U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–411PDF 2014

PATHWAYS TO EXPLORATION: A REVIEW OF 

THE FUTURE OF HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2014 

Serial No. 113–82 

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 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

June 25, 2014 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Witnesses: 

Governor Mitch Daniels, Report Co-Chair and President, Purdue University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Dr. Jonathan Lunine, Report Co-Chair and Director, Cornell University’s 

Center for Radiophysics and Space Research 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 27 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Governor Mitch Daniels, Report Co-Chair and President, Purdue University .. 48 

Dr. Jonathan Lunine, Report Co-Chair and Director, Cornell University’s 

Center for Radiophysics and Space Research .................................................... 55 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Written statement submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Member, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 64

(1) 

PATHWAYS TO EXPLORATION: A REVIEW OF 

OF THE FUTURE OF HUMAN SPACE 

EXPLORATION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘Pathways to Exploration: A 

Review of the Future of Human Space Exploration.’’ I will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas. 

At a fundamental level, space exploration—the mission of 

NASA—is about inspiration. This inspiration fuels our desire to 

push the boundaries of the possible and reach beyond our own pale 

blue dot. 

When the President cancelled the Constellation program in 2010, 

our chance to explore beyond low-Earth orbit was significantly delayed. To the dismay of the American people, the Administration 

made it clear that human space exploration was not a priority. 

The first human footsteps on the Moon are a distant memory. 

And with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA now pays 

Russia $70 million to transport an American astronaut to the 

International Space Station and back. There is a sense that America is falling behind, with our best days behind us. Today, America’s finest spaceships and largest rockets are found in museums 

rather than on launch pads. 

The President has proposed capturing an asteroid and tugging it 

into lunar orbit for human exploration. But NASA’s own advisors 

said, ‘‘it was not considered to be a serious proposal.’’ Space exploration experts have criticized this plan before our Committee. And 

former NASA officials have called into question its merits. 

The Administration’s continued focus on costly distractions is 

harmful to our space program and does not inspire future generations to go into innovative fields such as science and math. However, a distinguished panel of experts has concluded that a return 

to ‘‘extended surface operations on the Moon’’ would make significant contributions to landing people on Mars. The same has not 

been said for the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, which is a mission 

without a realistic budget, without a destination, and without a 

certain launch date. 

The witnesses before us today represent decades of public policy 

work and scientific investigation. They co-chaired the Committee 

on Human Spaceflight that recently released a report entitled 

‘‘Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. 

Program of Human Space Exploration.’’ This report confirmed that 

NASA lacks a plan for human space exploration. The NASA Authorization Act, which recently passed the House, requires a detailed plan for how NASA will land humans on Mars. This report 

offers suggestions on the best way to reach that goal. 

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to advocate increasing climate change funding at NASA at the expense of other 

priorities such as space exploration. There are 18 federal agencies 

that fund climate change research, but only one does space exploration. 

The future of America’s exploration efforts lead to Mars. Just as 

the first steps on the Moon were by Americans, the first flag to fly 

on another planet in our solar system should be that of the United 

States. 
5 

Great nations do great things. President Kennedy’s call to America wasn’t just about reaching the Moon; it was a reminder that we 

are an exceptional nation. We must rekindle within NASA the fire 

that blazed the trail to the Moon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

At a fundamental level, space exploration-the mission of NASA-is about inspiration. This inspiration fuels our desire to push the boundaries of the possible and 

reach beyond our own pale blue dot. 

When the President cancelled the Constellation program in 2010, our chance to 

explore beyond low-Earth orbit was significantly delayed. To the dismay of the 

American people, the Administration made it clear that human space exploration 

was not a priority. 

The first human footsteps on the Moon are a distant memory. And, with the re- tirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA now pays Russia $70 million to transport an 

American astronaut to the International Space Station and back. 

There’s a sense that America is falling behind, with our best days behind us. 

Today, America’s finest spaceships and largest rockets are found in museums rather 

than on launch pads. 

The President has proposed capturing an asteroid and tugging it into lunar orbit 

for human exploration. But NASA’s own advisors said, ‘‘it was not considered to be 

a serious proposal.’’ Space exploration experts have criticized this plan before our 

Committee. And former NASA officials have called into question its merits. 

The Administration’s continued focus on costly distractions is harmful to our 

space program and does not inspire future generations to go into innovative fields 

such as science and math. However, a distinguished panel of experts has concluded 

that a return to ‘‘extended surface operations on the moon’’ would make significant 

contributions to landing people on Mars. 

The same has not been said for the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, which is a mission 

without a realistic budget, without a destination and without a certain launch date. 

The witnesses before us today represent decades of public policy work and scientific investigation. They co-chaired The Committee on Human Spaceflight that recently released a report entitled ‘‘Pathways to Exploration-Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration.’’ 

This report confirmed that NASA lacks a plan for human space exploration. The 

NASA Authorization Act, which recently passed the House, requires a detailed plan 

for how NASA will land humans on Mars. This report offers suggestions on the best 

way to reach that goal. 

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration continues to advocate increasing climate 

change funding at NASA at the expense of other priorities such as space exploration. 

There are 18 federal agencies that fund climate change research, but only one 

does space exploration. The future of America’s exploration efforts lead to Mars. 

Just as the first steps on the moon were by Americans, the first flag to fly on another planet in our solar system should be that of the United States. 

Great nations do great things. President Kennedy’s call to America wasn’t just 

about reaching the moon, it was a reminder that we are an exceptional nation. We 

must rekindle within NASA the fire that blazed the trail to the moon. 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement. 

And the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for 

hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning to all. 

I would like also to welcome our distinguished witnesses to today’s hearing. 

I make no secret of the fact that I consider National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration to be a critical national asset. NASA is 

a source of technological and scientific innovation, an inspiration to 

generations of young people, a catalyst for economic growth, and a 

very positive symbol of American preeminence worldwide, as well 
6 

as visible demonstration of our commitment to international cooperation and the peaceful uses of outer space. Simply put, NASA 

is about the future. 

Now it is a fact that NASA’s human spaceflight activities account 

for a significant share of the resources invested in NASA. We need 

to ensure that those resources are invested wisely. That is why this 

morning’s hearing is so important. 

At Congress’ direction, the National Academies undertook a comprehensive review of the future of human space exploration in the 

United States. That review has been completed and it is now up 

to Congress and the Administration to decide what we will do in 

response to the findings and recommendations contained in its 

final report. 

This is a report that does not mince words, and for that we 

should be very grateful. As I said when the report was first released, the National Academies has provided the Nation with an 

important wakeup call. Their conclusions are clear. We are not 

going to have a human space exploration program worthy of this 

great nation if we continue down the current path of failing to provide the resources needed to make real progress and failing to embrace a clear goal and pathway to achieving that goal. 

As Members of Congress, the ball is in our court and we have 

choices to make. We can choose to continue to argue about which 

President or who in Congress is to blame for the current state of 

our human space exploration program, but I honestly hope that we 

won’t. We are where we are and we can’t change the past. Our 

focus needs to be on how we proceed from this point forward, and 

I hope that our witnesses can provide some useful counsel to us in 

that regard. 

In addition, we can choose to continue to pretend that a business-as-usual approach to our human space exploration program 

will suffice, but I hope we won’t do that either because the report 

we are reviewing today makes clear that business as usual is not 

a sustainable approach. Whatever resources we are able to invest 

need to be invested effectively and efficiently toward the attainment of a clearly articulated goal. We really can’t afford to do otherwise. 

Finally, the National Academies’ panel makes clear that we don’t 

have unlimited time to decide what kind of human space exploration program we want for the Nation. It may be tempting for 

some to say that we shouldn’t invest necessary resources in space 

exploration until we first fix Medicare or Medicaid, eliminate the 

deficit, or address a host of other major policy issues that have 

been identified by Members at various times. It is tempting to use 

those issues as an excuse for inaction, but the National Academies 

makes a compelling case that we do not have that luxury if we 

want to maintain meaningful human space exploration capability 

in this nation, which I strongly believe we do. We should of course 

address those other issues but that should not prevent us from investing in our future in the meantime. 

And make no mistake about it, our Nation’s human space exploration program with an ultimate goal of landing humans on Mars 

is about our future and that of our children and grandchildren. Mr. 

Chairman, the National Academies has done a great service by un-
7 

dertaking the study that we will be hearing about today. I hope 

that this morning’s hearing will be the first step in achieving a revitalized and focused exploration program for America. I want to 

work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that. 

