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

56–407 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–508 

THE CASE FOR SPACE: EXAMINING THE VALUE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Acting Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 21, 2009 .......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Vitter .................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

WITNESSES

Stephen I. Katz, M.D., Ph.D., Director, National Institute of Arthritis and 

Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services ...................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International 

Affairs, The George Washington University ...................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Lennard A. Fisk, Ph.D., Thomas M. Donahue Distinguished University Professor of Space Science, University of Michigan ................................................ 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Jeanne L. Becker, Ph.D., Associate Director, National Space Biomedical Research Institute and Chief Scientist, Astrogenetix ........................................... 21 

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

Helen Greiner, CEO, The Droid Works ................................................................. 25 

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

(1) 

THE CASE FOR SPACE: 

EXAMINING THE VALUE 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Good afternoon. This is a hearing of the Science 

and Space Subcommittee. I have been looking forward to this topic 

being discussed, getting it out there and on the record, and distributed so that people can understand some of the benefits of the 

spinoffs, and the extraordinary technology that has come as a result of the space program. Thank you for coming and participating 

today. 

Tomorrow, the White House will receive the long-awaited ‘‘Augustine Report.’’ A summary of the report was released last month. 

It stated that U.S. human spaceflight, once a program cherished as 

a source of the greatest level of national pride, I quote, ‘‘appears 

to be on an unstable trajectory,’’ end of quote. The summary stated 

that, quote, ‘‘At present, our space program is being asked to pursue goals without the appropriately allocated resources,’’ end of 

quote. We anticipate that the report that we will see tomorrow will 

say exactly the same thing. This, by the way, is what Senator 

Hutchison and I have been saying for a number of years. 

The release of this report will provide the President with information to start to make a choice about the human spaceflight program. We can continue on the path that we’re on, which is underfunding and underallocating our space program, or we can choose 

a different course of action. We can choose to act by ensuring that 

appropriate resources are allocated to meet the goals that we’re 

trying to achieve. 

Currently, the space program is funded at less than 1 percent of 

the total Federal budget. If you ask the average American what 

they think the program is funded at, they would think that it is 

a much higher figure than that. Less than 1 percent of the Federal 

budget. This is a testament to the value the average American 

places on our space program. They think it’s funded at a much 

2 

higher level, and to the high levels of return that we gain on relatively small investments. 

Our space program has always paid back extraordinary dividends, both tangible and intangible. The return is vastly greater 

than the initial investment. We’re going to discuss some of those 

tangible and intangible benefits today. 

A historical example of the intangible benefits of a well-funded 

space program—well, just look what happened to the generation 

that got inspired with the NASA of the 1960s and the 1970s. That 

generation has produced some rather terrific innovators. I’ll just 

name a few: Sir Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk. They got 

their motivation from seeing the extraordinary accomplishments of 

NASA. As they got inspired, they helped create new sectors of our 

economy: Bezos, founder of Amazon; Elon Musk, creator of PayPal; 

Branson, founder of the Virgin Group; and a whole spinoff of hightech jobs for Americans. Each of those entrepreneurs is now returning to their first passion: space. Branson, Virgin Galactic, seeks to 

fly regular citizens into space. Bezos created Blue Origin. And 

Musk is aiming to have a commercial rocket. 

An interesting turn of events, NASA, the original inspiration, 

may benefit from these new capabilities as we look to the commercial sector, which is part of the Augustine Commission Report. As 

those commercial capabilities mature, the result could be another 

stimulation of the economy and the creation of jobs. All of this 

stemming from NASA and the human spaceflight program, in particular, as the initial inspiration. 

The International Space Station is another example. But, it is 

much more in a tangible sense instead of an intangible sense. 

While the initial investment in the ISS has been very high, this orbiting laboratory, named by Kay Bailey Hutchison as a National 

Laboratory, is just now starting to show a return on this investment. Just now. Its many economic, scientific, and social payoffs 

are soon to be realized. Breakthroughs in medicine, material 

science, Earth observation, renewable energy, and socially; as nations live together in a confined environment and continue to try 

to get along. 

As NASA develops the architectures necessary to push these 

frontiers further out, beyond low-Earth orbit, the additional benefits will be realized. But realization of these benefits is not a given 

without Presidential leadership. In other words, President Obama’s 

decision to fund NASA at the level commensurate with these lofty 

goals. 

Last week, the President hosted schoolchildren on the South 

Lawn for a star party. The President took his children, and all of 

those young people had the opportunity to view, in vivid detail, the 

craters of the Moon, the rings of Saturn, the colors of Jupiter, and 

the belt of the Milky Way. The wonderment displayed in the eyes 

of those children, and oh, by the way, adults as well, proves once 

again that space inspires. 

The Apollo program was prologue. Our future in space now is to 

be written. A suitably-funded space program is the best catalyzing 

element to gather and organize the energies and abilities of a Nation. That program is then going to return dividends, perhaps the 

most important of which is to inspire, encourage, and motivate the 

3 

next generation. A generation that will continue to produce scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and educators. 

So, we want, in this hearing today, to look forward to exploring 

the benefits of a well-funded space program, and put on the record 

some of the things that many of us take for granted and some of 

us don’t know about. 

Senator Vitter? 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for calling this important hearing, and I certainly join you and Senator Hutchison in welcoming our very, very distinguished panel. 

This is, you’re right, exactly the sort of conversation we need, not 

just here in this Subcommittee, but over and over and over in all 

sorts of settings all across America, to remind ourselves of the tangible value and benefit the space program has brought us and can 

continue to bring us. 

You know, virtually every public opinion poll on the subject 

shows great broadbased American public support for the NASA 

programs, but I think if you ask most of those people exactly why 

or what are some of the precise examples, they couldn’t give that 

to you. And we really need to fill in those blanks and remind folks 

of some of those examples and some of that concrete evidence. And 

this discussion today will help do that. 

In Dr. Fisk’s statement, he put it a slightly different way, but I 

think it’s somewhat the same idea. He said, ‘‘It may well be that 

we don’t focus on that or know of those examples right off the top 

of our head because they’re so pervasive, because the benefits of 

the space program and their utilization throughout our economy 

and society is so common and so broad, we just take a lot of this 

for granted.’’ But, I think, it’s important to highlight where many 

of these advances came from today and in future conversations. 

So, we need to do that—again, not just in this conversation, but 

over and over—to remind ourselves of the tangible benefits, the 

connection, what has come out of it, and what continues to develop 

from space exploration. And obviously, we need to connect that in 

a very basic way to the ongoing discussion of the future of the program and the budget of the program. So, I look forward to being 

a part of the conversation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

I am delighted to be here at this important hearing, Mr. Chairman, and join you 

in welcoming our very distinguished panel. I believe this is an important discussion 

we are having today, and one that needs to be held over and over again with a great 

many people, not only in leadership positions, but around the country. 

While I believe just about every national survey that asks about the value of 

space has seen very broad support for civil space—usually expressed as ‘‘NASA programs’’—among the American public, I doubt whether very many of them—or many 

of us in the Congress—could provide a detailed answer to the question of why they 

feel it is important, or why they support its continuation. In Dr. Fisk’s statement, 

I noted that he suggested it may well be that the reason for that is that the impacts 

and benefits of space exploration and utilization are so pervasive in our world today 

that we just take them for granted, and don’t realize that they are really a result 

of prior investments in space activities and research. 

4 

I believe one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, you wanted to hold this hearing— 

and I wholeheartedly agree—is to try to remind all of us that what we do in the 

civil space arena as a Nation, does, in fact, have a very important impact, not only 

in our daily lives, but on our very health, well-being, and security as a Nation. 

We need to understand what is unique about space that enables it to play a critical role in technology development, scientific enhancement, and in fields like medical research. We need to hear the kinds of examples we will hear today to bring 

that message, if you will, ‘‘down to Earth’’ and make it easier for our colleagues and 

our constituents to see. We all need to be able to see that message clearly, as we 

face the enormous challenges facing our country, which sometimes lead us to forget 

the things that lead to longer-term stability and prosperity in our attempts to find 

answers to the immediate and pressing problems. 

Gaining an understanding of how our civil space programs contribute to that underlying economic stability and even national security, is what I believe this hearing 

is about and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. I want to invite Senator Hutchison, who is the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee and who is as much a 

space advocate as I am, to make her statement. I’ve had the privilege of working with her on this Subcommittee for years. 

Thank you for being here, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

you have been the champion that has kept NASA and the importance of space exploration at the forefront of your priorities, and it 

is mine, as well. And I’m so glad that we have such committed people—and Dr. Vitter representing Louisiana, which has a huge 

NASA component, as well—Senator Vitter, sorry. Your brother’s a 

doctor. 

Senator VITTER. Look like I got a Ph.D. in the process—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HUTCHISON. But, I really am so pleased that we’re doing 

this because I have just a very special feeling and connection about 

the ‘‘National Laboratory’’ designation that we did put forward in 

our 2005 authorization, working then with my counterpart, Senator 

Nelson. And to me it was the most innovative thing that we have 

done in the process of authorizing NASA, to make sure that all of 

the investment that we are making in the Space Station, and have 

been making for all these years with the shuttles, would be fully 

utilized. 

And when NIH became the first leader to step forward and say 

they wanted to be partners in the Space Station and have the ability to use the microgravity conditions—Senator Nelson and I were 

there, along with Senator Mikulski, at the great signing of the document between NASA and NIH. 

So, I have to tell you that Jeff Bingham, who is my—well, he’s 

not my Staff Director anymore, but he’s yours—said his heart sang 

when he read your testimony, Dr. Katz—and mine, too—because 

now we are beginning to see the real results. And when you—I 

won’t steal your thunder, but I do want you to take the time to 

point out the specifics. But, when you said that in the experiments 

already on the ISS that the salmonella bacterium becomes more infectious in microgravity and thus may become better inducers of 

immune responses, I just thought, that’s an example of what we 

5 

can really do up there to accelerate research and see what can be 

done to start developing vaccines, of course, to treat diseases. 

I also want to say, Dr. Becker, that in your testimony there was 

also reference to what can be done in the microgravity conditions, 

because if there is one priority I have, it is that we get our money’s 

worth and see what can come from the Space Station, because 

we’ve already put the money in, and to walk away from it, without 

fully using it would be just foolish, and I don’t want us to do that. 

So, I will just say that I’m very excited about your testimony, all 

of you, but particularly the ISS part. And I want to just point out 

a few of the other examples that have made a difference in the 

quality of life on Earth because we went into space and made the 

investment in NASA itself: satellite-based communications, which 

have revolutionized communications globally; precise navigation capability on the ground and in the air—I mean I hardly get in a car 

anymore that doesn’t have one of those global positioning mechanisms. I don’t have one, I wish I could afford it, but maybe, with 

more research, we’ll get it to be more affordable. But it’s so exciting 

to see that because of the satellites, we can find anything on the 

ground, and, of course, also in the air. We have advanced diagnostic and medical treatment equipment and new drugs and medications have been made possible by the unique lab environment in 

microgravity. The need to reduce the weight of spacecraft led to 

microminiaturization processes that have been applied to manufacturing instruments and devices that have nothing to do with space 

but do impact our lives, such as electronic wrist watches, cell 

phones, video games—and believe me, I’ve got 8-year-olds who are 

addicted to Nintendo games; electronic teaching devices, and other 

examples of microtechnology. 

And, the need to assure that Gemini and Apollo astronauts had 

safe food to eat during their missions led to the development of the 

most revolutionary institutional innovation to ensure food safety in 

our century. And since those projects were taken on for our astronauts, the FDA have now codified those processes in regulations, 

procedures that make all of our food safer. 

So, the bottom line is, we have made a strong beginning. I am 

so pleased to hear those results start coming in, and the shuttles 

that are going to finish out the Space Station—really, I have to say 

that our committee had a hand in adding one more mission to the 

schedule of shuttles, to carry the alpha-magnetic spectrometer to 

the ISS because of the great testimony that we had from Dr. Sam 

Ting, the Nobel Laureate from MIT, in a hearing about being able 

to start looking into cosmic rays and dark energy and dark mirror, 

and the potential to use that for energy development. The shuttles 

did not have the alpha-magnetic spectrometer on the manifest of 

missions, and we were told that there would not be an increase in 

available missions. But, Dr. Ting was so compelling in one of our 

hearings that we have been able to add that flight, so that not only 

will we be able to use the Space Station, but to be able to start seeing if we can capture cosmic rays and see what they tell us about 

alternative energy sources for the future. 

So, I’m very excited about your leadership, Mr. Chairman and 

Senator Vitter, and also all of you helping us utilize to the best of 

our ability the investments that we’re making in space. 

6 

And I will just end by saying that we have a group of NASA employees from Johnson—if you’d raise your hands, we welcome you. 

You are doing—— 

[Applause.] 

Senator HUTCHISON.—great work for us, and I know you’re at a 

training program here this week, and it worked out that you 

changed your schedule to come and hear this very exciting testimony. And many of you in the audience are the reason that we 

have been able to make these great strides. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this important hearing to begin a comprehensive examination of the benefits and value of space exploration. 

I say ‘‘begin,’’ because a single hearing can merely scratch the surface of the benefits that our Nation and, indeed, the world have received during the past 50-plus 

years of the Space Age, not to mention, describing the potential value of future 

space exploration. 

The numerous benefits attributed to our Nation’s investment in space and research are all around us. Here are just a few examples: Satellite-based communications; precise navigation capability on the ground and in the air; advanced diagnostic and medical treatment equipment; new drugs and medications made possible 

by the unique laboratory environment in microgravity. 

We tend to take these innovations for granted. We often forget that they are a 

direct or indirect result of space-based experimentation from advances in technology 

that were first required to meet the demands and challenges of space flight. 

For example, the need to reduce the weight of spacecraft led to microminiaturization processes have since been applied to manufacturing instruments and devices 

that have nothing to do with space, but directly impact our lives. Whether through 

an electronic wrist-watch or a cell phone or a video game or an electronic teaching 

device, micro-technology has transformed our lives. 

