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

92–326PDF 2015

EXPLORING OUR SOLAR SYSTEM: 

THE ASTEROIDS ACT AS A KEY STEP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

September 10, 2014 

Serial No. 113–93 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, ALABAMA 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

September 10, 2014 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Statement by Representative Bill Posey, Subcommittee on Space, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 13 

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Witnesses: 

Dr. Jim Green, Director, NASA Planetary Science Division 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Dr. Philip Christensen, Co-Chair, NRC Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS), Chair, Mars Panel, NRC Planetary Decadal Survey, 

Regents Professor, Arizona State University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Dr. Jim Bell, Professor of Earth and Space Science Exploration, Arizona 

State University, and President, Board of Directors, The Planetary Society 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 39 

Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director, Planetary Science Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 51 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 53 

Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, Director Emerita, Journal of 

Space Law Editor-in-Chief Emerita, University of Mississippi 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 67 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 69 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 81 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Jim Green, Director, NASA Planetary Science Division ................................ 98 
Page

IV 

Dr. Philip Christensen, Co-Chair, NRC Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS), Chair, Mars Panel, NRC Planetary Decadal Survey, 

Regents Professor, Arizona State University ..................................................... 108 

Dr. Jim Bell, Professor of Earth and Space Science Exploration, Arizona 

State University, and President, Board of Directors, The Planetary Society . 115 

Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director, Planetary Science Institute ....................... 130 

Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz, Professor Emerita, Director Emerita, Journal of 

Space Law Editor-in-Chief Emerita, University of Mississippi ....................... 136 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letters submitted for the record by Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 148 
(1) 

EXPLORING OUR SOLAR SYSTEM: 

THE ASTEROIDS ACT AS A KEY STEP 

WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space will come to 

order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Exploring Our 

Solar System: The ASTEROIDS Act as a Key Step.’’ In front of you 

are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and 

Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witness. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here 

today to testify about future scientific exploration of our solar system and the recently introduced ASTEROIDS Act. 

Planetary science has long inspired us to imagine what it would 

be like to visit another planet in our solar system. It has shown 

us that there are methane lakes on Saturn’s moon, Titan, icy 

plumes on Jupiter’s moon, Enceladus, and that humans can maintain a robotic presence on Mars. 

However, over the last few years the Administration has consistently cut NASA’s Planetary Science Division budget. Meanwhile, 

NASA’s Earth Science program has grown by more than 40 percent. There are 13 other agencies throughout the Federal Government that currently fund over $2.5 billion in climate science research, but only one agency does space exploration and space 

science. 

Congress has long been a supporter of planetary science, particularly as it pertains to asteroids. After the air burst over 

Chelyabinsk, Russia, that caused tens of millions of dollars in damage and injured nearly 1,500 people, this Committee held two hearings on NASA’s near-Earth asteroid tracking program and its efforts to fulfill the requirements of the George E. Brown Near-Earth 

Object Survey Act. 

Support for the detection and characterization of asteroids is not 

to be confused with the President’s current proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission, or ARM. It is no secret that this Committee has expressed significant skepticism with regards to ARM. NASA’s own 

experts have been critical of the plan. NASA’s own Small Bodies 

Assessment Group recently said ‘‘its benefits for advancing the 

knowledge of asteroids and furthering planetary defense strategies 

are limited and not compelling.’’ Additionally, the NASA Advisory 

Council has warned that ‘‘the ARM mission as currently defined 

may pose an unacceptable cost and technical risk.’’ This is not the 

type of review you want to hear from the experts that NASA has 

chartered to provide advice. While I am indeed interested in the opportunities offered by near-Earth objects, I continue to be concerned that the Administration is not heeding the warnings of 

these experts for the mission that it has designed. 

Today we will also be discussing the bipartisan efforts of two 

members of this Committee to offer a legal framework for the private sector to utilize celestial resources. The American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space Act, or 

ASTEROIDS Act, is a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman 

Posey and Congressman Kilmer. The two of them have worked very 

hard to put this legislation together, and I am interested to hear 

what our witnesses have to say about the potential benefits offered 

by space resource utilization. 
13 

It is my sincere hope that the Administration will stop spending 

time on poorly designed and executed missions such as ARM, and 

look to the private sector and scientists for input on the best way 

to maximize our limited resources. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

CHAIRMAN STEVEN M. PALAZZO

Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify 

about future scientific exploration of our solar system and the recently introduced 

ASTEROIDS Act. 

Planetary science has long inspired us to imagine what it would be like to visit 

another planet in our solar system. It has shown us that there are methane lakes 

on Saturn’s moon Titan, icy plumes on Jupiter’s moon Enceladus, and that humans 

can maintain a robotic presence on Mars. 

However, over the last few years the Administration has consistently cut NASA’s 

Planetary Science Division budget. Meanwhile, NASA’s Earth Science program has 

grown by more than 40%. There are 13 agencies throughout the federal government 

that currently fund over $2.5 billion in climate science research, but only one agency 

does space exploration and space science. 

Congress has long been a supporter of planetary science, particularly as it pertains to asteroids. After the air burst over Chelyabinsk (Russia) that caused tens 

of millions of dollars in damage and injured nearly 1,500 people, this committee 

held two hearings on NASA’s near Earth asteroid tracking programs and its efforts 

to fulfill the requirements of the George E. Brown Near-Earth Object Survey Act. 

Support for the detection and characterization of asteroids is not to be confused 

with the President’s current proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission or ARM. It is no 

secret that this committee has expressed significant skepticism with regards to 

ARM. NASA’s own experts have been critical the plan. NASA’s own Small Bodies 

Assessment Group recently said ‘‘its benefits for advancing the knowledge of asteroids and furthering planetary defense strategies are limited and not compelling.’’ 

Additionally, the NASA Advisory Council has warned that ‘‘the ARM mission as currently defined may pose an unacceptable cost and technical risk.’’ 

This is not the type of review you want to hear from the experts that NASA has 

chartered to provide advice. While I am indeed interested in the opportunities offered by near-Earth objects, I continue to be concerned that the Administration is 

not heeding the warnings of these experts for the mission that it has designed. 

Today we will also be discussing the bipartisan efforts of two members of this 

committee to offer a legal framework for the private sector to utilize celestial resources. The ‘‘American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities In 

Deep Space Act’’ or ASTEROIDS Act, is a bipartisan bill introduced by Congressman Posey and Congressman Kilmer. The two of them have worked very hard to 

put this legislation together and I am interested to hear what our witnesses have 

to say about the potential benefits offered by space resource utilization. 

It is my sincere hope that the Administration will stop spending time on poorly 

designed and executed missions such as ARM and look to the private sector and scientists for input on the best way to maximize our limited resources. 

At this time, I yield my remaining time to Mr. Posey from Florida. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time, I yield my remaining time to 

Mr. Posey from Florida. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, 

which will include discussion on H.R. 5063, the ASTEROIDS Act. 

I would like to thank my colleague and original cosponsor, Congressman Derek Kilmer, for his work on this bill and the 10 bipartisan cosponsors who we already have on this Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an exciting bill, both in subject matter and 

as a matter of practical legislation. Space exploration is inspiring, 

and today we will discuss the importance of a legal framework to 

encourage a new area of private space exploration. Today, private 

companies do not have legal certainty that if they obtain resources 
14 

from an asteroid that they can own them. The ASTEROIDS Act 

would provide this certainty to American companies, and companies are empowered to conduct their operations without harmful interference. Asteroids can hold valuable minerals, some in impressive quantities, as well as resources essential for continued space 

exploration. 

I look forward to further discussion on this topic. Again, if you 

want American commercial space companies to get off the ground, 

we need to create the proper legal framework for them to do so. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

today’s hearing on planetary science, and I hope we do focus on the 

science, and I want to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses this morning. 

The accomplishments in planetary science research and robotic 

exploration of the solar system are indicative of the exemplary 

work being done by NASA and its industry contractors, academia, 

and the non-governmental entities that comprise the planetary 

science community. The discoveries and advancements being enabled by NASA’s planetary science program are in fact thrilling. 

Just weeks from now, NASA’s MAVEN spacecraft will enter into 

Mars orbit for its study of the Mars atmosphere. In October, just 

over a month from now, it will be ‘‘all hands on deck’’ for our Mars 

orbiters and rovers when NASA will have an unprecedented opportunity to use these assets to observe C/2013 A1—otherwise known 

as Comet Siding Spring—as it passes near Mars and bathes the 

planet in dust from its coma and tail. It is fortuitous that MAVEN, 

which will be a key observer of this event, will have arrived just 

weeks before Siding Spring’s encounter with Mars. Finally, later 

this fall, the European-U.S. Rosetta comet mission will make the 

first attempt at a controlled landing of a robotic lander on a comet. 

What this means to me is that we are getting real value from 

our investments, our current investments, in planetary science, and 

in fact, I would point out that the authorization bill that was approved unanimously out of this Subcommittee, and out of this Congress, balances those investments with other investments that we 

are making in the other important missions of NASA. Because a 

strong planetary science program is important not only to advancing our scientific understanding of the solar system but also to detecting potentially hazardous near-Earth objects, providing scientific insights relevant to the long-term goal of sending humans 

to Mars and to training of our future scientists and engineers, and 

I can’t underscore enough the importance of NASA’s programs including planetary science to inspiring the next generation. NASA’s 

science missions provide concrete connections between learning 

science, technology, engineering, and math in the classroom and exciting projects in space, perhaps even ones that students dream to 

be a part of one day. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on 

the many developments taking place in planetary science. I also 

look forward to working with you on ensuring that Congress pro-
15 

vides the resources NASA needs for all of its mission areas, including planetary science, to enable a robust and innovative 21st century U.S. space program going forward. 

And while my understanding is that the purpose of this hearing 

is to examine planetary science, as well I note that the majority 

has asked for discussion on H.R. 5063, the ASTEROIDS Act. The 

issues raised by the Act on resource utilization and property rights 

are important and interesting areas that I hope the Subcommittee 

will continue to explore more substantively in the next Congress. 

