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

20–875PDF 2017

NEXT STEP TO MARS: DEEP SPACE HABITATS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

May 18, 2016 

Serial No. 114–78 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

AMI BERA, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

May 18, 2016 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

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

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

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

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

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Jason Crusan, Director, Advanced Exploration Systems, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

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

Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space Exploration, 

Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, the Boeing Company 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 28 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 30 

Ms. Wanda Sigur, Vice President and General Manager, Civil Space, Lockheed Martin Corporation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 40 

Mr. Frank Culbertson, President, Space Systems Group, Orbital ATK 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51 

Mr. Andy Weir, Author, The Martian 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 61 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 63 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 66 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Jason Crusan, Director, Advanced Exploration Systems, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA ........................................... 86 

Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Space Exploration, 

Boeing Defense, Space, and Security, the Boeing Company ............................ 98 

Ms. Wanda Sigur, Vice President and General Manager, Civil Space, Lockheed Martin Corporation ..................................................................................... 108 

Mr. Frank Culbertson, President, Space Systems Group, Orbital ATK ............. 120 

Mr. Andy Weir, Author, The Martian .................................................................... 132 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 136 

Documents submitted to the record ....................................................................... 137 
(1) 

NEXT STEP TO MARS: DEEP SPACE HABITATS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bruce Babin 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BABIN. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Space 

will now come to order. 

And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The Next Steps to Mars: Deep 

Space Habitats.’’ I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening 

statement. 

The exploration of space, particularly human exploration of 

Mars, has intrigued generations around the world. Our sister planet holds many mysteries, and quite possibly, the keys to our past 

and our future. The profound goal of putting humans on Mars and 

perhaps establishing a settlement there, fuels our desire to push 

the boundaries of what is possible and to reach far beyond our own 

planet. 

Space exploration is in our DNA. Americans of all ages watched 

on their black and white TVs as Neil Armstrong stepped onto the 

surface of the Moon. Our collective interests have not waned since 

that time. However, we now watch in full color and high definition 

as we launch off our planet, land a rover on Mars, and see our astronauts on the International Space Station do an EVA to assemble 

an orbital space laboratory enabled by the unwavering dedication 

and hard work of countless thousands who have contributed to the 

historical successes and immeasurable benefits spaceflight and exploration have brought humanity. 

Last year’s cinematic blockbuster, The Martian, based on the 

book written by Andy Weir, one of our witnesses today, wrote about 

the challenges an astronaut faced in order to survive the hostile environment of Mars faced with much hostility. This concept is directly related to the topic of our hearing: examining the challenges 

and discussing what it is going to take to turn this science fiction 

into a reality as we hope to do in the years ahead. 

One of the foremost requirements for success in such a profound 

endeavor is the support of Congress, and undoubtedly, bipartisan, 

bicameral support is strongly behind this goal. In fact, bipartisan 

support for our spaceflight and exploration programs is so strong 

that the 2016 NASA Authorization Act passed the House by a 

unanimous voice vote. In this turbulent political climate, a vote like 

that is very exceptional for any agency. The House’s intent is clear, 

and I strongly urge our colleagues in the Senate to join us by taking up and passing a NASA Authorization bill this year. Doing so, 

in this election year, is particularly important as it will provide 

NASA programs the stability that they need through the uncertainty that results during the transition of Presidential Administrations. 

One of the most critical capabilities needed to sustain humans 

for a journey to Mars is a habitat. Without a viable habitat to protect our astronauts from the inhospitable environment of space, we 

cannot achieve our goals for human deep space exploration. 

Congress demonstrated its very strong support of space exploration last year in passing the most significant update to commercial space law in decades and also by providing robust and increased funding levels for NASA exploration programs. 

In the 2016 appropriations, Congress directed NASA to invest no 

less than $55 million for the development of a habitation aug-
5 

mentation module to maximize the potential of the SLS/Orion architecture in deep space and to develop a prototype module no later 

than 2018. 

Astronaut Scott Kelly’s nearly year-long mission aboard the 

International Space Station has provided substantial scientific data 

which we continue to assess, related to the physiological and psychological impacts humans face during long-duration space missions. However, much research still needs to be done to develop 

systems and operations to mitigate these impacts for sustaining 

crew health, and for this reason, it is critical that the ISS be fully 

utilized through 2024. 

We know what goal we want to achieve: putting humans on 

Mars. What continues to be unclear is the detailed plan. How are 

we going to accomplish this bold and challenging goal? What are 

the requisite precursor missions, the technologies, sustaining systems, and habitation requirements and current capabilities? Until 

this detailed plan is outlined, there are many unknowns but what 

we do know is that NASA will need habitation and there are many 

questions that surround this requirement. How will NASA acquire 

habitation? How will development be funded? Will NASA develop 

the capability by contracting with a company on a cost-plus basis 

as it did for the programs in the past? Or will they seek to procure 

habitation as a service by leveraging previous development work? 

Will NASA use public-private partnerships? And if so, how will 

NASA divide the investment? How will it treat the intellectual 

property? And will the taxpayer get a deal on the price if it contributes to the development? 

We have tremendous lessons learned related to systems development along with the pros and cons of various acquisition approaches. Regardless of the ultimate decision, the acquisition parameters and requirements must be clear before any action is 

taken. NASA simply doesn’t have the time or the budget to experiment on unproven acquisition models. It’s long past time to apply 

the lessons learned and make the decision based on what is the 

most assured and efficient way for NASA to acquire this capability. 

Whatever NASA proposes, I sincerely hope it will be in the best 

interests of our American taxpayers. It would be a shame if we repeat the mistakes of the past: government paying for the development of habitation capabilities, and then turn around and pays 

again to procure the service from the same provider. NASA’s decisions on ‘‘make’’ or ‘‘buy’’ will be critical. 

Is it possible that industry may be able to provide turnkey costeffective services that are developed with minimal taxpayer support? Is there a market for low-Earth orbit habitats, sufficient to 

support a post-ISS paradigm, which can be leveraged for deep 

space habit requirements? 

We are an exceptional nation of doers, and as we forge a path 

through the high ground of space on our journey to Mars, I have 

strong faith in the ingenuity of American scientists, engineers, and 

the entire industry to address the challenges posed by deep space 

exploration and to develop the spaceflight systems needed to reach 

our goals in a safe, sustainable and affordable way. 

I’m pleased to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to hearing their perspectives as to how NASA should consider acquiring 
6 

habitation goods and services to meet future mission requirements, 

and thank you all for participating. 

And Mr. Weir, I’d like to personally thank you for your captivating work, The Martian. It has everyone talking about Mars, 

which I believe brings us one step closer to making science fiction, 

science fact. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BABIN. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Maryland, for an opening statement. 

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

you very much for holding this hearing today on the ‘‘Next Steps 

to Mars: Deep Space Habitats.’’ Our Committee and Subcommittee 

have actively been examining aspects of the humans-to-Mars goal 

as well as how to implement it, and I’m looking forward to continuing the discussion this afternoon. 