In addition, the need to ensure that Gemini and Apollo astronauts had safe food 

to eat during their missions led to the development of the ‘‘Hazard Analysis and 

Critical Control Point process,’’ which has been hailed as ‘‘the most revolutionary 

institutional innovation to ensure food safety of the twentieth century.’’ The essential principles of this process, which began in 1959, have since have been codified 

in FDA regulations and procedures, helping to make all our foods safer. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing more examples from our witnesses today, 

and hope that we will all be better able to recognize the great value of our efforts 

in space exploration and the dramatic improvements in our daily lives that come 

from meeting the challenges of space exploration and using the unique environment 

to which it gives us access. 

In my view, this is an area where the question should not be, ‘‘Can we afford to 

do this?’’ The real question is, if we are concerned about national security, scientific 

leadership, and economic competitiveness of our country, ‘‘How can we afford not to 

do this?’’ 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Senator. 

We have a star-studded panel: Dr. Katz, Dr. Pace, Dr. Fisk, Dr. 

Becker, and CEO Greiner. What I’m going to ask you to do is to 

take about 5 minutes each so that we can really get into some serious study with our questions. Your written statements will be part 

of the record in full, so if you all would try to adjust accordingly. 

Your testimony, that I have seen, is riveting, and we want everyone to have the opportunity to hear it. 

Dr. Katz is the Director of the National Institute of Arthritis and 

Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. It’s a position that he’s held 

since 1995, and he’s also the senior investigator in the dermatology 

branch of the National Cancer Institute. During this illustrious caVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 056407 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\56407.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
7 

reer, Dr. Katz has trained a large number of outstanding researchers in the U.S., Japan, Korea, and Europe. Now they’re leading 

their own high-quality independent research programs. He’s the recipient of the Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank Award, 

the highest honor that can be bestowed upon a civil servant. 

So, welcome, Dr. Katz. 

Then I’ll just go right on down the line with each of you. 

Dr. Katz? 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN I. KATZ, M.D., PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL 

AND SKIN DISEASES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. KATZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. I’m really delighted to be here to expand upon 

some of the points that I made in my written testimony. 

As NIH is the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research, we manage a portfolio that addresses not 

only public health needs—current public health needs—but also we 

invest heavily in basic biology that will lead to future answers to 

our public’s health needs. 

I want to expand, in response to Senator Vitter, on some of the 

tangible benefits that we’ve seen, just to publicize a few of them; 

two of them, most notably, that I have in my written testimony 

that I’d like to expand on. One is the heart pump that has been 

devised and was started using an enormously-sized pump from the 

Space Shuttle. And over the past two decades, that pump has been 

reduced to a 4-ounce object that can actually be implanted in people or utilized while people are waiting for heart transplants. And 

now there’s a grant from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute to try to utilize that pump as actually an artificial heart, to 

obviate the need for transplantation. 

Another notable advance that is going—that we will see in the 

very near future comes from the NIH’s National Eye Institute, 

where a fiber optic probe has been used to identify very small 

changes in protein. And this was initially used on the Station to 

identify early crystal formation. Now what could the medical use 

of that be? Cataracts, when they form, the earliest identification of 

cataracts are seen as little clumps of protein in the lens. Now, the 

earlier you can identify those clumps, the earlier you can tell a person to obviate some of the habits—the lifestyle habits that they’re 

utilizing. For example, avoid sun exposure, et cetera. So, this fiber 

optic probe is going to be used as a—it’s going to be a handy thing, 

and it’s going to be utilized by many physicians, and others perhaps, to be able to identify the very earliest cases of cataract, to 

warn people against this. Two very tangible advances that we’ve 

seen. 

Now, the NIH is proud to continue its partnership with NASA. 

The partnership was going on for quite some time, but, as Senator 

Hutchison mentioned, in September 2007, we entered into a collaboration that helps American scientists use the Space Station. 

And it was really the designation of the Laboratory—you referred 

to Jeff Bingham, I will refer to Jeff Bingham, as well, because it 

was Jeff who really brought some of us together under the—onto 

8 

the—with the idea that this was a National Laboratory and should 

be utilized by all of us, in government and outside of government 

and outside of the country, as a National Laboratory. 

So, we were very pleased that you and Senator Nelson were 

there—was—were there—and, as well, Senator Mikulski joined 

us—when the two heads of the agencies, both NASA and the NIH, 

signed the agreement to a—to have a Memo of Understanding that 

we are going to leverage resources for a common good to improve 

health on Earth by utilizing the Station for this particular effort. 

We are enthusiastic partners. The NIH are made up of many institutes, and we are enthusiastic partners, because the Space Station offers an unprecedented opportunity for research that could 

benefit human health on Earth. The Station, the National Laboratory, provides a virtually gravity-free environment that can 

unmask cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie human 

diseases. And it also provides a wonderful environment to test certain types of healthcare delivery as well as health monitoring technologies that many of us at NIH are interested in pursuing, and 

I know that people at NASA are, on the other hand, very interested 

in pursuing, as well. 

My institute, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, is particularly interested in what space 

can teach us and what space has taught us about human diseases, 

particularly diseases of the bones and muscles. One of the classic 

examples of what happens to humans after they’ve been in space 

for some time is, they loose a tremendous amount of bone mass, as 

well as muscle. This has been a problem for astronauts, but it also 

provides us with the knowledge of why actually does this happen 

and why does it happen so rapidly. Why do we see a 1- to 2-percent 

decrease in bone mass per month—on average—per month in an 

individual who goes up in space? 

Well, it has taught us a lot about the basic biology of the cells 

that make up bone. When I was in medical school, we always 

thought of bone as being an end-stage organ that was just eroded 

with time—as you age, you lost bone—but now we know that bone 

is actually a highly-active metabolic organ which is constantly 

being built up and being broken down. And we’re learning a lot 

from what’s going on in space, and we hope to learn a lot more 

from some of the studies that are going to be done. 

NASA personnel have conducted all National Laboratory experiments thus far without the benefit of—and I think it was mentioned—without the benefit of having a fully operational Space Station. The initial findings, however, have demonstrated that the 

weightlessness of space provides a unique platform from which scientists can do more than simply answer questions about the effects 

of space travel on the human body. There’s a lot of basic biology 

that is to be explored. 

As part of its partnership with NASA, the NIH is asking the Nation’s biomedical research community to develop innovative 

hypotheses that astronauts could test on the Station. 

So, this is really what has come out of that Memo of Understanding. There are nine institutes at the NIH that have signed on, 

a broad array of institutes that shows a broad interest in health— 

in various aspects of health—all dimensions of health, basically— 

9 

1 ‘‘A Novel Approach to Cardiac Replacement with Continuous Flow Pumps,’’ NIH grant number R01–HL085054. 

in order to support studies that will be performed by scientists. 

They will be designed on Earth, they will be carried out by our astronauts in space, and that means that there has got to be a very 

close coordination between the scientist who wants to do the 

science but is really doing it with a surrogate scientist in space. 

And, as you know, many of the astronauts are outstanding scientists who have carried out these programs for some years. 

So, we have made a commitment to having three rounds of competitions for NIH support for these types of studies. Results from 

the first competition should be announced in the Summer of 2010. 

As I said, nine institutes have signed onto it, and the diversity of 

their missions really underscores the idea that we are very anxious 

to utilize this National Laboratory. 

In closing, let me say that the Space Station, the National Laboratory, provides a special microgravity environment that Earthbased laboratories cannot replicate. One can try to simulate, but 

not replicate, what goes on in the Space Station. Congress’s designation of the Station as a National Laboratory speaks to the importance that the American people place on scientific discovery, 

and I think it was the designation of the National Laboratory that 

really brought this leveraging between NASA and the NIH and 

crystalized that cooperation. 

So, for that I thank you. And after the others testify, I’m happy 

to answer any questions to all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Katz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN I. KATZ, M.D., PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES, NATIONAL

INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: 

I am Dr. Stephen Katz, Director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. I am proud to represent the 

NIH as its liaison to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

and recently finished serving on the NASA Administrator’s Advisory Council. I am 

pleased to testify about the opportunities that access to the laboratory of space provides to researchers who are committed to improving the health of people on Earth. 

As the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research, 

the NIH manages a portfolio that addresses immediate public health needs while 

encouraging basic science research that may lead to improved health. Much of its 

budget supports basic research into the biological processes underlying health and 

disease. It fills a void in our Nation’s research and development pipeline by encouraging basic, clinical, and epidemiological studies that the commercial sector would 

not pursue because they may not be immediately profitable. 

NASA Technologies that Improve Health on Earth 

Most of my testimony focuses on medical discoveries that our continued investment in space exploration may produce. But first, I am going to highlight two technologies that are well on their way to addressing serious public health threats to 

American lives. 

About 5 million people in the United States have heart failure, which causes 

about 300,000 deaths each year. The NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is funding a grant,1 to improve a treatment for heart failure patients that is 

based on NASA’s Space Shuttle technology. The original device began as a mainengine pump for the Space Shuttle that was the size of the Shuttle’s deck but, over 

two decades, engineers miniaturized it into a 4-ounce version that surgeons can implant into patients to keep them alive until they can receive heart transplants. Now, 

NIH grantees are testing whether they can further modify it into a total artificial 

10 

heart that would eliminate the need for risky transplants of human organs, which 

entail lifetime regimens of immunosuppressant drugs that leave patients susceptible 

to infections. 

Earlier this year, researchers from the NIH’s National Eye Institute demonstrated 

that a compact fiber-optic probe originally developed for the space program also has 

a medical application. The non-invasive probe detects cataracts well before doctors 

can diagnose them with conventional techniques. Cataracts are the leading cause 

of vision loss worldwide, but people can reduce their risk by making simple lifestyle 

changes. The new, non-invasive eye test detects the earliest damage. By providing 

a warning before vision-impairing damage occurs, the test could encourage people 

to take protective measures—such as decreasing sun exposure, quitting smoking, 

stopping certain medications, and controlling diabetes—that might preserve their 

eyesight by slowing or halting cataract formation. 

The International Space Station’s Potential Contribution to Biomedical 

Research and Technological Development 

You may have heard of these, and many other, examples from NASA. The NIH 

is proud to continue its partnership with NASA to make additional discoveries 

through research activities such as the ones described above. The NIH also looks 

forward to the conceptual and technological breakthroughs that are likely to emerge 

from the unique environment of the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory, and expects some of these advances will speed progress toward important 

medical interventions. 

In September 2007, the NIH and NASA entered into a collaboration that helps 

American scientists use the ISS. Chairman Nelson, Senator Hutchison, and Senator 

Mikulski joined the heads of both agencies at a ceremony at the U.S. Capitol to celebrate the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding. The event, which marked a 

milestone in a long partnership to advance scientific discovery, signaled the availability of the ISS as a platform for biomedical experiments that extend beyond 

NASA’s core interests. 

The NIH is an enthusiastic partner because the ISS offers an unprecedented opportunity for research that could benefit human health on Earth. Compared with 

the Earth-bound laboratories where more than 325,000 NIH-funded scientists conduct experiments every day, the ISS National Laboratory provides a virtually gravity-free environment that can unmask cellular and molecular mechanisms that underlie human diseases. It also provides an extreme environment for testing health 

care delivery and health monitoring technologies. 

As Director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 

Diseases, I am especially interested in what space can teach us about human diseases of the bones and muscles. Since the beginning of the space program, researchers have known that prolonged periods of weightlessness cause bones and muscles 

to deteriorate. The ISS provides a stable platform on which scientists can study the 

molecular basis of these effects for the eventual benefit of people who suffer from 

fragile bones or from muscle-wasting diseases. Because the deterioration experienced in space is similar to conditions associated with aging, such findings could affect everyone who is fortunate enough to live beyond middle age. 

The near-absence of gravity also provides researchers with opportunities to better 

understand the human immune system. In 2001, when the ISS was barely a year 

old, NASA astronauts and NIH-funded researchers were addressing important questions about the mechanisms that are involved as the immune function becomes compromised. The National Laboratory also can provide insights into how bacteria and 

viruses cause disease. For instance, experiments on the ISS already have shown 

that agents like the Salmonella bacterium become more infectious in microgravity 

and thus may become better inducers of immune responses. 

NASA personnel have conducted all National Laboratory experiments thus far 

without the benefit of a fully operational ISS. The initial findings, however, have 

demonstrated that the weightlessness of space provides a unique platform from 

which scientists can do more than simply answer questions about the effects of 

space travel on the human body. The data have taught us that true microgravity 

cannot be simulated on Earth, and it affects individual cells and multicellular organisms in ways Earth-based experiments can hardly predict. Moreover, they proved 

that the ISS has the potential to revolutionize how we view: 

• basic biological or behavioral mechanisms associated with maintaining health 

or developing disease, 

• normal or pathological physiology and metabolism, and 

• cell repair processes and tissue regeneration that occur naturally or are enhanced through medical interventions following injury or aging. 

11 

2 42 CFR Part 52h. 

NIH Activities to Encourage the Use of ISS Resources 

Most ideas for NIH-funded studies come from investigators at universities and 

medical schools around the country. Therefore, as part of its partnership with 

NASA, the NIH is asking the Nation’s biomedical research community to develop 

innovative hypotheses that astronauts could test on the ISS. The agency is encouraging a new cadre of health researchers from a variety of disciplines to incorporate 

the space environment into their experiments, and it will support them as they prepare their experiments for launch and analyze their data following a mission. 

Grant applications will be subjected to NIH peer review consistent with Federal 

regulation.2 However, the application process for grants to conduct research on the 

ISS will differ slightly from that for most other NIH grants. Because very few people outside of NASA have experience living and working in microgravity, applicants 

will need to work closely with NASA if they are to develop projects that are likely 

to give meaningful results. Astronauts have told us that life on the ISS is unlike 

anything most of us can imagine—flames burn differently, water flows differently, 

and chemical solutions mix differently. These distinctions, as well as the practical 

equipment, laboratory space, and personnel constraints facing every investigator 

who engages in collaborative research, will need to be considered as researchers who 

are looking to secure NIH dollars design their experiments. Ultimately, NASA personnel on the ISS will be using space-based laboratory equipment and data processing capabilities to conduct the experiments that the NIH funds—so the sooner 

biomedical researchers engage them in the process, the better their likelihood of 

success. 