In closing, I again want to welcome our witnesses and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I want to join the Chairman in welcoming our two distinguished 

witnesses to today’s hearing. 

I make no secret of the fact that I consider the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration to be a critical national asset. NASA is a source of technological and 

scientific innovation, an inspiration to generations of young people, a catalyst for 

economic growth, and a very positive symbol of American preeminence worldwide 

as well as a visible demonstration of our commitment to international cooperation 

in the peaceful uses of outer space. Simply put, NASA is about the future. 

Now it is a fact that NASA’s human spaceflight activities account for a significant 

share of the resources invested in NASA. We need to ensure that those resources 

are invested wisely. That is why this morning’s hearing is so important. At 

Congress’s direction, the National Academies undertook a comprehensive review of 

the future of human space exploration in the United States. That review has been 

completed, and it is now up to Congress and the Administration to decide what we 

will do in response to the findings and recommendations contained in its final report. 

This is a report that does not mince words, and for that we should be grateful. 

As I said when the report was first released, the National Academies has provided 

the nation with an important ‘‘wake-up call.’’ Their conclusions are clear. We are 

not going to have a human space exploration program worthy of this great nation 

if we continue down the current path of failing to provide the resources needed to 

make real progress and failing to embrace a clear goal and pathway to achieving 

that goal. 

As Members of Congress, the ball is now in our court, and we have choices to 

make. We can choose to continue to argue about which President or who in Congress is to blame for the current state of our human space exploration program, but 

I earnestly hope that we won’t. We are where we are, and we can’t change the past. 

Our focus needs to be on how we proceed from this point forward, and I hope that 

our witnesses can provide some useful counsel to us in that regard. 

In addition, we can choose to continue to pretend that a ‘‘business-as-usual’’ approach to our human space exploration program will suffice, but I hope we won’t 

do that either. Because the report we are reviewing today makes clear that ‘‘business-as-usual’’ is not a sustainable approach. Whatever resources we are able to invest need to be invested effectively and efficiently towards the attainment of a clearly articulated goal. We really can’t afford to do otherwise. 

Finally, the National Academies panel makes clear that we don’t have unlimited 

time to decide what kind of human space exploration program we want for the nation. It may be tempting for some to say that we shouldn’t invest the necessary resources in space exploration until we first ‘‘fix’’ Medicare, eliminate the deficit, or 

address a host of other major policy issues that have been identified by Members 

at various times. It’s tempting to use those issues as an excuse for inaction, but the 

National Academies makes a compelling case that we don’t have that luxury if we 

want to maintain a meaningful human space exploration capability in this nation, 

which I strongly believe we do. 

We should of course address those other issues, but that should not prevent us 

from investing in our future in the meantime. And make no mistake about it—our 

nation’s human space exploration program, with an ultimate goal of landing humans on Mars, is about our future and that of our children and grandchildren. 

Mr. Chairman, the National Academies has done us a great service by undertaking the study that we will be hearing about today. I hope that this morning’s 

hearing will be the first step in achieving a revitalized and focused space exploration program for America, and I want to work with my colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle to do just that. 

In closing, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 
8 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

We will now proceed to introduce the witnesses. And to introduce 

our first witness, I will recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. 

Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Our first witness is Governor Mitch Daniels, the President of 

Purdue University, which has graduated 23 astronauts, including 

Neil Armstrong. Prior to this appointment, he served two terms as 

the 49th Governor of my home State of Indiana. He also served as 

Chief of Staff to Senator Richard Lugar, Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan, and Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget under President George W. Bush. 

In addition to his strong record of public service, he has served 

as a Senior Executive at Eli Lilly based in Indianapolis, among 

other positions he has held. 

President Daniels earned his bachelor’s degree from the Woodrow 

Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton and 

his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. 

Welcome, Governor Daniels. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Bucshon. I will introduce our 

second witness, who is Dr. Jonathan Lunine, the Director of the 

Center for Radiophysics and Space Research and the David C. 

Duncan Professor in the Physical Sciences at Cornell University. 

He is co-investigator of the Juno Mission to Jupiter and an interdisciplinary scientist for the James Webb Space Telescope. Dr. 

Lunine has shared and served on committees for NASA and the 

National Science Foundation. He also is a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Geophysical 

Union and American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

Dr. Lunine received his bachelor’s in physics and astronomy from 

the University of Rochester and his master’s and Ph.D. in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology. 

We welcome you both today. It is nice to have two experts on the 

subject present. 

And, Governor Daniels, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF GOVERNOR MITCH DANIELS, 

REPORT CO-CHAIR AND PRESIDENT, 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY 

Gov. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and 

Members of the Committee, we thank you for this opportunity to 

be here on behalf of our Committee on Human Spaceflight established in response to the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. That act 

called on NASA to ask the National Academies to review the goals, 

core capabilities, and direction of our nation’s human spaceflight 

program. And we released our report on June 5. Dr. Lunine and 

I are here to summarize it for you. 

As envisioned in the 2010 act, the Committee membership was 

very diverse, composed not solely or even mostly of experts from 

the human spaceflight community, but instead had members from 

fields as diverse as planetary science, astronomy, political science 

and history, sociology, public opinion and polling, economics, 

human spaceflight experience, international peace and security, 

and others. 
9 

All of us came into this process with open minds and brought to 

the work our divergent points of view. In the end we came to the 

strong consensus that there is a convincing case to be made for a 

continuation of our nation’s human spaceflight program, provided 

that the pathways approach and decision rules recommended in 

our report are adopted. 

We did so because we became convinced only after lengthy discussion and analysis that a combination of what we labeled the 

pragmatic and aspirational rationales, including the human impulse to explore and search for new knowledge in places we have 

never been, justifies the cost, the risk and the opportunities associated with sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit, and especially 

for the ‘‘horizon goal’’ we identify as Mars. 

Getting humans to the surface of Mars will be a daunting challenge. It is immensely difficult, probably more so than most laymen 

and even many experts have recognized. Succeeding in this endeavor will require, we believe, a very different way of doing business 

than the Nation has been practicing in recent decades, particularly 

as it is likely to take 30 years or more to reach the goal. 

As its highest priority recommendation, the committee recommends what we call a ‘‘pathways approach,’’ requiring the government to come to a consensus on achieving a highly disciplined 

set of objectives from which the Nation would not deviate over 

time. A pathway in this scenario would involve a predefined set of 

chosen destinations and milestones, each of which would generate 

technical and engineering requirements which, as much as possible, would feed forward into the next goal and eventually the horizon goal. 

The committee does not recommend any specific pathway—that 

is for you and for future leadership—but we do note in our report 

that any pathway that could successfully land humans on the surface of Mars would require funding above constant dollars. 

Pursuing unwaveringly the consensus choice of a pathway over 

the term of multiple decades and the sustained support of the advances required by the resulting exploration architecture are the 

keys to a sustainable approach to human spaceflight. 

Mr. Chairman, I can’t stress enough how critical it is the Nation 

take a new approach different from the recent way of doing business in space. Work needs to begin soon on the most difficult and 

mission-critical technical challenges of any pathway to Mars, and 

out of many such challenges, our committee singles out Mars entry, 

descent and landing; in-space propulsion and power; and radiation 

safety for very special emphasis. 

In addition, we are in total agreement that achieving the goal of 

a human presence on Mars will require the United States to expand its partnerships with other space faring nations, including an 

openness to working with China, with whatever safeguards might 

have to be put in place. Such international partnerships should include much greater cost-sharing than our partners have provided 

up to now, and that can only happen if those partners are given 

the responsibility to provide substantial elements to the overall architecture, which they will help design and build. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we ask that readers of our report recognize that the risks of human spaceflight, including the risks to 
10 

human life, are high, and setbacks are inevitable. Lives are likely 

to be lost in pursuit of such a tremendous endeavor, and governing 

statutes will need to recognize that grim fact. And while we recognize that many of our recommendations will be seen by many as 

unrealistic or perhaps even naive, we would observe that, absent 

changes along the lines we are recommending, the goal of reaching 

Mars in any meaningful time frame is itself unrealistic. 

Our committee hopes that that our report will carry the national 

conversation forward in the direction of realism, realism about public opinion, about risk, about cost, and about the incredibly 

daunting technical challenges of the horizon goal we hope the 

world embraces. And most of all, we hope to foster greater realism 

about the fact that if we really do want to go to Mars, then many 

actors, public and private, need to change long-standing behaviors 

and expectations. We are optimistic the public will support a consensus national goal and we believe the rationales justify its pursuit. We believe the achievement would be monumental if it occurred, but we think there is really one and possibly only one approach to get there, and we have offered up our best ideas in support of that approach. 

