASA right now is how to develop the heavy launch
vehicle within the budget profile that the Committee has given
it?
I would hope that that kind of examination could be done in
a cooperative way. You know, let us roll up our sleeves
together and figure out what changes we might make. Because
there is an implication there that there is a much less
expensive way of doing things. Perhaps that will evaporate
under closer examination, but certainly, one would want to
understand that.
Senator Hutchison. Well----
Mr. Pulham. I would like to associate myself with my
colleague's remarks, and I would like to further suggest that
the government has not always been terrific at estimating
markets.
And I say that from the point of view of somebody who
worked on the EELV Program in the early years. And it is pretty
astounding how bad the estimates were for what was eventually
going to happen with EELV.
So I would encourage the Committee to look toward a
disinterested party, whether that be the GAO or an outside
organization, to get an objective view on these costs.
Mr. Slazer. As someone who also worked on EELV, I just have
to intercede. The industry was also part of that market mis-
estimation at the time. But EELV itself, although it has not
met its cost objectives as well as had been hoped, was pretty
amazing if you look at it from the perspective of how the
government managed that program.
Between the two companies--and most of the money that went
into the development work was money put in by Lockheed Martin
or Boeing--less than $5 billion was invested. We wound up with
two families of launch vehicles, brand-new LOX hydrogen main
stage engine, the first one that had been built since the
Shuttle main engine back in the 1970s.
We wound with a brand-new rocket factory. We wound up with
two new pads--actually, three new pads and a capability that
has not had a failure yet.
So if you want to look at how programs can be managed with
government involvement, but still produce tremendous results
affordably, EELV does have some lessons, I think, out there.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think that your points are well
taken. And I think there is a future in the private sector,
which is why we have created the balance in our bill. But we
also have to have the reliability, the backup systems, and all
of the extra efforts that must be made when you are talking
about human space flight.
And so, I think going at a measured pace is what we ought
to be doing and assuring that we are not going to be moving so
fast that we end up not having something that is reliable. And
also, that we have all of the safety and backup systems that
would be required.
And that we don't have big cost overruns that end up being
more expensive in the long run because you are at a place where
you don't have backups. You don't have anything that is an
alternative. And something doesn't work in the one you have,
and it was even mentioned within NASA that, oh, you know, we
will put it all into the private sector, and then we will bail
it out when we need to. Well, that is not a good business model
either.
So I think the balance that we struck is what we would hope
would be a measured and safe way forward, and also one that
could produce the--I mean, if it really is a difference of $400
million versus even $1.5 billion, then that is what we ought to
be looking for.
Thank you.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Senator.
And the authorization--just to build on your comments, the
authorization bill requires NASA to look for these types of
efficiencies that we have been talking here--better
acquisition, better contracting--with an eye to bringing down
the costs.
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pulham, you mentioned in the opening of your testimony
a number of measures, a number of goals. I think one of those
was to inspire the world. You might elaborate on that again.
But also I would like for you to comment in regard to how
we are doing as a nation, right now, in regard to those things,
which I think we all agree are very important.
Mr. Pulham. Well, thank you, Senator.
The three key words in our mission statement are ''inspire,
enable, and propel.`` And the inspiration part is a lot easier
to do when you have a visible, vibrant program, as opposed to
when you really don't know what is coming next.
If you have that program, that then enables a lot of things
to happen. It enables the technologies to evolve. It enables
people to create programs that engage students and teachers. It
enables all Americans to see what is going on, take some pride
in it, and be supportive of whatever amount of money we are
putting into the program. And as my colleagues have noted, it
is consistently Americans think we are putting an awful lot
more into this endeavor than we have.
And then the third thing is to propel. You want to propel
our nation in terms of its global leadership. You want to
propel our scientific base, our engineering base. You want to
propel our young people into programs in college that are hard
programs, and to get them there without requiring mathematical
remediation and to maintain that intellectual base and that
intellectual capital that I talked about.
And I am not sure if that quite answers your question, but
I really think it is terribly important that we have a vibrant
space program. The International Space Station, as Frank knows,
is very near and dear to my heart. I worked on that program
when I was with Boeing down in Huntsville, Alabama. And the
fact that there is not more known--that it is not more known
that that program is up and running and that there is a
tremendous amount going on there is detrimental in terms of our
being able to support other space programs as a country.
I think if people don't get it that there is something
wonderful that has happened from this, they have a hard time
believing that something else wonderful is going to happen. And
so, really leveraging that International Space Station is
important.
I will say that at the level of teachers and students--and
we have an academic branch to our organization--they do get the
whole International Space Station thing once you start talking
with them. If they come off the street into your classroom,
they may not have any knowledge of it whatsoever. But when you
start working with them, they latch onto it. They build
programs around it.
We have taken over a failing inner-city school and turned
it into an aerospace academy, and the kids in that school use
the latest aerospace software to track satellites, calculate
when the International Space Station is coming overhead. And I
guess my worry is that however we implement this Flexible Path,
we do it in a way that people can see that something exciting
is coming.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, and I agree totally.
Dr. Chyba, I know you worked very hard on the commission,
and you guys did a good job and explored a lot of different
pros and cons in coming up with your decision. And you have
alluded to this, but for the record, would you agree that an
important element of any heavy lift vehicle and crew module
would be the degree to which they maximize the use of previous
investments in vehicle developments, propulsion systems, and
infrastructure?
Dr. Chyba. Thank you, Senator.
I should make a distinction between the Committee's work
and my own view in that respect. As you know, the Committee
simply presented options. So while it certainly factored into
its analysis of different options as an explicit one of its
metrics, that type of question that might have been called
sustainability, but I might be misremembering the name, there
was an explicit metric that looked at--well, there was a
workforce metric, for example. The committee presented options.
It didn't make recommendations.
My own view is that especially given that we are in this
delicate position now of trying to move toward an expansion
into the solar system, while we have to simultaneously maintain
and foster this largely commercially driven, filling in behind
NASA's spearhead, I don't think we have much choice currently
but to build as much as possible on existing capabilities.
There may be a price to that.
In the long run, that could mean that we have a system that
costs less up front to develop but has higher recurring costs
in the future. I hope that the way to mitigate that--that there
would be a way to mitigate that, which would be to make the
system as evolvable as possible. I think you already see that
in the way that the use of the Shuttle main engines are being
discussed for that heavy lift vehicle, that they will be moved
toward a kind of disposable version of the Shuttle engines that
would be less expensive.
So as long as that system is evolvable, so that there is at
least a prayer of bringing down recurring costs, I think that
is very much the way to go. In fact, I don't see how we have
much choice, given the budget reality.
Senator Boozman. As a commission member, somebody that
worked hard and went through a number of different options,
finally choosing the Flexible Path option, I am curious. The
authorization bill worked hard in trying to push that down the
road in order to get done.
I am a little bit confused about the administration's path.
And being somebody that is new to the Committee and working
hard to understand, the paths that you all tried to explore,
where do you see them going as apart from the authorization?
Dr. Chyba. Well, thank you.
And as you stated, the choice of Flexible Path was not our
committee's. I think it was the----
Senator Boozman. Right.
