U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–531 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 114–114 

U.S. HUMAN EXPLORATION GOALS AND 

COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPETITIVENESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS 1

TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

1On March 3, 2015 the Committee finalized Member assignments for its subcommittees. The 

list below reflects March 3, 2015 assignments. When this hearing was held, on February 24, 

2015, formal assignments had not yet been made. 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 24, 2015 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cruz ..................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 2 

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

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Statement of Senator Gardner ............................................................................... 23 

WITNESSES

Colonel Walt Cunningham (USMC, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 

7 Pilot .................................................................................................................... 4 

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

Colonel Buzz Aldrin (USAF, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 11 

Pilot ....................................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Michael J. Massimino, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, and Former NASA Astronaut ................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Space Exploration . 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

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

Affairs, George Washington University ............................................................. 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Eric W. Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation ...................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to: 

Michael J. Massimino, Ph.D. ........................................................................... 59 

Response to written questions submitted to John Elbon by: 

Hon. Roy Blunt ................................................................................................. 59 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 60 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 61 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to: 

Dr. Scott Pace ................................................................................................... 63 

Response to written questions submitted to Eric W. Stallmer by: 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 64 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 66 

(1) 

U.S. HUMAN EXPLORATION GOALS AND 

COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPETITIVENESS 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Gardner, Blunt, Udall, Markey, Peters, and Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. Good afternoon. I would like to thank each of the 

distinguished witnesses for being here. 

Just over a half-century ago, President John F. Kennedy laid 

down a marker in my hometown of Houston, Texas, and made a 

commitment that, like the great pioneers that came before us, we 

too would set sail on a new sea and send man to the Moon. We embarked upon that endeavor as a nation because opening the vistas 

of space promised high costs and hardship and enormous reward. 

Today, we find ourselves at a similar crossroad. The year 2015 

is just as critical of a time for our national and commercial space 

programs as was the case a half-century ago. Future exploration is 

certain to present hardships, but it also promises high rewards— 

new resources, frontiers, and economic opportunities. 

I am honored to serve as Chairman of this Subcommittee, and, 

as the Chairman, my first priority for the space component of the 

Subcommittee will be working to help refocus NASA’s energies on 

its core priorities of exploring space. We need to get back to the 

hard sciences, to manned space exploration, and to the innovation 

that has been integral to the mission of NASA. 

We need to ensure that the United States remains a leader in 

space exploration in the 21st century. SLS and Orion will be critical to our medium-and long-term ability to explore space, whether 

it is the Moon, Mars, or beyond. 

At the same time, I remain deeply concerned about our current 

inability to reach low-Earth orbit. We are right now entirely dependent on the Russian Soyuz system, which is unacceptable from 

the perspective of space interests and also from the perspective of 

our national security. Every seat that an American astronaut occupies on the Russian Soyuz costs $70 million. 

2 

It is imperative that America has the capability to get to the 

International Space Station without the assistance of the Russians. 

America should have the capability to launch a rescue mission to 

the Space Station should that prove necessary and without being 

dependent on the Russians. America should have the capacity to 

launch our critical satellites without needing to acquire Russian 

RD–180 engines. The Commercial Crew Program is critical to restoring this capability. 

I am encouraged by the progress both with regard to commercial 

cargo and commercial crew, but we need a continued focus on accomplishing the stated objectives with maximum efficiency and expedition. It is terrific to see commercial companies innovating, and, 

as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I will be an enthusiastic advocate of competition and the enabling of the private sector to compete and to innovate. 

In 2013, 81 orbital launches were conducted worldwide, 23 of 

which were commercial launches. Revenues from the 23 commercial orbital launches were estimated to be more than $1.9 billion. 

The United States accounted for six of these launches. There is 

more that can be done to create long-term predictability for the 

United States commercial space industry so that launch activity 

will continue to grow. 

There is no limit to human imagination or for the desire for exploration. Every one of us, every little boy, every little girl, every 

man and woman, has looked up at the night sky and wondered 

what lies out there. That is the mystery, that is the vision behind 

America’s space exploration. America has always led the way in 

space exploration, and we need to reclaim that leadership. 

And, with that, I recognize my friend, the Ranking Member of 

the full committee, Senator Nelson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Chairman, blossoms are breaking out all over Washington because what you just said you and I completely agree on. 

As a matter of fact, I offered in the Armed Services Committee 

the amendment to start—and it passed; it is part of the defense authorization bill—to start the process. As a matter of fact, we authorized $100 million. Senator McCain was a cosponsor of that to 

develop an alternative to the RD–180. 

Indeed, we shouldn’t be relying on the Russians to ride. We have 

in the past, in the two and a half years that we were down after 

the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia earlier in the last decade. 

That was our only way to get up to the Space Station. And they 

were a reliable partner then. But now look at—we can’t predict 

what Vladimir Putin is going to do now. 

This was part of the speeches that I was making a decade ago 

as we were trying to get this thing off the ground. 

And I certainly agree with you, and I am just heartened that you 

came out with such a strong statement on the Commercial Crew, 

because this is going to be a way that we can get Americans on 

American rockets quicker back into space since the Space Launch 

System and its spacecraft, Orion, are going down further in the 

3 

decade even though we have already tested Orion on its first test 

flight. 

And so I am just delighted. And, as you know, you and I have 

talked about this till we are both blue in the face. This subcommittee has always not been bipartisan, it has been nonpartisan. 

And the subject of the national space program is a nonpartisan 

issue. 

And so I am looking forward to cooperating with you, as we tried 

last year—it didn’t happen—on getting the authorization act. We 

need to get the authorization act out of here just for the remaining 

6 months of this fiscal year, and then let’s start looking to the additional fiscal years behind. 

And, with that, I will just stop my comments if I may insert my 

comments that I had prepared in the record for opening comments. 

And I will just end by saying thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Good morning and thank you Chairman Cruz. I appreciate you calling this hearing to discuss the importance of U.S. human space exploration and the role of our 

growing commercial space industry. 

In 2010, we passed the bi-partisan NASA Authorization Act. This called on the 

agency to explore beyond Earth’s orbit with the long-term goal of Mars. I’m encouraged to see that NASA has made significant progress toward these goals. NASA is 

developing a heavy lift rocket, SLS, and the Orion crew capsule, which was successfully launched in December on its first test flight. 

NASA has also been working closely with SpaceX and Boeing to begin launching 

astronauts to the International Space Station beginning in 2017. This partnership 

is not only good for the commercial space industry but will allow NASA to focus on 

deep space exploration—specifically, on the path to Mars. 

To maintain this progress we need to: 

• continue building toward the shared vision Congress outlined in the 2010 authorization; 

• provide sustained and predictable funding for the agency over the long term; 

and 

• maintain a balanced portfolio between the complementary science, aeronautics, 

technology, and exploration missions, 

• and continue support for a robust commercial space industry. 

These are very exciting times for the future of U.S. human spaceflight and for the 

entire nation. 

This committee has always worked in a non-partisan manner and I look forward 

to continuing that tradition in this Congress. 

Thank you all for being here, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you, Senator Nelson, for the very kind 

comments. I hope those are not used against you in your next campaign. 

Senator NELSON. I was going to say the same thing to you. Yours 

is a little more immediate than mine. 

Senator CRUZ. And I want to thank each of the three distinguished witnesses that are here. This is a wonderful way to begin 

the new Congress and the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, by focusing on the overarching goals, that NASA should be focusing on 

our objectives. And I cannot think of a more distinguished, a more 

experienced, a more respected panel than the three witnesses who 

are with us today. 

4 

We have first Colonel Walt Cunningham, former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 7 Pilot. We have next Dr. Buzz Aldrin, a former 

NASA Astronaut and Apollo 11 Pilot. And we have Mr. Michael 

Massimino, a former NASA Astronaut and Mission Specialist for 

the Space Shuttle Program. 

And I thank each of the three of you for taking time from your 

busy schedules to join us. 

We will begin with Colonel Cunningham’s testimony. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL WALT CUNNINGHAM (USMC, RET.), 

FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT AND APOLLO 7 PILOT 

Colonel CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, sir. 

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on where I believe our space program has been slipping and some of the things 

I believe NASA must do to maintain America’s lead in space exploration. While this is my personal opinion, it is shared by many of 

my contemporaries. Some additional points are in my written testimony that I hope you all will read. 

Humans have always been driven to explore the unknown and to 

open new frontiers. Opening a new frontier demands three things: 

resources, technology, and, more important, the will to do it. In 

1961, America was willing to take the risk of going to the Moon. 

When President Kennedy made his commitment to land a man on 

the Moon, not a single American had yet been in orbit. 

The success of the Apollo program was due to the collective efforts of 400,000 members of our team—engineers, operators, managers, and contractors. With the whole world watching, we accepted the challenge, took the risk, and changed the way that we all 

perceived our world. 

We accomplished a landing on the Moon in 8 years. Today, 45 

years later, the next frontier, Mars, seems decades out of reach, 

primarily because we do not have a national commitment. 

Our Apollo program made America preeminent in space and the 

world’s most technologically advanced nation. It led us to the space 

shuttle, the greatest flying machine ever built by man; the International Space Station, ISS; and the Hubble Space Telescope. The 

spin-offs have infiltrated virtually all areas of our industry. 

While NASA’s portion of the Federal budget peaked at 4 percent 

in 1965, it has been below 1 percent for the past 40 years. While 

NASA has accomplished many things and made manned 

spaceflight much more routine, we have not challenged the next 

frontier—the manned exploration of Mars. That will only be possible if our government initiates and provides the funding for such 

a program. 

Over the years, NASA has been subjected to more and more political pressure, and the agency has grown increasingly political inside. This has left employees much less willing to express their 

opinions freely and the agency less attractive to the best and 

brightest of today’s young professionals. 

An example: After trying for years, NASA is still unable to reduce the number of space centers that they operate around the 

country in order to lower their overhead costs. Congress and local 

politicians have always won out and saved the one in their district. 

5 

A commitment to push back the space frontier with a man landing on Mars would drive NASA’s budget, while the schedule would 

be controlled by the rate at which Congress funds it. This could 

also empower the agency to correct many of the deficiencies that 

have evolved over time. 

A Mars exploration vehicle will have to be assembled in Earth 

orbit. Moving out of Earth orbit would require heavy-lift rockets, 

like our Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule. A reusable launch vehicle similar to our space shuttle may be necessary 

in order to assemble an interplanetary spacecraft. While these are 

all costly, they will be essential in order to move humans out of 

Earth orbit. 

Any Mars exploration program will have international partners. 

In that partnership, NASA should take a strong leadership role, as 

they did back in the Apollo program, and not just be one more 

partner in an international effort. Hopefully, it would encompass 

less politics and be better structured than the ISS partnership. 

ISS that we gave birth to in the 1970s is probably the most impressive piece of space hardware ever placed in orbit. While leading 

the international partnership, we transferred $3 billion to $5 billion to Russia to help resurrect their space industry, increased our 

cost of the program by $15 billion to $20 billion, and we are now 

totally dependent on Russia to get American crewmen to and from 

the ISS. 

The success of our space program has always been dependent on 

private industry, and they delivered. As NASA grew less entrepreneurial, less efficient, and more bureaucratic, they inspired new socalled commercial space companies. While most of these companies 

have been subsidized by government funding, NASA has less control over their development, operations, and, consequently, their results as they did in the past. 

Some people suggest that private space companies should collaborate with NASA for space missions beyond Earth orbit, which 

means sharing the cost. While commercial companies will always 

contract with NASA for the hardware and the technology, the government will always be expected to pay the cost of exploration, 

funded by tax dollars of course. 

Space exploration is far too expensive for commercial companies 

that are driven by profit and return on investment. Space exploration does not satisfy either of these criteria. Government agencies 

are not profit-driven. Government underwriting permits our agencies to guide, develop, and manage the technology. 

Our country’s return on investment is the private industry commercialization of the technology that is developed. Since commercial companies move much faster than government agencies, production by private industry will shorten the timeline for a launch 

to Mars. 

In the absence of a Mars exploration program and limited funding, NASA has initiated the Asteroid Redirect Mission, possibly to 

the Lagrange points. Today, they justify it as a first step in the 

mission to Mars. Anything it might do that could help a Mars mission could be more officially done with some other projects. While 

we work on overcoming the problem of radiation exposure and tryVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE
6 

ing to speed up travel, we should return to the Moon to develop a 

crew facility for semi-permanent living. 

Many scientists today are saying, send robots to Mars, because 

humans are too costly and it is too dangerous. NASA should continue to exploit both manned and unmanned missions, but humans 

will always be much faster and more efficient because we can think 

and act in real time. 

There are two things I believe we should focus on also: eliminating permanently any dependence on other countries for launch 

capability; two, find some way for NASA administrators to become 

less subject to changes in the administration every 4 years. The Apollo program took 8 years, it cost $110 billion—that is in 

today’s dollars—and the benefits to our society have been priceless. 

A manned landing on Mars will probably take twice as long and 

cost up to three times as much in today’s dollars. That is a fraction 

of what our annual Federal budget deficits have been running, and 

deficits do not have a return on investment. 

The human desire to explore and settle new frontiers will be satisfied, if not by Americans, then by others. Humans somewhere will 

certainly return to the Moon and go on to Mars. I believe that we 

have the resources and the technology, but do we have the will to 

tackle the next frontier, Mars? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Cunningham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALTER CUNNINGHAM, USMC, RET., FORMER NASA 

ASTRONAUT AND APOLLO 7 PILOT

I appreciate the opportunity to share my opinion on where I believe our space program has been slipping and some of the things I believe NASA must do to maintain 

America’s lead in space exploration. This is my personal opinion but it is shared by 

many of my contemporaries. 

Humans have always been driven to explore the unknown, to discover new worlds, 

to push our boundaries and then reach out for the next new world. The technological breakthroughs and scientific discoveries from opening new frontiers have 

benefitted our society for centuries. We have the responsibility and the opportunity 

to explore the next frontier. 

In the 15th and 16th centuries the frontier was in the new world and England, 

Spain and Portugal were crossing the seas in search of their country’s greatness. 

In 1519, Ferdinand Magellan set sail on one of the most famous voyages of exploration in history—the first voyage around the world. He set out with five ships and 

270 sailors. Three years later, only one of the original ships returned with only 18 

of the original crewmen still alive. 

In the 1960s, we set sail on another ocean; one whose farthest shores we can 

never reach. This new ocean was more pristine than was the new world before voyages of Columbus and Magellan. As exploration of the new world was inevitable 500 

years ago, so too is our exploration of space. 

Any project as complex as Apollo requires three things: resources, technology, 

and—most important—the will to do it. In 1961, America was willing to take the 

risk of going to the Moon. It was human risk, and technical risk, economic risk and 

political risk. The Apollo Program took initiative and leadership. When President 

Kennedy made his commitment to land a man on the Moon not a single American 

had yet been in orbit! 

With the Apollo Program, America took the historical role of opening the next 

frontier. Astronauts were at the tip of the spear and we got the glory but the success of the Apollo program was due to the collective efforts of 400,000 members of 

the team—engineers, operators, managers and contractors. With the whole world 

watching, we accepted the challenge, took the risk and changed the way we all perceived our world. 

During Apollo, the American space program was unique. Over the past 40 years, 

NASA has enjoyed many great accomplishments. But as the agency evolved the 

management culture has changed and it has not always been for the better. 

7 

Space is the most hostile environment into which man has ever ventured. NASA 

should work to prevent mishaps but those efforts should be balanced against the 

objectives they are trying to accomplish. Spaceflight will always be expensive and 

manned spaceflight will always involve risk and the chance of failure. Exploration 

is not about eliminating risk; it’s about managing risk! 

Motivated by the Cold War and a national commitment, we accomplished a landing on the Moon in eight years. Today, after 50 years of experience and technology 

development, a manned mission to the next frontier—Mars, seems decades out of 

reach, primarily because we do not have a national commitment. 

Our Apollo Program made America pre-eminent in space and the world’s most 

technologically advanced nation. It led to such things as the Space Shuttle—the 

greatest flying machine ever built by man, the International Space Station (ISS) 

and the Hubble space telescope. The technology that made this possible was funded 

by the American people and it has infiltrated virtually all areas of industry. 

NASA’s portion of the Federal budget peaked at 4 percent in 1965. For the past 

40 years it has remained below one percent and for the last 15 years it has been 

driving toward 0.4 percent of the Federal budget. 

While NASA has accomplished many things and made manned spaceflight much 

more routine, we have not challenged the next frontier—the Manned exploration of 

Mars. Manned exploration is the most expensive space venture and, consequently, 

the most difficult for which to obtain political support. Manned exploration of Mars 

will only be possible if our government initiates and funds such a program. 

While our world has been changing and space technology improving, NASA management has been aging, layers have been added and politics plays an ever growing 

role. NASA seems less capable and less interested in pushing out the space frontier 

and focusing more on eliminating risk and looking for absolute assurance that something can be done before committing to do it. This leaves NASA less attractive to 

the best and brightest of today’s young professionals. 

Over the years, NASA has grown increasingly political. There was a time when 

personnel at all levels contributed to success by freely expressing their completely 

candid opinions on design, testing, operations and management issues. Management 

today seems less and less likely to speak out because of their concerns about the 

political repercussions. NASA needs to find a way to return to the environment 

where people contributed to success by freely expressing what they thought about 

the issue being addressed. 

NASA has also been subjected to politic pressure from outside the agency. 

Examples: 

NASA has tried for decades to reduce their overhead by reducing the number 

of Space Centers they have around the country. Congress and local politicians 

have always won out and saved the one in their district. NASA is still burdened 

with the same 10 Space Centers and a half dozen other facilities. This reduces 

the funds available for science and space applications. When our military faced 

a similar problem with too many bases spread around the country, it was resolved when Congress passed the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 

to screen and close facilities. 

NASA should also be focused more on their science obligations and avoid any 

associated political issues. Goddard Space Center has been involved in global 

environmental science for many years. For the past 20 years, instead of just 

sharing the climate science data they collect, they have joined the political argument that humans are the cause of global warming. 

At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Lima, Peru, last December, virtually all of the data available, the presentations and the handouts in 

the American Pavilion were material furnished by NASA. NASA personnel were 

making the presentations and the data shown was selected to make the case 

that humans were the cause of global warming. The American Pavilion was virtually a NASA pavilion. The space agency compromises its scientific credibility 

by participating in the politics surrounding one of the great scientific hoaxes in 

history. 

To get NASA back to the posture where they excelled, we should commit once 

more to pushing back the space frontier with a manned landing on Mars. Such 

a mission will become much more feasible when, and if, we overcome the problem of radiation exposure and/or shorten the time of travel. 

Our Mars exploration vehicle will have to be assembled in earth orbit. Moving out 

of earth orbit will require heavy-lift rockets, like our Space Launch System, and the 

Orion deep space crew capsule. Assembling an interplanetary spacecraft may reVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE
8 

quire a reusable launch vehicle similar to the space shuttle. While these are all expensive, they will be essential if we want to move out of earth orbit. 

We could also explore the possibility of moving the ISS from 51.6° down to an orbital inclination where it could be/might be useful in constructing an interplanetary 

spacecraft and/or as a departure point for Mars. 

With a national commitment for Mars exploration our space agency’s budget and 

activities would be driven by this strategy. The timing, of course, would be controlled by the rate at which Congress funds the program. If addressed in the way 

we addressed a manned landing on the Moon, it would enable NASA to deal with 

many of the internal deficiencies that have developed over time. 

Any Mars exploration program will have international partners. If it is our American program, we should take a strong leadership approach in managing that program. With Apollo, the effort was clearly led by NASA. In a Mars program we 

should obviously lead the way and not just be one more partner in an international 

effort to go to Mars. Hopefully, it would have less politics and a better structure 

then the international program we formed around the ISS. 

The ISS, that NASA first began to work on in the 1970s, is probably the most 

impressive piece of space hardware ever placed in orbit. It has had ‘‘equal’’ partners 

from the beginning, even though more than 70 percent of the cost has been paid 

by the U.S. 

In 1993, after NASA had evaluated and rejected what Russia might contribute to 

our ISS program, President Clinton insisted that Russia be included as a full partner. ISS was a convenient way for America to bail out the nearly bankrupt Russian 

space program. Our administration claimed that we would lift off two years earlier, 

it would save us $2B and it would keep Russian scientists from working on nuclear 

development for other countries. Reality: After transferring $3–5B to help resurrect the Russian space industry we launched two years late. The cost to us was increased by $15-$20 billion, due primarily to changing the orbital inclination from 28.5° to 51.6° in order to accommodate the Russian launch capability. We are now totally dependent on Russia to get 

an American to and from the ISS—a program we gave birth to in the 1970s. 

In the Apollo Program we were totally dependent on private industry. And they 

delivered! As NASA has grown less entrepreneurial, less efficient and more bureaucratic over the years, it has inspired new, so-called commercial space companies. 

While most of these new companies have been subsidized by Government funding 

NASA has less control over their development, operations and, consequently, the 

outcome. 

Space exploration is far too expensive for private industry without government 

capital. Commercial companies have a different perspective on space exploration 

and operations. Commercial companies are driven by profit and return on investment. Pushing back the frontier of space does not satisfy the business case for either 

of these criteria. 

Government space agencies are not profit driven. Our government underwrites 

the exploration of space and government agencies develop and manage the technology. Our country’s return on investment is the technology developed to open that 

next frontier and the commercialization of that technology in private industry. 

Some people suggest that private space companies should collaborate with NASA 

for human missions beyond low Earth orbit. Collaboration means sharing the cost. 

Commercial companies will contract with NASA for the hardware and technology 

but the government will always be expected to pay the cost of exploring the next 

frontier—funded by tax dollars, of course. 

Since commercial companies move much faster than government agencies, production by private industry will shorten the timeline to launch a mission to Mars. 

In the absence of a Mars Exploration Program and limited funding, NASA has 

initiated the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). Today, ARM is characterized as a 

first step in the mission to Mars. This could be fascinating for some scientists but 

anything it might do to support a future Mars mission could be more efficiently done 

with other projects. 

The Japanese landed an unmanned satellite on an asteroid and returned with a 

surface sample 5 years ago. If ARM is funded, it should be an unmanned science 

mission, NOT a manned mission. Limited manned exploration funds should not be 

wasted on such missions. 

There are manned missions we should be planning in preparation for a manned 

landing on Mars. While we work on overcoming the problems of radiation exposure 

and learning how to speed up travel, we should return to the Moon where we can 

perfect a crew facility for semi-permanent living. It is critical that we learn how to 

keep crews alive on Mars for months or even years. Crews on the Moon are only 

four days away from home as opposed to months and even years on a Mars mission. 

9 

Many scientists today are saying, ‘‘Send robots to Mars because humans are too 

costly and it’s too dangerous.’’ 

NASA should continue to mix manned and unmanned missions in order to exploit 

both. Robots can assess risks to human exploration, determine the presence of environmental, chemical, or biological problems and help to mitigate the risks. Robots 

are valuable tools in preparing for exploration but they are greatly inferior to humans in terms of speed, grasping what has been observed and judging what to do 

next. Humans are much, much faster and more efficient because we can think and 

act in real time. 

The Apollo program cost $110 billion in today’s dollars and the benefits to our society have been priceless. A manned landing on Mars, after 50 years of technical 

progress and spaceflight experience and perfecting a crew facility on the Moon, will 

probably take twice as long and cost 2 to 3 times that amount. That is a fraction 

of what our annual Federal budget deficit has been running and deficits do not have 

a return. 

A century from now, no one will care how carefully and cautiously we may have 

survived the 21st century, but they would certainly celebrate our willingness to 

make a commitment, to accept the risk, to expand our universe and to change the 

way we perceived our world if we commit to land a man on Mars. 

We will not move our society ahead by eliminating risk. Exploration is not about 

eliminating risk; it’s about managing risk! 

The human desire to explore and settle new frontiers will be satisfied—if not by 

Americans, then by others. Humans, somewhere, will certainly go back to the Moon 

and on to Mars. 

I believe we have the resources and the technology for manned exploration of 

Mars! Do we have the will to tackle the next frontier—Mars? 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Colonel Cunningham. 

Dr. Aldrin? 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL BUZZ ALDRIN (USAF, RET.), 

FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT AND APOLLO 11 PILOT 

Colonel ALDRIN. Senator Cruz, Senator Nelson, Senator Markey, 

Senator Udall, Committee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, 

I wish to thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak with 

you about the future of American human spaceflight enterprise. 

This is truly an honor, and I applaud you for raising this issue so 

early in this session. 