[The prepared statement of Gov. Daniels follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Governor Daniels. 

And, Dr. Lunine. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JONATHAN LUNINE, 

REPORT CO-CHAIR AND DIRECTOR, 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY’S CENTER FOR 

RADIOPHYSICS AND SPACE RESEARCH 

Dr. LUNINE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, Members, 

let me add my thanks to you all for giving us the opportunity to 

talk about this report this morning. 

We recognize it is a very long report with a lot of detail, and so 

if you cannot or have not read the entire document, certainly Chapter 1 is the important chapter to read. And in particular there you 

will find our major findings and recommendations on issues such 

as public and stakeholder opinions about space exploration and 

human spaceflight in general; an honest and detailed independent 

analysis of the technical and affordability realities associated with 

the three example exploration pathways that we have put together 

that lead to Mars; an examination of the rationales for human 

spaceflight; and most importantly, our recommendation on adopting what we call the ‘‘pathways approach’’ that we believe will help 

our Nation achieve that next giant leap for humankind. 

Anybody who reads about the history of space will come to realize very quickly that there are many myths that surround both 

public opinion and proven benefits from human spaceflight. If the 

decision to pursue human spaceflight were based simply on the 

available data on proven benefits that uniquely accrue from this 

endeavor or were based on public opinion being in the majority 

supporting a particular program in advance, then we would likely 

not go. We also recognize that by these kinds of criteria, Americans 

would never have set foot on the Moon, and yet that achievement 

is now viewed as a source of inspiration and great pride by many, 

if not most, Americans. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, it has been political leadership that determines whether our nation will pursue major new ventures. Our 

elected leaders have shown courage and vision in the pursuit of 

human endeavors in space, and when those visions are implemented—such as with Apollo or the Shuttle—the public is retrospectively supportive of the expenditures of our tax dollars on what 

are viewed as endeavors of national importance. 

In the end it was the judgment of this diverse committee that the 

aggregate of the aspirational and pragmatic rationales does argue 

for a continuation of the Nation’s human spaceflight program. In 

effect, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts. Whether 

to pursue human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit in a truly sustainable way is a decision that deserves careful consideration by 

our Nation’s leaders, stakeholders, and the public at large. And in 

making that decision it will be paramount to ask the question, 

‘‘What would a future be like where there were no expectation that 

Americans would once again venture into space?’’ 

But as such decisions are contemplated, we cannot ignore the 

significant leaps in technical capability that will be required to 

land and sustain humans on Mars. Governor Daniels has talked 

about some of those key technologies. And these will be extremely 
19 

difficult to develop in terms of cost, schedule, technical challenges, 

and gaps between current and needed capabilities. Achieving these 

leaps was the motivation behind our recommendation of adopting 

a pathways approach, since only a sustained program that builds 

upon a sequence of technical and exploration successes can buy 

down the risk involved in getting to Mars in a reasonable time 

frame. 

In one of the possible pathways analyzed in detail in the report— 

and these are example pathways—we included as a stepping stone 

extended human operations on the lunar surface. Our technical 

panel concluded, and the committee concurred, that extended surface operations on the Moon, not Apollo-style sorties, but extended 

surface operations would make significant contributions to reaching 

the horizon goal through development and testing of key operational technologies. 

Mr. Chairman, Mars really is incredibly hard. And to reach that 

horizon goal will cost decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and 

human lives. To be a sustainable program, it will require a steadfast national commitment to a consensus goal, international collaboration, and a budget that increases by more than the rate of 

inflation. 

If the Nation does decide to undertake one of the greatest of 

human technical endeavors it has ever attempted, and we assert 

that there is not much time in which to make this decision, we 

have provided in our report what we call the Pathways Principles 

that will help in the choice of a consensus pathway to that goal and 

decision rules that will serve as guidelines on how to manage the 

pursuit of the chosen pathway when stressors such as diminished 

budgets might arise. 

Our committee is convinced that these principles and decision 

rules provide a way for our national leadership to decide on a given 

pathway, measure progress in its pursuit, navigate off one pathway 

to another, or cease the endeavor altogether. 

But in the end, it is our elected leaders who will be the critical 

enablers of our nation’s investment in human spaceflight that ultimately one day may put American astronauts on the red soil of 

Mars. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on this critical national question. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lunine follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Lunine. And I will recognize 

myself for questions. 

One of the conclusions of your report is as follows: ‘‘To continue 

on the present course is to invite failure, disillusionment, and the 

loss of the long-standing international perception that human 

spaceflight is something the United States does best.’’ That is an 

incredible summary of where we stand today and I don’t know that 

too many people would disagree with it. 

My first question, Governor Daniels, may I direct to you, and 

that is does the Obama Administration have a plan to get to Mars, 

as difficult and as costly as it might be? 

And, Dr. Lunine, I hope it doesn’t cost lives, but inevitably exploring new frontiers does. 

But, Governor Daniels, does the Administration have a path, 

have a plan to get to Mars as we sit here today? 

Gov. DANIELS. Mr. Chairman, I believe our committee’s statements, the one that you read and others that we made, were meant 

to refer not to any one Administration but really to a persistent 

pattern now. And I think we speak in terms of decades. So to say 

that at the—as we do that at the present time business as currently conducted won’t get us to Mars is a statement we could 

equally have made about the posture of NASA and our program as 

it stood at other points in the past. And we do believe that it will 

be necessary and sooner, rather than later, for the Nation, all of 

it, whatever Administration is in authority at the time, the Congress as it is constituted at the time, NASA, and the private space 

community for that matter to agree on an approach that, while it 

may not be everyone’s favorite, everyone will agree to sustain and 

support over the lengthy time that will be necessary. And that we 

do not have today. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Governor. 

And, Dr. Lunine, this next question is actually addressed to both 

you and Governor Daniels, and that is were we to say that landing 

astronauts onto Mars was a goal that we wanted to achieve, what 

are the comparative disadvantages of the Asteroid Retrieval Mission or the advantages of going back to the Moon as a stepping 

stone to the landing of astronauts on the Moon? 

Dr. LUNINE. Mr. Chairman, we looked at what we called three 

example exploration pathways for getting from today to the surface 

of Mars. 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. I think I said surface of the Moon; I 

meant Mars. 

Dr. LUNINE. Yes, actually you said Mars in the end, yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Okay. 

Dr. LUNINE. So these are, again, examples only, and in the end, 

should the Nation decide to do this, of course there may be a different set of stepping stones, a different exploration pathway. But 

we did look at one pathway that involved the ARM, Asteroid Redirect Mission, another that involved initially lunar sorties and then 

a lunar outpost before moving on to the surface of Mars, and then 

another pathway that we called Enhanced Exploration that involved visiting asteroids in native orbits, the lunar surface, the 

Martian moons, and ultimately the Martian surface. 
28 

The differences among these three pathways have to do principally with the number of steps that are available in which to develop the key technologies that will be needed to get to the surface 

of Mars, a whole list of technologies that I won’t articulate in my 

answer to this question, but we can if you wish. 

The ARM to Mars exploration pathway in which one goes from 

the Asteroid Redirect Mission to the Martian moons and then to 

the Martian surface has effectively the smallest number of stepping 

stones but the greatest technological leaps are required in going beyond ARM to get to Mars. And in particular a number of technologies that are key to landing on Mars and getting astronauts 

back are not developed in the context of the ARM mission. They 

have to be developed after that, but there are no stepping stones 

on which to actually test them. And some of the technologies developed for ARM are what we call dead-end technologies that are not 

useful as far as the committee can see in the succeeding steps to 

going toward Mars. So that is the essential issue with respect to 

that particular pathway. 

Chairman SMITH. And going back to the Moon would be an advantage for the opposite reasons. Is that correct? 

Dr. LUNINE. So in the pathway in which there were lunar sorties 

and a lunar outpost, there would be an opportunity to test technologies that would be required in partial G environments for extended stays on the Martian surface, to which astronauts would be 

committed. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

My time has expired but I want to make one more point, and 

that is to focus on the most recent proposed budget by this Administration for NASA and to point out that the Administration’s proposed budget for NASA is $1.8 billion less than the last budget 

under the Bush Administration, which seems to me that the Administration is not making space exploration a priority. 

That concludes my time. And the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 

Johnson, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is almost comical to hear your last statement as the kind of 

struggle we had for reauthorization of NASA in this Committee. It 

had nothing to do with the Administration. 

