U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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

27–956 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 108–1030 

SPACE PROPULSION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY 

AND SPACE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2003 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 3, 2003 ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 15 

WITNESSES

Crocker, James H., Vice President, Civil Space, Lockheed Martin Space and 

Strategic Missiles ................................................................................................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Knauer, Larry, President, Space Propulsion and Russian Operations, Pratt 

& Whitney, United Technologies Corporation ................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Sietzen, Jr., Frank, President, Space Transportation Association ...................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Weiler, Dr. Edward J., Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science, 

NASA; accompanied by Christopher Scolese, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science ............................................................................. 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Wood, Byron, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power ................................................................................................ 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

(1) 

SPACE PROPULSION 

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2003 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. The hearing will come to order. Delighted 

to have you all with us today. As I have previously expressed, it 

is my intention to hold hearings that give us the opportunity to 

delve further into what NASA’s vision for the future holds. When 

I announced my Chairmanship to this Committee in January, I 

stated that I embraced the recommendations in the final report of 

the Commission on the future of the United States aerospace industry. I believe this report addresses several major areas of space 

exploration, and I want to reiterate particularly what the third recommendation in that report stated and what the subject of this 

hearing is today. 

The third recommendation states, ‘‘The Commission recommends 

the United States create a space imperative. The DOD, NASA, and 

industry must partner in innovative aerospace technologies, especially in the areas of propulsion and power. These innovations will 

accelerate the exploration of the near and distant universe for both 

human and robotic missions and open up new opportunities for 

commercial space endeavors in the 21st century.’’ 

Today, especially after the tragic Columbia accident, I believe it 

is imperative that we pursue these endeavors with renewed spirit. 

I want to examine how Congress can help ensure a strong future 

for the United States in a competitive aerospace industry. There 

have been many discussions and much more research over the last 

10 to 15 years regarding technology that would enable the exploration of deep space using nuclear propulsion instead of the more 

conventional propulsion systems; thus, taking us not only back to 

the Moon, but to Mars and beyond. It is my hope that today’s hearing will shed a great deal of light on the status of NASA’s capability for space exploration as well as to hear how industry is contributing to this research. 

Today’s hearing will consist of two panels, one to examine 

NASA’s space propulsion program, with an emphasis on NASA’s 

2 

Project Prometheus. Dr. Ed Weiler, Associate Administrator for 

NASA’s Space Science Enterprise, will testify. NASA’s Space 

Science Enterprise has had numerous successes under Dr. Weiler’s 

leadership, including the Chandra and Mars Odyssey missions. 

Seated next to him is Mr. Chris Scolese, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Science, and an expert technology advisor for 

Project Prometheus. 

The second panel will address the overall status of the propulsion 

industry from expert witnesses in the propulsion arena, and we 

will introduce that panel later. 

I welcome the witnesses here today, and I would note that we 

are going to continue to have a series of these hearings about the 

future of NASA. We will be looking at doing a reauthorization bill, 

and addressing some of the issues of structural issues within NASA 

in the future. But, now I want to focus today particularly on propulsion systems and where that is going to need to take us into the 

future. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here with us today. 

Dr. Weiler, I hope I have pronounced that correctly. I look forward 

to your testimony, and I have some questions for you afterwards. 

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD J. WEILER, ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE, NASA; 

ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTOPHER SCOLESE, DEPUTY 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE 

Dr. WEILER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to 

be here today to discuss NASA’s Space Science Program and, in 

particular, the role that new propulsion technologies will play in 

executing our vision of the future. 

Our mission is driven by science, exploration, and discovery. In 

order to continue to carry out that mission effectively, the Space 

Science Enterprise is developing new tools, insights, and abilities 

to help us answer some of humanity’s most profound questions: 

How did the universe begin and evolve? How did we get here? 

Where are we going? And are we alone? 

Before I begin talking about where we want to go and the new 

ways of trying to get there, it may be useful to take a quick look 

back at where we started. NASA began its quest to explore the 

planets back in 1962, when we launched the Mariner 1 and 2 missions to Venus. At that time, NASA depended on chemical rockets 

to send these spacecraft on their journeys. In order to escape 

Earth’s velocity, a chemical rocket expends all of its thrust in the 

first few minutes after launch. Once the fuel is expended, the rocket is jettisoned, and the spacecraft begins its expedition by coasting 

along a fixed path to its final destination in space. It did not get 

any more acceleration; it just coasted. 

While this type of launch scenario has worked well and has allowed us to explore many Solar System destinations, the constraints it presented 40 years ago are still here today. In order to 

overcome these limitations, NASA has begun an aggressive pursuit 

of alternatives to enhance our capability for launching missions to 

Solar System objects. 

These new alternatives fall into two categories: the nuclear-systems program and the in-space propulsion program, which pursues 

3 

advanced technologies that do not require a nuclear power source. 

In both cases, developing and using these technologies safely is our 

number one priority. Safety obviously takes on even greater significance when launching nuclear materials. Let me assure the Committee, NASA has more than 30 years of experience in launching 

nuclear materials, and we are committed to extending that safety 

experience to the next generation of nuclear power sources for 

space exploration. 

In last year’s budget, NASA unveiled a new program called the 

Nuclear Systems Initiative, NSI, a long-term, two-part program to 

safely enable ambitious robotic missions throughout the Solar System and add a level of robustness and capability to future space 

missions far beyond what we have available today. With the release of the Fiscal Year 2004 budget, we identified the first mission 

to benefit from that initiative, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, or 

JIMO, for short. NSI and JIMO missions are now known together 

as Project Prometheus. 

One part of Prometheus will develop a new generation of radioisotope power systems, which can generate several hundred watts 

of electric power for spacecraft and scientific instruments in deep 

space or on planetary surfaces. A likely first candidate for this 

next-generation system is the Mars 2009 Science Lab Mission. 

The second part of the program will develop a nuclear-fission reactor that powers an advanced electric-propulsion system enabling 

far more capable and robust spacecrafts. JIMO will demonstrate 

this technology as it explores Jupiter’s three icy moons—Callisto, 

Ganymede, and Europa—all during the same mission. 

The truly revolutionary aspect of such a system rests in its ability to provide tremendous amounts of power, hundreds of times the 

amount currently available to spacecraft in the cold, dark, outer 

Solar System or vastness of interstellar space where conventional 

power sources are not adequate. Nuclear fission will provide the 

high levels of sustained energy necessary to power more complex 

active scientific instruments, allow a spacecraft to visit multiple 

destinations on a single mission, and enable significantly larger 

amounts of data to be transmitted back to Earth. It will also allow 

for greater speed and faster trip times for recon or fly-by type missions. 

Let me give you an example of the amount of power I am talking 

about. The energy content in this 12-ounce can of Pepsi, if it were 

uranium-235—so if this can of Pepsi had uranium-235 in it—that 

would be—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. It would not need caffeine, would it, then? 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WEILER. It would be decaf, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WEILER. But it would be—it would make you pretty energetic. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WEILER. Anyway, the energy content of that much uranium 

would be enough to take a fully loaded 747, go up to 40,000 feet, 

and cruise at 600 miles an hour, 18 times around the Earth, which 

is the distance equivalent to going to the Moon and back. That is 

the energy content of uranium-235 in this can, using fission power. 

4 

Now, not every future science mission requires that much capability, so we are developing another suite of in-space propulsion 

technologies to suit other mission requirements. These technologies 

include aerocapture, solar sails, and the next generation of solar 

electric propulsion, to name just a few. 

NASA first demonstrated the effectiveness of an electric propulsion system on Deep Space 1 mission launched in 1998. Such a system uses electric power to ionize a propellent, like xenon gas, 

which is then accelerated through an electric field and expelled to 

propel the spacecraft forward. The highly efficient ion engine enabled DS–1 to perform a series of trajectory maneuvers with less 

fuel and greater velocity than would have been made possible with 

a conventional chemical engine. 

Another technology we are pursuing is aerocapture, which uses 

the drag forces generated during a spacecraft’s passage through a 

planet’s atmosphere to slow it down enough so that it can actually 

go into orbit around that planet without using large quantities of 

fuel. 

Solar sail propulsion ability to provide continuous very low 

thrust without the need for any propellent, appears to be the ideal 

system for upcoming Sun-Earth connection spacecraft which need 

to stay in a certain point along the Sun-Earth line or need to sit 

above poles of the Earth, for instance. 

Exploring a variety of propulsion options for future missions will 

ensure that we have all the tools we need to launch missions that 

will help us to unlock the many secrets the universe holds. 

Thanks to the recent and ongoing Space Science missions, we 

have made tremendous strides in our quest to answer those questions I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony. But, as with 

most things in life, when we find out more, we find the more we 

do not know. That is what makes pursuing these new technologies, 

and the exciting science missions they will enable, so vital. 

I have no doubt that in the not-too-distant future, I or my successor will be telling this committee of scientific discoveries unlike 

anything we have seen to date thanks to these investments in new 

space exploration capabilities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time. I look forward to working with you to continuing bringing the wonders of space science 

to the American people. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Weiler follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD J. WEILER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR

SPACE SCIENCE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

NASA’s Mission to understand and protect our home planet, to explore the Universe and search for life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers requires 

that we make strategic investments in technologies that will transform our capability to explore the Solar System. Within the Space Science Enterprise, we are developing the tools, insights, and abilities necessary to answer some of humanity’s 

most profound questions: How did the Universe begin and evolve? How did we get 

here? Where are we going? Are we alone? 

NASA began attempting to answer such questions back in 1962, when we 

launched the Mariner 1 and 2 missions to Venus. These were the first missions to 

escape Earth’s gravity and explore another planet in our Solar System. At that time, 

NASA depended on chemical rockets to send spacecraft on their journeys. In order 

to escape Earth’s velocity, a chemical rocket expends all of its thrust within the first 

few minutes after launch. Once the fuel is expended, the rocket is jettisoned, and 

the spacecraft begins its expedition by coasting along a fixed path to its final desVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:38 Jan 03, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27956.TXT JACKIE
5 

tination in space. Occasionally, there is an opportunity for the spacecraft to swing 

around another planet to change its direction and velocity. This maneuver—called 

a gravity assist—is highly dependent upon launching during a specific, and often 

very short, launch window. Once that window ‘‘closes,’’ the time and energy it takes 

to reach the target destination can change dramatically. 

While these launch scenarios have worked well and have allowed us to explore 

many destinations in our Solar System, the constraints they presented over 40 years 

ago are still evident today. To overcome these limitations, NASA has begun an aggressive pursuit of alternatives to enhance our capability for launching missions to 

Solar System objects. 

In October 1998, NASA launched Deep Space 1 (DS–1), the first technology-demonstration mission under the New Millennium Program. Not only was the spacecraft 

developed and launched in just three years, it also demonstrated a number of advanced technologies. DS–1 was the first NASA spacecraft to utilize an electric propulsion system. This system uses electric power to ionize a propellant, like xenon, 

which is then accelerated through an electric field and expelled to propel the spacecraft forward. The highly efficient ion engine enabled DS–1 to perform a series of 

interplanetary trajectory maneuvers, yet the propellant accounted for only about 20 

percent of the total spacecraft mass. In addition, the velocity increased by 10 kilometers per second (360 miles per hour). Performing the same maneuvers with a 

chemical propulsion system would be impractical because it would require 10 times 

more propellant than DS–1 could accommodate within mission and launch constraints. 

Nine months after launch, DS–1 had successfully tested all 12 of the new technologies on-board. As a bonus, near the end of the primary mission, DS–1 flew by 

asteroid Braille, where it took images, measured basic physical properties of the asteroid (mineral composition, size, shape, and brightness), and searched for changes 

in the solar wind to investigate whether Braille had a magnetic field. In late 1999, 

DS–1’s star-tracker ceased operating; however, within a few months, engineers had 

successfully reconfigured the spacecraft from a distance of 300 million kilometers 

(185 million miles) and redirected it for an additional extended mission to encounter 

comet Borrelly. Such flexibility would not have been possible without the use of electric propulsion. 

In September 2001, Deep Space 1 passed just 2,171 kilometers (1,349 miles) from 

the inner icy nucleus of comet Borrelly, capturing the highest resolution images ever 

taken of a comet. The daring fly-by yielded new data and movies of the comet’s nucleus that are revolutionizing the study of comets. DS–1 was certainly an ‘‘overachiever’’ in terms of a mission: it not only demonstrated all of the planned technologies (most importantly ion propulsion), it also delivered a wealth of scientific 

data. 

In-Space Propulsion 

NASA’s In-Space Propulsion (ISP) program invests in advanced propulsion technologies that do not depend on a nuclear fission reactor as the power source. The 

high-priority technologies in ISP include solar electric propulsion, solar sails, and 

aerocapture. System analysis trade studies have quantified the benefits of these 

technologies for a wide variety of challenging potential future missions. ISP is also 

making smaller investments in other technologies, including advanced chemical propulsion, plasma sails, momentum exchange electrodynamic reuse tethers, solar thermal propulsion, and ultra-lightweight solar sails. The high-priority technologies are 

focused on achieving readiness within 3–5 years, so that they can be incorporated 

into space science missions in the not-too-distant future. One critical path for 

achieving mission implementation is the demonstration of some of the technologies 

in space prior to being used for a mission. In much the same way that DS–1 served 

as a technology demonstration for ion propulsion, the ISP program looks to New 

Millennium Program missions as the means for future flight demonstrations of highpriority technologies, such as aerocapture and solar sails. 

Future Solar System exploration missions will have diverse requirements depending on their specific scientific objectives; therefore, it is important that we develop 

a variety of new technologies to support them. Simply put, certain propulsion systems are better suited to particular missions than others. For example, there is a 

class of missions supporting the Sun-Earth Connection science theme that involves 

positioning advanced monitoring spacecraft in the Sun-Earth line at a location that 

requires constant thrust to maintain position. Independent studies have found that 

a solar sail propulsion system is optimal for this application of continuous low 

thrust, without the need for propellant. Other missions to explore planetary bodies 

could benefit from solar-electric propulsion, similar to that used by DS–1. With new 

investments being made to dramatically improve efficiency, we expect an even more 

6 

impressive ‘‘second generation’’ ion system, which will be ready before the end of the 

decade. Other missions may require inserting a spacecraft into orbit around a planet 

or a moon, such as Titan. In cases where the planet has an atmosphere, the advanced propulsion technique called aerocapture has shown significant mission-enabling promise. Aerocapture uses drag forces generated during a spacecraft’s passage 

through a planet’s atmosphere to slow it down enough to go into orbit around that 

body without consuming large quantities of fuel. For missions of limited scale, with 

objectives at a single planet, this technique offers significant efficiencies over conventional propulsion systems. 

