SUMMARY TESTIMONY

HON. HARRISON H. SCHMITT,CHAIRMAN

INTERLUNE-INTERMARS INITIATIVE, INC.

P.O. Box 90730

Albuquerque, NM 87199

505 823 2616

hhschmitt@earthlink.net

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE

OF THE

SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK, CHAIRMAN

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

[RETURN TO THE MOON]{.underline}

A return to the Moon to stay would be at least comparable to the first
permanent settlement of America if not to the movement of our species
out of Africa.

I am skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to make such a
\"sustained commitment\" absent unanticipated circumstances comparable
to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much
of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to
make such a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will stick
with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a
rate of return commensurate with the risk to invested capital. My
colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. believe
that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as
a fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth.

Lunar helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is
imbedded as a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. There
is a resource base of helium-3 about of 10,000 metric tonnes just in
upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis.
The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion
power plants on Earth would be about \$4 billion per tonne relative to
today\'s coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of the approximately
\$40 billion domestic electrical power market.

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay
represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or
by a coalition of other countries. A business-investor approach,
supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power, and
derivative technologies and resources, offers the greatest likelihood of
a predictable and sustained commitment to a return to deep space.

TESTIMONY

HON. HARRISON H. SCHMITT,CHAIRMAN

INTERLUNE-INTERMARS INITIATIVE, INC.

P.O. Box 90730

Albuquerque, NM 87199

505 823 2616

hhschmitt@earthlink.net

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SPACE

OF THE

SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK, CHAIRMAN

NOVEMBER 6, 2003

[RETURN TO THE MOON]{.underline}

ORAL SUMMARY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to participate in this
hearing. It is good to be back in these familiar surroundings.

A return to the Moon to stay, when it occurs, will be a truly historic
event. It would be at least comparable to the first permanent settlement
of America if not to the movement of our species out of Africa.

The Apollo 17 mission on which I was privileged to fly in December 1972
was the most recent visit by human beings to the Moon, indeed to deep
space. A return by Americans to the Moon at least 40 years after the end
of the Apollo 17 mission probably would represent a commitment to return
to stay. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how a sustained commitment to
return would develop in this country.

I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted
on to make such a \"sustained commitment\" absent unanticipated
circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Therefore, I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would
take for private investors to make such a commitment. At least it is
clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with
a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk
to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of
the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars
Initiative, Inc. believe that such a commercially viable project exists
in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power plants on
Earth.

Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a
factor of eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. This rapid rise
will be due to a combination of population increase, new energy
intensive technologies, aspirations for improved standards of living and
lower birth rates in the less-developed world, and the need to mitigate
the adverse consequences of climate warming or cooling.

Helium has two stable isotopes, helium 4, familiar to all who have
received helium-filled balloons, and the even lighter helium 3. Lunar
helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as
a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. It represents one
potential energy source to meet this century\'s rapidly escalating
demand. There is a resource base of helium-3 about of 10,000 metric
tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare
Tranquillitatis. This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and
Apollo 11 in 1969. The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to
operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about \$4 billion per
tonne relative to today\'s coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of
the approximately \$40 billion domestic electrical power market. These
numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for
helium-3 fusion power to compete for the creation of new electrical
capacity and the replacement of old during the 21st Century.

Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong
base for initiating this enterprise. Also, over the last decade, there
has been historic progress in the development of inertial electrostatic
confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Progress there includes the production of over a milliwatt of
steady-state power from the fusion of helium-3 and deuterium. Steady
progress in IEC research as well as basic physics argues strongly that
the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly more commercial
viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion community. It
will have inherently lower capital costs, higher energy conversion
efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred megawatts upward, and
little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. It should be
noted, however, that IEC research has received no significant support as
an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the Department of Energy in
spite of that Department\'s large fusion technology budgets. The Office
of Science and Technology Policy under several Administrations also has
ignored this approach.

On the question of international law relative to outer space,
specifically the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, that law is permissive
relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Under
the 1967 Treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but
national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining area. If the
Moon Agreement of 1979, however, is ever submitted to the Senate for
ratification, it should be deep sixed.