But I want to say to the witnesses, first of all, do both of you 

stand by the report and the contents of the report? 

So you feel that it really is important for the Nation to find a 

way to be involved in this kind of research? 

Now, Governor, I am a product of a school of Indiana, St. Mary’s 

at the University of Notre Dame, and I know you are not a spendthrift and—nor is Indiana as a State. And I am from Texas so you 

can take that for what it is worth. But if you really do think from 

this research that this is a goal that this Nation should achieve, 

do you think it is important enough to convince the people on the 

other side of the aisle to help us to get going because it seems to 

me that every day that we wait we are wasting time. We have had 

people in the past who had that foresight that allowed this to happen, and we are realistically in a financial bind, but we cannot shut 

the door to our future. 

Tell me how you really feel about this. 
29 

Gov. DANIELS. First of all, thanks for mentioning your St. Mary’s 

credential. Now I have got another reason to admire you, Congresswoman, and now I know why you turned out so well. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Gov. DANIELS. Yes, emphatically I do agree. I want to stress, I 

made mention in the short opening that I do believe all of us 

brought to the committee an open mind. We spent a lot of time asking the fundamental question that we were assigned, should the 

Nation do this at all, and if so, on what basis? And that was not 

a reflex judgment, I don’t think by anybody, let alone the whole 

group. And I do share it having listened to those discussions, all 

the witnesses, all the literature that we surveyed. 

And I also would observe it is accurate to say that this is one 

issue, mercifully, that I don’t think divides us particularly on partisan lines. I think there are people who are very enthusiastic that 

we heard from who may disagree strongly about other things, and 

people who question the value that can be found in both camps. 

But we hope that our report makes a strong case for proceeding 

and lays out, in the most candid way we could, the preconditions 

for succeeding, which will be much harder, I think, for folks to 

come to terms with than the abstract idea of whether we should 

go and whether we are enthusiastic about somehow finding resources. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Doctor? 

Dr. LUNINE. Well, I agree with Governor Daniels. I want to emphasize how broad the background of the Committee Members in 

fact was. This was not a committee of astronauts or aerospace engineers. We had historians, we had sociologists, we had 

businesspeople; there were very skeptical people I have to say right 

at the beginning. And I was somewhat myself skeptical that we 

could come to a consensus. And in the end this very diverse committee of experts came to a strong consensus on the conclusions of 

the report, and that to me I found quite remarkable. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and I want to welcome 

our witnesses, especially Governor Daniels, who we have worked 

together in the past on many various projects that were successful 

and now we want to make sure that we look at America’s space 

program and see if we can give it some direction with what we 

have learned. 

Let me ask right off the bat, the study that we are talking about, 

did it come to a conclusion as to how much money it would cost 

for a Mars mission? 

Dr. LUNINE. Congressman Rohrabacher, we did not actually try 

to total up and provide a final number to three digits on what the 

Mars mission would cost, but the technical panel in their analysis 

did look at the cost of various elements, developing various elements. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 
30 

Dr. LUNINE. And essentially then what you would see in Chapter 

4 are these sand charts that show what is required in terms of 

budgets relative to today in order to accomplish these goals. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could you give us a little hint about what 

they are? 

Dr. LUNINE. So I will give you two numbers. One is that in order 

to accomplish this goal, the human space exploration program 

would have to rise by something on the order of two or three percent higher than inflation rate in order to meet the rising cost in 

the sand chart. And the total cost, as we say in our report, of a 

program that ends at Mars is on a scale of hundreds of billions of 

dollars. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Hundreds of billions of dollars. And I would 

just like to say that I think that eventually humankind will get to 

Mars and what we really are talking about now is making sure we 

get to Mars earlier than what might happen 100 years from now, 

correct? Okay. Hundreds of billions of dollars to get to Mars a little 

earlier—now, maybe a little—maybe a lot earlier than what we 

would otherwise get there. 

The—so what areas do you—as far as I can see, that means that 

we would have to have major international cooperation, which you 

mentioned with China, as well as other nations. And we would also 

perhaps have to make sure that the private sector got involved in 

space and took up some of the slack of what NASA might now be 

doing as part of a governmental program. Maybe SpaceX and some 

of these others could come in and start doing some of the more 

commercial type of activities. 

In terms of China and space cooperation with countries like 

China, doesn’t that sort of sit with you in a—what if somebody said 

in 1937 we really want to develop these rockets to go to the Moon, 

and you know this guy over there in Germany has really got a good 

rocket program; maybe we should cooperate with him. Does that— 

the fact that China now is the world’s worst human rights abuser, 

isn’t the fact that China now is committing acts of aggression all 

along the Pacific Rim with the Philippines, with Japan, and others, 

doesn’t that sort of affect our decision as to whether we are going 

to cooperate with that country? 

Dr. LUNINE. Well, I am going to punt part of your question over 

to Governor Daniels if that is okay, but I want to make one point 

which is that in Chapter 4 of the report, it is important to recognize that there is a very strong inflection point in terms of the 

budget profiles. A budget profile that only rises with inflation essentially will not get us to Mars in any foreseeable time. The program just does not close. 

With respect to collaboration, one of our pathways principles is 

to seek continuously to engage new partners, and that can be international partners, other federal agencies, and commercial entities 

as well. So that is the key part of our report. 

Do you want to answer the—— 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, the committee recognized how difficult and 

complex this subject is. I mean for openers—and it is important I 

think in every answer we give or every dimension in which we 

think about this subject to remember the incredible time frames 
31 

over which we are talking. Countries that are friends today might 

not be friends in 2040 or 2050—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. That is a good point. 

Gov. DANIELS. —which might be as soon as we can get there 

under the best of circumstances and vice versa. Space has always 

been to some extent a place where nations that competed vigorously have found it useful or at least possible to collaborate. And 

Russia, not exactly the best actor on the planet right now either, 

but they are our intimate partner with regard to the Space Station, 

as the Chairman—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Of course, we are limited—— 

Gov. DANIELS. —reminded us. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —to borrowing the money from China. If we 

don’t make them our partners, we are going to borrow it from them 

anyway. 

Gov. DANIELS. Yes, well, this is relevant in many respects to the 

discussion we had. 

Let me just make I think a related point and it certainly links 

back to the previous question, too. When we talk about the amount 

of money involved here, it is a lot of money, but we are talking 

about over decades. Now, this Committee knows, but not every citizen knows, that the NASA human spaceflight budget is a couple 

tenths of a percent of the federal budget, and increases in it will 

be rounding errors in the larger sense. We all know that the real 

issues with regard to making sure we can meet all our national priorities on Earth or beyond have to do with the way in which autopilot safety net programs are devouring the discretionary funds for 

NASA, the FBI, the Park Service, and so many other things that 

we value. So those two pieces I think of perspective are important 

when we talk about the money. 

And finally, a learning point I think for me and maybe other 

committee members, is that a pathways approach, the committee 

believes, is a prerequisite to success. I will just say that there is 

not a lot of point in spending more money above inflation if we just 

spend it the way we do today. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Gov. DANIELS. So the sine qua non I think our report is pretty 

clear on is a new disciplined, sustained approach, the kind we try 

to elaborate. Given that approach, then yes, the data does say that 

something above flat-line spending would be required. 

Similarly, with regard to partnerships, partnerships in the first 

instance—we look at history—turn out to be more expensive. They 

are not cost saving. They are the complexity, the time that is added 

sometimes in getting agreement can add costs, so you really will 

need—whether it is China or anybody else, you really will need 

very substantial, more than the historical levels of cost sharing 

first just to break even, let alone to bring down the overall burden. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Governor and Doctor, for being here today and thank 

you so much for leading the National Research Council report. We 

on the Committee I know really appreciate it. 
32 

You are right, Governor, that we have had a lot of discussions 

about spaceflight that have united this Committee and they also 

have the potential to unite the country. And we let our imaginations really be ignited by the incredible work done by NASA. We 

have had a lot of discussions in this Committee and in the Space 

Subcommittee about the leadership and the long-term thinking 

that is involved in looking at spaceflight. 

We have had some interesting discussions here about the strategic direction and that is why we especially appreciate that your 

report—what are the benefits of going back to the Moon or do we 

focus on Mars, do we have the Asteroid Retrieval Mission? So we 

are really glad that we have your background and your expertise. 