America must be the world leader in human spaceflight. There 

is no other policy area which so clearly demonstrates American innovation and enterprise than human spaceflight. American leadership is more than simply getting one step ahead of our global competitors. American leadership is inspiring the world by consistently 

doing what no other nation is capable of doing. We demonstrated 

that for a brief time 45 years ago. 

If we wish to retain American leadership in space, I believe that 

early in the next administration the nation must commit to developing a permanent presence on Mars. Another Apollo-like mission 

to put flags and footprints on Mars does not ensure sustained leadership, and lunar settlements will only require a small step for the 

other nations to catch up. 

I have a multi-decadal plan with compelling vision that will establish world leadership for the remaining of the century and initial landings on Mars by 2038. It is an integrated plan that knits 

together return to the Moon on a commercial and international 

basis, leveraging asteroid rendezvous, and settling Mars on a carefully developed risk-mitigation architecture. 

It includes the use of a robotic cycler between Mars and Earth 

that will revolutionize the economics and safety aspects of human 

10 

missions to Mars. Much analysis has been done on this concept in 

partnership with the commercial sector, the international community, and especially the academic community. All this can be done 

without being a major budget-buster for NASA. 

The architectures I have developed are driven by several technical principles, which I believe are essential to achieving this goal. 

These principles are part of what I call my ‘‘Unified Space Vision.’’ 

One, current programs for commercializing crew and cargo transportation to the International Station could expand to provide 

transport of crews with lifeboat rotations to two redundant stations 

on either side of the Moon. 

The U.S. will lead other crews from these stations for distant 

controls of the assembly and checkout of habitational structures 

and their life-support systems. Also, intricate rovers will provide 

ice to rocket fuel resources and other resources. 

We also have a reliable, developed and test most of the systems 

needed for Mars. We should participate in lunar development but 

avoid getting our human spaceflight budget captured by lunar 

gravity’s expensive consumption of funds. Let’s establish a lunar 

infrastructure which barters visits to the surface on international 

landers. 

Number three, reduce the cost of sustaining a presence on Mars 

by deploying outbound cycling spaceships that orbit between Earth 

and Mars without requiring a great deal of propulsion. Each successive mission would only have to send astronauts, landers, and 

the minor provisions. The ending provisions are reusable on the 

cycler—radiation protection. The vast majority of the mass would 

remain in the orbit between Earth and Mars. 

Number four, focus on people to Mars to stay. Bringing everyone 

home after a relatively brief stay is a cost-driver. I envision many 

of the people who go to Mars to remain and establish a permanent 

settlement. We have developed an inbound cycler as a means of 

bringing people back for certain contingencies. But the cost of effectively sending the entire launch system to return everyone home 

on every mission can make the entire venture prohibitively expensive. 

I provided most of the detail in my written statement and will 

have a much more complete version of this plan once the study of 

my cycler concept is conducted by an Aldrin-Purdue study that will 

be finished near the end of April. 

In closing, I encourage you to think about the ability of free markets in space to reduce the cost and power of American ingenuity 

to solve the most difficult technical challenges. In my opinion, there 

is no more convincing way to demonstrate American leadership for 

the remainder of this century than to commit to a permanent presence on Mars. 

I thank you for your time and look forward to the Committee’s 

leadership. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Aldrin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLONEL BUZZ ALDRIN (USAF, RET.), FORMER NASA 

ASTRONAUT AND APOLLO 11 PILOT

Senator Cruz, Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you 

11 

about the future of the American human spaceflight enterprise. This is truly an 

honor, and I applaud you for raising this issue so early in this session. 

Some of you may wonder why an 85 year old former Astronaut is here, testifying 

in Washington DC, rather than playing golf in Florida. Well, in the first place, while 

I do live in Florida, I am a truly horrible golfer. I am a much better orbital 

dynamicist. But more importantly, I love my country and I believe the future of the 

American space program is one of the most important issues we face as a nation. 

We are at an important inflection point in our Nation’s space program. Over the 

next few years we must choose whether we are to go forward as a nation and lead 

the extension of global civilization to a permanent presence beyond Low Earth 

Orbit, or to allow American leadership in space to erode over the next decades. 

America must be the world leader in human spaceflight. There is no other policy 

area which so clearly demonstrates American values of innovation and enterprise 

than human spaceflight. I have dedicated the last 50 years of my life to this proposition and I do not intend to stop any time soon. I think there is broad agreement 

in the space community and the panelists you are hearing from today on this point. 

There is decidedly less agreement on how we should do this. We do not have long 

to decide, and this Subcommittee will play a critical role in setting the agenda for 

this decision. I hope that my testimony today can contribute to this process. I think 

it will come as no surprise to Members of the Subcommittee and my fellow panelists 

that I have my own opinions. 

Allow me to begin with a question: What do we mean when we talk about American leadership? American leadership is more than simply getting one step ahead 

of our global competitors. American leadership is inspiring the world by consistently 

doing what no other nation is capable of doing. We demonstrated that for a brief 

time 45 years ago. I do not believe we have done it since. 

I believe it begins with a bi-partisan Congressional and Administration commitment to sustained leadership. If we wish to retain American leadership in space, 

I believe that early in the next administration, the Nation must commit to developing a permanent presence on Mars. Another Apollo-like mission to put flags and 

footprints on Mars does not ensure sustained leadership, and restarting a failed constellation program will only require one small step for China to catch up. 

I have spent much of the time since I landed on the Moon thinking and writing 

about the future of the space program. But we cannot get there with conventional 

thinking. The architectures I have developed are driven by several technical principles which I believe are essential to achieving this goal. These principles are part 

of what I call my Unified Space Vision. 

(1) Development of the commercial space transportation sector to provide crew 

and cargo transportation systems. Current programs for commercializing crew 

and cargo transportation to the International Space Station could lead to augmenting and expanding that commercial capability to transport mixed crews 

with lifeboat rotations to control stations in the vicinity of the Moon. 

(2) The U.S. should lead commercial and support international development of 

the Moon with extensive telerobotic complex engineering assembly of habitation structures and scientific and commercial rovers in order to provide necessary fuel resources and develop reliable systems for Mars. We should participate in lunar development but avoid getting our human spaceflight budget 

captured by lunar gravities expensive consumption of funds to create, support, 

and sustain human landings. Let’s establish a lunar infrastructure which can 

be commercially self-sustaining, relying on bartered visits to the surface on 

international landers. This makes far more economic sense for scientific and 

commercial activities. 

(3) Reduce the cost of sustaining a presence on Mars by deploying cycling spacecraft which perpetually orbits between Earth and Mars only requiring a small 

trim propulsion. The primary cost of getting to Mars is the fuel required to 

send a complex base of habitable structures to Mars. Each successive mission 

would redundantly send astronaut pioneers in Mars landers of increasing capacity. The majority of the mass including radio mitigation would remain in 

orbit between Earth and Mars. 

(4) Focus on sending people to Mars to stay. The huge cost driver for Mars missions is the cost of bringing everyone back home after a relatively brief stay. 

I envision a program of settlement that schedules most of the crews who go 

to Mars will remain and establish a permanent settlement there. Naturally, 

we have to develop the Inbound Cycler as a means to bring people home who 

need to return for whatever reason. But the cost of effectively sending an entire launch system to return everyone home on every mission can make the 

whole venture prohibitively expensive. 

12 

These are the basic principles. Let me turn briefly to just a few notes from my 

Unified Space Vision on just how we would execute this program and establish a 

permanent presence on Mars before 2040. 

• We can begin as soon as 2018 with the launch of an inflatable 1st generation 

exploration module (XM) to a low earth orbit station with Orion or Dragon. 

Then hopefully one of these spacecraft to be launched with another inflatable 

XM will be transported to the near libration point, L-1 of the Moon in July 2019 

for the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary! The purpose of these flights is to test exploration modules and to provide locations from which to remotely construct international lunar bases. These lunar activities will provide the necessary experience to later remotely construct (from Earth and then from Phobos) a base on 

Mars. They also provide the basis for extended international and commercial 

lunar operations, including in situ resource utilization, as well as a capability 

for future human missions to asteroids. I believe that the development of commercially provided resources from space will be critical to enabling human missions to Mars. 

• As we begin to develop our capabilities on the Moon, sometime between 2020 

and 2030, I envision a one year Orion mission with an inflatable to an in-orbit 

asteroid that arrives a few days before a complex sampling robotic spacecraft 

arrives from a slow, fuel saving solar electric propulsion transit of 1.5 years. 

This would give 60 days for a crew including scientists, asteroid mining and the 

robotic experts. This mission would also enable us to further test human 

spaceflight systems in deep space. 

• In 2031 an Orion with a rigid 2nd generation exploration module will join the 

inflatable at LEO, L-1, and L-2, and will then land on the Moon as a lunar 

habitat. 

• Once the lunar bases have been established, beginning in 2028 (before first humans are sent to Mars) and through 2034—nine unoccupied 3rd generation exploration modules, will be launched to Mars and two XM habitats sent to 

Phobos. 

• In 2031 an Orion with a rigid XM will be launched on an ‘‘Inspiration Venus’’ 

one year flyby of Venus mission with a crew of two women. On return to Earth 

we will perform two aerocapture maneuvers before reentry. 

• One of defining highlights of the mission architecture is the use of ‘‘cycler’’ 

spacecraft that would travel between Earth and Mars perpetually every synodic 

period. (A synodic period is the time that the orbits of the Earth and Mars bring 

the planets closest together--about every twenty six months.) My architectures 

features two cyclers. The larger capacity outbound cycler (heading from Earth 

to Mars) and the smaller inbound cycler (traveling back from Mars to Earth) 

alternately encounters Earth roughly every four and a half years. 

• The first outbound cycler will be intercepted by three smaller landers with one 

crew member each. One unmanned lander lands on Mars to demonstrate and 

checkout Mars landing procedures, and two landers land on Phobos with three 

crew members. The Phobos crew will remotely connect up to nine surface modules telerobotically, using techniques developed at the Earth-Moon libration facilities. These XM habitats are low thrust transported and landed five years before the 1st outbound cycler reaches Mars. Then the XMs are transported by 

rovers slowly from dispersed landing locations by long delayed control from 

Earth to within a few feet of each other at the desired base location. 

• When the first outbound cycler crew of three is cleared to land, the crew transfers from Phobos to the Mars surface. If the crew is not cleared to land, then 

they could return to Earth with an inflatable module and a Mars lander and 

storable propulsion system, all stationed on Phobos or by intercepting the first 

inbound cycler for its return to Earth. 

• The second outbound cycler transit to Mars carries three landers with a total 

of nine crew members. One lander with three crew members replaces the original three crew members on Phobos. The remaining two landers land on Mars 

with a total of 6 crew members establishing the first permanent settlement on 

Mars. 

• The Inbound Cycler when not used for crew return can be intercepted to return 

high value cargo. The lander capacity could be increased to six. Also a second 

outbound cycler can be introduced to make transits every synodic period instead 

of every other. 

• Every four and a half years the population of Mars will continue to grow as recurring outbound cyclers bring additional crews of up to 9 new inhabitants. The 

13 

list of potential tasks the surface inhabitants of 18 might accomplish is far too 

long to enumerate in my remaining time, but I would just note that Steven 

Squires, the Principle Investigator of the Mars Pathfinder mission once said 

that a single crew could accomplish in one week what took two rovers five years 

to do. 

Over the coming months you will listen to a great deal of how hard and expensive 

it is to go to Mars just once, let alone stay there. But, in closing I encourage you 

to think about the ability of free markets in space to reduce the cost and power of 

American ingenuity to solve the most difficult technical challenges. In my opinion 

there is no more convincing way to demonstrate American leadership for the remainder of this century than to use 20 July 2019 to commit to and execute a permanent presence on Mars. 

I thank you for your time and look forward to this committee’s leadership. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Aldrin. 

Dr. Massimino? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. MASSIMINO, PH.D., PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, COLUMBIA 

UNIVERSITY, AND FORMER NASA ASTRONAUT 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Members Nelson and 

Udall, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for 

having me here today. I have gotten to do some cool stuff in my 

life, and this is right up there. I really am honored to be here. 

Thank you. 

I want to describe to you a few things I learned as an astronaut, 

some benefits that our space program has provided not only for our 

country but I think for the whole world. And there are three of 

them I want to point out from my personal experience. And then 

I want to tell you a story from one of my spaceflights I think kind 

of wraps it up. So that is what I am going to try to do. 

The first benefit I want to tell you about is how the human exploration program can benefit science and life on Earth. And there 

are lots of examples we can use, but the one I am most familiar 

with is the one I got to participate in firsthand, and that is the 

Hubble Space Telescope servicing program. 

Both of my shuttle flights were to the Hubble Space Telescope. 

And Hubble has given us some great discoveries, so far one Nobel 

Prize. And I say ‘‘so far’’ because I think there are a lot more coming. The 25th anniversary of the telescope in orbit is coming this 

spring. And it has given us a window into the universe out there. 

It has found black holes, dark matter, dark energy, inspired many 

people to continue studying the universe, and it has shown us the 

beauty and the wonder of what is out there. 

But none of this would have been possible without human exploration, without the shuttle program, spacewalking astronauts, our 

ground control team, to be able to react to problems and get the 

job done so that we can provide that great instrument to the astronomers and scientists on the ground. 

So, the human exploration program and how it can affect science 

and benefits on Earth. 

The second thing I want to point out is international cooperation. 

When I was a new astronaut in 1996, we were starting to work 

with our international partners to build the Space Station. None of 

the elements had launched yet. And sitting there listening to the 

briefings as a new person not knowing really what was going on 

14 

at the time, I wondered, how are we going to make this work? How 

are we going to work with all these countries of Europe, with 

Japan, with Canada, and with the Russians? The U.S. was clearly 

about to be a leader, but how were we going to work with everybody? Different cultures, different languages, different ways of 

doing things, different systems of measurement. How are we going 

to make this all work? 

And what I discovered was, when we all had a common goal, it 

didn’t matter what country you were from. We wanted to build a 

space station, we wanted to produce this laboratory. And with that 

common goal, we were able to achieve a great thing, which is the 

International Space Station, which is orbiting above us right now. 

So international cooperation is a second benefit that I discovered 

of the space program. 

And the third is inspiration for young people. OK, I am sitting 

next to two of my boyhood heroes. I watched this man walk on the 

Moon when I was 6 years old, and it changed my life. And it inspired me to become an astronaut. And not too many younger than 

me can remember that, but the ones who are at least my age and 

older that I trained with will point to that episode, what Walt and 

Buzz did as astronauts, that inspired us as young people. 

And as an astronaut, I often wondered, what are we doing now 

that is going to get this next generation of American kids interested in studying math and science and going to space? And it 

never was really clear to me until lately. 

This past year, I have been teaching up at Columbia. I left 

NASA; I am a Professor at Columbia. And there are some smart 

kids up there, all right? And what I found was they are just as excited as me and my colleagues were years ago about the space program. 

And it is not just NASA inspiring them, though I have had lots 

of students who have gone to work for NASA, different NASA centers, for NASA contractors. But these kids want to change the 

world, and they want to be entrepreneurial. They see the space 

program as a way that they can be entrepreneurial. They see these 

really smart, successful entrepreneurs putting their efforts into trying to help the economy through space, and they see these people 

as role models that they want to follow. 

So it is almost, I think, better than when I was a kid, in some 

ways, because it is not just NASA doing big projects; it is also this 

entrepreneurial spirit, where they think they can provide economic 

benefits for the world, as well. 

The story I want to tell you: On my second spaceflight—or my 

first spaceflight, my second spacewalk, I had a chance to look 

around during the spacewalk. And at Hubble we are about 100 

miles higher than where the Station was—nowhere near as far as 

Buzz was away from the planet. But I was able to see the curvature of the Earth, and you can see it in its entirety. It takes up 

your whole field of view, but it is really beautiful. 

And my first spacewalk, I kind of stuck to my job. On my second 

spacewalk, I wanted to see what it was like. And there are really 

no words to describe to you how beautiful our planet is from up 

there. So I will just tell you what was going through my mind. 

15 

And the first thought was, if you were in heaven, this is what 

you would see. If you could be up there in heaven, you could look 

down on our planet and you would see how beautiful it is. 

And I was thinking about it, and it wasn’t enough, and I 

thought, no, no, there is more than that, it is more beautiful than 

that; this is what heaven must look like. And, at that moment, I 

felt like I was looking into paradise. That is how beautiful our 

planet is. It is fragile, it is a paradise, and we need to take care 

of it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Massimino follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. MASSIMINO, PH.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT

OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, AND FORMER NASA 

ASTRONAUT

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to appear before you to discuss the accomplishments of America’s space program 

during my missions and my perspective on our Nation’s current goals and priorities 

for the future of human spaceflight and space exploration. Being asked to testify for 

this committee is an honor, and I am privileged to share my experiences and opinions here with you today. 

I became an astronaut in 1996 and have been fortunate to fly on two space shuttle 

missions: STS–109 in March of 2002 and STS–125 in May of 2009. Both of my 

flights were Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions. The Hubble servicing missions are vital examples of how human spaceflight can contribute to ground-breaking research being done by scientists on Earth. Based upon my experience, I believe 

NASA’s joint focus on innovation in scientific research and its commitment to 

human spaceflight continues to be a worthwhile goal for our space agency. More 

than that, it is an noble endeavor for us as a nation and as custodians of this incredible planet we call home. 

NASA has made great headlines in recent years, most notably by landing a rover 

on Mars, but amazing as that achievement is, putting human beings in orbit remains the single most important element of successful space exploration. My first 

mission set a team record of spacewalking time on a single space shuttle mission. 

My second mission broke that record. During each spacewalk, having an astronaut 

on the scene was what saved the day. For example, on one of my spacewalks I was 

required to improvise a solution no robot or rover could have possibly done: manually pulling off a handle that was held fast onto the telescope with a stripped fastener. This was the only way to complete the repair of the Space Telescope Imaging 

Spectrograph, a scientific instrument that can, among other capabilities, analyze the 

atmospheres of planets in other solar systems in order to establish the possibility 

of finding other places in the universe capable of sustaining life. 

The efforts of the human spaceflight program during my missions, in partnership 

with NASA’s on-going ground control operations and scientific research programs, 

have allowed the Hubble Space Telescope Program to increase our understanding 

of the universe. Our servicing missions have enabled scientists from around the 

world to make major discoveries, including dark matter, dark energy, black holes, 

and the existence of planets in other solar systems. In addition to these great scientific advances, through Hubble’s iconic images we have also brought the incredible 

beauty of the universe to the citizens of the world. 

NASA has also in recent years accomplished much in terms of building and expanding international partnerships, an endeavor that I believe should continue with 

our Nation’s leadership. While an astronaut from 1996 to 2014, I had the opportunity to contribute to the planning, building, and establishment of scientific operations of the International Space Station (ISS). Among the many achievements of 

the ISS is bringing different countries together toward a common goal. Through the 

ISS and its work, the United States, Russia, member countries of the European 

Space Agency, Canada, and Japan work together as partners on international space 

projects and research. We live in this world together, and working in unison to 

study it can only help us all. The friendships, alliances, and accomplishments of the 

ISS have shown that, given common scientific and exploration goals, countries can 

accomplish great things together. 

As a Professor at Columbia University and the Senior Advisor for Space Programs 

at the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York City, I have seen first 

16 

hand how the space program can inspire students to pursue degrees and work in 

STEM fields. I have seen how space travel inspires them to dream of accomplishing 

great things in life. Just as I was inspired as a small boy by my astronaut heroes 

in the Apollo program, today’s students are inspired by NASA’s accomplishments. 

They are excited about the opportunities that NASA and commercial space companies have waiting for them when they complete their education. I have not found 

any other engineering or science endeavor that can inspire students to study in the 

STEM fields the way that our Nation’s space program can. 

When I speak to my students about their interest in space-related STEM careers, 

there is a major opportunity open to them now that was not readily available when 

I was a college student over 30 years ago. The commercial space opportunities created by partnerships with NASA are very appealing to young people. There is still 

great interest in working for NASA and its contractors, but many students see 

themselves as future space entrepreneurs. Thanks to developments from NASA, 

many highly successful entrepreneurs see space as the next frontier for economic 

success in the private sector. I think we will continue to see major success stories 

in commercial space enterprise, and they will play a major role in inspiring young 

people to pursue STEM careers while also providing economic benefits for our country. 

Lastly, I would like to share a story about my experiences in space and how it 

affected my perspective on the precious life we have here on planet Earth. During 

a short break in my tasks during my second spacewalk on STS–109, I had the opportunity to take in the beauty of our Earth from 350 miles up in orbit. From that 

height you can see the curvature of the planet, this bright ball of blue set against 

an endless infinity of black. The first thought that went through my mind was, 

‘‘This is the view from heaven. This is what our planet must look like from heaven.’’ 

But then a second thought immediately replaced that one. I said to myself, ‘‘No, it’s 

even more beautiful than that. This is what heaven must look like. Maybe this is 

heaven.’’ I felt as if I were looking into paradise. That is how beautiful our Earth 

looks like from space. It is a fragile oasis. It keeps us alive, safe from the chaos 

and dangers of space, just above our atmosphere. It is our home, and we need to 

take care of it. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify here today. I have had some great experiences in my life, and being able to provide input to your subcommittee is a great 

honor for me and an opportunity I very much appreciate. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for 

that powerful and evocative imagery, as well. 

I appreciate each of you being here. I appreciate your expert 

judgment. 

I think all of us here agreed that America should lead the world 

in space exploration. We have done so for decades. But I would like 

to start by just asking the panel, how good a job are we doing today 

leading the world in space exploration, and how could we do better? 

Colonel ALDRIN. We are not really leading the world. 

Senator CRUZ. If you would hit your microphone, please. 

Colonel ALDRIN. We have a facility up in space, and we have invested a lot in it. We have gone to it—put it together, gone to it 

for quite a while. 

And then we changed our spacecraft to move to another program. 

And that program didn’t come together because of problems with 

the booster not being powerful enough, so we had to go to another 

booster to take a spacecraft from a company that hadn’t built a 

spacecraft before. So it was gaining weight and wasn’t able to put 

itself and the lander into lunar orbit, so we had to make the lander 

even bigger. 

And that same rocket for Ares I was being used on Ares V. So 

it just appeared as though we weren’t able to get the crew up there 

with the existing rocket, so we continued to develop the Orion and 

sort of shelved the heavy-lift vehicle. And without the Orion going 

17 

somewhere, there is no point in continuing the lander. So the program really fell apart. 

[Phone ringing.] 

Colonel ALDRIN. Excuse me. 

Senator CRUZ. Just tell us if that is a call from the Space Station. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Make sure it is not collect. 

Senator CRUZ. You know, Colonel Cunningham, you talked about 

what you perceived to be excessive politicization at NASA and the 

challenges that presents. 

I was curious if you could elaborate on that. And what steps 

could be taken to help NASA focus on what should be its core mission? 

Colonel CUNNINGHAM. I mentioned a little bit of the politics from 

outside of NASA that increasingly over the years has grown increasingly on NASA. And it has had a lot to do with controlling 

what projects they went into and what they did not. But it also, 

in my opinion from the outside looking at it, it has infected the 

agency itself. People inside of NASA are just not as willing to 

speak their mind on things to get them done. 

And some of these programs, money has been spent on them and 

money has been canceled. And we tried a single stage to orbit one 

time, I think a billion dollars on that. So what has happened is 

NASA has changed; in my opinion, they have become a much more 

risk-averse agency over the years. 

For example, we all realize that, until we launch the Webb Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope is the greatest telescope we 

have ever had. Well, we are going to have the use of the Hubble 

Space Telescope for at least another 5 years, it looks like, but that 

wouldn’t have happened had we not had the last servicing mission 

that went up there to service it. 

And that mission originally was going to go up a couple of years 

earlier and was canceled by the then-administrator at the time because he said it was too risky and they canceled it, because they 

had lost some people on Columbia. So it is a mental kind of thing. 

Back on Apollo, we lost crew on Apollo 1. We had people that we 

are just fortunate they are still alive from Apollo 13. But you have 

to have the will to keep going. 

Fortunately, we had another administrator that came on after 

that one, and that administrator took a look at it. It was worth the 

risk, and they went back and had the last servicing mission, and 

we had the greatest telescope in history. 

So I don’t know how to do this, because our society seems to be 

moving more risk-averse. But we need to have an agency that understands, you have to pay your money, take your chances, and get 

out there and push the frontier. 

Senator CRUZ. When it comes to priorities in NASA, there are a 

host of exploration priorities that have been discussed, whether it 

is asteroid retrieval, whether it is going to the Moon, whether it 

is going to Mars, whether it is going beyond. 