NIH is hosting three rounds of competitions. Results from the first should be announced in the summer of 2010. The NIH Institutes and Centers that agreed to participate in this initiative are the: 

• National Cancer Institute 

• National Center for Research Resources 

• National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 

• National Institute on Aging 

• National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

• National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 

• National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering 

• Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

• National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 

The diversity of their missions underscores the promise that the National Laboratory holds for human health. Any NIH-funded project that uses ISS resources will 

be consistent with existing NIH priorities and will be relevant to improving human 

health. Prospective researchers will articulate the questions they are asking, design 

the experiments that astronauts will perform in space, and provide cogent explanations as to why the microgravity environment of the ISS is essential for their 

studies. 

In closing, the ISS provides a special microgravity environment that Earth-based 

laboratories cannot replicate. Congress’s designation of the ISS as a National Laboratory speaks to the importance that the American people place on scientific discovery. Thank you for the opportunity to present this snapshot of how NIH activities 

with NASA should contribute to biomedical research and technological development. 

I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding the potential 

of research in space to improve our public’s health. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Dr. Katz. 

Dr. Scott Pace is the Director of the Space Policy Institute, and 

he’s a Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at the 

George Washington University. His experience includes service in 

the Department of Commerce, the National Space Council, the 

RAND Corporation, the White House, and, most recently, within 

NASA. 

Welcome, Dr. Pace. 

12 

STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT PACE, DIRECTOR, SPACE POLICY 

INSTITUTE, ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Dr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s an honor to be here. 

And thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important topic. 

As has been remarked in the opening, there’s really no question 

about the importance on unmanned space activity, whether GPS or 

communication satellites and so forth. But, I would suggest that 

the future of human space exploration is in the balance, and therefore it’ll be the focus of my remarks. 

Last week I attended an annual conference of the International 

Astronautical Federation in Daejeon, South Korea. The President 

of South Korea actually came and spoke at the opening ceremony 

and said that, quote, ‘‘Space technology is the growth engine that 

will open the future of mankind. It has become a necessary tool for 

our own survival.’’ And it was very striking to see the excitement 

of space activity there in Korea. International representatives from 

Europe and Asia presented their own plans for exploration of the 

Moon and missions to Mars. 

There is an impressive spirit of international cooperation, not 

only among our Space Station partners, but also with other space 

powers, such as India and China. And China, in particular, was 

particularly open with its plans for activities in exploration beyond 

low-Earth orbit. 

Now, this spirit has been in development for the last several 

years based upon a U.S. diplomatic strategy that resulted in 14 

space agencies approving a global exploration strategy so that people would be moving out together in coordination, something pretty 

unique in space history. 

And, unfortunately, I have to say that the internal U.S. debate, 

this past summer, combined with the realities of the Fiscal Year 

2010 NASA budget, have created an air of uncertainty over U.S. 

intentions. And to borrow a phrase from Mr. Augustine, ‘‘You 

know, it’s hard to get others to work with you on your garden if 

you’re pulling up flowers to check the roots.’’ This is a time when 

other countries are looking to us and asking what are we going to 

be doing. 

And I think it’s important that, in looking to the future, that we 

have to be actively planning for what comes after the ISS. I completely agree with Dr. Katz’s comments on the importance of ISS 

as a National Lab. The continuation of Station operations, I think, 

is absolutely critical to get the value out of the investment this Nation has made. But, if we’re not planning for what comes after the 

ISS, the government is, in effect, getting out of the human 

spaceflight business. Because if we’re not going beyond low-Earth 

orbit, I would suggest that we are ignoring both the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and also running against the reality of globalized space activity, the number of 

other countries that are looking to work with us. 

In moving forward in all areas of space activity, we will be needing to build friends and allies around us in what Secretary Clinton 

has called a ‘‘multipartner world.’’ We need friends and allies to secure the global commons of space upon which we all depend for our 

national security, our economic, and our diplomatic interests, to 

13 

make sure the space environment remains free of interference. I 

have to say, nothing focuses the mind in the space debris community than the idea that there may be risks to astronauts aboard the 

Space Station. Unmanned satellites are one thing, humans are another. And that has focused attention on the need to keep that environment as pristine as we can to secure our own interests. 

We need to inspire a new generation of Americans to take on 

many of the demands of a globally competitive environment driven 

by scientific and technical innovation. And therefore, I think the 

conference in Korea kind of underlined that energy. 

The interdisciplinary demands of spaceflight, whether in biomedicine or engineering and physics, and in human spaceflight in 

particular, I think can be a highly effective school as we’re driven 

to do things that are unusual and different that we’re not going to 

do here at home, but that, by doing them in space, we will learn 

new skills that will help us be competitive. 

And finally, I have to say that it’s important to understand that 

it’s not just our machines that we send to travel into space, but the 

values we carry with us, that the international norms for human 

space activity will be shaped by those who are there in space; they 

will not be shaped by those who stay behind. If we want to be— 

see a part of the human future in space that reflects our values— 

this country’s values, the values of our allies—then we have to be 

a part of that effort. And ambitious goals and rhetoric require difficult actions and serious resources or the symbolism in actuality 

of human spaceflight will ring hollow. The United States is facing 

a generational transition away from the period represented by the 

Space Shuttle, and this transition is upon us now, both at home 

and abroad, as we see that others are not delaying their entries 

into space. And we have to ask what this Nation will do. 

Thank you very much for your attention, and I’d be happy to answer any questions at your convenience. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pace follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT PACE, DIRECTOR, SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE, 

ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing an opportunity to discuss this important 

topic. Understanding the value proposition of space, from low-Earth orbit to geosynchronous orbit, to the Moon and beyond, is of fundamental importance to many 

national interests. Our national security and public safety, global economic competitiveness and scientific capabilities, are all reliant on access to space and space-based 

capabilities. There is no question as to the important of unmanned space activity, 

but the future of U.S. human space exploration is in the balance and will be the 

focus of my remarks today. 

Globalization and Space 

Last week I attended the annual meeting of the International Astronautical Federation in Daejeon, South Korea. There was a statute of South Korea’s first astronaut, Yi So-Yeon, on the main boulevard. The President of South Korea, Lee 

Myung-bak, spoke at the opening ceremony and said, ‘‘Space technology is already 

being applied in various areas of our daily lives. Space technology is the growth engine that will open the future of the mankind, and it has become a necessary tool 

for our own survival.’’ Representatives from Europe, Japan, Russia, China, India, 

and Korea presented their increasingly specific plans for explorations of the Moon 

and missions to Mars. 

NASA also presented current U.S. plans for replacing the Space Shuttle, and the 

images of the hardware being built and tested were quite impressive. Just as impressive was the expressed spirit of international cooperation and coordination, not 

14 

only among International Space Station partners, but rapidly rising space powers 

such as India, China, and Korea. This spirit has been in development for 3 years, 

based on an inclusive U.S. diplomatic strategy that resulted in 14 space agencies 

agreeing to a common Global Exploration Strategy. 

Let me quote from that strategy: 

Space exploration follows a logical set of steps, starting with basic knowledge 

and culminating, it is hoped, in a sustained human presence in space. This journey requires a variety of both robotic and human missions. The Global Exploration Strategy provides a framework to coordinate the efforts and contributions 

of all nations so that all may participate in the expansion into space and benefit 

from it. 

Unfortunately, the internal U.S. debate this past summer, combined with the realities of the Fiscal Year 2010 NASA budget have created an air of uncertainty over 

U.S. intentions. To borrow from Norm Augustine, it’s hard to get others to work on 

a garden if we’re pulling up flowers to check the roots. It’s hard for many of our 

international friends to secure support for human spaceflight from their governments if we appear to have doubts about the value of the effort. 

The United States is a founding member of the space club, but we’re at risk of 

shifting to emeritus status while others with more energy step up. The Chinese in 

particular have laid out a careful, logical approach in which they plan to launch a 

mission in 2011 to test docking and rendezvous techniques, followed by a man-tended laboratory in 2015, and a three-man space station by 2020. The selection of 45 

new taikonauts is underway along with plans for a lunar sample return missions 

and Mars orbiter by 2013. To be clear, I welcome peaceful Chinese space exploration 

efforts. However, I don’t want them and other nations to be on the frontier of space 

without us. We may not be in a race, but we need to keep up. 

The Apollo program was intentionally a unilateral U.S. effort. The whole point 

was to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon. The Space Shuttle included international 

contributions such as the Canadian robot arm and a European Spacelab. The space 

station began as a U.S.-centered international effort but evolved into the fully integrated partnership that is the International Space Station (ISS) today. After the loss 

of the Columbia, sustaining the ISS would not have been possible without the international partners. 

Questions for Space 

Today, we have the Global Exploration Strategy as an international common approach to human and robotic exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. As I noted 

at the beginning, there is no question about the practical, scientific, and even diplomatic value of space exploration and this is recognized by other spacefaring nations 

as well. What about humans in space? That is the key question for our Nation’s civil 

space policy. 

What are the questions that will drive and sustain a human space exploration effort, if nation are not beating each other in cold war-like competitions for prestige? 

Challenger forced the question of whether we should risk humans flying payloads 

that could be launched in other ways. The answer was no and we moved satellites 

to expendable launch vehicles operated by private companies. 

Columbia forced the question of why are we risking humans at all. The Columbia 

Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) said that travel beyond Low-Earth Orbit was 

necessary if we were to justify the risks involved. The current U.S. Space Exploration Policy, past NASA authorizations by Congress, and Global Exploration Strategy are consistent with the views of the CAIB. 

If we are not planning for what comes after the ISS, the government is, in effect, 

getting out of the human spaceflight business. There may be space tourists launched 

by U.S. companies—I certainly hope so—but tourism cannot sustain a major international cooperative human space exploration effort. If we are not going beyond lowEarth orbit, we are ignoring both the recommendations of the CAIB and the reality 

of the increasing globalization of space activity. 

We should take a page from our science colleagues in asking simple, but profound 

questions to shape an implementation strategy. In science, questions such as ‘‘Does 

life exist elsewhere in the solar system?’’ or ‘‘What is dark energy?’’ help shape and 

sustain scientific strategies and programs over long periods. 

What is the question for human spaceflight? I believe it’s asking whether there 

is a human future beyond the Earth. 

Dr. Harry Shipman posed two questions in his 1989 book Humans in Space whose 

answers lead to very different human destinies. The first is, ‘‘Can extraterrestrial 

materials be used to support life in locations other than Earth?’’ And the second is, 

15 

‘‘Can activities of sustained economic worth be carried out at those locations?’’ Or 

as I shorten it: ‘‘Can we live off the land?’’ and ‘‘Can we make it pay?’’ 

If the answer to both questions is yes, we will see space settlements and the incorporation of the Solar System into our economic sphere as former Science Advisor 

Jack Marburger has suggested. If the answer is no, then space is a form of Mount 

Everest—good for personal challenge and tourism but nobody really lives there. 

Other answers might see Antarctica-like outposts or perhaps a North Sea oil platform exploiting space resources but without sustainable human communities in 

space. 

Many people seem to have faith-based answers to these questions but I would 

suggest a greater humility in admitting that we don’t really know. And therefore 

our efforts should be to answer these questions as in the course of human and 

robotic exploration beyond the Earth. The quest to do so will teach us much of practical benefit as we seek to do things that are hard. The experiences we gain in exploration will give us new insights into what humans can do and who we are. 

Value from Space 

The practical benefits of sending humans beyond the Earth are the ‘‘acceptable 

reasons’’ of supporting national interests in science, technology development, and 

international relations. For many countries, these reasons are not just ‘‘nice to do’’ 

but serious reasons of state. For India, ambitious space efforts attract new human 

capital to the strategic aerospace sector, which must compete with a growing information technology industry. For China, human spaceflight experiences are training 

a new generation of technical specialists in many fields and raising the quality level 

of industrial suppliers. For Japan and Europe, space flight demands interdisciplinary skills that can increase competitiveness in aerospace and non-aerospace sectors. The sophisticated systems engineering demanded by human space flight are 

part and parcel of what a great nation does, and more importantly, what it is capable of doing. 

Human spaceflight is the most demanding space activity, technically, financially, 

and organizationally. From the beginning it has also been the most symbolic activity, both at home and abroad. In the past, it responded to the question of who we 

were as Americans in the cold war. Today, it is a powerful symbol of cooperation 

among former adversaries on the International Space Station. The deep international relationships built through the ISS are among its most impressive and perhaps most enduring achievements to date. 

The question of whether there is a human future beyond the Earth will not be 

answered in a decade or five decades. It is a question that will evolve, challenge, 

confound, and test us for a long time as we try to answer it. 

For the future, we need to continue efforts to bind friends and allies to us in a 

multi-partner world in which space capabilities are globalized. 

We need friends and allies to help secure the global commons of space upon which 

we depend, to ensure that the space environment remains free of interference and 

open to peaceful uses by all. 

We need to inspire a new generation of Americans to take of the many demands 

of a globally competitive environment driven by scientific and technical innovation. 

The interdisciplinary demands of space flight and human space flight in particular 

can be a highly effective school for meeting those challenges. 

It is not just our machines or even our DNA that travel into space but our values 

as well. What values to we want to see be the norm in human activities beyond lowEarth orbit? The international norms for human space activity will be shaped by 

those who are there, not by those who stay behind. If we want to see a human future in space that reflects our values then we must be part of that effort. 

What will the United States do? 

Ambitious goals and rhetoric require difficult actions and serious resources or the 

symbolism and actuality of human spaceflight will be hollow. The President is critical to effectively setting space policy priorities in budget requests to the Congress. 

All Presidents have put their stamp on the Nation’s space efforts, from Kennedy and 

Nixon to Clinton and Bush. Their actions have typically reflected the broader international approach the United States seeks to play in the world. 

The United States is facing a generational transition away from the period represented by the Space Shuttle that is just as profound as the transition from Apollo 

was. We are facing a transition not just of hardware and contracts, but also of leadership and values. The transition is upon us at home and abroad, just as we see 

that others are not delaying their entries into space. What will this Nation do? 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

16 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Dr. Pace. 

Dr. Lennard Fisk is the Thomas Donahue Distinguished University Professor of Space Science at the University of Michigan, 

where from 1993 to 2003 he was Chair of the Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences. From 2003 to 2008, he 

was the chair of the National Academy of Sciences Space Studies 

Board. Before he came to the University, he was the distinguished 

Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications at 

NASA. Professor Fisk is the author of more than 160 publications 

on energetic particles in plasma phenomena in space. 