I too would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

It’s a rare opportunity to have NASA, industry leaders, and a bestselling author together to discuss the opportunities and challenges 

involved in sending humans to Mars. I would also note that in our 

audience today are many representatives I see from the industry 

as well, and so I think this is an important time for us to really 

get on the same page about next directions. 

And the fact that we will discuss today one of the critical elements that’s needed to send humans to Mars, habitats, reflects the 

current situation that achieving the humans-to-Mars goal is no 

longer a question of ‘‘if’’ but rather a question of ‘‘when.’’ The 

‘‘when’’ will, in part, depend on public support, and so I’m glad that 

Mr. Weir is here as well today to provide his perspectives on how 

popular media, such as books, movies, and television can help further public support for the goal of sending humans to Mars. 

Other questions we need to address; however, are, of course, how 

do we get there and what do we need to be working on now in technology development, research, and mission demonstrations if we 

are to achieve that goal? 

This afternoon’s hearing will focus on the habitats and habitat 

systems needed to protect a crew from the harshness of space during deep space missions. Habitats will need systems to provide 

clean air, water recovery, climate monitoring and control, and a 

means for food production. They’ll also need to provide for fire safety within a closed environment, crew exercise, onboard medical 

services, and the ability to provide safe haven from solar particle 

storms and cosmic galactic rays that pose risks to crew health and 

mission operations. So I’m anxious to hear from our panelists about 

the concepts for addressing these challenges and the status of work 

to date on habitation systems. 

Finally, getting humans to Mars will require much more than 

overcoming the technical challenges of developing habitation systems. It will require national commitment, sustained support, and 

resources over multiple decades. Public excitement, anticipation 

and engagement in sending humans to Mars will also play an important role in determining the extent to which the Nation 

prioritizes this as a goal. 

So I’m pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we also have the opportunity 

today to discuss how we can stimulate and leverage public engagement in the goal of sending humans to Mars. And I would also say 

that I share the goal of trying to complete in this interim period 

a longer-term authorization for the agency to set on a path, a direction forward, particularly with respect to getting humans to Mars 

and the support of that goal so that in fact we can make the kind 

of appropriate transition from one Administration to the next that 
11 

doesn’t require us to start from square one. And so I look forward 

in these next several months to doing exactly that. 

And lastly, I’d like to thank again our witnesses for being here, 

and I truly do look forward to your testimony. 

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

And I now recognize the Chairman of our full Committee, Mr. 

Lamar Smith from Texas. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I too appreciate our witnesses who are here today as well as the many stakeholders who are represented in the audience as well. It’s nice to see 

a full room. 

I also want to single out a gentleman sitting in the front row to 

my right and compliment him on his tee shirt that says ‘‘Occupy 

Mars.’’ I won’t ask any more questions right now but we’ll talk 

later. 

Our hearing covers a critical aspect of our Nation’s future journey to Mars: how our astronauts will live and work during their 

journey, and I’m glad that best-selling author Andy Weir has 

agreed to join us today. His book, The Martian, along with the 

movie by the same name, ignited the world’s imagination. It 

brought to life an adventure that we can envision in the not-toodistant future: journeys to Mars with heroic astronauts putting 

themselves to the test of overcoming dangers with ingenuity and 

courage. 

I wrote an op-ed with our colleague, Ed Perlmutter, two months 

ago that I would like to submit for the record without objection, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman SMITH. In this article, we discuss the persistence of 

purpose and careful planning that is needed to turn such a mission, the first human space flight to another planet in our solar 

system, into reality. 

This is not merely a science fiction movie starring Matt Damon. 

This is a goal within America’s reach. NASA and American space 

companies are building the critical components for such a journey: 

the Orion crew vehicle and Space Launch System. 

The popularity of The Martian as a novel and a film has shown 

that the American public is very interested in making this vision 

a reality. That is why NASA should not stray from its primary goal 

of exploration. 

Exploration programs at NASA, both robotic and human, need to 

be adequately funded. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration, 

year after year, woefully under-budgets the very programs that will 

get us to Mars. 

At the same time, the Administration continues to push plans for 

an unjustified Asteroid Retrieval Mission. The Asteroid Retrieval 

Mission is a distraction without any connection to a larger roadmap 

to explore our solar system and is without support from the scientific community or NASA’s own advisory committees. The Government Accountability Office recently estimated that the total cost 

for the Asteroid Retrieval Mission would be $1.72 billion. These 

funds would be better spent directly on space exploration with a 

connection to future missions to Mars, like deep space habitats and 

propulsion technologies. 

America leads the world in space exploration but that is a leadership role we cannot take for granted. It has been over 40 years 

since astronaut Gene Cernan became the last person to walk on 
15 

the moon. It is time to press forward. It is time to take longer 

strides. It is time to aim for Mars. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Prior to today’s hearing, the Committee received a number of letters, and I ask unanimous consent to include them in the record. 

[The information follows:] 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman BABIN. Now I’d like to introduce our distinguished witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. Jason Crusan, Director of 

Advanced Exploration Systems, Human Exploration, and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA. In this role, Mr. Crusan is the 

Senior Executive, Manager, Principal Advisor, and Advocate on 

Technology and Innovation Approaches leading to new flight systems capabilities for human exploration. He manages 500 to 600 

civil servants with an active portfolio of 20 to 30 engineering and 

design projects. He leads integration with the Space Technology 

Mission Directorate, and the other HEOMD programs such as the 

International Space Station and the Exploration System Divisional—Division programs. Mr. Crusan holds bachelor’s degrees in 

electrical engineering and physics, a master’s in computer information systems, and is currently a candidate for a Ph.D. in systems 

engineering and engineering management at George Washington 

University. Very impressive. 

Secondly, Mr. John Elbon, who I’ve had the pleasure of knowing 

for a number of years. He is our second witness. John Elbon is Vice 

President and General Manager of Space Exploration at Boeing Defense, Space and Security at the Boeing Company. In his role at 

Boeing, Mr. Elbon is responsible for the strategic direction of 

Boeing’s civil space programs and support of NASA programs such 

as the International Space Station, Commercial Crew Development 

program, and the Space Launch System, SLS. Prior to being named 

Vice President and General Manager of Space Exploration, Mr. 

Elbon served as Vice President and Program Manager for Boeing’s 

commercial programs as well as the Boeing Program Manager for 

several NASA programs which include Constellation, ISS, and the 

Checkout Assembly and Payload Processing Services contractor, 

CAPPS, at Kennedy Space Center. Mr. Elbon holds a bachelor of 

aerospace engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. 

Our third witness today is Ms. Wanda Sigur, Vice President and 

General Manager, Civil Space, at Lockheed Martin Corporation. 

Ms. Sigur has executive responsibility for critical national space 

programs relating to human spaceflight and space science missions 

including planetary, solar, astrophysical, and Earth remote sensing 

for civil and governmental agencies. Some of these major programs 

include the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, Hubble and Spitzer 

space telescopes, the GOES–R weather satellites, Juno, GRAIL, 

MAVEN, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Odyssey, and OSIRIS–Rex planetary missions and the company’s nuclear space 

power programs. She holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical and 

material sciences and engineering from Rice University and a master’s degree in business administration from Tulane University. 