I would welcome the views of the witnesses on this panel as to 

what the top priorities of NASA should be. Which of those projects 

yield the greatest benefits? What order should they be staged in? 

18 

And to what extent should the focus be on manned exploration 

versus robotic exploration? 

Colonel CUNNINGHAM. Well, I can’t tell you what degree, and I 

am not an expert and totally up on internal affairs at NASA anymore at all. But as I watch it, I find that what NASA has been trying to do for, oh, over the last couple of decades, they recognize 

that the public at large is looking for a demand for going to the 

next frontier, which happens to be—it is Mars now. 

And so they have also attempted, then, to rationalize whatever 

they were working on as a step along that program. Some of the 

things that they have proposed certainly will have scientific value 

to scientists. Will they help us on that program? I doubt it. 

And there are other ways of doing it. For example, you don’t hear 

NASA really talking about returning to the Moon now. I used to 

be one of those that was not wild about stopping at the Moon in 

order to get back to Mars. But I began to realize that we have to 

have a facility that is going to keep people alive on Mars, and it 

is going to be a whole lot cheaper and easier to develop on the 

Moon than the other way. 

So I just think we need to get back on a program that is going 

to have the Moon as an intermediate step and only as it fits in to 

go to the next frontier, Mars. 

Mr. MASSIMINO. You know, it is interesting, because Buzz was 

talking about going to Mars, and Walt, Moon and Mars. And I left 

the astronaut office this past July, and we used to talk about this 

for years. You know, where are we going next? You know, we are 

going to go beyond Earth orbit; where are we going to go? 

And you can make an argument, I think, for almost any one of 

them. But I think the thing that it has in common is we need to 

go somewhere. And I do think that NASA does have a plan to take 

us away from low Earth orbit. We are working with the companies 

that have been selected to provide—we have already got the cargo 

going to the Station, and now we are going to have our astronauts 

flying to the Station with the commercial crew. That is the plan. 

I think that seems like it is taking the right steps and going in the 

right direction. But the ability to leave the planet, to leave our 

orbit, is common to all of those things. 

So I have been thinking about this. What would we pick as the 

destination? Which one do we pick? Because there are so many arguments, right? Yes, you are going to get different opinions from— 

you know, people changed their mind in the same day when we 

talked about it, right? ‘‘Oh, that is a good point.’’ 

Maybe we don’t exactly know exactly where we should go. But 

we know we want to go somewhere if we can get the lift capability, 

the Orion capsule ready to go. We had the test back in December, 

which was successful. They have a plan for another one in a couple 

years. It has picked up a lot of momentum. A lot of my friends— 

I was working on it when I was in the office. A lot of my friends 

are still working on little displays. People are spending money; 

they are building hardware to go. 

Whether that destination is to the asteroid, whether that destination is to the Moon or Mars, I think we are probably going to 

get clearer on that as we get a little bit further. Maybe we can go 

all the way to Mars. Maybe the propulsion research and technology 

19 

we develop can get us there quicker; maybe not. Maybe we can go 

to the Moon; maybe not. Maybe we can go to the asteroid if that 

is the closest case, the one that is least cost that is going to keep 

us in the budget, maybe that is the right answer. 

But I think they are taking the right steps to get away from low 

Earth orbit. You can make an argument for each one of these. 

Maybe the idea is that we plan on leaving, take those steps now, 

and it might be clear to us where that destination is going to be 

a few years from now. 

Colonel ALDRIN. Let me see if I can integrate these things together. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, we learned how to go and land on the 

Moon and stay and do some things there. To do that again 50 years 

later just does not seem to be something that would be attractive 

to the people involved or the people who are supporting this. 

We did not build permanent there. Other countries will build 

landers. While they are doing that, we can build the permanent 

structures. But those permanent structures will be the same ones 

in the same base design that we will do at the Moon. 

In order to build those on the Moon, we need a fairly redundant 

facility on the near side and on the far side to robotically build 

those. We can design them with our concepts of a base, and we 

know that Europe has a company that built pressure vessels for 

the Space Station, and they can get additional resources from 

South Korea and India. So they can build the modules that will go 

to the Moon based on our design. 

They need to be standard. And we have uneven terrain and a 

gravity field. So you pick one off of a lander and put it where you 

want it. Now, another lander is over here; you pick this one up and 

bring it over. They won’t line up. You have to level them. You have 

a difference in elevation; you have to account for that. 

This is too much for the students at Purdue. It will be done, but 

I am going to another resource to help the students at Purdue in 

their study to do that. 

But the habitats that will be based on what we want at Mars 

will then be exercised at the Moon. Before we do that, we will use 

the Big Island of Hawaii to make sure that the things all come together. 

We need an inflatable right away at Earth orbit L1 and L2. We 

will develop a rigid, and we will put it at those two places. Those 

rigids are what we construct things on, and they are the ones that 

will be similar to what we are going to build and send to Mars with 

a buildup so that at the time our cycling system deposits the first 

people on Mars, that buildup will be complete. So we have something that is integrated. 

Now, what can we do with that inflatable and Orion? Well, we 

could send it to an asteroid. And we could send a robot, year-anda-half mission. And a crew gets there in 4 months, 2 days before. 

But it has 60 days at that asteroid with a scientist who knows 

about asteroids, a robotics scientist. That is a crew and a robot at 

the same asteroid in place. 

Now, that is with the inflatable. When we get to the rigid, we 

can send Orion with the rigid on a round fly by of Venus. We can 

do that in a year. It takes a whole lot longer to do it at Mars. When 

20 

we come back, we can exercise aerocapture maneuvers that need 

to be done at Mars. 

So we will be doing these things, and we will be landing. Different people will be building and landing, and we will be getting 

these habitats, the different habitats, nine. We will take three of 

them, and we condition it, for it is the cycler. And we get it in its 

cycle, and then we use three landers for triple redundancy. Because 

all a lander has to do is to get on the cycler. Cycler supplies it with 

everything it needs. It gets off and lands, and the facilities are 

there for them to take care of. 

And each pass that that outbound, we reuse the same facility so 

we don’t have to build them again. And we can have an inbound 

cycler that can bring people back in emergencies. 

It is a plan that is build and integrated, evolving as we go along. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to defer to Senator 

Udall. 

And I would just say, with our goal of going to Mars, going to 

an asteroid, going back to the Moon, if we are going to the Moon, 

then show me the money. That is the question as we are going forward on the budgets that we are projecting. And I will get into that 

a little later when I get to my questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, for calling this important hearing. 

And, Ranking Senator Bill Nelson, thank you for your courtesies 

in allowing me to go forward first in questioning on this side. 

And thank you to the witnesses. You have given some very impressive testimony. Thank you for your service today. 

Scientific research and improving technology transfer and commercialization is smart investment. There is just no doubt about it. 

And it is vital to our Nation’s future and for national defense and 

for our economy. 

In my home state of New Mexico, we know this firsthand. NASA 

workers in New Mexico support crucial missions, including communication with the International Space Station. Astronomers at our 

research telescopes are making new discoveries about black holes 

and planets outside our solar system. One of those astronomy operations is called the Very Large Array, which is in New Mexico and 

does a lot of that work. Researchers at our national labs and universities are working hard to keep America safe and to create jobs 

through innovative technologies like advanced photonics. 

So I look forward to working with Chairman Cruz and the Ranking Senator Nelson on legislation before this committee, including 

America COMPETES Act, the Commercial Space Launch Act, and 

NASA’s reauthorization. 

And I also want to thank Senator Nelson as our previous Chairman. Under his leadership, the Senate passed the bipartisan NASA 

Authorization Act of 2010. Very few Senators have been astronauts 

like Senator Nelson. He may be the most passionate advocate for 

21 

space exploration who has ever served in the Congress, and I am 

honored to serve with him on this committee. 

Now, Dr. Massimino—and I would put the rest of my opening 

statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Thank you Chairman Cruz—for calling this hearing today. 

Scientific research—and improving technology transfer and commercialization—is 

a smart investment. It’s vital to our Nation’s future—for our national defense and 

our economy. 

In my home state of New Mexico, we know this firsthand. 

NASA workers in New Mexico support crucial missions—including communication 

with the International Space Station. 

Astronomers at our research telescopes are making new discoveries—about black 

holes and planets outside our solar system. 

Researchers at our national labs and universities are working hard—to keep 

America safe—and to create jobs through innovative technologies like advanced 

photonics. 

So I look forward to working with Chairman Cruz on legislation before this committee—including the America COMPETES Act . . . the Commercial Space Launch 

Act . . . and NASA’s reauthorization. 

I also want to thank Senator Nelson—our ranking member and previous chairman. Under his leadership, the Senate passed the bipartisan NASA Authorization 

Act of 2010. 

Very few Senators have been astronauts like Senator Nelson. He may be the most 

passionate advocate for space exploration who has ever served in Congress. I’m honored to serve with him on this committee. 

From our earliest history, humans have gazed up at the sky in wonder. Yet once 

we traveled to space, we looked back at planet Earth with the same wonder. 

A NASA astronaut captured this for all of us—in a classic photograph of our blue 

planet Earth. The image became known as ‘‘The Blue Marble.’’ It is the most widely 

distributed photo ever. It gives us all a sense of how unique and fragile our planet 

is. 

That is an important perspective to keep in mind—as this committee considers 

how Congress can support both space exploration and NASA missions—and help us 

better understand our own planet. 

In New Mexico, we are putting the finishing touches on Spaceport America. Commercial space capabilities are growing. Suborbital spaceflight will be a reality for 

more people than ever before. 

This is the latest chapter—of New Mexico’s history of space exploration—which 

goes back to Robert Goddard’s early rocket experiments. 

So these are exciting times—and challenging times. Space flight still involves significant risk. We were sadly reminded of this by the fatal crash of a test flight a 

few months ago. But commercial companies are persevering. And still aiming for the 

stars. 

In recent years, NASA has worked to transition from the space shuttle program— 

to a new future for human space exploration. 

In 2010, this committee set NASA on its current course. We passed legislation to 

support: 

• an exploration program focused on reaching Mars; 

• robust use of the International Space Station; 

• development of a commercial space industry in Low Earth Orbit; 

• balanced science programs; and 

• continued commitment to aeronautics research. 

NASA’s leadership is essential. In addition, the commercial space industry has an 

important role to play—in our Nation’s broader space exploration objective—beyond 

expanding access to sub orbital space and trips to and from the International Space 

Station. 

International cooperation is also key—as we work toward a strong and sustainable human space exploration program. 

22 

So this is an important discussion. I’m very pleased that we have three distinguished American astronauts on our first panel. Thank you for your service—and 

welcome. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. But Congress passed the last NASA authorization act in 2010, as I just mentioned. This law continues to guide 

NASA as a multi-mission agency, and to quote that multi-mission 

from the statute, quote, ‘‘balanced and robust set of core commissions in science, aeronautics, and human spaceflight and exploration.’’ 

Could you share your thoughts on the advantages of keeping 

NASA as a multi-mission agency, which encompasses not just 

human spaceflight but also initiatives such as space-based observations of the Earth? 

Mr. MASSIMINO. You know, in my time as an astronaut, there 

were a lot of things going on in our country. You know, we had 

military situations, we had economic effects. A lot of things happened. And I kind of got the sense that, as a government agency, 

if we had resources, that could help. Whatever that meant, to 

whatever our country needed, that it was important for us to try 

to contribute what we could. 

So you make the example of—you mentioned Earth observations, 

for example. Well, on the International Space Station, it was a 

great engineering project, international. It is amazing that this 

thing is up there, this great laboratory, and we can do a lot of basic 

research up there. But in addition to that, we are able to have this 

perch above our planet where we can take amazing photos. 

In fact, my students in my class, our project for the semester is 

an astronaut assistant to help them take these photos. And the 

reason is, it is not just fun photos. They can show us natural disasters that occur. You can get a lot of information from them. 

Changes in the planet, whether it be irrigation problems or volcanoes erupting or whatever it might be, there is a lot of science data 

that can come and help our country, help our planet, by the astronauts taking photos from the International Space Station. 

That might be somewhat of a simple example, but I don’t necessarily think it is. We are using our resources to help other agencies and improve life and increase our understanding. 

So I think if there is a way that NASA can contribute to that— 

and I am not a NASA guy anymore, but I always felt when I was 

as an astronaut, if there was anything that I could do to contribute 

that would help our country or help the world, that we owed it to 

do that. It may not be our primary focus, but guess what? We 

maybe can make a contribution in those areas, as well. 

Senator UDALL. Just a quick question, because I only have a few 

seconds left. But it seems to me there is a great potential to develop the STEM fields, in terms—— 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL.—of what we are talking about here. 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Could you just talk a little bit about that, in 

terms of—— 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Oh, yes, absolutely. 

I think what I have found—again, a lot of this comes from my 

more recent experience as a university professor—that the kids 

23 

need something to be excited about. Studying math and science— 

I am not as smart as Buzz was at MIT. Buzz was a really smart 

guy. I struggled up there. It was tough, OK? And I needed inspiration to hang in there and get through. 

And I think that a lot of students today need that, as well. It is 

not easy studying this stuff. And if you have a goal at the end, 

that, hey, if I can finish this up, maybe I can make a contribution 

to whatever technology they are interested in, that is the kind of 

motivation they need. 

I have not found any field—I would throw the challenge out 

there, if you find anything else that could inspire kids, young people, to study those fields other than the space program. I haven’t 

found it. It encompasses so many different areas. It excites them. 

It is something they think is really cool. It is the future. It is making a contribution back to the planet. They just love it. 

And now, when you add this opportunity to be entrepreneurs, I 

think we are really on to something. So I can’t think of anything 

that would excite them more. 

And I see this in New York City, which, you know, doesn’t have 

its own NASA center up there and there is not so much of a presence as we have in other parts of the country. There still is great 

interest up there. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. And I have seen that with 

astronauts that travel to New Mexico, the excitement—— 

Mr. MASSIMINO. There you go. 

Senator UDALL.—that is there with the young people, in terms 

of all of the STEM fields. 

So, sorry to excuse myself. Secretary Kerry is in Foreign Relations. I hope to get back and ask some additional questions. But 

thank you both, Senator Nelson and Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator Gardner? 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing today. And I will be following my colleague 

from New Mexico on the way up to the Foreign Relations Committee after the question and dialogue we have here. 

You know, I don’t think there is anything, as you just said, Mr. 

Massimino, that captures the human imagination like exploration. 

And 28 years ago, I think it was, probably around 1983, I wrote 

a letter—I would have been 9 years old—I wrote a letter to NASA. 

Here is the copy of the letter. I took a picture of it because it is 

not on e-mail; it is a hard-copy, typed-out letter. 

And this is the response back from NASA. This is the first paragraph that they wrote back to me in my letter to them: ‘‘Thank you 

for your recent letter and your interest in wanting to become an 

astronaut. We are especially happy to have the young people of the 

world show an interest in our space program. We have received 

hundreds of letters similar to yours.’’ 

Now, I doubt if they are receiving letters today; they are receiving e-mails today. And I doubt if they are only receiving 100; they 

are probably receiving thousands. But this letter talks about the 

24 

need to go into mathematics, the need to go into engineering or 

medicine. It talks about the importance of our space program. 

They also sent a little photograph of the crew. I think it was 

the—this is Sally Ride. It was STS–7, I believe, the first woman 

in space from the United States on the space shuttle program and, 

obviously, first woman in space from the United States. 

But that was 28 years ago—actually, more than that now, but it 

was 2011, 28 years since I wrote this letter to NASA, 2011, 1983, 

and I stood with my colleagues in the House of Representatives as 

we watched the closing of the chapter of the Space Shuttle Program. 

So I was 9 years old, writing a letter about how I wanted to become an astronaut. Obviously, I failed miserably at it. But 28 years 

later, standing in the cloakroom of the U.S. House of Representatives with my colleagues from around the country, watching this 

program come to an end, the program that had made me so interested in wanting to achieve more. 

I mean, Horace Greeley said, ‘‘Go west, young man.’’ And we followed that phrase in American history, and we explored, and we 

fought, and we pioneered, and that is who we are. 

And so I am so concerned about the testimony today, the comments that you made, that we aren’t capturing that imagination 

like we once were, that we are not driving new innovation. We are 

driving new innovations like we were, but how do we really instill 

that notion of exploration and really make it a reality? 

And it goes to the heart, I think, of what you have talked about 

today in the Orion program, and I want to kind of get to that. 

We did the test launch, we did the test launch of the Orion, December 5, 2014. We did it atop a ULA Delta IV heavy rocket. We 

tested this. And now it doesn’t look like we are planning to carry 

astronauts until 2021. 

Can this country afford to wait until 2021? Can we wait that 

long? What can we do to push this up? How do we, again, capture 

that imagination that drives so many of us to imagine, to aspire 

to space? 

So I guess I would start, what is it that we need to do to really 

drive this mission, this idea, this value of space? It is not just reports and paperwork; it is something that we have to do ourselves. 

Colonel CUNNINGHAM. I think it would help to refocus NASA 

back on what they did that did provide that inspiration. 

Just to give you another thought, I was listening here about the 

STEM education. I am a strong believer in that. That is what my 

education was. It is what probably everybody here’s education was 

at this table. We work with the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, 

and we give—now we are up to 30 or 32 awards every year for this 

kind of education. 

But if we look at the organization NASA, NASA is also giving out 

many scholarships now. Now, NASA is a space agency. I think that 

if they are going to be giving scholarships, if the funds could maybe 

be diverted to someplace where they focus on that. 

NASA needs to be spending their time and their focus on those 

things that inspire people to do these. Exploration is what I happen 

to believe is the long-term look at it. But they need to be spending 

25 

their money on those things that inspire others to make their 

scholarships and derive from other places. 

I work with scholarships all the time. I believe in them. But I 

think that the agency, it is just one more thing that they probably 

have, let’s just guess, maybe a couple of dozen people that are 

working just focusing on that, as opposed to doing what they did 

before and letting the inspiration drive those things. 

It is just another alternative I am raising about it. 

Senator GARDNER. Dr. Aldrin? Please. 

Colonel ALDRIN. I would like to tell a little story about the 

months before I left NASA in 1970. 

I was asked to go down to another center, where the next program to follow Apollo was being looked at. And there were hundreds of aerospace engineers. And let me describe what the next 

system was. And this was 1970; we may have flown Apollo 12 and 

maybe 13. It was two-stage, fully reusable, an orbiter with wings 

and wheels and a booster with wings and wheels. And it carried 

the crew; it didn’t carry cargo. You want cargo? Use a reusable 

booster, and you put the cargo on top of that. 

So I went down there to look at the assembly of people. They had 

seven teams, a contractor for a booster and the orbiter—seven of 

those. And some of them doubled up, of course, here and there. And 

they built models. So my job was to look at the upper stage, the 

orbiter—okay?—and to see what the people could see during 

launch, orbit, and come down and land. 

And I happened to glance down, and I saw windows in the booster. OK? I can explain that now, for high-speed taxi, et cetera. But 

I asked the guy, what are these windows here? Oh, when we go up 

as a booster on a normal mission, we have a cockpit with two people and a booster. And I said, you what? 

We have seven teams, and before they started their study, we 

asked them to do a real short study, manned versus unmanned 

booster. Now, if you are one of these seven teams and you know 

what the client wants, and if you give him what he wants, you are 

going to make more money, obviously all those reports said, yes, 

you are right, we are going to put a cockpit of two in the booster. 

Totally unnecessary. 

By the time that started getting implemented, Bob Gilruth said 

to another person, I wonder if we should have put a cockpit in the 

booster. OK? It was canceled. We had to rush in to the shuttle. 

We would love to have a program like that now, but it was because jealousies of individual centers and wanting to do things and 

the companies wanting to take a bid that would get them more 

money and maybe bring it back to where their states were doing 

things. That was inexcusable to me. 

And there are other examples like that. We have three different 

spacecraft to come back, commercial spacecraft, and one advanced 

one that has been looked at by the Russians, looked at by the Air 

Force, and wind tunnel tests, and it brings things back. What do 

we do? Finance the two capsules with not really new technology, 

and we don’t finance the one that can land on a runway. 

I think we are making not so good choices many times. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

26 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. First of all, I want to welcome our guests, dear 

personal friends, and thank you for what you have done for this 

country, each of you in your own contribution, as we have built this 

amazing thing that we are discussing today, our American space 

program. 

The goal is to go to Mars. The goal is to get NASA beyond low 

Earth orbit. And the question is, over the course of these years, as 

we target the decade of the 2030s, with the budget that we are 

going to have, how do we do it? How do we develop the technologies, the techniques, the systems, the life-support systems, the 

propulsion systems that will get us to a foreign body such as Mars 

with a crew and return them safely? 

So we may want to go back to the Moon as we develop this, but, 

as I said earlier, show me the money. 

Dr. Massimino, I want to ask you to comment on the plans to 

capture an asteroid, bring it back into a stable lunar orbit, and 

send a crew up there to land on it, that as part of the steps as we 

prepare all of those things I just mentioned, eventually to go to 

Mars in the decade of the 2030s. 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Thank you, sir. 

I think we need to remember one thing overall, that going to 

space is hard. And I think we need to remember that there has 

only been one country that has put people out of Earth orbit, and 

that is us. And we did it a long time ago, when we sent Buzz and 

his colleagues up there. But still the United States of America is 

the only country that has been able to figure that out. It is not so 

easy going to space. It is even harder to go beyond low Earth orbit 

to places like the Moon or Mars. 

And if we decide we are going to take an incremental approach, 

which would be the asteroid mission, I think there is definitely a 

lot that can be learned there. We can test this big rocket that can 

take us places beyond low Earth orbit. We can test the spacecraft 

that would do it. 

We can test life support. Space is a very hazardous place. There 

is a lot of radiation, and it gets worse as you get further away from 

the planet. The radiation dose we took on Hubble was higher than 

what the men and women get on Space Station, because we were 

100 miles higher. Going to the Moon is even worse. Going beyond 

that is even worse. We need to understand how we can protect our 

people from that, right? And we are taking those steps with the research that we do on the Space Station. 

How are we going to keep them healthy? All the changes that 

happen to the body. How are we going to keep people healthy 

enough to be able to withstand the journey to Mars, be able to land 

a spacecraft, and be able to work and then come home. 

This is tough stuff. We may or may not be able to do that all in 

one big swing. It may be too much to do it in one swing. But I 

think we need to start taking those first steps. 

The first step is get the big launch vehicle going, like we have 

with a successful test flight and the other ones that are planned. 

They are far in the future, but these are tough things to do. And 

I don’t know if more budget would make it quicker. I don’t know. 

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe it would give you a betVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE
27 

ter chance of getting there, but I don’t know if it necessarily makes 

you more efficient. But these are hard things to do. 

But if the asteroid mission is the right thing to do, I think there 

is certainly a lot we can learn from it. I think we can work out the 

spacecraft, keeping the people healthy, understanding how to work 

that launch system. And it is also—it is a destination. You are not 

going to land and have to blast off again from it, like you would 

on the Moon or Mars, but it is a place you can go to, and we certainly can learn a lot from it. 

Is it necessary? I don’t know. It might be, because we might need 

that incremental step before we can take the big leap. But I think 

right now the important thing is to try to be consistent with it. And 

to pull the rug out from where we are, I think there might be a 

penalty there, as well. 

There were a couple programs—in my career as an astronaut, we 

worked on different spacecraft. I had dinner with two of my friends 

last night who are now former astronauts that are here in Washington. We talked about all the stuff that was canceled while we 

were astronauts, all the stuff we trained on while we were astronauts. And to make a big, huge direction change sometimes isn’t 

always the best thing. 

Senator NELSON. Well, you were there in the astronaut office 

when the Constellation program was canceled. It was way behind, 

and it was over, way over budget. So that is what you are talking 

about—— 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Actually—— 

Senator NELSON.—what you sacrifice if you make a major change 

in the human spaceflight program. 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Yes. And that was a big one, but there are other 

ones too, like our cockpit avionics upgrade on the space shuttle. 

They started doing the wiring on that in one of the space shuttles. 

We had spent a lot of time designing that upgrade, for example, 

and then that got cut. And the story we had was that it was going 

to cost almost as much to pull it out as it was to finish the job. 

There were other options for spacecraft, rescue spacecraft, from 

the Space Station that we were developing. They did tests out in 

the desert, dropped them out of airplanes, landing tests. A lot of 

cockpit design work was done. Again, these projects were cut. 