Dr. Chyba.--choice of the Subcommittee. And I also think
that as I read the President's remarks, I think it was
essentially what the administration was picking.
Beyond that, since I am here in my personal capacity, and
the Committee made recommendations to the administration and
ceased to exist in 2009, I am really not in a position to
assess the motives of the administration, any more than I am to
assess the motives of members of the Committee.
Senator Boozman. No, again, and I don't mean the motives is
all. I am just saying that you are in a position. We have got
of all these different options. One was chosen. If we move
along the path as they would like to do, by their actions,
where do you see that going? What is that path?
Dr. Chyba. Well, without trying to speak for the
administration, again, just speaking of my own impression of
the Flexible Path. You know, it remains to be proven that we
can really do this. That is the first thing I would say.
I very much hope that we can because I very much want to
have a human future in space beyond low-Earth orbit. But we
haven't done this successfully before, where we have kept
flying. We are maintaining the station. We are developing
capacity to continue launching. We are going to have a gap
where we can't do that. And we are developing a heavy lift
vehicle and trying to go beyond low-Earth orbit with the kind
of budget that we are talking about.
So the first thing if you ask me about where is it going,
the first thing we are going to find out is can we really do
it? And that, to me, seems like an enormous challenge. And it
is going to require I think the Committee's phrase might be
``all hands on deck'' and, I hope, an unprecedented kind of
cooperation between the Hill and the administration and NASA,
where the sides are not recalcitrant and they are not
hectoring, but they are rolling up their sleeves and working
together on an important national objective.
It seems to me that given the budget constraints, the first
thing that we can hope for with heavy lift is that we do things
in what is called cislunar space, that we get beyond low-Earth
orbit, but we don't initially get farther than the Moon. Not to
land there, because that is a much more ambitious undertaking,
but we just demonstrate once again that with our new system we
can get there.
We would need to develop--and assuming that Orion is the
vehicle that we are doing that with--we will need to develop an
airlock, so that astronauts can leave the capsule. We will need
to develop some kind of deep space habitat, so that it would be
a modest module that could accompany Orion so that astronauts
on longer missions would have more space.
And then, I think we have to look for objectives that are
new and interesting, that maximize these other benefits,
including scientific knowledge. Not kidding ourselves that this
is the best way to go about it scientifically, but if you are
going to do it with humans, let's maximize these other
benefits.
And I suspect that it is likely that those next missions
would be a mission to a near-Earth asteroid. That would be
unprecedented in mission duration and ambition. And it also is
related to another important objective, which is protecting
human civilization, because we know that these objects
occasionally hit the Earth. We had a 15-megaton explosion in
Earth's atmosphere that flattened 800 square miles of forest in
1908 over Tunguska in Siberia. These things happen. And they
have happened this--well, previous century, but 100 years ago.
Learning more about asteroids is in everybody's interest. So I
think that makes sense as the next objective.
And then beyond that, there is another much more ambitious
hurdle, which is to start thinking in terms of missions that go
as far as Mars. And I would hope that the longer-duration
asteroid mission would proof the systems that we would need to
get out that far, again without having to pay up front for the
enormously expensive capacity of actually landing.
You know, I think Flexible Path is clearly kicking that can
down the road because it is not clear how we are going to pay
for the development of those much more expensive systems, given
the current budget. And I think there is a hope there that down
the road somehow that changes.
There is also a kind of off-ramp in Flexible Path. It is
called the ``Flexible'' Path. If the Nation decides that
returning to the surface of the Moon is an important objective,
and that could be for a variety of scientific or political
reasons, the point of the Flexible Path is to get the necessary
infrastructure in place--everything short of the landers
themselves--so that we could then, if we need to, make that
decision and divert the Flexible Path toward the Moon. That is
why it is flexible.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Nelson. That was a very clear fleshing out of the
concepts behind the Flexible Path. And I appreciate you putting
that on the record, Dr. Chyba.
And I appreciate also you drawing the attention to Appendix
B of NASA's report. And I will just quote from that appendix
where, as you had said, that they had said that--in this
particular case, they used the Falcon 9 as the example of a
commercial rocket being developed for $400 million. And I
quote, ''Thus, the predicted cost to develop a Falcon 9, if
done by NASA, would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0
billion.``
And they go on to say SpaceX has publicly indicated that
the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was
approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90
million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle and so
forth, which brings it up to the total that you were talking
about of $400 million.
Now, if this bears out that there is that much difference,
then it certainly corroborates the Flexible Path and the
philosophy of the authorization bill. And so, to Mr. Pulham and
Mr. Slazer, whereas it appears in the past that we have seen a
decline in American competitiveness in the commercial
marketplace, with Mr. Culbertson's company as another example,
and many others out there competing, they are going to be
launching cargo to the International Space Station on American
rockets, and it is going to start this fall. So tell me, Mr.
Pulham and Mr. Slazer, what do you think is the possibility of
the turnaround of increasing our share of the commercial
marketplace?
Mr. Pulham. Thanks, Senator.
I think it is actually very good. I would start by
observing that I have never had any doubt that commercial
companies could do things cheaper than the government can. I
think when you look at how NASA operates, it operates under a
lot of requirements that a commercial company does not have to
meet in terms of its oversight, its many political masters, its
historic requirements around issues of management and safety.
I am very, very pleased with how SpaceX has done. As a
matter of fact, the Space Foundation awarded SpaceX its Space
Achievement Award for 2010 at our National Space Symposium just
a little bit more than a month ago.
I think this does pose some interesting scenarios for us. I
think that a successful SpaceX, or successful Virgin Galactic,
name one, I think those are game changers for us. I think that
they fundamentally change the ability of our foreign
competitors, if you will, in the launch business. But that
assumes, of course, a fair playing field.
The current problems we have with ITAR and export controls
do create an artificial barrier that says that until those are
fixed, it does still become difficult for a company like SpaceX
to market overseas because those overseas payloads coming to
the United States to be launched triggers an ITAR event that
adds expense and may either price them out or simply keep them
out.
I am not sure if that is the answer to your question. I
would also, with your indulgence, just make a comment on the
NASA evolving various things like the SSME and others for the
heavy lift. I think that is fine if we agree that what that
heavy lift vehicle is going to do is enable us to do other
things that require new technologies, innovative thinking, and
so on.
The concern that I have is--one of the things that the
Apollo Program did was it asked us to do difficult things that
had never been done before, and that resulted in a lot of
invention, a lot of new technology. If we are depending on
existing technology and not interested in developing new
technology, I think that is something that bears a look at as
we implement this plan.
Senator Nelson. Well, thus, the flexible path, which Dr.
Chyba outlined. In the NASA authorization bill, you have a
flexible path going forward to get components up into Earth
orbit. And then, depending on what your particular goal is, at
that point you develop the technologies to get there.
We are not going to Mars or likely to an asteroid at this
point with the technologies that we have. It is going to
require all kinds of new things.
Captain Culbertson, since the subject of this hearing is
the contributions of space to national priorities, you mention
all the nations that are participating in this gargantuan thing
that is on orbit called the International Space Station. And
you mention also this extraordinary relationship that we have
with the Russians that was born out of the beginning of the
thaw of the Cold War when an Apollo spacecraft rendezvoused and
docked with a Soyuz spacecraft in 1975 in the middle of the
cold war.