And I want to follow up on the previous conversation about international collaboration. We have talked about that a lot in this committee and I noticed that one of the things in the report that you 

mentioned is that it is evident that U.S. near-term goals for human 

exploration are not aligned with those of our traditional international partners. While most space-faring nations and agencies 

are looking toward the Moon, specifically the lunar surface, U.S. 

plans are focused on redirection of an asteroid into retrograde 

lunar orbit, et cetera. So can you talk a little bit about whether we 

should stop discussing going back to the Moon and really focus on 

Mars or do we need to continue to have those conversations about 

returning to the Moon as part of international collaboration if in 

fact those goals are different? 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, thank you. It is an excellent question. Of 

course it was an observation. We had personal testimony and a 

chance to question leaders of every international space program 

and I think it is an accurate reflection of what we heard from them 

to say that they lack enthusiasm at least at this point for the ARM 

idea. They have been more interested, and told us so, in the lunar 

surface, and my friend Jonathan talked in answer to a previous 

question about the reason our committee saw some advantages to 

that. Going to the Martian surface, it might be extraordinarily 

helpful to have been on some surface first as opposed to leaping 

there without benefit of that direct experience. 

I think that is part of the thinking of our international partners 

or potential partners as we heard it. But again, it wasn’t in our 

charge and it is not part of our report to make any specific recommendation, only to say that at some stage, and we hope it is before long, the Nation needs to pick such a route and stick to it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And I want to try to get another question in. 

Dr. Lunine, you talked about the myths and it was interesting 

to hear you say that if we relied on public opinion polling, things 

might be very, very different. I have talked a lot in this Committee 

and we have had a lot of discussions about part of the role of NASA 

is to inspire students to go into science fields. I also serve on the 

Education Committee. We have a lot of discussions about that. Can 

you talk about whether NASA is doing enough to really share its 

successes, its potential with the public because I tell you, when we 

are talking with our constituents, they don’t understand all the 

benefits of space exploration both in the short-term and the longterm and historically. So are they doing enough? Is there more that 
33 

can be done either through NASA or in other ways so that we can 

help to shift the public opinion and see the benefits? 

Dr. LUNINE. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. The 

myth I was referring to in particular with respect to public opinion 

is that during the development of Apollo there was large-scale public support for that program, and in fact, what our public and 

stakeholders outreach panel found is that that really was not the 

case. But in retrospect the public supported that program looking 

back on it. And the same seems to be true now for the Shuttle. 

With respect to your second question, we did not look in detail 

at NASA’s Education and Public Uutreach program as a committee 

so I can’t speak to that in the context of the report. My personal 

experience with NASA is that it does an excellent job of providing 

materials through the web and other means for the public to be engaged in space exploration of all types. And I have been a part of 

that to some extent and I think that certainly a large part of what 

we do in space now is immediately accessible to the public through 

the web. 

Ms. BONAMICI. That is right. 

Gov. DANIELS. May I add just a quick word? I think because—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. If the Chair will allow. 

Mr. PALAZZO. [Presiding] Go ahead. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Gov. DANIELS. I do think it is a really important question and 

I would only add that I believe if there were secret sauce that 

NASA could have applied that would ignite a different level of public excitement, it would have happened a long time ago. 

When we talk about a realism about public opinion, we are just 

trying to look in a clear-eyed fashion at the data Jonathan just 

talked about. And really what it says is that this will require national leadership. Many things do. Many of the great achievements 

of this nation and this government have not been directly responsive to a public—previous public outcry. And so what we do find 

in the data is that where leadership occurs and then progress occurs, the public is proud and the public then responds very strongly. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much. And my time is expired. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Okay. The NASA Authorization Act of 2014 was 

just passed the House of Representatives by a near unanimous 

vote. It includes the requirement that NASA develop a roadmap for 

the future of human exploration which defines key milestones and 

decision points for an expanded human presence in the solar system. Would a formal roadmap for future missions be helpful for 

NASA? What types of information would you expect should be included in such a roadmap? And how can NASA practically incorporate your recommendations for a sustainable program into this 

roadmap? That question is for both of you. 

Dr. LUNINE. Congressman, the central core recommendation of 

our report, which is the pathways approach, essentially consists of 

a very specific set of steps to a horizon goal. Now, in the sense that 

a roadmap would embrace those specific steps, yes, that would be 

useful, but I think that the pathways approach goes beyond roadmaps, which often are things that have quite a bit of flexibility or 
34 

some indefinite end to them, to a process where instead there is a 

definite horizon goal—and this committee recommends Mars— 

there are intermediate stepping stones and those stepping stones 

have specific technological developments that are tied to them that 

are then needed ultimately for a landing on Mars and also the 

stepping stones prior to that, and then the ability if conditions do 

change to make reasoned and rational changes in the pathway 

through a set of decision rules. 

So, you know, I see that as something more than a roadmap. 

First of all, if the Nation decides to commit to this, it is a very— 

how shall I say it? A very well-defined framework with pathways, 

with stepping stones, and with decision rules that have to be adhered to over years and decades in order to reach the final goal. 

It is a substantial undertaking and it is more than a roadmap. 

Mr. PALAZZO. All right. Thank you. 

Governor Daniels, do you want to—— 

Gov. DANIELS. I think that is pretty well said. I would just emphasize that it will take a level of discipline that we have not as 

a nation shown—so not picking on any one entity, person, branch, 

Administration here—the discipline to adhere to a chosen pathway, 

whichever it is over multiple Administrations and a lot of turnover 

in Congress. It is not the natural state of affairs. We all know and 

understand why and that is why it will be difficult to do. 

The discipline to abandon dead-end technologies that will not 

contribute meaningfully to the technical requirements of the next 

step or the step beyond, the discipline to rotate resources out of infrastructure that doesn’t fit the pathway as soon as it is obvious 

that it doesn’t. So these are, as I said earlier—a lot here that people I think can agree to in the abstract will be very, very—a call 

on us all to approach this in a brand-new way, but that is—it is 

essential because the qualitative difference about this goal versus 

almost anything else we can think of is it takes 30 years or more 

to bring it off. 

Mr. PALAZZO. All right. Well said. 

The Administration has consistently requested less funding for 

the Space Launch System and the Orion Crew Capsule than is 

needed to keep the programs on schedule and reduce programmatic 

risk. The funding for Earth science at NASA has increased by 63 

percent since 2007 while the overall budget has been reduced. How 

does your report address large priority shifts of this kind of the 

agency and how can Congress ensure that there is not an artificial 

need for an off-ramp simply because the Administration starves exploration for other priorities? 

Dr. LUNINE. Well, I think the first step is that there has to be 

a national commitment to the ultimate horizon goal, and if there 

is not that strong national commitment, then it is going to be difficult to pull off human exploration missions into deep space at all. 

You know, we talk about Mars as the horizon goal, but all of these 

require very strong commitment. These off-ramps are essentially 

termination points for such a program, and so again it is I think 

a matter not so much of technical issues but political will to undertake a program like this that will cover decades. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Governor Daniels? 
35 

Gov. DANIELS. I think I would just say that I don’t think there 

is a lot of utility in talking about this Administration or any one 

Administration if we are going to make the national decision or 

sets of decisions that we think are necessary for success here. It 

will be something we will all have to confront in the years just 

ahead of us. 

And so it was said earlier we are where we are and that is my 

view, too. It won’t be just the next Administration, the next Congress, whoever makes it up, but multiple ones. We hope there will 

be a culture built in which there will be a presumption of discipline, a presumption of sustaining the course that is chosen over 

all the difficulties and all the inevitable setbacks. 

Mr. PALAZZO. All right. Thank you. 

And lastly, I would just like to take a moment to follow up on 

the questions the Chairman asked about the ARM. You know, Dr. 

Lunine, you stated that in the report the committee agreed that 

ARM would lead to dead-ends on the pathway approach. I want to 

emphasize that statement and reiterate my thoughts that the ARM 

is a costly distraction and I am hopeful that NASA will take the 

recommendations of this report to heart. And that is not just my 

personal opinion; that seems to be the majority opinion in the scientific community. 

At this time I would like to recognize Ms. Wilson for five minutes. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Palazzo and Ranking Member Edwards. And I want to thank Governor Daniels and Dr. 

Lunine for being here today and for your work as Co-Chairs of the 

Committee on Human Spaceflight. 

I agree with Governor Daniels’ statement that human spaceflight 

should remain a major national priority and I was glad to see your 

committee recognize the importance of NASA and human 

spaceflight. In Florida, my home State, the famous Kennedy Space 

Center has a special connection with NASA. Many of my constituents have visited the space center and were fortunate enough to 

visit at least one of our Space Shuttle launches. 