So I think there is a penalty to pulling everything back. And, you 

know, whether, again, if we go with the asteroid or we go to the 

Moon or Mars, I think it is important to keep the momentum going 

of getting the spaceship ready, getting the rocket ready, keeping 

your options open until you are really sure which one you want to 

go to. Because you might find that you might not pick the right one 

right off the bat. 

Maybe we can go to Mars in one swoop, but maybe we can’t. And 

the asteroid mission is a great way to test our systems out and get 

the knowledge. Because we want to be successful when we go to 

Mars. That is a huge leap. That is a really long journey. And that 

is not even—compared to the Moon, it is a long way. This man 

went a long distance from our planet. That is a heck of a lot further. 

28 

We want to make sure we get it right when we do that. And if 

that asteroid mission or something we do with the Moon is going 

to help us get there, that is great. 

Colonel CUNNINGHAM. Can I add a thought to the question that 

had to do with budget? It is always going to be expensive for what 

they are talking about trying to do. 

I mentioned that for 40 years the NASA budget has been less 

than 1 percent of the Federal budget. For the last 15 years, it has 

been driving down to 0.4 percent of the Federal budget. Unless the 

country, which really is Congress here, decides to put more money 

in it, this is just talk that we are going through here. The budget 

has got to go up for NASA. 

And that is another reason why I feel very strongly that NASA 

has to be operating more efficiently and not doing some of the 

things which would be marginal as opposed to it. You have to focus 

it on what has to be done. 

NASA’s budget is way too low to do the things that we talked 

about doing here this afternoon. 

Colonel ALDRIN. Absolutely. 

And I would like to point out that I have this study being done 

at Purdue, due the end of April. I have assembled 25 other academic institutions that deal with exploration. Academic institutions 

are supposed to be unbiased. They are supposed to teach the general background. So if we can come up with a number of questions—some of them are yes/no/maybe. Some of them are ‘‘tell me 

shortly.’’ 

How do we get the public behind what it is we are trying to do? 

Well, they are going to know what I am trying to do, briefly, because I am going to show them and I am going to give them my 

assumptions that I have had to make. 

What is the strategy to get the public behind us? And what kind 

of strategy do we need to fund something in 2040? Do we step-increase to make up for things, and then do we have a ramp-up, not 

just cost of living but a ramp-up? Because expenditures are going 

to be greater. They did during the Apollo program. 

Now, another question: Do we have a relationship with China? 

It is very significant if we are going to deal with leadership. I don’t 

want to get into a lot of that, but I think if we don’t, if we really 

do, or in between, we shouldn’t do things differently at the Moon. 

We still should build things there so we can build somewhere else. 

But we don’t have to land there. China needs the things we can 

build. We have to exert leadership by working with them in low 

Earth orbit. 

Next July is the 40th anniversary of Apollo-Soyuz. 1975 was 

pretty contentious, in the cold war, much worse than our relations 

with China today. Why did we refuse them to come to our space 

station? It doesn’t make any sense to me. We should be doing that 

sort of thing together, building on, sharing what it is we are doing. 

They have a lot of things to do with the Moon. We can help them 

in their permanence, because it helps us with our permanence at 

Mars. 

Now, if I ask them about asteroid—you can fly it the way it is, 

you can cancel it, or you can do something smart in between. Now, 

if you understand what that smart is in between by sending a robot 

29 

there to an asteroid, then send a crew to it, and on board the crew 

you have an asteroid scientist, a robotic, and they can stay there 

60 days, the combined mission is better than a robot or better than 

a crew mission. 

Don’t these people talk to themselves in Washington? Why do I 

have to come up and say, if you combine the mission, it is a whole 

lot better? 

And you can do it where an asteroid is, like the National Research Council said we should do. But maybe that is not essential. 

I happen to think it is, where you can fly Orion with a long-duration support system. That is what we are going to do when we go 

to L1 or L2. We are going to take an Orion up there, and there is 

going to be a system that lets us stay for much longer. We are 

going to be rotating commercial crews up and down, not just to the 

Space Station, but commercials are going to go to the vicinity of the 

Moon. 

We are going to do these things, and we are going to build. But 

we don’t have to put all the money in building those habitats, because the foreigners are going to want them, and we are going to 

want them there, and we are going to want them at Mars. The foreigners have to land. OK? We are going to develop a very sophisticated landing system, and we are going to be landing so many people at Mars that we can take them along on the first landing. OK? 

Take us along as visitors on your landings. 

Let’s not go broke by doing things back at the Moon, but let’s astutely learn to do things there that do make sense. 

And I think if you ask industry or if you ask government, you 

are going to get a biased answer. But if you ask academia—I am 

looking forward to this poll on significant questions coming back 

from 25 different academic institutions. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you very much. 

And I want to ask one additional question, which is: Each of the 

three of you are learned scientists and national heroes. And if I 

have understood your testimony here today correctly, each of you 

has discussed as a major objective, a grand goal for NASA, going 

to Mars. 

I would ask each of you to take a moment to address the American people and, in your judgment, explain the benefits to America 

and to the world of going to Mars and what will be required to accomplish that objective. 

Colonel CUNNINGHAM. Well, I would start by saying the technology that is required to get us to Mars, such things as radiation 

or finding new velocities and the like to do that, that will create 

the kind of spin-off—we have benefited for 40 years from solving 

the problems that we had to go to the Moon. Some of those were 

started before, but some of it was totally unexpected. You didn’t 

know what was going to come up, but you solved the problem, and 

now it is almost like a cancer in all areas of our industry, and we 

are benefiting from it. 

The most important thing that has to be done is they have to be 

willing to pay the money. I am not optimistic about us being able 

to put the kind of funds out there that out to, because we are busy 

spending money in the government for all kinds of things for which 

30 

there is no return and for all kinds of things which do not really 

inspire people. So I just happen to believe it is a good use of money. 

Colonel ALDRIN. Rarely does a time come along in the advancement of humankind on this planet Earth that we gain the potential 

of really demonstrating to ourselves and to the rest of the people 

the fullest of the challenges. 

We can put together what is necessary to send people to Mars 

in an efficient way. And we can do it by stepping up, by using some 

things at the Moon, but not getting bogged down with a lot of investments that are involved in landing humans, building the rockets to land them, and then storing them. We don’t need to do that 

anymore. We can observe how other people store people there, take 

care of them, but where we want to do that is at Mars. And we 

need to invest in the things to get to Mars. 

If we invest in an ascent stage to go along with the people that 

are going there, it is going to cost more money. Going there with 

the ascent stage interferes with just the lander. By building that 

ascent stage and the return capability, it is taking longer to do that 

in time. 

The cost per person on the surface of Mars is less if they stay 

there. If we start bringing people back—okay, the biggest thing to 

me is all of this thing comes along on Earth, with humanity being 

able to advance, to do all the wondrous things. And it is going to 

cost billions and billions of dollars. And we are going to select some 

human beings to do that, and we are going to train them, and we 

are going to send them there. 

Now, I have gone and come back from a place. Let me ask you, 

what do you think you are going to do with those people that go 

there and bring them back to continue to pay off the investment 

of their being the first, the pioneers, the building up of a growing 

settlement? They can do far more by keeping Mars occupied, helping the new people that come in. You bring them back and they 

can visit different places, but if you broadcast from Mars, you can 

reach everybody in the world, because they are going to be listening in, and you can give them the stories of what you have been 

doing right there while you are there. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the value that we have invested in people from whatever the country is and we have put 

them there on Mars, that is where they need to stay. And they 

need to know and understand that this is their opportunity to serve 

humanity. 

Mr. MASSIMINO. Thank you, sir. 

So, benefits for our American people, what we could get out of 

this, what can we imagine we would get if we were to do this grand 

exploration. 

I think eventually we are going to have to get off of this planet 

or learn how to do it for our own survival. Learning what else is 

out there is great, would help our understanding of where we are 

in the universe, but also just to have another place where we could 

live as another place where we could survive would be a good thing 

for us to have. And so Mars might be that place. So if we decide 

to go there, it is giving us another option. 

And if we would decide to go and do this, can you imagine what 

would be needed, what would be developed in order to get us there? 

31 

If you look back to what we did when we developed the Apollo program and also the shuttle program, all the new technology and the 

spin-offs, and the benefits that came not just for the space program 

but in other industries were tremendous. Now we are going to 

make a giant leap; we are going to go all the way to Mars. Can 

you imagine what would come out of that? 

I think it is also probably going to have some type of international flavor to it—maybe, maybe not. I think the United States 

would be the leaders of that, I would hope, but I think that we 

would also maybe be doing it with some of our friends. So I think 

it would be a great thing for our international cooperation with 

other countries around the world, providing that benefit for us. 

And then I get back to the inspiration. And the inspiration is not 

just because it is a nice thing to do for kids. It is because that is 

where our future is. We are going to depend on these people to take 

care of our planet and build our economy and keep our country 

strong for many, many years. 

They may not all go and become astronauts. Hopefully more people will have that option and keep them interested in the space 

program, but they may not all go on to do that or even work for 

NASA or be involved in it. But I do think that exploration, particularly something like you are describing, going to Mars, would inspire them to stay in school and get their education, and maybe 

they will find something along the way that they like even better 

than space. Maybe it will be better for us for certain students to 

go into medicine or study what they can study in the classroom 

other than going to space. But I certainly think it is going to keep 

their interest, and I think that is kind of an intangible benefit that 

we would get from it, as well. 

But I really see it as an investment in our future, to inspire 

young kids, and also, I think, to help our country, our economy for 

many years to come. I think it would be a glorious thing to do. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator Nelson, do you have any additional questions? 

Well, then I want to thank each of the three of you for coming 

and joining us. This has been a very productive panel. 

And we will conclude this panel and immediately move on to the 

second panel that will start momentarily. 

Colonel ALDRIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CRUZ. OK. The hearing will come to order. 

Now I want to move on to the second panel, and we are fortunate 

to have three very experienced witnesses: Mr. John Elbon, Vice 

President and General Manager of Boeing Space Exploration; Dr. 

Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, the Elliott School 

of International Affairs at George Washington University; and Mr. 

Eric Stallmer, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. 

And we will start with Mr. Elbon. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ELBON, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL MANAGER, BOEING SPACE EXPLORATION 

Mr. ELBON. Thank you. 

32 

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson—always good to see 

you, sir—members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide Boeing’s perspective on U.S. human space exploration goals and commercial space competitiveness. 

I want to applaud you both for your opening comments. That 

spirit of cooperation is heartwarming and absolutely essential to 

our path forward. Thank you very much for that. 

America’s economic growth and competitiveness depend on our 

capacity to innovate, to reach beyond today’s possibilities, stretch 

farther and faster than our competitors around the world. Our future depends on developing the next-generation technologies, but 

more important are the next-generation minds. 

Just as seafaring ships explored and returned to home shores, 

bringing unforeseen discoveries, so too will space-faring nations 

reap the benefits of our investment in exploration. Robots are great 

at helping us scratch the surface, but humans are ultimately needed to truly explore. 

The success that U.S. space missions have achieved and the recognition that these innovations have gained have made the United 

States the most attractive global partner for other nations seeking 

to advance their own space aspirations. This plays a significant 

role in the United States’ soft diplomacy efforts to increase U.S. influence in global affairs and in strengthening our alliances. 

The International Space Station has been orbiting Earth for 

more than 16 years. Astronauts have been continuously living 

aboard the ISS for 14 years, and we have been learning valuable 

lessons about living and working in space in preparation for sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit. 

The ISS is a model for space cooperation, currently counting 15 

nations among the international partnership. Because of the ISS, 

space is an area where international cooperation remains constant 

and serves as a bridge for other diplomatic discussions. 

As a leader and major supporter of the ISS, the United States 

is in a position to supply a vision for space global exploration. With 

the ISS, we have demonstrated an ability to build long-term, 

crewed space habitats effectively. The ISS crews are testing technologies required for deep space and working to understand the effect of extended space travel on the human body. 

What we have found from the development and operation of ISS 

is that large space programs do best when three conditions are 

met: first, industry involvement with wide-ranging expertise; second, long-term, stable government investment; and, third, international cooperation. 

With NASA’s Space Launch System capability, we can apply the 

lessons learned in building and operating the ISS to new endeavors 

in deep space. We must rally a shared commitment to NASA’s vision for the ISS, commercial crew, and super-heavy-lift Space 

Launch System rocket, or we risk losing an important investment 

in the irreplaceable brain trust of decades. 

NASA has the foundation for sending humans farther into the 

solar system than ever before, through the NASA Authorization 

Act of 2012, which this very committee passed. We must continue 

down that path in support of the building blocks that are so important to future success. 

33 

First, we have invested years of brain power and billions of dollars in the International Space Station as a testbed for preparing 

for the next leap. 

Second, we have a commercial space program that ensures U.S.- 

launched crew and cargo transport to ISS. The Boeing CST–100 

spacecraft combines proven design in spaceflight technology with 

modern innovation for a reliable and sustainable crew and cargo 

transportation system. Use of commercial transportation to sustain 

ISS lowers costs and leaves room in NASA’s budget to develop the 

capabilities for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, SLS and Orion. 

And, third, SLS provides unprecedented payload capability that 

can enable human and science deep space missions not previously 

achievable. And last December’s flawless launch of the Orion crew 

capsule returned a great deal of data, which is a huge step toward 

Mars. 

Finally, the world’s space agencies agree that Mars is our ultimate destination. NASA has the programs in place to move down 

the path toward Mars, starting with the International Space Station as a testbed, commercial crew transportation systems to transport crew and cargo to the ISS, and Orion and the SLS for superheavy-lift and crew transportation beyond low-Earth orbit. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today, and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elbon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ELBON, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

BOEING SPACE EXPLORATION

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to provide Boeing’s perspective on U.S. Human Space Exploration Goals and Commercial Space Competitiveness. I am John Elbon, Vice 

President and General Manager, Boeing Space Exploration 

Mr. Chairman, America’s economic growth and competitiveness depend on our capacity to innovate, to reach beyond today’s possibilities and stretch farther, faster 

than our competitors around the world. Our future depends on developing the next 

generation technologies—but more important are the next generation minds. We 

need to inspire scientists, engineers, researchers and technologists everywhere by offering the opportunity to be part of something that transcends known boundaries. 

America needs to reinvigorate that Apollo era passion that changed the world, 

launching new industries and opening new doors into the universe. From everyday 

conveniences like scratch-resistant lenses to world-changing satellite-enabled communications, our lives are better today because of cutting edge NASA research innovations—borne of our drive to explore. Just as seafaring ships explored and returned to home shores, bringing unforeseen discoveries—so, too, will ‘‘spacefaring’’ 

nations reap the benefits of our investment in exploration. Robots are great at helping us scratch the surface of new knowledge. Humans ultimately are needed to truly 

explore—and to pioneer. 

NASA research has certainly met the goal of advancing science and technology innovation. This research has energized a strong U.S. economy, providing growth, security and resiliency. The success that U.S. space missions have achieved, and the 

recognition that these innovations have gained, have made the United States the 

most attractive global partner for other nations seeking to advance their own space 

aspirations. This plays a significant role in the United States’ soft diplomacy efforts 

to increase U.S. influence in global affairs and in strengthening our alliances. 

The international community has aligned with Mars as the ultimate destination, 

and NASA has in place the programs needed to lead us toward that goal. It starts 

with the International Space Station as a national laboratory and testbed for future 

exploration. For affordable crew and cargo resupply to the ISS, NASA has contracted with commercial partners, freeing up funds for NASA to focus on the difficult task of deep space exploration with Orion and Space Launch System as the 

initial capabilities for deep human space exploration capabilities. 

34 

NASA’s extraordinary teams have been breaking new ground for decades, returning with innovations that range from medical advances to commercial wonders, 

using the International Space Station as a unique on-orbit laboratory. The International Space Station has been orbiting Earth for more than 16 years. Astronauts 

have been continuously living aboard the ISS for 14 years. During an average 6- 

month period on the station, as many as 200 investigations operate, with between 

70 and 100 of them being new studies. 

I’d like to spend a minute or two highlighting some of the real science we are seeing from the International Space Station. 

Duchenne (du-shens) Muscular Dystrophy: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy is a 

recessive form of muscular dystrophy that affects over 1 in 3,000 boys (over 

50,000 young males in the U.S. today). Average life expectancy is 25 years. 

Research has been conducted on the ISS to identify a treatment or cure for 

Duchennes Muscular Dystrophy that could lead to identification of a cure due 

to the unique capabilities of the ISS. The ISS enabled researchers to crystallize 

an improved complex structure and an associated water molecule not previously 

known. 

Bone loss: The FDA approved AMGEN’s drug Denosumab in 2010—used for 

treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis and subsequently for treatment of 

bone metastases. Both were developed in partnership with the ISS sciences 

team. 

New Treatment through Ultrasound: ISS astronauts were trained to use portable ultrasound to diagnose issues like broken bones and collapsed lungs that 

might happen on orbit where medical facilities are limited. This same method 

is now being used to train third-world doctors and care providers to treat patients where modern technology is not available. This training has translated 

to treatment of more than 40-thousand patients in underserved countries, like 

Brazil, due to diagnosis through portable ultrasound. 

Closed-Loop Water Recycling on ISS: A closed-loop water recycling system is 

used on the International Space Station. Not only does this include drinking 

water, but it includes recycling sweat, urine and even exhaled water molecules. 

Similar to how we reuse our waste water on board the ISS, schools in third 

world countries are utilizing this technology where fresh water is scarce. A 

school in Morocco’s capitol became the first public facility in May of 2014 to use 

this type of recycling system that reuses urine and waste water. 

The system relies on a set of organic and ceramic membranes with holes just 

one ten-thousandth of a millimeter in diameter, which is 700 times thinner than 

a strand of human hair. These tiny pores can filter out unwanted compounds 

in water, including nitrate—a problematic pollutant that comes from agriculture 

fertilizers. 

Targeted method of chemotherapy drug delivery; clinical breast cancer trials now 

in development: This treatment has the potential to change the landscape for 

how we address cancer—a devastating illness that has touched many of our 

lives. 

Patients who suffer through invasive cancer treatment can endure ravaging side 

effects, including nausea, immune suppression, hair loss and even organ failure, 

in hopes of eradicating cancerous tissues in the body. If treatments target a patient’s cancerous tissues, it could provide clinicians with an alternative to lessen 

the delivery of toxic levels of chemotherapy or radiation. 

Aboard the ISS, a particular series of research investigations is making further 

advancements in cancer therapy. A process investigated aboard the space station known as microencapsulation is able to more effectively produce tiny, liquid-filled, biodegradable micro-balloons containing specific combinations of concentrated anti-tumor drugs. Using specialized needles, doctors can deliver these 

micro-balloons, or microcapsules, to specific treatment sites within a cancer patient. This kind of targeted therapy may soon revolutionize cancer treatment delivery. 

Imagine the quality of life from such therapies for patients. Remarkably, research that began in space may soon result in such options here on Earth. 

The ISS is also a model for international space cooperation, currently counting 15 

nations among the international team. The ISS and shared launch systems helped 

the United States bridge the diplomatic divide with Russia after the fall of the Soviet government and continues to facilitate the development of an integrated, global 

definition of science and technology policy. 

35 

Because of the ISS, space is an area where international cooperation remains constant and serves as a bridge for other diplomatic discussions. As the leader and 

major supporter of the ISS program positions, the United States is in position to 

supply a vision for global space exploration. 

With the ISS, we have also demonstrated the ability to build and sustain long 

term crewed habitats effectively in space. The crews aboard ISS are testing technologies today that are required for deep space exploration, providing better information about the effects of extended space travel on the human body. In fact, next 

month astronaut Scott Kelly and cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko will fly to the ISS 

and spend one year on-orbit as part of a study that will help us to understand the 

effects of long-duration, off-planet exposure to our astronauts in preparation for 

even longer spaceflights to Mars. 

NASA has further enabled this path forward by turning over to private industry 

the routine business of crew and cargo transport for the ISS while NASA concentrates on the development of deep space systems. Two contracts were awarded 

last September to U.S. companies to provide crewed transportation to and from the 

ISS starting in 2017. In addition, commercial companies submitted proposals in December of last year for the follow-on commercial cargo contract, which will be 

awarded this summer. 

Boeing is proud once again to partner with NASA to provide crewed services to 

the ISS. With a heritage dating back from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo to our more 

recent history on the Space Shuttle, we have a commercial space program in work 

that promises to not only secure affordable crew and cargo transport to ISS, but to 

build an even more robust—unparalleled—aerospace capability for America. The 

Boeing CST 100 spacecraft combines proven design and spaceflight technology with 

modern innovation for a reliable and sustainable crew and cargo transportation system. 

By leveraging these commercial contracts to support the ISS, NASA is focusing 

investment in the Orion and Space Launch System, which are critical elements in 

the future exploration architecture. The December flight test of the Orion crew capsule was flawless, and returned a great deal of data—a huge first step toward Mars. 

The next test flight for Orion will be on top of the Space Launch System (SLS) for 

Exploration Mission 1. The SLS provides unprecedented payload capability that can 

enable human and science deep space missions not previously achievable. We are 

building the hardware, testing the hardware and production tooling, and installing 

ground operations for a rocket that will deliver nine times the thrust of the largest 

private rocket. It is designed to transport the mass and volume necessary to 

affordably build such an outpost, while safely launching crew deeper into space. 

A whole new generation of engineers are building. . .side by side with experienced space veterans . . . this next generation rocket. 

But you can’t build the world’s biggest, fastest, most capable rocket with only existing technology. We’re also applying innovative approaches to the business, the 

technology, and the people. 

• We are relying on the very best of Boeing and NASA engineers to execute parallel rocket configuration/design with design and installation of the manufacturing facilities. We tapped into the vast resources across the Boeing enterprise 

to create the most experienced design team. 

• By partnering in new ways between engineering and manufacturing we reduced 

the manufacturing facility footprint and workforce required in assembly & operations. We are using fewer, larger tools to build the rocket by making them 

multi-use. That cuts down on facility footprint, tooling cost, and workforce required for production. But that also means efficient low rate production (which 

aligns with NASA funding). 

• Using an affordability-driven engineering approach, engineers started with existing hardware and capability to leverage as much as possible current taxpayer 

investment in space programs. They then innovated to incorporate that hardware to the greatest degree possible, consistently making engineering trades to 

optimize capability while managing cost and schedule commitments. 

This rocket opens doors we’ve never seriously considered in the past. For the first 

time in 40 years, the Orion and Space Launch System (SLS) projects will allow astronauts to leave low Earth orbit and completely escape Earth’s gravitational field— 

ultimately opening the door to landing humans on Mars. 

Last year, a congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council 

recommended that the United States pursue a disciplined ‘‘pathway’’ approach that 

encompassed executing a specific sequence of intermediate accomplishments and 

destinations leading to the ‘‘horizon goal’’ of putting humans on Mars. The success 

36 

of this approach requires a steadfast commitment, international collaboration and 

a consistent budget that aligns with our Nation’s human exploration goals. 

We cannot abdicate our place in human spaceflight to other countries that ARE 

willing to step up, to set aside differences, and align around a path forward. All the 

right building blocks are in place, right now, for success. NASA’s industry team is 

leveraging decades of knowledge, hardware, and infrastructure so we can save 

money and begin with a proven, reliable baseline. NASA is laying the foundation 

for taking the next important step—human exploration beyond the Moon and to 

Mars. It is that vision that awakens the explorer in all of us. 

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Committee, thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify here today and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Elbon. 

Dr. Pace? 

STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT PACE, DIRECTOR, SPACE POLICY 

INSTITUTE, ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Dr. PACE. Thank you, sir. 

Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson, members 

of this Committee. It is an honor to follow the previous panel, and 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the important topic of the 

future of human spaceflight. 

While space touches every aspect of modern life, I would like to 

focus on human space exploration, as that topic is the one whose 

future is most in doubt today. 

This is unfortunate, as human space activities are among the 

most interdisciplinary of enterprises, requiring skills from every 

field of technical endeavor. Their successful accomplishment requires a degree of system engineering skill found only in the most 

complex and demanding programs. The ability and willingness of 

a nation to lead such endeavors conveys much about the nature 

and intentions of that society. 

It is my argument that international space cooperation, space 

commerce, and international space security discussions could be 

used to reinforce each other in ways that would advance U.S. interests and the sustainability and security of all space activities. At 

present, however, these activities are largely conducted on their individual merits and are not part of an integrated national strategy. 

International space cooperation is not an end in itself but a 

means of advancing national interests. Those interests can be for 

security, commerce, science, international influence, or any combination thereof. A human space exploration effort driven by geopolitical interests and objectives would provide and does provide 

the historic model and rationale, I believe, for the United States. 