ISP is a technology development program that operates on the basis of competition among technology providers; approximately three quarters of the program’s 

budget is dedicated to competitive procurements. The competition is open to industry, academia, and government laboratories, including NASA Centers. The Program 

uses rigorous mission and system analyses to establish the metrics and processes 

for determining which technologies are worthy of investment. Clear alignment with 

NASA Space Science Strategic goals is critical, and technology investments must be 

demonstrably linked to the achievement of science goals and missions in the NASA 

Space Science Strategic Plan. 

Project Prometheus 

In the words of Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie ‘‘. . . never see what has been 

done . . . only see what remains to be done.’’ In the field of space exploration, this 

translates to constantly striving to find more effective ways to safely power, propel, 

and maneuver spacecraft, while developing innovative scientific instruments to explore the worlds beyond our current reach. 

Achievement of this ambitious vision requires a bold approach to the next generation of spacecraft, including revolutionary improvements in energy production, conversion, and utilization. NASA will inspire this bold undertaking through Project 

Prometheus (the nuclear systems program), which will develop the near- and longterm use of nuclear energy to power scientific missions. At present, we are pushing 

the limits of innovation with solar and chemical power. It is only by harnessing the 

tremendous energy within the atom that we can aspire to fundamentally improve 

our capability for Solar System exploration and enable missions of greater longevity, 

flexibility, and, therefore, significantly improved scientific return. Beyond robotic exploration, NASA foresees that Project Prometheus could ultimately serve as 

humankind’s pathway to the outer reaches of the Solar System. 

At the heart of this undertaking is the wonder of the atom—specifically, making 

use of the heat produced by the natural decay of a radioisotope and tapping that 

heat to provide electricity. That electricity can then be used to power the instruments aboard the spacecraft, as well as to propel the spacecraft forward. 

On January 16, 1959, President Eisenhower unveiled ‘‘the world’s first atomic battery’’—the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). While not actually batteries, 

these amazing devices have become NASA’s energy source for missions to the outer 

planets; they have proven to be rugged, compact, and capable of working in severe, 

sunless environments. NASA plans to ensure their availability for future missions 

by regenerating the Nation’s capability to build radioisotope power systems (RPS, 

which includes RTGs) to support the safe and peaceful exploration of space and the 

surfaces of planets and moons. 

The importance of the radioisotope power system’s contribution to NASA’s exploration beyond Earth orbit is often overlooked. To date, radioisotope systems have 

flown on 19 NASA missions. They provided electricity, during lunar day and night, 

to five Apollo Lunar Surface Experimental Packages. They powered the two Viking 

Landers while they conducted research on the surface of Mars and heated the Mars 

Pathfinder Lander and its rover, Sojourner, during the frigid Martian nights. They 

also powered the Pioneer and Voyager interplanetary missions as they explored the 

outer Solar System. Amazingly, Voyagers 1 and 2 continue to operate today, after 

more than 25 years in space, exploring the outer frontiers of our Solar System. Radioisotope power sources are currently powering the Ulysses spacecraft as it voyages 

around the Sun’s poles, and the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft both use radioisotope 

power systems to study the Jupiter and Saturn systems, respectively (Cassini will 

arrive at Saturn in July 2004). 

Because of the utility of these ‘‘behind-the-scenes players,’’ it is incumbent upon 

NASA not only to make current radioisotope power systems more efficient, but also 

to develop the next generation of such systems. For example, the 2009 Mars Science 

Laboratory (MSL) mission has been baselined to accommodate either an RTG or its 

possible successor, the more efficient but less mature Stirling Radioisotope Generator (SRG). Additional missions could also include radioisotope power systems of 

7 

various power levels, pending the outcome of ongoing, competed mission-of-opportunity proposals. 

Radioisotope power systems are limited to providing spacecraft with tens to hundreds of watts of power. To the average citizen, this would seem like a ludicrously 

small amount of power (akin to several household light bulbs) for an entire spacecraft; however, the ingenuity of the science and engineering communities have 

adapted mission plans to this present reality and developed spacecraft and instruments capable of utilizing these small amounts of power. Although we can envision 

many future space applications that might require this range of power, for exploration at the outer reaches of the Solar System this is a significantly limiting factor 

on our ability to gather data and, ultimately, to generate knowledge. 

The truly revolutionary aspect of Project Prometheus rests in its ability to provide 

orders of magnitude more power—thousands to hundreds of thousands of watts— 

to spacecraft in the cold dark outer Solar System, or the vastness of interstellar 

space. The amount of energy generated represents a true paradigm shift for mission 

planners, not only because of the unprecedented amounts of power available to the 

scientific community, but in the ability to provide continuous power to maneuver a 

spacecraft throughout its mission via nuclear electric propulsion. 

In simple terms, nuclear fission provides the high levels of sustained energy necessary to power more complex, ‘‘active’’ scientific instruments, allow a spacecraft to 

visit multiple destinations per mission, and enable significantly larger amounts of 

data to be transmitted back to Earth. 

Whereas space chemical propulsion is the ‘‘drag racer,’’ rocketing straight ahead 

at high speeds in a matter of seconds, the nuclear-electric-propelled spacecraft is 

more like a 4-cylinder car that is capable of efficiently using its fuel for an extended 

period of time during a tour of the United States. To take this analogy further, even 

though the nuclear-electric spacecraft would start well behind its chemical partner, 

in time it would overtake and speed past its coasting counterpart. In addition, nuclear-electric-propelled spacecraft will afford us the opportunity to dictate new 

ground rules for observation and, as such, we will be rewarded with days, weeks 

or even months of up-close observations of single or multiple targets. 

Moreover, the spacecraft acceleration and course-change capability offered by nuclear-electric propulsion would also open up new launch opportunities. We are currently severely limited by the ‘‘geometry’’ of the Solar System; that is, chemically 

propelled planetary missions can launch only during limited periods when the relative positions of the planets will allow a spacecraft from Earth to reach a particular destination. 

These capabilities, however, are not an end unto themselves. Rather, Project Prometheus will leverage the extensive work done to date on space nuclear systems to 

embark on an ambitious science mission, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO), 

which will be enabled by nuclear fission electric power and propulsion. At the same 

time, JIMO will respond to the National Academy of Sciences’ ranking of a Europa 

orbiter mission as the number one priority for a flagship Solar System exploration 

mission. 

Because of the unprecedented capabilities made possible by space nuclear power, 

NASA will be able to go well beyond the Academy’s recommendation. JIMO’s nuclear-electric propulsion will provide the maneuverability to orbit all three of Jupiter’s icy Galilean moons and respond to new discoveries, an impossible feat under 

the current technology paradigm. This will allow months of scientific investigation 

at these destinations that will far surpass the brief fly-bys made by Galileo and Voyager. The science instruments used to study these worlds will have far more power 

than those on Galileo and Voyager. Options for new instruments include high-power 

radars to probe the subsurfaces of the moons looking for oceans that could harbor 

life. More powerful cameras and spectrometers could document the entire globe 

looking for evidence of this life, and lasers could measure the topography and characteristics of the surface. Unlike previous missions, the power available on the 

spacecraft will allow all of the instruments to be operated simultaneously throughout the mission. Increased mission time will allow JIMO to investigate the entire 

surface of a given moon and look for any changes due to new geysers or other eruptive activity. This activity could bring fresh material from underground oceans to 

the surface—material that could contain evidence for life. The huge amounts of data 

gathered by JIMO will be transmitted to Earth in torrents, using high-powered 

transmitters and optical communication links. 

Looking beyond JIMO, future missions making use of nuclear systems might visit 

destinations such as: 

• Comets: to explore their surfaces and interiors and return samples to better understand the building blocks of the Universe. 

8 

• Mars: to dramatically expand our capabilities for surface, on-orbit exploration, 

and sample return. 

• Various other destinations: interplanetary or interstellar probes to study Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, or investigate the interstellar matter beyond the 

Kuiper Belt region. 

Project Prometheus will enable the fulfillment of many of NASA’s most challenging scientific goals, as well as our ability to answer some of life’s most intriguing questions: Is there life elsewhere in the Solar System? How was the Solar System formed and what is its future? Our pursuit of answers to these questions will 

be greatly enhanced when we are able to explore space in a manner fully under our 

control and using state-of-the-art science instruments. 

Although accessing such energy resources in space will be a boon to robotic missions, Project Prometheus may have its most compelling long-term impact in expanding the capability of humans in space and perhaps one day serving as our pathway to the outer Solar System. 

Use of nuclear and other advanced technologies involves certain risks and responsibilities. In all of NASA’s missions, safety is the primary operating principle, and 

this has always been the case with our nuclear activities in particular. Historically, 

the United States has demonstrated an excellent record of safely using nuclear 

power in space exploration. NASA has over 30 years’ experience in the successful 

management and operation of radioisotope power systems. Working with the Department of Energy, the agency responsible for development and production of nuclear technologies, NASA will extend that safety experience to the design, manufacture, and space flight of a fission reactor. NASA will continue to engage and solicit 

expertise in risk management and risk assessment and will fully comply with environmental and nuclear safety launch approval processes applicable to the use of nuclear power systems in outer space. Safety must continue to be the predominant factor as we explore the Universe and attempt to unlock the many secrets it holds. 

This is an exciting time for space science. We are standing at the threshold of 

a new era in space exploration. There is a renewed sense of excitement and anticipation that the future holds great things for NASA. Our efforts to improve propulsion and power capabilities are a major reason for this optimism. I will conclude 

my remarks by noting one of the major findings of the recent Commission on the 

U.S. Aerospace Industry, which concluded that space power and propulsion are the 

key technologies that will enable ‘‘. . . new opportunities on Earth and open the 

Solar System to robotic and human exploration . . .’’. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Scolese, did you have any statement 

that you wanted to make? 

Mr. SCOLESE. No, sir. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Good. 

Thank you very much for that condensed version and comments. 

Project Prometheus plans to use nuclear technologies on a robotic 

satellite. Are there any long-term plans to use this propulsion technology on spacecraft occupied by humans? And would human use 

require different design and safety requirements? 

Dr. WEILER. Let me try the first part of that, and I will ask Mr. 

Scolese to answer the second part. 

Obviously, we have not flown a nuclear reactor in space for a 

long, long time, and we have to redevelop the technology. The first 

use of that—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. When was the last time you did fly a nuclear reactor in space? 

Dr. SCOLESE. I believe it was 1965. The Air Force flew it on a 

mission then. 

Dr. WEILER. So we have got a lot of homework to do to get back 

up to speed, take advantage of new technologies, and the first—before this year’s budget, in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget, the Nuclear 

Systems Initiative was just technology. There was enough money 

to go out and start working on the technologies for a nuclear reactor. It was felt, in this year’s budget, that we could make that proVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:38 Jan 03, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27956.TXT JACKIE
9 

gram more focused by actually having a mission to go after. Because too many times at NASA, we have gotten engaged in technology programs that really had no focus, and not much has come 

out of them. So we felt that having a focus, like this JIMO mission, 

would give us a really good direction to go toward with our technology work. 

So the first use of this nuclear technology will be on the JIMO 

mission, and we have ideas for many other science missions. In the 

long range, there is no question that eventually humans could take 

advantage of this kind of technology, both in power—power probably first, and propulsion perhaps later. If we are ever to send, say, 

a human expedition to Mars, and they have to stay on the surface 

for up to a year or 18 months to wait until things align correctly 

to come back home, you need power on the surface, and the best 

way to generate that power reliably would be with a nuclear reactor. 

So some of the technologies we are developing now could be 

evolved into those that could be used for humans eventually. 

Chris, do you want to add anything? 

Mr. SCOLESE. Just to add that, in fact, we are working with the 

NASA space architect to see how we can evolve the technologies 

that we are developing under Project Prometheus for use in human 

applications, and that is an ongoing activity right now. Some of the 

technologies that are being developed, as Dr. Weiler said, could be 

used to support a human expedition, perhaps directly from the 

JIMO mission. We are looking at power levels there, on the order 

of several tens of kilowatts, which would be adequate to support, 

you know, humans on a mission to the Moon or on planetary surfaces. So we are looking at those, but we do not currently have all 

the details worked out on how that will be. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Is this the most likely power source that 

we would be working with on use of power into space or propulsion? I mean, is this—you have mentioned several possibilities— 

solar sails, aerocapture—but is this the most likely one that is 

going to hold the most likely promise for us in the next 10 years? 

Dr. WEILER. Let me be more specific. Nuclear power sources—nuclear fission propulsion—nuclear power itself, is always going to be 

expensive. It is not going to be cheap, you know, so you only want 

to use it where you really, really need it. In the inner Solar System—say, Mars, Venus, Mercury, missions to the Moon—you really 

have abundant sunlight, so solar power is a very good alternative. 

Solar-electric power—I referred to the Deep Space 1 mission, in 

the inner Solar System, you can generate thousands of watts just 

with solar-electric power and a relatively small solar array. So you 

really do not need to use nuclear reactors inside of the local Solar 

System. 

Once you get about to Jupiter, the amount of sunlight that 

reaches Jupiter is one-twenty-fifth of what hits the Earth. So, you 

know, think of the sun giving us a 100-watt light bulb; at Jupiter, 

it is like a four-watt light bulb. So you really cannot use solar energy, Jupiter and beyond. So for missions, robotic missions, beyond 

Jupiter, you just have to really rely on nuclear power sources. And, 

of course, those planets tend to be further away, so you would like 

10 

to have some kind of propulsion system, too, to continually 

propulse yourself. 

So in terms of nuclear power in the future, I think if we are 

going to have a future in the outer Solar System and really explore 

the outer Solar System, nuclear power is a must. If humankind is 

ever to go to the stars, ever going to send a probe to the stars, I 

do not see any other way to do it right now with the technologies 

we know of today. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I have had people—Bob Walker, the Chairman of the Commission, that I mentioned to you—saying that we 

had to use nuclear technology, even to get to Mars on a manned 

mission, because it would increase the speed at which we could get 

there. In current technologies that we have, as you mentioned, you 

get up into space and then you coast the rest of the way. It is going 

to take too long, probably, for us to make it there and back with 

human travel. You would have to go nuclear to speed it up to move 

faster. How would you respond to that thought? 

Dr. WEILER. There is a complex relationship between speed and 

capability and payload and mass and how those all work together. 

It is difficult to answer in just a few short sentences. There is no 

question that if you ‘‘put the pedal to the metal,’’ so to speak, and 

accelerate all the way, you can get places faster. But you have got 

to remember, you probably want to stop, too. So at some point, you 

have got to turn around and start propulsing the other direction. 

So how much speed you can actually gain depends on what you 

want to do. 

What nuclear-fission propulsion would do for human missions 

eventually going to Mars is, it would give you a lot more options 

on when you could leave for Mars and when you come back home. 