Welcome, Ms. Sigur. 

Our fourth witness today is Mr. Frank Culbertson. Mr. 

Culbertson is President of Space Systems Group at Orbital ATK. 

Mr. Culbertson is responsible for the execution, business development, and finances of the company’s human spaceflight science 
19 

commercial communications and national security satellite activities as well as technical services to various government customers. 

These include some of Orbital’s largest and most important programs such as NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services, or CRS, 

these initiatives, as well as various national security-related programs. Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Culbertson has received numerous honors including the Legion of Merit, the Navy 

Flying Cross, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the NAAFAI Gagarin Gold Medal, and the NASA Distinguished Service Medal. As 

an astronaut, he logged over 146 days in space over three flights. 

He is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. Welcome. 

Our final today is Mr. Andy Weir, author of The Martian. Mr. 

Weir was first hired as a programmer for a national laboratory at 

age 15, and he has been working as a software engineer ever since. 

He is also a self-proclaimed lifelong space nerd and a devoted 

hobbyist of subjects like relativistic physics, orbital mechanics, and 

the history of manned spaceflight. The Martian, which is his first 

novel, has won numerous awards and has been adapted to a film 

directed by Ridley Scott by the same name, and I’m sure many of 

us have seen it. 

So I now recognize Mr. Crusan for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JASON CRUSAN, 

DIRECTOR, ADVANCED EXPLORATION SYSTEMS, 

HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS 

MISSION DIRECTORATE, NASA 

Mr. CRUSAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss NASA’s plans for development of habitation capabilities for 

the post-International Space Station era. 

As you know, the agency plans to continue ISS operations and 

utilization through at least 2024. ISS and its successor capabilities 

are essential to conducting research on human health and performance, testing and demonstration of technologies critical for deep 

space missions, and expanding our knowledge of space. These activities comprise our Earth-reliant portion of our journey to Mars. 

The Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle now well 

under development will carry us into the proving ground of 

cislunar space where our primary goal for human spaceflight is to 

develop the crew capabilities necessary for long duration transit 

missions to and from Mars. 

The next human exploration capabilities needed beyond SLS and 

Orion are deep space long-duration habitation and in-space propulsion. 

Missions in the proving ground will simulate and test Mars transit systems and operations through limited interaction with Mission Control, limited cargo supply with no crew exchanges, and will 

culminate with a long-duration crew validation expedition within 

cislunar space or beyond by the end of the 2020s. 

NASA is also actively working on low-Earth transition strategies 

for the post-ISS era as well and is encouraging the private sector 

to foster both commercial demand and supply for LEO services. 
20 

This will allow NASA to focus its resources on the agency’s primary 

goal to expand human presence into the solar system and to Mars 

consistent with Presidential and Congressional direction. 

ISS operations and LEO constitute a foundation for such expansion by performing key research and technology developments required for long-duration deep space missions. In addition to this 

ISS testing, NASA needs to begin operating at greater distances 

from Earth to perform deep space testing along with continuing to 

enable the transition of LEO to private platforms and capabilities. 

There are a number of common capabilities that NASA and our 

partners must develop over the next five to ten years including 

habitation that we’re here to discuss today. Such a capability is the 

foundation of human spaceflight missions beyond LEO supporting 

our plans for Mars-class missions of distance and duration. 

An effective habitation capability comprises a pressurized volume 

plus an integrated array of complex systems and components that 

include docking capabilities, environmental control and life support 

systems, logistics management, radiation mitigation and monitoring, fire safety technologies, and crew health capabilities. 

To support development of habitation capabilities, NASA is 

leveraging information gathered through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnership, or NextSTEP, broad agency 

announcements. NextSTEP is a public-private partnership model 

that seeks commercial development approaches to long-duration 

deep space capabilities. In NextSTEP phase I, NASA selected 12 

awards including seven in the area of habitation. The NextSTEP 

phase I contractors are performing advanced concept studies and 

technology development projects. In April of 2016 this year, the 

agency issued NextSTEP phase II, which is specifically addressing 

and focusing on the development of long-duration deep space habitation concepts that will result in prototype units. NASA plans to 

select multiple proposals under this solicitation in August of 2016, 

this year. And the agency intends to integrate functional systems 

into our prototype habitat for ground testing in 2018. 

Through the NextSTEP effort, NASA and industry are identifying commercial capability developments for LEO that intersect 

with the agency’s long-duration deep space habitation requirements 

along with any potential options to leverage these identified commercial advances toward meeting NASA’s exploration needs while 

promoting commercial activity in LEO. 

NextSTEP is a key aspect of informing the agency’s acquisition 

strategy for its deep space long-duration habitation capability along 

with any considerations of international partner participation. It is 

NASA’s intent that LEO eventually support private platforms and 

capabilities enabled by commercial markets, academia, and government agencies with an interest in LEO research and activities 

while the agency’s primary human spaceflight focus shifts towards 

deep space beyond LEO. Private enterprise and affordable commercial operations in LEO will enable a sustainable step in our expansion into space. A robust, vibrant commercial enterprise with many 

providers and a wide range of private and public users will enable 

U.S. industry to support other government and commercial users 

safely, reliably and affordably. 
21 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any questions you 

or the other members of the Committee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crusan follows:] 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Crusan. 

I now recognize Mr. Elbon for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN ELBON, 

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

SPACE EXPLORATION, BOEING DEFENSE, 

SPACE, AND SECURITY, THE BOEING COMPANY 

Mr. ELBON. Thank you, Chairman Babin, Ranking Member 

Edwards, Chairman Smith, members of the Committee. On behalf 

of the Boeing Company, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. 

Our Nation is on a journey to put humans on Mars. Sometimes 

I think those words roll off our tongue too easily. I’m trained as an 

engineer, and I often don’t feel I have the capability to articulate 

with the enthusiasm and awe that those words deserve. 

If you know where to look in the sky, you can find Mars, and it’s 

a small dot. When you’re there and looking back, Earth will be a 

small dot, and we’re going there. This is an incredible feat. 

Our longest missions to date have been around a year. The mission to Mars will be at least three years long. The largest payload 

we’ve landed on Mars to date is just under a ton. To put humans 

on the surface of Mars, we’ll need to be able to land 20 to 30 tons. 

We’ve traveled to low-Earth orbit and to the Moon, where communications delays are up to three seconds. On the journey to 

Mars, communication delays will be over 40 minutes. And when 

the Mars and the Earth are on opposite sides of the sun, there will 

be a blackout for a period of two weeks. We must learn to operate 

in space without constant monitoring and control capability from 

the ground. 

These challenges are difficult, but solving difficult challenges is 

what our Nation’s human spaceflight is focused on since its inception. 