The next steps beyond low Earth orbit will require international 

partners for practical and political reasons. Therefore, it makes 

sense to ask what our partners would like to do and what they are 

capable of doing in the future. The answer is: the Moon, with Mars 

and other destinations in the distance. A U.S. commitment now to 

lead a multinational program to explore the Moon would be a symbolic and practical first step as well as a means of creating a broad 

international framework for space cooperation. 

At the same time, the geopolitical benefits of improving relations 

with growing space powers through greater U.S. engagement could 

37 

support more ambition space exploration efforts than science alone 

might justify. 

On the commercial side, providing cargo delivery, for example, to 

the lunar surface would be an attractive post-ISS market for U.S. 

industry. The volume and duration of that market would be enormously more attractive to industry than the ISS alone could ever 

be. 

The Moon is not just a physical destination but also a means of 

answering questions, creating capabilities, training organizations, 

and forging new relationships that serve the interests of the United 

States and its allies. 

Through authorization and appropriation bills, the Congress 

should provide clear direction for NASA on an exploration mission 

for the 2018–2025 timeframe, as SLS, Orion, and other exploration 

systems currently under development begin operation. 

The Congress should, in my view, direct NASA to develop mission concepts for an international return to the Moon with privatesector partners, in anticipation of a new administration in 2017. 

The United States is crucially reliant on space systems, and the 

future sustainability and governance of space activities are key 

strategic interests for us. If we are to have an effective American 

space strategy, we need to align our policies, programs, and budget 

priorities with enduring national interests, for that will be the way 

they will be sustainable. 

This means looking beyond individual missions and seeking to 

determine what future humanity might have beyond the Earth and 

what values will be part of that future. I would like those values 

to include the things we value today: democracy, human rights, 

rule of law, free markets. The rules on a frontier are made by the 

people who show up, not by the people who stay behind. And if 

those values are to be on a human future in space, then we need 

to be there to ensure them. 

I close with a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes. Quoting, ‘‘I find 

the great thing in the world is not so much where we stand as in 

what direction we are moving. We must sail sometimes with the 

wind, sometimes against it. But we must sail and not drift nor lie 

at anchor.’’ 

We need the confidence to choose what course offers the greatest 

advantage to our Nation and our values. And for that, I commend 

this hearing today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pace follows:] 

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

ELLIOTT SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Committee, for providing an opportunity to discuss the important topic of the future of 

human spaceflight and the strategic national interests served by international leadership in such endeavors. My testimony today is based on previous writings and 

presentations, most notably, my 2014 Durand Lectureship in Public Services sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 

American Space Strategy Adrift 

I would like to talk to you today about American space strategy and the choices 

before us. Space activities today play critical roles in U.S. national security, economic growth, and scientific achievements. Satellite communications link the world. 

38 

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is an integral part of several critical infrastructures, and enables functions ranging from survey and construction, to farming, 

finance, and air traffic management—not to mention critical support to U.S. military forces worldwide. Less well understood is that the GPS time signal provides 

a global time base for encrypted communications—including point-of-sale transactions. Without GPS, much of today’s economy would come to a halt. We have rovers on the surface of Mars, and a probe that has left the solar system. The International Space Station represents a unique collaborative partnership between the 

United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia. New national entrants, some of 

them potential adversaries, may pose risks to the long-term sustainability and security of space activities as a result of increasing orbital debris and the proliferation 

of space capabilities. 

While space touches every aspect of modern life, I would like to focus on human 

space exploration, as that topic is the one whose future is most in doubt today. This 

is unfortunate, as human space activities are among the most interdisciplinary of 

enterprises, requiring skills from every field of technical endeavor. Their successful 

accomplishment requires a degree of systems engineering skill found only in the 

most complex and demanding programs. The ability and willingness of a nation to 

lead such endeavors conveys much about the nature and intentions of that society. 

Thus, human spaceflight continues to possess enormous symbolic value, leading directly to important political, economic, and scientific consequences, both domestically and internationally. Human spaceflight is therefore a matter of considerable 

interest to policymakers, and should be. 

It is my argument that international space cooperation, space commerce, and 

international space security discussions could be used to reinforce each other in 

ways that would advance U.S. interests in the sustainability and security of all 

space activities. At present, however, these activities are largely conducted on their 

individual merits and not as part of an integrated national strategy. I will return 

to this point later. 

The International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) is a coordination mechanism among the major space agencies created in response to the Bush 

Administration’s Vision for Space Exploration. The ISECG has been able to combine 

previously separate ‘‘Moon First’’ or ‘‘Asteroid First’’ approaches for going to Mars 

into a single scenario where cislunar space is the next step for human explorations 

beyond low Earth orbit. This is a major accomplishment, in that it has been the inconstancy of U.S. policy choices that have made attaining an international consensus so difficult in recent years. 

The central elements of the current U.S. approach toward human spaceflight are 

found in the President’s 2010 National Space Policy, which says that the NASA Administrator shall ‘‘set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed 

missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid.’’ This declaration came as a surprise to domestic and international space communities, following 

as it did upon the heels of two prior Congressional Authorizations Acts in 2005 and 

2008 in which a human return to the Moon was specifically set forth as the next 

focus of U.S. space exploration. The international space community in particular, 

which had been shifting attention to the Moon as the completion of the International Space Station (ISS) drew near, felt blindsided. Countries in Asia, such as 

Japan, India, China, and South Korea, saw the Moon as a challenging but feasible 

destination for robotic exploration and a practical focus for human space exploration, a goal offering missions in which they could reasonably expect to play a part. 

The lack of U.S. support during the present Administration for a program to return 

to the Moon made it difficult for advocates of human space exploration in the United 

States, Europe, Japan, India, and elsewhere to gain funding for any efforts beyond 

the ISS. 

While the United States continues to be officially uninterested in leading a human 

return to the Moon, the Moon is the next logical target for all of our potential international partners. Russia has made several presentations at various international 

conferences endorsing human missions to the Moon. China has not made an official 

decision to send humans to the Moon, but is proceeding with a steadily advancing 

robotic program that is putting in place the technical pieces necessary to conduct 

more ambitious missions when they so choose. They have landed a nuclear-powered 

rover on the Moon, unveiled designs for a Saturn 5-class heavy-lift launch vehicle, 

and are building a space station that will be open to international participation. 

Growing space powers such as the Republic of Korea and India have their own unmanned lunar ambitions, and even the private sector is looking to the exploitation 

of lunar as well as asteroid resources. 

Europe is more cautious about human missions to deep space. They would almost 

certainly join in a U.S.-led effort, but would not lead one without us. Unfortunately, 

39 

1The White House and NASA announced on January 8, 2014 that the United States would 

extend its participation in the ISS until at least 2024. 

there is no real U.S. plan or intent for human space exploration beyond the International Space Station, as there is no longer any real funding or any defined architecture for such endeavors. There is, however, a clear policy to create new U.S. providers of cargo and crew services to low Earth orbit to replace government capabilities. Using the ISS as an early market, the hope is that these new providers can 

provide lower cost services to meet government needs, be able also to compete for 

non-government payloads, stimulate new demand with lower prices, and thus contribute to U.S. economic growth. Cargo capability has been demonstrated, while 

crew capabilities are a work in progress. In addition, cost reductions are not yet evident in out-year projections of ISS funding needs. 

There are risks in the current U.S. approach to human spaceflight. The United 

States finds itself reliant on the economic success of private service providers, and, 

through the intergovernmental agreements pertaining to the International Space 

Station our partners must now share this reliance. The companies themselves are 

also at risk. Should there be a ‘‘bad day’’ on the Station, this would be not only a 

disaster for NASA, but would also put an end to the near-term market for the socalled ‘‘commercial crew and cargo’’ companies. It would be very difficult to restart 

a U.S. human spaceflight effort without the pull of either the ISS partnership or 

the follow-on goal of a lunar return, and it is unlikely that private firms would, or 

even could, recreate a human spaceflight capacity without U.S. government demand 

and support. 

Even assuming no accidents with the ISS, it will likely be impossible to operate 

the facility beyond 2028 due to life limitations on crucial station elements, obsolescence, and a lack of replacement parts. Political commitments may fade even earlier, 

as there is not yet a consensus among the partners to operate the facility beyond 

2020.1 Without commitments from the partners, it will continue to be difficult to induce scientific investigators to invest years of their career in carrying out an experiment which might fly once, if at all, before the facility is closed. And despite the 

promise of space tourism, it is also unlikely that the market will be large enough 

and stable enough by 2020 to replace the demand for human spaceflight now generated by the ISS partnership and NASA in particular. 

Human space exploration and U.S. human spaceflight for the next decade will 

continue to be driven by U.S. space policy as reflected in the NASA budget. That 

budget is itself a political choice—it is a reflection of what we value as a society. 

NASA’s budget has been declining in constant dollar terms for decades. If NASA 

today had the same budget in constant dollars that it did in 1992, it would be $24 

billion. To the question of affordability, it should be understood that—in constant 

dollars—the Administration’s stimulus program was greater than NASA’s budget 

from 1958 to 2008. To emphasize: the United States sent humans to the Moon, built 

and operated a Space Shuttle fleet for 30 years, completed the initial robotic exploration of the solar system, built and operated several space telescopes, and contributed its share of the International Space Station for less than the cost of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

That being said, fiscal limits are real and harsh. The performance requirements 

for getting humans safely to other worlds remain constant and demanding. As budgets are pushed down, schedules slip and risks increase. We cannot, however, focus 

solely on cost, as funds spent on any space activity have to compete successfully 

against other budgetary demands. If we are to sustain discretionary expenditures 

for civil space exploration, we must develop a clearer rationale linking such efforts 

to national interests that can be supported in a bipartisan manner over many years. 

In the absence of any larger strategic context for a human spaceflight program, ambitious mission concepts are insufficient to justify the required levels of effort. 

Budget Volatility 

There is a line from the movie ‘‘The Right Stuff’’ in which the actor playing Gordon Cooper says: ‘‘You boys know what makes this bird go up? FUNDING makes 

this bird go up.’’ I would go further and say: ‘‘What creates funding? Bipartisan support creates funding.’’ 

Bipartisan agreement was reached in the aftermath of the tragic loss of the Space 

Shuttle Columbia that the United States should continue to explore beyond Earth 

orbit, returning to the Moon and then voyaging to Mars. President Bush called the 

Vision for Space Exploration ‘‘a journey, not a race’’ and one that would not be done 

by the United States in competition with other nations, but in partnership with 

them. The Congress passed two successive NASA authorization bills in FY 2005 and 

FY 2008 with strong bipartisan majorities endorsing this direction. 

40 

The Obama Administration decision to overturn that consensus led to the protracted battle over the FY 2010 NASA Authorization Act. The future of human 

spaceflight and the role of U.S. leadership were at the center of the debate between 

Congress and the White House. The result of this conflict was budget volatility as 

well as policy uncertainty, two factors that have burdened the U.S. human 

spaceflight effort for several years now. In addition to the flawed policy direction 

of focusing on an asteroid mission in the near term and an unknown path to Mars 

in the long term, the Administration’s unstable budget requests for NASA have created immense challenges for the Agency’s managers, scientists, and engineers. As 

an illustration of budget volatility, see Figure 1 below. It shows enacted budgets for 

NASA as well as the five-year budget request for FY 2010–20016. The FY 2010 

budget had a ‘‘pause’’ in human spaceflight in the out-years while the Augustine 

Committee was working. The FY 2010 budget top-line returned but internal Agency 

priorities were greatly different, leading to the conflicts with Congress. FY 2011 saw 

a dramatic drop and flattening of the NASA budget request, creating more uncertainty for planning. The situation worsened in FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014— 

leading to the wry comment at NASA that ‘‘flat is the new up.’’ This year, the FY 

2016 request shows a significant increase, but without changes in policy priorities 

to know if this change will be stable going forward. 

Figure 1—NASA Enacted Budgets and Presidential Budget Requests FY 2010–16 

Global Space Competition 

The uncertainty and drift attending human spaceflight efforts today have consequences beyond our borders. Working in a school of international affairs, it is easy 

to see the importance of cross-national ‘‘functional’’ issues such as security, trade, 

development, and technology to U.S. foreign policy. Of particular importance are debates over areas beyond traditional definitions of sovereignty, such as the high seas, 

international air space, the Polar Regions, space, and cyberspace. These are today’s 

frontiers, and are thus areas of potential conflict and cooperation among state and 

non-state entities that impact U.S. interests. As with past frontiers, it is those who 

show up, not those who stay home, who create the rules and establish the norms 

in new areas of human activity. 

In a world in which space capabilities are increasingly global, no one state will 

be in a position to impose rules unilaterally for the exploration and development of 

space. Similarly, the diversity of competing national interests in space make it unVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE

224PACE1.eps
41 

likely that a single international space authority or even a new space treaty will 

emerge anytime soon. Thus, the task for the United States, if it wishes to influence 

how space is developed and utilized, is to create attractive projects and frameworks 

in which other nations choose to align themselves, and their space activities with 

us, as opposed to others. Just as the United States shaped the postwar world with 

a range of international institutions, so we should look to the creation of new arrangements to advance our interests, values and freedoms in space. 

There is nothing inevitable about U.S. leadership in space unless we make it so. 

I attended the International Astronautical Congress in Beijing in 2013. As might 

be expected, U.S., Russian, and Indian attendance was light. Nonetheless, the Chinese did a good job hosting the conference with welcoming remarks from Li 

Yuanchao, Vice President of the People’s Republic of China, and a display of their 

three-man Shenzhou 10 capsule. There were also displays of Brazilian, Ukrainian, 

and South African cooperation with China, and one could easily see what a global 

space community might look like without the United States. It was in effect a picture of a post-American space world, with a full range of manned and unmanned 

space activities, but without American leadership or even, in many cases, an American presence. 

China is planning to deploy its own space station in less than a decade, about 

the same time that the International Space Station may be ending. If China is able 

to offer pragmatic opportunities for space cooperation on its own space station or 

as part of efforts to send humans to the Moon, and the United States cannot, then 

other countries will likely find it attractive to forge closer relationships with China. 

Such a shift in international space influence away from the United States and toward China will, no doubt, impact a wide range of U.S. national security and foreign 

policy interests, both in space and in other arenas. 

The United States retains several advantages in space, however. We have decades 

of experience and close relationships with almost every spacefaring nation on a wide 

range of projects. The entrepreneurial energy of the private U.S. space community, 

both large and small, is a source of admiration by and occasional puzzlement to the 

international space community. At the same time, a proud history and a nascent 

private industry cannot alone substitute for national and international leadership 

in space, and likely cannot survive, much less thrive without it. Both international 

cooperation and private sector initiative are necessary aspects of any effective American strategy in space, but are not by themselves sufficient. A focused national strategy is also needed to provide a coherent context for both cooperative agreements and 

private ventures. 

Choosing a Direction 

It is crucial to remember that international space cooperation is not an end in 

itself, but a means of advancing national interests. Those interests can be for security, commerce, science, international influence, or any combination thereof. A 

human space exploration effort driven by geopolitical interests and objectives provides the historic model and rationale for the United States. The United States undertook the Apollo program in the 1960s to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon as 

part of a global competition for Cold War prestige. The Apollo-Soyuz program symbolized a brief period of de ́tente in the 1970s. The Space Station program was established in the 1980s, in part, to bring the developing space capabilities of Europe and 

Japan closer to the United States and to strengthen anti-Soviet alliances. Russia 

was invited to join a restructured International Space Station in the 1990s to symbolize a new post-Cold War, post-Soviet relationship with Russia. 

The next steps beyond low Earth orbit will require international partners for 

practical and political reasons. Therefore, it makes sense to ask what our partners 

would like to do, and what they are capable of doing in the future. The answer is 

the Moon—with Mars and other destinations in the distance. A U.S. commitment 

now, to lead a multinational program to explore the Moon would be a symbolic and 

practical first step as well as a means of creating a broader international framework 

for space cooperation. At the same time, the geopolitical benefits of improving relations with growing space powers through greater U.S. engagement could support 

more ambitious space exploration efforts than science alone might justify. Providing 

commercial cargo delivery to the lunar surface would be an attractive post-ISS market for U.S. industry; the volume and duration of that market would be enormously 

more attractive to industry than that for the ISS could ever be. The Moon is not 

just a destination, but also a means of answering questions, creating capabilities, 

training organizations, and forging new relationships to serve the interests of the 

United States and its allies. 

The United States is crucially reliant on space systems, and the future sustainability and governance of space activities are key strategic interests for us. U.S. 

42 

2 Adapted from The Hay Bulletin, Issue 34, The John Hay Initiative, February 12, 2015, p. 7 

human space exploration today is ‘‘capability driven,’’ with ambitious goals in the 

distance that are not well connected to other national interests, notably in international relations and commerce. If we are to have an effective American space 

strategy, we need to align our policies, programs, and budget priorities with enduring national interests. This means looking beyond individual missions and seeking 

to determine what future humanity might have beyond the Earth, and what values 

will be part of that future. I would like those values to include the things we value 

today—democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and free markets. 

I will close with a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. ‘‘I find the great thing 

in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving— 

we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it—but we must sail, 

and not drift, nor lie at anchor.’’ We need the confidence to choose what course offers the greatest advantage to our Nation and our values. 

Thank you. 

Comments on the President’s FY 2016 Budge Request for NASA 2

The President’s FY 2016 budget request contains a 7 percent ($74 billion) increase 

over the FY 2015 Omnibus spending level, with NASA receiving $18.5 billion—a 

nearly $500 million increase above the FY15 Omnibus and nearly $1 billion above 

the President’s budget request last year. 

The proposed increase to NASA’s budget largely benefits two of the Obama Administration’s top priorities: Earth Science (+175M) and Commercial Crew development subsidies (+438M). These increases come at the expense of Exploration systems under development, including the super heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) 

and the exploration crew spacecraft, Orion, which completed a successful inaugural 

test flight in December 2014. 

The proposed cuts to SLS and Orion almost directly correspond with the budget’s 

nearly half billion jump in funding for the Commercial Crew program. In September 

2014, NASA announced the selection of Boeing and SpaceX to continue development 

of spacecraft for crew launches to the International Space Station by 2017–2018. 

Congress has repeatedly sought to constrain spending for this program and to narrow the number of program participants. SLS and Orion are the systems that will 

enable human exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit. Of particular concern 

are potential reductions to the funding of SLS core stages that would further delay 

the program and increase total costs. 

Overall, space technology budgets fare well in this year’s request: the budget 

again proposes a $128+ increase to the Space Technology mission directorate and 

the Advanced Exploration Systems account, which funds exploration systems like 

habitat and landers, receives an increase of $48 million. While modest, funding for 

AES is important to ensure that systems are developed which leverage NASA’s SLS 

and Orion capabilities enabling a return to the surface of the Moon. 

For the third year, the budget continues to propose funding for an Asteroid Redirect Mission, which has been widely panned by the Congress, the scientific community, and NASA’s international partners. The administration is again proposing to 

divert funding in the Advanced Exploration Systems and Space Technology accounts 

to pay for this mission. 

The budget also continues efforts by the administration to cut programs favored 

by Congressional stakeholders, like Planetary Science and Aeronautics. Both programs are cut by approximately $80+ million relative to the recently enacted FY 

2015 Omnibus. 

Although the President’s budget violates sequestration budget caps and makes 

unrealistic assumptions about new revenue to allow for increases in discretionary 

spending, the topline increase for NASA is welcome and should be encouraged within the allocation provided by the House and Senate budget resolutions. Republicans 

and Democrats in Congress both approved funding for NASA that was well above 

the President’s request last year and should be encouraged to prioritize investments 

in the space program. For example, the Congress should enforce balance in the 

science portfolio to ensure that programs like Planetary Science and Earth Science 

receive funding consistent with their scientific merit. 

The appropriations process should prioritize investments in NASA’s Exploration 

program by fully funding SLS, Orion and Advanced Exploration Systems, while restricting spending on the Asteroid Redirect Mission. A heavy-lift capability of 130 

mT (e.g., Saturn V class) is highly beneficial for a human return to the Moon and 

a necessity for eventual human missions to Mars. Lacking such a capability would 

43 

mean doing multiple orbital assembly flights at substantial additional cost and risk. 

The upper stage necessary to reach the 130 mT capability continues to be underfunded. 

As a possible offset to the administration’s proposed increase for Commercial 

Crew, Congress could direct NASA to adopt a ‘‘leader-follower’’ approach with the 

final level of funding provided for the program. Under this approach, NASA would 

provide full funding to the primary crew award winner to ensure the development 

of domestic access to ISS by 2017, while the second crew system would come online 

later, pending the availability of resources and the progress made by the ‘‘leader’’ 

and an evaluation of the market for these services. 

Through authorization and appropriations bills, Congress should provide clear direction for NASA on an exploration mission for the 2018–2025 time-frame as SLS, 

Orion, and other exploration systems currently under development begin operations. 

The Congress should direct NASA to focus on the mission concepts for an international return to Moon, with private sector partners, in anticipation of a new Administration in 2017. 

SCOTT PACE

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

Practice of International Affairs at George Washington University’s Elliott School of 

International Affairs. His research interests include civil, commercial, and national 

security space policy, and the management of technical innovation. From 2005– 

2008, he served as the Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation at NASA. 

Prior to NASA, Dr. Pace was the Assistant Director for Space and Aeronautics 

in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). From 1993– 

2000, Dr. Pace worked for the RAND Corporation’s Science and Technology Policy 

Institute (STPI). From 1990 to 1993, Dr. Pace served as the Deputy Director and 

Acting Director of the Office of Space Commerce, in the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Commerce. He received a Bachelor of Science degree 

in Physics from Harvey Mudd College in 1980; Masters degrees in Aeronautics & 

Astronautics and Technology & Policy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982; and a Doctorate in Policy Analysis from the RAND Graduate School 

in 1989. 

Dr. Pace received the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in 2008, the U.S. Department of State’s Group Superior Honor Award, GPS Interagency Team, in 2005, 

and the NASA Group Achievement Award, Columbia Accident Rapid Reaction 

Team, in 2004. He has been a member of the U.S. Delegation to the World 

Radiocommunication Conferences in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007. He was also a 

member of the U.S. Delegation to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Telecommunications Working Group, 1997–2000. He is a past member of the Earth 

Studies Committee, Space Studies Board, National Research Council and the Commercial Activities Subcommittee, NASA Advisory Council. Dr. Pace is a former 

member of the Board of Trustees, Universities Space Research Association, a Corresponding Member of the International Academy of Astronautics, and a member 

of the Board of Governors of the National Space Society. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Pace. And I would note that in an 

afternoon where we are listening to learned scientists, as a lawyer, 

I appreciate your throwing a Supreme Court justice in there. 

Mr. Stallmer? 

STATEMENT OF ERIC W. STALLMER, PRESIDENT, 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION 

Mr. STALLMER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Subcommittee and staff. I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to testify as 

President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. 

CSF is an industry association of leading businesses and organizations working to make commercial spaceflight a reality. NASA 

and the commercial sector are partners in America’s great national 

44 

enterprise in space. Since the dawn of the space program, cooperation between the government and the private sector has been critical to our tremendous accomplishments in space. 

This cooperation continues to enable us to achieve great things, 

but the relationship has evolved over time. The relationship that 

once defined the United States’ nascent space program have given 

way to a more modern and innovative approaches to procure a wide 

variety of necessary capabilities and services. 

My written testimony provides detailed examples of these successful commercial partnerships, but I would like to quickly highlight a few of these areas where this new alliance has helped move 

our Nation’s space exploration goals forward and areas where we 

can help with it in the future. 

The pioneering COTS and CRS programs have led to affordable 

and robust domestic cargo access to the International Space Station, increasing its utilization for scientific research, technology, 

and development. A variation of this model is being applied in the 

Commercial Crew Program, which is developing safe, reliable, and 

also domestic access to and from low Earth orbit for our astronauts. 

Finally, private companies are working on building a variety of 

capabilities to help explore destinations beyond low Earth orbit, of 

which NASA should leverage this support in its future exploration 

efforts. Further expansion of the commercial spaceflight industry 

will create a self-reinforcing ecosystem that will make space ours, 

and it will enhance and strengthen our leadership in space. 

For the past 6 months, I have made it my priority to personally 

visit all of our member companies all over this great country of 

ours, from Midland to Mohave, from Seattle and the Florida space 

coast, and here is what I have seen: U.S. suborbital companies are 

leading the development of reusable vehicles, creating versatile 

platforms to service diverse markets for research, space tourism, 

education, and other applications. Orbital providers are increasing 

access to space for a wide variety of customers, including small-sat, 

national security payloads, and geostationary communications satellites. 