Welcome, Dr. Fisk. 

STATEMENT OF LENNARD A. FISK, PH.D., 

THOMAS M. DONAHUE DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY 

PROFESSOR OF SPACE SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

Dr. FISK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. I also appreciate very much being able to testify 

on this topic of the case for space. 

I’d like to base my remarks, in large measure on this National 

Academy’s report that we just issued, ‘‘America’s Future in Space: 

Aligning the Civil Space Program with our National Needs.’’ And 

in that report, we addressed the issue of civil space taken in its entirety; and so, let me begin by defining ‘‘civil space,’’ as I want to 

use it in my remarks. 

Civil space is all aspects of space that are not pursued for military purposes. And so, it’s going to be NASA and it’s going to be 

NOAA, it’s going to be commercial space, and it’s even going to be 

the civil use of military assets, such as Senator Hutchison noted, 

of the GPS signals, of which we are all quite dependent. 

If you take civil space in this broad context, civil space occupies 

a central position in the American way of life and our national 

goals. And you can make a long list here. It assists our everyday 

lives; GPS being an example—weather forecasts, communication 

satellites, direct broadcasting—all those items that—on which we 

are quite dependent. You can argue convincingly, I think, that it 

helped create the globalized world in which we live. We have an 

economy these days which is global. We do business worldwide. In 

part, that has resulted because we have knowledge of other societies and comfort in investing in them in a way we would not have 

if we did not have the information that comes through communications satellites and remote-sensing satellites and all the infrastructure of space. 

It—civil space program satisfies our innate curiosity about the 

majesty of the universe. It will help determine the future of the 

Earth. It can drive the development of technology on which our economic future depends. It inspires us to believe that tomorrow can 

be better than today. It’s an essential component of our national 

image, and it helps us—makes it possible for us to be strategic 

leaders in a world full of challenges. 

Well, given that centrality of civil space, it sort of makes you 

wonder why it is we have to defend its value. And, as Senator Vitter noted, I suspect part of that is this lack of appreciation results 

because space is now endemic in our society. It’s pervasive in our 

17 

daily lives and our national identity; and so, we no longer, perhaps, 

appreciate or fully recognize its value, as a result. 

It’s also true that we’re not particularly well organized as a Federal Government to fully realize the benefits that civil space offers 

our society. So, one of the key recommendations of the America’s 

Future in Space report is that the President of the United States 

should task senior Executive Branch officials to align the agencies 

and the departments involved in civil space—align their strategies, 

identify the gaps in the program, and identify the shortfalls in policy coverage, policy implementation, and, in particular, in resource 

allocation. 

The America’s Future in Space report also recommended that we 

should—whether it’s through policy implication and resource allocation, we should actually formulate, and we should execute, a civil 

space program in the United States that is closely aligned with, 

and clearly serves, our national needs. 

We need a civil space program that allows us to protect the 

Earth and its inhabitants through the use of space research and 

technology. The global perspective of space, which is enabled by 

space observations, will be essential to monitor climate change. 

We need a civil space program that allows us to pursue scientific 

inquiry, advancement of knowledge, which is, frankly, fundamental 

to a Nation’s health. A Nation that asks questions about the universe and wants to learn is a richer Nation. 

We need a civil space program that develops advanced technologies. We need a civil space program that actively pursues 

human spaceflight, extending the human experience into new frontiers, challenging technology, bringing global prestige, and exciting 

the public’s imagination. 

And the standard that we should hold our human spaceflight 

program to is not just, ‘‘What is everybody else doing?’’ but it 

should be held to the same standard that we expect for the rest of 

our civil space program; it should be transformative in its cultural 

impacts, in its scientific impacts, in its technology outcomes. That’s 

the standard that we should hold our human spaceflight program 

to. 

We need a civil space program that inspires current and future 

generations. We need a civil space program that allows us to pursue international cooperation in space proactively as a means to 

enhance U.S. strategic leadership and meet national and international goals. 

Now, there are impediments in this which are called out in this 

report, and we have to recognize them. One of them, cited a moment ago, was the lack of cohesive and coordinated national space 

strategy. We also need a competent technical workforce and a properly sized and structured infrastructure. 

And so, if I were summarizing what my remarks and what this 

report said, it’s basically that the civil space program of the United 

States has a central role in our society today and our goals as a 

nation. The role, however, is not often recognized or appreciated, 

and, as a result, our civil space program is not adequately coordinated, nor are its priorities properly aligned with pressing national 

needs with adequate resources provided, nor are its deficiencies 

recognized and removed. And, of course, the goal is to reverse that 

18 

1 America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, report 

of the National Research Council Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space 

Program, published October 2009. 

situation, to construct a civil space program that is truly aligned 

with, and capable of serving, the national needs; and when we do 

so, America does have a future in space; but, even more important, 

space can help ensure America’s future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fisk follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LENNARD A. FISK, PH.D., THOMAS M. DONAHUE

DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF SPACE SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify on the important topic of the Case for Space: Examining the 

Value. My name is Lennard Fisk, and I am the Thomas M. Donahue Distinguished 

University Professor of Space Science at the University of Michigan. I also served 

from 1987 to 1993 as the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, and from 2003 to 2008 as the Chair of the National Research Council 

Space Studies Board. 

My remarks today will be based in large measure on the recent National Academies Report: America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with 

National Needs,1 which was Chaired by Gen. Les Lyles (Ret.), and for which I 

served as one of the Vice Chairs. My remarks, of course, are entirely my own. 

I would like to talk today about civil space in its entirety, and so let me begin 

by defining civil space. For my purposes, civil space is all aspects of space that are 

not pursued for military purposes. It is the space activities of NASA and NOAA. 

It is all of commercial space: communication satellites, remote sensing satellites, 

and the many entrepreneurial activities that are now blossoming. It is also the civil 

use of military assets such as the commercial use of the signals from Global Positioning Satellites (GPS). 

Taken in this broad context, the civil space program of the United States touches 

the lives of every American, each and every day. We are dependent upon GPS signals for transportation; we coordinate our telecommunication networks, Internet infrastructure and electric grid and financial systems through the timing signals 

available from GPS. Our weather forecasts are based upon satellite observations. 

We have information on what is happening everywhere in the world at all times, 

in large measure due to satellite communications and observations. 

Indeed, we can argue that the globalized world in which we live, where manufacturing is worldwide and economies are thoroughly intertwined, was able to develop 

because of space. The knowledge that we have about other societies and our ability 

to communicate instantaneously, transmitted through satellites, have given us a 

level of comfort to invest throughout the world. And because of this we live in a 

safer world, where now many nations have a vested interest in each other’s success. 

We also live in a world of challenges, one of the main ones being global climate 

change. Whether or not you agree on the causes of climate change, nonetheless we 

must all accept that the climate of Earth is changing, and the outstanding question 

is what are the regional consequences to which we must prepare to adapt. The Department of Defense has stated that global climate change is a strategic threat to 

the United States, in recognition that climate change in the developing world can 

be de-stabilizing, and lead to increased threats from, for example, terrorism. 

The knowledge of global climate change and its regional consequences will come 

uniquely from the civil space program. Comprehensive observations from the global 

perspective of space will be required. We may enter into treaties limiting fossil fuel 

emissions and other contributions to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Only 

the global perspective of satellite observations will allow us to monitor compliance 

by the treaty signatories. ‘‘Trust but verify’’ will work equally well in climate treaties as it did for treaties limiting nuclear weapons. 

We also live in a world of opportunities. We have the capabilities these days to 

use our civil space program to ask and to answer very fundamental questions about 

the universe in which we live: what is the origin, the evolution, and the destiny of 

our Sun, our solar system, and the universe beyond. Is there life elsewhere in the 

universe? Do we not also, as a rich and powerful nation, have the obligation to seek 

and to provide these answers on behalf of all humankind? 

19 

2Quoted from the NRC report: America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program 

with National Needs. 

Our economy is reeling and the clear way forward to long-term economic growth 

and job creation is investments in innovative technologies. The civil space program 

can require the development of technologies that benefit the economic growth of the 

Nation and it can unleash and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit on which the 

American economy is founded. 

Our human space flight program has been able to inspire us to consider the endless opportunities of space. It also plays an important geopolitical role. Space has 

been and will always be the playground on which developed nations demonstrate 

their technological prowess. Our position in the world is in part determined by what 

we are able to accomplish in space. 

Indeed, our entire civil space program permits us to define the image we wish to 

project as a nation. There are a growing number of nations with capabilities in 

space, and so dominance by the United States is no longer likely, nor for that matter desirable. Rather, we can use our civil space program to exert strategic leadership, in which we lead by example and in cooperation, and are valued in the world 

for what we are able to accomplish on behalf of all humankind. 

Our civil space program can also make us more secure. We have military assets 

in space, which are judged to be vulnerable. It is reasonable to assume that they 

will be safer if space becomes a routine place for science and for commerce, just as 

rules-of-the-road make our oceans a lawful, not a lawless domain. 

Our civil space program thus occupies a central position in the American way of 

life and our national goals. It assists our everyday lives; it helped create our 

globalized world; it satisfies our innate curiosity about the majesty of the universe; 

it will help determine the future of Earth; it can help drive the development of technology on which our economic future depends; it inspires us to believe that our tomorrows will be better; it is an essential component of our national image, and 

helps make it possible for us to be a strategic leader in a world full of challenges. 

Given the centrality of the civil space program to our way of life and national 

goals it is somewhat troubling that we need to defend its value. I suspect this lack 

of appreciation results in part because space is now endemic in our society. It is 

so pervasive in our daily lives and national identity that we no longer fully recognize or appreciate its presence. 

It is also true that we are not organized as a Federal Government to fully realize 

the benefits that our civil space program offers the Nation. ‘‘National space policy 

is too often implemented in a stovepipe fashion that obscures the connection between space activities and other pressing needs of the Nation. Consequently, the 

senior policymakers with broad portfolios have not been able to take the time to consider the space program in the broad national context. Rather, policies have been 

translated into programs by setting budget levels and then expecting agencies to 

manage to those budgets.’’ 2

Thus, one of the key recommendations of the America’s Future in Space report 

is that ‘‘the President of the United States should task senior Executive Branch officials to align agency and department strategies: identify gaps or shortfalls in policy 

coverage, policy implementation, and resource allocation; and identify new opportunities for space-based endeavors that will help to address the goals of both the U.S. 

civil and national security space programs.’’ 2

The America’s Future in Space report further recommends that we should, 

through policy implementation and resource allocation, formulate and execute a civil 

space program in the United States that is closely aligned with and clearly serves 

our national needs. The service to national needs is the basis on which our national 

investment in civil space has and ought to be made. We have entrusted the future 

of our Nation and our sense of wellbeing as a people to the performance of our civil 

space program, and we need to insure that our investments in civil space are adequate and the emphases that we place best serve our national needs. 

We need a civil space program that allows us to protect the Earth and its inhabitants through the use of space research and technology; that employs the global 

perspective enabled by space observations to monitor climate change and test climate models, to help manage Earth resources, and mitigate risks associated with 

natural phenomena such as severe weather and asteroids. ‘‘NASA and NOAA should 

lead in the formation of an international satellite-observing architecture of monitoring global climate change and its consequences and support the research needed 

to interpret and understand the data in time for meaningful policy decisions.’’ 2

We need a civil space program that allows us to pursue scientific inquiry and advancement of knowledge, which are fundamental to a nation’s health: ‘‘the results 

inform and excite the public, stimulate technology development, create an interest 

20 

in learning, and generally improve the capability of the Nation to compete and to 

lead. A nation that asks question about the universe and wants to learn is a richer 

nation.’’ 2

We need a civil space program that develops advanced technology, ‘‘engaging the 

best scientific and engineering talent in the country wherever it resides in universities, industry, NASA centers, or in other government laboratories.’’ 2 The research 

conducted should address the needs of the Nation’s entire space portfolio, both government and industry, and by doing so encourage the economic development of the 

Nation. 

We need a civil space program that actively pursues human spaceflight, ‘‘extending the human experience into new frontiers, challenging technology, bringing global 

prestige, and exciting the public’s imagination.’’ 2 The criterion by which we judge 

our human spaceflight program should not be based upon the capabilities or aspirations of other nations. Rather, our human spaceflight program should be held to the 

same standard we apply to the rest of our civil space program: ‘‘It must be capable 

of producing transformative cultural, scientific, commercial or technical outcomes.’’ 2

We need a civil space program that inspires current and future generations; ‘‘that 

builds upon the legacy of spectacular achievements to inspire our citizens and attracts future generations of scientists and engineers.’’ 2 We live in a world of many 

immediate concerns, from a weakened world economy, to regional conflicts and global terrorism, to threats of the consequences of climate change and limited energy 

sources. ‘‘A vigorous civil space program provides a strong signal that our future as 

a nation is promising; that life can be better; that our prospects are boundless.’’ 2

We need a civil space program that allows us to pursue international cooperation 

in space proactively as a means to advance U.S. strategic leadership and meet national and mutual international goals. ‘‘Space is viewed by many countries of the 

world as global commons, a resource not owned by any one nation but crucial to 

the future of all humankind. Indeed, human beings around the world view space 

not just as a place, but rather as symbolic of the future itself. Thus, for the U.S. 

to exert strategic leadership there is no venue more special than space. True strategic leadership will be achieved not by dominance, which in many cases is no 

longer possible, but by example and in cooperation with other nations. In addition 

to protecting those activities in space that are judged to be essential to U.S. national 

interest, and for which the United States must be an undisputed leader, there 

should also always be concern for the larger world and for how the United States 

is viewed as a benevolent nation with foresight and determination to make a better 

world for all humankind.’’ 2

We need to recognize also that there are impediments to the success of a civil 

space program that best serves the national needs, and these will need to be overcome. There is the impediment cited above of the lack of a cohesive and coordinated 

national space policy that ensures that all participants have the capabilities, whether by policy or through resource allocation, to serve their functions in this broad national endeavor. There are also impediments at the foundational level. 

There is need of a competent technical work force, ‘‘sufficient in size, talents and 

experience to address difficult and pressing challenges.’’ 2 The aerospace work force, 

which serves the needs of both civil and military space, needs to be replenished, as 

part of a broad national effort to ensure that the Nation has the technical workforce 

necessary to maintain our competitive position in the world and that serves the 

needs of our people. 