Before I close, I also want to acknowledge the presence of our 

former chairman, Bart Gordon, with us here today and say hello 

to him and thank him for his continued public service even outside 

of Congress, and I want to take a moment to remember a key figure in NASA’s planetary sciences, Dr. Noel Hinners, who passed 

away just this last Friday. Dr. Hinners was a Chief Scientist of 

NASA, Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center out in Prince 

George’s County, where I live. He directed also the Smithsonian’s 

National Air and Space Museum, and was Vice President of Flight 

Systems at Lockheed Martin where he was responsible for Lockheed’s work on planetary science missions. NASA’s planetary 

science program wouldn’t be what it is today without the contributions of leaders such as Dr. Hinners, and our thoughts and prayers 

are with his family during this difficult time. 

I want to say in closing that we have a lot of issues to explore, 

and they aren’t just about the United States. They implicate our 

partners internationally, so as we move forward, let’s think about 

our responsibility not just to U.S.-based companies, and we are 

concerned about those, but also to connecting our concerns with our 

international partners so that we can truly move forward in a 21st 

century manner for our space program, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DONNA F. EDWARDS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on planetary science, and 

welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

The accomplishments in planetary science research and robotic exploration of the 

solar system are indicative of the exemplary work being done by NASA and its industry contractors, academia, and the non-governmental entities that comprise the 

planetary science community. The discoveries and advancements being enabled by 

NASA’s planetary science program are thrilling. 

Just weeks from now, NASA’s MAVEN spacecraft will enter into Mars orbit for 

its study of the Mars atmosphere. And in October, just over a month from now, it 

will be ‘‘all hands on deck’’ for our Mars orbiters and rovers when NASA will have 

an unprecedented opportunity to use these assets to observe C/2013 A1—otherwise 

known as Comet Siding Spring—as it passes near Mars and bathes the planet in 

dust from its coma and tail. It is fortuitous that MAVEN, which will be a key observer of this event, will have arrived just weeks before Siding Spring’s encounter 

with Mars. Finally, later this fall, the European-U.S. Rosetta comet mission will 

make the first attempt at a controlled landing of a robotic lander on a comet. 

What this means to me is that we are getting real value from our investments 

in planetary science. Because a strong planetary science program is important not 

only to advancing our scientific understanding of the solar system, but also to detecting potentially hazardous nearEarth objects, providing scientific insights relevant to the long-term goal of sending humans to Mars, and to the training of our 

future scientists and engineers. 

And I can’t underscore enough the importance of NASA’s programs, including 

planetary science, to inspiring the next generation. NASA’s science missions provide 
16 

concrete connections between learning science, technology, engineering, and math in 

the classroom and exciting projects in space, perhaps even ones that students dream 

to be a part of one day. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the many developments taking place in planetary science. I also look forward to working with you 

on ensuring that Congress provides the resources NASA needs for all of its mission 

areas, including planetary science, to enable a robust and innovative 21st century 

U.S. space program going forward. 

And while my understanding is that the purpose of this hearing is to examine 

planetary science, I also note that the Majority has asked for discussion on H.R. 

5063, the ASTEROIDS Act. The issues raised by the Act on resource utilization and 

property rights are important and interesting areas that I hope the Subcommittee 

will continue to explore more substantively in the next Congress. 

Before I close, I want to remember a key figure in NASA and planetary sciences, 

Dr. Noel Hinners, who passed away last Friday. Dr. Hinners was a chief scientist 

of NASA, director of the Goddard Space Flight Center, director of the Smithonsian’s 

National Air and Space Museum, and vice president of flight systems at Lockheed 

Martin where he was responsible for Lockheed’s work on NASA planetary science 

missions. 

NASA’s planetary science program wouldn’t be what it is today without the contributions of leaders such as Dr. Hinners, and our thoughts are with his family during this difficult time. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

I now recognize the chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, 

for his opening statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Planetary science teaches us about how our solar system works 

and provides clues about how it was formed. Planetary missions 

search for scientific evidence that microbial life could potentially 

exist on planets within our solar system. They also map the locations of minerals and potential water sources on asteroids, comets, 

moons, and planets that could be extracted for use here on Earth. 

One such mission called New Horizons is a robotic mission scheduled to reach Pluto next year. It will provide the first close-up images and measurements ever made of that dwarf planet. A mission 

to Europa could search for microbial life in the salty waters that 

lie underneath that moon’s icy crust. 

The President’s budget requests have made it clear that this Administration does not consider planetary science a priority. Over 

the past two years, the Obama Administration has significantly cut 

funding for NASA’s Planetary Science Division. 

In June, the House passed the bipartisan NASA Authorization 

Act of 2014 by a vote of 401 to 2. In May, the House passed the 

Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill H.R. 4660 by a bipartisan vote of 321 to 87. The bill provides $170 million more to the 

Planetary Science Division than the President’s budget request for 

Fiscal Year 2015. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also 

approved a bill that would provide $23 million above the President’s request. 

Congress has made it clear, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, 

that we value the planetary science community and the important 

work that they do. Planetary science missions help lay the groundwork for manned missions. If the Administration does not support 

planetary science, how can they claim to have serious interest in 

human space exploration? I hope that the Administration is paying 

attention to today’s discussion. 
17 

Planetary research also has significant commercial interest. We 

now know that asteroids contain rare minerals that are in short 

supply here on Earth. Several U.S. companies hope to someday develop business models that leverage the findings of planetary 

science to identify and extract these resources. 

The legal framework to establish property rights to these resources has yet to be established. H.R. 5063, the American Space 

Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space 

Act—ASTEROIDS Act—introduced by Representatives Bill Posey 

of Florida and Derek Kilmer of Washington, is the first bill to address important issues about the relatively new commercial intent 

to obtain resources from space. It discusses property rights for companies that find rare minerals and other materials in asteroids. It 

also directs the President to minimize barriers to growth of the industry. 

And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 

today about their perspectives, especially on the ASTEROIDS Act, 

and the groundbreaking work that is being conducted in planetary 

science. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Thank you, Chairman Palazzo, for holding this hearing. Planetary science teaches 

us about how our Solar System works and provides clues about how it was formed. 

Planetary missions search for scientific evidence that microbial life could potentially exist on planets within our solar system. They also map the locations of minerals and potential water sources on asteroids, comets, moons, and planets that 

could be extracted for use here on Earth. 

One such mission called New Horizons is a robotic mission scheduled to reach 

Pluto next year. It will provide the first close-up images and measurements ever 

made of the dwarf planet. A mission to Europa could search for microbial life in the 

salty waters that lie underneath that moon’s icy crust. 

The President’s budget requests have made it clear that this Administration does 

not consider planetary science a priority. Over the past two years, the Obama Administration has significantly cut funding for NASA’s Planetary Science Division. 

In June, the House passed the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2014 by a 

vote of 401 to 2. In May, the House passed the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill (H.R. 4660) by a bipartisan vote of 321 to 87. The bill provides $170 million more to the Planetary Science Division than the President’s budget request for 

FY15.The Senate Committee on Appropriations also approved a bill that would provide $23 million above the President’s request. 

Congress has made it clear, on a bipartisan and bicameral basis, that we value 

the planetary science community and the important work they do. 

Planetary science missions help lay the ground work for manned missions. If the 

Administration does not support planetary science, how can they claim to have serious interest in human space exploration? I hope that the Administration is paying 

attention to today’s discussion. 

Planetary research also has significant commercial interest. We now know that 

asteroids contain water and rare minerals that are in short supply on Earth. Several U.S. companies hope to someday develop business models that leverage the 

findings of planetary science to identify and extract these resources. 

The legal framework to establish property rights to these resources has yet to be 

established. H.R. 5063, the ‘‘American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space Act’’ (ASTEROIDS Act), introduced by Representatives 

Bill Posey of Florida and Derek Kilmer of Washington is the first bill to address 

important issues about the relatively new commercial intent toobtain resources from 

space. 

It discusses property rights for companies that find rare minerals and other materials in asteroids. It also directs the President to minimize barriers to growth of the 

industry. 
18 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses today about 

their perspectives on the ASTEROIDS Act and the groundbreaking work that’s 

being conducted in planetary science. 

Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. 

Johnson, for her opening remarks. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and good morning. I want 

to join Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Edwards in welcoming our witnesses to this morning’s hearing. 

Hearings such as today’s provide a clear reminder of the amazing 

advantages—advances that are possible when this Nation makes a 

sustained commitment to investing in research and development. It 

is not an overstatement to say that the planetary science missions 

that will be discussed today would have been considered the stuff 

of science fiction not too many years ago. 

As I speak, a spacecraft is circling the planet Saturn and imaging its moons, and a robotic rover is preparing to climb a mountain 

on Mars and even attempt to image a comet that will be visible to 

the Martian sky. A spacecraft is on its way to Pluto, and we are 

discovering and tracking asteroids that could potentially threaten 

the Earth. 

Just this past weekend, in conjunction with the comments that 

are made by both the chairman and Mr. Posey, I visited Brownsville, Texas, and the University of Texas at Brownsville’s astronomy program and the site for the new SpaceX launching station. 

We are living in a wonderful time of scientific exploration, and 

I look forward to hearing more about NASA’s planetary science 

program this morning, but we also need to hear about what problems need to be addressed to ensure that this record of achievement can continue. 

And with that, I want to welcome you again and look forward to 

your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FULL COMMITTEEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I want to join Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Edwards 

in welcoming our witnesses to this morning’s hearing. 

Hearings such as today’s provide a clear reminder of the amazing advances that 

are possible when this nation makes a sustained commitment to investing in research and development. It is not an overstatement to say that the planetary 

science missions that will be discussed today would have been considered the stuff 

of science fiction not too many years ago. 

As I speak, a spacecraft is circling the planet Saturn and imaging its moons, and 

a robotic rover is preparing to climb a mountain on Mars and even attempt to image 

a comet that will be visible in the Martian sky. A spacecraft is on its way to Pluto, 

and we are discovering and tracking asteroids that could potentially threaten the 

Earth. 

We are living in a wonderful time of scientific exploration, and I look forward to 

hearing more about NASA’s planetary science program this morning. But we also 

need to hear about what problems need to be addressed to ensure that this record 

of achievement can continue. 

With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 
19 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first 

witness, Dr. Jim Green, has served in numerous capacities within 

NASA throughout his career and has served as NASA’s Director of 

Planetary Science since 2006. Dr. Green, an expert in space physics, has written more than 100 articles in referred journals, primarily on the subject of Earth’s and Jupiter’s magnetospheres. He 

has also authored over 50 articles on the technical aspects of networks and data systems. Dr. Green received his Ph.D. in physics 

from the University of Iowa. 