And they lived 9 days together in space, and that is an
extraordinary human interest story to see the relationship of
those three American astronauts, now Deke Slayton deceased, and
the two Soviet cosmonauts. But you chronicled an additional
comment about this relationship evolving into what we see
today. Would you want to give us some more comments for the
record as a contribution of space?
Captain Culbertson. I would be glad to. Thank you.
When the Shuttle-Mir Program was envisioned, it was an
offshoot of the decision to bring the Russians into the
International Space Station as a partner. The Mir was already
on orbit. It had been there since 1986. They had operated it
almost continuously during that time with two or three crew
members on at a time.
They had learned to operate the station basically. We had
not yet flown a station other than Skylab, which was operated
for a maximum of, I think, 87 days at a time. And so, it was an
opportunity for us to participate with someone who was already
doing this, but also because they were being brought in as an
important partner, providing significant segments of the
station that would allow it to be viable and operate, it was
important for us to learn to work with them before we started
putting pieces together in orbit.
So, together, we built a docking module, which allowed the
Shuttle to dock so that we could more easily attach to the Mir
Space Station, more easily transfer people. We developed
logistics capability within the Shuttle to carry not only our
crew members, but also the cargo associated with their
experiments, and also to supplement what was going on on the
Mir as a cooperative partner.
To do all of that, we had to learn each other's way of
doing business, each other's way of doing engineering, each
other's way of doing operations. We had to basically live in
each other's control centers, each other's factories and,
eventually, visit each other in their homes.
And at the working level, at the management level, it
became a very close-knit, tight team that was able to deal with
almost any problem that came up, including the life-threatening
ones that occurred during the program. That literal trial by
fire allowed us to develop the trust that was necessary to go
from there to the International Space Station because, at this
point, we do depend on each other.
Neither of the two countries could go it alone on ISS at
this point. And the other partners depend on both of us to do
our part to keep it working and to keep it as a valuable
research station. And so, that development of that relationship
was critical going forward.
If I could expand on that just a little bit, the
relationships that we are developing now within this country in
the commercial world in relation to what NASA is doing is a
development of something critical that goes beyond the
technology and the hardware that is being built. And
understanding how to bring commercial practices to development
of spacecraft and rockets that will make things more cost
effective, but bring in the lessons learned of NASA, the
oversight in the key areas of the decades of flying people in
space, of flying hardware in space, and combining those two
makes it a very valuable experience.
And so, we cannot overlook the relationship and operational
capabilities that we are developing as we are going forward.
And I would like to see that continue.
And so, engaging with the Russians, to finish answering
your question, was critical to being successful in the station.
We learned a lot about each other. We overcame politics that
still, to this day, sort of overlay everything but allow us to
make a phone call between program managers and make a decision
in a few minutes on what needs to be done in the next hour to
keep the crew safe.
Senator Nelson. And we often forget that when we talk about
the contributions of space to national priorities, which you
all have very eloquently outlined, the technological spinoffs
and so forth. But the one that Captain Culbertson has just
mentioned was and has been invaluable.
Yes, sir?
Captain Culbertson: If I could just add, the first time two
components were put together, one was a Russian, one was an
American component. They had never touched each other prior to
going into space. And they were attached going 18,000 miles an
hour in a vacuum and fit perfectly the first time.
And that has been true of every component between our
various countries that we have taken up there because we have
worked on, first of all, the trust and, second, the
communication that allows us to understand each other's
capabilities, each other's hardware.
And it allows us to know more about each other as a people,
too, both ourselves and the people we are working with. And I
think that, in itself, helps make us good leaders, and it helps
keep the peace where we can in the world.
Senator Nelson. Well said.
Senator Hutchinson?
Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Slazer, what actions do you believe that Congress could
or should take that would enhance the ability of the U.S.
aerospace industry to continue its record of supporting the
nation's technological superiority, innovation, and
competitiveness in the global economy?
Mr. Slazer. You know, to follow up on Elliot's earlier
comment relative to exports, satellites were put on the
munitions list, one of the few--maybe the only thing, except
for overt weapons, that was ever put on an munitions list. And
its regulation has caused or helped cause the decline of U.S.
market share in commercial satellites from about 70 percent
down to 25 percent. It is up a little bit lately, but it is
still well below its historic norms.
On the component level, when I used to work on Delta launch
vehicles, we would have clamp bands from Sweden. We would have
nozzle extensions from France. Other competitors would have
fairings from Switzerland and other countries in Europe.
We don't export. We have such a difficult time exporting
hardware. And some of the suppliers that we have in the U.S.
industry are the best in the world and could compete, but for
the difficulty of getting things to be exported.
And so, I think that when we look at a national export
initiative, you have to look at where is your sustainable
industry, where do you really excel, and try to make those
industries excel. We excel in aerospace and overall aerospace.
I should note the fact we are the largest contributor to the
balance of trade and in the surplus category about $53 billion
last year.
But it could be more. It could be more on the space side,
if we could look at the roles--and the other thing I would
offer is that that would make us better in two other ways. One
is to maintain an industrial base requires a certain level of
activity. To the extent that exports could be part of that
level of activity, it would make it easier for the Air Force
and for NASA to not have to spend so much for what they get
from the industry or to try to maintain capabilities.
It would also make us better competitors. One of the
reasons why our IT industry is as good as it is, is there is a
lot of competition. Boeing is better because there is an Airbus
than if there wasn't because the two of them are constantly
trying to outdo the other.
And so, by having an industry that is allowed to compete,
we wind up with lower costs. We wind up with an industry that
is forced to be better. And I think that is one of the best
things we could do is reforming our export regime.
Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Pulham, what role does NASA's munitions play in
America's leadership in space?
Mr. Pulham. Senator, I think there's a number of things.
Clearly, as I discussed in my remarks, the impressiveness of
what we have done, contributing to our soft power and our
leadership as a nation--you know, whether it was the Apollo-
Soyuz, whether it was Shuttle-Mir, you know, when we do these
things, there are technical aspects. There are financial
aspects. But the message that we send around the world about
what kind of a nation we are, that we are a nation of leaders,
that we are a nation of great technological prowess, really
causes the world to view us in a way that they would not if we
could not do those things.
And so, I think the contribution of NASA to soft power is
just paramount. But I also think the contribution that NASA
makes to the intellectual capacity of this nation is not
totally and thoroughly understood and I wouldn't pretend to
totally and thoroughly understand it, but I do know a few
things.
That is that students, whatever grade level--and believe it
or not, we are teaching space in pre-K now--they grasp what is
going on in space, they grasp what NASA is doing, and then they
get very excited about it, and that changes fundamentally the
way that they look at the study of things like science and
engineering and mathematics.
We have referred to this Jack Swigert Aerospace Academy. We
have students who are--94 percent of those students are on free
or assisted lunch. Most of them have never touched a piece of
technology before. And now they come in, come down to our
laboratory, and use space sensors and space software to measure
distances on their campus and figure out where everything is in
relation to their own lives.