Right now, with chemical propulsion, you are limited to one window every 22 months. If you were to do a manned mission, a 

crewed mission, to Mars today, you have to pick a launch time that 

is—you know, at some point, and you will not have another launch 

window to Mars for 22 months, just because of the way the planets 

line up in the Solar System. Once you got to Mars, and it takes 

about 6 to 7 months, on a coasting trip, you would have to sit there 

for 18 months before you could line up again to come home. So any 

human mission right now to Mars would be 3 years, with chemical 

propulsion. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Minimum. 

Dr. WEILER. Minimum. And, of course, if you are going to go to 

Mars and sit on the surface for 18 months, one could argue you had 

better have a pretty reliable power source that works at night, 

works during dust storms, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, to maintain your crew. 

Now, what nuclear-fission propulsion would allow you to do is 

not necessarily get places faster, but open up those windows; 

maybe come home when you want to come home, after a year, or 

whatever. The trip may actually take longer, but at least you could 

get home sooner, if you know what I mean. I do not know if that 

helps. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well, it does help, but how long would it 

take us now to get to Mars? Not when everything would line up, 

but to get there? 

11 

Dr. WEILER. Well, see, Mars and Earth are locked in a pattern 

where every 22 months, if you launch, you can catch it when it is 

closest to us—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Right, you catch the right—— 

Dr. WEILER.—when it is closest to us, only 34 million miles away. 

If you pick the wrong time, it can be as much as 200 million miles 

away. So that is a factor of six in distance. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But when you would launch, which would 

be when it is closest, or when you would hit that window—— 

Dr. WEILER. Right. 

Senator BROWNBACK.—how long would it take us now, under the 

technology we currently use? 

Dr. WEILER. Today? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes. 

Dr. WEILER. Six months, at best. At best. In fact, we hopefully 

will be launching a Mars robot to Mars on Sunday. That is the best 

possible apparition of Earth and Mars for another 20 or 30 years. 

Mars will never be closer to us than it will be in 2003. In fact, it 

will be the brightest object in the sky, other than the sun and the 

moon, this summer. So this is the best possible time, and it still 

takes 6 months. Because, again, we accelerate like crazy—it is a 

dragster—we accelerate for 7 minutes and then we shut off the engine and coast and coast and coast and coast. That is why we want 

to develop these in-space propulsion—you know, it is like keeping 

a foot on the gas pedal a little bit. 

Senator BROWNBACK. If you have these new propulsion systems, 

if you are successful in developing the new propulsion systems, and 

you have at the most favorable window that is going to be available 

within the next 10 years of our moving to Mars, how quickly could 

you narrow that time-frame down from the 6 months that it currently is? 

Dr. WEILER. We would have to do some calculations on that. But, 

right now, the window for a chemical launch is about a month, a 

month and a half long. If you had in-space propulsion technologies, 

you could open that window up a great deal, and we can get back 

to you formally with an answer. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Nuclear power and electric propulsion will offer many benefits for space exploration that are unavailable today using conventional technologies. It will offer us 

unprecedented maneuverability, ample power for very robust science instruments, 

significantly increased communications capabilities, and in some cases, reduced 

travel times. 

Of these benefits, reduced travel time is actually not applicable to the example 

cited—i.e., shortening our current best travel time to Mars for a mission similar to 

the Mars Exploration Rovers, which is approximately 6 months. Because Mars is a 

relatively close Solar System destination, nuclear electric propulsion would not 

shorten the travel time much, if at all, for such a mission. Shortly after this type 

of spacecraft would start accelerating under nuclear electric propulsion, it would 

then have to decelerate in order to orbit the Red Planet. 

The ability for nuclear electric propulsion to decrease our travel time takes on a 

bit more significance with regard to very distant objects in our Solar System or beyond. In addition, nuclear power and electric propulsion also give us the ability to 

deliver much heavier payloads (compared to previous missions), operate much more 

capable exploration instruments, and return much more information to Earth. 

12 

Dr. WEILER. It depends on the particular window, you know, how 

much propulsion you have, et cetera. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But you are convinced that we have to develop the nuclear technology for use of power in space and propulsion options. Is that correct? 

Dr. WEILER. Mr. Brownback, I was inspired to become an astronomer by the astronauts in the 1960s. We are still using the same 

methods of propulsion on Sunday to go to Mars that we used to put 

up John Glenn and Alan Shepard 40 years ago. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Why? 

Dr. WEILER. It is because we did not spend a lot of money on new 

technologies, like nuclear. We tried. NASA tried in the early 1990s. 

It did not go anywhere. But this is a window of opportunity for the 

future that does not come around very often. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Is the budget adequate this time around to 

develop the new propulsion technologies? 

Dr. WEILER. I think we have got an adequate budget for the first 5 years of the program. We have about $3 billion budgeted in the 

President’s 2004 budget over the next 5 years. That is a good solid 

budget to get the technology going and to develop mission plans for 

the first mission and to really understand where the costs are, 

where the technology in the United States is. I mean, nuclear has 

not been a very popular thing in the United States for many years, 

and we have got to redevelop some technologies. We have got to get 

some kids, graduate students, interested in nuclear engineering 

again. 

You should know, as a physicist by background, I happen to believe that physics is important. You have to understand it and accept it. And I believe the future of this country, in energy, is ultimately nuclear, unless somebody discovers some new physics I do 

not know about. But if we are going to have energy for this country 

100 years from now, 200 years from now, 300 years from now, we 

had better be educating a few nuclear physicists today. And I think 

this program will do wonders for getting kids interested in nuclear 

engineering again. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And why do you say that? Do you think 

just that the design and the vision of using this power in space will 

translate into a lot more interest and focus on it here? 

Dr. WEILER. This kind of technology allows us to go to Jupiter; 

and not just fly by moons for a few minutes, but to go into orbit 

around moons, understand whether there are oceans under the ice 

caps, whether there might be life there. It enables us to go to Neptune, Uranus, Pluto, and go into orbiting missions. It allows us to 

even think about sending missions to other stars. Now, these missions will take a long time, but at least we can conceive of such 

missions now with nuclear power. We cannot even conceive of such 

missions with chemical. The kinds of missions we are talking could 

not be done with chemical power. You could not do a Jupiter Icy 

Moon tour with chemical power. The physics just is not there. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So if we are to go anywhere beyond the 

neighboring planets, we have to develop the nuclear technology for 

power and propulsion. 

Dr. WEILER. Not just that. I would argue that if we want to do 

more than just fly-by moons and planets and really do in-depth 

13 

science, and perhaps even more than science someday, you have to 

have this kind of capability. I would maintain if you really are serious about sending humans to Mars and keeping them there for 

awhile, you also have to have this technology. I just cannot conceive of sending humans to Mars and depending on solar panels or 

fuel cells for power. 

Senator BROWNBACK. If more of an investment were made by the 

Congress in these propulsion systems, could they be developed 

more rapidly? A more rapid ramp-up in funding? 

Dr. WEILER. That is the one I will let my nuclear expert here 

take on. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Or is the technology just going to take time 

to build up to it? 

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, sir. I think it will take some time to develop 

it. In order to get a system to work in space, we need to develop 

the fuel. And a lot of work, as Dr. Weiler had mentioned earlier, 

had been done in the late 1980s and the early 1990s. We need to 

restart those capabilities. We need to produce that fuel. We are 

probably 5 years, 6 years, away from being able to have enough of 

that capability available to us to make that happen. 

Certainly a crash program could perhaps do something, but with 

the program that we have laid out, even with, you know, more 

money, unless it was significantly more money, I think we are talking 5, 6, 7 years before we could have a system that would really 

be ready to fly in space, at the earliest. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Even with robotics to fly it in space, it 

would be 5 years, 6 years, minimum? 

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, sir. I mean, the technologies—we know what 

we need to do. And that is the good news. We spent some time last 

year looking out at industry to see what capabilities were there, to 

go back and learn the lessons that were learned. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And what is it that we learned there? What 

do we know we need to do? 

Mr. SCOLESE. We know we need to start up a fuel production. 

Unlike an Earthbound reactor that we have, they can use water to 

cool it and to convert to steam or to allow it to turn a turbine to 

make electricity. We cannot do that. That would be much too 

heavy. So we have to do two things. We have to use a different type 

of fluid. We are thinking of either a gas or a liquid metal. We have 

to operate at higher temperatures. Those two things will allow us 

to make the reactor small enough to fit into a rocket, light enough 

to allow us to get the maximum benefit out of propulsion. 

That requires a lot of activity in materials research. There were 

some materials that were developed in the early 1990s. We have 

to redevelop that and verify it and demonstrate that it will operate 

for the lifetimes that we need. This Jupiter Icy Moons Mission will 

last several years. A mission to Mars with humans will last several 

years. 

There is a lot of work that has to be started, and there is a lot 

of capability that has to be demonstrated. So a fair amount of testing still needs to be done, and a fair amount of technologies have 

to be restarted. And then when you start talking about human systems, we have to start talking about different kinds of shields to 

protect the humans from the radiation that comes from a reactor, 

14 

just as we do on the Earth. But, again, you cannot use the big containment systems that we have on the Earth. 

So it is a matter of taking what we have learned on the Earth, 

miniaturizing it, making it more efficient so that we can fly it in 

space. 

Dr. WEILER. If I could add a bit on the issue of speeding up the 

program or going faster, we want to go at a rate, also, that always 

keeps safety in mind. We have an excellent safety record at NASA, 

30 years of flying nuclear materials, and we want this program to 

always have safety in front of it. So I get a little nervous about the 

term ‘‘crash program’’—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WEILER.—when we talk about something to do with nuclear. 

But let me also point out very, very strongly, when we talk about 

flying a nuclear—a system like a nuclear-fission reactor, these reactors would be launched cold. OK? They would not be launched active. They would not go active until we actually reached escape velocity from the Earth. That is an important point to keep in mind. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And you, as you pointed out, have been flying nuclear material for 30 years, so this is not a new concept of 

having to be safe in the use of nuclear materials. You have been 

doing it for 30 years. 

What physical size and weight of a nuclear reactor are you talking about that need to be able to make this operational? 

Dr. WEILER. The analogy I like to use, although perhaps not the 

best—Dr. Weiler knows it—it is about the size of the trash can that 

is in your office. That is about the size of the reactor that we are 

talking about doing. And then the equipment that would go around 

it would make it slightly bigger than that. 

The biggest piece of this system is not the reactor, it is not the 

fuel that will make the heat; it is actually the radiator. It is how 

to get rid of the heat that is produced by the reactor. We do not 

have perfect conversion systems. And on the ground, we have 

water that we can use to get rid of that waste heat. In space, we 

do not have that. So actually the largest piece of the system will 

be the part that gets rid of the waste heat from—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. And your view of the—— 

Mr. SCOLESE.—the conversion process. 

Senator BROWNBACK.—and your view of the technology is that 

this is clearly achievable within a certain window of time, within 

a 10-year window of time? 

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, we believe that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And a high probability that this would be 

achievable within a 10-year window of time? 

Mr. SCOLESE. We believe that now, and we are in the process of 

validating that. As Dr. Weiler said, we have still a couple more 

years of studies and activities that we need to do to go off and 

verify that statement. To that end, we have awarded, this year, 

three study contracts to firms to go off and look at mission concepts, and schedules and plans, to verify if, indeed, what we believe 

to be the case from last year is true. And, in addition, we are funding some research activities to go off and see if there is some stuff, 

some activities, that we may not be aware of that might either accelerate that or improve our chances of success. 

15 

But all of the work that we have done so far indicates that within about a decade we should be able to achieve those objectives. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Astronaut Bill Nelson, I turn the questions 

over to you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me describe a propulsion system, and I would like you to critique it. Mr. Chairman, it is a propulsion system that could take 

us to Mars in 39 days. We would accelerate half of the way there, 

and we would decelerate the remaining half. It is Franklin Chang’s 

VASIMR rocket, a 30-university consortium that is working on it, 

of which he has a working model now. It would also create a magnetic field that would offer some protection from solar explosions. 

Because of the acceleration halfway and the deceleration, you 

would have a semblance of gravity for the crew during the 39 days. 

Dr. Weiler, would you give me your thoughts on Franklin’s rockets? 

Dr. WEILER. I am not fully up to speed on what Mr. Chang-Diaz 

has proposed, but he has been involved with our program. His technologies, I believe, are quite advanced compared to our rudimentary nuclear-fission rockets. Let’s see, I know that he has applied to our in-space propulsion field. 

Our in-space propulsion program, where we fund this type of research, is an openly competed program done by peer review. To 

this date, the person to whom you referred has not succeeded in 

getting his research approved through that peer-review process. 

My own impression of what I know of it is, is that it is a very 

interesting concept, and there is nothing wrong with it in terms of 

physics. But, in terms of the ability to get to that kind of capability, it will take a much greater leap in technology than the kind 

of stuff we are talking about here. 

We are talking, I think, with Mr. Diaz’s program, something that 

is in the megawatt range—yes, that is what I remember, the megawatt range, multi megawatts, several million watts he needs to 

power this thing. We are talking about our first reactor being 

maybe 100 kilowatts. 

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes. 

Dr. WEILER. So we are maybe a factor of ten away in power output to what he would need just to power his system. 

So am I dismissing it out of hand? Absolutely not. What I am 

saying is, we may not be ready for it at this point in time. And I 

like to think of the analogy, having had kids, you have got to really 

take baby steps before you can run. And I think, in his case, you 

know, it is a full trot, and we are still trying to crawl out of our 

crib in this nuclear world. 

Senator NELSON. It is my understanding there was a peer review 

last November, and the peer review approved his project. 

Mr. SCOLESE. Yes, I think—I understand your question. It was 

not peer reviewed by our process. He was also working with other 

aspects of NASA, and that question may be more appropriate for 

Mr. Readdy. 

Senator NELSON. And is his funding continuing? 

16 

Mr. SCOLESE. Not from Code S. Not from the Office of Space 

Science. In the Office of Space Science, we have a very strict policy 

that we do not just give money to NASA centers because they are 

NASA centers. Any technologist, any engineer, any scientists at a 

NASA center must compete for his or her research money, just as 

anybody at a university or the commercial world. So he does not 

get any directed funding from the Office of Space Science. However, 

we welcome his proposal. 

Senator NELSON. Where was his funding before? 

Dr. WEILER. Code M. 

Senator NELSON. And what is that? 

Dr. WEILER. That is Office of Space Flight. I am sorry. 

Senator NELSON. And is that continuing? 

Dr. WEILER. I am not at—I would not have that knowledge. 

Mr. SCOLESE. I do not have that knowledge, either. We could find 

out for you. 

Dr. WEILER. He has a demo. He is being funded by the fusion 

community, outside of NASA. 

Senator NELSON. Is it still a NASA project? 

Dr. WEILER. We will have to get back to you and have the Office 

of Space Flight respond to you, because this, again, is out of our 

realm of funding. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Yes, the Office of Space Flight is continuing to provide funding for this project. 