Our second witness, Dr. Philip Christensen, is Co-Chair of the 

National Research Council’s Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences and Regents Professor at Arizona State University. 

His work in developing, building, and operating infrared cameras 

and spectrometers has been invaluable in studying the surface of 

Mars as equipment designed by Dr. Christensen has mapped the 

surface composition, search for habitable environments and helped 

to select the sites for future Mars landers and rovers. He served 

on the NRC Planetary Science Decadal Survey as the Chair of the 

Mars Panel. Dr. Christensen is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America, and is the 

Co-Chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on 

Astrobiology and Planetary Science. Dr. Christensen earned a B.S. 

in geology and an M.S. and Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics 

from the University of California-Los Angeles. 

Our third witness today is Dr. Jim Bell. Dr. Bell is a Professor 

in the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, an Adjunct Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University, 

and President of The Planetary Society. His career has focused on 

robotic space exploration, and he has been involved in a number of 

NASA space exploration missions including serving as the Lead 

Scientist in charge of the Panoramic Camera Color Imaging System 

on the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, and as the Deputy 

Principal Investigator of the Mass Cam Camera System on the Curiosity Mars rover. Dr. Bell is a markedly active and prolific planetary scientist, having authored or co-authored nearly 200 research 

papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. His research is frequently featured in publications such as Sky and Telescope and Scientific American. Dr. Bell received his B.S. in planetary science and 

aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology and obtained his M.S. in geology and geophysics and his Ph.D. in planetary geosciences from the University of Hawaii. 

Our fourth witness is Dr. Mark Sykes, CEO and Director of the 

Planetary Science Institute. Dr. Sykes is Co-Investigator of the 

NASA Dawn Mission to Vesta and Ceres, and has chaired many 

NASA review panels and advisory groups. Dr. Sykes received his 

B.A. in physics from the University of Oregon and a master of electronic science degree from the Oregon Graduate Center. He then 

went on to obtain a Ph.D. in planetary sciences and a juris doctorate from the University of Arizona. 

Our final witness, Professor Joanne Gabrynowicz, is Professor 

Emerita at the University of Mississippi and was the Editor-in- 
20 

Chief of the Journal of Space Law. She currently serves on the National Geospatial Advisory Committee, the NASA Advisory Committee’s Planetary Protection Subcommittee, and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advisory Committee on commercial remote sensing. She is 

also the Director of the International Institute of Space Law and 

the Chair of its publications committee. She received her B.A. at 

Hunter College and her J.D. from Yeshiva University. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for being here today. As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes 

each after which the Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I ask unanimous consent at this time to enter into the record a 

letter from Planetary Resources. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Dr. Green for five minutes 

to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JIM GREEN, DIRECTOR, 

NASA PLANETARY SCIENCE DIVISION 

Dr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 

would like thank you so much for the opportunity to appear today 

and discuss briefly the status of NASA’s Planetary Science Program. 

NASA’S planetary science missions continue to explore our solar 

system in unrivaled scope and depth. NASA’s spacecraft have visited every planet as well as a variety of small bodies that have 

much to tell us about the solar system’s formation and evolution. 

We are seeking answers to fundamental science questions that 

guide NASA’s exploration of the solar system. These questions are: 

how did our solar system form and evolve? Is there life beyond 

Earth? And what are the hazards to life on Earth from our solar 

system objects? 

With an exploration strategy based on progressing from fly-bys 

to orbiting to landing to roving and, finally, to return samples from 

planetary bodies, NASA advances the scientific understanding of 

our solar system in extraordinary ways while pushing the limits of 

spacecraft and robotic engineering, design and operations. 

Briefly, beginning in our inner solar system, NASA’s Messenger 

spacecraft has been orbiting the planet Mercury now for more than 

two years. Mercury’s surface has been shaped by impact and volcanic processes. We also find that Mercury harbors abundant 

volatiles in permanently shadowed craters. At the moon, the 

LADEE mission successfully studied the very tenuous lunar atmosphere and dust environment until its planned impact on April 17th. 

With LADEE, we also successfully tested high-speed optical communication back to Earth. This technology will be a critical element in our future Mars missions and beyond. 

At Mars, the Curiosity rover has landed in an ancient river bed. 

It has determined the age of the surrounding Martian rocks. It has 

found evidence that the planet could have sustained microbial life 

and taken the first readings of radiation on the Martian surface. 

Launched in November last year, the MAVEN spacecraft will arrive at Mars on September 21st and will explore the red planet’s 
21 

upper atmosphere, ionosphere, and their interaction with the sun 

and solar wind. MAVEN will also be in time to study a comet that 

will fly very close to Mars on October 19th. 

From the furthest reaches of our solar system, comet Siding 

Spring has traveled for more than a million years, and for the first 

time since it was formed will come close to Mars, flying into the 

inner solar system. Siding Spring will pass within 130,000 kilometers of Mars blanketing it with cometary material. Many of 

NASA’s space missions and ground-based assets will be studying 

this once-in-a-lifetime event. 

Future NASA missions to Mars include a new Mars rover 

planned for launch in 2020. For the first time, NASA scientists and 

university scientists will use Mars 2020 Rover experiments to carefully select a collection of rock and soil samples that will be characterized and stored for potential return to Earth. The Mars 2020 

rover will also help advance our knowledge of how human explorers 

could use natural resources available on the red planet. 

Asteroids are important objects within our solar system, deserving intense study. After successfully orbiting the huge asteroid 

Vesta, in March next year Dawn will successfully get into orbit 

around Ceres, the largest object in the main asteroid belt. 

We are also developing a robotic asteroid rendezvous and sample 

return mission called OSIRIS–REx. The first U.S. mission of its 

kind, OSIRIS–REx is on track for launch in 2016. 

With recent Congressional support, NASA’s enhanced funding for 

the near-Earth object survey and characterization activities necessary to protect our planet and also support human exploration 

and technology has made steady progress. In just over 15 years, we 

have found over 11,000 near-Earth objects. We are making great 

progress but we have a lot yet to do. 

After nine years of travel, in July 2012, the New Horizon spacecraft will make its historic flyby of the dwarf planet Pluto and its 

moons. It will then venture into deep space and into the Kuiper 

Belt. 

In summary, our future missions will continue along this path of 

exploration, discovery and innovation, allowing our scientists to answer questions I posed earlier. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and your 

continued strong support for NASA’s Planetary Science Program. I 

look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Green follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Green. 

I now recognize Dr. Christensen for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. PHILIP CHRISTENSEN, 

CO-CHAIR, NRC COMMITTEE ON ASTROBIOLOGY 

AND PLANETARY SCIENCE (CAPS), 

CHAIR, MARS PANEL, NRC PLANETARY DECADAL SURVEY, 

REGENTS PROFESSOR, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. 

Three themes are going to run through my testimony today. The 

first is that planetary science has excellent opportunities for continuing the exploration of our solar system, and these opportunities 

have been clearly defined in the recent National Research Council’s 

Planetary Science Decadal Survey. Second, the significant reductions in the level of funding from NASA’s Planetary Science Division from the previous decade have dramatically slowed the pace 

of new missions and future discoveries. And third, the lack of yearto-year stability in funding is having a serious impact on our ability to develop a long-term plan for planetary exploration. 

The NASA Planetary Science program has made a remarkable 

series of discoveries over the past several decades and is poised to 

continue to make major discoveries based on the plans outlined in 

the Decadal Survey. That report represented the consensus of the 

U.S. planetary science community and clearly defined a program 

centered around a suite of missions of differing sizes to explore the 

highest-priority objects in our solar system. The survey emphasized 

balance, both the importance of a balanced suite of small, medium 

and large missions, and also the importance of a balance of destinations. 

In the three years following the release of the Decadal Survey, 

the key recommendations and priorities remain essentially unchanged and they continue to have the strong support of the planetary science community. 

The primary challenge that the planetary program has faced in 

implemented the survey’s recommendations have been the significant reduction in funding that occurred almost immediately after 

the report was completed. In Fiscal Year 2013, planetary funding 

was reduced by over 20 percent from previous years and has remained close to that level since then. Congress has worked extremely hard to increase the budget in each of the past two years 

but the funding remains well below what is needed to implement 

the Decadal Survey recommendations. 

Equally important, year-to-year uncertainties in funding have 

made long-term planning extremely difficult. Planetary missions 

require many years to implement and operate, and without stable 

funding, these new missions either cannot be started or their development is stretched out with the inevitable increase in mission 

cost. 

In spite of these stresses, there have been some major positive 

advances. In my view, the three key areas of progress and caution 

are the following. First, the highest-priority Decadal Survey rec-
30 

ommendation to begin the campaign to return samples from Mars 

has been initiated with the approval of Mars 2020 rover. This first 

element will focus on collecting the samples. The follow-on missions 

will retrieve those samples and bring them back to Earth. In order 

for the sample return campaign to be successful and to remain true 

to the priorities laid out in the Decadal Survey, it is essential that 

this Rover remain focused on collecting and caching a suite of highquality samples. Looking to the future, NASA also needs to start 

now to begin developing the technologies that will allow us to bring 

those samples back to Earth. 

Europa was the second-highest-priority flagship recommendation 

in the Decadal Survey, and this mission has received support from 

Congress and NASA through the plans to request proposals for instruments to be carried on a future mission to explore Europa. This 

is a major step towards exploring that planet but it is only the beginning. The mission will require significant new funding to be implemented. In order to maintain a balance within the planetary 

science community, it is essential that the outer solar system remain a key part of NASA’s portfolio. While the continued support 

for Europa from Congress is very encouraging, the commitment to 

start this mission needs to be made in earnest. 

And finally, the reduction in planetary funding has led to a delay 

in starting the next New Frontiers and Discovery missions. The 

next new Discovery mission is being initiated but there are no 

plans to work on the next New Frontiers missions. These smalland medium-sized missions are key elements of the overall strategy 

for a balance of mission sizes. 

With regard to human exploration, the robotic program at Mars, 

the Mars science program can and should play a major role in the 

long-term goal of sending humans to Mars. Much of the information that will be required to safely land and return humans from 

the surface is being obtained by the Robotic Science program. The 

properties of the surface, the nature of the atmosphere, the location 

of water, these are all areas of intense investigation by the ongoing 

Mars Science program. 