There is a need for a properly sized and structured infrastructure, which makes 

effective use of the full capabilities that the Nation has assembled to conduct its 

civil space program, whether in NASA centers, universities, industry, or other national laboratories. ‘‘The health of the institutional infrastructure is in question. 

NASA still maintains 10 large centers, as legacies of the much larger Apollo program more than 40 years ago. Responding to funding limitations and associated political pressures, NASA has elected to focus its support on its own centers. As a result, the broad national capabilities in universities and in industry have atrophied 

and are under utilized—in some instances imperiled—with serious consequences for 

U.S. capabilities for future innovation. In the case of universities, where research 

and education are pursued synergistically, the proper training of the aerospace 

workforce is in jeopardy.’’ 2

There is a need for a foundation of ‘‘sustained technology advances that can provide the development of more capable, reliable, and lower-cost spacecraft and launch 

vehicles to achieve space program goals.’’ 2 ‘‘Yet, because of budgetary pressures and 

institutional priorities, NASA has largely abandoned its role in supporting a broad 

portfolio of advanced technology development for civil space applications, and the 

space technology base has been allowed to erode and is now deficient.’’ 2

21 

In summary, the civil space program of the United States has a central role in 

our society today, and our goals as a nation. This role, however, is often not recognized or appreciated, with the result that our civil space program is not adequately 

coordinated; nor are its priorities properly aligned with pressing national needs, 

with adequate resources provided; nor are its deficiencies recognized and removed. 

The goal of course is to reverse this situation, to construct a civil space program 

that is truly aligned with and capable of serving the national needs. When we do, 

America does have a future in space, and even more important, space can help assure America’s future. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Dr. Fisk. 

Dr. Jeanne Becker is the Vice President, institute Associate Director, and Chief Scientist for the National Space Biomedical Research Institute. Dr. Becker is currently serving as the Chair of the 

National Advisory Committee for the Women’s Health Research 

Coalition. She’s also a member of the Society for Gynecologic Investigation and a member of Women in Bio. She has served with 

NASA and the NIH. Dr. Becker is also the recipient of NASA’s 

Space Life Sciences Directed Professional Achievement Award. 

Welcome, Dr. Becker. 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE L. BECKER, PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SPACE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH 

INSTITUTE AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, ASTROGENETIX 

Dr. BECKER. Thank you so much—oh I did. OK. 

Chairman Nelson, I’m very honored to be here. I’m kind of a 

nuts-and-bolts sort of person, and so I’m going to get to some very 

tangible points. But, before I do that, I want to tell you and your 

committee a little bit of history. 

For my entire career, I’ve been involved in applying space-based 

biomedical research to on-Earth applications and problems. I started out my career as an Assistant Professor at the University of 

South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, and that’s where, 

with stars in my eyes, I got involved in bioreactor work, developing 

3–D models for breast and ovarian cancer. That work continues to 

this day, and I want to update you that, actually, two patents have 

been filed on a companion technology that is pushing that toward 

commercializing a 3–D assay for determining cancer cell sensitivity. So, we’re very proud of that. 

I was also there on June 22, 1993, testifying—having the opportunity to testify before Chairman Hall’s Subcommittee when the 

vote to even build a Space Station passed by one. And that was a 

very exciting time, and I remember it like it was yesterday. And 

now I have the opportunity to talk to you about the work that I’m 

involved with, with development of a salmonella vaccine based on 

changes of that organism in space, as was alluded to before. We all 

know about salmonella. It’s a terrible problem with food poisoning, 

but it’s also a major cause of childhood death in Third World countries. Salmonella has been investigated early on in spaceflight, and 

it was shown that the organism actually becomes more virulent— 

that is, increases its ability to cause disease—when it’s cultured in 

the environment of space. As a group, we—we formed as a group, 

based on that basic science finding, to actually come forward with 

a commercial initiative, and we have a terrific team formed. The 

principal investigator is Dr. Timothy Hammond, and the work actually started out of his lab at Tulane University, and recently was 

22 

transferred to where his current institution is, at Duke/VA Hospital. 

The hardware that we use to perform these experiments is provided by Dr. Louis Dodiak and his group, at BioServe, who have 

been phenomenal. And the funding, which we couldn’t have done 

any of this without, is provided by a parent company, Astrotech— 

you might know them as SpaceHab, by their former name—and 

they have a privately-held venture called Astrogenetix, and Tom 

Pickens is the CEO of that. And he has got a lot of his father’s 

characteristics, in that when he sees something that he believes is 

going to work, he goes for it. And so, they’ve been a terrific funding 

partner for us. 

We’re very fortunate to do this kind of work, because NASA has 

given us opportunities as a manifest on every remaining Shuttle 

flight. And so, I’m proud to report to you that we have actually accomplished six payloads in a period of 18 months, which, to those 

that haven’t done it—and I know you’ve been involved in some of 

that yourself, Chairman Nelson—that’s a lot of work. And we 

wouldn’t be keeping on with this work unless we saw tangible results. And, the fact is, what happens in space happens in space. So, 

we’re not just conducting research in microgravity; we’re using 

what happens in space to answer questions. There’s a big difference there. It’s not just experiments we do up there; it’s—we do 

them because changes occur in microgravity that you don’t see here 

on Earth, changes in gene expression and protein expression of organisms that uncover new ways of identifying targets that you can 

find for therapeutics, for vaccine development, for new kinds of 

antibiotics and therapies that do not exist here. 

Our initial work with salmonella allowed us to, in fact, identify 

a target for vaccine development. And right now we’re pursuing 

that, and we’re writing up an investigational new drug, an IND application, that will be submitted to the FDA based on this work. 

We’ve been able to fly eight organisms, and we see remarkable 

changes in all of them. One of them is of particular interest that 

we’re targeting for future development, and that’s Methicillin-resistant Staph aureus, or MRSA. And, in fact, we’re getting ready 

to fly on STS–129 that will launch in November, and MRSA will 

be the payload on that flight. 

So, I’ll stop there, but I’m happy to answer all your questions. 

And again, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Becker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEANNE L. BECKER, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL SPACE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, 

ASTROGENETIX

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Vitter and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on the benefits and applications of space based research. I have the privilege of serving as the Associate Director of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute and also the Chief Scientist for Astrogenetix, which has supported the International Space Station National Laboratory Vaccine Pathfinder missions. For the hearing today, I was asked 

to address two areas: (i) the potential benefits and applications of my research, and 

(ii) what makes the space environment unique. 

For the duration of my academic career, I have been involved in applying results 

gained from space based research to on-Earth biomedical problems. My initial research experience with NASA based technology began in the early 1990s, with studies focused on three dimensional growth of human tumors, using the NASA-develVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 056407 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\56407.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
23 

oped Rotating Wall bioreactor. This device was originally invented so that cells 

could be grown under conditions mimicking reduced gravity, and could be transported into space avoiding the harsh shear forces of launch and landing. The calm 

and quiescent culture environment provided by this device allows cells to assemble 

into large three dimensional aggregates, closely resembling the way cells grow within the human body. The three dimensional growth of tumor cells in this Rotating 

Wall bioreactor has proved to be remarkable for a number of reasons. As compared 

to the traditional means of growing cells flat, in a Petri plate, tumor cells cultivated 

in the bioreactor grow faster, are more biologically representative of native cancer 

tissue (that is, look and behave more like real human cancer) and are more aggressive, in that they become significantly more resistant to anti-cancer drugs. For example, the same dose of the chemotherapeutic agent taxol that kills breast or ovarian tumor cells in a Petri plate will not kill all the cancerous cells in these three 

dimensional clusters. The cancer cells in the three dimensional aggregates which 

are still alive following exposure to taxol then continue to grow, mirroring what happens in patients who fail chemotherapy. Ultimately, three dimensional growth of 

human tumor cells can be used as a way to more reliably test new drugs and other 

types of therapies before they are administered to patients, to give physicians a better first line of defense in determining which treatments will work for their patients. 

Over the course of nearly two decades, the scientific literature has become filled 

with publications demonstrating the fidelity and usefulness of the Rotating Wall 

bioreactor for three dimensional culture of a wide variety of both normal and cancerous cells. However, taking a different perspective, if the Rotating Wall bioreactor 

is so effective at producing an environment which can replicate conditions in the 

body, is it necessary to conduct research on cells and tissue grown in space? One 

answer to this question can be found in the work of Dr. Leland Chung, the principal 

investigator for an experiment that launched on STS–107. The objective of this work 

was to characterize the interaction of prostate tumor cells and bone tissue by conducting a co-culture experiment in a bioreactor aboard the space shuttle. Although 

a tragic accident destroyed the crew and shuttle, data downlinked during the flight 

showed that within 3 days, the clusters of prostate cancer cells and bone had become the size of golf balls, relative to the same experiments conducted in the bioreactor on the ground, which showed three dimensional clusters one-eighth of an 

inch in diameter. An expert in prostate tumor biology, Dr. Chung maintains that 

this experiment had produced one of, if not the, best model of prostate cancer-bone 

interactions. This is an important accomplishment since advanced stages of prostate 

cancer commonly spread to bone making treatment options challenging and highly 

limited. Based upon the work of scientists like Dr. Chung, as well as my own personal experiences, I believe that we need experimentation in all types of environments, modeled microgravity, true microgravity and the 1G that we live in, to gain 

insight into how forces like gravity affect cell function and growth. We must utilize 

all options available for advancing the knowledge necessary to find new ways of 

treating devastating diseases, such as cancer. The International Space Station (ISS) 

is a critically important platform necessary to advance this science—there is no 

other means of conducting work in a sustained microgravity environment. ISS is the 

only laboratory of its kind. 

Research in microgravity has also contributed to important advances in microbial 

biology. Previous space flight studies of the bacteria Salmonella enterica demonstrated that growth of this organism in the microgravity environment resulted in 

significantly enhanced virulence in mice when the space-grown bacteria were returned to earth and injected into the animals. Taking advantage of this knowledge, 

we reasoned that if the cause of the increased virulence could be identified, that is, 

targeted to a specific gene or set of genes, then a vaccine for this organism could 

potentially be developed. In order for a vaccine to be effective, it must be strong 

enough to induce an immune response in the host and strong enough to provide protection against future exposure to Salmonella, but weak enough to allow administration with no risk of illness, that is, it must not make the host sick. Working with 

the principal investigator for these studies, Dr. Timothy Hammond, we pursued development of a Salmonella vaccine using strains of the bacteria which were genetically altered to remove key genes associated with virulence, yet were still able to 

induce a good host immune response. A key factor for these investigations was the 

establishment of a host-pathogen model that would allow us to examine how the 

bacteria interact with, and infect, the host within the microgravity environment. For 

this, we developed an in-microgravity assay whereby the genetically altered bacteria 

are grown in the microgravity environment, then mixed with a tiny worm host, 

Caenorhabditis elegans. Interestingly, C. elegans exhibits many similarities with humans in their immune response to bacteria, making this a good model system. The 

24 

model works because C. elegans normally ingest bacteria as a food source. After the 

bacteria and worms interact on-orbit, the process is terminated and then returned 

to earth for determination of microbial virulence. If the bacteria are virulent, after 

being ingested by the C. elegans the bacteria kill the worm host, and continue to 

grow. If the bacteria are not virulent (that is, the removal of genes took away their 

ability to kill their host), the worms simply ingest the bacteria and the bacteria are 

removed from the system, so they cannot continue to grow. In post-flight analysis, 

altered bacterial strains not exhibiting virulence, due to the knock-out of specific 

gene(s), are potential targets for vaccine development. These investigations are 

made possible because of an extensive team effort, using the robust flight hardware 

and expertise provided by BioServe, under the leadership of Dr. Louis Stodieck and 

the funding provided by Astrogenetix. 

To date, six flight studies have been conducted over a period of 18 months, and 

we are preparing for our next payload on STS–129 scheduled for launch in November of this year. We have successfully identified a gene target and a vaccine for Salmonella enterica is under development. This work has partnered academia and government with industry for the development of a commercial vaccine product based 

on results obtained in microgravity, and serves as a pathfinder mission to validate 

the use of ISS as a National Laboratory, that is, as a research and development 

platform, after station assembly is complete. As such, NASA has designated these 

flights as ISS National Laboratory Pathfinder missions and has provided a manifest 

on each of the remaining shuttle flights to enable iterative science to be conducted, 

as is necessary for tangible product development. Currently there is no Salmonella 

vaccine available for human use. Aside from being among the most common causes 

of food poisoning world-wide, Salmonella is a major cause of childhood death in 

Third World nations. 

A variety of medically important microbes have been tested in the C. elegans 

model and the system has worked well. Recently initiated follow-on experiments are 

focused on the use of microgravity to identify targets for the development of therapeutics for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. In the past decade, infection and mortality due to this organism has increased drastically, exceeding the death rate for HIV. In this country alone, MRSA is responsible for 100,000 

cases of severe infections and 19,000 deaths annually. Although once predominantly 

confined to the hospital environment, this organism is fast becoming a major problem outside hospitals, and community acquired MRSA is on the rise. 

To summarize the accomplishments of this work: 

• The findings made in space are the product of fundamental research. 

• Multiple successful spaceflight payloads have been conducted with industry support. 

• A lead product, a vaccine for Salmonella, is in development based upon results 

obtained in microgravity. 

• Work with additional microbes is ongoing, for future pipeline development. 

The ability to support and maintain investments made in ISS will require an ongoing commitment but also comes with the expectation that significant gains and 

advantages will come about as a result of the resources allocated. One important 

question to ask regarding the development of therapeutics using ISS as a platform 

is how exactly can using space change drug development on earth? Currently, the 

research and development pipeline for a single agent may take years of work to 

allow identification of viable candidates for pharmaceutical applications. At the end 

of this period, the possibly exists that the candidate agent is not suitable for continued development. The time, money and resources expended getting to this point 

could be minimized by using a process which identifies promising agents or drug 

candidates earlier in the development pipeline, for quicker testing to evaluate downstream efficacy and market potential. Using space, years may be eliminated from 

research and development pipeline activities, to allow for fast-tracking of promising 

agents, and termination of unsuccessful agents at earlier time points. In this manner, ISS may be not only a one-of-a-kind laboratory resource for the development 

of new and sorely needed pharmaceutical and therapeutic products, but could facilitate the generation of an entirely new kind of biotechnology industry based upon 

discovery in microgravity. 