One of the hallmarks of this Nation is our ability to dream big 

and to achieve the impossible, and NASA has exemplified this spirit for more than 5 decades. As Members of Congress, we have the 

responsibility to keep this spirit alive. This means ensuring NASA 

has both the resources and guidance to continue reaching for new 

heights. To achieve NASA’s far-reaching goals, long-term planning 

and sustained support are required. So I say let’s keep working together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure NASA can continue its 

mission of discovery, technological innovation, and inspiration. 

I have a couple of questions. The United States currently works 

with Russia, Canada, and Japan, and these are the countries that 

participate in the European Space Agency on an International 

Space Station. In your report you discussed the possibility of expanding international collaboration in spaceflight, including the potential of working with China. I recently visited China and I was 

concerned. What lessons are there in our current collaboration that 

we can apply to future collaboration to ensure intellectual property 

and that classified information is adequately protected? 
36 

Dr. LUNINE. Thank you, Congresswoman. We recognize that as 

a committee as well and we are also concerned. We also recognize 

that some of our traditional international partners are interested 

in collaborating with China as well, and whether the United States 

does or doesn’t, we are likely to see collaboration between China 

and some of our traditional international partners. 

Governor Daniels is prompting me to tell a story that I think is 

correct. I have checked it with other committee members and of 

course I was in high school at the time, but during the ApolloSoyuz test project when the United States and the Soviet Union 

worked together to achieve the first international docking in space 

of two human spacecraft, the docking module which was the connector between the Apollo and the Soyuz had a Russian end and 

an American end and it was primarily a piece of U.S. hardware 

that was transported to Russia for testing and in the context of one 

of those transports, apparently it was found that it had been disassembled and reassembled again probably in Russian customs. So, 

you know, this is the sort of thing that one has to watch for. 

Ultimately, if the Nation decides that China is a partner of value 

in this major human endeavor, the program would have to be designed to safeguard our technologies. There is no question about 

that. 

Ms. WILSON. Okay. Thank you. 

We are currently forced to rely on Russia to transport our astronauts to the International Space Station. When there is conflict between governments, how can we guarantee the concerns—the safety concerns for our astronauts? Has that been discussed or any 

plan in place as to what happens when there is conflict, which is 

something that we are fast approaching now with Russia? 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, these are excellent questions and very legitimate concerns. We talked about them in the committee. I guess one 

can only say that we did live through periods of intense disagreement, conflict with the Soviet Union while we collaborated. We are 

collaborating with Russia now at a time when we have immense 

disagreements. These are very hard questions. And the intellectual 

property question of course may be even tougher. 

All that can be said is as hard as those are to contemplate, as 

big as those risks are, the idea of somehow going to Mars alone is 

probably even less promising and raises even bigger questions. And 

so that is why our committee thinks at least we have to be open 

to trying to solve these problems or properly safeguard against either property theft or maybe safety challenges with regard to what 

is emerging as the other very vigorous, disciplined, purposeful 

space program on the planet. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Challenger catastrophe, as we all well know, you had one 

engine failure that had a catastrophic effect on all the other engines and resulted in the destruction of the Challenger Space Shuttle, including significant loss of life. Now, your report on page 4– 

38 claims ‘‘Falcon Heavy is designed to tolerate the loss of thrust 

from several engines and still complete its mission, thus enhancing 

mission reliability.’’ Given that the Falcon Heavy requires 27 Merlin 1D rocket engines to operate and given the Russian N1 moon 
37 

rocket, a system which failed 100 percent of the time, used almost 

the same number of engines—30—please provide the analysis to 

back up the claim that the number of engines improves reliability. 

Isn’t it likely that the SLS approach of using two proven booster 

engines and four proven core stage engines with over 40 years of 

Space Shuttle flight heritage will be significantly lower risk than 

a mission perspective given that the risk of a catastrophic failure 

with six engines is less than a catastrophic failure with 27? Please 

comment. 

Dr. LUNINE. Congressman, thank you for that question. Our 

technical panel evaluated a number of different technologies that 

would be needed for the early and late stages of a program that 

leads us ultimately to Mars. And as you know, the analysis was actually based on the Space Launch System, SLS, as the baseline, 

and in fact all of the design—so-called design reference missions of 

record that were used by our technical panel to put together these 

exploration pathways, these example pathways, they all involve the 

SLS as the launch vehicle. 

The technical panel itself did look at other alternatives. It did include the Falcon Heavy in a brief discussion of the potential benefits and risks, but in fact none of the scenarios that are actually 

in the document at present utilize the Falcon Heavy as the launch 

vehicle. 

If at some point this were to become an issue in terms of which 

launch vehicle to use, all of these scenarios that we have and 

Chapter 4 would have to be redone with Falcon Heavy in there. 

But beyond that, if you want more detail on how the technical 

panel arrived at that particular conclusion for the Falcon Heavy, 

we can certainly ask our technical panel chair to provide you some 

written answers to how they reached that conclusion. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. Next question. NASA’s Small Bodies 

Assessment Group has commented on NASA’s current plan to redirect an asteroid and send astronauts to visit it. In one report the 

advisory group stated, ‘‘while the participants found it to be very 

interesting and entertaining, it was not considered to be a serious 

proposal because of obvious challenges, including the practical difficulty of identifying a target in an appropriate orbit with the necessary physical characteristics within the required lead time using 

existing or near- to long-term ground-based or space-based survey 

assets.’’ Now, do you agree or disagree with that assessment and 

why? And if you feel that expounding is beneficial, please do so. 

Dr. LUNINE. So I have actually not read that report in detail so 

I don’t want to comment on it. And again, the task statement that 

we responded to in our report did not include a detailed assessment 

of the ARM. 

All I can say again is that in the context of the example exploration pathway where we included ARM, that particular mission 

developed several technologies that were then not useful for subsequent stepping stones on the way to Mars, in particular the use of 

the solar electric propulsion, which is not sufficient to get humans 

to Mars, and the actual asteroid retrieval robotic vehicle. But 

again, this was all done in the context of that particular exploration pathway and we did not conduct a scientific or technical assessment of the ARM specifically. 
38 

Gov. DANIELS. Yes, just to emphasize that it was not in our 

statement of task. In fact, I think it would have been a violation 

of the scope of our assignment if we had opined on the merits of 

any specific system or proposal. The ARM we did feature in one of 

the three sample pathways, and I think the right way to think 

about those is that they are meant to illuminate tradeoffs. There 

are potential pluses and potential minuses to each pathway we 

looked at and probably any one that might be suggested in the future. And Jonathan just specified some of the downside risks of a 

pathway, including the ARM. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Space 

Subcommittee, Ms. Edwards. 

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

you to our panelists today. 

You know, as I have been listening to the discussion, one of the 

things that occurs to me first is that I think there is significant 

alignment between the House-passed authorization and the NRC’s 

recommendations. I am a little troubled by the description of the 

pathway as so distinct from the roadmap because I think in this 

Committee, as the Chairman and I have envisioned what NASA 

would provide back to us, I don’t see a lot of differences frankly in 

what you have outlined in your principles. But I view that as more 

semantics than anything and we could certainly be more directive 

to NASA in that respect in terms of what it is going to provide 

back to this Committee. 

I am curious as to whether you think it is appropriate for the 

Committee to be prescriptive to NASA in terms of defining launch 

vehicles and specifications, interim destinations, and the like. I 

mean you didn’t do that in your panel report of experts and so I 

am curious as to whether you think that is an appropriate role for 

the Congress. 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, it can’t happen without the Congress ultimately, but I think you make a very good point. This is probably 

not the optimal place for it to originate. What I think our committee would hope is that the Congress would unite around the 

very simple question, ‘‘do you want to go to Mars or don’t you?’’ If 

you want to go to Mars, whether we like it or not, certain things 

would have to be done very, very differently and in a very unnatural act for any democratically elected government where people 

come and go and change would have to be sustained over this extraordinary probably uniquely long time frame that this achievement would take. And we know what we would be biting off to do 

that. 

But I think that it would have to start with a Congress that perhaps requested, demanded a set of choices from NASA, pathway 

choices, embraced one hopefully on the broadest possible basis so 

that it might have a chance of staying power over the years, something that people could look back on and say we would be violating 

faith with this great adventure if we took a sudden detour, sending 

us off on some other direction, the way they have been sent in the 

past. So I see the central role in think would be Congress’ but probably not the place that it originates or maybe not—— 
39 

Ms. EDWARDS. So we shouldn’t get into the nitty-gritty details of 

the technology and the science but we could leave that to the experts because I think that there has been a fair amount of unanimity on this Committee and you can see that in the authorization 

that passed where I think we had only two dissenting votes in the 

Congress that said we want—we have a big vision; we share that 

horizon goal of Mars and we are going to enable NASA to have the 

opportunity to put some teeth to those proposals. 