In summary, planetary science and exploration have virtually 

unlimited opportunities. These opportunities have been very 

thoughtfully outlined. NASA is ready to explore the amazing places 

of Mars and Europa and we look forward to the opportunities to 

complete that exploration. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Christensen follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Christensen. 

I now recognize Dr. Bell for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JIM BELL, 

PROFESSOR OF EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE EXPLORATION, 

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, 

AND PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

THE PLANETARY SOCIETY 

Dr. BELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee 

for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the future of one of 

our Nation’s crown jewels, which is NASA’s Planetary Science and 

Solar System Exploration program. I am a Professor in the School 

of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, and 

I also serve as President of the Planetary Society, the world’s largest public space advocacy organization, and today I am representing about 45,000 members of the Society. We are a nonprofit, 

independent organization of private citizens dedicated to advancing 

space science and exploration. The Planetary Society believes 

strongly that planetary exploration is a crucial program in a balanced NASA and that this exploration should follow the path recently defined by the National Academy of Science’s Decadal Survey of Planetary Sciences. 

I am also a professional planetary scientist so I brought some 

pictures. We can’t talk about the beauty of our solar system without showing some examples. So let us put the next slide up, please. 

[Slide.] 

Our members, the members of the Planetary Society, respond to 

planetary exploration for many of the same reasons much of the 

public does. It is bold and daring like Curiosity here having landed 

on Mars in 2012. It tackles some of the most fundamental questions that humans have been asking for millennia: where did we 

come from, are we alone, how common is life, and can it take hold 

on other places besides Earth. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

As described in more detail in my written testimony, for the past 

50 years, planetary science has made tremendous progress toward 

answering these questions, but like the tracks in the Curiosity 

rover here, we have only scratched the surface. Recent planetary 

science missions reveal a solar system filled with worlds begging 

for further exploration. Recent discoveries that you have heard 

about include water ice on the moon’s poles, evidence from an early 

warm and wet climate on Mars, liquid water oceans under the surface of Jupiter’s moon Europa shown in the next slide here, this 

gorgeous mosaic from the Galileo mission, and liquid hydrocarbon 

lakes on Saturn’s moon Titan, shown in the next slide, one of those 

lakes showing here glinting in the sunlight from the Cassini mission view. 

At the same time, astronomers have discovered hundreds of new 

planets orbiting other stars, allowing scientists to study how other 

planetary systems formed, what they are like and how they teach 
37 

us about our own home. The Planetary Society is proud to support 

them and in many cases partner with NASA in these endeavors. 

Among the requests in your invitation letter, you asked me to address concerns that we have about funding levels for NASA’s Planetary Science program as well as to provide feedback on H.R. 5063. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

Regarding NASA funding, NASA’s Planetary Exploration program seems healthy today because of all the exciting missions and 

discoveries currently underway but it is important to note that today’s successes were enabled by strong and consistent funding from 

the previous decade. It is the funding trajectory looking forward 

that is concerning, and that is where we believe there is a crisis 

for planetary exploration. The consistent stream of publicly exciting, scientifically compelling missions that we have all come to expect of NASA is coming to an end, largely because of proposed cuts 

to Planetary Science. 

Now, to be clear, Congress has helped to restore some of that 

funding, and we thank you very much for that, but the long-term 

outlook for planetary science still remains at risk, and this chart 

that I just had up there shows that NASA had an average of about 

six new missions per year in the previous decade at a launch rate 

of about one per year, and that record of launches and missions is 

what has led to this golden age of planetary exploration that we 

are in. Over that time period, NASA’s Planetary Science Division 

budget averaged about $1.5 billion per year, or less than ten percent of NASA’s total annual funding. But since 2013, proposed 

planetary budgets have been cut below that historic average, and 

the average number of missions in the pipeline has plummeted in 

half, and indeed, only four launches are planned to occur before 

2020, so the result is a de facto policy of withdrawal from some of 

the most exciting and scientifically compelling work that NASA 

does. We believe that there should be more of these missions, not 

fewer. Next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Regarding the ASTEROIDS Act, the issue of resources on asteroids is particularly compelling from the scientific perspective. Lots 

of interesting questions about the history of Earth’s water, how do 

large impacts like from large asteroids like Eros seen here influence the development of life on our home planet, which asteroids 

represent impact hazards, and the issue is also compelling as we 

begin to imagine a future when humanity is moving outward beyond our home world. The Planetary Society recognizes that an 

agreed-upon policy regarding property rights for resources mined 

from asteroids will eventually be important for commercial investment. Since this is an area of current controversy among specialists, we advise careful thought and deliberation before moving forward in this area, and we embrace H.R. 5063’s call to develop the 

frameworks necessary to attract commercial investment. 

In closing, over the past half-century—next slide, please—discoveries in planetary science point to a rich and diverse solar system 

and provide tantalizing clues as to whether life exists elsewhere. 

The public, like the young people shown here who watched and 

rooted for Curiosity’s daring landing on Mars in August 2012 in 
38 

Times Square, is clamoring for planetary exploration. Students and 

teachers are inspired to learn and share more about science and 

engineering and to search for deeper understanding of the worlds 

around us. 

NASA’s Planetary Science program has a clear plan in the 

Decadal Survey, has the people in place to continue the journey, 

and the question is whether we made a priority and given the resources to meet the challenge. We strongly believe it should. 

On behalf of the members of the Planetary Society, I would like 

to again thank the Committee and the Congress in general for 

their solid support of America’s planetary science exploration program over the past several years. I would also like to thank you 

personally for the opportunity to address you all today and to share 

my own thoughts on the importance of NASA’s planetary exploration program for the Nation and for the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell follows:] 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Bell. 

I now recognize Dr. Sykes for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARK SYKES, 

CEO AND DIRECTOR, 

PLANETARY SCIENCE INSTITUTE 

Dr. SYKES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 

and I would also like to express my deep appreciation for your continued support of solar system exploration and the support of Congress in these kind of recent turbulent times. It is much appreciated by the community. 

I am going to focus on two topics in my remarks, the funding 

level for planetary missions and the asteroid retrieval mission. I 

am concerned that our planetary mission aspirations and goals 

seem disconnected from available resources at all levels and that 

priorities can only be inferred after the fact. For instance, it is very 

good news that after the latest review, all planetary missions and 

their extended phase that were reviewed will continue. This is not 

an unexpected outcome. However, the Administration’s Fiscal Year 

2015 NASA budget proposal did not include funds sufficient to 

cover this possibility. It is $35 million short. These funds are requested in a separate Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. 

What is the plan if we are in C.R. all year or this initiative is not 

passed? 

On the larger scale, we would all like to see the recommendations of the NRC Planetary Decadal Survey implemented. These 

call for the restoration of a competed Discovery mission proposals 

every 24 month as it had in its first decade instead of the recent 

once or twice a decade. The Decadal Survey also calls for another 

round of competitive New Frontier proposals this decade. 

If one adds to this the Administration’s Mars 2020 flagship initiative, the desire among many to have flagship mission to Europa, 

the continuing missions, the foundational research and data analysis programs and technology development programs, it is simply 

not possible to do everything with the planetary budget of $1.3 billion a year or even if we go to two flagships, $1.5 billion a year. 

If our competed mission programs are not restored, the United 

States, as has just been mentioned, will have few assets operating 

in the solar system by the end of this decade and beyond. I am concerned about ongoing budget pressures on our continuing missions 

and losing our skills and capabilities or maintained and grown by 

our research programs, which has suffered a collapse in selection 

rates in recent years. 

We need to have a transparently rational basis for a planetary 

budget that embraces in part a longer-term vision than the yearto-year chaos to which it has been subjected in recent years. I 

would suggest that this have two components: a predictable baseline program and a flagship program. A long-term baseline planetary program should be built on competed missions, competed research and technology programs consistent with the Decadal recommendations. This budget should be very predictable from one 

year to the next. 
52 

Flagships are a great value as well, but because of the large expense and cost volatility expected from ambitious projects, the cost 

of mission studies, instrument development, mission operations 

and science should be in a separate flagship program line. The mission target makes no difference. 

I would like to go on to the asteroid retrieval mission, and I 

apologize for being a little negative perhaps on this. The NASA Advisory Council finds that this is not a substitute for a human mission to an asteroid in its native orbit and the NRC Committee on 

Human Spaceflight finds the retrieval part of ARM to be a deadend element. The NASA Small Bodies Assessment Groups most recent findings state that ARM science and planetary defense benefits are not compelling and that significant uncertainties in our 

knowledge of the ARM targets—small asteroids or boulders on asteroids—contribute significantly to schedule and cost risk and the 

risk of mission failure. ARM is poorly conceived and poorly designed. It lacks fundamental knowledge of its target objects and 

strategically does not advance human exploration, does not advance science, does not advance planetary defense and does not advance understanding of the in situ resource utilization of nearEarth asteroids. In addition, the cost figure of less than $1.25 billion given at the most recent SBAG meeting strains credulity. The 

OSIRIS–REx mission, which has been mentioned previously, is returning 60 grams to 2 kilogram of near-Earth asteroid material to 

the surface of the Earth for a cost of $1.05 billion, which includes 

the launch vehicle and $60 million in headquarters-held reserves. 

We do not know what is in the ARM number but it is hard to believe that for an additional $200 million ARM is going to return 

500 metric tons of asteroid material to retrograde lunar orbit using 

new technology not yet developed and tested on targets not identified and fully characterized to satisfy level I requirements not yet 

specified with an unknown level of risk acceptability. We can always find some benefit for whatever we do in space—it is what we 

do—but ARM sets an awfully low bar for rationalizing a major 

space initiative with a likely multibillion-dollar price tag. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sykes follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Sykes. 

I now recognize Professor Gabrynowicz for five minutes to 

present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. JOANNE GABRYNOWICZ, 

PROFESSOR EMERITA, DIRECTOR EMERITA, 

JOURNAL OF SPACE LAW EDITOR-IN-CHIEF EMERITA, 

UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Thank you. I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to address the ASTEROIDS Act. You 

have provided four specific questions, and I am delighted to respond. The entire text of my testimony has been submitted for the 

record. 

Current law: Current law is an amalgam of laws that address existing commercial activities. United States law regulates launches 

and reentry; the technology, financing, and behavior of various payloads; as well as related activities, intellectual property, for example. Laws were passed for specific space-related applications as 

their technologies matured and were available for commercialization: communications satellites, launch vehicles, remote sensing 

and, GPS. To the extent that a private asteroid mission uses any 

of these applications, the law that governs the application will also 

govern that part of an asteroid mission that uses them. 