The other part of the education piece then becomes what do
we do at the college level? And I think one of the things that
NASA is not greatly appreciated for is the amount of investment
that NASA makes in the university research and graduate studies
at our universities and how that influences some of the career
decisions that people make when they are in graduate and
postgraduate school.
Our organization is international, but we are headquartered
in Colorado. And I am conscious of the fact that the University
of Colorado, of all institutions, has traditionally been one of
the largest recipients of NASA research dollars. And because of
that, we have developed a center of excellence in the northern
part of the state in satellites, in sensors, in manufacturing--
aerospace manufacturing, and so on.
And so, I think NASA plays a real, real important role. And
I think we need to work on ways to have whatever NASA is doing
be more visible to the American public so that the American
public can embrace all the benefits of this activity.
Senator Boozman. OK. I want to follow up with asking you
about if we don't aggressively move forward and begin work on
the heavy lift rocket and the Orion crew, what affect that is
going to have in our international space leadership.
And then, secondly, Dr. Chyba, you can think about this,
because what you alluded to I think is so important, Mr.
Pulham. If you would comment, Dr. Chyba, about your perspective
from an academic experience what you believe is the best way to
attract students and interest them in the fields of study that
are needed for maintaining a strong and effective space
exploration program.
Mr. Pulham and then Dr. Chyba.
Mr. Pulham. Thank you, Senator.
I think that in terms of the importance of having a new
heavy lift vehicle, you really only need to look as far as the
James Webb Telescope Program to understand where we are. The
James Webb Telescope, when it is finally put into orbit, will
be put into orbit on a European vehicle, the Ariane V, because
that vehicle is capable of taking the Webb telescope and
putting it in insertion to get it to the Lagrangian point where
it is going to be stationed.
Having that kind of capability, that kind of upmass of a
large vehicle really enables you to do things we can't do now.
You know, the Space Shuttle can carry a huge module of 40,000
pounds or so, but you know, if you had a capability of putting
200,000 pounds in LEO or taking that 80,000-pound payload and
putting it on a trajectory to the Moon, that is a real game
changer.
And so, I think it is important for us to get that heavy
lift capability just as quickly as we can.
Dr. Chyba. Senator, thank you.
There are a few comments I would make. One is a broad one
that over my career as a planetary scientist, I have had the
opportunity to talk to kids at all levels from first grade up
through, of course, graduate students. And so, my first comment
is, in effect, a very broad one, and it is something I noticed
when I started doing this when I was in my 20s, was that there
was enormous enthusiasm for space. And I see that in my son's
daycare currently--enormous enthusiasm for space when kids are
young.
And somehow by the time you are talking with the high
school kids, it is a very different level of enthusiasm. And
that isn't NASA's problem. I think that is a broader societal
issue. Somehow we are squeezing that enthusiasm out of too many
of our students. And we need not only to speak to those
students who are going to make aerospace or science their
career, but we need to speak to our whole population and keep
them excited about science.
A second comment I would make is the importance of honesty,
of what I called scientific integrity. And this is why I pushed
for it in the Augustine Committee report. The students that are
in college or especially in grad school, especially the ones in
grad school, they can really smell it if they feel like they
are being told a story about the space program that doesn't
stack up scientifically, if claims are being made that this or
that mission will lead us to a cure for cancer when the
connection just clearly isn't there, that really immediately
translates into deep cynicism and skepticism about the program.
And I have seen that too often.
A third comment is that the program needs to be not only
doing exciting things, it also needs to be seen to be at the
cutting edge of what is happening. I had a tremendous graduate
student in aerospace at a major university who worked with me
for a year. He was one of the best students I've ever had--
really sharp. I mean, did stuff that I didn't expect him to do,
did stuff that showed that he would come in the next week and
show me why what I was doing was wrong. It was just terrific.
And he didn't want to go work for NASA. He wanted to go
work with one of the space startups. And my sense from talking
to him was that he felt like NASA had become kind of a
dinosaur. And this left me disheartened and feeling sad for my
country.
I am glad the startups are there, but, by God, we need a
NASA that also makes students feel that way about it. And the
idea that our best and brightest would be ruling out NASA
because it is not exciting enough, there is something deeply
wrong in that. That is just an anecdote, but for me, it was a
powerful one.
I have hope in that respect because in the Augustine
Committee, we rolled up our sleeves and worked very closely
with NASA engineers and NASA managers. And because I know that
there has been at times a difficult relationship, and some of
that has been referenced in this hearing today, I would like to
just say for the record, if I may, that so many of those people
are the absolute best in the world. And they are deeply
dedicated.
So there ought to be--I mean, there is at NASA not only a
reservoir of deep knowledge and dedication, the best in the
world, but also deep motivation to make this happen. That is
why they are there. So I really hope it is going to be
possible, moving forward, for there to be a cooperative
environment in which all sides work together and roll up their
sleeves to achieve this major national objective. And I think
students will see that.
Senator Boozman [presiding]. Thank you very much. I think
that is very well said, and I really believe with all of my
heart that we will see that happen.
We appreciate you all being here so much. This has been a
very good hearing, very informative, very helpful. And we look
forward to working with you in the future.
On behalf of our chairman, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
Next week is the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's
historic address before a special joint session of Congress. In that
address, the president famously challenged the Nation to send a man to
the moon.
While best remembered for its ``Moon Challenge'', the address also
offered a vision for space exploration. Fifty years later, this vision
has paid off in ways that neither he, nor the nation, could have
fathomed at the time.
Yes, we've sent hundreds of people to space. And yes, we've erected
a national laboratory 200 miles above the Earth. We've even begun to
unravel the mysteries of the universe by deploying the Hubble space
telescope.
But America's space exploration has meant much more than just going
to space. The technology we've developed to get there has led to new
innovations, new breakthroughs and new discoveries. And this has helped
make America prosperous, inspired future generations of scientists and
engineers, and boosted our economy.
The Space Shuttle Program alone has generated more than 100
technology spinoffs, including miniaturized heart pumps, laboratory
instruments that allow faster blood analysis, hand-held devices that
warn pilots of dangerous or deteriorating cabin pressure, and
prosthetic limbs that are lighter and stronger.
The list goes on and on--and that's just technologies derived from
the Space Shuttle Program. Our space exploration has led to countless
discoveries which save and improve lives here on Earth. For all those
reasons, and more, it is critical that we maintain our space
leadership. That's what members of this Committee have fought to do.
Last year, we drafted and passed legislation that laid out a
carefully considered bipartisan vision of the best path forward for
NASA. It was a vision that enabled ambitious investments in science,
aeronautics, education and human space flight exploration, while also
recognizing current budgetary constraints. It laid out a new way for
NASA.
More than seven months after President Obama signed this bill into
law, I am concerned NASA is not moving forward with implementing it
with the urgency it requires. I'm worried that NASA's inaction and
indecision in making this transition could hurt America's space
leadership--something that would cost us billions of dollars and years
to repair.
It is for this reason that I'm prepared to step up the Committee's
oversight today.
This morning I, along with members of this Committee, sent a letter
to Administrator Bolden. The letter outlines steps NASA should to take
to help this Committee determine whether it is fully implementing the
law. As I've said before, implementation of the law is a priority for
me, and for this Committee. We simply can't afford to get it wrong.