The key to meeting these challenges is to attack them in phases, 

first by developing the necessary technologies close to home in lowEarth orbit aboard the International Space Station. Second, by developing systems based on these technologies and validating them 

in a proving ground in the area around the Moon. We refer to this 

area as cislunar. And then once these systems are proven safe and 

reliable, using them to accomplish our greatest achievement as humans to date: putting humans on Mars. 

We’re making great progress through our work aboard the International Space Station. In addition to breakthrough scientific discoveries on ISS, we’re learning to live for long periods of time in 

space and developing reliable systems such as life support systems 

that are necessary. This work needs to continue for the next decade 

or so when we will be well underway on the next step. 

The next step, of course, is to put a habitat, an outpost, if you 

will, in the vicinity of the Moon. This habitat will not only support 

validation of the capabilities we need to make the long journey to 

Mars but can also enable private industry or international partners 

to descend to the lunar surface. Asteroids could be returned to that 

outpost for scientific investigation, perhaps mining. Commercial resupply vehicles can be contracted for logistic support. And 
29 

telerobotic exploration of the far side of the Moon can be conducted 

from this outpost. 

The primary objective of taking the next step to cislunar is to 

validate we’re ready to go to Mars, but being there will enable a 

whole suite of exciting activities. 

There is currently an ongoing dialog around the model that 

ought to be used for the procurement of this habitation capability. 

Habitation developed for use in cislunar will be expanded for use 

during the journey to Mars and could also be used at least in part 

for a low-Earth orbit vehicle after retirement of the International 

Space Station. 

As the leader of programs operating under both public-private 

partnerships such as Commercial Crew and cost-plus development 

contracts such as International Space Station and the Space 

Launch System, I’ve seen the advantages and challenges of both 

models. I look forward to discussing these as well as diving deeper 

into why cislunar is the next-step destination during our discussion 

today. 

I’ll close by asking you to consider this: somewhere in the world 

is a student about 10 to 20 years old, probably studying math or 

science, and that student will be the first person to set foot on 

Mars. In my view, that’s amazing to think about. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elbon follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Elbon. 

And I now recognize Ms. Sigur for five minutes to present her 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MS. WANDA SIGUR, 

VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, 

CIVIL SPACE, LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 

Ms. SIGUR. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Edwards, and 

Members of the Committee, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to 

talk with you today about the next steps to Mars. 

The technologies we’re building today will enable human exploration of deep space. I actually have a few slides. 

[Slide.] 

So this slide shows the Orion crew module. It is actually the 

module that we’re going to use on the next exploration mission, Exploration Mission-1, to fly in 2018, and what you see here is the 

crew module being put into the test fixtures for the proof test. I’m 

pleased to say that over the last few weeks, completed the proof 

test. Everything passed extremely well, and not only the folks that 

helped build it but the analysts excited about the performance that 

we see. 

The vehicle is different. It’s a vehicle that’s been designed for 

deep space exploration from the beginning. And what’s different, of 

course, is that deep space is so very different from low-Earth orbit. 

The requirements are much more severe, and as Mr. Elbon mentioned, the focus has to be for a much longer tenure. 

This is a thousand-day-plus spacecraft. The capabilities include 

radiation-hardened command and control systems. It provides a radiation storm shelter. There’s redundancy. Recognizing how far 

away we are from Earth, there needs to be redundancy in propulsion systems, computers, engines and other systems. It’s got an 

amazing computing capability. It’s got what we call time-triggered 

ethernet that’s 10 times faster than your internet at home, which 

is going to be required for passing files, for passing videos and information. It’s got a life support system. The life support system accommodates exercise and it accommodates all those things necessary for those long missions. It’s got a thermal protection system 

that not only accommodates the extremely cold environments of 

deep space but allows for safe landing whether the mission was to 

the Moon or Mars. So we feel that the future of the Orion spacecraft is a strong one. 

I don’t know how many of you remember EFT–1. That was the 

exploration flight test of the Orion vehicle, the very first one in 

2014. We learned so much from that flight, and we are building on 

that success. This vehicle that you see here is 4,000 pounds lighter 

to accommodate the life support systems. And so with a focus on 

performance, affordability, recognizing that every dollar matters, 

we’ve taken a view on what technologies are necessary to allow us 

to lean into the future. Let’s go to the next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

This is not something that’s new for us. Lockheed Martin has 

had the great privilege of being involved on every mission to the 

planet Mars, and as you look at the progression of a dozen-plus different missions, you’ll see that we’ve been able to leverage the 
39 

smarts of the structures, of the computing systems to provide an 

affordable solution to the very hard challenges that we see. Next 

slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

So that concept of building on performance and capability is one 

that we’ve leveraged into our system or habitats. In order to minimize costs and maximize crew safety, we have an inclusive view of 

our architectures to say wouldn’t it be great if we could take advantage of all those capabilities that are inherent in the Orion system and find ways to produce a lower-cost solution. In support of 

NASA’s NextSTEP study, we’ve designed a deep space habitat that 

does that. It leverages that investment in Orion. Next slide. 

[Slide.] 

Now, this is a great day. This is the day when you see the Orion 

and the NextSTEP habitat relying on each other’s systems in order 

to assure overall success. 

But there’s more. Next slide, please. 

[Slide.] 

We’re not stopping at habitats. By leaning forward in accommodating what tasks have to be accomplished in the schedule that’s 

head of us, you see that leaning forward in closing on those milestones will allow us to explore NASA’s vision faster. We call this 

Mars Base Camp. 

The concept is simple: transport astronauts from Earth to a Mars 

orbiting science laboratory where they can perform real-time 

science exploration, analyze the first Martian rock, make real-time 

decisions while they’re at the planet. 

Mars is closer than you think, and we’re very much interested 

in accelerating the journey. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sigur follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Ms. Sigur. 

I now recognize Mr. Culbertson for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. FRANK CULBERTSON, 

PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS GROUP, 

ORBITAL ATK 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Thank you, sir. Do we have time with the—— 

Chairman BABIN. We do. We’re going to try to get through both 

you and Mr. Weir, and then we’re going to recess to go vote, and 

we’ll come immediately back, okay? So let’s go ahead. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Edwards, Mr. Chairman Smith, distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee and the staff. It’s a real honor for me to be here. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on behalf of Orbital ATK regarding our concept for deep space habitat as a part 

of the long-term path to Mars exploration. 

The Committee leadership has framed the issues very well, I 

think, in your opening remarks, and I think my colleagues have 

done a good job of talking about the things that are going to be a 

challenge for us and how we might be able to move forward on 

that. It’s an exciting and inspiring time for our Nation’s human 

space exploration program. NASA is on course to send humans beyond low-Earth orbit, leveraging what we’re doing on the ISS, Commercial Crew and Cargo programs, as well as the Space Launch 

System, Orion, and the new cislunar habitat that is being proposed 

and studied. 

We want to achieve the goal of landing humans on Mars in the 

early 2030s, and we’re proud to be supporting our NASA customer 

every step of the way. 

I think that U.S. leadership in cislunar space is critical to continue the leadership we have had for a long time in space in general. It is the high ground but it also is a great example of what 

we can do as Americans, and it inspires the next generation and 

gives them a place to go. 