There is one federal court case regarding an asteroid claim. The 

plaintiff alleged ownership of an asteroid based on a registration 

claim made by him on an online registry. He asserted that the 

United States infringed his property rights and sought compensation for parking and storage fees as well as special damages. The 

case was dismissed by the District Court and lost on appeal. The 

court held that the plaintiff appellant did not present a claim for 

which the District Court may provide relief. 

Potential impacts of this kind of legislation on treaties: The potential legal impact of this kind of legislation is likely to be modest. 

The potential political impact is likely to be sizable. Opinio juris— 

legal opinion—is crucial to developing the meaning of treaties. 

There will be disagreement regarding the meaning of this kind of 

legislation and some of its terms will be challenged at law and in 

politics. This is because there is no legal clarity regarding some of 

the issues that the bill addresses. The treaty regime seems to allow 

private-sector entities to extract resources if those activities are 

consistent with international law and United States obligations. 

However, the ownership status of the extracted resources is unclear. 

Space is a global commons. Unlike other global commons, there 

is no agreement as to whether title to extracted resources passes 

to the extracting entity. In the absence of an agreement, legal opinion is divided. No claims have ever been made in space. Therefore, 

the status of an intentionally asserted superior right based on a 

first claim is a question of first impression. The use of first-in-time 

claims were raised early as they apply to geosynchronous orbital 

slots. 

Some nations champion a slot allocation system based on first 

come, first served. Others advocated using equity principles. These 

two positions continue to compete in a complicated and highly po-
68 

liticized legal regime. The competition has produced results such as 

distinguishing between access and appropriation as well as creating different categories of orbital allotments and assignments. Attempts may be made to apply these kinds of distinctions to asteroids. 

There is need to clearly identify which federal agencies will be 

relevant to an asteroid industry and the specific responsibility of 

each agency. A private-sector asteroid industry is an unprecedented 

enterprise. It raises novel issues requiring a wide range of expertise. An interagency structure ought to be considered like the ones 

that formally govern GPS and commercial remote sensing. These 

feature a formal agreement among the lead agency and other agencies to work in coordination. Each agency has a particular expertise 

relevant to some specific aspect of the industry. 

One of the greatest challenges is establishing the uniform licensing and regulation of activities on orbit and at the asteroid. At this 

time, no agency has a specific Congressional grant of on-orbit authority. Contemporary space issues such as orbital debris, space 

traffic management, planetary contamination, and satellite servicing have already caused some agencies to take regulatory action 

or make internal procedural requirements that go beyond licensing 

and operating satellites. These administrative actions demonstrate 

attempts at a nascent on-orbit authority. There needs to be a specific coordinated grant of on-orbit authority to agencies best suited 

to regulated an industry of this nature. 

In conclusion, the bill addresses some unprecedented issues. If 

made into law, it should be expected that there will be both legal 

and political challenges to some of its terms. International space 

law contains many gaps and ambiguities. It is logical and appropriate to attempt to resolve those ambiguities in favor of U.S. national interest. At the same time, the final results must be consistent with international law and the obligations of the United 

States. 

I thank the Committee for giving me this opportunity, and thank 

you for your work to further develop space law. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gabrynowicz follows:] 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Professor Gabrynowicz, and I 

want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony, reminding 

Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. 

The chair will at this point open the round of questions. The chair 

recognizes himself for five minutes. 

Dr. Green, NASA’s 2014 Planetary Mission Senior Review Panel 

recommended continuing all seven missions that were up for review. However, the President’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request 

only included funding for the extension of the Cassini mission and 

the Mars Curiosity rover. The President’s Opportunity, Growth and 

Security Initiative would provide an additional $35 million for mission extensions but is unlikely to pass Congress. Where will the 

money come from to pay for the extensions of the other five missions, and at what point does extending older missions threaten the 

creation of new missions? 

Dr. GREEN. Well, that is a very good question, and of course, my 

understanding is that Congress will pass a Continuing Resolution, 

and it is within that Continuing Resolution that we have the 

framework to be able to continue our missions as we have in FY14. 

Congress, of course, goes through the appropriation for the overall 

budget of planetary and we will execute that and we will see at 

that time what the budget level is and the prioritization that we 

will have to do to be able to maintain our mission fleet and bring 

in the quality data that is currently coming in. 

Chairman PALAZZO. So I guess as a follow-up to my second part 

of the question, at what point does extending older missions actually threaten the creation of new missions? Can you kind of elaborate a little more directly on that? 

Dr. BELL. Of course. The very first recommendation of the Planetary Senior Review, which often gets overlooked, is that the seven 

missions that were reviewed were absolutely incredibly important. 

In other words, they provide outstanding value for the funding that 

we currently have that manages those missions. We don’t have to 

launch them. They are on orbit. They are doing outstanding 

science, tackling some new questions that relate to the Planetary 

Decadal and are making excellent progress. So in the opinion of the 

community and certainly in the opinion of the senior review as represented by the community, these missions, we must find a way to 

continue on their operations. 

Of course, funding that as appropriated will allow us then to determine the schedule of our next new opportunities and we are currently working on the Discovery Announcement of Opportunity as 

directed by Congress. We are happy to state that we anticipate getting the release of that announcement of opportunity in early October. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Professor Gabrynowicz, the ASTEROIDS Act 

mentions the phrase ‘‘first in time.’’ When describing property 

rights for resources extracted from an asteroid, would you please 

provide a definition of ‘‘first in time’’ and give a context for its use? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Thank you, Congressman. Actually I can’t because there is no definition in space law for ‘‘first-in-time.’’ I 

haven’t researched that specific question but I would look to other 

law, property law, for example. In the United States, the history 

of claims has been, if you are the first to claim land and you stay 
82 

there and you work the land and you produce value from the land, 

then your claim is perfected. We see that in things like the Homestead Act and the Oklahoma Land Rush, and that is where my understanding of that comes from. But at international space law, 

that is a term of art that doesn’t exist. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Does the ASTEROIDS Act have an impact 

on international treaties that the United States is party to? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Yes. The United States was a leader in developing the Outer Space Treaty, and the four core treaties. The 

United States is bound by the terms of those treaties, and something like the proposed legislation will catalyze a debate as to 

whether it is—whether its terms are consistent with the Outer 

Space Treaty and other relevant treaties, and the United States 

will definitely be a part of that process. 

Chairman PALAZZO. In Section 51203 of the bill, subsections B 

and C talk about freedom from harmful interference and the need 

to avoid harmful interference when conducting resource extraction 

on an asteroid. Would you define the term ‘‘harmful interference’’ 

and provide the Committee again a better understanding of the 

context? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. The term ‘‘harmful interference’’ can be found 

in Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty. When negotiated, that was 

intended to refer to things like contamination, environmental degradation, one country conducting experiments that precluded the 

ability of other countries to conduct experiments. It did not have 

any application to commercial entities or private-sector entities regarding claims. At that time it was only as it referred to nationstates and their national space programs. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you—thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. 

I want to get a couple clarifications. I think it was Dr. Bell, when 

you talked about the up-and-down resourcing of planetary science, 

and I think that we share that concern and the authorization that 

passed in this Committee we established an authorization level 

that was actually consistent with what the appropriation was, and 

I noted on your chart, though—and maybe we could clarify this 

later—that it doesn’t seem to reflect the actual dollars that were 

appropriated. And so for fiscal year 2014, for example, the actual 

appropriation was $1.345 billion, and I recognize that that is not 

what it had been at its peak but it is one higher than what the 

President’s request was, but also reflects the notion that this Committee, I think, is trying to get back to some more consistent funding levels and a balanced mission approach to planetary science. 

And so maybe we could talk offline about your numbers and our 

numbers too. 

Dr. BELL. Absolutely. I would be happy to do that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then Dr. Green, if you could, on the continuing —on the issue of the Continuing Resolution, I just want to 

hear some clarity as to whether you believe that postponing new 

starts would have any impact on planned planetary missions that 

have required launch dates that are due to planetary alignments. 

Dr. GREEN. You know, our current plan is indeed to release the 

next Discovery announcement. This keeps it on track for the com-
83 

munity to be able to complete their development of their proposals 

and submit them by about the December-January time frame. We 

then go through an evaluation period with announcement later in 

that fiscal year. Our plan then is of course to keep our new missions on track to the best of our ability and as the budget will 

allow. Throughout this particular fiscal year, there is no need for 

a large influx of money for the Discovery program because we are 

primarily going through receiving proposals and going through the 

appropriate—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. For the next Fiscal Year or the current fiscal 

year? 

Dr. GREEN. For the upcoming fiscal year. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. 

Dr. GREEN. Because we will be going through the proposal evaluation and then selection. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so if a Continuing Resolution goes through 

December, you still are on track at least through the beginning of 

the year—— 

Dr. GREEN. Correct. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —with the missions that are afoot and then you 

would wait to see what the actual appropriation is beyond the Continuing Resolution? 

Dr. GREEN. Indeed. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

I want to go to the questions that Professor Gabrynowicz mentioned, and do you believe, given the things that you have outlined, 

the gaps that you have outlined in terms of our confluence of international law and domestic law and policy and relationships that it 

is premature to proceed with the ASTEROIDS Act at this point? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. My professional opinion is the ASTEROIDS 

Act as written is very, very vague and uses terms of art in novel 

contexts that I have not seen before. So without some groundwork, 

and by that I mean political, it could be premature. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And have—are these, the discussions on the international context, are those ongoing right now in terms of the implications of international law and treaties at this point? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Well, yes, there is the U.N. Committee on the 

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space that continues to meet every year. 

There is a counterpart in Geneva, the name of which is escaping 

me right now, but the discussion of international treaties and space 

law is an ongoing activity at the United Nations and elsewhere. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But given the status, we could easily, this Committee, could postpone our consideration understanding the importance but to some additional more in-depth explorations in the next 

Congress? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Well, with all due respect, I don’t know the 

activities that brought it to the Committee today, so I don’t know 

what is going on behind it. I don’t know the urgencies or not. 

Strictly reading the text and based on legal knowledge, it definitely 

needs work. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So we need to fill in some holes. Thank you very 

much, and thank you to the witnesses. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
84 

This is for Dr. Green. What is the planetary science community’s 

position on using the Space Launch System for planetary science 

missions? 