The creation of capabilities to support helium-3 mining operations also
will provide the opportunity to support NASA\'s human lunar and
planetary research at much reduced cost, as the cost of capital for
launch and basic operations will be carried by the business enterprise.
Technology and facilities required for success of a lunar commercial
enterprise, particularly heavy lift launch and fusion technologies, also
will enable the conduct, and reduce the cost of many space activities in
addition to science. These include exploration and settlement of Mars,
asteroid interception and diversion, and various national security
initiatives.

It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or
sustain a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of
circumstances as those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower,
Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 1950s and throughout 1960s. Huge
unfunded \"entitlement\" liabilities and a lack of sustained media and
therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of
resources and attention that such an effort requires.

If Government were to lead a return to deep space, the NASA of today is
probably not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return
humans to deep space, particularly the Moon and then to Mars. NASA today
lacks the critical mass of youthful energy and imagination required for
work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too
risk-adverse. Either a new agency would need to be created to implement
such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured using the
lessons of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45
years ago. Of particular importance would be the need for most of the
agency to be made up of engineers and technicians in their 20s and
managers in their 30s, the re-institution of design engineering
activities in parallel with those of contractors, and the streamlining
of management responsibility. The existing NASA also would need to
undergo a major restructuring and streamlining of its program
management, risk management, and financial management structures. Such
total restructuring would be necessary to re-create the competence and
discipline necessary to operate successfully in the much higher risk and
more complex deep space environment relative to that in near-earth
orbit.

Most important for a new NASA or a new agency would be the guarantee of
a sustained political (financial) commitment to see the job through and
to not turn back once a deep space operational capability exists once
again or accidents happen. At this point in history, we cannot count on
the Government for such a sustained commitment. This includes not
under-funding the effort - a huge problem still plaguing the Space
Shuttle, the International Space Station, and other current and past
programs. That is why I have been looking to a more predictable
commitment from investors who have been given a credible business plan
and a return on investment commensurable with the risk.

Attaining a level of sustaining operations for a core business in fusion
power and lunar resources requires about 10-15 years and \$10-15 billion
of private investment capital as well as the successful interim
marketing and profitable sales related to a variety of applied fusion
technologies. The time required from start-up to the delivery of the
first 100 kg years supply to the first operating 1000 megawatt fusion
power plant on Earth will be a function of the rate at which capital is
available, but probably no less than 10 years. This schedule also
depends to some degree on the U.S. Government being actively supportive
in matters involving taxes, regulations, and international law but no
more so than is expected for other commercial endeavors. If the U.S.
Government also provided an internal environment for research and
development of important technologies, investors would be encouraged as
well. As you are aware, the precursor to NASA, the National Advisory
Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), provided similar assistance and
antitrust protection to aeronautics industry research during most of the
20th Century.

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay
represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or
by a coalition of other countries. Although not yet certain of success,
a business-investor approach, supported by the potential of lunar
Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers
the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained commitment to a
return to deep space.

FULL TEXT

The Apollo 17 mission on which I was privileged to fly in December 1972
was the most recent visit by human beings to the Moon, indeed to deep
space. A return by Americans to the Moon at least 40 years after the end
of the Apollo 17 mission probably would represent a commitment to return
to stay. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how a sustained commitment to
return would develop in this country.

I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted
on to make such a \"sustained commitment\" absent unanticipated
circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Therefore, I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would
take for private investors to make such a commitment. At least it is
clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with
a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk
to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of
the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars
Initiative, Inc. believe that such a commercially viable project exists
in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power plants on
Earth.

Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a
factor of eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. This factor
represents the total of a factor of two to stay even with population
growth and a factor of four or more to meet the aspirations of people
who wish to significantly improve their standards of living. There is
another unknown factor that will be necessary to mitigate the adverse
effects of climate change, whether warming or cooling, and the demands
of new, energy intensive technologies.