Outside of my own research, in my role as associate director of NSBRI, I have 

the opportunity to facilitate the work of over 180 investigators at 60 institutions 

across the country. The research of these scientists is also aimed at making advances in the space environment and applying this knowledge to benefit life on 

earth. From new technologies for noninvasive health monitoring, to advanced training techniques in areas such as ultrasound, to enhanced lighting devices to counterVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 056407 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\56407.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
25 

act fatigue, this work leverages the academic resources of our Nation’s top tier institutions and the Federal funding of agencies such as the National Institutes of 

Health and the Department of Defense. The continued accomplishments of this body 

of work are strongly dependent upon the maintenance of ISS as a National research 

enterprise. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, in closing, I want to again extend my appreciation for affording me this opportunity to discuss the benefits and 

applications of research conducted in the space environment. At this critical time 

when National resources are hard fought, I sincerely believe that investments made 

in the International Space Station will yield tremendous benefits for new discovery 

to enhance health on earth. Vital to these successes are the collaborations and efforts of academia, industry and government, working together with your strong support. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Dr. Becker. 

And when, for example, the Vasomer engine is attached to the 

Space Station in 2013, it will obviate the need to bring up fuel to 

keep boosting the Space Station, because it will have a continuous 

pulse. It will take the Station from microgravity, because of the 

drag, to near-zero gravity, which will all the more enhance your experimentation. 

Dr. BECKER. Absolutely. 

Senator NELSON. Our CEO of the panel is Ms. Greiner, CoFounder of the iRobot Corporation, has served as President since 

1997. She served as Chairman of that company from 2004 to 2008. 

Under her leadership, iRobot is delivering robots to the industrial, 

consumer, academic, and military markets. 

I want you to explain these little devices, and what they’re doing 

for the military that came out of our human space program. 

Her 15 years of experience in robotic technology includes work at 

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and MIT’s Artificial Intelligence 

Laboratory. She was named the Ernst & Young New England Entrepreneur of the Year, a Technology Review Magazine, Young Innovator of the Next Century, and one of World Economic Forum’s 

Global Leaders of Tomorrow. 

Welcome, CEO Greiner. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN GREINER, CEO, THE DROID WORKS 

Ms. GREINER. Well, thank you. Since my Ph.D. is honorary, I 

won’t use it while sitting next to the real thing. So, thank you for 

that introduction. I’m honored to speak here today. 

I am also serving as a Trustee for MIT, the Boston Museum of 

Science, the National Defense Industrial Association, and the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. I’m serving 

also as the elected President of the Robotic Technology Consortium, 

which is an industrial consortium that has the top-tier defense contractors, top universities and nonprofits, and over 120 small businesses. We have members in two-thirds of the states, and many of 

these companies and universities are funded to do space research 

by NASA. So, in other words, as you heard from my—the introduction, I’m an engineer, an entrepreneur, and I’m active in representing the robotics community. 

So, my own career and the history of iRobot Corporation are inextricably intertwined with NASA. I was an intern at NASA’s Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory, where I worked on manipulators for satellites. And this internship provided me with the opportunity to 

learn from NASA engineers, some of the best in the world, and also 

26 

provided me the funding that I needed to obtain an advanced degree from MIT. 

When I graduated, I founded iRobot with Rob Brooks and Colin 

Angle, and NASA helped us. They helped us by purchasing some 

robots; specifically, an 18-Degree-of-Freedom Walking Robot and 

some tract robots. They were our very first sales. And I asked the 

program managers at NASA, a decade later, why they bought these 

robots, and their response was telling. They said, ‘‘We wanted to 

make sure an industrial base developed in robots.’’ A lot of deep 

thinkers at NASA. 

So, in addition, the iRobot Corporation is actually based on work 

that was funded by NASA at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Lab in the 1980s, and this research 

developed a new type of robot control that we call ‘‘behavioral control.’’ And behavioral control is modeled on insects, because insects 

can get around anywhere, and they don’t have large computational 

assets; in fact, they have these little bitty brains. And so, that kind 

of control system is also the kind of control system you need on a 

robot when it goes out to explore Mars or one of the further planets. 

So, this groundbreaking work was one of the threads leading to 

the successful Sojourner Mars’ Exploration Mission, but here on 

Earth it’s also being used. This funding changed the paradigm in 

the way that robots are designed, and it currently runs on the 

iRobot Roomba Vacuuming Robot. And the Roomba—in case you 

haven’t heard about it, we hope you have—they’re small, completely autonomous vacuuming robots. And iRobot has now sold 3 

million of them, which makes it the best-selling practical home 

robot in the world. So, you can go out and buy these spinouts of 

space technology at Costco, Target, and many other stores. 

But, 50 percent, as Chairman Nelson alluded to, of iRobot’s business comes from military and law enforcement. In 1997, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, started a program to build tactical mobile robots. And NASA, iRobot, and others 

worked on this program. NASA brought their technology to bear on 

the iRobot PackBot System, and, likewise, we spun technology from 

this program back into NASA in, for example, the lightweight rugged wheels that are used on the next set of Mars’ rovers, Spirit and 

Opportunity. 

The PackBots were first deployed in combat in 2002, and they 

were used to clear the caves in Afghanistan. Before the PackBots 

got there, they were actually tying ropes around the soldiers’ 

waists and sending them into the caves. You know, there could be 

boobytraps, the last occupant was possibly an enemy combatant, 

and these robots are currently being used to remediate improvised 

explosive devices. So, the—one of the deadliest threats to our 

troops are these roadside bombs. And the PackBots now have been 

credited with the military with saving the lives of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians. And because of this success, with 

team members from iRobot, NASA, DARPA, and the iRobot 

PackBot was inducted into the Space Hall of Fame in 2006, which 

we are very proud of. 

So, because of these small investments that were made by NASA, 

the U.S. is leading the world in robot products. So, from autonoVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 056407 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\56407.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

mous vacuums to floorwashers to warehouse robots, to military robots, the U.S. has sold more robots than any other country. And 

it’s entrepreneurial companies like iRobot and, my new company, 

The Droid Works, that are creating jobs and ensuring America’s 

leadership in the global innovation economy. NASA funding is a 

national competitiveness issue. 

So, in conclusion, at just—less than 1 percent of the Federal 

budget—NASA is not just exploring the planets, including planet 

Earth, but also supporting the next generation of engineers 

through internships, supporting entrepreneurs through their small 

business programs and other contracts, supporting cutting-edge research at universities, supporting our technology industrial base, 

and developing lifesaving technology. So, that’s just less than 1 percent of the budget. NASA funding is a proven investment in U.S. 

competitiveness. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Greiner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELEN GREINER, CEO, THE DROID WORKS

My name is Helen Greiner. I am currently the CEO of a startup company called 

The Droid Works. I received my Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering and 

Masters Degree in Electrical and Computer Sciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Between 1990 to 2008, I co-founded and served as President and 

later Chairman of iRobot Corporation, a company that went from an apartment 

based startup to a publicly traded company and is a worldwide leaders in robot 

product sales and cutting edge robotics research. I currently serve as a trustee for 

MIT, the Boston Museum of Science, the National Defense Industrial Association, 

and the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. I also serve as 

the elected President of the Robotics Technology Consortium, an industrial and academic consortium of 179 companies including top tier defense contractors, top universities and non profits, and over 120 small businesses—we have members from 

over 2/3 of the states. In other words, I am an engineer, entrepreneur, and active 

in representing the robotics industry. 

My own career and iRobot’s history is inextricably intertwined with NASA. I was 

an intern at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory where I worked on manipulators for 

satellites. This internship provided the opportunity to learn from NASA engineers 

and the support that I needed to pursue an advanced degree. Upon graduating, I 

founded iRobot in 1990 with Rod Brooks and Colin Angle, and NASA helped by purchasing robots from us—specifically an 18 degree of freedom walking robot and two 

portable tracked robots our very first sales. I asked a decade later why NASA 

bought them and the response was ‘‘we wanted to make sure that an industrial base 

developed in robotics’’. In addition, iRobot Corporation is based on work that was 

funded by NASA at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Artificial Intelligence Lab in the 1980s—this research developed a new type of control for robots 

called Behavior Control. Behavior Control is modeled on insects that can easily 

navigate in unstructured environments—even though they lack large computation 

assets—in other words, they have little bitty brains. Behavior Control mimics how 

insect control systems work and was implemented on insectoid robots such as Genghis and Attila. This ground breaking work was one of the threads leading to the 

successful Sojourner Mars exploration mission. Here on earth this NASA funded 

paradigm has changed the way robots are designed. This NASA research grant 

funded the fundamental robot intelligence paradigm that currently runs on the 

iRobot Roomba Vacuuming Robot. The Roomba, in case, you haven’t seen them, are 

small completely autonomous vacuuming robots. iRobot has now sold over 3 Million 

Roombas, making it the best selling practical home robot in the world. 

Fifty percent of iRobot’s business comes from military and law enforcement. In 

1997, the Defense Research Projects Agency started a program to build Tactical Mobile Robot. iRobot, NASA, and others worked on this program. NASA brought their 

technology to bear on the iRobot PackBot System and likewise iRobot technology 

was spun back into NASA in, for example, the lightweight rugged wheels for the 

second set of MARS rovers, Spirit and Opportunity. The PackBot Robots were the 

first ground robot deployed in combat in 2002 to provide initial entry into the remote caves of Afghanistan where the Taliban were hiding their weapons caches. 

28 

They took the place of tying ropes around our soldiers and sending them in to face 

enemy combatants and booby traps. Currently PackBot’s are being used to remediate Improvised Explosive Device, or roadside bombs, which are the deadliest 

threat to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. PackBots have been credited by the 

military with saving the lives of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians. Because of this success, with team members from iRobot, DARPA, and NASA, the 

iRobot PackBot was inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame in 2006. 

Because of the small investments made by NASA, the U.S. is currently leading 

the world in robot products. More robots from autonomous vacuums to floor washers 

to warehouse robots to military robots have been designed and sold by U.S. companies than any other country. The entrepreneurial companies, like iRobot Corporation, that make this happen are creating jobs and insuring America’s leadership in 

the global innovation economy. NASA funding is a national competitiveness issue. 

So in conclusion at just $17.2B or just 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the Federal budget, 

NASA is not just exploring the planets (including planet earth), but also supporting 

the next generation engineers through internships, supporting entrepreneurs 

through their Small Business program and other contracts, supporting cutting edge 

research at universities, supporting our technology industrial base, and helping develop life saving technologies. That’s just 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the budget. NASA funding is a proven investment in U.S. competitiveness. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Ms. Greiner. 

I’m going to withhold my questions so my colleagues can ask 

questions. 

Senator Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, particularly since I’m going to have to excuse myself in a few minutes. 

Sitting here listening to all of this, I thought of maybe a great 

tag line for the hearing. It’s the opposite of Vegas: What happens 

in space doesn’t stay in space. 

Senator NELSON. There you go. 

Senator VITTER. I’ll consider some more ideas. You’re obviously 

not—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER.—quite ready to put that on the cover of the 

hearing testimony yet. 

Dr. Katz, thanks for your specific examples of developments that 

have very real use here on Earth, particularly in the area that involves the NIH. Now, some folks would say, ‘‘Well, 90-plus percent 

of that sort of stuff can be done without human spaceflight. And, 

perhaps, that is where we have to refine the argument and target 

the argument the most, as other panelists have alluded to, is 

human spaceflight.’’ How would you respond to that, particularly 

with your NIH experience in mind? 

Dr. KATZ. Well, thank you very much for that question. 

The reality is that much of what we’ve learned with regard to 

basic biology has impacted on human spaceflight. So, for example, 

astronauts regularly exercise to have high-impact exercise so that 

their—and we know that bones are stimulated to increase their 

production rather than their destruction, in terms of keeping muscles and bones going. That doesn’t obviate the bone loss, but it obviates it to a certain extent. 

My focus—the focus of my discussion was really on the utilization of the Station as a National Laboratory, and obviously there 

have to be people up there who are doing the experiments; the experiments don’t go on their own. So, whether it was a bioreactor, 

as Dr. Becker talked about, a bioreactor with human cells or with 

experimental animal cells or with bacterial or viruses, those types 

29 

of experiments need to be done by people who are in space on the 

Station. 

So, if I understand your question correctly, ‘‘Do we need humans 

in space to do these types of experiments?,’’ yes we do. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you, Doctor. 

And, Dr. Pace, a lot of your testimony was about international 

cooperation in space, and that’s sort of obvious with the concept of 

the International Space Station. It’s not as obvious when we look 

at next-generation activity, at least as it has been mapped out before this Administration. Assuming that architecture stays roughly 

the same, what do you think is the appropriate role of international 

partners and cooperation? How would you suggest we properly develop that role? 

Dr. PACE. Well, I think that—it’s a wonderful question. And I 

think that current exploration program actually represents a maturation over several years of U.S. space efforts. I mean, the Apollo 

program was obviously a unilateral U.S. effort. That was the whole 

point, in terms of beating the Soviet Union. The Space Shuttle had 

international contributions from Canada and Europe, in the case of 

the Space Lab. The Space Station is a true international partnership, as we all know. 

When looking at the exploration strategy that has been laid out 

over the last several years, the architecture itself is something 

that’s being developed in collaboration with the other major space 

agencies. So, there are international lunar architectures—there’s a 

Mars sample return architecture—that are being discussed among 

all the agencies on the basis of deep collaboration from the beginning. 

So, I think that the model is already there. And I think that the 

question really becomes—is, What are the roles that each of the 

various countries are going to play? I think sometimes there’s an 

assumption that if the U.S. is not playing a strong role, that other 

countries will come fill the vacuum. I don’t think that’s really quite 

true. I think that if other countries don’t see the U.S. as a strong 

partner and a strong leader, that they themselves will have, 

maybe, second doubts about it, and will not necessarily fill that 

vacuum. 

On the other hand, many countries have decided that being in 

space is important for their economy, for their security, and for 

their citizens. And they are moving out into space; and I think it’s 

important that we be present with them to shape that future environment. 