Dr. GREEN. I am really happy to tell you that as our Europa mission is in its preformulation activity, we have indeed connected 

with human exploration and understand the status of the development of the SLS. The SLS can potentially provide us an enormous 

opportunity to rapidly reach an outer planet’s target, and it may 

fit well for the very first time with our Europa initiative that will 

be launched in the 2020s. So it is understudy right now. There is 

no firm commitments but I am happy to say that it does look promising. 

Mr. BROOKS. Dr. Sykes, what is the consensus in the planetary 

science community on whether there is a scientific value expected 

from the NASA Asteroid Redirect Mission? 

Dr. SYKES. Well, I would say it is not a unanimous opinion but 

there is—it is not something that brings back the most bang for the 

buck, if you will, that there are higher priorities such as you want 

to characterize the near-Earth asteroid population to have a survey 

of that population from space in order to better understand what 

the real components are rather than an expensive mission to one 

small target that is not characteristic of the size of objects that represent a danger to Earth or the population of the asteroid—nearEarth asteroid population as a whole. So there is—the science support is weak. 

Mr. BROOKS. Ms. Gabrynowicz, early on you state that ‘‘no one 

agency houses all that will be needed’’ to appropriately oversee private-sector asteroid resource recovery, going on to claim that the 

system as it stands ‘‘will produce unnecessary risk that is counterproductive to industry.’’ Could you please expand upon what this 

risk might look like? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Well, yes. The activities of asteroid mining 

have never been dealt with before, and at the same time, there are 

other activities like space situational awareness, space traffic management that are equally evolving and have aspects that are relevant to asteroid activities. So different agencies have different responsibilities regarding those other activities and there needs to be 

a coordinated discussion so information can go from one agency to 

the other, and when another activity or an event emerges which is 

a case of first impression, the agencies can discuss how to deal with 

that, and we have two very good models. One is the interagency 

MOU that is used for commercial remote sensing and also the 

interagency direction given by Congress for the governance of GPS. 

So I would suggest looking at those models and proceeding. That 

way a company will know who is responsible for what. Without it, 

a question will arise and only then do you start to look around to 

see who may know how to handle it, and that is unpredictable. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. This is for the entire panel. Whoever 

wishes to answer it, go ahead, and this is a GOP SST staff question. ‘‘Congress has been clear in its support for NASA’s planetary 

science missions and continues to propose funding at higher levels 

than the President’s budget request. Why do you think the Administration continues to cut NASA’s planetary science division?’’ Whoever would like to address it in the time I have left? 
85 

Dr. SYKES. Well, I would just say that it has other priorities. I 

think it ranks other activities within the agency higher and that 

is how it chooses to allocate the resources. We might not agree with 

that—Congress certainly doesn’t agree with that—but it is the 

hand that we are dealt with. 

Mr. BROOKS. Any specific programs that you believe the Administration is placing as a higher priority rather than planetary 

science? 

Dr. SYKES. I don’t know. Everything? 

Mr. BROOKS. That is pretty broad. Anyone else want to add to 

that? Hearing no additional response, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. At this time I recognize Mr. Kilmer. 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the entire 

panel. I appreciate the comments about NASA’s planetary science 

programs and your thoughts on ASTEROIDS Act. I want to also 

thank Representative Posey for the partnership on the ASTEROIDS Act. 

And I guess I want to ask about two things, one, value, and second, principle. Those were the two things that got me interested in 

the ASTEROIDS Act. So I guess my first question to the panel is, 

what is there in an asteroid that would be worth the effort and expense of going to go get it? 

Dr. BELL. So a variety of answers to that question. Some are 

purely scientific because we want to know how planets form and 

asteroids are the building blocks of planets. We know from telescopic surveys and missions that have gone on that there is a variety of kinds of objects out there—rocky, metallic, et cetera. So there 

are pure exploration goals associated with that. 

And then there is a whole side of this business that cares about 

resources and the kinds of resources that future human explorers 

and settlers will need to live off the land, if you will, and asteroids 

are a potentially fruitful supply of those resources. You know, 

many people talk about metals and many asteroids based on the 

meteorites in our collection, which are from asteroids, have precious metals on them. But to me, I think maybe the most precious 

resource is probably water, H20, because we need the water to live, 

of course, the O to breathe. The H can be an important part of 

rocket fuel. And so perhaps in the near term—and of course, we 

are talking decades still for all this to happen—but perhaps the 

water inventory and water extraction efforts would be the most 

compelling. 

Dr. SYKES. I would like to add to that. I fully agree. In fact, we 

had a lot of interest in humans to Mars. Humans to Mars is a very 

expensive proposition, you know, by the estimates that have been 

made, and I think that the only way that we are going to expand 

beyond low-Earth orbit in any kind of significant way for human 

activity is to find a way of living off the land, finding a way of reducing the amount of material we have to haul up the gravity well 

of the Earth at great expense, and asteroid resources, particularly 

water, I think offers that possibility. But just saying it doesn’t 

make it so and there is a lot of homework that we need to do in 

order to determine whether that offers a cost-effective way of buying down the cost of expanding human exploration enabling our 

going to Mars. 
86 

Mr. KILMER. Thank you. The other thing I wanted to ask about, 

you know, my background was working in economic development 

and I worked with businesses professionally, and there was two 

things that drove my interest in this. One, we just talked about, 

the potential value of doing it, and the second is the sense that for 

businesses to make an investment, there needs to be some sense 

of certainty. My observation is, what business wants from government more than anything else is an environment of trust and predictability. So I would like to get some sense from you of, is there 

value in setting some rules of the road as private enterprise contemplates pursuing any of these valuable aspects of visiting 

mines—or mining asteroids for this purpose, and I guess relatedly, 

if a company fails in that endeavor, is there any risk to government 

or impact to NASA? Is there any downside? 

Dr. SYKES. I would say that having that legal certainty, that 

when you go out there and acquire material at an asteroid, you are 

a private company, that you own it is very important, and at some 

point that framework needs to be created to give them, give private 

corporations that certainty so that if they make that investment 

and actually go out and do it, bring stuff back, somebody doesn’t, 

you know, say thank you and take it away from them. So that is 

important. 

In terms of risk to NASA, I guess I don’t see—don’t see that. 

Mr. KILMER. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. There has been a lot of 

exacting questions asked. I will ask maybe some practical ones. 

I guess the first question would be, how far away are the asteroids we are talking about and how long would it take to actually 

reach a target asteroid, not in inches or feet or half a mile, but just 

give a good guess. 

Dr. SYKES. Congressman, asteroids are the easiest things to get 

to in the solar system. We swim in a cloud of near-Earth objects. 

Mr. HALL. Does that mean they are easy, they are closer to us, 

or—— 

Dr. SYKES. They are closer to us. They are dynamically easier to 

get to. It takes less fuel to get to them—not all of them—I am talking about a portion of the population. And I think there is a little 

chart in my statement that shows how many you can get to with 

less energy than getting to the surface of the moon and you can 

do it with turnaround times of—you get there on time scales of, you 

know, weeks, days, depending on how close it gets. So they offer 

a great variety of opportunity of access-easy access. 

Dr. BELL. I guess I would only add that that is true for a relatively random subset of them, and you know, we may have to go 

farther to get certain kinds of asteroids. The more water-rich ones 

may be concentrated out of the main belt Mars and Jupiter. So, you 

know, the answer is, it varies. Some are close, some are further 

away. 

Dr. SYKES. Absolutely. There is thousands, tens of thousands 

that we know about, and it is a fraction of them, and their orbits 

are random within a range but we already know a large number 

that are easy to get to, and as we conduct space-based surveys to 

find these objects, you know, surveys designed to find these objects 
87 

like the WISE mission that recently greatly expanded our knowledge of this class of objects, there are going to be even more targets, which is totally predictable. 

Dr. BELL. And I think it is fair to say that no matter which ones 

we want to go to, we are going to need the sort of infrastructure 

capability to get out into deep space, whether it is government or 

a private company. It is not going to be the low-Earth orbit, medium-Earth orbit kind of activity. This is deep-space activity. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Brooks questioned what value you would put on 

that and why spend the money and are there specific goals. Even 

the chairman mentioned the question of harmful interference by either your testimony or our analysis of it, who is going to have to 

pay for it. We know who is going to have to pay for it. 

But let me just ask another question. Is there any reason to 

think asteroid mining is not technically feasible? What is the danger in it? Why would it not be? We have talked about why it should 

be and what it is going to cost and how far away it is. 

Dr. BELL. In terms of the activity of doing the mining? Is that 

what you are talking about? So it is a very challenging environment. There is almost no gravity on these bodies, and so most of 

mining technology on the Earth that we are used to involves gravity in some way, and at least being able to walk around and move 

equipment around, you are talking about very challenging environments, very small bodies where gravity it 1,000, 10,000 times less 

than what it is on the Earth. So I think there are some technical 

hurdles that need to be dealt with and how we operate, how do 

people even move around. Can we land on these objects? Do we actually docket with them? You know, very, very, very big challenges 

that need to get tackled. 

Mr. HALL. Well, this Committee several years ago, maybe seven, 

eight or ten years ago had a hearing on the dangers involved and 

where the asteroids were. Somebody there even asked if they 

dropped something in the middle of America, could you split it and 

have half of it hit New York and another half hit Los Angeles. 

They couldn’t answer that question either. 

I guess—and we held hearings on asteroids about the one that 

exploded over Russia. If the asteroid mining industry develops, will 

the resulting technologies help us to understand and interact with 

asteroids better and perhaps protect against an asteroid threat? 

Dr. SYKES. Congressman, I would say that yes, but we would 

need to be developing—we need to do a lot of homework before we 

do the asteroid mining because asteroids are characterized by their 

diversity. They are going to have a variety of internal makeup, surface properties and compositions. How do we work at the surface 

of an asteroid? There is a lot of homework that needs to be done, 

basic research that really is best done, I think, by us as a country. 

Mr. HALL. I have just one more second and I just—— 

Dr. SYKES. Oh, sorry. 