Helium has two stable isotopes, helium 4, familiar to all who have
received helium-filled baloons, and the even lighter helium 3. Lunar
helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as
a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. It represents one
potential energy source to meet this century\'s rapidly escalating
demand. There is a resource base of helium-3 of about 10,000 metric
tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare
Tranquillitatis. This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and
Apollo 11 in 1969. The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to
operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about \$4 billion per
tonne relative to today\'s coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of
the approximately \$40 billion domestic electrical power market. These
numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for
helium-3 fusion power to compete for the creation of new electrical
capacity and the replacement of old plant during the 21st Century.

Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong
base for initiating this enterprise. Such activities include access to
and operations in deep space as well as the terrestrial mining and
surface materials processing industries. Also, over the last decade,
there has been historic progress in the development of inertial
electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Progress there includes the production of over a
milliwatt of steady-state power from the fusion of helium-3 and
deuterium. Steady progress in IEC research as well as basic physics
argues strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly
more commercial viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion
community. It will have inherently lower capital costs, higher energy
conversion efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred megawatts
upward, and little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste.
It should be noted, however, that IEC research has received no
significant support as an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the
Department of Energy in spite of that Department\'s large fusion
technology budgets. The Office of Science and Technology Policy under
several Administrations also has ignored this approach.

On the question of international law relative to outer space,
specifically the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, that law is permissive
relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Under
the 1967 Treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but
national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining area. If the
Moon Agreement of 1979, however, is ever submitted to the Senate for
ratification, it should be deep sixed. The uncertainty that this
Agreement would create in terms of international management regimes
would make it impossible to raise private capital for a return to the
Moon for helium-3 and would seriously hamper if not prevent a successful
initiative by the United States Government.

The general technologies required for the success of this enterprise are
known. Mining, extraction, processing, and transportation of helium-3 to
Earth requires innovations in engineering, particularly in light-weight,
robotic mining systems, but no known new engineering concepts.
By-products of lunar helium-3 extraction, largely hydrogen, oxygen, and
water, have large potential markets in space and ultimately will add to
the economic attractiveness of this business opportunity. Inertial
electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion technology appears be the most
attractive and least capital intensive approach to terrestrial fusion
power plants, although engineering challenges of scaling remain for this
technolgy. Heavy lift launch costs comprise the largest cost uncertainty
facing initial business planning, however, many factors, particularly
long term production contracts, promise to lower these costs into the
range of \$1-2000 per kilogram versus about \$70,000 per kilogram fully
burdened for the Apollo Saturn V rocket.

A business enterprise based on lunar resources will be driven by cost
considerations to minimize the number of humans required for the
extraction of each unit of resource. Humans will be required, on the
other hand, to prevent costly breakdowns of semi-robotic mining,
processing, and delivery systems, to provide manual back-up to robotic
or tele-robotic operation, and to support human activities in general.
On the Moon, humans will provide instantaneous observation,
interpretation, and assimilation of the environment in which they work
and in the creative reaction to that environment. Human eyes,
experience, judgement, ingenuity, and manipulative capabilities are
unique in and of themselves and highly additive in synergistic and
spontaneous interaction with instruments and robotic systems (see
Appendix A).

Thus, the next return to the Moon will approach work on the lunar
surface very pragmatically with humans in the roles of exploration
geologist, mining geologist/engineer, heavy equipment operator/engineer,
heavy equipment/robotic maintenance engineer, mine manager, and the
like. During the early years of operations the number of personnel will
be about six per mining/processing unit plus four support personnel per
three mining/processing units. Cost considerations also will drive
business to encourage or require personnel to settle, provide all
medical care and recreation, and conduct most or all operations control
on the Moon.

The creation of capabilities to support helium-3 mining operations also
will provide the opportunity to support NASA\'s human lunar and
planetary research at much reduced cost, as the cost of capital for
launch and basic operations will be carried by the business enterprise.
Science thus will be one of several ancillary profit centers for the
business, but at a cost to scientists much below that of purely
scientific effort to return to the Moon or explore Mars. Technology and
facilities required for success of a lunar commercial enterprise,
particularly heavy lift launch and fusion technologies, also will enable
the conduct, and reduce the cost of many space activities in addition to
science. These include exploration and settlement of Mars, asteroid
interception and diversion, and various national security initiatives.