I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today about the
impact of space investments on our economy, national security,
technological innovation and global competitiveness. And I look forward
to another 50 years of U.S. space leadership.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Christopher F. Chyba, Ph.D.
Question 1. Dr. Chyba, as a member of the Augustine Human Space
Flight Plans Review Committee, how would you assess the progress made
in the Nation's exploration policy and specifically its human space
flight policy since the Committee completed its report?
Answer. Much of the political response within Washington, D.C.
represents good progress. The Obama Administration chose the flexible
path from among the options presented to it by the Human Space Flight
Plans Review Committee, and this was the approach that scored highest
according to the twelve metrics our Committee used to rank the
different options. This included, contrary to the Constellation
Program's unbudgeted plan to terminate the International Space Station
(ISS) in early 2016, continuing that program out to 2020 and probably
beyond. Had that decision not been reversed, the United States would
truly have been on a path to terminate human spaceflight in the middle
of this decade. The Administration also endorsed commercial crew,
consistent with our Committee's vision of the commercial sector
``filling in'' behind NASA as NASA focused on the forefront of
exploration beyond Low-Earth Orbit (LEO). Finally, and also consistent
with our report, the Administration emphasized investing in advanced
technology that could enable future exploration.
Then, in its 2010 Authorization Act, the Congress broadly endorsed
a flexible-path approach to future exploration, it endorsed the ISS
extension, and it endorsed commercial crew. Congress also instructed
NASA to build a heavy-lift rocket, relying as much as possible on
Shuttle and Constellation designs. This is consistent with the
Committee's vision of NASA focusing on the most demanding aspects of
exploration beyond LEO.
Where progress has not been made, vis-a-vis the Committee report,
is with respect to budget. As I discussed in my testimony, the
Committee emphasized that NASA has not been able to afford to
simultaneously fly missions and develop and build a new human
spaceflight architecture since the 1960s--and the human spaceflight
budget, in real dollars, was double in the 1960s what it is today. Even
with Shuttle termination, the United States will continue to pay for
astronauts to fly to the ISS, and of course continue to bear costs of
ISS operation. The Committee concluded that in order to continue to fly
to the ISS while also developing the systems needed to go beyond LEO,
NASA's human spaceflight budget would need to be augmented by something
in the neighborhood of $3 billion per year.
The Obama Administration did not ask for this augmentation, but
instead chose to emphasize commercial space and technology development
as a less expensive path that could help enable future exploration
beyond LEO. In contrast, the 2010 Authorization Act instructed NASA to
have operational capability of the core elements of a heavy-lift
vehicle by the end of 2016. As I said in response to a question during
the hearing, it's unclear to me whether we will be able to do all this.
If we are going to design and build new heavy lift under severe budget
constraints, I support the creation of a Shuttle-derived vehicle (and
in particular, what was sometimes called ``Direct''), even while
recognizing that this approach is likely to have higher recurring costs
down the road. Designing and building heavy lift under the present NASA
budget, and to any particular deadline, represents a great challenge.
Question 2. This Committee and the Congress developed what was, in
effect, a response to the Augustine report in the form of the 2010 NASA
Authorization Act. That Act, as you know, represented a carefully
constructed compromise approach between those who wanted to simply
continue the Constellation program and those who essentially wanted
NASA out of the human spaceflight business for the foreseeable future,
at least in accessing low-Earth orbit. As you have heard in Committee
Members' opening statements, there is considerable unhappiness with the
seemingly sluggish response of NASA and the Administration to implement
the requirements of that Act, and special concern at statements that
suggest further ``study'' is required. Do you believe any additional
``study'' is really necessary? What is there that has yet to be studied
by NASA in your view in the way of potential launch vehicle
configurations and technologies or other matters prior to establishing
a path forward for U.S. human space flight?
Answer. My response to Question 1 provides the context for my
response to this second question. It will likely prove very challenging
to develop a heavy-lift vehicle under the current budget on a
prescribed schedule while simultaneously conducting astronaut
operations and supporting the development of commercial spaceflight.
In response to a question at the hearing, I noted something that I
certainly hope will receive further study. The Subcommittee on Science
and Space had just been given a commercial market assessment from NASA
that was requested in the 2010 authorization bill. There is a one-page
appendix, Appendix B, in that market assessment that it might prove
very useful to examine in detail. In that appendix, NASA does a cost
evaluation of the Space X Falcon 9 spacecraft. NASA costs out how
expensive it would have been for NASA to have built that rocket. And
with two different assumptions, they get an answer of $1.7 billion at
the low end and $4 billion at the high end. They also state that they
examined and confirmed SpaceX's costing of it, and it cost SpaceX $400
million.
We should understand if this conclusion is correct, and if so why
would it have been between 4 and 10 times more expensive for NASA to
develop the Falcon 9 than was the case for Space X. This is all the
more important if one of the issues facing NASA right now is how to
develop the heavy launch vehicle within the budget profile and timeline
that the committee has given it.
Question 3. Another key issue of interest and concern is the role
of technology development in ensuring safe, efficient, and supportable
space exploration. That also has implications for the transference of
new technologies to the private sector. In your view, is that
technology development best done with open-ended or little mission
focus, or is it best done in the context of meeting specific capability
requirements (i.e., tying that development to say exploration mission
needs for fuel transfer or other specific needs)? Is there a balancing
point between these approaches to technology development?
Answer. It seems likely that a balance will be required. Some new
technologies are potential game-changers, or at least game-evolvers,
almost whatever approach the United States takes to going beyond LEO.
Fuel depots (which come in several varieties of increasing ambition and
capability) may be the premier example of such a technology. Moreover,
their development and utilization will help establish a demand-pull for
commercial spaceflight, which is in itself likely to be an important
component of a successful human spaceflight program. At the same time,
there are certain technologies that are clearly specific to particular
mission plans. An important example is that we currently do not know
how to protect astronauts sufficiently against radiation during the
long-duration missions that would be needed for a human mission to Mars
and back.\1\ This is currently one of the biggest challenges to such a
mission. But were we to decide, for example, that a human mission to
Mars was either not on our future agenda at all or else many decades in
the future, the technologies that would be explored and developed to
address this problem could be put aside for the time being. Undoubtedly
there are many other such examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Norman R. Augustine, Wanda M. Austin, Christopher Chyba,
Charles F. Kennel, Bohdan I. Bejmuk, Edward F. Crawley, Lester L.
Lyles, Leroy Chiao, Jeff Greason, and Sally K. Ride, Seeking a Human
Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation, October 2009, p. 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Christopher F. Chyba, Ph.D.
Question. What do you believe are the areas in space exploration
that are best undertaken by cooperation, as opposed to competition,
among the space faring nations of the world?
Answer. In both the scientific exploration of the solar system
using robotic spacecraft, and in the human spaceflight program, I
believe that we will be best served by robust efforts to increase
cooperation with other spacefaring nations. We have a model in the
International Space Station for how to manage such cooperation. Of
course there are national security concerns that must always be
evaluated, and which may place specific limitations on certain aspects
of cooperation. But in general, human spaceflight--especially
spaceflight beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO)--is so expensive that
cooperation would be a wise way forward. While competition drove the
Apollo program to the Moon, I do not believe that this provides a model
for future human exploration beyond LEO that is likely to succeed or
prove sustainable.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Frank L. Culbertson, Jr.