In FY 2003, the VASIMR project has received a total of $1,300,000, which is supporting continued operations through the end of September 2003. Planning for FY 

2004 is in progress; no final decisions on the level of funding have been made. 

Senator NELSON. It is interesting that your comments on it—I 

have been there, and I have seen that project, and I have seen it 

demonstrated. As a matter of fact, I think there is—you all have 

not, I take it. 

Dr. WEILER. Well, I am curious, how did he demonstrate it if he 

needs megawatts of power? 

Senator NELSON. I cannot answer that, but I have seen the thing 

run, and it is in that big building where all of the EVA activity is 

planned, in the big pool, right by Ellington Field. And I would like 

for somebody in your office to take a look at it. 

Dr. WEILER. OK. 

Senator NELSON. And I would like a report back to the Committee. 

Dr. WEILER. We will be happy to do that, Senator. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Three representatives from the NASA Office of Space Science (OSS) visited Dr. 

Franklin Chang-Diaz at Johnson Space Center (JSC) on July 13, 2003. Dr. ChangDiaz gave a tour of the laboratory where VASIMR technology research is conducted; 

the plasma generator and heating element of the ground-based technology development unit were being tested. Further technology development is needed to build the 

portion of the system that would provide thrust; in addition, further technology development and testing is required to incorporate superconducting magnets in all 

portions of the system and build a system with sufficiently low mass for flight. Consequently, the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is currently approximately 2 (on 

the scale of TRL 1–9). Initial planning has been performed for a flight test on the 

International Space Station; the ISS likely provides sufficient power to operate the 

system, and VASIMR could produce thrust to offset ISS’ upper atmospheric drag. 

Dr. Chang-Diaz noted that VASIMR is currently funded by the Office of Space 

Flight FY 2003 and FY 2004 budget, and he did not request additional funds from 

17 

the Office of Space Science. The OSS representatives noted that the office’s policy 

is to fund technology research competitively. 

Senator NELSON. All right, you were just handed a note. What 

was that? 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WEILER. Nothing relevant. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WEILER. No, we will be happy to get a report back to you. 

But, once again, I do stand by my comment, we are open to all proposals for all credible research, but we do believe in peer review 

and competition in the Office of Space Science. 

Senator NELSON. All right. Then, in your report back, will you 

report on, so that it is clear to the Committee, the peer review that 

I had understood that had occurred and that he had the project, 

which is a 30-university consortium, had been approved? 

Dr. WEILER. Right. 

Senator NELSON. And so if that is not accurate, I would like to 

know that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

In October 2002, Office of Space Flight (OSF) chartered a peer review panel to 

assess the VASIMR project’s fundamental scientific feasibility, as well as its technical capacity to support OSF-class missions. In December 2002, the panel issued 

its report and recommended that the VASIMR project take the following steps: establish a clear critical path; identify specific and measurable goals and objectives; 

establish distinct and quantitative milestones; and appoint a dedicated project manager. 

OSF accepted the peer review recommendations and provided specific direction to 

JSC in December 2002 to submit a project plan that focuses VASIMR efforts on 

achieving TRL 4 (system validation in a laboratory environment) by September 

2004, and reflects a project-like management organization and planning processes. 

In December 2002, OSF directed JSC to submit an integrated VASIMR project 

plan to OSF by February 15, 2003 that reflects the Peer Review Panel’s recommendations. JSC submitted a Project Management Plan and Technical Task 

Agreement (TTA) on February 14, 2003 describing project scope, deliverables, management structure, schedule and budget. Due to budget constraints, OSF was not 

able to fund the full project. However, OSF and JSC negotiated a funding profile 

for FY 2003 that allows performance of risk mitigation experiments to accomplish 

the high priority VASIMR research goals and at the same time makes significant 

progress towards meeting the intent of the Peer Review Recommendations. In April 

2003, JSC submitted a revised TTA for FY 2003 activities. OSF approved the TTA 

and funding for FY 2003. 

Dr. WEILER. It could be, Senator. I can only speak for the Office 

of Space Science. Again, all of our research is openly competed, announced in all kinds of announcements, newspapers, et cetera. We 

have not funded his research. He has not proposed it. He has not 

won any money. 

Senator NELSON. I understand. But you are a representative of 

NASA, and I would—— 

Dr. WEILER. Right. 

Senator NELSON.—like to know who has funded and—— 

Dr. WEILER. I will—— 

Senator NELSON.—what has happened. 

Dr. WEILER. We will be happy to find out. 

Senator NELSON. That is terrific. 

Dr. WEILER.—issue a formal report. 

Senator NELSON. That is terrific. 

18 

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you have any projections on cost of developing the nuclear technology that we discussed over the period 

of years that it would take to get it operational? 

Mr. SCOLESE. Right now, we are at the—as Dr. Weiler mentioned 

earlier—about $3 billion, through Fiscal Year 2008. We are still in 

the process of developing what we believe the cost would be. Those 

projections are based on what we understand today, the technologies that we have to develop, what it would cost to develop 

those technologies to build the test facilities, where needed. 

And I should point out it is composed of the three parts that Dr. 

Weiler mentioned. Part of that money is for the radioisotope thermoelectric generators, roughly about a third of it, about a billion 

dollars of it. That, we are very confident in those numbers, but— 

to restart those lines and to produce what we need for future missions and anticipated future missions. 

And as far as the fission line is concerned, it is based on the estimates that I mentioned that we developed last year and we hope 

to finalize in the next 2 years for the mission costs. 

Does that answer your question? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes, it does. 

Dr. Weiler, are any other countries working on propulsion technologies that are different from the ones that we and the Russians 

have been using for years? 

Dr. WEILER. Not that I know of. Not in the area of nuclear. I 

know, obviously, you know, there are other countries working on 

chemical propulsion, because other countries launch things. But in 

terms of advanced propulsion, like—solar electric, I think the Europeans, they have—they are doing some research in that area, and 

they are probably going to fly something sooner or later in it. 

In terms of nuclear-fission power, I am not aware of any country—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. 

Dr. WEILER.—that is anywhere near where we are. 

Chris? 

Senator BROWNBACK. So, otherwise, it is solar electric, but it 

will—— 

Dr. WEILER. Yes. 

Senator BROWNBACK.—that will take you a certain distance, and 

it yields only a certain—— 

Dr. WEILER. Right. It is good for the inner—— 

Senator BROWNBACK.—quantity of—— 

Dr. WEILER.—inner Solar System. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But it is a limited energy source then, as 

well. What do we think we could get that maximum up to of solar 

energy under good efficiencies? 

Dr. WEILER. We could probably get up to solar outputs of 5,000, 

10,000 watts in the inner Solar System. 

Mr. SCOLESE. Well, maybe up to as much as 100 kilowatts, is 

about the most you are going to get if you look at the space station. 

And that is in Earth orbit. As you move away, it is going to get 

much less, for a number of reasons. But those arrays, as you can 

see when you look at television—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Huge. 

19 

Mr. SCOLESE.—are huge. It would be hard to carry around, certainly on a robotic mission, and they would add some difficulty to 

any mission. But about tens of kilowatts is about what you can—— 

Dr. WEILER. Yes. 

Mr. SCOLESE.—expect with solar arrays. 

Dr. WEILER. DS–1, Deep Space 1, was about—— 

Mr. SCOLESE. Five. 

Dr. WEILER.—5,000 watts, for instance. That was our first technology experiment. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It was about 5,000? 

Mr. SCOLESE. 5,000. 

Dr. WEILER. 5,000 watts. And we achieved, I think, an increase 

in velocity over just coasting, of about ten kilometers per second, 

I believe. It is about six miles per hour—or six miles per second— 

increase in velocity over the course of a mission. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And what do you think you could get with 

nuclear propulsion in increase of velocity? 

Dr. WEILER. Oh, if your only goal was speed, nuclear fission, you 

could probably triple or quadruple your velocity going out of the 

Solar System. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And would you be able to use that power 

also to decelerate? 

Dr. WEILER. Yes. It is just a matter of how much fuel you want 

to carry, and the fuel, in this case, would be xenon gas. 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. 

Dr. WEILER. But, again, the analogy I wanted to use before, 

which I think is critical to understand this, is there is a lot of confusion about speed versus capability. And the way I like to look at 

our planetary program over the last 40 years, no offense, is that 

every mission we send is like a covered wagon. It takes a long time, 

and it carries a certain kind of payload. We are not talking about 

nuclear being a Ferrari or something going to Los Angeles. It is 

more like the original steam engine. The original steam engines, 

over the covered wagons, they were not that much faster. I mean, 

they went a little faster, but they chugged along. But what they 

added that the covered wagon did not have was the ability to pull 

5, 10, 20 rail cars, and you could build cities with steam engines. 

You could not build cities with covered wagons. And that is the better analogy, I think. It is a steam-engine analogy versus the 

Ferrari-type analogy. We are not doing this only for speed; we are 

doing it for capability. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And, again, I want to just make sure I 

have a fine point on this. For us to further develop in space exploration, propulsion power, you just have no doubt in your mind that 

you have to develop this nuclear capacity for us to be able to do 

that. You do not see another viable option in your assessment at 

the present time. Is that correct? 

Dr. WEILER. Let me put a fine point on this, especially with Senator Nelson’s comments. This is just the first step. I think the 

physics of nuclear is what we are talking about here. Once you 

have the capability of building one reactor, and then bigger and 

bigger reactors, you can start talking about more exotic technologies, some of which the Senator pointed out. There are other 

technologies. Instead of having the power from the nuclear reactor 

20 

make electricity and ionize the gas, you could feed fuel into the reactor. That is called nuclear-thermal power. That would give you 

a lot of speed very rapidly. There are other problems we would 

have to solve technologically. But there are a lot of technologies. 

Once you have started being able to build nuclear reactors and 

launch them safely and get them up there, it opens up a whole 

plethora of other technologies that get more and more exotic and 

more and more exciting. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And I do not mean to belabor the point. 

What I am trying to say and to get to is if we are going to continue 

with an aggressive space program, and we are at a real pause point 

right now in assessing how we are moving forward, what it is going 

to cost and how we get there, but you just have no doubt you are 

going to have to go this nuclear-powered route so you have this sort 

of power and opportunity once you are in space. Is that correct? 

Dr. WEILER. I feel very comfortable saying I do not see any 

other—unless somebody comes up with new laws of physics, I do 

not see any way that we are going to have a future 25, 50, 100 

years from now if we do not have the capability of launching nuclear reactors into space. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I thank you very much. 

Thank you, gentlemen. And the record will remain open if you 

will seek to add additional thoughts to put forward, and I know you 

will also be answering Senator Nelson’s question. I appreciate that. 

Call up the second panel. Mr. James Crocker, he is Vice President of Civil Space for Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, 

Space and Strategic Missiles; Mr. Larry Knauer, President of Space 

Propulsion and Russian Operations for Pratt & Whitney; Mr. 

Frank Sietzen, President of Space Transportation Association; and 

Mr. Byron Wood, Vice President and General Manager of 

Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power, a portion of The Boeing Company. 

Gentlemen, I am delighted you are joining us here today. We will 

take your full statement into the record. If you would like to summarize, that would be acceptable, as well. And I appreciate you 

being willing to join us. 

Mr. Crocker, let’s start with you, and we will proceed forward. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. CROCKER, VICE PRESIDENT, CIVIL 

SPACE, LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE AND STRATEGIC MISSILES 

Mr. CROCKER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Senate Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, my name is Jim 

Crocker, and I am Vice President of Civil Space for Lockheed Martin Space and Strategic Missiles. I am deeply grateful for your kind 

invitation to appear before you today and to provide testimony on 

our future Solar System and deep-space exploration. 

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is just completing a 5-year investment 

and development period which has resulted in the successful inaugural flights of two Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, or the 

EELV. The second Atlas V, which was launched just 3 weeks ago, 

was the 65th consecutive successful mission for the Atlas launch 

family of vehicles. And basically, this provides our Nation with two 

robust platforms to ensure access to space for important national 

assets, scientific payloads, and commercial satellites. 

21 

So the subject of today’s hearing is of vital importance. It builds 

upon these successes in improving our Nation’s launch capabilities 

to take us from ground to orbit and basically brings attention to 

the next step, the urgent need to improve the propulsion and power 

systems of the spacecrafts that we send into space. 

Today, I would like to focus my testimony on the vital importance of Project Prometheus, NASA’s nuclear in-space propulsion 

initiative. I was recently helping my son study for an eighth-grade 

science test, and, in looking through his science book, I was really, 

really amazed at the beautiful images that you see, here, of Jupiter 

and its moons, its icy moons, Callisto and Ganymede, the beautiful 

rings of Saturn and the moon systems. These are images that our 

school children now see routinely. I was struck by something that 

all of these gorgeous images have in common, and that is each of 

them was taken by a nuclear-powered spacecraft. 

In fact, without nuclear power, in the form of radioisotope thermoelectric generators, it would be impossible to obtain these images. At these far distances from the sun, as Dr. Weiler has pointed out earlier, solar power is impractical. The sun is merely another star in the dark skies of space, and only a nuclear-powered 

spacecraft can sail these distant oceans. 

At Lockheed Martin, we are very proud of our pioneering history 

in both nuclear spacecraft as well as planetary exploration. As I am 

sure you are aware, the Viking, Voyager, Magellan, Cassini missions, the two recent missions to Mars, Mars Global Surveyor and 

Mars Odyssey, as well as Stardust and Genesis, just to name a few, 

as well as almost half a century at Lockheed Martin in pioneering 

nuclear space exploration. In fact, the very first radioisotope powergeneration system was built just a short distance from here at the 

Glen L. Martin Plant in Middle River, in Baltimore, Maryland. It 

was first launched aboard the SNAP-9a Navy Transit Satellite in 

1961. And for the last 25 years, Lockheed Martin has provided the 

nuclear systems, which have proven to be safe and reliable. In fact, 

Voyager I is now in its 25th year of operation. Our latest, Cassini, 

is in its 6th year. It will arrive at Saturn on July 1, 2004. 

While this is an impressive history of reliability and safety, the 

basic technology has barely changed for these 50 years. It is inadequate for future space exploration. These systems provide no more 

than a few hundred watts, a handful of light bulbs. Basically, 

Project Prometheus offers a revolutionary change in this technology. It is still nuclear, but we are moving from systems that deliver a few hundred watts to systems that can deliver hundreds of 

thousands of watts. It will be a revolutionary change in our ability 

to operate these spacecraft, to operate high-power science instruments, as well as the propulsive capability to do revolutionary improvements—propulsion, power for science instruments, increased 

bandwidth to bring vastly larger amounts of data back to Earth, 

as well as propulsion capabilities that will allow us to do some 

amazing things, which I will talk about in a few minutes. 