So, I think we have partnerships ready to go, I think there is a 

moving interest in space; and therefore, I think this is really our 

opportunity to lose if we don’t step up. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you, Doctor. 

Dr. Fisk, to get the proper national strategy you were talking 

about, what sort of organizational changes do you think we need 

to look at within the Federal Government, particularly the relevant 

executive agencies? And then, personally, I’m hoping you’re not 

going to use the term ‘‘space czar’’ in any part of you answer, 

but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER.—I’ll leave that up to you. 

30 

Dr. FISK. No. Well, certainly not, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FISK. No. 

Well, let me make a couple of comments. In this report that I referred to, we thought it was presumptuous of us to try and organize the Federal Government, which is probably not possible anyway. 

But, if you say, ‘‘Who has the mandate in this?’’ it’s probably the 

President’s science advisor and the national security advisor. Those 

are the people for whom space is important in the White House. 

So—and I don’t think you ever want to reorganize the Federal 

Government on an agency level. There’s too much baggage and 

overhead associated with that for anything productive to happen. 

But, if you look at the highest levels of the government—the Director of OMB, the President’s science advisor, the national security advisor—you get them together and you say, ‘‘OK, this is what 

is important for the Nation in space. We recognize that civil space 

touches all parts of our society and our national image, and, you 

know, how we will deal with our foreign policy, how we will deal 

with other nations, how we will deal with all these things.’’ And 

then you ask yourself, ‘‘OK, do we have a coordinated activity in 

Space—and are—there funding gaps in this?’’ There are obvious 

funding gaps; we talk about them here. But, if those funding gaps 

can be filled, in recognition of the role that agency and program 

plays in this broader national agenda, then I think we create something which is capable of serving the national need. 

Senator VITTER. But, Doctor, just to quickly follow up, don’t you 

think for that to happen and to continue to happen—versus a, you 

know, sort of one-time push—there needs to be some structural 

mechanism to make sure it keeps happening? I’m not saying redo 

a bunch of agencies, but—— 

Dr. FISK. Right. 

Senator VITTER.—but at least have some continuity? 

Dr. FISK. Well, there has always been discussion of resurrecting 

the Space Council, in some sense. But, you have to do it differently 

than it was done before if you do that, because before, it was 

viewed by many of the participants—and some of this, you know, 

is from my time at NASA—as more impediment than help. And so, 

the question is, Can you create something that actually assists in 

producing this coordinating activity? It’s obviously a challenge, 

right? Because if you have something that is so pervasive in your 

society, you don’t want a space czar, because that’s too limiting; 

you want some mechanism in the White House that is capable of 

the coordination. I think, in large part, you have to examine how 

the White House actually works today, which is well beyond either 

my paygrade or knowledge. But, it seems to me the President 

should set something up that makes it effective in however he is 

choosing to run the many dimensions of our society. You recognize 

space as just as important as other aspects that are—the White 

House is trying to coordinate, and use a similar mechanism to 

produce the coordination for space. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

And my final question for Dr. Becker and Ms. Greiner, to sort of 

go back to the same topic as for Dr. Katz. In the work you highVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 056407 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\56407.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
31 

lighted, the tangible results we’ve seen here on Earth related to 

space activity, how much of that work absolutely depended on humans in space versus nonhuman space activity? 

Dr. BECKER. All of our work, with doing Pathfinder vaccine work, 

has required crew to be trained so that they can start the hardware 

and so that they can stop the hardware. And without that, we 

could not have done these studies. It’s that simple. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

Ms. Greiner? 

Ms. GREINER. And we build robots, so—but I would like to just 

add that the, you know—sometimes you can’t predict where innovation is going to end up. No one would have predicted that the 

work that was targeted for, you know, having remote exploration 

of the Martian services would result in robotic vacuums. And, you 

know, we’re not going to be able to predict everything, but when 

you have these large national efforts that are developing technology, there are going to be lots of tangible benefits that really 

can’t be predicted up front. There are ones that can be predicted 

up front, like what we’ve heard about in medicine, but there’s going 

to be so much more that comes out of it that can’t be predicted up 

front. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator NELSON. As I ask a series of questions of you all, I want 

you to be thinking about, at some point, I will want each of you 

to talk about examples of the tangible benefits from the space program, specifically the human space program, and the intangible 

benefits. 

I’ll start in reverse order, with you, Ms. Greiner. In your testimony, you obviously had this personal relationship with NASA, 

and it was an enabler for you to help you to reach where you are 

now. What will a properly funded NASA enable other entrepreneurial activities such as yours to do, what will happen in the next 

10 years? 

Ms. GREINER. Well, both underfunding from NASA to small businesses, or even large businesses, and even companies that just look 

at what’s going on in NASA, to commercialize the results in medicine, mechanics and materials, you know, that has been a very effective way for us to not have to start from scratch and develop all 

the technologies. 

I can tell you that, you know, it’s happening a lot in the robotics 

community, and stories like mine are duplicated with entrepreneurs all over the country. We took iRobot from an apartmentbased startup to a publicly-traded company that’s creating jobs and 

keeping the U.S. ahead in this one particular field of robotic technology. And, you know, you can make lists of the number of companies that have gotten started by working with—you know, in conjunction with NASA, you’ll find it’s a large number that’s adding 

to our economic base. 

Senator NELSON. You’ve seen these incredible wheelchairs that 

can climb stairs? 

Ms. GREINER. I certainly have. Dean Kemen’s company. 

Senator NELSON. Did some of that technology come out of the 

space program? 

32 

Ms. GREINER. I can’t answer concretely, but I know that the 

space program has put quite a lot of effort into both the—you 

know, what’s needed mechanically and electrically for autonomy, 

but also what’s needed to make these space probes and make these 

rovers autonomous. Because when you are on a different planet, 

like Mars, the delays in the radio signals—you can’t totally operate 

or control these robots from Earth. They really have to be on their 

own. And that technology feeds back into having these types of systems—like the robots for the military, the robotic vacuums, floor 

washers, warehouse supply-chain management type of robots— 

right here on Earth. 

Senator NELSON. It has been suggested that NASA have a 

DARPA for these advanced projects. Do you think that would allow 

more entrepreneurial activity? 

Ms. GREINER. I’m not an expert in, you know, what’s going on in 

those particular discussions, but I can tell you that having the kind 

of mechanism that DARPA has, you know, it works with DARPA, 

with the Internet being the primary example, because they’re given 

the freedom of being able to, you know, not have constraints. They 

have the freedom to take risks. And you really need freedom to 

take risks to really push technologies to, you know, the next level; 

rather than just evolutionary design, really more revolutionary designs. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Becker, Senator Hutchison had mentioned 

the alpha-magnetic spectrometer and the fact that, as you know, 

the big accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, they haven’t been able 

to get it going. The idea is to try to find out what is down in those 

subatomic particles that make up matter and energy and so forth. 

When we get the AMS up in space, which is going to be attached 

to the Space Station. By the way, that’s to the credit of the President; he mandated an extra flight of the Space Shuttle to accommodate the AMS. They were not even going to fly this billion-and-ahalf-dollar piece of experimentation equipment. It’s sitting on the 

ground ready to go, and they weren’t going to fly it. NASA wasn’t 

going to fly. We’re going to get that up, and then it’s going to capture these atomic particles that are flying through space so that we 

can analyze them. 

There’s a good example of human spaceflight, because it’s made 

by humans, it’s going to be taken up by humans, it’s going to be 

put up there, and its results are going to be analyzed by humans. 

Who knows, we may get the same information that we’d get on 

Earth building an accelerator that’s several miles around. 

In your written testimony, you state that the ISS is a critically 

important platform necessary to advance this science and that 

there are no other means of conducting work in a sustained microgravity environment. ‘‘The ISS is the only laboratory of its kind,’’ 

is what you state. In your experience, do you think the U.S. and 

its partners will see a substantial return on this rather enormous 

$100-billion investment? 

Dr. BECKER. It’s hard for me to answer that question—(a) because I’m not a physicist, I’m a cell biologist. And as a scientist, 

in general, it’s hard to answer to questions about data outcomes 

without having data. And I think, to cutoff the possibility of not 

having that data, you can’t even answer that question. So, I don’t 

33 

know about dollars, in terms of actual return on investment, but 

I do know that unless you do that work, you will not really answer 

that question. There’s no other way to do it. 

There are many ways to simulate microgravity. There are various models. And there are some good models, and all of them have 

their positives and negatives. But, there’s no true way to have sustained microgravity unless you go up there and experience it in the 

Station. There just isn’t any other way. And when Station was 

passed, by that one vote, I was there, and I know that the arguments that were made that day were around science and they were 

around using this unique environment to answer questions we 

can’t answer here, because we can’t replicate that here. And so, 

let’s build a laboratory like no other that will answer these questions. And now it’s almost finished, and I’ve been waiting this 

whole time to be able to see work come out of that and to really 

utilize this amazing laboratory. 

The salmonella work we’ve done is a taste of, I think, what we 

can possibly see in the area of infectious disease, which is billions 

and billions of dollars, industry in this country. And the bugs are 

winning. And unless we find new ways to combat that, they will 

continue to win. If space can give us new answers and uncover new 

discovery and targets, we’re obligated to go there for the citizens 

that live here on Earth. 

Senator NELSON. How far along are you in the process of developing a salmonella vaccine? 

Dr. BECKER. We have reproduced the data several times. We’re 

absolutely committed that we have the right gene target. We have 

filed patents. We are currently speaking to industry experts that 

help people write up investigational new-drug applications; we’re 

doing that right now. And it’s our full intent—being supported by 

industry, I might add. This is an academic-industry-government 

partnership. Without each of those factors, it wouldn’t go forward, 

and so I really do want to give credit to each of the sectors that 

have made this work possible. We’re really—we’re pushing forward 

with IND submission. 

Senator NELSON. And you say it’s because of microgravity that 

this strain of salmonella gets more virulent, and it’s because of that 

fact that you can then develop a salmonella vaccine? 

Dr. BECKER. What happens is the science—the basic science finding told us that the bacteria become more virulent. And so, as a 

group, we reasoned, If we can understand the genetic cause behind 

that virulence, if we can take that away, then perhaps we can create what’s called, in jargon, in science words, an ‘‘attenuated vaccine,’’ and that is a vaccine that induces a good immune response; 

it’s strong enough to be administered, so all the parts of the immune system will see it and react; it’s strong enough to protect 

against future exposure to salmonella, but it doesn’t make the host 

sick. And what we did is, we pinpointed genes and we took—we 

knocked them out, and we sent up a series of genetically-altered 

bacteria with these genes knocked out, and, in fact, one of them 

took away the virulence effect while still maintaining the immuneresponse effect. And so, we made a home run. And that’s what 

we’re pursuing to get into testing on the ground to, in fact, see how 

it does clinically down the road. 

34 

You know, one of the things that I want to bring to the attention 

of you and your committee is, what this potentially has done is 

streamlined a very, very lengthy process that might have been 

found on the ground, but would have taken years. I mean, we still 

don’t have a salmonella vaccine, after all this time of trying to develop one. 

If that works for this organism, and if we see similar changes in 

other organisms, which is what we are seeing, it’s very possible 

that this becomes attractive to pharmaceutical companies so they 

can identify, early on in their development pipelines, what is a viable agent for development and what is not. And ‘‘the what is not’’ 

part is just as important, because you can eliminate those possibilities early without spending time and effort and resources in developing them, only to get to a point where you realize this is not 

going to work. 

Senator NELSON. Did anything come of the growth of crystals in 

space. You’re trying to grow a crystal that is more pure in zero G 

so that we could determine its molecular structure easier? 

Dr. BECKER. I know for a fact that Tom Pickens is very interested in pursuing that avenue with this little venture, 

Astrogenetix—again, based on the space data. I know that there 

are arguments for and against what happened in space, in terms 

of the quality of the crystals that came out, but I think one thing 

that’s important to remember is, these experiments were done either on Shuttle or were done in a situation where construction 

wasn’t completed, which really impacts—the quiet environment is 

absolutely necessary for crystal formation, as you well know. And 

I’m not a crystallographer, but I do know that those discussions are 

happening now. 

Senator NELSON. If the ISS were abandoned in 2016, what potential research do you think would be unrealized? 

Dr. BECKER. Would be unrealized? Honestly, I believe that we 

are on a threshold of creating a new kind of industry in biotechnology based on new discovery in microgravity. And I think 

that by eliminating the operations of the Station, that that would 

never fully be realized. 

Senator NELSON. It’s only taken us 15 years to get here. We’d 

better now utilize what it has taken 15 years to build. 

Dr. Fisk, the National Research Council’s report, America’s Future in Space, made several recommendations. I’m picking up on 

your previous testimony. Let me just get down to the bottom line. 

You want to coordinate all these things, get the Executive 

Branch to task to align agency and department strategies. What 

about a National Space Council in the White House? 

Dr. FISK. Let me—I’ll answer this is just a sec. 

I wonder if you’d permit me to cycle back on one—— 

Senator NELSON. Absolutely—— 

Dr. FISK.—issue here. 

Senator NELSON.—and it’s open to any of you all. Please, chime 

in if you want to answer somebody else’s question. 

Dr. FISK. Well, it’s—I want to make sure a thought isn’t lost here 

someplace. 

Senator NELSON. Good. 

35 

Dr. FISK. Coordination is wonderful. I mean, we should coordinate. We should also fund. That’s part of the dilemma we have. 

Whether it’s because of lack of coordination or because of lack of 

appreciation, we do not fund our space program at the level that 

we should and therefore, it does not contribute to the national 

agenda as it could. 

And when we talk about human spaceflight and the use of the 

ISS, we should never forget how much damage has been done over 

the last few years because we have inadequately funded the human 

spaceflight program, and, as a result, the need to build the next 

generation after Shuttle, the Aries and Orion, and the priority 

which was attached to it—which I won’t even dispute, one way or 

the other—but there has been enormous collateral damage in the 

rest of the human spaceflight program as a result. 

And when we talk about microgravity, don’t forget the physical 

science side of microgravity, not just the biological side. That community has disappeared. We refer to it in the scientific community 

as ‘‘scientific genocide’’ on the part of NASA, because it was forced 

into this unfortunate budget situation that it had inadequate resources, and it needed to do something to replace the Shuttle, and 

it went where it could find some money. And the microgravity and 

physical science community suffered in this. The life science community suffered less, but it is nowhere near what it could be, in 

terms of payloads on the Space Station, if the resources had been 

there to do that. 