Question 1. What do you believe are the most significant challenges
facing the country and our international partners in maintaining and
servicing the space station?
Answer. NASA's technical experts have looked carefully at all
contingencies and recognize that in operating the International Space
Station, there are risks such as a micrometeroid hit, collision with
space debris, or a failure of the regenerative Environmental Control
and Life Support System (ECLSS) which would require the ISS to be
depopulated. NASA and its international and commercial partners are
working hand-in-hand to ensure that we minimize these risks as best as
possible.
Question 2. Since this hearing is focusing on the global space
economy and the contribution of space to meeting national needs, what
do you believe are the most important aspects of our space program in
helping to meet critical national needs and priorities?
Answer. As I indicated in my formal testimony to the committee, our
national space program provides outsized benefits to our nation,
compared to what we invest in NASA. The conduct of our space program
enhances American ``soft power''--the ability of the United States and
our partners to expand our influence and capabilities because of the
attraction of our values, goals, and technological leadership. The
space program helps spur economic growth through its employment of
hundreds of thousands of skilled high technology workers, its positive
contributions to our balance of trade, and through the development of
spinoff technologies that lead to significant benefits to society in
the areas of health and medicine, transportation, public safety,
consumer goods, environmental and agricultural resources, computer
technology and industrial productivity. When we make the next great
leaps in space, we will be able to incorporate the vast resources of
the inner solar system into our economic sphere. In this regard, the
International Space Station is an ideal platform for conducting
valuable scientific research and for developing and simulating the
operations, technologies, and techniques for executing more ambitious
and lengthy missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations.
Finally, through the space program we continue to inspire the next
generation of explorers, scientists and investors, and make fundamental
advances in knowledge about our planet, the solar system and the
universe. Great nations do great things, and the space program is one
of America's most noble and productive pursuits.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Elliot Holokauahi Pulham
Question 1. What do you believe are the Nation's most significant
short-term and long-term challenges with respect to maintaining
leadership in space?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to address further questions
on national imperatives in space. There are many short-term and long-
term challenges that the United States faces at this critical time in
its national space endeavors. In the short term we face several
problems related to the drawdown of U.S. space capabilities as a result
of the poorly planned retirement of the U.S. Space Shuttle. The largest
and most urgent challenge has to do with the loss of thousands and
thousands of highly skilled workers who have dedicated their careers to
the advancement of America's space goals and objectives.
Due to exceedingly poor planning on the part of NASA, these highly
trained, well educated and loyal workers are being laid off at an
alarming pace, and with no apparent concern on the part of their
government for their well-being, their livelihood, the sacrifices they
have made for their country, or any prospect that the U.S. space
enterprise will wish to retain their unique skills. Many of these
highly educated and very valuable workers have been alienated, and,
indeed, pushed to the point of desperation. Despite their love of
country and love of what they do it is highly unlikely that the best
and brightest of these Americans will trust the space enterprise
adequately to return to the workforce even if the opportunity to do so
presents itself in the future. It is absolutely imperative the United
States embark on a course of action to restore its leadership in the
global space community. The men and women we would rely upon for this
task simply will no longer be there.
Further, the very act of launching humans into space is no longer
within the capabilities of NASA. For the country to have invested an
estimated $100 billion building and operating the International Space
Station (ISS) to which it no longer has sovereign access is simply
unbelievable. When NASA announced its plans to depend upon Russian
vehicles to service the ISS I was shocked at the space agency's
apparent lack of understanding of the situation and the vulnerabilities
this plan introduced. I predicted a catastrophic loss of control over
our ability to carry out our own human spaceflight programs. Sometimes,
I hate it when I am right, as you all know, with the recent failed
Russian Progress mission, the ability of Russia-upon whom now we are
totally dependent-to launch humans and cargo to the ISS is in grave
peril. For the long-term, the picture is also bleak with regards to our
leadership in space, however, given leadership, financial resources,
and political resolve, I believe that we can recover our long-term
prospects. Clearly, NASA has painted itself into a corner from which
there is no quick or inexpensive escape. Commercial launch services
providers are making tremendous progress in preparing to assume
responsibility for routine access to and from low Earth orbit. To some
extent this work could be accelerated with additional funding. However,
funding alone will not address all the challenges to replacing NASA's
inherent spaceflight capabilities with commercial ones. Further, when
we consider the NASA mission to explore the universe, we are clearly
talking about space transportation beyond Low Earth Orbit. Considering
the current tug-of-war among NASA, the Congress, the White House, and
other interested parties, America's future as a heavy lift launch
provider and as a nation of deep space human explorers is very much at
risk.
Question 2. What are industrial and market benefits of U.S.
leadership in space? What is at risk if that leadership is lost?
Answer. As you know, there are tremendous industrial and market
benefits associated with U.S. leadership in space. For the past 50
years space has served as a fundamental economic engine propelling the
United States forward by creating new technologies, which in turn lead
to entirely new industries, which in turn lead to outstanding jobs and
careers for people and to fundamentally sound business opportunities
for our economy. The period of time in which this economic engine was
operating at its highest potential was that period of time leading up
to the Apollo program, when innovation and invention were absolutely
required in order to succeed with the Apollo mission. As a result this
Nation challenged itself to do the difficult things that had never been
done before, to engage our best and brightest minds in ways that they
had not been engaged before, to challenge our society as a whole to
envision itself as greater than it was, and to dream of a better
future. We succeeded. Sadly, however, we have not pursued our space
programs with such determination since the Apollo program was
terminated. Being stuck in Low Earth Orbit has meant that we have
shifted the transmission on the economic engine that is space from high
gear, overdrive, to compound low range-some would say idle. The
benefits of being a leader in space go far beyond the economic and
technical benefits. There is a significant diplomatic advantage to
being the only nation capable of putting humans on the moon. There is a
significant advantage in recruiting the best and brightest young minds
from around the world when you have a vibrant space program in place. A
there is a significant advantage that accrues to the very spirit of the
country when we are pursuing daring adventures and difficult goals.
These advantages have been lost to us as we have maintained a budget
driven space program that has been stuck in low Earth orbit with no
place to go, and now seems incapable of even reaching low Earth orbit.
Question 3. Your most recent edition of The Space Report describes
an enormous jump of bachelor's equivalent graduates in China. As a
matter of fact, in 2006 China graduated more bachelor's equivalent
students than the United States, 5 of the largest European Union
Nations (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K.), South Korea, and
Japan, combined. Do you have any specific information that would
suggest what is driving this large increase?