This is a positive trend for the United States. After decades of 

decline, we are finally recapturing market share in the commercial 

launch sector. In order to support the growth in the launch activities, states, I should say, states have been competitively investing 

in commercial space supports to ensure their state economies have 

a key role in this 21st century business. 

Finally, within our grasp in space are nearly limitless resources 

of great commercial value here on Earth. These resources can also 

be used to help us press onward as explorers deep into the cosmos. 

Several companies are working to unlock these resources. 

As you can see from this growing commercial ecosystem, it is not 

a surprise that we are experiencing private sector investment unlike anything we have seen in history. But to continue this 

progress, we need thoughtful commercial procurement policies and 

regulatory certainty. Congress must set policies that encourage 

growth and innovation in the industry and maintain the U.S. space 

sector’s competitive advantage. 

45 

As you prepare to reauthorize the Commercial Space Launch Act, 

you can help provide critical updates: extending the regulatory 

learning period that helps our industry innovate rapidly toward 

ever safer vehicles in practice; solidifying launch indemnification, 

which is critical to the competitiveness of our launch industry in 

the global marketplace; and addressing the questions of how to 

handle government astronauts in commercial vehicles and so forth. 

These and other important issues are addressed in my written 

testimony. Codifying these policies increase our global competitiveness, promote industry growth, and strengthen our Nation’s industrial space base and keep the United States at the forefront of 

space technology. 

The commercial space sector is and will continue to be a valuable 

partner in America’s ever more ambitious missions to expand our 

reach in space. I have three young children who regularly ask me, 

‘‘Daddy, when can we go to space?’’ And I am confident, from working in this industry, that the answer is, ‘‘Very soon.’’ 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallmer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC W. STALLMER, PRESIDENT, 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this hearing and for providing me the opportunity to testify 

as President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. The Commercial Spaceflight 

Federation (CSF) is the industry association of leading businesses and organizations 

working to make commercial spaceflight a reality. Our mission is to promote the development of commercial spaceflight, pursue ever higher levels of safety, and share 

best practices and expertise throughout the industry. 

I hope to provide three main take-aways from my testimony today providing insight on the sector’s past, it’s present, and how lessons learned from these eras can 

be applied to the future for the growth of America’s space program. 

First, NASA and the commercial sector are partners in America’s ‘‘great national 

enterprise’’ in space. Since the dawn of the space program, the partnership between 

government and the private sector has been a testament to our accomplishments in 

space. The partnerships early in the U.S. space program were different than the 

partnerships we see and encourage today, but this is owed to the evolution of our 

Nation’s space program and the continued evolvement from both parties. Later in 

my testimony, I will discuss successful commercial partnerships and how these can 

be applied to our Nation’s space exploration goals moving forward. 

Second, further expansion beyond the government will create an ecosystem that 

will make space ours, and will enhance and strengthen U.S. leadership in space. 

Many of CSF’s member companies are working to push Earth’s economic sphere outward from Low-Earth orbit and beyond. Suborbital platforms will provide an avenue 

for space tourism and research that could not be conceived otherwise. Orbital vehicles will increase utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) for industry 

and research institutions in addition to increasing destinations in low-Earth orbit 

(LEO). Beyond LEO activities span the spectrum from mining celestial bodies for 

resources valuable to Earth to habitats on the Moon. All of these activities and more 

are creating a market in space that will continue to grow. 

Finally, policies must be in place to encourage growth and innovation in the industry and keep the U.S. space sector competitive. Tools such as contracts using 

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) can continue this trending growth. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLA) and export control are other policy 

areas ripe for reform that will shape the advancement for the industry. Later in my 

testimony, I will discuss how Congress and industry can work together on these important policies to encourage progress and not hinder it. 

Public-Private Partnerships 

The Federal Government and the commercial space sector have worked together 

in various capacities since the beginning of America’s space exploration program. 

From Mercury through Apollo, NASA’s success in the space race was not without 

46 

the help of commercial companies such as Bell, North American Aviation, and what 

was then known as the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation. This era saw 

collaboration with industry in which NASA engineers would design the systems and 

competitively bid out portions of the project. While this proved to be a successful 

method for developing specially-designed systems, it has become clear that there are 

a wide variety of necessary capabilities and services that do not fit that template. 

Since the 1990s, a new wave of public-private partnerships has emerged to complement traditional contracting methods. ‘‘Commercial Procurement’’ now allows the 

government to assume the role of customer while still being involved in the development of the system. However, the government is no longer the sole customer and 

its role changes from top-down control to promoting and stimulating the development of commercially-owned capabilities. By spreading costs across multiple users, 

prices can be reduced, saving the government money while also increasing space’s 

economic return. This approach allows NASA and the commercial sector to become 

true partners in America’s ‘‘great national enterprise’’ in space. The public and the 

private sector together will collectively advance our Nation’s reach into the cosmos. 

Suborbital 

The NASA-commercial partnership starts in the shallow waters of space, in the 

suborbital realm. Initiatives such as NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program (FOP) 

use commercial reusable vehicles for technology development that will allow and enable future missions to new destinations, keeping the U.S. at the forefront of exploration technology. In addition to robustly testing new technologies, these platforms 

offer brief access to the space environment for scientific data collection. Many researchers see them as stepping stones to using the International Space Station 

(ISS), increasing its utilization and raising its commercial success. Made In Space, 

a company based out of Silicon Valley, used FOP to test its 3D printers operation 

in microgravity for a fraction of the price of an orbital mission. After testing and 

building confidence on Earth, the company sent one of its printers to the ISS where 

it is currently operating. To date, the company has printed 14 objects from a calibration coupon to a ratchet. This perfectly exemplifies the success of a public-private 

partnership developing technology for future exploration, where astronauts could 

create a spare parts to support ambitious new missions. 

Low-Earth Orbit 

The ISS has been described as the crown jewel of the United States space exploration enterprise; it’s a platform to perform a wide variety of experiments focused 

on life and physical sciences, human research, exploration research, and technology 

development. Almost a decade ago, in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress codified a new agreement between NASA and the U.S. commercial space industry to better achieve the Nation’s space exploration goals together. Congress designated the U.S. segment of the International Space Station a national laboratory, 

no longer the sole domain of NASA, but rather a shared resource to be utilized by 

both the Federal Government and private industry. An excellent example of the ISS 

being used in this fashion is the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (‘‘BEAM’’), 

which will be launched and attached to the ISS later this year. Bigelow Aerospace 

has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in bringing expandable habitat technology to fruition, and, in partnership with NASA, the ISS will be utilized as a platform to demonstrate this vital new technology. Additionally, in anticipation of the 

Space Shuttle’s retirement, Congress directed NASA to partner with the commercial 

space industry to develop cargo transportation capabilities to the International 

Space Station. 

To that end, NASA created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services 

(COTS) Program to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop safe, reliable, and cost-effective transportation capabilities to the ISS and LEO. COTS competitively funded two commercial companies—SpaceX and Orbital ATK—through 

cost-sharing, milestone-based, Space Act Agreements to help develop these capabilities. The program tied payments to the successful completion of contractually agreed 

upon milestones, and incentivized companies to contribute a significant amount of 

their own funds towards development. Following up on the success of the COTS program, NASA entered into a separate set of FAR-based, firm-fixed-price contracts 

with the companies to supply a series of cargo missions to the ISS through at least 

2016. As of last month, 8 resupply missions have successfully been completed, with 

12 more to come. 

The pioneering COTS and CRS partnership has benefited American human 

spaceflight efforts in several ways, including: 

1. Providing timely critical supplies to ISS crew members; 

47 

2. Increasing the utilization of the ISS for research experiments and technology 

development; 

3. Developing affordable, fixed-cost domestic access to the ISS; and providing 

4. Dissimilar redundancy to assure continued critical access through the life of 

the program. 

A variation of this model is being applied in the Commercial Crew Program 

(CCP), which is enabling American companies to develop reliable and cost-effective 

human access to LEO, and will return human launch capabilities back to U.S. soil. 

NASA is currently paying more than $70 million per seat for rides to the ISS for 

our astronauts on Russian Soyuz vehicles, and the price increases every year. Commercial Crew will allow NASA to purchase cost-effective domestic flights for their 

astronauts while eliminating dependence on the Soyuz. These transportation systems will also allow NASA to expand the ISS’ crew size to its planned seven persons, roughly doubling U.S. crew time for utilization. This will allow much more scientific research and technology development activities to be conducted on our national lab. Additionally, with the private sector providing more economical transportation to LEO, NASA’s budgetary resources will be freed up to pursue additional 

avenues for the further exploration of space. 

Beyond Low-Earth Orbit 

As the commercial space industry has taken a larger partnership role in exploring 

LEO, it has enabled NASA to focus on extending human presence beyond LEO. 

NASA has continually stated that the United States’ long-term human exploration 

goal is to send humans to Mars, with precursor missions along the way to prepare 

for trips to the Red Planet. To that end, NASA is building a new heavy lift rocket, 

the SLS, and Orion crew capsule, to take astronauts beyond LEO in the early 2020s. 

The development of a heavy lift launch vehicle and crew capsule are important 

pieces of the United States beyond LEO human exploration plans, but other complementary pieces are needed as well. I’d like to reference NASA Office of Inspector 

General’s 2014 Report on NASA’s Top Management and Performance Challenges on 

this matter. The November 2014 report states: 

‘‘even after the SLS and Orion are fully developed and ready to transport crew, 

NASA will continue to face significant challenges concerning the long-term sustainability of its human exploration program. For example, unless NASA begins 

a program to develop landers and surface systems, NASA astronauts will be 

limited to orbital missions. In the current budget environment, however, it appears unlikely that NASA will obtain significant funding to begin development 

of this additional exploration hardware anytime soon, effectively delaying such 

developments into the 2020s. Given the time and money necessary to develop 

landers and associated systems, it is unlikely that NASA would be able to conduct any manned surface exploration missions until the late 2030s at the earliest.’’ 

I highlight this not because I believe it is a problem for our beyond LEO exploration goals, but rather because I believe it is an opportunity that should be leveraged. While the audit correctly surmises that there is unlikely to be enough resources in the near- or mid-term for NASA to develop a lander and surface systems 

through traditional approaches, it fails to recognize the significant contributions 

that the commercial space industry is making in these areas. Private companies like 

Moon Express, Bigelow Aerospace, Masten Space Systems, and Golden Spike are all 

building capabilities to explore and commercially develop the Moon. These companies, and others, are interested in the Moon because it offers the potential to support near-term opportunities for economic growth. To NASA’s credit, it has begun 

exploring public-private partnerships for beyond LEO exploration via the Advanced 

Exploration Systems (AES) program which is supporting initiatives such as Lunar 

Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (CATALYST). In the FY 

2015 appropriations bill, Congress included language that strongly reaffirmed the 

importance of the private sector contributing landers, habitats, and propulsion systems to beyond LEO human spaceflight through public-private partnerships as is occurring via the AES program. Hardware developed by AES will serve a critical role 

in ensuring that NASA can utilize the transportation capacities of SLS and Orion 

to conduct surface missions to the Moon and eventually Mars. We believe that including the commercial space industry as an early partner in reaching U.S. human 

exploration goals beyond LEO is a logical extension of the successful COTS and CRS 

partnership model proven in LEO, and can help alleviate budgetary constraints and 

compliment the Agency’s investment in its transportation systems. 

48 

1Sugden, John (2011). Nelson: A Dream of Glory. Pimlico. 

2 Cropsey, Seth, & Milikh, Arthur. Mahan’s Naval Strategy: China Learned It. Will America 

Forget it? World Affairs (March/April 2012). 

Commercial companies are also exploring other destinations beyond LEO, like asteroids. For example, Planetary Resources is working to identify, track, analyze, and 

eventually interact with near-Earth asteroids. While these companies and others 

work to supplement NASA programs for exploration, even more importantly, they 

are working to create a sustainable ecosystem in space. NASA continues to play an 

invaluable role in creating early markets for and in the support of American entrepreneurial companies at the edge of competitive technology areas such as spaceflight 

but much more can be done to incubate markets in space. 

To conclude, Congress can further support the growth of the commercial space industry by promoting a true partnership between the Government and private sector. 

Government investment in leading edge launch technologies will remain essential, 

but it is vital to the industry that taxpayer dollars not compete with private investment. The industry acknowledges that decisions regarding when to exit Government 

funded programs and when to rely on commercial capabilities are difficult ones. In 

light of this, the commercial space launch industry would like to maintain an ongoing dialogue with Congress and with the leading U.S. Government R&D agencies 

on the most effective way for government investment to ensure U.S. leadership 

without competing with commercial operators. 

Commercial Space as a Business 

This economic model is not a new one. When one looks through the 20/20 lens 

of history, you will find that a flourishing commercial industry enables the longterm well-being of a nation’s strategic goals. In the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Great Britain was the leader of the open seas. It was home to the largest mercantile marine afloat, more than half a million tons of shipping, and a Royal Navy 

that fielded a force larger than the fleets of Spain and France combined.1 This was 

by design, not accident. By thoughtfully passing maritime laws that encouraged the 

growth of its commercial shipping industry, the British built the crucial foundations 

of a sustainable maritime power: a thriving shipbuilding industry and the maintenance of a pool of experienced seamen. As Alfred Mahan more succinctly put it, a 

thriving commercial shipping industry is the force that naturally produces a healthy 

navy.2

In the 1980s President Reagan and leaders in Congress shared a similar vision 

for American commercial leadership in space. Mr. Chairman, it will probably not 

surprise you that the first commercial launch in the United States was conducted 

in Texas, from Matagorda Island in 1982. Two years later, in 1984, the Reagan Administration created the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and then Congress enacted the Commercial Space Launch Act to centralize the function of licensing and promoting the new commercial space launch industry. Since its establishment, the commercial spaceflight industry has grown tremendously to include a diverse range of companies and applications. The commercial space sector is an 

emerging high-tech industry that has continued to make significant progress in the 

past few years in terms of growth in revenue, employees, and capability. Orbital 

companies such as SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corporation, Blue Origin, and Boeing 

have begun testing their crew vehicles that will fill the gap in U.S. human 

spaceflight capability to LEO. SpaceX has already docked a version of its Dragon 

capsule to the ISS several times under NASA’s CRS program. Additionally, reusable 

technology will have the potential to further disrupt the launch industry to bring 

even more business to U.S. soil. 

U.S. suborbital companies are leading the development of reusable manned vehicles. Virgin Galactic is working on the second version of its SpaceShipTwo vehicle 

and XCOR Aerospace has begun assembling its Lynx suborbital vehicle and is conducting tests on its propulsion system. Blue Origin has also successfully conducted 

a test of its pusher escape system for its orbital and suborbital crew capsule. Late 

last year, the StratEx team broke Felix Baumgartner’s record skydive through technology development and advancements that will be incorporated into World View’s 

future commercial balloon platform. These and other suborbital platforms are gearing up to offer flights to private individuals and researchers, and their scientific, industrial and educational payloads to altitudes that were previously unachievable for 

the everyday consumer. Each month brings new accomplishments for these companies, and each stride forward builds the robust market for research, space tourism, 

education, and other applications. 

Going beyond public-private partnerships with NASA, the commercial launch industry’s activities continue to grow rapidly. In Fiscal Year 2013, Federal Aviation 

49 

Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) licensed and permitted 18 commercial launches, a six-fold increase over the previous year. To support this growth, states have been competitively investing in commercial spaceports 

to ensure their state economies have a key role in this 21st century business. States 

who have developed or are developing commercial spaceports include, Alaska, Texas, 

New Mexico, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and California. These facilities provide competing venues to test equipment, launch orbital and suborbital missions, and train 

crew and spaceflight participants in the types of environments they will experience 

in space. Companies around the country are also supplying spacecraft parts and 

subsystems, ranging from screws and fasteners to environmental control systems, 

engines and spacesuits. 

These and other entrepreneurial activities in the commercial space sector are reinvigorating our space industrial base. Domestic launch competition is lowering the 

cost and increasing the reliability of our access to space, vital for launches needed 

for national security. Additionally, the private sector is working towards replacing 

international dependence for national security, evidenced in the work being done by 

Blue Origin and United Launch Alliance in their BE–4 engine, a replacement for 

the Russian RD–180 engine. 

While strengthening our Nation’s industrial base, the commercial sector is creating new cost-effective applications for exploring space and creating a better life 

for people on Earth. The commercial space industry is creating new opportunities 

for humanitarian applications in addition to commercial business. Planet Labs’ fleet 

of small satellites will be providing daily images of Earth that can be used to evaluate project sites, monitor crops, as well as observe forest fires for early detection 

and warning. Other companies such as OneWeb and SpaceX are planning to provide 

broadband Internet access to even the most rural parts of the world through the 

deployment of affordable small satellite constellations. 

Other companies are looking to use space for resource utilization to further space 

exploration and to better life here on Earth. While the price tags on platinum metal 

groups remain high, they are used to manufacture 1 of 4 goods we use every day, 

from electronics to medical devices. The major sources of these metals are concentrated overseas in regions of Africa and Russia. One company aimed at mining 

asteroids has the potential to increase our access to the resource. Planetary Resources is currently developing a platform to detect and mine platinum-rich asteroids. Just one of these asteroids contains more platinum than has been mined in 

the entire history of humankind. This technology will also play a critical role in detecting near-Earth asteroids in the future for science and the safety of our planet. 

The industry is also providing new opportunities in research, science, and resource utilization. Little is known about the mesosphere, often called the 

‘‘ignorosphere,’’ which lies above the maximum altitude for aircraft and balloons and 

below the minimum altitude for orbital spacecraft. New suborbital reusable platforms that will come online in the next few years will provide access for in-situ data 

for this portion of our atmosphere, allowing us to increase our understanding of phenomena such as red sprites and noctilucent clouds that occur in that realm. 

Finally, the commercial space industry itself is creating thousands of high-tech 

jobs in the U.S. In addition, the sector is creating a renewed interest in STEM careers. The industry is exciting the next generation and allowing them to personally 

participate in the Nation’s journey into space. With new commercial space platforms, students can build and fly their experiments into space on suborbital platforms, build and launch their own satellites, and even use flight hardware already 

in space for classroom projects. Inspiring the next generation is inspiring our future 

problem-solvers and the entrepreneurs that will shape our lives in the coming years. 

As Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and Blue Origin, so eloquently put it: 

‘‘Millions of people were inspired by the Apollo Program. I was five years old 

when I watched Apollo 11 unfold on television, and without any doubt it was 

a big contributor to my passions for science, engineering, and exploration.’’ 

In order to continue this trend of technological advancement, we must provide the 

best possible environment for the burgeoning commercial space sector. 

Policy 

Other Transaction Authority 

Policies that have shown success in the past should continue to be used to encourage growth and success in the future. The COTS model, which enjoyed bipartisan 

support under NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, is representative of the successful 

public-private partnership that uses mechanisms to encourage private sector innovation while still satisfying the strict requirements of government procurement. The 

program used milestone-based Space Act Agreements through its Other Transaction 

50 

Authority (OTA) rather than the traditional Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 

to keep costs low and performance high. Traditional, cost-plus FAR contracts can, 

in some instances, focus too much on needless bureaucracy and take attention away 

from performance and safety. Conversely, firm fixed price agreements allow the objectives of the contractor and the agency to be aligned in an affordable fashion, 

shifting the burden of cost overruns onto the private sector. With these performance 

based payments, the contractor is highly incentivized to be efficient and keep costs 

low in its development. Additionally, the agency is restricted from changing the direction mid-program, which tends to cause delays and increase the program’s lifetime as well as the cost to the taxpayer. 

At the same time, we support Congressional transparency measures regarding 

Space Act Agreements (SAAs). Creating a database of SAAs (with proprietary information redacted) that companies and the public can access allows for both NASA 

officials and private sector entities to learn from past agreements and improve the 

future use of SAAs. 

For these reasons and reflections of past success, I urge Congress to encourage 

the continued use of OTAs to allow commercial companies to create future partnerships and products that will enhance government capabilities, safety, and affordability. 

Federal Regulations 

Policies in Federal regulations must also be taken into account to continue the 

trend of innovation and growth from the commercial space sector. Congress has 

been very cognizant of the needs for these policies dating back to 1984 when the 

Commercial Space Launch Act authorized the Secretary of Transportation to license 

and promote commercial launch activities. Since its inception, the office’s mandate 

was to promote the commercial space industry and ensure the safety of the uninvolved public. It has been years since its last full reauthorization and consequently, 

CSF believes that the regulatory processes to ensure a favorable and safe development of industry need to be revisited. I will talk about a few of those regulatory 

issues next. 

Congress approved the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act in 2004, instituting a human spaceflight regulatory ‘‘learning period’’ to allow for both industry 

and FAA AST to learn, quickly and jointly, how to best promote safety. The stated 

learning period gave the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation (AST) freedom to regulate with the stipulation that all regulations for the safety of passengers must be based on an event that led to serious injury or that had the potential of serious injury. In addition, commercial human 

spaceflight operators use an informed consent regime that requires them to inform 

spaceflight participants of the inherent risks of spaceflight and the specific safety 

record of the vehicle type for their flight. Participants are also informed that the 

government has not certified the vehicle as safe, and must sign a consent form before flight. 

The initial learning period put in place was 8 years from the enactment of the 

CSLAA of 2004, expiring in December 2012. Congress expected that commercial operations would immediately follow the flights of SpaceShipOne, and this eight-year 

period would be filled with commercial launches that would help develop a knowledge base from which FAA could regulate intelligently. However, because of the due 

diligence of the companies in designing and building the safest possible vehicles, 

and their efforts to raise private investment, there were no commercial human 

spaceflights in that eight-year period. Recognizing the important purpose served by 

the learning period, in 2012 the FAA Modernization and Reform Act extended it to 

October 1, 2015 (the duration of the broader FAA reauthorization). The importance 

of the learning period is to create a regulatory regime based on data from actual 

flights, rather than speculative analysis based on other vehicles or technologies. Initial test flights of crewed suborbital vehicles began in 2013 and regular operational 

flights are expected in the next couple of years. Additional time and data are required to determine appropriate regulations for the industry and we ask that the 

original eight-year learning period be restored to allow for innovation to grow and 

for safety to improve in the long term. 

The Commercial Space Launch Act separates space transportation service customers and their liability responsibilities. For example, customers who purchase a 

launch for their payload, or who sponsor the launch of a spaceflight participant, are 

required to be protected by the obligatory third-party damage insurance policy and 

are required to execute a mutual waiver of claims against all other parties. These 

customers are also indemnified from excess claims by the Federal Government. 

However, spaceflight participants are explicitly excluded from this regime. 

51 

The launch of a human spaceflight vehicle that carries only one participant could 

in fact be entirely funded by that person, and therefore the participant could be exposed to third-party claims. It is not logical for the law to put spaceflight participants at greater financial risk for partaking in human spaceflight activity, as many 

of them could be researchers, employees of the customer, or winners of a promotional contest and would not otherwise have substantial resources to pay excess 

claims should they arise. The spaceflight participant should be protected by insurance and, if needed, government risk-sharing from third party claims that may arise 

due to their flight. Moreover, the participants should be included in the mutual 

waiver of claims that protects all other parties in the launch from each other. For 

these reasons, CSF believes that the spaceflight participant should be included in 

all parts of the liability regime. 

In 1988, Congress put in place a ‘‘risk sharing regime’’ to prepare for any damage 

caused to uninvolved third parties from FAA-licensed commercial space activities. 

This regime requires commercial space operators to take on stringent financial responsibilities by purchasing insurance or demonstrating available financial resources to cover any third-party damages up to the Maximum Probable Loss (MPL), 

calculated by the FAA pursuant to Federal regulation. In exchange, in the event of 

an extremely unlikely event of an accident that causes damage above the MPL, the 

Federal Government agreed to seek an expedited appropriation to cover damage 

above the insured amount. This ‘‘risk-sharing’’ regime has never been activated 

since its enactment in 1988. However, it is a necessity for U.S. launch companies 

to more effectively compete with foreign launch companies whose own governments 

provide even stronger protections. CSF strongly urges Congress to permanently extend the risk-sharing regime. 

With the rapid growth in the number of state spaceports, which are owned and 

operated by state governments much like regional commercial airports, it is also important that the Commercial Space Launch Act be updated to extend the scope of 

property insurance coverage expressly to the property of State and local governments associated with licensed spaceports. This change would provide much needed 

clarity to the insurance coverage for state spaceports and encourage more investment in space launch infrastructure throughout the U.S. 