It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or
sustain a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of
circumstances as those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower,
Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 1950s and throughout 1960s. Huge
unfunded \"entitlement\" liabilities and a lack of sustained media and
therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of
resources and attention that such an effort requires. Even if tax-based
funding commitments could be guaranteed, it is not a foregone conclusion
that the competent and disciplined management system necessary to work
in deep space would be created and sustained.

If Government were to lead a return to deep space, the NASA of today is
probably not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return
humans to deep space, particularly the Moon and then to Mars. NASA today
lacks the critical mass of youthful energy and imagination required for
work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too
risk-adverse. Either a new agency would needed to implement such a
program or NASA would need to be totally restructured using the lessons
of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45 years ago.
Of particular importance would be for most of the agency to be made up
of engineers and technicians in their 20s and managers in their 30s, the
re-institution of design engineering activities in parallel with those
of contractors, and the streamlining of management responsibility. The
existing NASA also would need to undergo a major restructuring and
streamlining of its program management, risk management, and financial
management structures. Such total restructuring would be necessary to
re-create the competence and discipline necessary to operate
successfully in the much higher risk and more complex deep space
environment relative to that in near-earth orbit.

Most important for a new NASA or a new agency would be the guarantee of
a sustained political (financial) commitment to see the job through and
to not turn back once a deep space operational capability exists once
again or accidents happen. At this point in history, we cannot count on
the Government for such a sustained commitment. This includes not
under-funding the effort - a huge problem still plaguing the Space
Shuttle, the International Space Station, and other current and past
programs. That is why I have been looking to a more predictable
commitment from investors who have been given a credible business plan
and a return on investment commensurable with the risk.

Attaining a level of sustaining operations for a core business in fusion
power and lunar resources requires about 10-15 years and \$10-15 billion
of private investment capital as well as the successful interim
marketing and profitable sales related to a variety of applied fusion
technologies. The time required from start-up to the delivery of the
first 100 kg years supply to the first operating 1000 megawatt fusion
power plant on Earth will be a function of the rate at which capital is
available, but probably no less than 10 years. This schedule also
depends to some degree on the U.S. Government being actively supportive
in matters involving taxes, regulations, and international law but no
more so than is expected for other commercial endeavors. If the U.S.
Government also provided an internal environment for research and
development of important technologies, investors would be encouraged as
well. As you are aware, the precursor to NASA, the National Advisory
Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), provided similar assistance and
antitrust protection to aeronautics industry research during most of the
20th Century.

In spite of the large, long-term potential return on investment, access
to capital markets for a lunar ^3^He and terrestrial fusion power
business will require a near-term return on investment, based on early
applications of IEC fusion technology (10). Business plan development
for commercial production and use of lunar Helium-3 requires a number of
major steps all of which are necessary if long investor interest is to
be attracted and held to the venture. The basic lunar resource endeavor
would require a sustained commitment of investor capital for 10 to 15
years before there would be an adequate return on investment, far to
long to expect to be competitive in the world\'s capital markets. Thus,
\"business bridges\" with realistic and competitive returns on
investment in three to five years will be necessary to reach the point
where the lunar energy opportunity can attract the necessary investment
capital. They include PET isotope production at point-of-use,
therapeutic medical isotope production independent of fission reactors,
nuclear waste transmutation, and mobile land mine and other explosive
detection. Once fusion energy breakeven is exceeded, mobile, very long
duration electrical power sources will be possible. These business
bridges also should advance the development of the lunar energy
technology base if at all possible.

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay
represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or
by a coalition of other countries. Although not yet certain of success,
a business-investor approach, supported by the potential of lunar
Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers
the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained commitment to a
return to deep space.

APPENDIX A: SPACE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT - WHY HUMANS?

The term \"space exploration\" implies the exploration of the Moon,
planets and asteroids, that is, \"deep space,\" in contrast to
continuing human activities in Earth orbit. Human activities in Earth
orbit have less to do with exploration and more to do with international
commitments, as in the case of the Space Station, and prestige and
technological development, as in the case of China and Russia. There are
also research opportunities, not fully recognized even after 40 years,
that exploit the opportunities presented by being in Earth orbit.