Answer. To a significant degree, the large increases in the
graduation of engineering students in China, India, Japan and other
nations can be attributed to the excitement that the people of those
nations feel about the grand and daring pursuits of their nations in
space. This is, quite simply, the ``Apollo effect'' that other nations
have long coveted and which we, the United States, seem to have
forgotten. There is immense pride in these nations associated with
their accomplishments in space. This national sense of purpose inspires
greater and greater numbers of students to enroll in the difficult
courses associated with science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics-the STEM disciplines. And just as American aerospace
engineers diversified into information technology, high-technology
consumer products and other challenging and rewarding fields, engineers
in countries like China are being inspired and motivated by their
national space programs, and when not contributing to those find
themselves engineering rail lines for the fastest trains on the planet,
complex hydraulic systems for the largest dams and hydroelectric
projects on the planet, etc. I should add all those great things that
the United States used to be known for doing are now being accomplished
by other people, in other places because of a national vision and
inspiration that has gone missing in our own country.
Question 4. Your statement provides a number of excellent examples
of how U.S. national investments in space have proven to be ``high-
impact investments of tremendous national benefit,'' and that ``the
U.S. aerospace industry . . . by some estimates accounted for 50
percent of the new wealth generated in America between 1962 and 2002.''
You go on to say that the aerospace industry ``built its muscle'' on
several programs you list, all of which are human spaceflight programs.
Is there something unique about human spaceflight programs that lead to
the development of more ``industrial muscle'' than other kinds of space
programs?
Answer. Yes, there is something unique about human spaceflight
programs that lead to the development of more industrial muscle than
other kinds of space programs. Robotic programs are fine and have their
place; indeed, robots are better suited to many space missions then are
humans. But we must ask ourselves whether, if Sir Edmund Hillary had
elected to catapult a robot to the top of Mount Everest, would we have
considered the mountain conquered, would we have considered it a human
achievement, or would we simply not have cared? Humans are essential to
the space exploration endeavor because at the end of the day
exploration is a human endeavor. And because humans are involved in
this very dangerous enterprise, the level of engineering, development,
design, test, innovation, invention, test and retest, and all the other
things that result in capabilities that never existed before must be
part of the process. There is no other way to drive this level of
excellence other than with humans in the loop. And so industry is
challenged in ways it has never been challenged before, and in ways it
would not be challenged were humans not involved.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Elliot Holokauahi Pulham
Question 1. From your organization's review over the years of
technology transfer, or spinoffs, from space-related development
activity, what is the most effective mechanism for ensuring the maximum
dissemination of technology for industrial or commercial applications?
Answer. The first thing that is required is that advanced
technologies in are being developed, which requires a challenging
mission and technical capabilities that are not currently in inventory.
Assuming we have a robust and productive national space program, which
is, of course, not a ``slam dunk'' assumption at this point in time,
the best way to disseminate this technology is by having the maximum
number of people engaged in the enterprise. Those who are inventing and
developing the new technologies understand those technologies the best,
and are uniquely positioned to see additional uses for the
technologies. I often think of an Apollo engineer, Eddie Sturman, who
had the simple job of inventing the most efficient valves possible for
the Saturn V launch vehicle. On the face of it, not a very ``sexy''
assignment. Yet Eddie Sturman, because of Apollo, had the chance to
design control valves that are so much lighter, stronger, faster,
higher-performing, and inexpensive, they have quite revolutionized the
state-of-the-art in valves. . .and valves are in everything! The
result, a company called Sturman Industries, today co-produces some of
the most fuel efficient and powerful automotive engines in the world.
The same factory produces valves that have led to the introduction of
draft-beer-at-home packaging solutions for the beverage industry. And
you couldn't have just thought this up. You had to be there, like Eddie
Sturman was there. I also think about the inventor of the cochlear
implant device, who took the technology and software developed for the
space shuttle program and adapted it so that a completely deaf person
can hear clearly again. The invention was made possible because a
person was involved in a NASA program who understood the possibilities
of the technology in front of them and took that technology to the next
level--enabling thousands of people around the world to hear normally.
So, on the one hand, I have little doubt that technology transfer
offices, NASA publications like ``Spinoff,'' public awareness programs
like the Space Foundation's very own Space Technology Hall of Fame, and
other dedicated efforts indeed help distribute these technologies and
build new industries. On the other hand I fundamentally believe that
the secret to pushing new technologies out into the marketplace and out
into the world is to have a vibrant space program in which as many
people as possible are involved
Question 2. Mr. Pulham, the most recent report from your
organization states that the 2010 global space economy is estimated to
be $276 billion dollars. What do you believe are the most significant
space-based markets emerging today?
Answer. In terms of known markets, there's no question that
commercial satellite utilization is both the largest and fastest
growing space-based market in the world today. More and more,
satellites form the essential infrastructure upon which our society
operates. I also believe that the satellite marketplace can be greatly
energized by intelligent government procurement decisions. It is no
mystery to many commercial companies around the world know how to
design, develop, test, manufacture, launch, and operate the most
complex satellites possible. This is where I think the government can
assist this market most, and that is by not competing with commercial
companies. Certainly there are satellites that are required by the
United States for national security and other purposes that must be
discreetly procured with a high degree of specialization. However, the
vast majority of U.S. government requirements for satellite capability
can be satisfied by commercial satellite manufacturers and operators. I
often reflect upon the NPOESS satellite program and how poor management
and unknown requirements can negatively impact a promising satellite
system, forcing it to come completely off the rails, resulting in
failure that most of the involved aerospace companies could have
managed very successfully had it not been for the way that government
drove, or in some cases failed to drive, critical path decisions. I
have often said that if the United States government had simply put a
request for proposal out to industry asking for an off-the-shelf
procurement of satellites to perform the NPOESS mission, a robust and
highly capable fleet of satellites would have been ready for the
government in a short period of time, with a high degree of
reliability, based upon proven and well understood satellite platforms,
delivered on time and under budget, and ready for efficient operation
by a commercial satellite operating company. If the government would
simply buy commercial to the greatest degree possible, and if the
government would allow U.S. satellite manufacturing companies to
compete on a level playing field with satellite manufacturers from
Europe and Asia, these two simple changes alone would take our industry
a great distance toward better economic health, international
competitiveness, and long-term resilience and profitability.
The second largest market, at least as far as U.S. companies are
concerned, is the United States national security space community--
which includes surveillance, reconnaissance, position-navigation-
timing, signals and other forms of intelligence gathering, military
remote sensing, space weather and many other important capabilities.
While not an emerging-market per se, this segment of the market
represents a huge opportunity for both the government and the aerospace
contracting community. Clearly these systems require exquisite
technical capabilities that are not commonly found on non-military
platforms; on the other hand it is seldom recognized that commercial
satellite manufacturing companies have developed advanced technologies
for their commercial customers that could be economically adapted to
serve any variety of national security missions. National security
space payloads have become so expensive and so time-consuming to
develop that not only is ``failure not an option'' but, the career
military and civil service personnel in charge of these systems have
become so risk-averse that rapid development, on-time delivery,
innovative concepts of operations, and other desirable attributes are
largely engineered out of the system. I believe that while there are
always going to be satellite systems for national security that must be
exquisite single point solutions, I also believe that many of the
systems required by either the Air Force, the National Reconnaissance
Office, Army, Navy, and other users could be much more cost effectively
procured from the commercial satellite manufacturing industry. The
savings that could result from this approach not only would contribute
to a stronger and more robust commercial satellite manufacturing
industry but the budget allocated to national security space programs
could be stretched much farther and accomplish much more for our men
and women in uniform than what we realize in the current paradigm.