Commercial launch operators are highly focused on developing concepts of operation that offer maximum operational flexibility to launch when needed, as well as 

to maximize affordability. In order to accomplish this, it is essential to avoid parallel 

coordination and approvals among multiple agencies wherever possible. In addition, 

there is a compelling need to streamline the regulatory process and utilize commercial practices to the greatest extent possible. Finally, commercial launch providers 

must have the opportunity to avoid the dictated use of mandatory range services, 

and be provided the opportunity to self-perform or subcontract to the most efficient 

provider that is able to meet the requirements. These attributes are what will ultimately draw commercial customers to establish launch operations at existing launch 

ranges. 

Export Control Reform 

We commend Congressional authorization to modernize the United States Munitions List (USML) and the Administration’s prompt use of that authority. Placing 

items deemed ‘dual-use’ on the Commerce Control List (CCL) will allow them to be 

more appropriately regulated. Commercial communications satellites will especially 

benefit from being regulated under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) 

due to their broad civilian applications. With this reform, the American commercial 

satellite industry will become more competitive in the international market, grow 

our Nation’s space industrial base, and bring high-tech jobs back to the US. However, the devastating impact that ITAR restrictions had on the well-established commercial satellite industry over the past fifteen years is a demonstration of the damage that overly broad ITAR regulation could do to the commercial human 

spaceflight industry. As I stated previously, this industry, much like the satellite industry, has the potential to greatly contribute to our space industrial base, a major 

asset to our national security. 

The U.S. is currently a leader in commercial spaceflight and to continue this leadership, we must take a look at adapting our export control environment with the 

evolution of commercial technologies. Companies that wish to operate their vehicles 

from allied countries are running into a major hurdle due to the ‘‘presumption of 

denial’’ policy for MTCR Category I items. The Missile Technology Export Committee, a Department of State agency that presides over the export of MTCR equities, has stated that their primary concern is ensuring appropriate safeguards are 

put in place to protect missile technology, regardless if an item is controlled on the 

ITAR or the EAR. Because of this position, we believe the MTCR ‘‘presumption of 

52 

denial’’ policy is an issue that must be addressed in addition to those pertaining to 

ECR ITAR revisions. The MTCR Guidelines state that their purpose is to limit the 

risk of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to delivery systems of those weapons. The 

Guidelines are ‘‘not designed to impede national space programs or international cooperation in such programs. . .’’ Since the MTCR has been established, space programs have expanded beyond the governmental domain into the commercial domain, and the regime is now currently impeding international collaboration for a 

strong global space economy. The difficulties incurred to offer U.S. commercial 

spaceflight services abroad, will birth foreign domestic competitors which could ultimately replace America’s leadership in the commercial space sector and hurt U.S. 

national security interests. 

For this reason, I urge Congress to encourage the Administration to perform continued regular reviews to reform USML categories and other proliferation measures 

to adapt to the quickly changing environment of commercial technology today in 

order to enhance both national security and the domestic economy. 

Conclusion 

When I took over as President of the CSF six months ago, I made it a priority 

to personally visit our member companies all over this great nation, from Midland 

to Mojave, to Seattle and the Florida Cape. I am energized and beyond enthused 

about what I have seen. The Commercial Space Industry is alive and well and the 

United States is leading the way. We are experiencing a level of private sector investment unlike anything we have seen in history, and its because these investors 

see that the expansion of the economic sphere into space is real and very close. 

As you debate legislation this year, I would implore you to think of the commercial space industry as a valuable and tremendous partner that will continue to help 

the United States achieve its ever-more-ambitious missions in space, and codify the 

competitive policies that will maintain the domestic commercial space industry’s 

global leadership for years to come. 

I have three young children that constantly ask ‘‘when can we go to space?’’ I am 

very confident from working in this industry that the answer is, ‘‘very soon.’’ 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

And I am going to begin by deferring to Senator Nelson for the 

opening questions. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Stallmer, my congratulations to your commercial 

spaceflight sector, because they are being very successful 

Mr. STALLMER. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Indeed, now with the competition proceeding 

for the commercial crew, we are seeing a lot of innovation coming 

out, and it is going to be exciting, and this will all be coming more 

and more into the focus of the American public over the course of 

the next couple of years. 

I wanted to ask you, how important do you think extending the 

ISS beyond its existing termination date in law, which is 2020, how 

important is that? 

Mr. STALLMER. It is certainly an important step forward. It is our 

gem of a national laboratory. The amount of research that has 

taken place on the ISS is incomparable. I was talking to my colleague Mr. Elbon today of some of the things in his testimony. On 

the scientific and medical research that is being conducted up 

there, the practical applications here on Earth are just incalculable. 

The other great aspect of the International Space Station, as it 

is today, is the partnership that it has with the commercial sector 

on the experiments that we are doing. 

I was tremendously inspired recently by a trip out to the West 

Coast, a company called Made in Space, who, through several 

NASA programs, through the Flight Opportunities Program, was 

able to build and test 3D printers, first on the suborbital level and 

53 

then these 3D printers are up in space right now on the International Space Station. 

And it came to a point where the astronauts on the International 

Space Station needed a five-eighths inch ratchet, didn’t have it. 

And they were able to, on the ground from Ames, California, send 

up the image of this ratchet, and they were able to print it right 

there on the Space Station. Fantastic. 

That is the kind of technology, that is the kind of innovation that 

we are seeing through these partnerships through the International Space Station, but the commercial-public partnerships. So 

I am very inspired by that. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Pace, how could we encourage our international partners to help us continue the Space Station beyond 

2020? 

Dr. PACE. Thank you. 

I think, first of all, the U.S. has already taken the first really important step, which is to have itself propose to lead the effort to 

go to 2024 and to work with the other partners to make that possible. So I think it was very important for the U.S. to move first 

on that. We are, I think, the indispensable nation in that regard. 

The second thing I think we can do is we can help our partners 

show how to improve utilization on the Station, in part by some of 

the innovative things that the commercial industry is able to do. 

At my university last week, we had a workshop—when the Federal Government was closed by snow, our university was open—for 

a company called NanoRacks, which is putting small CubeSat-size 

payloads aboard the Space Station. And what was very interesting 

about it is there has been this creation of, as Mr. Stallmer put it, 

kind of an ecosystem around the reality of the government facility—stable, available. Then a whole bunch of other commercial people had been able to build around it, so that a small education establishment was able to go from signing a contract to deploying a 

small satellite in the space of less than 9 months. That is an absolutely amazing turnaround time, but it was made possible by the 

private-sector innovations working with a stable essentially government facility. 

When the Antares vehicle was lost at Wallops, the company was 

able to work quickly to re-manifest virtually all of those payloads 

and is able to find ride-share opportunities for some other satellites. 

So the innovation that has gone on with the private sector is aiding and supporting the conduct of research and utilization aboard 

the Station, which I believe, in turn, will help our partners see benefits from continuing to 2024. 

I would also have to say that that continuation is not guaranteed. Our partners are under great pressure within Europe, Canada, Japan, and we all know the volatility in Russia. So it is by 

no means an assured thing; it is very fragile. And we need to be 

looking at what is going to come beyond Space Station in order to 

assure people that they can continue on Space Station today. 

Senator NELSON. And, Mr. Elbon, you are right in the middle of 

it. We are counting on you to be one of those means of transportation for crew to get us up there. You have a proven workhorse 

54 

that launches a lot of cargo into orbit. And so are you very positive 

about this whole commercial sector maturing as we are going forth? 

Mr. ELBON. I am. 

I will put it in this light: Boeing is going through its 100th-year 

anniversary as a company. And during that, kind of, reflection of 

that 100 years, you can see the aviation industry grow from just 

a starting, beginning industry to the incredible industry that it is 

today. And I think commercial space is at that same pivot point 

now. The effort that is being done to have NASA serve as the 

foundational customer for that growth is similar to the way the 

government participated in airmail in the early days of aviation. 

And so I think that, as we develop vehicles to meet those needs, 

that capability will grow as we go forward. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much. 

I would now like to shift to asking each of you, what do you see 

right now as the greatest impediments to the continued development and expansion of our commercial crew and commercial cargo 

capacity? 

Mr. ELBON. I would say that having the market develop is important. Commercial industries follow the market. So extending ISS, 

continuing the research on ISS, which by itself is a great thing 

independent of commercial crew, provides that kind of a foundation 

and a starting point going forward. 

It is important that we maintain the industry in such a way that 

it is safe and reliable and don’t let public opinion erode because we 

have accidents that could have been avoided, for example. So we 

need to keep it as a robust industry moving forward. 

Things like the CSLA legislation that helped with the cost of insurance for launches are important, that we maintain that going 

forward. 

We need to develop working relationships with regulatory agencies like the FAA, similar to the way we do that in commercial airplanes. It is a really good partnership today, and keeping that 

going, I think, is important. 

So those are, kind of, things to stimulate the growth of the commercial sector, I believe. 

Senator CRUZ. Dr. Pace? 

Dr. PACE. Sir, two things: market demand and a predictable environment for investment. 

Right now, that demand is predominantly driven by government. 

To the extent that we can see nongovernmental demand come for 

a lot of these activities, things beyond the Space Station, then it 

will be more sustainable. 

But that begs the question of, what comes, really, after the Space 

Station? Although we are talking about extending to 2025, in aerospace terms, that it just right around the corner. 

And I think one of the things that I worry about, which contributes both to the fragility of our political relations with other countries as well as the fragility in the commercial industry, is, if you 

are not planning today as to what you are going to be doing next, 

what you are really doing is planning to go out of business. 

And so we need to have, I think, very thoughtful discussions and 

decisions very soon as to not only ISS extension but also, post-ISS, 

what does that look like, whether in LEO or beyond, because withVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE
55 

out that, there won’t really be that investment environment, nor 

will there be the international partner environment. 

So that uncertainty, I think, is the greatest thing we could address. 

Senator CRUZ. And, Mr. Stallmer, you mentioned in your testimony also some suggested reforms in reauthorization of the Commercial Space Launch Act. I would welcome your elaborating a bit 

on those reforms. 

Mr. STALLMER. Certainly. Thank you, Senator. 

I think regulatory uncertainty is a major barrier that the launch 

industry could face. With indemnification, it is critical for our global competitiveness. Right now, China, France, Japan all indemnify 

far more than the U.S. So that is critical right now. 

Extending the learning period. The learning period currently is 

8 years. If we want to foster this economy, this space economy that 

we have right now and the launch industry, we really need to extend that and continue to work together as partners, right now 

with the FAA. Because nothing is more paramount to the commercial companies than safety, to developing a safe product. If you 

don’t have a safe product, you are not going to have a commercial 

product, a commercial business to that extent. 

So the regulatory uncertainty is critical, but also the funding, 

knowing for Commercial Crew. Like yourself, I find it completely 

unacceptable that we have to depend on the Russians to launch 

U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station. So any sort of 

disruption in the Commercial Crew Program, I think, would be a 

tremendous setback. 

I know how much it pained the NASA administrator to have to 

extend those flights on to 2018 for contingency purposes. But I 

think if we continue with the prudent budgetary measures through 

the Commercial Crew program, I think that is one of the best ways 

we can move forward, and especially with the Commercial Space 

Launch Act. 

Senator CRUZ. You mentioned concerns about safety. And, obviously, there is an element of risk that is inherent in space exploration. The safest option would be never to go into space. 

And so what is the right way for regulation to balance those safety concerns with the desire to continue expanding our capability 

and exploring new frontiers? 

Mr. STALLMER. You have to test and learn. You have to test and 

learn. And we found that out the hard way this past October with 

an experimental test flight. But, as Americans, I think we are 

going to continue to push the envelope. This is what we want to 

do, and we have mentioned our westward expansion goals and the 

manifest destiny of the United States. 

Safety will always be an issue. As my colleague, my predecessor 

once told me—you know, I went down to the Orion launch. He 

goes, you have to remember that 10,000 things can go wrong and 

only 1 thing can go right. And that is something you always have 

to keep in mind. 

But it is the redundancy of safety, of testing, evaluating, learning 

from the testing that you are doing and the data that you collect 

to move forward. And I think the commercial spaceflight industry 

is doing that in spades. 

56 

Senator CRUZ. Let me ask the panel a different question. What 

is the shortest time-frame we can reasonably no longer be dependent on the Russian Soyuz and also the RD–180? And what would 

be required to accelerate that timeframe to the soonest date possible? 

Mr. ELBON. So I will address that from the perspective of launching commercial crew. 

We are on a path with CST–100 to be able to launch crew in 

2017. That path is paced now by the internal work that we are 

doing with our suppliers, with our integration and test, going 

through the certification process that will allow us to certify that 

vehicle based on the lessons that we have learned on shuttle, on 

station, so that it is certified and ready to fly. 

Our program at the moment is not being paced by dollars, so if 

the question was hinting at could we apply more money to go faster, at this point we need to apply the level of funding that we proposed in our contract, and we will be able to achieve that on the 

pace we are on. 

Relative to the RD–180, there has been a lot of discussion about 

the RD–180 today. I would say this. The Atlas V is an incredibly 

dependable launch vehicle as a system. It has had 53 successful 

launches, and, in fact, that is the reason we selected it as our 

launch vehicle to get going. 

It would seem that over time it would make sense to work to 

transition away from dependence on the Russians. I would hope 

that we don’t do that in a very abrupt way that would cause us 

to impact our national security as a country and also our commercial launch industry. So I am hopeful that that is a thoughtful 

process and that we work through that in a way that addresses the 

geopolitical concerns that are out there but also the technical concerns of being able to keep launching that vehicle. 

Senator CRUZ. So how would you define a thoughtful process? Because there is always the risk geopolitically—— 

Mr. ELBON. Right. 

Senator CRUZ.—that particularly if things escalate with Mr. 

Putin, that he decides to use access to space as a weapon. And 

were he to cutoff access to either the Soyuz or the RD–180, that 

would impose significant hardships on the United States. 

So how would you propose we deal with that potential threat? 

Mr. ELBON. Well, certainly, we have an inventory of existing engines that are available to use. And there are more engines on 

order that are coming. And so, you know, keeping that pipeline 

open as long as is reasonable is good. 

I don’t have insight into exactly where it is going, but ULA has 

announced that they are working with another company, maybe 

other companies, for a replacement engine for the RD–180. 

And so, you know, working through that in a way that doesn’t 

just declare, ‘‘OK, that is enough, no more,’’ but using the assets 

that we have and keeping those assets and that pipeline open as 

long as we can to facilitate a transition. 

Senator CRUZ. Dr. Pace, Mr. Stallmer, do you have thoughts on 

these questions? 

Dr. PACE. I think the question depends on when you think the 

immediate risks are. 

57 

If you thought there was a risk tomorrow or even today, then the 

answer is, you know, we have the inventory, you know, we have. 

Beyond that inventory, your next bet is you have a very expensive option but a very doable option, which is manifesting on the 

Delta. 

Looking beyond that, the answer ultimately, of course, is to have 

a U.S. source. And the proposals, I think, that have been put forward for building a replacement engine, a LOX/kerosene, LOX/ 

methane engine, the numbers that I have heard have been on the 

order of, like, 3 to 4 years that it would take to do that. Perhaps 

that could be accelerated a little bit on money, but I think there 

probably are some parts that you can’t accelerate, and you are talking 3 to 4 years. 

So if you think that the crisis with Russia is not going to go 

away and is going to be with us for some time to come, then the 

answer, in my view, is to begin development of that engine and to 

do so now. If it turns out that everything works out great or we 

have other options come up, that is fine. But if we don’t have that 

option, then we will find our negotiating leverage much reduced. 

Mr. STALLMER. Senator, I would add that, as Mr. Elbon was saying, one of our companies, a company called Blue Origin, founded 

by Mr. Bezos, they are working right now on developing a new engine, I think, to help alleviate the RD–180 problem, the BE–4 engine. 

I have been to that facility in Seattle. It is tremendously impressive what they are doing out there. As well as traveling to the 

SpaceX facility and what SpaceX is doing with their engine technology and as well as with the commercial crew vehicle. 

I think they would like to be on line and get us off our Russian 

dependence as soon as possible, but, unfortunately, I think that 

date is no sooner than 2017. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate the testimony you have given. I appreciate your being here 

today. This was, I think, a very productive hearing. 

I would note for each of you the question of regulatory uncertainty. It was a question I believe all three of you raised. That is 

a significant concern of mine. And in moving forward with reauthorization of the Commercial Space Launch Act, regulatory reform 

is going to be a component that we are going to look at. 

And so I would welcome from each of the witnesses your specific 

ideas on reforms that would provide greater certainty, accelerate 

the development of either commercial crew or commercial cargo, 

and expand the commercial capacities we have. 

I will also note that the hearing record will remain open for 2 

weeks. During that time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. And, upon receipt, the witnesses are requested 

to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. 

And, with that, I want to thank each of you for being here, I 

want to thank our witnesses on the first panel, and the hearing is 

concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

MICHAEL J. MASSIMINO, PH.D. 

Question 1. Mr. Massimino, your testimony notes the importance for NASA of continuing to build and expand its international partnerships. You note that the International Space Station, for example, helps bring nations together around a common 

goal of scientific inquiry and space exploration. Yet today, the United States obviously has significant challenges when it comes to our overall relationship with Russia, a key partner for the International Space Station. What is the best way to ensure continued cooperation on space issues when our relationship with some international partners may make this more and more difficult? 

Answer. If a common goal is shared by the U.S. and an international partner then 

the people working toward that goal will work together. Political differences can 

melt away when a common science or exploration goal is shared by two countries. 

I have seen this to be the case at the working levels at NASA where astronauts, 

cosmonauts, instructors, scientists, engineers, and program managers can work very 

effectively together. Stressing the science, engineering, and exploration goals that 

are shared can lead to a better working relationship not only in space, but I think 

in other areas as well because we get to know and understand each other better 

by working together. 

Question 2. More generally, how can U.S. space policy help support our Nation’s 

broader diplomacy goals? 

Answer. Having a clear shared goal in space exploration, as the ISS program has 

shown for example, can give two countries something they can clearly agree on. It 

gets rid of distractions and lets us focus and work together. I think international 

space projects can be great building blocks upon which other agreements and common goals can be identified in areas outside of space exploration. 

Question 3. Mr. Massimino, I would like to ask if you could respond to criticism 

from fellow astronaut Walter Cunningham about NASA’s role in climate research. 

Mr. Cunningham’s written testimony states that NASA compromises its scientific 

credibility by, quote: ‘‘participating in the politics surrounding one of the great scientific hoaxes in history.’’ Do you share this view of NASA participating in a great 

scientific hoax? 

Answer. No I do not. I think we don’t have all the answers but I think it is an 

area worth looking into further. It is a large enough concern to many scientists who 

study our climate and to explorers who interact with it that it deserves attention. 

There may be differences of opinion and conflicting evidence, but there is enough 

of a concern and the outcome could be devastating. We owe it to future generations 

to take it seriously and determine what we can do to protect our planet for our children. 

Question 4. Do you see value in having NASA continue to gather climate-related 

data from space-based observations of the Earth? 

Answer. Yes I do. I think if we consider this to be an issue of national importance 

then I think any agency of our government with the ability to help should help. 

NASA has experts and assets that can help to better understand this problem, and 

determine the extent and reality of it as well as what can be done if action is warranted. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROY BLUNT TO

JOHN ELBON

Question 1. Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver has made multiple 

public statements that the Space Launch System is ‘‘wasteful and old technology,’’ 

and that it and Orion should be cancelled. One of her quotes was, ‘‘Would you really 

go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old? That’s not what innovation and our 

60 

space exploration should be all about.’’ This statement is concerning coming from 

a former NASA deputy administrator. Can you comment on her statement? Are we 

spending tax dollars on outdated technology? 

Answer. The referenced statements by former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori 

Garver are both misguided and inaccurate. 

The claim that SLS and Orion technologies are outdated is a great misrepresentation. These systems are being developed to transport astronauts further into the 

solar system than ever before imagined. It is incomprehensible that the NASA and 

contractor teams, with a well-known reputation to ensure astronaut safety, would 

compromise this core value by not fielding the most technically advanced systems. 

While these systems have ties and resemble heritage systems, the employed technologies are state of the art. Where applicable, heritage system designs are being 

updated with advanced design practices, materials, manufacturing processes, computer controls. These programs represent the cutting edge in human space transportation. 

Question 2. Ms. Garver also said SLS and Orion are jobs programs in Congressional members’ states and districts—specifically Texas, Florida, Colorado and Alabama. Can you discuss the number of companies and suppliers involved in SLS and 

Orion, and how many states play a role? 

Answer. The SLS and Orion programs have more than 2,000 suppliers in 48 

states. This supplier network was developed through competitive procurements and 

each supplier bringing unique technical capabilities at the component level. The attention to detail at this level in turn enables a highly reliable human space transportation capability. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

JOHN ELBON

Question. Commercial human space travel is only just beginning to become a reality. Many of the issues faced by the commercial human spaceflight industry seem 

analogous to those faced by the early commercial aviation industry. Drawing on 

Boeing’s nearly 100 years of experience in commercial aviation, what steps can the 

Federal Government take to help rapidly mature a safe and viable commercial 

human spaceflight industry? 

Answer. Boeing has a long-standing relationship with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the regulation of aircraft safety regulations. This relationship 

has provided the necessary regulatory frame work to ensure the level of public safety is maintained to sustain the industry’s viability. Given the human space transportation commercial services market is a fledgling market with a high profile and 

public awareness, ensuring passenger safety will be a critical factor governing market growth and success. 

The current approach initially tasks NASA to establish and verify safety requirements for the initial commercial crew demonstration flights with a transition of 

these responsibilities to the FAA for the follow-on crew transport services. FAA regulation is essential to ensuring new commercial entrants to the market will be held 

to the same requirements and standards as those developed for the NASA missions. 

There should be a joint NASA/FAA team established to ensure a seamless transition of knowledge between these two government agencies until a mutually agreeable regulatory structure is in place. It will be necessary to ensure NASA safety protocols are maintained and enforced during the transition of NASA sanctioned demonstration flights, and the following commercial services flights that FAA will be responsible to regulate. 

The Commercial Space Launch Act currently delays the FAA’s involvement beyond the initial NASA commercial transportation service missions. Delaying this 

regulatory window opens the door to individual company judgment regarding safety 

and unnecessarily jeopardizes this industry at the most critical juncture. FAA regulatory involvement will protect the fledgling commercial space transportation market which could be irreparably damaged by a single flight incident. 

Continued involvement of the Federal Government is needed to ensure commercial human spaceflight will rapidly mature into a safe and viable industry. Government investments and contracts through NASA to develop human transportation capabilities have been solely responsible to drive the current progress to realize a commercial space transportation market. 

The market for these human transportation services is currently limited to two 

flights per year to the International Space Station (ISS) through 2024. This relatively short window of opportunity appears insufficient to establish additional market opportunities to sustain such capabilities after the retirement of the ISS. It is 

61 

envisioned that after the initial human transportation capability becomes operational, additional commercial investment for in-space capabilities will significantly 

increase. Bigelow Aerospace, for example, has been developing in-space habitation 

modules, but has paced their investment/development on the availability of commercial transportation services. An extension of the ISS operations through at least 

2028 would provide a larger window of opportunity to sustain these fledgling capabilities and allow commercial ventures to mature to the point where they could sustain a commercial transportation capability post ISS. 

There are also yet to be identified opportunities for commercial crew and cargo 

transportation services to support NASA’s deep space human exploration efforts. It 

would be in the best interest of the government to fund studies to develop a detailed 

deep space exploration roadmap. This road map could be used to identify potential 

opportunities for commercial services in support of the baseline SLS/Orion missions. 

These market opportunities are contingent upon the completion of the SLS and 

Orion system developments and an operational flight rate of at least one flight per 

year. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

JOHN ELBON

Question 1. Mr. Elbon, I am keenly interested in ways that Congress can encourage smarter Federal procurement policies. Last year, I partnered with Sen. Moran 

to help pass the Federal I.T. Acquisition Reform Act (‘‘FITARA,’’ PL 113–291), which 

could lead to billions of dollars in taxpayer savings through greater use of ‘‘agile’’ 

or incremental approaches to procurement. Do you agree with Mr. Stallmer that 

NASA should have the ability to choose from different ‘‘tools’’ in its procurement 

‘‘toolkit,’’ such as using Other Transaction Authority where appropriate? 