Let me give you an example. The New Horizon mission is the 

next NASA mission to the outer planets. It will go to the planet 

Pluto. Pluto, as you know, is the only planet yet to be explored in 

this Solar System. The science instruments will be powered with 

a radioisotope thermoelectric generator. The propulsion, however, 

22 

is state-of-the-art chemical propulsion. It will take over a decade 

for this spacecraft to fly to the planet Pluto. And when it gets 

there, it will be able to fly by in a few hours, collect a little science 

data, give us some marvelous images for our students’ textbooks 

about Pluto. However, it will not have sufficient propulsive capability, due to the use of chemical propulsion, to basically orbit 

around the planet. It will just fly by. 

Contrast that with JIMO, the first nuclear mission. We will be 

able to fly to the planet Jupiter. We will be able to spiral into a 

moon, perhaps Europa. We will use high-powered science instruments, perhaps even ice-penetrating radar, to look under the ice 

and perhaps find life that scientists hope might be there. And then, 

after we have done that, we will use this high power to return 

enormous bandwidth back. We will have the potential to transmit 

more data to Earth in the first mission than had been collected in 

the entire history of planetary exploration. 

In addition to that, once we finish with the first moon, we will 

power up the propulsion system and move on to the next moon, 

Callisto. And there we will continue to power up the propulsion 

system and move on. So rather than have to wait for multiple 

years for another mission, powering up the propulsion system will 

allow us to move on very rapidly. 

I did a simple calculation, and discovered that over 99 percent 

of our Solar System, by volume, cannot be explored without nuclear 

power. What we are talking about today, Mr. Chairman, is not 

whether we will develop new space nuclear-power systems, but 

whether we will explore our Solar System; because without nuclear 

power, it is not practical. Much beyond the orbit of Mars, the sun 

becomes so dim that it is incapable of powering even the most rudimentary types of scientific instruments. We are talking about the 

need to move forward and revolutionize our ability to explore space. 

As we enter the 21st century, we find the Europeans launching 

a mission to Mars, the Japanese launching a mission to an asteroid, the Chinese talking about a possible mission to the moon, and 

we find the United States preparing to embark on an entirely new 

journey of exploration. Project Prometheus will propel the next generation of American scientists and engineers toward discoveries beyond our imagination and provide technical benefits to our Nation 

that go well beyond the exploration of the planets and the moons. 

When I help my future grandchildren study for their science 

tests, I hope to read of bold new discoveries in their textbooks. And 

with your support and leadership, Project Prometheus will make 

this possible. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you 

again for holding this important hearing today and for asking me 

to participate. I will be glad to respond to any questions that you 

may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crocker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. CROCKER, VICE PRESIDENT, CIVIL SPACE, 

LOCKHEED MARTIN SPACE AND STRATEGIC MISSILES

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Science, Technology, and 

Space Subcommittee, my name is Jim Crocker, Vice President of Civil Space, at 

23 

Lockheed Martin Space & Strategic Missiles. Chairman Brownback, I am deeply 

grateful for your kind invitation to appear before your subcommittee and provide 

testimony this afternoon. It is a special privilege for me to appear before you today, 

along with my esteemed colleague Dr. Ed Weiler, Associate Administrator for Space 

Science at NASA, and my industry colleagues on the panel. And it is an honor to 

speak with you on behalf of the Lockheed Martin Corporation about the future of 

Solar System and deep space exploration which NASA has envisioned, and which 

will be made possible by NASA’s recently announced Project Prometheus in-space 

propulsion initiative. 

Our nation is completing a five-year investment and development period, which 

has resulted in the successful inaugural flights of two new Evolved Expendable 

Launch Vehicle systems (EELV). The second Atlas V, launched just three weeks 

ago, May 13, was the 65th consecutive successful mission for the Atlas family of 

launch vehicles. The United States now has two robust platforms ensuring our access to space for important national assets, scientific payloads and commercial satellites. 

The subject of today’s hearing is of vital importance, and it is very timely. It 

builds upon our successes in improving the United States’ space launch systems 

that take us from ground to orbit, and it brings attention to the next step—the urgent need to improve the propulsion and power system capabilities of those important spacecraft sent into space. 

At Lockheed Martin, we are continuing to push the frontiers of in-space propulsion technology, built upon our company’s half century of experience in space nuclear power systems. Lockheed Martin is extremely proud of our partnership with 

NASA during the past four decades of space exploration, and of the important role 

we have played in designing and building components for the vast majority of spacecraft that have explored and are continuing to explore our Solar System. 

Today, I would like to focus on the vital importance of Project Prometheus, 

NASA’s nuclear in-space propulsion initiative. When we envision the future of space 

exploration and the knowledge that it will yield for all mankind, that future will 

be constrained if new nuclear space propulsion and power systems are not developed. We are talking about leaping ahead in our ability to explore—on a scale that 

is revolutionary. Project Prometheus will result in next-generation technology capabilities. It will be reliable and safe, without compromise. It is about the power of 

space exploration—literally. And in many aspects, it will determine the future of our 

ability to explore our universe. 

I was recently helping my son study for an eighth grade science test. As I looked 

through his science book, I marveled at the pictures of Jupiter and its icy moons 

Europa, Ganymede and Callisto; beautiful Saturn, its ring system, and moons Titan, 

Hyperion Mimas and Rhea Uranus; and the planet Neptune. I was struck by something that all of these images have in common. They were obtained by nuclear powered spacecraft. These fantastic pictures that we take for granted in our textbooks 

would not have been possible without nuclear power. At these far distances from 

the sun, solar power is impractical. The sun is merely another star in the dark night 

of space. Only nuclear powered spacecraft can sail these distant oceans of space. 

The enormous potential of space propulsion, based on nuclear fission, has been 

recognized since the earliest days of the space program. The United States has 

flown only one system using nuclear propulsion in space—the SNAP–10A in 1965. 

Since the mid-1960s, all U.S. activities have concentrated on ground-based, preflight technology programs, such as NERVA in the 1960s and SP–100 in the 1980s. 

NASA recently renewed its interest in nuclear propulsion by initiating Project Prometheus, a broad program aimed at near- and long-term applications of nuclear propulsion. One part of the program involves the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO), 

a proposed mission to perform extensive investigation of Jupiter’s icy Galilean 

moons—Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. Featuring a nuclear electric propulsion 

system, the JIMO spacecraft will be capable of far more sophisticated scientific 

measurements and data communications than any of today’s deep space missions. 

At Lockheed Martin, we are proud of our pioneering history in both nuclear powered spacecraft and planetary exploration. We have played a significant role in 

every U.S. mission to the planets and moons of our solar systems. Those missions 

include Viking, Voyager, Magellan, Cassini, Mars Global Surveyor, 2001 Mars Odyssey, Genesis and Stardust to name just a few. For almost half a century, we have 

been pioneers in using nuclear power for space exploration. From the very first Radioisotope space power system developed under the Eisenhower Atoms for Peace 

Program in 1959 at the Glen L. Martin plant in Middle River, Baltimore, to the first 

launch of a nuclear powered system SNAP-9a on the Navy’s Transit Satellite in 

1961, we have played an important role. We have served as the Nation’s supplier 

of every space nuclear power system for the last quarter century. Every one of those 

24 

systems is safe and reliable. The first of these missions, Voyager I, is in its 25th 

year of operation. 

This is an impressive history of reliability and safety, but the basic technology has 

barely changed in almost fifty years and it is inadequate for future space exploration. These systems provide no more than a few hundred watts of electrical energy 

to power spacecraft systems and scientific instruments, enough to power only a 

handful of light bulbs. 

NASA’s Project Prometheus promises a revolutionary increase in power and a 

transformation of our ability to explore our Solar System. Prometheus missions will 

utilize a small, compact 55-gallon drum-sized reactor that will supply not just a few 

hundred watts of power but over 100,000 watts of power. It will transform the operational and science-gathering abilities of future spacecraft much like nuclear powered submarines have transformed the ability to traverse the seas. Project Prometheus will provide revolutionary improvements in a spacecraft’s capabilities in 

terms of propulsion, power for science instruments, and power for increased bandwidth to bring the data back to Earth. 

For illustration, just six water glasses filled with nuclear fuel are able to provide 

more propulsive energy than in all of the rockets that have been launched to date. 

This amount of fuel can power a spacecraft for multiple decades. This much power 

will enable space science undreamed of until Prometheus, and will provide the 

means to transmit staggering amounts of science data back to Earth. Imagine the 

possibilities. 

The New Horizon mission is an important mission being developed by NASA 

today to gather data about the planet Pluto, the only planet not yet explored by 

spacecraft and a high priority mission identified by the scientific community in the 

Decadal Survey. New Horizon uses today’s state-of-the-art chemical propulsion system. It will fly by Pluto after a 15-year journey in space and as it flies by the planet, 

it will have several hours to gather prime science and images of the planet’s surface. 

It does not have sufficient propulsion capability to enter orbit around Pluto or its 

moon, Charon. 

Now contrast that with the first Prometheus-enabled mission JIMO, the Jupiter 

Icy Moons Orbiter, which would be launched in 2011. Upon arrival at the Jupiter 

system, the JIMO spacecraft will spiral in to its first target—the jovian moon Europa. Using high-resolution science instruments, it will photograph the surface and 

perhaps using high power radar, it will probe beneath the ice to the liquid ocean 

below—an ocean where scientists hold high hopes that life may thrive. With the 

enormous increase in bandwidth made possible by increased power, the spacecraft 

will be able to transmit to Earth more science data in terms of pure volume than 

has been collected in the history of planetary exploration. Then we will power up 

the propulsion system and move to another moon and another and then another, 

and continue to send back the wealth of science data and images that it will acquire 

during each operation. 

Nuclear power in space is the difference. 

I did a simple calculation and found that over 99 percent of our solar system by 

volume cannot be explored without nuclear power. What we are talking about today, 

Mr. Chairman, is not whether we will develop new nuclear space power systems— 

but whether we will explore space. Because without nuclear propulsion and power 

systems developed by NASA’s Project Prometheus, we cannot truly explore and collect the volume of science data that we desire about our solar system much beyond 

Mars. We are talking about the need to move forward and revolutionize the ability 

to explore space. 

Mr. Chairman, Lockheed Martin is engaged with NASA on several levels that are 

of vital national interest. The Nuclear System Initiative and Project Prometheus are 

visionary, their ultimate development is essential, and the talent and experience to 

make them reality exists today. Today, we are greatly limited in our ability to explore space—even our own planet—because of the limited capabilities of spacecraft 

chemical propulsion systems and solar cell power generation systems. What chemical propulsion and solar cell power systems allow us to do today, versus what space 

nuclear power systems will enable us to do in the future, is very much like the difference between wind-powered Clipper ships versus today’s nuclear powered submarines. It is the difference between the past and the future. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we encourage you to strongly support the Nuclear System Initiative and Project Prometheus. As NASA has envisioned, Project Prometheus ‘‘includes substantial, long-term investments to develop 

advanced nuclear technologies that will expand NASA’s toolkit for solar system exploration, and could ultimately lead to human voyages to Mars and other destinations throughout the solar system.’’ As we enter the 21st century, we find the Europeans launching a mission to Mars, the Japanese launching a mission to an asterVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:38 Jan 03, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\27956.TXT JACKIE
25 

oid, the Chinese considering missions to the moon and the United States preparing 

to embark upon an entirely new journey of exploration. Project Prometheus will propel the next generation of American scientists and engineers toward discoveries beyond imagination and provide technological benefits to the Nation that go well beyond the exploration of planets and moons. When I help my future grandchildren 

study for their science tests, I hope to see new pictures and read of bold new discoveries in their textbooks. With your support and leadership, Project Prometheus will 

make that possible. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to thank you again for 

holding this important hearing today and for asking me to participate in it. I will 

be glad to respond to any questions you or members of the Committee may have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Crocker, very nicely put. 

Mr. Knauer, welcome here. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY KNAUER, PRESIDENT, 

SPACE PROPULSION AND RUSSIAN OPERATIONS, 

PRATT & WHITNEY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 

Mr. KNAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here today. I am Larry Knauer, President of Pratt & Whitney’s 

Space Propulsion and Russian Operations. 

Pratt & Whitney is a division of United Technologies Corporation. UTC is a high technology corporation delivering products and 

services in aerospace and building systems throughout the world. 

In addition to Pratt & Whitney, UTC’s companies include Carrier, 

Otis, UTC Fuel Cells, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Sikorsky. 

I am, indeed, pleased to be here today to speak for NASA’s bold 

new adventure into in-space propulsion with Project Prometheus. 

Over the last 40 years, as has been talked about, there has been 

little advancement in the area of in-space propulsion systems— 

chemical propulsion to get us to orbit, mostly chemical propulsion 

to get us around orbit, and some electric propulsion to do some 

transit and stationkeeping in orbit. That capability gives us a certain ability to meet certain mission requirements and certain 

needs. 

The in-space propulsion marketplace is a relatively small mar- ket, about $150 million total a year in in-space propulsion in the 

U.S. for all the satellites and NASA missions, et cetera. With that, 

there has been very little investment, obviously. From a like nature, at 6 percent, that is roughly $10 million a year that the company would invest in this area. 

Without some investment to continue and provide expansion of 

that technology, it is unlikely that there is a motive to do so. NonU.S. companies have been funded to expand that capability and, in 

some cases, have surpassed U.S. capability in in-space propulsion. 

The benefits of in-space propulsion have been demonstrated for 

advanced electric propulsion systems. It would allow us, as demonstrated with ion propulsion systems in current spacecraft, to 

save thousands of pounds of payload or extend the life of a spacecraft. 

The issue with bringing new technologies to the marketplace is, 

quite often, a cost-benefit ratio. To bring a new technology to the 

satellite industry, the commercial satellite industry, requires, obviously, for you to overcome the insurance-cost issues. Today’s marketplace, for us to bring a new technology—for example, a $1 million new electric propulsion system to a satellite company—may 

cost the company that is launching the satellite 20 million in insurVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:38 Jan 03, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27956.TXT JACKIE
26 

ance costs alone. With that kind of cost differential, the benefit 

ratio of the new technologies has not been able to enter the marketplace. Therefore, it is important that we have initiatives like 

Project Prometheus, to give us those initial places to prove out 

these technologies so they can be used in other commercial applications for the future. 

As I said earlier, the benefits of new propulsion have been demonstrated quite successfully using solar systems—solar-cell-driven 

systems that run ion thrusters today. Those systems are relatively 

low thrust and provide good capability for stationkeeping, but not 

much else. 

Advances in propulsion systems, such as Hall effect thrusters, 

MEPs, and other systems, have demonstrated the ability to satisfy, 

with the same 25-kilowatt power systems available today with 

solar systems, ability to shorten durations or to decrease the mass 

load substantially to the satellite by some 2,000 pounds. 