By combining the new NASA and commercial space sector capabilities such as on SLS, Orion, Cygnus, we can develop a deep 

space habitat and high-power solar electric propulsion, two of the 

building blocks for moving on to Mars. 

We think a crew-tended lunar orbital station within the next five 

years is doable, feasible, and something that we should be working 

towards. 

Orbital ATK is a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies. We have delivered a lot of satellites. We have numbers in 

here, and they’re in my testimony. We have over 1,300 successful 

years of on-orbit satellite experience, 268 human-rated boosters, 

and we are building the boosters for the SLS program. We have 91 

satellites currently operating in space, and we’re continuing to collaborate with NASA and our other customers. 

But we do think it’s important to transition beyond low-Earth 

orbit and to do that soon. The commercial approach that we’ve used 

to develop the Commercial Cargo Resupply Service we think is a 

good model for that. I think it’ll be a combination of government 

programs, public-private partnership, and commercial endeavors in 
49 

order to achieve this. We think that cislunar space does give us the 

testing ground. 

For my colleague, Mr. Bridenstine, who was here earlier, it’s like 

a shakedown cruise. You’ve got to go out and test what you’ve got 

before you go and do it for real operationally, and I think this gives 

us the opportunity to do that. 

If I can have my first slide, please? 

[Slide.] 

This is an artist’s conception of the cislunar habitat based on the 

Cygnus module that we used for delivering cargo to the International Space Station. We think it’s a great starting point, one 

that’s already mature and developed and actually on the Space Station right now and will finish a 90-day mission in June. So it can 

be developed to go beyond low-Earth orbit. Next picture, please. 

[Slide.] 

Here’s a good picture of the Cygnus itself at the Space Station, 

and the next slide, it’s a crew selfie, if you will, of the interior of 

that module once we delivered the cargo to the crew, which always 

is a good day for them. This arrived on Easter, so they were looking for the Easter eggs. But we’re happy to be able to support that. 

We think that Cygnus provides the technology reduction needed to 

move into cislunar because there will be challenges there. There 

will be things that we have to overcome there that are going to 

challenge us on the way to Mars including the radiation environment, the autonomous operations that are necessary for such a 

long trip. We’re already using Cygnus for technology development, 

and at the end of this current mission, we will activate the Spacecraft Fire Experiment, or SAFFIRE–1, during free flight as we 

leave the station to generate the largest fire ever generated manmade in space to see how things burn in space, and we know how 

they burn on Mars now, Andy, but I think this’ll be a great experiment to enhance the safety of the crew going forward. 

Commercial acquisition practices are important and will be a 

part of it. I think that encouraging business to move into low-Earth 

orbit on a much more comprehensive basis is part of what’s happening right now with Commercial Cargo, Commercial Crew, and 

then moving beyond that is a challenge we’re going to have to meet 

but we think that it will come also. Obviously humans in space is 

the big key. 

Let me just mention something one of my kids said when I was 

training for the Space Station, and I won’t embarrass him by telling you which one. When I was putting him to bed one night, he 

said, ‘‘You know, Dad, you’re getting pretty old,’’ and he wasn’t 

even a teenager yet, and I said, ‘‘What’s your point?’’ He said, 

‘‘Well, I know you wanted to go to Mars when you became an astronaut but it’s probably not going to happen while you’re active. So 

I’ll tell you what, I’ll go for you.’’ Well, he’s in his 20s now, and his 

generation is going to go for me. And by the way I said, ‘‘Well, you 

know, John Glenn flew at 77 so don’t write me off yet.’’ 

I would love to go to Mars, and I would do it. I think that we 

are doing at Orbital ATK and our colleagues throughout industry, 

working with NASA to move into this realm, is very, very important and critical to U.S. leadership and critical to inspiring the 
50 

next generation to stay involved, to get into science, technology, engineering and math, and keep this country great. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Culbertson follows:] 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Culbertson. 

Mr. Weir, I am deeply apologetic but I’ve just been told most of 

our members have already run to vote. They’ve already called for 

votes. If you don’t mind, we’ll come back as soon as the voting is 

over and reconvene. Is that okay with you? 

Mr. WEIR. Sure, that works for me. 

Chairman BABIN. All right. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Do you want him to put a helmet on or hold 

his breath? 

Chairman BABIN. We will reconvene following the last vote in 

this series, and you don’t have to have a helmet. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman BABIN. I now reconvene this session of the Subcommittee on Space, and I apologize. We had to run down and vote. 

But that’s the nature of the beast here in the United States Congress. 

I now recognize Mr. Andy Weir for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDY WEIR, 

AUTHOR, THE MARTIAN 

Mr. WEIR. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank 

you for inviting me to this hearing. 

Unlike the other people you’ve heard today, I am not a space expert. I’m just an enthusiast, and I know that. But I do spend a lot 

of time thinking about the future of manned spaceflight and the 

challenges that come with it. And, to me, one issue stands out as 

the largest problem facing long-term space habitation. The human 

body is simply not suited to living for long periods in zero-g. Until 

this issue is solved, we have no hope of landing humans on the surface of Mars, nor can we create permanent residences in space. 

Astronauts who spend months in zero-g suffer bone loss and 

muscle degradation. Once they return to earth, they have to be carried out of their capsule by ground crew. It takes days, sometimes 

weeks for them to readapt to gravity because their muscles are 

simply too weak to stand. Imagine, then, a crew of astronauts setting foot on the surface of Mars after eight months in space to get 

there. They would be unable to move, let alone execute their mission. This is not an option. 

And that’s not even the worst part. Weightlessness also causes 

degradation of the eyes, and, unlike the bone and muscle loss 

which the body will repair once it returns to gravity, the eye damage is permanent and irreversible. 

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have to spend 

two hours per day exercising just to stay remotely healthy. This 

means that we dedicate one eighth of all waking person-hours in 

space to counteracting the effects of zero-g habitation. That time 

could be better spent on experiments, station upkeep, or simply 

rest for the crew. 

Instead of concentrating on ameliorating the effects of zero-g, we 

should concentrate on inventing artificial gravity. This is not some 

magical technology straight out of science fiction. We already know 

how to do it. You just need to spin the space station to provide centripetal force. This conjures up images of huge wheel-in-space con-
62 

structions that we simply can’t afford to build but centripetal gravity can be accomplished much more cheaply and easily than the 

flashy futuristic visions you’ve see in films. 

For our next space station, we should have the crew compartment connected to a counterweight by a long cable and set the entire system spinning. This creates the centrifuge, which will generate constant outward force for the crew. Inside the crew compartment, it would be virtually identical to the gravity we experience 

on Earth. All physiological problems of zero-g would be solved. 

Some would argue that one of the main purposes of a space station is to do experiments in zero-g. This is easily accommodated. 

We could have a node in the center. This would provide an area 

of zero-g for whatever experiments require it. The astronauts would 

work in there as needed, but spend most of their time in the crew 

node where their bodies get the gravity they need to remain 

healthy. 