Deep space exploration has been and should always be conducted with the
best combination of human and robotic techniques. Many here will argue
the value of robotics. I will just say that any data collection that can
be successfully automated at reasonable cost should be. In general,
human being\'s should not waste their time with activities such as
surveying, systematic photography, and routine data collection. Robotic
precursors into situations of undefined or uncertain risk also are
clearly appropriate.

Direct human exploration, however, offers exceptional benefits that
robotic exploration currently cannot and probably will not duplicate in
the foreseeable future, certainly not at competitive costs. What we are
really talking about here is the value of field geology. Many of my
scientific colleagues, including the late Carl Sagan, have made the
argument that everything we learned scientifically from Apollo
exploration could have been done roboticly. Not only do the facts not
support this claim, but such individuals and groups have never been
forced to cost out such a robotic exploration program. I submit that
robotic duplication of the vast scientific return of human exploration
of six sites on the Moon would cost far more that the approximately \$7
billion spent on science and probably more than the \$100 million total
cost of Apollo. Those are estimates in today\'s dollars.

What do human\'s bring to the table?

First, there is the human brain - a semi-quantitative super computer,
with hundreds of millions years of research and development behind it
and several million years of accelerated refinement based on the
requirements for survival of our genus. This brain is both programmable
and instantly re-programmable on the basis of training, experience, and
preceding observations.

Second, there are the human eyes - a high resolution, stereo optical
system of extraordinary dynamic range that also have resulted from
hundreds of millions of years of trial and error. Integrated with the
human brain, this system continuously adjusts to the changing optical
and intellectual environment encountered during exploration of new
situations. In that sense, field geological and biological exploration
is little different from many other types of scientific research where
integration of the eyes and brain are essential parts of successful
inquires into the workings of Nature.

Third, there are the human hands - a highly dexterous and sensitive
bio-mechanical system also integrated with the human brain as well as
the human eyes and also particularly benefiting from several million
years of recent development. We so far have grossly underutilized human
hands during space exploration, but the potential is there to bring them
fully to bear on future activities possibly through integration with
robotic extensions or micro-mechanical device integration into gloves.

Fourth, there are human emotions - the spontaneous reaction to the
exploration environment that brings creativity to bear on any new
circumstance, opportunity, or problem. Human emotions also are the basis
for public interest in support of space exploration, interest beyond
that which can be engendered by robotic exploration. Human emotions
further create the very special bond that space exploration has with
young people, both those of all ages in school and those who wish to
participate directly in such exploration.

Fifth, there is the natural urge of the human species to expand its
accessible habitats and thus enhance the probability of its long-term
survival. Deep space exploration by humans provides the foundations for
long-term survival through the settlement of the Moon and Mars in this
century and the Galaxy in the next.

Finally, there is a special benefit to deep space exploration by
Americans - the continual transplantation of the institutions of freedom
to those human settlements on the Moon and Mars. This is our special
gift and our special obligation to the future.

SELECTED REFERENCES

1\. Schmitt, H. H., *Journal of Aerospace Engineering*, April 1997, pp
60-67.

2\. Wittenberg, L. J., and co-workers, *Fusion Technology*, 1986, 10, pp
167-178.

3\. Johnson, J. R., *Geophysical Research Letter*, 26, 3, 1999, pp
385-388.

4\. Cameron, E. N., *Helium Resources of MareTranquillitatis*, Technical
Report, WCSAR-TR-AR3-9207-1, 1992.

5\. Kulcinski, G. L., and Schmitt, H. H., 1992, *Fusion Technology*, 21,
p. 2221.

6\. Feldman, W. C., and co-workers, *Science,* 281, 1998, pp 1496-1500.

7\. Schmitt, H. H., in Mark, H., Ed., *Encyclopedia of Space*, 2003,
Wiley, New York.

8\. Kulcinski, G. L., 1993, *Proceedings, 2nd Wisconsin Symposium on
Helium-3 and Fusion Power*, WCSAR-TR-AR3-9307-3.

9\. Schmitt, H. H., 1998, *Space 98, Proceedings of the Conference*, p.
1-14.

10\. Kulcinski, G. L. 1996, *Proceedings, 12th Topical Meeting on the
Technology of Fusion Power*, UWFDM-1025.