Today, if you tried to move a satellite using today’s electric-ion 

propulsion, from low Earth to its final geosynchronous position, it 

might take 6 months. With the newer technologies, the Hall effect 

thrusters, MEPs, those kinds of thrusters, it would take, like, 60 

days with today’s systems. Now, keep in mind that is moving a satellite roughly 20,000 miles. As you heard earlier, we are talking 

about needing to move 40-million-plus miles. 

So thrust, as well as ISP, are both very, very important. And 

what Project Prometheus will work is increasing the power level, 

which allows you to raise the thrust level. Today, proportional, 25 

kilowatts to 100 kilowatts, would give you four times the thrust capability. That gives you four times acceleration, with today’s systems. That will be good for interplanetary transition of unoccupied 

spacecraft. So robotic missions to the outer planets, it would be 

perfect. You need 100 kilowatts of power when you get there for 

the science missions. You can take advantage of that power along 

the way and accelerate the mission and get there in a quicker time 

period. 

In the future, though, you want to be able to transition at a 

quicker pace than the straight electric-propulsion systems that we 

are talking about today. So in addition to the nuclear work being 

done on Prometheus, things like the VASIMR Project, which we 

heard about earlier, are needed to extend the next generation. Direct thermal, bimodal-type propulsion systems, need to be explored 

so that the excess heat that you heard about earlier that needs to 

be radiated to the atmosphere—or, to the—I am sorry, into space— 

can be used to generate thrust along the way, thereby accelerating 

the mission. 

So it is a complex interrelationship between mass, thrust, and 

ISP. Efficiency is great; but if it does not move you very fast, you 

can be really efficient but not get to where you want to get to in 

a timely manner. 

So Prometheus is a great first step, moving us in the direction 

we need to go. We need the power levels when we get to the destinations to do the type of science missions we should do, and it 

gives us the ability to do the demonstration of the electric systems 

we need for the long-duration flights. 

27 

So we strongly support NASA’s initiative and endeavors to go 

make that happen. We believe it is time to do that. We support the 

comments made by my friends at Lockheed, as well as NASA, on 

the importance of human space and human space transportation, 

as well as exploration, and how important that is to all of us and 

our school children and in creating the emphasis of importance of 

science and exploration to all of us. 

We appreciate your support, and I look forward to supporting you 

as we go forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knauer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY KNAUER, PRESIDENT OF SPACE PROPULSION AND

RUSSIAN OPERATIONS, PRATT & WHITNEY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Mr. Chairman, Senator Breaux and other members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Larry Knauer, President of Pratt & Whitney’s Space Propulsion and Russian Operations in West Palm Beach, Florida. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of space propulsion. 

As you are aware, Pratt & Whitney is a division of United Technologies Corporation. UTC provides high-technology products and services to the aerospace and 

building systems industries throughout the world. In addition to Pratt & Whitney, 

UTC’s industry-leading companies are Carrier, Otis, UTC Fuel Cells, Hamilton 

Sundstrand and Sikorsky. 

Current Investment in Space Propulsion 

Our estimates of this market, over the last 20 years, indicate that domestic an- nual sales of in-space propulsion have been less than $150 million per year. Also, 

industry and government respectively have invested less than $10 million per year, 

and only a small amount of government funding has been available to industry 

through contracts. As a result, the non-U.S. space industry has overtaken and in 

some cases surpassed the United States in the area of in-space propulsion. 

Every satellite launched utilizes several types of in-space propulsion and the benefits of improvements are great. The introduction of electric propulsion to satellites 

could allow over 2,000 pounds of extra payload, or years of extra life on station. 

Although the potential pay-off for in-space propulsion technology is great, one 

major reason for low industry investment has been insurance cost, which is typically 

prohibitively high in the risk-averse space industry. In some cases the insurance 

premium can be an additional 20 percent of the total launch cost, if it can be obtained at all. A change in a $1M to $3M propulsion system can add enough risk 

to raise the insurance premium as much as $20M. Therefore, it is important that 

new in-space propulsion systems be initially proven on government systems. After 

the technology has been successfully flight proven, incorporation into commercial 

systems can proceed with acceptable insurance premiums. 

Need for a Robust Space Propulsion Program 

A robust in-space propulsion technology program will ready the technologies for 

transition into the commercial marketplace and achieve revolutionary improvements 

in space exploration capability. As a nation, we will continue our exploration of the 

solar system, and eventually undertake manned exploration of Mars, when the time 

and technology are right. During this process, in-space propulsion will mature and 

transition to the commercial market. NASA has recently reaffirmed the historical 

reality that propulsion breakthroughs have been and continue to be the basis for 

revolutionary improvements in exploration capability. 

To date, the benefits of electric in-space propulsion have been demonstrated on 

several spacecraft, but have been limited by the power generated to drive them. The 

maximum power available has been less than 25 KWe and gives a spacecraft great 

station keeping weight reduction using ion ‘‘ZIP’’ thrusters. The thrust levels of 

these systems are so low that station keeping is all they have been able to provide. 

If you attempted to use one of these systems for final orbit circularization it would 

take as long as 6 months to get the satellite to its final destination. Recent improvement in Hall effect thrusters, HET’s, have shown the potential to reduce the transfer time to 60 days with 25 KWe power sources. Other technology breakthroughs, 

which are in development could significantly improve this capability. Raising an 

orbit some 20,000 miles with today’s on orbit electric propulsion takes months; 

40,000,000 miles to our nearest planetary neighbor requires even more efficiency 

and thrust. 

28 

Nuclear electric propulsion, as embodied by project Prometheus, is a bold and courageous step in expanding our exploration capability. Project Prometheus will develop the 100 KWe power system, including the reactor, space radiator system and 

power electric thrusters needed for small payload delivery to the outer planets. Once 

on station (not just flying by), the same power system will enable robust and longterm science vastly expanding our knowledge and enabling us to bring the wonders 

of the solar system back to planet Earth. 

Beyond Prometheus, as a nation we should consider continued investment in inspace propulsion to significantly reduce the cost and risk of manned Mars exploration. Small investments toward this end can provide avenues to reduce the cost 

by 30 to 50 percent, when we begin this exciting journey. As with Prometheus, these 

investments will also provide high leverage in-space commercial benefits along the 

way. 

Desired Features of Future Systems 

Technical features of future in-space propulsion systems include: 

High specific impulse (i.e., fuel mileage) reduces the fuel mass of the vehicle departing earth orbit. 

• This reduces requirements for the earth to orbit launcher, therefore reducing 

launch costs. 

• The lighter earth departure mass is also much easier to accelerate to its final 

destination. 

Thrust: 

• Acceleration depends mostly on thrust and is needed to reduce trip time to 

distant destinations. 

• Passive propulsion systems, such as solar sails, lack this key feature and are 

also dependent upon the direction of the ‘‘solar-wind’’ and are therefore limited in their application. 

Optimized combination of thrust and specific impulse: 

• Historically, weight growth and cost growth have been problems for new 

space systems. 

• The initial system weight must be kept low on a percentage basis such that 

small weight growth, inevitable during development, does not negate the payload capability of the system. 

• The complexity must be minimized to enable reliable deployment and operation of the system. 

Challenges for In-Space Propulsion 

Considering these guidelines, expanding Prometheus capability for manned Mars 

exploration will provide additional in-space propulsion challenges. Although the 

power levels needed for the astronauts’ welfare and safety remains at 100 KWe or 

below, the power levels needed for the electric propulsion system will grow by one 

or two orders of magnitude, due to the heavier increased payloads. While the scaling 

of the Prometheus reactor would be relatively straightforward, as demonstrated by 

our Navy ship and submarine experience, the scaling of the supporting subsystems 

will present major challenges. Of particular concern are the scaling and space logistics involved in the launching and deployment of the space radiator system. This 

massive subsystem is needed to reject the excess heat of the electrical power conversion system. Also, scaling of Prometheus will limit the initial reliability to be that 

of a ‘‘new’’ system, as the tried-and-true power conversion systems and electric 

thrusters must be reinvented in a much larger size. 

Additional In-Space Propulsion Ideas/Technologies 

An alternative to rejecting the excess system heat for the more demanding 

manned Mars missions would be to convert this ‘‘lost’’ energy into direct thermal 

thrust using a bimodal nuclear propulsion system. A bimodal nuclear propulsion 

system leverages the best of current propulsion systems in addition to the systems 

to be matured during project Prometheus. A bimodal nuclear reactor would be configured to provide ∼15Klb of direct thermal thrust during earth departure then reduce the power level to the 100 KWe level needed for the astronauts’ welfare and 

safety during the mission and to support the electric propulsion needs after earth 

departure. This approach would avoid the need to develop space radiator systems, 

which are potentially unmanageable. It would also allow the direct use of the 100 

KWe power conversion and electric thruster systems that will be flight proven during Prometheus operation. 

29 

Bimodal systems were seriously considered to satisfy the nearer term exploration 

missions, but suffered from a lack of maturity in area of the required reactor fuels. 

Although fuel solutions exist, based on breakthrough fuel development near the end 

of the 1960s NERVA nuclear propulsion program, the cost and schedule risks to the 

Prometheus program were considered to be too high. 

In order for a bimodal system to be considered for the Mars exploration mission 

a relatively low cost fuels development program could be pursued, in parallel with 

the Prometheus program, to increase its maturity. 

Additional in-space propulsion technologies needed for Mars exploration are those 

that support in-situ propellant utilization. Lewis and Clark would not have completed their mission if they had to carry water for themselves and their propulsion 

(horses) for the whole trip. They knew water would be available along the way. 

Similarly, in-situ propulsion systems for robust space exploration should be aggressively developed. In-situ propulsion systems are designed to use earth-return 

propellants acquired after reaching the desired destination. This approach avoids 

the need to carry earth-return-propellants into and then out of earth orbit to the 

desired destination. Recent strong indications of water on both the moon and Mars 

elevate this in-situ approach from the category of science fiction to the category of 

science reality. 

Of particular interest is methane/oxygen propulsion technology. Methane (CH4) 

and oxygen (O2) can be manufactured from the water (H2O) and the carbon dioxide 

(CO2) atmosphere of Mars. Full utilization of this approach can reduce the required 

mission mass and therefore the cost by over fifty percent, once again highlighting 

the high payoff that can be reaped from in-space propulsion improvements. 

Conclusion 

This committee’s interest in in-space propulsion technologies will encourage government and industry cooperation in this field. Government and private sector commitments of investment and resources will accelerate the development of technical 

advances, while reducing the cost and risk of deployment. Future space explorers 

will travel on systems developed and funded as a result of decisions made by our 

government and industry leaders today. Pratt & Whitney is ready to be a part of 

those decisions and those commitments. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Knauer. Mr. Sietzen, thank 

you for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK SIETZEN, JR., PRESIDENT, 

SPACE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SIETZEN. Senator Brownback, on behalf of the Space Transportation Association, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation for this opportunity to come before you today to discuss the 

future of the U.S. space-propulsion industry and leadership in this 

crucial field. 

Space propulsion, be it in boosters, upper stages, or in-space systems, forms the backbone of U.S. access to space. The central objective of our space program and policy should be assured low-cost access to space, for every goal that the President and the Congress 

may set for the space program will require it. 

A robust space-propulsion industry makes such access possible. 

To reinvigorate both the industry and space launch, the Space 

Transportation Association urges the establishment of a series of 

strategic goals, comprehensive partnerships, and technology investments. Although STA is the only trade association solely focused on 

launch and propulsion issues, we are not alone in urging this national priority. John Douglas, of the Aerospace Industry’s Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Institute of 

Aeronautics and Astronautics, and other groups, have called for 

new space transportation polices and initiatives. To quote Robert 

Walker, the Chair of last year’s U.S. Aerospace Commission, ‘‘It is 

time for a call to arms.’’ 

30 

To set us on a renewed course for access to space, STA recommends, for consideration, the following steps. First, the establishment of new strategic goals for breakthrough leap-ahead technologies that both challenge the industry and improve U.S. access 

to space for all civil, military, and commercial users. These improvements should include Earth-to-orbit, on-orbit, and in-space 

propulsion systems. Every technological path, from chemical rockets to antimatter propulsion, should be investigated. These breakthrough technological goals should yield systems that are of an 

order of magnitude cheaper and more reliable than existing designs. 

Second, it should be a goal of this strategic plan for space propulsion to substantially reduce the transit time to send humans and 

cargoes from Earth orbit to other destinations in the solar system. 

Third, the U.S. should establish a long-term partnership between 

NASA and the Defense Department to fund research to support our 

strategic objectives. Such research should strengthen the U.S. industrial base, as well as create a family of space systems that can 

be widely exploited. As one element of such a sustainment program, the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology 

Initiative, also known as IHPRPT, should become a national priority and be fully funded annually. 

Fourth, NASA, the Air Force, and DARPA should jointly flightdemonstrate and, thus, mature the technologies needed for future 

advanced space launch vehicles and engines. 

In summary, the most effective way Congress and the Administration can assist the launch and propulsion industry would be 

through clear strategic goals and priorities, consistent and sustained funding for research, and a continuous dialogue with industry leaders and their representatives. 

I would like to close with a historical analogy, if I may. When 

President Kennedy came before the Congress, some 42 years ago 

this spring, to propose the lunar landing goal, this country had a 

total of 15 minutes and 20 seconds of experience in human space 

flight. But it did have a series of advanced propulsion systems in 

upper stages in development, including the Saturn C–1 rocket that 

was the first of the Saturns to fly. All of these propulsion systems 

were not developed by NASA. They were created by the Army and 

the Air Force as part of a strategic development program for space 

propulsion. Without those engines and stages, with names like H– 

1, F–1, J–2, RL–10, Agena, and Centaur—I think I have gotten 

them all right, there, Byron—Kennedy’s goal could not have been 

achieved. 

Just as those who came before us had the vision and determination to develop advanced space systems, so should we, in our own 

time; for such systems will not only open up access to space for ourselves, our children and theirs, but for the unborn generations of 

young Americans yet to come. That can serve not only as our vision, but our destiny, as well. 

Again, I am very grateful for the opportunity to come before you 

today and look forward to attempting to answer any of your questions. But I give you a cautionary tale, I am the only non-rocketscientist in front of you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sietzen follows:] 

31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK SIETZEN, JR., PRESIDENT, 

SPACE TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

Chairman Brownback, Senator Breaux, and members of the Subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Space Transportation Association, I would like to express my 

thanks and appreciation for this opportunity to come before you today to discuss the 

future of the U.S. space propulsion industry and leadership in this critical national 

field of endeavor. 

Space propulsion, be it in boosters, upper stages, or in-space systems, is the backbone of U.S. access to space. 