Finally, it must be said, that while transportation is a miniscule
part of the overall global space economy, it nonetheless is the part of
that economy that makes all the rest possible. I believe that advanced
space transportation systems could open up markets and opportunities
that, today, are completely invisible to us. At the current cost of
putting a pound of payload into orbit, there are not a lot of
commercial business cases for space that will close to the satisfaction
of investors. However, there are many types of industries that would
benefit from access to the space environment. These include
pharmaceutical companies, materials and engineering companies, biotech
and bioresearch companies, agricultural and other companies. Improving
the state of the art in space transportation not only stands to make
space utilization more affordable for civil, commercial and national
security stakeholders, but will really open up the microgravity
environment to benefit agribusiness, healthcare, pharmaceutical,
entertainment and other industries in a manner that will benefit
industries which at present have little to no space identity that is
readily apparent to the public.
Question 3. Your statement discusses the fact that only one of the
twenty-five largest satellite communications companies in the world is
based in the U.S. In addition, you state that roughly three quarters of
all commercial satellites are manufactured outside of the United
States. Has there been a trend over time that has led to this
disparity? What do you believe is the leading ``driver'' of this
dispersion of activity outside of the U.S.?
Answer. Senator, there is no question whatsoever that the principal
driver in this migration of satellite manufacturing and operating
capability has been driven by draconian United States export
regulations, most specifically ITAR. One may debate from today until
the cows come home what triggered the inexplicable clampdown in the
export of routine, widely available space technology. At this point in
the game assigning blame is not productive, although there is plenty of
blame to go around. What would be productive is the return of U.S.
space technology export policy to a position somewhat approximating
rational behavior. Before the imposition of these draconian export
controls, the U.S. manufactured the vast majority of commercial
telecommunications satellites. Since that time it has become so
difficult to export any satellite technology, even the most innocuous
and widely available on foreign markets, that satellite owners and
operators have simply seen fit to do business with other manufacturers
and other nations who behave more rationally. Similarly with satellite
operations, which have changed dramatically as companies like INTELSAT
have changed their structure from international nongovernmental
organizations to private for-profit companies, there is no longer any
incentive, and indeed there is great risk, to operating in the United
States. These companies have contacts, customers, and employees all
over the world. All of these aspects of their business are placed in
great peril if they choose to operate within the United States. The
driver of this trend quite simply is us; we, have chosen to drive it
out of the United States.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Frank Slazer
Question 1. Many aerospace companies have expressed urgent concern
about the lack of a NASA mission and direction. What in your view are
the impacts to the industrial base if NASA continues to delay making
real decisions with respect to building a heavy lift rocket and a crew
capsule?
Answer. As of the time of this response, NASA has made decisions
regarding a crew capsule (Orion) and heavy lift system (Space Launch
System), which are consistent with the position AIA has taken. AIA has
urged the full implementation of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
Question 2. I am interested in your thoughts about the impact to
other aerospace industry customers from NASA's indecision, delay, or
redirection. For instance, with the cancellation of Constellation and
the retirement of the Space Shuttle, it's been reported that the Navy
recently experienced increases in the price of the Trident missiles,
from $10.7 million apiece to $19.2 million apiece, or an 85 percent
increase. Are there other ``surprises'' of this sort in store for other
customers?
Answer. Delays in proceeding with new exploration program
investments for any reason jeopardize the continuity of our Nation's
space exploration program, and risks the loss of crucial skills needed
to maintain national space exploration capabilities. Our nation has
developed a knowledge base of space systems development that cannot be
put on the shelf indefinitely. It is like a muscle--if it is not used,
it will atrophy and could be extremely difficult to reconstitute in the
future. Worst of all, failure to keep a certain level of activity
underway risks disillusioning the next generation of scientists and
engineers who will be forced to move on to other technology sectors.
This loss would be a tragedy that could mean the new generation loses
its opportunity to apprentice with those who designed and built the
Space Shuttle and International Space Station forgoing the opportunity
to transition the lessons learned to the next generation.
With respect to the collateral damage [the] civil space program
decisions have had on the national security industrial base, while AIA
is not aware of any imminent cost growth attributable to the
Constellation termination decision, it should be noted that similar
impacts have happened to NASA. As an example, when the U.S. Air Force
made the decision to move all launches to EELV, the Delta II rocket was
spelled a death knell due to the diminished market, this despite the
vehicle being used for many NASA science missions over the years. This
type of unintended consequences is the reason AIA has long advocated a
National Space Council in the executive branch, which could bring
together relevant Executive Branch entities to fully apprise the
interests of all space stakeholders when making significant program
decisions.
Question 3. Are there changes in procurement processes used in the
space program that the Congress can initiate to enhance our Nation's
productivity, effectiveness, and competitiveness?
Answer. Two recommendations immediately come to mind--both of which
are institutionally difficult for Congress to agree to. The first would
be Multiyear Appropriations for complex, long-term space program
investments. This has been done by some of our international space
partners, and it would greatly strengthen NASA's ability to manage its
programs--especially those involving one of a kind developments, which
are prone to schedule challenges despite the best efforts of program
management. Not having a stable, predictable funding profile invariably
makes it more difficult for program managers to succeed and prioritize
their resource investments problems that cascade down into the
industrial base. The second change would be to recognize that flat
funding profiles drag out development programs and cause higher
development costs. For optimal execution, development programs usually
need to follow a funding profile with higher expenditures in the middle
of the process--even though that could cause NASA's budget to go up for
a period of time, the net result, would be lower development program
costs overall.
Question 4. In your view, are there shortages of engineers and
skilled professionals that are currently impacting the aerospace
industry? If so, what are the greatest challenges the aerospace
industry faces in retaining experienced technicians and engineers?
Answer. This question has essentially been addressed by my earlier
answers--proving program funding stability, allowing continuity for
seasoned professionals to pass along the lessons learned, and having a
long term commitment to an exploration program will encourage students
to pursue careers in those fields which are most needed, and also
facilitate retention.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Boozman to
Frank Slazer
Question. What do you believe are the areas in space exploration
that are best undertaken by cooperation, as opposed to competition,
among the space faring nations of the world?
Answer. Historically, successful human space programs have involved
internationals either cooperatively as with the Space Shuttle and ISS
or competitively as with Apollo. I see the ISS as a great example of
how cooperation with nations that share similar objectives as the
United States can be a real benefit when pursuing space exploration
objectives that are technically challenging and expensive. It is
important that the nations involved have shared interests and
commitment to make this work over the long run.
Specific areas for cooperation will depend on the specific partners
and their respective areas of expertise; for example, Italy has a long
tradition of demonstrated performance in providing pressurized
structures for crewed applications, and the same is true for Canada
with tele-robotics. How international partners could best fit into
exploration architecture will depend on the exploration objectives and
relative interest and financial commitment of the respective partners.
We ought not to enter into partnerships where the fruits of our
national investments need to be given away for success, nor should we
avoid undertaking development efforts where there are clear benefits to
our nation, even if they are costly. Nevertheless, international
partnerships are one of the best ways to assure long term program
success.