Mr. HALL. What recommendations—I will ask you this in a letter 

to you later—that you would make to provide rules and a level 

playing field and let the market operate form there? And I thank 

the witnesses for coming today, getting ready to come up here, arriving here and giving some testimony. I hope we use it wisely. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I thank you. 
88 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Ms. Bonamici. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Chairman Palazzo and 

Ranking Member Edwards, and thank you to this impressive panel 

of witnesses. We are always fortunate, particularly in this Committee and in this Subcommittee, to have experts like you help us 

inform our decisions. 

One of the common themes that we hear about in this Subcommittee, especially when we are talking about planetary science 

and human space exploration, is the role that NASA has had in 

sparking imagination, especially in the next generation, and when 

we discussed missions before, we consider what NASA can do that 

will most effectively inspire the public so they can turn their interest to science and restore our sense of pride in our leadership role 

in space, and we have had some discussions already this morning 

about funding and budget levels, and it is my understanding that 

NASA’s recent budget request for planetary science is low enough 

to force a withdrawal from the European Space Agency-led Mars 

mission in 2018 and focus instead on a U.S.-led mission in 2020. 

So I want to ask Dr. Green, what might be the difference between a U.S. participation and a European-led mission and leading 

our own mission and would that negatively impact the collaborations that we have had with the European Space Agency or other 

international partners? 

Dr. GREEN. We work very well with our international partners, 

and ESA in particular. In fact, as was earlier mentioned, the Rosetta mission has three U.S. experiments on it and a significant 

portion of another with more than 40 U.S. scientists that analyzing 

that fabulous data that is coming in that is really inspirational in 

terms of trying to understand what these cometary bodies are and 

how they interact with the inner part of the solar system. 

As we move in other areas, ESA has a major desire to go to 

Mars. Their next Mars mission is an orbiter. It is in 2016. It is 

going to look for trace gases, and NASA actually has a part of that, 

a very small part of that in terms of providing some electrical 

equipment that allows that orbiter to communicate with our surface assets, whether they are ESA assets or NASA assets. And 

then in 2018, we have also—although we have scaled back our 

interaction on 2018, we still have part of a major experimental that 

we worked with the Germans on in 2018 rover. 

What has happened mostly in our interactions is really the scale 

of those interactions. In the missions I mentioned, we were actually 

a minor partner. This is how we have worked the best. One agency 

leads the effort for which the other is a minor partner and participates and follows that lead. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And I am sorry to cut you off. I want to allow 

time for another question but I am glad to see that there is still 

some role in those missions. 

Dr. GREEN. And we have worked very hard to keep our role. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that. 

And I want to ask Dr. Sykes a question. I see you went to the 

University of Oregon. 

Dr. SYKES. Go, Ducks! 

Ms. BONAMICI. I did as well. Go, Ducks. Thank you. So another 

issue that we talk about here and related to the point that I raised 
89 

about inspiring the public again, I try to explain to our constituents 

why this is a priority, oftentimes I find that the public does not understand all the technologies that have been developed through the 

space program that have civilian uses. There are lists of them. You 

know. I think our constituents don’t understand that GPS, memory 

foam, solar cells, radial tires, and the list goes on and on, communications, smoke detectors, water filters that they would not have 

those products to the extent that they do now without space exploration. So we are always trying to educate our constituency about 

why this is important. 

But I wonder, with federal investment in NASA lagging oftentimes when there are tight budgets, some have suggested that the 

private sector could end up developing technologies that NASA 

could adopt, and so, analogous but different from asteroid mining. 

So are there good examples to date of private-sector technologies 

being adopted by NASA for planetary science research or other 

purposes? Is there anything we can do to spur innovation in the 

private sector? 

Dr. SYKES. Well, I think the private sector is kicking off pretty 

with SpaceX and Virgin Galactic and XCOR developing systems, 

some of which—some of the SpaceX launch vehicles that will I am 

sure ultimately be used for solar system exploration missions at a 

reduced cost, and so I think that we are benefitting from that right 

now and it is opening up new activities in space through tourism. 

PSI is working with XCOR on the Atsa Suborbital Observatory 

human-tended telescopes up on—up into space to make observations, and I think that will be pretty exciting. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific, and I see my time is expired. I yield 

back. Thank you very much. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would like to compliment you and Ranking Member Edwards for 

your commitment to America’s space program and keeping us the 

number one space-faring power in the world, so thank you very 

much. 

Dr. Sykes, I was actually taken by your opening statement that 

you felt it necessary to apologize for being somewhat negative 

about a program. Now, let me just note, that attitude—and all I 

can say is, I commend you for then moving forward with being negative in expressing yourself on a program. What our problem has 

been in trying to set priorities has been that people on the witness 

stands have refused to tell us what is negative about specific programs. Over the years, I think I rarely have ever heard anybody 

say no, this is not worth the money and we should cancel that part 

and we should finance this. If we are going to have a successful 

space program, we need people to be very frank about what they 

believe not to be worth the money, and hopefully they won’t need 

to apologize about pointing out that this program isn’t worth as 

much as some other program. But again, rarely do we ever get 

that, and I always—they are willing to express what they really 

want the money for but never what they don’t want money to be 

spent for. 

Now, with this, let me note that in your testimony, you were very 

negative about asteroid retrieval. Let me just note that that was 
90 

not a condemnation, however, to the ASTEROIDS Act nor was it 

in any way pooh-poohing or trying to throw cold water on the idea 

of asteroid mining and commercial activity dealing with asteroids. 

So that is a very important point to note here that you could have 

something that is a NASA program that deals with asteroids that 

may not be worth the money but certainly trying to encourage private investors in the initial steps that are going to be necessary for 

them to be involved is a very positive thing. So we do need—I think 

this could be the very first step that we will see 10, 20 years from 

now and then way beyond, maybe 50 years from now, we might see 

this as the first step towards something that was really valuable 

to humankind in that we have private sector people bringing minerals back to the Earth that we need for different types of industrialization. 

And let me go to Mr. Green. One of the reasons why I just 

stressed that people won’t say what they don’t think is worthwhile 

is we have certain projects that I have strenuously said we need 

to reconsider and of course people know that the space—the SLS 

program is draining about a billion dollars a year out of the budget 

now. Could you tell me if—and I heard your answer earlier and it 

was kind of a little nebulous, but are there any planetary or space 

science missions that are at this point—that the SLS would be a 

prerequisite to them other than sending a manned mission to 

Mars? 

Dr. GREEN. Yes, I will be happy to answer that. We have started 

interacting with human exploration which is developing the Space 

Launch System and we are finding that it has an opportunity to 

open up the outer part of our solar system, and what I mean by 

that is, because of its large-velocity injection from the Earth, it 

therefore enables a rapid transit from the Earth to objects such as 

Europa or other outer planets’ objects. This is incredibly enabling 

for us. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So there is no other rockets right now, that 

this multibillion-dollar effort, huge expenditure is necessary or we 

will not be able to send a mission by Europa? By the way, I said 

I eliminated the manned part of it. 

Dr. GREEN. Currently, if you compare what our conventional 

rocket capability is today, we would have to do a number of gravity 

assists on the inner part of our solar system that will eventually 

then give the velocity necessary for a spacecraft to go to the outer 

solar system. This might take 6 or seven years. With the Space 

Launch System as currently being designed, we can cut that more 

than in half, and we can get to the outer solar system much 

quicker. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will have to admit that cutting the time in 

half does not necessarily justify the cutting of major space—other 

space-related programs to me. I mean, cutting things timewise in 

half is—I mean, it is interesting for me to hear that but I know 

that there are lots of endeavors, and if what you are complaining 

about mainly today is this declining amount of money that is going 

into space and what we see in this Administration a commitment 

to this mega project as well as to Earth science, to focus on Earth 

science rather than planetary science when we have got lots of 

other Federal Government agencies and departments focusing on 
91 

Earth science but NASA is the only one that focuses on space 

science. So I think that we have got to, number one, be very frank 

about what we think is not worthwhile and we have got to make 

sure that the money that we spend is spent wisely and maybe not 

just to cut the time frame in half at the expense of doing totally 

other programs. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank all of the witnesses for your excellent testimony here this 

morning, very informative and very inspiring, and we greatly appreciate it. 

Professor Gabrynowicz, just a couple comments in your written 

testimony and just one quotation: ‘‘Given the ambiguities in existing space law, international space law contains many gaps and ambiguities.’’ 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Correct. 

Mr. POSEY. So, I mean, there is a lot of ambiguity already out 

there. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Correct. 

Mr. POSEY. You know, there will always be questions no matter 

what Congress does or doesn’t pass right now. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. Correct 

Mr. POSEY. And referring to this legislation, as you did, you 

know, in a way that you said it is logical and appropriate to attempt to resolve these ambiguities in favor of the U.S. national interest, I am deeply grateful to see that in print, and I am glad that 

we agree on that for certain. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. But we may not always agree as to what is 

in the national interest. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, that is what is always debatable. I mean, you 

know, there will always be some people who would like to study 

this or anything else to death until the Russians, the Chinese or 

somebody else takes the lead on this as they have on some of the 

other things, and so my question was, if you agreed that this is a 

good starting point, you know, or in other words, you know, do you 

think it is time to conduct a full-scale regulatory framework upfront or do you think we should proceed with a draft regulatory 

framework that has the flexibility to allow the industry and technology to develop further before we start putting all the regulatory 

framework in cast iron, which some people want to do? 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. I guess I would frame it differently, Congressman. I would frame it as follows. It needs to be recognized that 

what we are talking about is resource extraction, which is a very 

volatile and contentious issue at the international level. Therefore, 

it can be expected that there will be a great deal of political and 

legal discussion catalyzed by this. The language of the proposed bill 

will be analyzed in terms of current law and it will be years before 

there is any agreement on that. That will create the environment 

in which this activity needs to go forward, and I think it is appropriate to understand that. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, if we wait years before we address the issue, 

the business just goes somewhere else, you know, and I guarantee 

you, the Russians and the Chinese will not give the rest of the 
92 

world the thoughtful consideration that some people expect before 

we do anything. 

Dr. Green, there is concern in the science community about the 

inventory of plutonium-238, the fuel which powers long-distance 

robotic spacecraft. How much plutonium-238 is on hand right now? 

Dr. GREEN. Currently, the Department of Energy has allocated 

about 35 kilograms of plutonium. Seventeen kilograms of that is 

currently within specifications for us to use almost immediately, 

providing we have the manufacturing capability to put it in the appropriate form. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. How many missions will that supply? 