I want to ask you about budget because, you know, if we all 

share that horizon goal, can you tell me just sort of ballpark if you 

will a budget that you think would be reflective of that goal so that 

we are in the 20- to 30-year range instead of the 30- to 50-year 

range? Because we are at roughly 4.1, $4.3 billion now for exploration, and that doesn’t include the ISS, et cetera. 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, Jonathan had the first go at this so let me 

give it a try also. I think that quite properly the committee didn’t 

want to go beyond expressing bands and ranges. The starting point 

is the ultimate budget would be driven very much by the pathway 

chosen. There are pathways which will be substantially more expensive, more extensive, and therefore more destinations and so 

forth, more expensive than others. So that is the first uncertainty. 

And then we just didn’t want to commit the sin of false precision 

and start producing numbers over these long time horizons that nobody could be very confident in. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So I don’t think we want NASA committing to 

those sins either, but we do have to have a budget from the Congress—— 

Gov. DANIELS. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. —and an appropriation from the Congress that reflects the kind of big horizon goal that you have identified, isn’t 

that right? 

Gov. DANIELS. Sure. And so just to recap, the committee believes 

that this is a worthy endeavor, it belongs on the list of national priorities, believes that Mars is the appropriate horizon goal, but just 

to reiterate something said earlier, the first and prerequisite step 

is to—is the commitment to a pathway—maybe if roadmap means 

pathway, that would be great to know because that would indicate 

this committee was maybe prepared to take this vital first step. 

With that in place, the best we were able to say was that something beyond a flat-line budget, not by a huge amount probably, 

but something beyond—we couldn’t make the numbers work even 

for the least expensive pathways with constant dollars. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right. Well, thank you. I have greatly gone over 

my time. I will just conclude just by saying to the Chairman, and 

I hope that he understands this, is that if we are really to commit 

to this goal, if the Congress is, this is not about nickeling and 

diming other programmatic missions within NASA. It is really committing to it as a nation and then putting the dollars that match 

the goal and the opportunity. 

And with that, I conclude. Thanks. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Bucshon. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say 

that, you know, this is one of many hearings that we have that I 

attend talking about discretionary spending programs of which 
40 

NASA is one of those, and I think Governor Daniels somewhat alluded to it but I usually say this at the opening is that the federal 

government needs to address the entire pie of federal spending. 

And as we know right now, 40 percent of the budget is discretionary approximately and 60 percent is mandatory. Unless we 

begin to address the known drivers of our national debt, all of us 

are going to be continually talking about how we are going to find 

money to do anything, including how we are going to go to Mars. 

That said, in the context of how the federal government—how 

NASA currently spends its dollars, when we talk about future 

budgets, I think—I do think it is important to talk about efficiencies and effective ways to spend that money. And it can be 

done at the state level. Governor Daniels has made Indiana more 

effective and efficient in the way we use our dollars when we know 

we have a fixed piece—a fixed amount of money to spend. Did the 

committee begin to address anything as it relates to how our current structure of the way we spend our money can be addressed in 

any substantial way that might not only allow us to have more 

money to spend than we already have but in tight budgetary times 

maybe use that money more effectively and efficiently? 

Dr. LUNINE. Congressman Bucshon, we did talk about this of 

course in a general sense. We didn’t talk about specific NASA facilities and so on because again we are looking at methodology 

rather than a specific pathway. But one of our conclusions is that 

if we are going to embark on a pathway that leads to Mars and 

do it successfully in a finite amount of time, that in addition to developing things, other things have to be ended in some way, divested in the human spaceflight program. 

And so one of our pathways principles essentially says that—and 

I will just read it straight out; it is a decision rule—that when— 

‘‘if there are human spaceflight program elements infrastructure 

and organizations that no longer contribute to progress along the 

pathway, the human spaceflight program should divest itself of 

them as soon as possible.’’ And I think this speaks to the need for 

the kind of discipline and focus that would be required to achieve 

a goal as extraordinarily difficult and expensive as ultimately a 

human landing on Mars. 

Mr. BUCSHON. So at the end of the day, I mean obviously Congress makes those—sometimes makes those decisions. You know, I 

mean the A10, for example, is a recent example, you know, on the 

DOD side where the Congress and the federal agency may disagree 

on the future of certain programs. It is a very difficult process, as 

all of us know. 

When it comes to the private sector, I am really intrigued about 

how we can leverage, you know, government dollars. The private 

sector can leverage government dollars to maybe do some things 

that maybe the government doesn’t always do that effectively. I 

mean, Governor Daniels, do you have any—maybe any comments 

about how we might—you know, how do we leverage the private 

industry and what do you see as maybe their role in the future of 

manned spaceflight? 

Gov. DANIELS. I appreciate the question because I think at least 

in some quarters our report has been read or misread to not emphasize sufficiently the role the private sector might play. We 
41 

didn’t mean for it to be read that way that perhaps we just didn’t 

say it loudly or plainly enough. 

No, I think we heard a lot of testimony and we met with leaders 

of that community. There are a lot of possibilities there. And, you 

know, typically in this world the greatest and most sudden unexpected breakthroughs come from private enterprise and very, very 

likely will again and again over all the decades that we have between here and the Martian surface. 

I can just testify as a fortunate person who gets to hang out with 

brilliant young students and graduate students studying astronautics and working in this area, they are highly motivated. And we 

talk about the aspirational aspects and rationales for human 

spaceflight and it is one of those that you can’t put a number on 

but it doesn’t mean it isn’t real the way in which young people are 

drawn to science and drawn to technology often by this thrilling 

adventuresome area. I can just tell you that the activity on the private side excites our students these days probably as much as traditional NASA. And we send a lot of bright young talent to both. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both of 

you for your service, your service and your interest in space and 

your testimony here today. So many questions and so little time 

really to get through them. The $64,000 question, 64 million, billion, whatever question is 

how we get a consistent plan and a consistent funding level 

through Congress after Congress, Administration after Administration. You are familiar with the dozens of missions to nowhere and 

we are afraid that we will see more and more of these. You know, 

you remember the ISS survived just by one vote, funding for the 

ISS at one time. 

And another approach that bears a lot of sense is the XPRIZE 

approach. And since there is really no good business model for exploring space, the XPRIZE process gives a lot of encouragement to 

that obviously, a lot of encouragement to private investment, technology development, risk. And I wonder if you have considered that 

process as well and what you might think the dollar amounts 

might be or the milestones might be. 

I mean we can have NASA maybe design a car to make three 

laps around the horseshoe in front of this building, and by the time 

they are finished it could be a $5 million car. We can say the first 

person that can design a car to make five laps around the building 

gets $1 million and, you know, it would be done in five minutes by 

private industry and we would save a lot of money and have always wanted develop for us already. It has been said by experts, 

you know, the Wright brothers would have never flown if they 

would have had to put up with FAA, and I am afraid that goes for 

a lot of space entrepreneurs. 

You know, this is a very difficult country to do business in and 

you have to take your hat off and respect any of them that choose 

to do business here with the overregulation and the red tape that 

we foist upon our space industry. While other governments subsidize theirs, we hassle ours. So your thoughts on that? 

Dr. LUNINE. Thank you, Congressman. 
42 

We didn’t talk about the XPRIZE or again we didn’t talk about 

specific commercial approaches because it wasn’t part of our task 

statement or charge. But I do want to point out that we, in the approach that we developed, the pathways approach, leave the door 

wide open for commercial innovation in the stepping stones that 

would lead us ultimately to Mars. And again, I will quote from the 

pathways principles that we developed in our report, and number 

four is to ‘‘seek continuously to engage new partners that can solve 

technical and/or programmatic impediments to pathway progress.’’ 

And those partners can be governmental, they can be international, 

and they could be commercial as well. And without that flexibility, 

certainly any pathway approach is not going to be optimal. We 

have to be able to involve whatever new ideas and creative approaches that can be brought to bear on such a difficult problem 

as landing on Mars. 

Now, the question of, you know, how to encourage commercial 

endeavors, again, it is beyond the committee and I don’t feel particularly qualified to say anything about that. I will say, though, 

that the overall problem of sending humans to Mars and landing 

them on Mars, even through this stepping stone approach, where 

you do this in progressive steps that are manageable enough that 

there is a reasonable chance of success for each one, is such a huge 

endeavor that it must involve the U.S. Government as the primary 

mover of this whole endeavor just because of the size and scope. 