The objective of U.S. space transportation policy should be to assure that access 

to space for all U.S. civil, military, and commercial users. The STA believes that 

this can be accomplished by development and operation of a robust combination of 

advanced reusable and expendable space launch systems, engines, and propulsion 

technologies. Such systems should share a maximum of common user interfaces, and 

be designed to substantially reduce the cost and complexity of space launch over today’s existing systems, while increasing safety and reliability in operations. We at 

STA believe that assured access to space via this combination of systems is essential 

to the national security and economic interests of the United States. To advance this 

objective, STA recommends for consideration the following: 

To reinvigorate the U.S. space propulsion and launch technology industrial 

base, a series of strategic goals for specific breakthrough, leap-ahead technologies should be implemented. These goals should both challenge the industry 

and provide a basis for future space flight programs in near-Earth space, beyond earth orbit, and for flight by both robotic probes and humans throughout 

the Solar System. 

As suggested by the U.S. Aerospace Commission, such goals could include: 

• The capability to process and launch payloads upon demand, driven by national 

security or special civil space developments. 

• Breakthrough propulsion systems for both ascent and in-orbit operations that 

are of an order of magnitude cheaper and more reliable than existing expendable or reusable rocket engines and thrusters. 

• Development of space launch facilities that reduce launch preparation time and 

increase launch opportunities for a variety of payloads. 

• Substantially reduce the transit time to send missions from Earth orbit to other 

destinations in the Solar System. 

The United States should commit to a continuous, long-term development program to produce next-generation advanced space propulsion systems for sub-orbital, 

Earth-to-orbit, and on-orbit flight operations. Such a program should be fully funded 

annually, include NASA, Defense Department and commercial requirements, and 

supplement existing programs such as SLI, NAI and IHPRPT. Such a development 

program should strengthen the U.S. industrial base as well as reduce cost, risk, and 

increase the reliability of space propulsion systems and technologies in the 21st 

Century. 

As one element of such a sustained program, the Integrated High Payoff Rocket 

Technology Program (IHPRPT) should be fully funded. The IHPRPT project, begun 

in FY94, set as its main objective a series of specific performance improvements in 

both liquid and solid rocket propulsion. The overarching goal was to achieve a doubling of rocket performance by 2010. The program was constructed to be a partnership that included NASA, the Air Force, Army, Navy, and industry. To date, however, funding targets have only been achieved by the Air Force and industry. To accomplish its many technological goals, IHPRPT must be given both full funding as 

originally proposed when the program began, as well as a priority within the U.S. 

civil and military space research budgets. But IHPRPT should be only one element 

of a robust and sustained program to develop advanced launch and propulsion systems. 

The USAF and DARPA should be directed to work with NASA to jointly demonstrate and mature the technologies required for any advanced launch vehicles developed through either the SLI or NAI programs. These technology risk reduction 

efforts should be addressed in an incremental fashion to minimize cost. 

The USAF, FAA AST, and state governments should be tasked to develop a plan 

for the future direction and control of national space launch ranges. This plan 

should be consistent with the recommendations of the 2000 Defense Science Board 

Task Force report on Air Force Space Launch Facilities; specifically: 

32 

A. Development of a vision for national space launch ranges 

B. An improved operational approach for national launch sites 

C. Centralization of planning and operational functions for space launch ranges 

D. Establish an enhanced public-private partnership for space launch ranges 

E. Development of a long-range plan for technology enhancements and architecture configurations for space launch ranges. 

In summary, the most effective way the Congress and the administration can assist the space launch and propulsion industries would be through clear national 

space policy goals and objectives, consistent and adequate funding for research and 

development, and a regular dialog with industry leaders and their representatives. 

My thanks for the opportunity to come before you today, and I look forward to 

answering any questions that you may have. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well, this is rocket science we are talking 

about. 

You know, I am sitting up here, and I am just stunned to think 

Kennedy made the proposal, the call, to go to the Moon 42 years 

ago. That is almost as old as I am. And we are using the same 

tech—that is a bit of a frustration. 

Mr. Wood, thank you for joining us here today, and I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BYRON WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT 

AND GENERAL MANAGER, BOEING ROCKETDYNE 

PROPULSION AND POWER 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Please accept my written statement for the record. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It is. 

Mr. WOOD. I am Byron Wood, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Rocketdyne. I would like to thank you for taking 

time out of your busy schedule to look into a matter that I consider 

to have potentially dire consequences for the national security of 

the United States and the future of our civil space program. That 

is the failing health of the propulsion industry in the United 

States. 

America is on the verge of losing the capability to develop and 

produce liquid-propulsion rocket systems. And once gone, this will 

be a very difficult capability to reconstitute. 

For over 50 years, Rocketdyne has been a world leader in rocket 

propulsion systems and space power systems. We have over 1,500 

launches to our credit. I, personally, have spent the better part of 

my career working in this area, and I have never seen the industry 

in a more precarious position. 

If you refer to my first attached chart, you will see the erosion 

trend of our human capital. We are falling below the critical mass 

of skills needed to meet national security and civil space goals 

when we are called upon to do so in the future. 

What has caused this dire situation? There are many contributing causes. The crash of the commercial launch market is one, 

and the market left has been seized by foreign competition. 

If you refer to my second chart, you will see that on a rocketengine basis, instead of launch basis, the United States accounts 

for only 14 percent of the engine market. The Russians account for 

over 60 percent, followed by the Europeans, at 18 percent. America 

is rapidly losing its leadership in space. 

33 

In reference to my third chart, America needs a vision for the future of all space. Great nations do great things. What are the great 

things in the future for America? 

China will semd a man into orbit, maybe this year. China has 

openly stated they are aiming for the moon in the not-too-distant 

future. What is the future in space for the United States? 

One area where NASA has developed a vision is for the exploration of the Solar System. Project Prometheus will develop advanced radioisotope systems for Mars landers and nuclear-power 

systems to fly on the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, JIMO. This vision 

is exactly what this country and our space industry needs. 

I commend Administrator O’Keefe for the high priority he has 

placed on this program and the staunch support he continues to 

give it as NASA recovers from the Columbia tragedy. I also commend the Members of this Congress for having the vision to add 

funding to the NASA 2003 appropriations bill to jumpstart the 

JIMO program. This is the kind of inspiration we need in the space 

program. 

But where is the vision for space, including the vicinity of our 

own planet? We must get the shuttle flying again. There is no 

other way to complete the space station, which is our gateway to 

move beyond low-Earth orbit. But where do we go from there? 

NASA is funding propulsion technologies under the Next Generation Launch Technology Program. And the Air Force is funding activities under the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology Program. But both of these programs are seriously underfunded. 

Secretary Rumsfeld led a Commission prior to his current post 

which identified many areas where the DOD needed to move forward to ensure they maintained the high ground of space. Dr. 

Sega, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, has proposed a national aerospace initiative. These efforts represent a vision of the future for military space. But The Armed Services have 

been slow to embrace them and loathe to invest in them. This is 

not the way America maintains its leadership in space. 

So what can the Congress do to help avert this crisis? First, continue your strong support for Project Prometheus. This is the kind 

of activity that inspires not just our current work force, but our 

workforce of the future. Second, we need a national debate on the 

future of our space programs, both civil and military. We need to 

clearly identify where we want to go and move out. 

America is a great country and can do anything it wants to do 

once it makes up its mind to do it. Unfortunately, we have a problem making up our minds. Propulsion is the long pole in the tent 

for any new space program. And while we debate our direction, we 

need to maintain our competency for future propulsion needs before 

we lose it completely. 

To achieve this, I recommend the Committee endorse an increased budget for the NASA Next Generation Launch Technology 

Program, which must be expanded to provide a complete cadre of 

rocket technologies and rocket-systems development. Also, while I 

realize it is not within the jurisdiction of this Committee, I urge 

you to work with your colleagues to see that the National AeroVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:38 Jan 03, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27956.TXT JACKIE
34 

space Initiative receives the funding necessary to proceed as Dr. 

Sega envisions it. 

Dr. Wernher von Braun was fond of saying, ‘‘Who will control the 

oceans of space?’’ I have been disappointed in my career, in that 

we had Americans walking on the moon in the 1960s, but have not 

seen them return or go beyond. Now I believe I will see people 

again on the moon, but they will speak Chinese. Where will America be when this happens? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BYRON WOOD, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

BOEING ROCKETDYNE PROPULSION AND POWER

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for taking time from your busy schedules to look into a matter that I consider to have potentially dire consequences for the national security of the United States and the 

future of our civil space program—that is the failing health of the propulsion industry in the United States. America is on the verge of losing the capability to develop 

and produce liquid propulsion rocket systems—and, once gone, this will be a very 

difficult capability to re-constitute. 

For over 50 years, Rocketdyne has been a world leader in liquid rocket propulsion 

systems and space power systems. We have over 1,500 launches to our credit with 

our engines for the Space Shuttle, Delta, and Atlas systems, and their predecessors, 

and I, personally, have spent the better part of my career, working in this area. I 

have never seen the industry in a more precarious position. We have three major 

liquid propulsion companies in the United States, and not enough work to keep even 

one healthy. Frankly, all three of us are on the verge of going out of business. If 

you refer to the first chart I have attached, you will see the erosion of our human 

capital over the last several years at Rocketdyne. This is typical of the entire industry. We are falling below the critical mass of skills needed to meet national security 

and civil space goals when we are called upon to do so in the future. 

What has caused this dire situation? There are many contributing causes. The 

crash of the commercial launch market due to oversupply of on orbit telecommunications satellites has been a major contributor. And the market that is left has been 

seized by foreign competition. 

If you refer to my second chart, you will see that, on an engine basis instead of 

a launch basis, the United States accounts for only 14 percent of the launch market. 

The Russians account for over 60 percent, followed by the Europeans. 

America is rapidly losing its leadership in space. 

In reference to my third chart, America has lost its vision for the future of space. 

Great nations do great things—What are the great things in the future forAmerica? 

China plans to orbit a human, maybe this year. China has openly stated that they 

are aiming for the moon, in the not too distant future. What is the future in space 

for the United States? 

One area where NASA has developed a great vision is in the exploration of the 

outer planets. Project Prometheus, to develop advanced radioisotope systems to fly 

first on the Mars 2009 lander, and to develop a nuclear propulsion system to fly 

first on the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO), represents the kind of vision in taking a great leap forward that is exactly what this country, and our space industry, 

needs. The nuclear propulsion system will allow exploratory probes to actually enter 

orbit around distant bodies, allowing the science community the time they need to 

do detailed exploration, instead of grabbing what information they can get from a 

rapid fly-by. The high power levels, once there, will allow whole new areas of scientific exploration to open up, such as active radar investigations, and will also 

allow significantly higher levels of data to be transmitted to Earth. The isotope 

power systems will allow the exploratory rover on the Mars surface to operate for 

years, as opposed to the weeks achieved by its predecessor powered by solar cells. 

I commend Administrator O’Keefe for the high priority he has placed on this program, and the staunch support he continues to give it as NASA tries to recover from 

the Columbia tragedy. I also commend the Members of this Congress for having the 

vision to add funding to NASA’s FY 2003 Appropriation Bill to jump start the JIMO 

program. This is the kind of inspiration we need in the space program. This inspires 

people of all ages. I have retirees knocking on my door wanting to come back to 

35 

work on this program. And it is also visionary programs like this that will provide 

the inspiration for our young people to enter the science and engineering fields. 

But where is the vision for the U.S. for space in the vicinity of our own planet? 

We must get the shuttle flying again, there is no other way to complete the space 

station, which is our gateway to move beyond low earth orbit. But where do we go 

from there? 

NASA is funding propulsion technologies for next generation vehicles under their 

Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) program, and the Air Force is funding 

similar activities under the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology 

(IHPRPT) Program, but both of these programs are seriously underfunded. DOD 

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led a commission prior to his current post which identified many areas where DOD needed to move forward to ensure they maintained the 

high ground of space. Dr. Ron Sega, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE), has proposed the National Aerospace Initiative. Both of these efforts 

represent a vision of the future for military space, but the services have been slow 

to embrace these visions, and loathe to invest in them. The situation has become 

so serious, that your fellow Senators on the Armed Services Committee, in their recent report accompanying the FY04 Defense Authorization Bill, noted that the 

USAF requested more funding for biological research than for propulsion research, 

which the Committee noted they felt should be a high priority within the Air Force. 

This is not the way America maintains its leadership in space. 

So, what can the Congress be doing to help avert this crisis? 

First—continue your strong support for Project Prometheus. This is the kind of 

activity that inspires not just our current workforce, but our workforce of the future. 

This will take us to new frontiers in space. 

Second—continue the national debate on the future of our space programs, both 

civil and military. We need to clearly identify where we want to go and move out. 

America is a great country and can do anything it wants to do, once it makes up 

its mind to do it, and that is where we have a problem. Propulsion is usually the 

long pole in the tent for any new space programs. While we debate our direction, 

we need to maintain our competency for future propulsion needs, before we lose it 

completely. 

To achieve this, I recommend that the Committee endorse increased budget for 

the NASA Next Generation Launch Technology program, which must be expanded 

to provide a complete cadre of technologies and systems development for a new reusable space transportation system. 

Also, while I realize it is not within the jurisdiction of this committee, I urge you 

to work with your colleagues to see that the Defense Department’s National Aerospace Initiative receives the funding necessary to proceed as Dr. Sega envisions it, 

which is significantly more than requested in the FY04 budget request. 

Dr. Werner von Braun was fond of saying: ‘‘Who will control the oceans of space?’’ 

I have been somewhat disappointed in my career in that we had Americans walking 

on the moon in the 1960s, but I will not live to see people return to the moon or 

go beyond. Now, I believe I will see people on the moon in my lifetime, but they 

will speak Chinese. Where will America be when this happens? 

Thank you. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Well put. Starkly put. 

Mr. Wood, let me start with you, if I could. You present very 

striking numbers. The United States accounts for only 14 percent 

of the launch market. Russia accounts for 60 percent, followed by 

the Europeans. Why? Why are others more competitive at this than 

we are? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, the Russians, of course, bring a broad background and many propulsion systems left from the cold war. And 

because of the low cost of developing and pursuing and manufacturing propulsion systems in the former Soviet Union, they are 

able to attract the world market at low cost. And the United States 

has not kept pace in all of this. And so, consequently, they have 

continued and will continue to dominate the industry, in terms of 

rocket propulsion systems sold, rocket propulsion systems developed, and where we are in the future. 

36 

Senator BROWNBACK. So rocket propulsion systems become a 

commodity, and they are the least-cost producer? Is that what I am 

to—— 

Mr. WOOD. That is correct. 

Senator BROWNBACK. By some significant factor, is it substantially cheaper to launch out of Russia than it is the United States 

or Europe? 

Mr. WOOD. Not significantly, necessarily, to launch, but the cost 

of the propulsion systems themselves, because of the fact that a 

dollar in Russia buys a whole lot more than a dollar does in the 

United States, that they continue to enjoy the higher ground with 

respect to producing that hardware. 