We talk about R&D and NASA’s role in reaching out into the 

broader R&D community. Again, there was a price to pay for this 

inadequate funding, and one of the prices was concentrating the 

R&D activities on those things that were most germane to the new 

launch vehicle. They were higher TRL—as we say, ‘‘technical readiness level’’—items because they were needed. And what do you sacrifice? You sacrifice the things at lower TRL levels, the things that 

may give you breakthroughs, that may spinoff into the rest of the 

economy because they weren’t immediately applicable to the space 

program, which NASA has done in its past, but cannot now reasonably afford to do. 

And so, if we talk about how much money human spaceflight 

needs; Augustine gives recommendations and so forth. I hope somebody remembers that it’s not just the price to pay for the new 

launch vehicle; it’s also the price to pay for restoring the other 

parts of the human spaceflight program, which are of considerable 

value, which were sacrificed or wounded in the budget constraints 

that have existed over the last 4 years. 

Now, as for coordination and Space Councils, again I don’t have 

a crystal ball. You said it in your opening remarks; the President 

has to decide. He has to decide what civil space program he wants, 

and he has to recognize the importance that it has in all of his 

agenda items—many of the national agenda items; and he has to 

send the direction out to the troops to do that, and his OMB has 

to be given the funds and so forth. And somebody has got to orchestrate that event somewhere in his organization. 

Different Presidents do it in different ways. We’ve had times of 

our history when the Vice President had a strong say in space program. We’ve had other times when that’s less so, and so on. So, I 

36 

think it’s important that the President recognizes the national importance of this event and creates both an organizational structure 

and a funding situation that allows him to achieve the goals that 

he presumably will set for the program. 

Senator NELSON. I don’t know to what degree they are seriously, 

down at the White House, thinking about a National Space Council. 

Dr. FISK. I don’t know, either. It was talked about in the campaign, but I have heard very little of it since then. And it may not 

be necessary. It may not be the appropriate vehicle. There are certainly a lot of reviews going on. That’s always a sign of something, 

I guess. The President has directed the National Security Advisor 

to conduct a review of all of space. And you’ve got Augustine, and 

so on. So, presumably, the data comes in and somebody says, ‘‘OK, 

let’s do this.’’ I mean, we at least have an Administration that is 

actively determined to solve all problems simultaneously. So, 

maybe they’ll put space up there someplace; probably not ahead of 

healthcare or Afghanistan, but at least on the list. 

Senator NELSON. It better not be too far down the list. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FISK. I certainly—you would not find any dispute in this 

room. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Pace, what do you see as the primary impediment to having all of these policymakers down in the White 

House recognize that space pays dividends? I’ve written down specific things that you have talked about. I can talk until I’m blue 

in the face about them: heart pumps, fiber optic probes. I didn’t 

know what a autonomous vacuum was, but I know what an autonomous vacuum cleaner is. You have excited me to want to go out 

and buy one. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GREINER. Go ahead. 

Senator NELSON. And just turn it loose—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON.—in the house. 

Ms. GREINER. I think that would be great. 

Senator NELSON. Tell me, Dr. Pace, what do you think? 

Dr. PACE. Well, I think there are a lot of obvious practical benefits that I think everyone deserves to understand and realize there 

are these specific issues out there. And I think that the dots that 

need to be connected are how space can support this Administration’s priorities and values. The President has talked about a lot 

of things, in terms of our relationship with other nations of the 

world, talked about encouraging math and science education, 

talked about improving competitiveness, and yet, I think the frustration is, is that there has not been a recognition of the linkage 

that space can contribute to those issues. In fact, it’s treated as 

sort of a very important, but still specialized, issue rather than the 

strategic issue that I think it is. 

As I’m listening to the discussions about the—what can be done 

with biomedical research aboard Space Station, I think of the fact 

that space is a strategic advantage for this country, in terms of innovation. That is, other countries are doing IT and nanotech and 

materials and lots of other things, and they are really quite comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:59 Jun 29, 2010 Jkt 056407 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\56407.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
37 

petitive with us. So, what is a game-changer for this country? A 

game-changer is something that really only we or a small number 

of countries are uniquely able to do, to go places and do things that 

no one else can, to be a leader among the great powers. And I think 

space is something that contributes to that. 

We understand how it does that in national security. I think 

we’re starting to realize what it might mean for innovation, as exemplified by the ISS as a National Lab. And I think, in this postCold-War world, the importance of space as a tool for building relationships—if you—there’s discussion about the CERN and the 

international cooperation that the CERN represents. Well, I would 

submit that there is no finer example of long-lived high technology 

challenging international cooperation—more complex, more technically difficult—than the International Space Station. The result 

of that—one of the primary products of Space Station today has 

been real, tangible, specific relationships between ourselves and 

other countries, at a working level, that would not have existed 

otherwise, and that has been—endured a number of different 

shocks to the system. That is a real, tangible value. It’s not something that goes, you know, clunk on a desk, but it’s something that 

affects relationships between countries, that binds them together. 

I think we ignore that. 

So, I don’t think there’s quite an appreciation of the strategic 

value of space. I think sometimes it’s seen as something which is 

part of a science project, and therefore, the science advisor, who actually is quite knowledgeable and quite expert, I would say, on 

space issues—he alone can deal with these issues. And I would 

submit not, that really it is the national security advisor, the domestic policy advisors, maybe led by and coordinated by OSTP, 

that really kind of have to get into the game. 

Every President organizes his White House the way he sees fit. 

I wouldn’t presume to suggest a Space Council is the right way to 

go. I was involved with the last one. I think it had some benefits, 

had some disbenefits. But, I think, this White House, the most important thing for it to do is to articulate how space connects to and 

supports their agenda and their priorities. Because, I think if they 

do that, they will be very pleasantly surprised at how useful a 

space regime can be. 

Senator NELSON. Well, Dr. Katz, I come back to you. Picking up 

on the idea that you talked about of the ISS as a National Laboratory. I am sure, especially after the Augustine Commission has 

said, ‘‘Don’t deorbit it in 2016, keep it going until 2020,’’ that that’s 

going to be one of the recommendations that will be implemented. 

So, we’re going to have a decade in which to do research in the 

microgravity with a full-up laboratory. 

Look to the future. You’re from NIH. Tell us, what are we going 

to discover? What diseases, what new treatments, what medications, what do you think? 

Dr. KATZ. Well, I would build on Dr. Pace’s point, that innovation 

is one of our great strengths. And bringing the NIH together with 

NASA enables a whole new group of scientists to utilize this laboratory, which is really unique. Whether it’s microgravity or leads 

into zero gravity, as you said, it’s unique. 

38 

So many of our institutes have signed on to this initiative because they see something in the future that will benefit people on 

Earth. So, whether it’s the Neurology Institute that—or the Deafness and Communication Disorders Institute—that is interested in 

vestibular dysfunction, or motion sickness, or whether it’s the Cancer Institute that’s particularly interested in evasiveness or metastasis, these are all areas for exploration, and they have not really 

been pursued, and that’s what, I think, this Memo of Understanding brings to the table. 

So, do I see many innovations? I do. We are preceding, along 

with our colleagues at NASA, in thinking that these experiments 

are going to go on for some years. So, basically, what we’re doing 

is we are providing for 5-year grants and we are actually committed to three rounds of these on an annual basis. So, if you think 

about that, we’re going out, now, 8 more years, to 2017 or 2018. 

So, we think that this—that continuing doing experiments on the 

Station will enable this type of innovation, whether it’s drugs that 

block invasiveness using these bioreactors, whether it’s the development of new noninvasive imaging technologies that the National 

Institute of Bioimaging and Bioengineering is particularly concerned with, for remote sensing of abnormalities—biological abnormalities or physiological abnormalities that can be transmitted to 

Earth via very, very good signals, but using noninvasive imaging 

techniques, whether it’s the new adaptation, as I mentioned, for 

motion sickness, or, in the case of our Institute and the Institute 

on Aging, to better understand why these organ systems, like bone 

and like muscle, dissipate so quickly. I mean, it’s rather dramatic, 

and, as a consequence of what we’ve learned from space, or even 

simulated space on Earth—not as good as what goes on in the Station—we have learned about cells, how cells adapt themselves, and 

what we can do to try to obviate some of that adaptation or to 

block that adaptation. 

So, I think virtually every organ system—you’ve heard the advances that we will see as a tangible benefit with the fiber optic 

probe in identifying early crystal formation in the lens—it may be 

the same for other noninvasive diagnostic techniques. 

So, in the area of diagnosis, in the area of understanding 

pathophysiology, and in the area of understanding basic mechanisms of how our body works and how our cells work together, I 

think there’ll be many advances in this area. 

Senator NELSON. The Augustine Commission is saying that we’re 

basically flat if we don’t get $3 billion more a year for NASA for 

the human spaceflight program; $30 billion over 10 years. What 

happens if President Obama won’t support this and the Congress 

cannot produce it? 

Any one of you. 

Dr. PACE. Well, we’re not going beyond low-Earth orbit, which 

means that we’ll be simply there at the Space Station. And a lot 

of useful things will still be accomplished at the Space Station, but 

the danger is, is that there’s nothing that goes beyond that. Now, 

extending the Space Station for another couple of decades, that 

probably would be something that might be—even be worthwhile, 

and we’ll have the data upon which to judge that. But, if we’re not 

traveling beyond lower Earth orbit and we’re not really exploring, 

39 

then I think we’re doing a disservice to the recommendations of the 

Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and I think we are ceding 

the future to others, who will move out maybe more slowly than 

we would, move out in a different way than we would, but I think 

it represents a stepping back of this country and an acceptance of 

a second position that I don’t think that is in our long-range national interests. 

I would submit that the monies that—being talked about, additional $3 billion—a gradual increase—I don’t think all that money 

has to show up in one lump sum, but building back to that level. 

The NASA budget today, if it was at the same level of constant dollars that it was in at the end of Fiscal Year 1993, would be about 

$21 billion. 

So, we’re not talking about an agency increasing, in constant-dollar terms, in some dramatic level. In fact, we’re really talking 

about restoring some of the decline that has occurred over the last 

decade and a half. And I fully echo Dr. Fisk’s point about making 

sure that you restore that funding so that the kind of triage that 

was necessary, or felt necessary in other areas of human 

spaceflight, doesn’t have to occur. Because I think everyone did regret those losses. But, they were necessary and painful without 

more money. 

Senator NELSON. How so a disservice to the Columbia Accident 

Investigation Board? 

Dr. PACE. Well, this goes into the issue of questions. At the Challenger accident, the Nation asked a question about whether or not 

it was worth risking human life to send unmanned payloads into 

orbit. And the answer was ‘‘no,’’ and we shifted those payloads off 

onto expendable rockets. 

Columbia raised an even more profound question, which is: For 

what purposes is it worth risking human life? And the answer that 

they came back with was not a specific plan or a specific architecture, but saying that we need to be playing for high stakes. It cannot simply be that to occupy low-Earth orbit. And if we’re not going 

to play for high stakes to answer questions such as: Does humanity 

have a future beyond the Earth? 

I mean, I think our science colleagues are really great at asking 

profound questions to which very, very detailed programs and 

strategies then result. I think a question for human spaceflight is, 

Does humanity have a future beyond the Earth? And the answer 

is either ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ both of which are profound. What that future might be, how it might be contained, is worth risking human 

life, but simply staying in low-Earth orbit—and, again, with all recognition of the Space Station—I don’t think is really going to be 

significant. And I think that is the reason why we would do a disservice to the Columbia results. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Fisk? 

Dr. FISK. I’d liked echo a couple of thoughts. I view this as a watershed decision that we make as a Nation, because if we retreat, 

if we just say we confine ourselves to low-Earth orbit, we grant the 

high ground to whoever can get there from other nations. We can’t 

just step back from human spaceflight. If we do we’ve stepped back 

from our image as a Nation as we have constructed it over 200 

40 

years, which is at the forefront, pressing the frontier, being a leader in the world, being a strategic leader in the world. 

And so, this is not a small decision based on $3 billion; this is 

a decision, I think, that is based upon what we view as the future 

of the Nation and its role in the world as a strategic leader. And 

if we wish to maintain that position, human spaceflight and all of 

the space program is an integral part of that—the basis for our 

strategic leadership. And we cannot—we shouldn’t abandon it. 

Dr. BECKER. I would—— 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Becker? 

Dr. BECKER.—I would like to echo very similar comments, in 

that, yes, our international colleagues will pursue with their initiatives, and they are looking to us to be a leader, but if we allow 

them to pursue with initiatives to go beyond low-Earth orbit, and 

we don’t dedicate any resources to do so ourselves, we’re not just 

a follower, we’re a nonstarter. And I have to wonder, What kind 

of a message does that give to our young people in the country who 

are looking to be inspired and who—a lot of them now in schools 

are coming from other countries. And I—and for our own kids, 

what are we saying when we don’t agree to explore, and what kind 

of limitations are we placing on ourselves as a nation? 

And one thing that I—that comes to mind is, we’ve been talking 

a lot about science on ISS, but there’s also the kind of science that 

inspires children. And there was a study funded, actually by 

NSBRI, and it was to look at how spiders and butterflies grow in 

space. What kind of webs do the spiders spin? And two spiders 

were sent up there in separate cages. There was a big spider and 

a little spider—and, actually, the little spider was more aggressive—and there were bets placed on who’s going to win if something happens. The big spider got out of its cage, and this made 

CNN headlines. It was amazing how many people—kids, adults, everyone—wanted to know what happened to the spider. And, eventually, the spider wound up in the other one’s cage, but that’s the 

kind—you can’t plan that sort of inspiration and excitement. And 

that happened in low-Earth orbit. I can only imagine what could 

happen beyond. 

Senator NELSON. I think you all have captured the essence of the 

character of the American people, that we are, by nature, explorers 

and adventurers, and we’ve always had a frontier. If we give up 

that pursuit, we become a second-rate nation. This is a decision 

that the President is going to have to make. From your advice, 

which we hope will be made known to the White House counsels, 

it has built a very strong case for us to proceed to explore the 

Heavens. 

So, thank you very much for this hearing. 

And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