Answer. Yes, we believe NASA should have flexibility to select a procurement approach which aligns with the specific resources and needs for each procurement. 

However, there are advantages to a FAR-based contracting approach for large scale 

development programs which ensure proper insight and oversight of how government funds are spent. The FAR-based procurement also allows the government to 

impose requirements to ensure the delivered products meet the intended purposes. 

For this reason we believe that OTA’s be limited to procurements for $50 million 

dollars or less. 

Question 2. Would you like to share any additional thoughts on potential improvements to NASA procurement policies? 

Answer. We have been investigating hybrid type contracts as a means to reduce 

overall costs while ensuring risk exposure is not sacrificed. This would allow contractors to perform low-risk work at minimal margins or on a fixed price basis, and 

the higher risk elements at higher margins or traditional cost plus contracting. 

Through this type of contracting, we believe we could offer the U.S. taxpayer savings while not exposing the programs to undue risk exposure. 

A specific risk we currently face in the commercial crew contract is ensuring our 

designs and procedures meet NASA requirements under a fixed price contract environment. The aerospace culture is founded in cost plus contracting, where requirements were allowed to remain fluid with the associated risk covered through the 

contracting arrangement. Both Boeing and NASA are working to ensure requirements are managed in a manner which will allow development expediency without 

sacrificing safety. 

Question 3. Mr. Elbon, your testimony highlights some of the science coming from 

the International Space Station, particularly related to medical research. Could you 

share your thoughts on some notable technology transfer and commercialization successes that came from our Nation’s space program? 

Answer. NASA has a long history of technology spinoffs and has a dedicated 

website of the many successes. An example of a well-known technology transfer/commercialization is cordless power tools. These were developed by NASA for the astronauts to construct the International Space Station, and have since become part of 

our everyday life. Other significant contributions to our medical industry include 

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and ultra-precise human-robotic brain surgery. 

The International Space Station allows researchers to analyze medical specimen reactions to the microgravity environment, which provides unique insight of viruses 

and vaccines. For instance, when the Duchene’s Muscular Dystrophy crystal was 

analyzed in microgravity, the fundamental structure became much more organized 

and led researchers to discover a previously undetected water molecule in the structure. This observation led researchers to develop an inhibitor, something that was 

not possible without the ISS. With the ISS as a National Laboratory, space is now 

62 

delivering intentional science and technology returns along with the traditional unintentional spinoff returns that have drawn much of the attention. 

An often overlooked technology transfer from the space program is the human inspiration and talent generation created by our space endeavors. At Boeing we are 

constantly reminded by our new hires of their strong desire to work on the space 

exploration programs and how NASA inspired them to undertake a curriculum in 

Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). Another observation within 

Boeing is the number of leaders within the corporation which originated from the 

space exploration programs. We believe the great challenges associated with these 

programs inspire these people to push themselves to new heights. 

In general the NASA mission continues to push the limits of capabilities and technologies to meet the ever increasing mission challenges. These challenges are the 

driving force to challenge our best and brightest to create new and unique solutions, 

and will continue to be a solid return on investment—both scientifically and also 

by opening up new commercial markets. 

Question 4. What are the best technology transfer lessons from NASA that we 

could apply to other Federal agencies? 

Answer. Perhaps not a lesson learned, but the ISS offers an opportunity to other 

Federal agencies to leverage the significant U.S. investment in the ISS National 

Laboratory. NASA has established Memorandums of Understanding to conduct 

microgravity research on the ISS with both the National Institute of Health and the 

Department of Agriculture. Initial discussions were held to identify potential scientific research of interest, but both agencies are without specific funding to undertake such research given the current workload and no additional funding for such 

research. This research would be possible if a small percentage of these budgets 

were directed to ISS research projects. This research represents potentially game 

changing technologies/capabilities, but there is a limited window of opportunity to 

conduct such research before the ISS is retired. 

Question 5. Mr. Elbon, your testimony notes that the International Space Station 

is a model for international space cooperation. This helped bridge the diplomatic divide with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. You also note that an American astronaut and Russian cosmonaut will fly to the space station next month. This 

joint mission will take place despite the obvious challenges when it comes to our 

overall relationship with Russia. What is the best way to ensure continued cooperation on space issues when our overall relationship with some international partners 

may make this increasingly difficult? 

Answer. The best way to ensure continued cooperation on space issues is to engage their participation in a deep space exploration program based on the fundamental elements of the International Space Station, Space Launch System and 

Orion capsule. The relationships and working arrangements developed through the 

International Space Station Program have endured Administrations, sessions of 

Congress, and the up and downs of international relationships. These should be leveraged, adapted, and re-energized in support of a deep space exploration mission 

with a goal of sending humans to the Martian surface. This undertaking is beyond 

the financial capability of a single entity, but is realistic within a construct of the 

International Space Station agreements and arrangements. The U.S. has been the 

leader in space exploration, and the rest of the space faring nations look to the U.S. 

for direction and leadership. 

Question 6. How can U.S. space policy continue to help support our Nation’s 

broader diplomacy goals? 

Answer. A significant lesson learned through the International Space Station program is the joint space mission has always transcended the international relationship status. At times the joint space activities have been the guiding principal to 

resolve diplomatic differences. It appears, with the high profile status of the space 

program and the prestige of participation, each country involved is unwilling or unable to take action which might damage one or both. With the ISS retirement currently scheduled for 2024, now is the time to engage this team on an even more 

challenging and inspiring mission with a goal to expand this community. 

Question 7. Mr. Elbon, the Obama Administration is in the process of reforming 

our Nation’s export control system. Your testimony discusses how smart reforms can 

not only improve national security, but also increase American exports and job 

growth. Could you discuss how to strike the right balance to ensure that we protect 

our national security while not inappropriately stifling the development of the U.S. 

space industry? 

Answer. Since technology is advancing at great velocity, our classification of these 

technologies may, understandably, be behind. It’s prudent for industry and government to partner in a re-examination of our domestic space products. The goal of the 

63 

re-examination is to ensure we aren’t bundling domestic civil space technologies 

suitable for export with technologies we must protect for our national defense. 

If we can segregate sensitive and non-sensitive technologies with more fidelity 

and precision, we can expand our ability to export additional space technologies 

without compromising our vital defense capabilities. This would not only provide additional jobs and economic benefits, but also increase the domestic space industry 

base, which will ultimately enhance our Nation’s civil and defense-related space capabilities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

DR. SCOTT PACE

Question 1. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires that the United States ‘‘authorize and supervise’’ the operations of U.S. companies on celestial bodies. Commercial 

companies are now considering activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies, 

such as asteroids. What level of government oversight is appropriate for regulating 

the operations of U.S. companies on celestial bodies and what agency would you 

suggest is best suited to perform that oversight? 

Answer. In my view, the United States needs to create a stable, predictable and 

transparent domestic licensing process for new in-space operations in order to create 

a supportive investment environment and to fulfill U.S. obligations under existing 

international law. The United States has done so in the past in areas such as communications satellites, space launch, and remote sensing. While it is undesirable to 

create law and regulation for purely hypothetical activities, the rapid rate of change 

in private sector space activities makes it important that the law not lag far behind 

market realities. 

Among the activities that should be addressed are in-orbit servicing, privately 

owned space facilities (manned and unmanned) in orbit or on the Moon and other 

celestial bodies, and the utilization and extraction of in-space resources for commercial purposes. There are numerous legal questions to be addressed in developing appropriate regulations. For example, if resources are intended for return from space, 

would the FAA require a payload review before launch (regardless of whether the 

launch was a U.S. vehicle or the U.S. was a launching state) since the return is 

now under their jurisdiction? What if the return is by parachute or means other 

than a ‘‘vehicle.’’ Do we need a new or clearer definition of vehicle? Further, if a 

satellite that is licensed by another agency is to be deorbited (e.g., a NOAA licensed 

remote sensing satellite) under rules established in law by NOAA/DOC, would that 

be a ‘‘payload’’ that is covered under FAA regulations per the Commercial Space 

Launch Act (CSLA)? 

I believe it is premature to extend DOT/FAA’s current jurisdiction into space activities that are not clearly related to transportation and transport vehicles. Instead, 

I would suggest a multi-step process: 

1. Commission a study to provide appropriate recommendations for alternative 

assignments of regulatory responsibility to Federal departments and agencies, 

to include DOT/FAA as one option. 

2. If there is a congressional finding that it is appropriate and within the authority Congress given to a particular department or agency, then regulations could 

be developed through the normal Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 

3. If new authorities were needed either for a new private sector U.S. activity or 

for the regulation of that activity by a particular department or agency, then 

congressional legislation would be developed. After passage of legislation, the 

normal APA process would be used. 

4. Formal rule adopted by the designated department or agency (e.g., DOT/FAA, 

Commerce, or State). 

Question 2. How would you suggest that the United States address its treaty obligations when regulating or establishing property rights for companies seeking to extract natural resources from celestial bodies? 

Answer. Under international law (i.e., the 1967 Outer Space Treaty) the United 

States is responsible for providing on-going supervision and authorization for the 

space activities of persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction or control (e.g., U.S. companies). However, the United States lacks a defined licensing regime for in-space operations (e.g., satellite servicing, private space platforms, resource extraction, etc.). 

This potentially leaves the United States vulnerable to foreign charges that the U.S. 

is not fulfilling its obligations with respect to emerging private commercial activities 

64 

and could encourage arguments for creating a binding international treaty that 

might try to constrain U.S. space activities. 

The United States, as a launching state or state of registry, can be held internationally liable for third party damage for activities in outer space if found to be 

at fault in its activities. Presently, the United States has not imposed any insurance 

requirement on commercial companies involved in these in-orbit activities. Some 

companies do carry that type of insurance. 

It would be helpful for the Congress to briefly and clearly recognize that the 

United States will meet its commitments under international law, but through appropriate national law and regulation of private space activities. It would not be 

necessary to define specific regulations as that would need to be the subject of separate hearings, legislation, and rule-making. Possible text: 

‘‘The United States will continue to meet its commitments under existing international law for the authorization and continuing supervision of all private sector space activities under its control or jurisdiction, including in-space operations, through appropriate domestic law and regulation.’’ 

There are many different types and characteristics of property rights that could 

apply to the utilization and extraction of in-space resources. Some property rights 

(e.g., claiming ownership in fee simple of in-situ resources) are likely incompatible 

with U.S. commitments under the Outer Space Treaty (i.e., the rejection of claims 

of sovereignty) while ‘‘functional’’ property rights (e.g., use of geostationary orbital 

slots) are consistent with U.S. treaty commitments. The most important consideration for supporting commercial development of space resources is that there be a 

stable and predictable long-term investment environment, subject to the rule of law. 

In this regard, international acceptance and recognition is crucial. A system of limited property rights in space, recognized by some if not necessarily all spacefaring 

states, can and should be developed through U.S. international leadership. A first 

step could be an internal U.S. process for accepting claims to space resources without prejudice to the final international recognition of those claims. A claims registry, 

open to U.S. and foreign non-governmental entities, could be authorized by the Congress and initially housed at an existing department or agency (e.g., the Department 

of State). Such a registry should require evidence of actual activities in space or on 

a celestial body to support a claim. 

Lastly, there continues to be a misunderstanding, domestically and internationally, that space is a global commons for purposes of international law. Some legal 

experts argue that the use of the term ‘‘common heritage of all mankind’’ in the 

Outer Space Treaty means that the United States accepts space as a global commons; with its space activities subject to international input and possible constraint. 

This is not accepted by the United States, as can be confirmed by the State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor. Today, the high seas and the air above the high 

seas may be considered a global commons, with certain exceptions, but not Antarctica (which is governed by a separate treaty), ‘‘cyberspace’’ or outer space. With regard to areas like space that lie beyond the traditional bounds of national sovereignty, international law does not preclude States from creating agreements to address specific issues of mutual interest (e.g., resource utilization). Thus the use of 

the term ‘‘global commons’’ with respect to space creates misleading expectations. 

It would be helpful for the Congress to clarify this point. Possible text: 

‘‘The United States does not currently recognize outer space as ‘‘global commons’’ 

for purposes of international law.’’ 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

ERIC W. STALLMER

Question 1. The health of the commercial space industry depends on incentives 

to invest in space operations, both in low-Earth orbit and possibly beyond. Similarly, 

Federal agencies must consider the impact on investment planning of rules, regulations, and procedures. The Administration has proposed continuing International 

Space Station (ISS) operations through at least 2024. Current law permits extension 

through at least 2020. How would extending ISS beyond 2020 impact investment 

decisions within the commercial space industry? 

Answer. As a general rule, bringing more certainty and uniformity to U.S. government space policy is a big positive for incentivizing greater investment in the commercial space industry. For example, the extensions of the ISS to 2024 is the current Administration’s policy, but is not codified into law. With a new administration 

to be elected next year, if the extension is not codified into law, then the new administration could reverse the current policy; this creates unnecessary ambiguity and 

65 

doubt that could slow or reverse recent ISS investments. By codifying the extension, 

Congress would send a signal investors, and potential investors, that regardless of 

the election results, they continue to plan their investments through at least 2024. 

With that said, codifying the extension of the ISS to 2024 is only one of the factors 

that investors will weigh when deciding whether or not to invest in the commercial 

space industry. If investors are going to invest in an orbital laboratory, rather than 

a terrestrial one, then they will want to know that there will be a continuity in orbital facilities—meaning no space station gap. So in concert with codifying an extension of the ISS to 2024, NASA, Congress, and the White House need to begin working with the private sector to ensure that a new facility is developed in time to avoid 

a space station gap in LEO. NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems (‘‘AES’’) program has been entering into partnerships with the private sector to support new 

technologies such as next-generation habitats that will allow the U.S. to maintain 

a presence in LEO past ISS retirement. Congress should address this in their next 

NASA Authorization. 

Finally, in addition to codifying policy uniformity and orbital facility continuity, 

Congress should increase support for programs that drive demand for ISS research 

experiments and technology development, like NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program. The expense of the flights and the long lead-time required for orbital launches 

can present a big barrier to the maturation of new technologies, a barrier known 

as ‘‘The Valley of Death’’, where most new technologies end up on a shelf due to 

lack of available funding. The Flight Opportunities program provides a cheaper and 

more efficient path through the ‘‘Valley’’ by increasing timely access to affordable 

commercial available microgravity and high-altitude atmospheric environments. 

Many researchers see commercially available microgravity and high-altitude platforms as a stepping-stone to using the ISS, increasing its utilization and raising its 

commercial success. For example, Made In Space, a company based out of Silicon 

Valley, used Flight Opportunities to test its 3D printers operation in microgravity 

for a fraction of the price of an orbital mission. After testing and building confidence 

on commercial reusable platforms, the company sent one of its printers to the ISS 

where it is currently operating. 

Question 2. How have restrictions on property rights to data and inventions developed on the ISS affected the attractiveness of the ISS as a commercial research platform? What, if any, amendments to the policies governing property rights on ISS 

would you suggest? 

Answer. I agree with NASA’s OIG September 2014 ISS report, which found that 

the current ‘‘Patent License and Data Rights Obligations’’ provision was deterring 

commercial stakeholders from conducting research on the ISS. Congress, NASA, and 

the commercial space industry should work together closely to expeditiously fix this 

issue and revise the current law. 

Question 3. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires that the United States ‘‘authorize and supervise’’ the operations of U.S. companies on celestial bodies. How would 

you suggest that the United States address its treaty obligations when regulating 

or establishing property rights for companies seeking to extract natural resources 

from celestial bodies? 

Answer. Through a ‘‘mission review’’. Below is our proposed language for a mission review: 

• (1) Independent of or in conjunction with a payload review, the appropriate 

agency or agencies shall conduct and grant a mission review of the planned activities related to the payload to affirm that all planned activities are in compliance with United States’ obligations under the Treaty on Principles Governing 

the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including 

the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. 

• (2) The President shall, as needed, identify the appropriate agency or agencies 

to conduct mission reviews of the planned payload activities as specified above. 

Such agency or agencies shall be authorized to require updates to the mission 

review if there is a material change in the planned payload activities. 

• (3) The appropriate agency or agencies shall not review planned payload activities that are otherwise subject to regulation by other Federal agencies. 

Question 4. Commercial space launch providers face a patchwork of regulations 

and regulatory oversight when obtaining launch site permits and launch licenses. 

What challenges do commercial launch providers operating on Federal property 

face? How do these challenges differ from those faced when launching from non-Federal sites? 

Answer. I won’t get into the weeds about the challenges, but I will outline the 

attributes that characterize a commercially friendly and operationally flexible 

66 

launch range. (1) Regulatory Confidence that enables a consistent and efficient regulatory environment; (2) Operational Efficiency which enables autonomous safety systems that reduce turn times between launches and minimize the range assets required to support a mission; (3) Schedule Assurance which minimizes schedule impacts caused by other launch operators, unanticipated site downtime, and range infrastructure outages associated with mandatory use of Federal range assets and; (4) 

Investment Confidence through streamlined real estate processes that allow for long 

term, exclusive use of real property, cost transparency which provides the ability to 

plan/budget/dispute charges for services, and the ability to operate in commercial 

enterprise zones or other tax advantaged areas. 

Question 5. NASA is formulating a mission to capture an asteroid—or a boulder 

on an asteroid—and place it in a stable orbit near the Moon. This undertaking, 

along with follow-on missions to study the asteroid or boulder, would demonstrate 

many of the technologies needed for a crewed journey to Mars. How could commercial space companies take advantage of an asteroid or boulder that has been placed 

in a stable orbit near the Moon? 

Answer. Responding more specifically, having an asteroid or boulder parked relatively close to the Earth, in cis-lunar space, could provide companies like Planetary 

Resources a testbed to mature technologies and operations necessary for future deep 

space resource utilization missions. 

More generally, commercial space companies can help enable NASA to undertake 

future beyond LEO missions, like studying an asteroid or boulder that has been 

placed in a stable orbit near the Moon. For example, NASA has invested billions 

of dollars for vital next-generation deep space exploration transportation systems 

such as SLS and Orion; however, as the NASA Inspector General recently pointed 

out in its 2014 Report on NASA’s Top Management and Performance Challenges, 

work must begin immediately on habitats, landers, and other systems or NASA will 

‘‘face significant challenges concerning the long-term sustainability of its human exploration program.’’ The best, and potentially only fiscally viable option to ensure 

that these new systems are developed in parallel with SLS and Orion is to leverage 

private sector investment. NASA’s AES program recognizes that private sector partnerships create opportunities for utilizing the SLS and Orion transportation system 

to achieve our human exploration goals. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

ERIC W. STALLMER

Question 1. Mr. Stallmer, your testimony makes a strong case for updating the 

Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA). I would like to ask a few basic questions 

about CSLA for the benefit of the hearing record. As you know, the CSLA’s indemnification protection will expire if Congress does not act to either update or extend 

it. What impact would that have on the U.S. commercial space industry? 

Answer. Other nations presently indemnify their launch customers against any 

damages, usually at no cost to the launch company. If the U.S. government does 

not provide indemnification, industry will have to try and buy more insurance, and 

insurance costs may go up because the insurance company does not have the government as a backstop. The bottom line is the U.S. launch prices will become less 

competitive in the international market, and American jobs and prosperity will suffer. 

Question 2. How would this affect the cost of launches for U.S.-based companies? 

Answer. Cost likely rise for the reasons outlined above. 

Question 3. Would this make U.S.-based launches less competitive than foreign 

launches? 

Answer. Without Federal indemnification it makes it harder for U.S. commercial 

space launch companies to effectively compete with the Chinese, French, and Russian launch companies due to their strong domestic indemnification regimes which 

are much stronger than that of the United States. 

Question 4. Mr. Stallmer, New Mexico plans to be a leader in suborbital space 

launch. Commercial spaceflights such as those from Spaceport America could dramatically expand access to space for researchers and help develop new technologies. 

Could you expand on the comments in your testimony on the role for suborbital 

spaceflights in our Nation’s overall space program? How could NASA better support 

suborbital spaceflight through initiatives such as the Flight Opportunities Program? 

Answer. CSF has long promoted the many benefits that accrue from NASA’s 

Flight Opportunities Program. It enables access to suborbital and high-altitude atmospheric research platforms critical to the workforce development of our next genVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE
67 

eration of space scientists and engineers—our future Alan Sterns. It enables access 

to relevant environment testing to mature compelling space technologies and research at a small fraction of the costs required for orbital flights—keeping promising 

technologies from being shelved. Further, many researchers see access to these platforms as a stepping-stone to using the ISS; resulting in an increase in commercial 

usage of LEO, as well as maturing technologies needed for future human missions 

beyond LEO. 

NASA could better support suborbital spaceflight by increasing the Flight Oppor- tunities program from a $15 million program to a $30 million a year program. 

NASA should expand the Flight Opportunities program to enable agency wide and 

government wide access. For example, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate could fly 

technology maturation flights to reduce programmatic risks to future science missions. In addition, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate could more effectively develop and train their scientific workforce by flying research missions through the 

Flight Opportunities program, as highlighted by the National Academy of Sciences. 

‘‘Small-scale experiments in suborbital research often serve as precursors to larger 

orbital missions and are important for training scientists and engineers to work on 

larger missions and for supporting the research base.’’—National Academy of 

Sciences, Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program, 2010. 

Question 5. Mr. Stallmer, your written testimony notes that NASA can get better 

value for its procurement dollars through continued use of ‘‘Other Transaction Authority’’ rather than the traditional Federal Acquisition Rules (FAR). I am keenly 

interested in ways that Congress can encourage smarter Federal procurement policies. Last year, I partnered with Sen. Moran to help pass the Federal I.T. Acquisition Reform Act (‘‘FITARA,’’ PL 113–291), which could lead to billions of dollars in 

taxpayer savings through greater use of ‘‘agile’’ or incremental approaches to procurement. Could you expand on how the Commercial Spaceflight Federation thinks 

NASA can appropriately use Other Transaction Authority to get better procurement 

outcomes? 

Answer. If the private sector can competitively provide a service that NASA is 

looking to acquire, then NASA should use OTAs to do so. For example, NASA 

should utilize OTAs to help acquire capabilities required for beyond LEO missions. 

Private companies like Moon Express, Bigelow Aerospace, Masten Space Systems, 

and Golden Spike are all building capabilities to explore and commercially develop 

the Moon. These companies, and others, are interested in the Moon because it offers 

the potential to support near-term opportunities for economic growth. To NASA’s 

credit, it has begun exploring public-private partnerships for beyond LEO exploration via the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) program, but this should be expanded. Hardware developed by AES will serve a critical role in ensuring that 

NASA can utilize the transportation capacities of SLS and Orion to conduct surface 

missions to the Moon and eventually Mars. Including the commercial space industry 

as an early partner in reaching U.S. human exploration goals beyond LEO is a logical extensions of the successful COTS and CRS partnership model proven in LEO, 

and can help alleviate budgetary constraints and compliment the Agency’s investment in its transportation systems. 

Question 6. NASA’s commercial space program has a successful track record of 

providing launch services using fixed-price development agreements and contracts. 

How can NASA continue to encourage greater competition and thus lower costs for 

launch services without compromising safety? 

Answer. To this point, NASA appears to be doing all the right things. I would only 

briefly highlight one possible concern. NASA and Congress should avoid prematurely selecting launch vehicles for future missions, unless that vehicle is the 

only one capable of meeting the mission’s requirements. There should be competition for NASA science mission launches amongst U.S. commercial launch providers 

to ensure the best deal for the American taxpayer. Further, NASA owned launch 

vehicles should be fully reimbursed by the appropriate mission directorate for their 

launch cost. 

Question 7. Mr. Stallmer, the Obama Administration is in the process of reforming our Nation’s export control system. Your testimony discusses how smart reforms 

can not only improve national security, but also increase American exports and job 

growth. Could you expand further on how to strike the right balance to ensure that 

we protect our national security while not inappropriately stifling the development 

of the commercial space industry? 

Answer. As noted by the COMSTAC, a cornerstone of the Department of Defense’s 

general concern regarding the transition of spacecraft to the EAR is the potential 

inability of the national security community to track and grant approvals for EARcontrolled spacecraft. The adoption of orbital and suborbital human spaceflight sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:40 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\97531.TXT JACKIE
68 

tems’ Export Control Classification Numbers will require the Department of Commerce to issue export licenses for all destinations. Further, piloted, unarmed, commercial suborbital spacecraft with thrust levels less than that of a SCUD A missile 

should be transferred to the CCL if such spacecraft have received a license or permit 

from the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. 

Æ 

69 

This page intentionally left blank. 

70 

This page intentionally left blank. 

71 

This page intentionally left blank.