Senator BROWNBACK. What will it take to change this and to get 

the U.S. share of the market growing again? 

Mr. WOOD. As I said in my testimony, I think it is essential that 

the U.S. Government invest at a rate that is commensurate with 

developing rocket propulsion systems that will match that challenge. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But what we are talking about here, are 

chemical launch systems that the Russians are using now. 

Mr. WOOD. That is correct. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And you were talking mostly about losing 

the industry, we need a national aerospace initiative, support for 

Project Prometheus, which is in-space propulsion systems. 

Mr. WOOD. Well, the one thing we have to remember, Mr. Chairman, is that we certainly need the nuclear capability for Prometheus-type missions. We need to explore the Solar System and 

explore the universe. But the capability to do that is more about 

power than it is about propulsion. And because it is more about 

power, it is a lot to do with the up-mass, to put it—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. OK. 

Mr. WOOD.—outside the Earth’s gravitational field in the first 

place. OK, we may have a lot of aspirations to go many places in 

the Solar System, but if we do not have the capability to take it 

to space first, and we do not have the capability to support all of 

the other missions in which liquid propulsion does play a very significant role, we take a second-place position in the world. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Wood, and I want to ask the rest of the 

panelists this, have we under-invested in our future in aerospace? 

Is that the root of the problem, and not being critical of Republicans, Democrats, anything, but have we just, as a country, underinvested in space programs to maintain a leadership and a forward 

vision? 

Mr. WOOD. Absolutely. I could not say it any clearer than as you 

state. 

Senator BROWNBACK. By a substantial factor have we under-invested? 

Mr. WOOD. For example, in the last few years if you look at what 

has been invested in air-breathing jet engines versus rocket engines, it is a factor of three greater. And recognize that rocket engines operate in more extreme environments over a much broader 

range of requirements and capabilities and demands and so on and 

so forth. So just simple mathematics comparing other propulsion 

37 

systems that we have today says that we are under-invested by at 

least a factor of three. 

Senator BROWNBACK. What if we had adequately invested—and 

this is a hypothetical and there may not be an easy answer at all— 

but what if we had adequately invested? Where would we be, or 

could we be, now in the space program? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think it is a matter of having invested across 

the total spectrum of the requirements for propulsing, including 

nuclear. As Dr. Weiler mentioned in his testimony, we sort of went 

away from investing in nuclear kinds of things many, many years 

ago. It actually had a bad name. I think if we had stayed with that 

program, as we had envisioned in the 1980s and early 1990s, we 

may very well have a Prometheus-type probe available to fly today 

and could start that science today. If we had commensurately invested in the kinds of propulsion systems to launch those payloads 

in parallel to that, we would be in a position of being able to put 

a high-power nuclear electric payload in a trajectory that would 

take it to Jupiter’s moons right now. 

Mr. SIETZEN. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the two shuttle accidents, separated by 17 years apart—the Challenger in 1986, Columbia this year—and you look at the launch initiatives that took 

place during that 17 years, you would have begun with the X–30 

NASP program, which was a very ambitious program begun in 

1986 by President Reagan. It was called the Orient Express. It was 

going to yield a single stage to orbit from a runway takeoff into 

orbit and back again. Millions of dollars were invested in that system, both by industry and the government, and the program was 

terminated. 

Next came the DCX, which was going to be a launch vehicle for 

the Brilliant Pebbles Strategic Defense Initiative. Millions of dollars were spent on the technology demonstrator. At least that vehicle flew in the atmosphere. And because of the failure of a $1.50 

bolt, the vehicle toppled over and exploded. That program was so 

tightly budgeted, there were no additional spare parts, and that 

program was terminated. 

The X–33 was going to be a single-stage-to-orbit initiative in 

which both the government and industry spent millions of dollars. 

That vehicle got under assembly, began to have technological problems, and it, too, was terminated. Same thing was for the X–34. 

Same thing for the X–38 and other programs, called ALS and NLS, 

and space lifter. 

That 17-year period, if you added up all the money that the government and industry has spent on failed initiatives and on one 

single approach, you could probably have built a replacement vehicle for the shuttle. 

So when you look at recent history, just across 17 years, the government has never stabilized and addressed a single program 

through the technological development phase and seen it flight 

tested. The previous NASA administrator, Mr. Goldin, was fond of 

saying that he was going to darken the skies with X-vehicles to 

demonstrate these new launch technologies. And I would submit to 

you, in the 17 years that have elapsed, not a single technology 

demonstrator has ever been flown in space. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Knauer, where could we be right now? 

38 

Mr. KNAUER. We certainly could have made a lot of progress over 

the ensuing 30 years. If you take a look at history, the last major 

rocket propulsion system truly developed using new technology was 

the shuttle system in the 1970s. All systems since then, except for 

the excursion into NASP, where we did explore some new technology, have basically been based on the existing technology of the 

1960s, 1970s, even what we have done most recently today. 

So in that time period, there have been three new total rocket 

engines built by U.S. companies from 1970 until today. Byron mentioned the Russian investment. The Russians have built more than 

60. They have made an investment in that area. They have generated some capability that is far superior to ours in certain technologies of rocket propulsion, because of that investment. 

That technology is available to us, and we use it regularly, as 

mentioned earlier, on the Atlas V program. It is a great technology 

that does not require us to reinvent the wheel and pay for an investment in their technology that they are willing to share with us, 

and are sharing with us readily. 

Where we need to focus on is the future, the next generation. 

NAI is a great opportunity. The work that was done on NASP 

clearly laid the groundwork. The work being done today, with Dr. 

Sega, on the NAI initiative provides us with that next set of 

hypersonic propulsion systems. 

If you think about NASA’s initiative with OSP, flying on EELVs 

beginning in 2008 in demonstration, and then going operational in 

2010, with human-up capability in 2012, then the NAI initiative, 

if properly funded, will have demonstrated all the core technologies 

we need for a NASP-type vehicle, either single-stage or two-stageto-orbit. This will significantly reduce the cost and increase the reliability of the system going forward. 

Those type of investments clearly could be made and would allow 

us to make great leaps and advances in where we are going. Combining that with the on-orbit propulsion capability, as Project Prometheus will do, would move us a great distance. I think the key 

is not to duplicate work that has already been accomplished. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Crocker? 

Mr. CROCKER. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely encouraged by the 

direction that Prometheus is taking, because it is not just a technology program. It is a technology development program with a 

destination. 

JIMO gives a focus to this mission. It is a place we are going. 

Because of that, we can really build something that will meet the 

full requirements of the mission, from the systems that we need to 

launch Prometheus into space and escape the Earth’s gravitational 

field, all the way to the planet and to the moons. It is extremely 

important, and I think NASA is showing great vision here by identifying, early on for Prometheus, the first mission of JIMO. 

This really gives you the opportunity to look across the broad 

spectrum of technologies that are needed, from launch systems all 

the way through to the systems to propulse the system, and not 

just coast, as Dr. Weiler pointed out, to the science instruments 

that we will need to develop. 

You know, I had a meeting a while back with a number of scientists that I know at Johns Hopkins University, where I was emVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:38 Jan 03, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\27956.TXT JACKIE
39 

ployed for a number of years, and these scientists said, ‘‘You know, 

we really have to start rethinking the kind of science that we can 

do with nuclear-powered systems.’’ We are used to our instruments 

having a few hundred watts, basically something that would light 

up a few reading lamps in your room. And all of a sudden, we may 

have systems available that could have potentially tens of kilowatts. So we have to rethink the science that we can do, and we 

need to start doing that today, because the instruments themselves 

will be extremely different. 

So by having a mission, I think this is the vision that we need 

to lay out the capabilities, the technology development programs, 

from launch all the way to instruments, and that is extremely important not to focus on one small portion of the mission, but to look 

from end to end to understand the capabilities that are required. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You know, the question that just leaps out 

at all this, and I just—I do not understand it, and maybe you will 

be able to get it in understandable form for me. I have just recently 

taken over this committee. I have been on the Commerce Committee for some time. This is a wonderful topic. NASA, space exploration, it is the stuff of dreams and visions, and it is the exact sort 

of thing that we want to be showing to our children, our grandchildren, and the rest of the world. This is the stuff we want to 

hold up and say, ‘‘This is what great societies do.’’ And we want 

to do it, and we want to share these pictures with everybody, and 

we want people to dream of moving forward. But why is it that we 

have not been able to stick with it long enough to move forward? 

And why was the last really great dream of space going to the 

moon nearly 40 years ago? I do not understand why we have not 

been able to either stay on focus or be visionary enough in that period of time. I do not know if any of you can answer that. Maybe, 

if you can, maybe it will tell us how we can stay on focus this time 

well enough. 

Mr. SIETZEN. Senator, if you look at the historical record, when 

NASA has been the most successful in implementing its programs 

and when it has the most difficulty in achieving the consensus in 

the Congress and the country, it has historically been the case 

when a simple, clear, overarching goal has been set forward. That 

is when the agency has been able to build its constituency around 

that goal. That was the case with the decision to go to the moon. 

It has not been the case since. 

If you went outside today, I would suspect, and asked three people, ‘‘What do you want from your space program,’’ you would not 

get the same answer. If we had a central organizing principle that 

was clear and supported not only by the Congress, but by the 

President, then the architecture that we build the space transportation components around would make sense. But if you do not 

have a national purpose that everyone can share, then it is very 

difficult to design systems to implement that. Upper stages, boosters, on-orbit propulsion systems. I am not saying it ought to be 

Mars or the moon or anything else. But the record suggests NASA 

is at its best when it has a very clearly defined goal, that has been 

given to it by the President and the Congress, and goes out and 

implements it. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Anybody else on that question? 

40 

Mr. CROCKER. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that it is—it is vision. There is no question about it. And I think that NASA’s vision 

is captivating. It is about exploration. But it is not about human 

exploration or robotic exploration; it is about exploration. Some 

missions are best done with humans, and some best done with robots; and some in the future, we will discover, are only enabled 

when we work with the two together collectively. 

But I think that what we have to have is not only a vision, but 

we have to have a determination to continue those visions across 

administrations and sometimes for decades. You know, it did take 

almost a decade for us to go to the moon. Project Prometheus will 

not be done in a year or two. It will take a few years of technology, 

and several years of very focused, very dedicated development activities. We could probably launch in 2011. But it will take a concerted, focused effort, and a vision of where we want to go, because 

if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you 

there. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think that you have hit the nail on 

the head, that we somehow have lost the thread. In the 1960s, it 

was kind of an easy call, because going to the moon was in direct 

opposition to what we viewed as the ‘‘evil empire’’ at that time, and 

I believe there was a good deal of competitive and good old U.S. 

spirit behind that, and it captured everyone’s imagination and, in 

a country that did not know much about propulsion and going anywhere in those days, was able to achieve a stunning victory by 

going to the moon in a decade. 

Today, we have so many different things pulling on us, and they 

are real things. In the early 1980s, the space station looked like it 

was that same kind of thing, but it has taken a long time, and a 

lot of things have gone by us in that period. 

Today, I think that vision has got to be clearly married with, 

‘‘What does the U.S. want to be about in military and civil space?’’ 

I am not sure that we can decide that Prometheus is all we need 

to do. We have seen, in the last months, the great dependency on 

space-based assets to this country. It is what this country is all 

about, as a matter of fact, and it has changed the whole concept 

of how the world works. I think built around that has to be the 

concept, ‘‘Are we going to maintain ourselves as the premier propulsion providers in the world for the combined military/civil mission that this country must maintain in the near- and the longterm future?’’ 

Senator BROWNBACK. Mr. Knauer? 

Mr. KNAUER. Yes, sir. There have been some great accomplishments in the last 40 years. After the moon mission, we have been 

to Saturn, we have been to Mars. Your weather today comes from 

satellites. One of the things that I think we do not do a good job 

of is communicating the great things that have been accomplished 

and of communicating the benefits of those things. 

A friend of mine jokingly said he was talking to his college professor about where does he think he gets his weather from, and he 

said, ‘‘Well, I turn on The Weather Channel,’’ obviously totally 

missing the point of where the assets are that generate the capability that we have in space to better our lives. 

41 

We made an investment decision—right, wrong, indifferent—we 

made an investment decision in the systems for advanced sensors, 

for advanced technology, microcomputers. All those decisions were 

made in that time period to invest in that category of technologies. 

Some of our others, who we were competing against in the world 

market, chose a different path at that time, and we saw the result 

of that with the demise of the former Soviet Union and the Cold 

War. 

So those investments were not bad that we made. I do not want 

anybody to think that we believe that those investments were inappropriate and not the right things to do. They were definitely the 

right things to do. But we could have done more had there been 

enough funds available to go do more, and that is a tough decision 

we all have to make, that you in Congress had to make, that the 

presidents at the time had to make about the priorities and the 

funding levels that were available to go do the things that we could 

go do. 

Today, we could fly to Australia in 90 minutes. Technology is 

available. We know what we need to go do in order to make that 

happen. We have the propulsion systems, enough basic technology, 

well understood, that you could go to Sydney for lunch and come 

back if you wanted to. 

But it takes a commitment, as we have pointed out, a need, a 

national desire, a benefit, that somebody says, ‘‘Yes, verily, that is 

a goal that we need to achieve. That is something that we need to 

do for a purpose.’’ And that is what is missing. That purpose. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I liked what one of you said, as well—I 

think it was Mr. Wood—that this country is very gifted and can 

achieve great things. Our problem is deciding, or it is focusing. You 

know, there are 1,000 things out here to do. OK, what is it that 

we are really going to focus in on? Because you cannot do all 1,000. 

You can do a few of these, and you have to get focused and deliver 

on it. And I think that has been our greatest problem as a Congress, as well as focusing on those few things that we really want 

to invest in and get done. 

My dilemma in this, with NASA—and the space program is a 

wonderful program—is that I do not feel like we are adequately 

sowing the visions for our next generation, which, to me, is something that leadership should clearly be about, and sometimes probably the most about, is sowing that vision for, ‘‘Here is where we 

are moving toward.’’ And you can make right decisions, you can 

make wrong decisions, but you need to make a decision and press 

forward toward it in a true capacity as leading, and leading the 

country and where this country leads the world. 

Gentlemen, it was a very interesting discussion, and I particularly appreciate your statements on Prometheus and the advanced 

power and propulsion systems. I think it is a basic tool that has 

to be delivered upon. I think everybody here on this panel clearly 

agrees with that, and NASA does, as well. We are going to see 

what we can do to press that forward even more aggressively, because that is one of the basic systems approach that we have to 

move with. 

42 

Appreciate very much you joining us. The record will stay open 

for a requisite number of days for people to be able to look at. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ 

43 

This page intentionally left blank.