While the concept is simple, the engineering is very complex. If 

you were standing in that crew compartment, the downward force 

on your head would be less than the downward force on your feet 

because your head is closer to the center of the centrifuge than 

your feet are. NASA conducted experiments on the ground with 

centrifuges in the 1960s. They found that humans get significant 

vertigo and dizziness from this effect if the rotation rate is faster 

than two revolutions per minute. I’ll spare you the math, but this 

means the cable connecting the two nodes would have to be 450 

meters long, which is over a quarter mile. 

I have no delusions that such a station would be easy to accomplish. Not only would it be the most massive space station ever 

built, but it would also have to stand up to the forces that its own 

artificial gravity creates. Plus, a rotating station would need very 

advanced control systems to keep its solar panels and thermal radiators properly aligned. It would be a huge engineering challenge to 

design and implement this station but huge engineering challenges 

are what NASA is all about. I have no doubt they could rise to the 

occasion. 

Once this station were built, its rotation rate could be adjusted 

to provide whatever gravity we wanted. We could test the longterm health effects of lunar gravity or Martian gravity, or we could 

leave it at Earth gravity to ensure crew health. And when the time 

comes for a human mission to Mars, the artificial gravity technology proven by this station will be employed in the vehicle that 

transports the astronauts there, ensuring that they are fully 

healthy and capable when they first set foot on the red planet. 

Thank you, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weir follows:] 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Weir. I appreciate that. I appreciate all the testimonies, and we’re elated and delighted that all 

of you people are here to testify before us. Now the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes. 

All of the testimony was fascinating, especially what Mr. Weir 

just said on centrifugal force and spinning creating artificial gravity. But another problem when we send our astronauts beyond lowEarth orbit is we’re exposing them to the dangers of deep space radiation, and without the Earth’s protective magnetic field, future 

explorers are vulnerable to ionizing radiation, solar particle events 

and galactic cosmic rays, which pose an increased risk for cancer. 

This is perhaps the most serious scientific challenge that we face 

on the journey to Mars. And I’m wondering how we protected Matt 

Damon that entire time from this radiation and had him return 

safely. 

This is a question for all of you. What kinds of technologies are 

being developed that protect our astronauts from deep space radiation? What are some of the ideas? How are we integrating radiation protection into our deep space habitation designs? And I 

would appreciate an answer from any one of you or all of you. 

Mr. CRUSAN. So I’ll start. Currently, we’re doing investments in 

a couple different areas. First and foremost, the monitoring of 

events starting with our heliophysics efforts of monitoring the sun 

on an ongoing basis, then actually figuring out the modeling effects 

of the transfer from the sun into wherever our spacecraft should 

be, and then actually doing high-quality monitoring of the actual 

radiation particles that come when they get there. 

All of our studies internal and the ones we’re doing under the 

NextSTEP analysis as well with the commercial folks are looking 

at optimizing the ability for storm shelters and deployable storm 

shelters and the integration of things like water walls into crew 

quarters and such. That helps with your SPE events and such. Galactic cosmic rays are still a challenge, and there isn’t any current 

technology to address the high-energy GCR beyond the ability to 

monitor it and factor it in the overall dosing that we have, and I’ll 

leave it to my colleagues to add to that. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Crusan. 

Mr. Culbertson? 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Yes, sir. My personal experience was that 

NASA spends a lot of time investigating what’s happening to the 

astronauts both while they’re in space and after they return. We 

go through an annual physical to see whether there are any residual effects, and the effects that Mr. Weir talked about are there 

and real, and we do do a lot of exercising and other countermeasures. 

The radiation aspect is a serious one too, and when you leave, 

as you said, the magnetosphere, you’re exposed to it much more, 

and the types of technologies that Jason mentioned such as water 

protection, there’s also PVC. People are working on actually superconductivity as a potential way of protecting the crew inside. But 

I think if we use the opportunity to go to cislunar space and when 

we first have a module arrive, have enough sensors on there to 

really characterize the interior of what the crew might be exposed 

to when they arrive later, then we might be better prepared, and 
67 

of course, we start with the short missions there and investigate 

the effects on the crew before we actually send them on their long 

voyages. I think we’ll learn a lot. I do think we will figure out a 

way to counter those. I don’t think it’s impossible. 

Chairman BABIN. Same here. 

Mr. Weir? 

Mr. WEIR. Yeah, I’ll just speak to that a little bit. First off, NASA 

recently upped its acceptable radiation lifetime limit for astronauts 

in the event that these astronauts were going to the Moon. So first 

off, a lot of this, believe it or not, is solved by a simple policy decision. A very, very diligent fan sent me a paper that he wrote and 

later got published about the radiation dosage received by all of the 

members of the Aries program including Mr. Watney on the surface 

of Mars, and actually found that the worst of them would have had 

an additional four percent mortality likelihood, and that would’ve 

been actually the sys op, Beth Johanssen, played by Kate Mara in 

the movie. She would’ve had the highest mortality odds added to 

her because while Mark was on Mars and Mars was guarding him 

from half of the galactic radiation that might be getting at him, the 

rest of the crew were in space that entire time, and Johanssen is 

the youngest and she’s female, both of which are things that increase your mortality likelihood from radiation. 

But just to be clear, we’re not talking about people dying of horrendous radiation sickness. We’re talking about a slight increase in 

mortality, and astronauts are willing to take risks, so on the surface of it, I don’t think that much needs to be done at all, and then 

finally, the best way to deal with radiation amelioration is mass, 

just putting water between the astronauts and the sources of radiation and getting more mass to LEO. If you want to do that, put 

more money into private space travel. They’ll drive the price down. 

Chairman BABIN. Amen. 

I think that expends my—unless either one of you would like to 

add to that? 

Mr. ELBON. I think they covered it. The best solutions that we 

know of take a lot of weight so we have to work through that whole 

scenario. 

Chairman BABIN. Right. 

Ms. SIGUR. I have very little to add, only that we’re going to get 

smarter the very first mission that we make. Exploration Mission1 will have sensors and information that we’ll be able to use to figure out which of these potential solutions makes sense for us. 

We’re also looking at individual protection strategies for astronauts, and that might also be something that would be fruitful as 

we go forward. So there’s more to come. 

Chairman BABIN. You bet. Thank you, Ms. Sigur. 

You know, I’ve got a couple of staffers in here I wanted to introduce real quick, Will Carter and Lauren Jones, and also my wife, 

Roxanne, is sitting back there. I just noticed them there. Thank 

you for being here. 

I’d next like to hear from the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. 

Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

witnesses too and for your patience. 
68 

I want to begin with Mr. Crusan. NASA’s Journey to Mars strategy outlines the plans to develop an initial habitation capability for 

short-duration missions in cislunar space in the early 2020s and 

then to evolve that capability over some period of time, and I guess 

the question is whether NASA intends to accomplish that with habitation demonstrations in cislunar and what would be needed to extend those capabilities to a habitat that could support a human 

mission to Mars. And additionally, if you could address the question of whether you envision testing out multiple habitat developments or a single habitat. These are all details, frankly, that we 

should be getting to in a more complex roadmap that the Congress 

has asked for over some period of time, but if you could address 

that, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. CRUSAN. Yes, no problem. I appreciate the question. One of 

the key aspects of what we’re asking for in our NextSTEP activities 

with industry is exactly that. We know we need to get to a habitable volume for a transit to and from Mars that’s greater than 300 

cubic meters in volume. There’s many different strategies by which 

you get to that total volume, though. You could launch it as a one 

single unit on one single flight. You could incrementally build it 

over a series of modules during the early 2020s out to the late 

2020s. And one of the things we’re asking industry to do is help 

us optimize, how do you split up the individual buildout pieces over 

that period of time that gets us to the end goal, the larger volume 

we need, that also still encourages that LEO transition as well, and 

looking for the optimal piece parts that you would actually come 

up with for that. 

That gets to your second question, is it going to one habitat or 

multiple habitats. It could be either. We know we need to get to 

that total volume. One of the lessons learned that we have learned 

related to the International Space Station and Mir before that is 

separate habitable volumes is actually extremely valuable for us 

for the event of emergencies like fire and depressurization. So there 

will be some semblance of multiple structures that are assembled 

together that can be isolated from a safety perspective but the actual implementation strategy is what we’re exactly studying during 

this phase of NextSTEP. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Elbon and Ms. Sigur and Mr. Culbertson? 

Mr. ELBON. I would add a thought to that. I think it is a critical 

and important thing that we develop a habitat capability in 

cislunar that is evolvable to be the Mars transit capability. That 

means that it’s going to need to grow and become more robust as 

it takes on that larger mission. To some degree, that’s counter to 

moving the other way, which is bringing that habitat down to lowEarth orbit. I’ll use an example. When we started the development 

of the Starliner, the commercial capsule, the first requirement I 

wrote across the top of the board was, it will go nowhere but LEO, 

and the reason was, because if we let things creep in there that 

would have it a beyond LEO, it would increase the costs and it 

wouldn’t be a good thin got operate in a commercial environment. 

So I think there’s a little bit of a tension there between expecting 

whatever we put in cislunar to go on to Mars and also be able to 

serve as a basis for a future LEO station, and it’s important that 
69 

we consider that and work through it as we address a procurement 

approach for that cislunar capability. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Ms. Sigur? 

Ms. SIGUR. I think that as Mr. Crusan said, we’re in the process 

of developing the elements of what the solution needs to be, but 

what I would offer is that what our ultimate objectives and goals 

are matter. If we are working on an opportunity to perform test 

like you fly assessments at each of the opportunities that are available whether it’s low-Earth orbit or around the Moon with an eventual objective to head to Mars, solutions are going to be vastly different. If we acknowledge that this could be a multinational endeavor, as I personally think it should be with an opportunity for 

everybody to play with ways to consider public-private partnership 

and even just flat-out commercialization on our way to reaching 

Mars, we establish different requirements. If you’re developing a 

habitat that will have an ability to be a safe haven, it would feel 

different as you’re considering design solutions. If you’re looking for 

standards that allow for various companies to dock to a consistent 

geometry, then you’re talking about investing in a plug-and-play 

configuration perhaps as we’re looking at ways to build things out. 

If we’re expecting to work in the vicinity of the Moon or Mars 

as kind of an anchor location for lots of other great things to happen, the solution again might be different. So again, the vision’s 

important, and I think we’ll eventually get through those things 

but it’s going to be a very interesting couple of years. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, can we hear from Mr. Culbertson? 

Do you mind? 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Thank you. I’ll try to be brief. 

I agree with what the others have said so far, and I think there 

are some really important principles here. One is that if we have 

a habitat in the vicinity of the Moon, we have a destination for 

Orion. We also have prepositioned supplies, we have the ability to 

provide backup capabilities such as power, maybe even propulsion, 

and maybe even a way home if the spacecraft were to have any 

other problems of some sort, and it is a dangerous environment 

where things can happen, so a certain amount of redundancy early 

on in testing is important. 

As I mentioned earlier, you have to think of this as a shakedown 

cruise where you are testing not just the systems but the people, 

and not just the people in space but the people on the ground who 

are designing things, who are operating, who are supporting the 

crew. There’s going to be a lot of complicated aspects to that that 

are going to have to be more than what we’re doing now in lowEarth orbit. The modular approach I think is extremely important 

just like the watertight compartments on a ship protect the crew 

if there’s anything that happens to any part of the hull. You may 

need the same capability as we learned on the Mir on basically an 

outpost around the Moon. 

I remember thinking as I was on the Space Station when I was 

a little bit more naive about what industry can do that I could just 

take the station, and if I had enough propulsion, I could go on to 

the Moon or on to Mars, and might want to pick a different crew 
70 

but it still was, I think, a technical capability, and I think that 

basic principle, even though we would have to change some of the 

specifics is what we have to have as we go beyond low-Earth orbit. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. You’re welcome. 

Now I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

While I support development of American-made alternatives to 

the RD–180 rocket engine, according to Undersecretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Frank Kendall, ending 

the use of the RD–180 prior to the availability of a comparable domestic rocket engine will cost taxpayers over a billion dollars. What 

effect will restrictions on the purchase of RD–180 engines have on 

NASA and Boeing’s CST–100 Starliner commercial crew space system? And my question is directed to Mr. Elbon. 

Mr. ELBON. Thank you. Let’s see. We’re concerned about that, 

even though the legislation that’s being discussed doesn’t necessarily target civil space uses, reduction in flight rate for the Atlas 

V, which CST–100 flies on, and other users, by the way, fly on as 

well to Space Station, reduction in flight rate could increase the 

cost of that, and eventually be an impact. So we’re hopeful that 

that doesn’t happen, that it’s able to keep flying and then the flight 

rate as planned will allow us to continue to use that for the 

Starliner as planned. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Elbon. 

My next question will be for Mr. Weir, and I want you to be 

thinking of why the American people won’t go to Mars, and as a 

backdrop, I’m going to mention America’s financial condition because that’s going to be what we have to weigh, the pros and cons. 

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with America’s financial condition 

but in summary, we’re headed to an insolvency and bankruptcy 

probably within the next 20 years, maybe in the next ten years, as 

a country. I say that looking at a $19 trillion debt accumulation 

predominantly over the last decade and a half, and reports by the 

Comptroller General, James Daro, and the Congressional Budget 

Office waring us that our current financial path is unsustainable, 

which is accounting language for, if you keep doing this, there’s 

going to be a total collapse of the system. 

Additionally, the CBO has warned us that while we had a series 

of trillion-dollar deficits under Democratic rule of the House and 

Senate in 2007 and 2008 coupled with Barack Obama in 2009 and 

2010, since the 2010 elections, we’ve slowly but surely gotten our 

deficits down to $439 billion, which is where we were last year. 

This year’s deficit, however, has taken a dramatic turn for the 

worse. Now it’s projected to be in the neighborhood of $534 billion 

within six years, a trillion dollars a year—nonstop trillion-dollara-year deficits until we go insolvent. 