Dr. GREEN. The missions are varied, depending upon the amount 

of power they have. For instance, the next nuclear mission that is 

currently being considered is indeed we are baselining radioisotope 

power for the Mars 2020 rover and that will need 4 kilograms. So 

we have adequate supply for that. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. How many upcoming planetary science missions will require the use of plutonium-238? 

Dr. GREEN. Another one that we are considering, although it has 

also not been decided, is the potential Europa mission. That one 

again is in pre-phase A and undergoing intense study. I think it 

is also important to note that our program as delineated in the 

Planetary Decadal in the New Frontiers area has a number of targets that probably could not be accomplished without radioisotope 

power capability, and our intent would be at that solicitation to be 

able to facilitate that. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. What is the purpose for requesting proposals 

for Discovery-class missions that were not reliant on the use of radioisotope power systems reflective of the concern about the supply 

of plutonium-238? 

Dr. GREEN. No, they were not. Our concern was the assurance 

by Department of Energy that they could develop the pellets of plutonium necessary to fuel our radioisotope power systems, and that 

is based on a production line that has not been fully maintained. 

We of course are now working closely with Department of Energy 

to turn that around, and we anticipate them getting back into production of these pellets that will allow our missions to move forward in the next several years. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. Last year NASA canceled its program to 

design an advanced Stirling radioisotope generator that would use 

far less plutonium-238 per mission. Was that—what was the reasoning behind that, especially if there was concern about the 

amount of plutonium-238 available for long-distance science missions? 

Dr. GREEN. Yes, I think it is important to recognize that what 

we canceled was the actual flight version of the Stirling capability. 

We currently have pulled that technology back into house. In other 

words, instead of having it manufactured, we are continuing to test 

that capability within the NASA centers, but we are anticipating 

that as we may need it, we will bring that technology back into the 

future. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Schweikert. 
93 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Professors 

Christensen and Bell, it is nice to see ASU so well represented 

here. You know, it is—we often—I often talk to my associates here 

who are from back East who haven’t seen the scale of what ASU 

has become, particularly in this last decade, and they don’t understand, I believe we are now the largest university in the country 

and our hard sciences have done exceptional things. 

Mr. Chairman and to the committee, this is sort of a one-off 

question but I think it actually really does move towards the underlying legislation, which I, you know, fully support the concept 

but, you know, we have seen throughout humankind, you know, 

ownership always is necessary for moving investment, but how do 

you do that in a world where there may be other treaty obligations, 

perception out there that these resources are sort of controlled either by the communal scientific community owned by sort of, shall 

we say, the collective of the populations of Earth with us moving 

forward on a piece of legislation like the ability to own those resources and therefore move forward and doing the investments. 

When you participate in international organizations, how is this 

discussion moving forward? Is there at least now a communal understanding that private ownership or individual ownership of 

those resources will be required to make particularly private investments? Anyone willing to delve into this with me? I am glad 

I created so much excitement. Professor Bell? 

Dr. BELL. Well, I think it comes back to, maybe it was Mr. Kilmer and others who pointed out that companies need some assurance in order to make that investment. So if this is going to go forward, this problem has to be tackled. It is not clear, you know, 

from what we have heard from today, it is not clear that there is 

a straightforward solution but it is going to take time and it is 

going to have to be consistent with our international treaty obligations. So I don’t think it is going to happen quickly. 

Ms. GABRYNOWICZ. One thought that comes to mind is if we are 

going to talk about advancing an industry, that it be an industry 

and perhaps not individual companies. One thing in the language 

of the proposed bill when they use the term ‘‘harmful interference’’, 

it is referring to Company A or Company B. If Company A does 

something, then they are protected by this legislation from Company B’s harmful interference. Harmful interference has never 

been used that way in the treaties. That is a completely novel application of that term of art, and it gives rise to the thought that 

maybe we are not talking about an industry here but we may be 

talking about the interest of individual companies, and if that is 

the case, then that is not going to get us what we want either. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. To that point, forgive me, because in my reading through it, I actually took it as being even a little more complicated because for any of us to predict what this industry, what 

this is going to look like a decade, two decades from now, it may 

be cooperative ventures. It may be public-private. It may be a series of multinationals. Who knows? And so how do you design conceptually the framework in a fashion where we don’t demonstrate 

a certain current arrogance that we know what the future is going 

to be? And that is sometimes very, very tricky to do. 
94 

Is there—and Professor Bell, particularly to you, unintended consequences, and the basic word ‘‘unintended’’ means we don’t know, 

but can you think of any sort of cascade out there as we move forward on trying to build the framework for this discussion that may 

sneak up on us? 

Dr. BELL. Well, I can’t think of any technical one. I think the cascading effects are likely to be, as was pointed out, political and, you 

know, perhaps related to treaty obligations. I think, you know, another way forward, you know, historians would tell us to look to 

the past and we could look at, you know, analogs for development 

of the airline industry or development of the telecommunications 

industry and what we are seeing right now in commercial space is 

a lot of government seeding of these companies to help them with, 

you know, getting their footing, helping them to get some of the 

technologies under their belt that would help them attract investors. And so that is all moving out forward, and it is, you know, 

your guys’ job to figure out the politics behind it. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. And I know I am over time, and I would also 

ask you to add to that history the creation of the World Wide Web, 

which ultimately had very little government touch and actually 

may be our most successful in a century of reaching, touching and 

changing our lives. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Did you want him to answer any questions? 

I mean, even though we are short—I mean, you are out of time but 

we are coming close to the—okay. 

At this time, for the purpose of being fair and inclusive to all our 

witnesses, we are going to open up a last round of questions, or 

question, and I will recognize Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I just want to thank the chairman. We want to 

make sure that none of our witnesses, Dr. Christensen, gets to escape without answering a question, and so mine is for you, and it 

was prepared for earlier but in your prepared notes, you indicate 

that a sample caching system is a major new development of the 

Mars 2020 rover mission and should remain the focus of the mission, but in really simple terms what we know is that caching involves the rover carefully collecting a suite of high-quality samples 

to be returned to Earth by future missions. Are you concerned that 

the caching system is not a priority for Mars 2020, and then related to that, if you could give us an indication of the ways in 

which the planetary science is actually an enabler for human exploration missions because we like to see that there is some synergy 

between what we are doing in what I describe as the multi-mission 

focus of NASA, how is that planetary science related to the human 

exploration missions? 

Dr. CHRISTENSEN. Sure. I think it is very important to remember 

the Decadal Survey spent two years looking at priorities across 

planetary science, and Mars came to the top of that not because of 

another Mars mission or another rover but because of those samples coming back to Earth, and there is a lot of pressure on actually fulfilling that series of missions. The first rover, its main goal 

is to collect that cache, and the concern is that if that is not kept 

at the highest possible priority, then the entire campaign is threatened, and then the whole rationale for making that mission the 
95 

highest priority comes into question. So it is more of a cautionary 

note. It will be difficult. It is a complex system to create. We just 

need to make sure that NASA stays focused on that goal. 

Ms. EDWARDS. You don’t—I mean, it is not your view, though, 

that talking about human exploration missions or even investing in 

those is a distraction from those commitments? 

Dr. CHRISTENSEN. I don’t believe so. I think within the planetary 

science community, we have this very high priority, and that is to 

get samples back robotically from Mars. To tie to the humans, I 

think it is essential that robotic science program and the human 

programs are connected. We all wish there was a better connection 

between them. Everything we are learning is going to inform us so 

we can safely send humans to Mars. So we think of the science 

part as the precursor, the very beginning of eventually getting humans to Mars. They are closely tied. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And do you think our budget, our budget considerations, I mean, where I mentioned now we are at $1.345 billion for 

planetary science is reflective of that commitment? 

Dr. CHRISTENSEN. On the planetary side, we are concerned. In 

the previous decade, we could have fulfilled the goals and recommendations in the Decadal Survey. So planetary science doesn’t 

need a vast amount of new money. It needs to be restored to where 

it had been for almost a decade. The scope of planetary exploration 

or robotic and human is so different that there is the threat that 

human exploration can take money from the planetary science side, 

but I think most of us believe that there is actually a very reasonable divide between those two, and planetary will continue forward 

successfully. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

And Dr. Green, do you share that? 

Dr. GREEN. I do. I am also looking closely at Mars 2020 as we 

develop it further to ensure that it is Decadal compliant. I believe 

the Planetary Decadal is a fabulous document. You know, it is a 

consensus within the community and it is really part of my drive 

to make planetary science successful is to follow the Decadal to the 

best of our ability. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to 

make it again abundantly clear that the letter that you entered 

into the record at the beginning of this meeting makes it very clear 

that we have Americans ready actually waiting right now to pursue 

asteroids as we speak, not in two or three years when Congress finishes studying it together and then moves forward to the gridlock 

that won’t do anything. I mean, this is imminent right now, and 

I am just so glad to see you take this action on it. 

Dr. Green, currently, the United States is the only country able 

to produce plutonium-238 for use in long-distance science-based 

missions. If the United States fails to produce enough plutonium 

for our civilian space program, how likely is it that other countries 

will develop the capability to send missions to the outer planets of 

the solar system? 

Dr. GREEN. I feel very confident in our relationship with the Department of Energy and the support of the Administration and the 
96 

wonderful support that we get from Congress to be able to begin 

the production of plutonium. We are very much on track to be able 

to do that. Working with Department of Energy, we have actually 

started to test that process. We generated very small amounts of 

plutonium in one of their existing reactors. We have extracted that 

and we now are through Department of Energy developing the procedures and the processes to safely do that at about a kilogram and 

a half of plutonium oxide every year. That will meet our needs, and 

I believe that will secure our future, NASA and its approaches to 

going to places where there is very low light, whether it is the pole 

of Mars or crawling in a permanently shadowed crater on the moon 

or Mercury or going out to Pluto or Neptune or Uranus. 

So I think we are poised now to be well positioned and good 

stewards of a planetary program by your support and getting the 

funding necessary for us to regenerate plutonium, and that is on 

track. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I truly want 

to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. 

The Members of the Committee may have additional questions 

for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional comments and 

written questions from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(97) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
98 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Jim Green 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Responses by Dr. Philip Christensen 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

Responses by Dr. Jim Bell 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

Responses by Dr. Mark Sykes 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

Responses by Ms. Joanne Gabrynowicz 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 

(147) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
148 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN PALAZZO
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 

Æ