And within the context of that, this committee believes there is 

ample room for commercial and international involvement, even it 

is essential for that involvement. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. Governor? 

Gov. DANIELS. Nothing to add. I think that is—— 

Mr. POSEY. Well, Governor, you have dealt—you have seen one 

Administration after another, dealing with one House and one Senate after another. 

Gov. DANIELS. Right. 

Mr. POSEY. You know, what do you think the common denominator might be to tie this together? You know, we are all searching 

for that continuity, everybody, no matter what direction they are 

coming from in space. You need to have a plan, you all need to 

stick to a plan, and it needs to be a long-range plan, not plan du 

jour, you know. It needs to be a long-range plan and we just can’t 

find that glue that will tie that together. 

Gov. DANIELS. You put your finger of course on the central dilemma. I said in the opening our report says in almost the same 

words that we recognize that calling for an approach like this flies 

in the face of everything back to the ’70s I suppose, but we also 

say that if it seems unrealistic to believe that that sort of unity and 

that sort of continuity could be brought off in our system, then you 

might as well face up that Mars itself is unrealistic. 

Now, I am going to engage in some wild wishful thinking here, 

but I do think—and it was reflected in comments that the Ranking 

Member made earlier and others did—at least in theory this could 

be one of those subjects that we certainly need more of in this 

country in which people who disagree strongly and sincerely about 

other things could agree, particularly if folks accept the reality that 

if we are going there at all, it is going to have to be on this basis. 
43 

We are going to have to hold hands not just in the first Congress 

that agrees to it but that has got to be transmitted somehow to 

those who follow. 

And, yes, that is not the natural state of affairs but this is not 

like any other endeavor that I can think of that government or the 

private sector for that matter attempts to bring off. And I appreciate your question and I think it is in some respects the ultimate 

question here, and forgive me for indulging in the thought that 

maybe it could all start right here. 

Mr. POSEY. Well, you know, we would like to see that. It just 

seems like anything short of getting America out of the mall for 15 

minutes and away from Dancing with the Stars for 15 minutes and 

letting Neil deGrasse Tyson talk to each one of them for 15 minutes, you know, we could probably pass a constitutional amendment to fund that. But, you know—I see my time is expired. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you both so much 

for being here. I really appreciate your work on this. This is a very 

important subject. 

On a personal note, Governor Daniels, just want to say thank 

you for your work. I am a big fan of yours. I am from Illinois, 

enough said. 

I do want to thank you. I believe this is so important. As we continue to assess a future of human spaceflight in the United States, 

we need to have this discussion. It is certainly something I want 

to see America leading in and it is crucial that we get both public 

and international support to see this happen. 

I wonder—and I address to both of you on this—there is an important connection between motivating students to pursue STEM 

careers and having a visible active human spaceflight program. 

Motivating students to pursue these fields is an important factor 

in the success of certainly future space endeavors. How did the 

panel factor in this need into its recommendations? 

Gov. DANIELS. Let me start because I think it surfaces a really 

important point that hasn’t come up, up to this point. So, first of 

all, we talk about it at great length, agree that like two or three 

other rationales for human spaceflight, it can’t be quantified—that 

doesn’t make it any less real or important—and came to the conclusion that when you roll together those practical or pragmatic reasons with those aspirational, as we called them, reasons, the totality did justify treating this as a priority. 

The point I would like to make on this count is that over and 

over the idea of mission frequency, sometimes called cadence, that 

is to say, what came up for at least two reasons; one, to maintain 

the technical proficiency necessary for an endeavor like this. If you 

are only flying every three or four years, you are losing people, you 

are losing skills, you are not developing, you are not making 

enough mistakes probably to learn from, all those things. And you 

are probably not sustaining public interest among either young 

people or their elders. And so if you do spend some time in the report, you will see frequent references to this matter of mission cadence and I just wanted to use your question as an opportunity to 

raise it here. 
44 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. 

Dr. LUNINE. Yes. And if I could just add briefly, Congressman, 

your point is very important. This is one of the pragmatic rationales that we talk about in the report as stimulating and inspiring 

students as well as citizens in general. And, you know, the counterfactual of what would happen if there were no human spaceflight 

program in terms of what the next generation of aerospace expertise would look like in this country, obviously that would not be a 

positive change. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. And I agree so much with you and I have 

to remember back to the ’60s of, you know, the inspiration that was 

there but also the benefits—multiple benefits, years and years, decades of advancement in that single decade in medicine and other 

areas because of the inspiration that was there. 

Governor, I agree with you as well that we need to find some 

things that bring us together. This is one of those things that can 

bring us together. We all agree that we want to encourage our best 

and brightest to go into STEM education and STEM fields, and this 

is one of the ways that we can do it at an early age, capture their 

attention. I wonder if both of you, can NASA accomplish a mission 

to Mars without the international community or is that a prerequisite according to your research and report? 

Dr. LUNINE. From the point of view of the committee’s deliberations, in principle the United States could do it, but it would be extremely costly, and for a number of different reasons. Having significant international collaboration—and here we are talking about 

international collaboration on a scale in terms of percentage contributions that we have not even seen with the ISS, from a numbers standpoint, international collaboration is extremely valuable, 

both from the point of view of bringing new technical expertise support on an international basis for these types of activities and the 

symbolism of going forward with international partners to a new 

goal. All of these things make international collaboration highly desirable in this endeavor. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Let me end with this and again offer this out to 

both of you. I wonder how emphasis on unfocused space technology 

development in this Administration hampered NASA’s ability to 

focus on long-term goals of human exploration. In particular, I am 

interested in J–2X and how that impacted exploration missions in 

other areas, specifically kind of this unfocused space technology development? Any thoughts on that? 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, no specific comment on that or any other 

one technology except to say that the committee strongly feels that 

an emphasis on capabilities has often led to dead-ends or unproductive investments and that we really need to ask the question 

from the other end. Where are we going? What are the steps on the 

way to get there? And let that drive the technical and engineering 

requirements, and therefore the capabilities one develops. 

Dr. LUNINE. Well, I would only add that your question cuts right 

to the heart of our report, which is a capabilities-based approach 

in our view is not going to get this nation or anyone to Mars, that 

we needed to have a pathways approach where technologies are developed in the service of the ultimate goal and the stepping stone 

intermediate goals to that end. 
45 

Mr. HULTGREN. My time is expired. Thanks, Chairman. Thank 

you again both. I really appreciate your work and look forward to 

an ongoing effort here together, hopefully move this forward. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I now recognize Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor Daniels, Dr. Lunine—and I apologize; I just got here, 

and if this question has already been asked—but I wanted to ask 

you specifically in what sequence does NASA need to implement 

your recommendations in this committee’s report for everything to 

take place smoothly? 

Gov. DANIELS. Well, the sequence I think that matters most, 

Congressman, is the commitment to a pathways approach and the 

selection of a pathway, followed by the commitment to sustain 

funding for that pathway. I would put them in that order very purposefully because we did talk a little earlier, more money spent in 

the way we have been doing for the last several Administrations 

probably doesn’t advance things very far. 

Mr. VEASEY. And also, the report recommends a pathways approach over both a capabilities approach and the flexible path approach, but we don’t need a flexible path approach to mission planning in order to deal with these unexpected changes in the budget 

and to take advantage of technology breakthroughs. Is that your 

opinion or you think that we—or it is the opposite of that? 

Dr. LUNINE. Well, what the committee finds attractive about the 

pathways approach is that it streamlines the development of technologies in the sense that, again, to get to Mars as the ultimate horizon goal is going to be extraordinarily difficult, and so the technologies that will need to be developed are expensive and they are 

difficult. 

And so one wants—if one is committing as a nation to going to 

Mars—to adopt an approach that minimizes the number of additional technologies that have to be developed on the way to Mars 

because they are all expensive and they all of course take time, and 

that plays into the ultimate timeline of any program that leads to 

Mars. So the pathways approach is the way to minimize the total 

number of technologies that have to be developed in order to 

achieve the ultimate horizon goal, in this case, Mars. 

Flexible path approach, you may end up developing technologies 

that in the end are not useful and are not therefore, you know, ultimately contributing to the final goal that you want to get to. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALAZZO. I 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 11:36 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(47) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
48 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Governor Mitch Daniels 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

Responses by Dr. Jonathan Lunine 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

(63) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
64 

WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DONNA F. EDWARDS
65 

Æ