So with that kind of financial backdrop, what can you say to help 

persuade the American people that Mars is a goal that we should 

undertake despite the financial risks that our country faces? 

Mr. WEIR. It’s funny you should mention the potential insolvency 

because in the 1930s, the United States was not in a great state 

solvency-wide either, and during that time the government in-
71 

vested very heavily in building up the commercial airline space, 

which cost a lot of money. It required the government to basically 

take a bunch of land from various cities under eminent-domain 

laws that was worth a lot. It spent enormous amounts of money in 

the form of tax breaks and policy decisions in order to build the 

burgeoning airline industry. Since then, it has definitely paid itself 

off far more than we ever spent on it in the form of tax revenue 

from that industry. 

So I would say that my answer to your question is that putting 

money into a mission to Mars or anything related to space as long 

as a lot of that money ends up going toward commercial development will help bring the commercial space industry into a profitable situation. 

Once the price to low-Earth orbit gets down to the point where 

a middle-class American can afford to go into space, there will be 

a boom. There will be an economic boom in the space industry and 

the United States government will receive the benefits of that boom 

in the form of taxes and revenues. 

Mr. BROOKS. Anybody else want to add to the comments of Mr. 

Weir? 

Hearing nothing, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This past weekend, the students of Longfellow Middle School in 

my district participated in the Aerospace Industry Association 2016 

Team America Rocketry Challenge, and they are with us here 

today. So they’ll stand up and we’ll recognize you. Thank you for 

competing and for your excellence in math and engineering and 

technology and science. 

And Mr. Weir, of all the protagonists I’ve run into in my life, 

Mark Watney was easily the most adaptable and creative I’ve ever 

seen. You know, he’s a great role model, confronting life-and-death 

challenges daily and somehow doing it with good cheer, with 

humor, and moving forward with extraordinary resilience. They say 

every first novel is autobiographical. Who was your role model for 

Mark Watney? 

Mr. WEIR. Well, I admit I based him pretty much on myself although he’s better at all the things I’m good at than I am, and he 

doesn’t have any of my flaws. So he’s what I wish I were. 

Mr. BEYER. That’s great. Will there be a sequel? 

Mr. WEIR. No plans for a sequel. Sorry. I’m working on an unrelated novel now. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Great. Excellent. Thank you. 

Mr. Crusan, our distinguished Chair in his opening comments 

talked about the unjustified Asteroid Retrieval Mission. Do you 

have any comments either on behalf of NASA or as a person paying 

attention to all those things? 

Mr. CRUSAN. In my remarks and in my testimony, I highlighted 

the two required things for sending humans into deep space. First 

is habitation, and second is in-space propulsion. The Asteroid Redirect Mission gives us that in-space propulsion aspect that we’re 

looking for. To me, that’s the fundamental piece of the Asteroid Redirect Mission along with operating large-scale solar electric pro-
72 

pulsion in deep space because that will be the experience that we 

will need to send cargo into Mars and eventually our crew into 

Mars as well. So there is a nice synergy between that. 

Mr. BEYER. So it really could well be interpreted as an essential 

part of getting to Mars? 

Mr. CRUSAN. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Well, thank you very much. 

And Ms. Sigur, you—in your written testimony, you talked about 

how Orion has a time-triggered ethernet that’s 10 times faster than 

your ethernet at home. I’d like to point out that Lockheed is in my 

Congressional district, and if you could get 10 times faster internet 

for all of us, we’d be very grateful. 

Is there any commercial application for the 10 times faster ethernet, Ms. Sigur? 

Ms. SIGUR. I will have to get that information and have it added 

to my hearing testimony. 

Mr. BEYER. That was a very careful response. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Elbon, you talked about how we lack the killer app to de- velop the $1 to $2 billion annually needed to get some of the stuff 

off the ground. What would the killer app look like? 

Mr. ELBON. I’m not sure. If we knew, we would probably get it 

out there. The point is, I think we need to focus on developing demand for activities in low-Earth orbit. We’ve done a good job of developing capability, and by that, I mean the ability to transport 

cargo and crew there, and we have destination, the Space Station, 

and talk of future destinations. We’re very good at providing the 

supply. We need to work on the demand, users with money willing 

to spend on space. Today we have users willing to spend order of 

magnitude hundreds of thousands of dollars to do research or other 

activities in space, and to really have a commercial market, we 

have to generate revenue in the order of magnitude of at least a 

billion or two to support activities like that. So I think there’s a 

real effort needed to be working on the demand side of that whole 

equation. 

Mr. BEYER. Well, thank you for putting the challenge out for all 

of us. We passed the Science Prize Act earlier this year. Maybe we 

can put that as one of the Science Prize challenges is what needs 

to be done. 

Mr. Weir, I love your idea of abandoning the zero-g gravity and 

just spinning the Space Station as they do so often. How difficult 

is it going to be to have a counterweight a quarter-mile away as 

they travel through space—— 

Mr. WEIR. Well—— 

Mr. BEYER. —as opposed to when they’re stationary. 

Mr. WEIR. Right. Well, the cable itself—if your space station 

were approximately the same size as the International Space Station, the forces would require the cable itself to be—I forget the 

exact diameter but I worked out the mass. The cable itself would 

weigh about 10,000 kilograms. Compare that to the 385,000 kilograms that the International Space Station weighs. We’re talking 

about one part in 40 of the total mass of the station would be the 

cabling. But other than that, that’s it. That’s the additional mass. 

And the counterweight would not just be some wasted weight. That 

would be the other half of the station. There might be another crew 
73 

node or it might be other station keeping. You would not have dead 

weight. 

Mr. BEYER. Is there anything in our discovery of gravitational 

waves that leads you to some creative thought about another approach to this? 

Mr. WEIR. Unfortunately, no. The only technology we have available to us for artificial gravity is centrifugal force. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Pardon me for being in and out. That’s the 

way we are in Congress sometimes. We’ve got 10 things to do at 

one time. 

And let me just note right off the bat that we seem to be having 

dual movies here. It’s, you know, the Martian versus Gravity or 

something like that, you know, because in fact, there as a movie, 

Gravity, and this is what I’d like to ask Mr. Weir. Okay, I take it 

that you saw the movie Gravity as well? 

Mr. WEIR. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So we’ve got these threats that’s called 

space debris floating around there. Don’t you think that perhaps it 

would be a better use of our money right now to help clean up that 

space debris and perhaps even protecting the world from an asteroid or a meteorite that could destroy the whole world? Shouldn’t we 

actually be getting those jobs done before we spend billions of dollars to try to get to Mars to plant our flag and come back? 

Mr. WEIR. Well, we already are protecting the world from asteroids. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We are? 

Mr. WEIR. It’s called Planetary Defense. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes? 

Mr. WEIR. And the main way it’s done is that we track all asteroids that are large enough to be any significant threat to Earth, 

and that’s already being done, and so we know—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We can track, but frankly, it’s being tracked 

but we don’t know what to do after that. 

Mr. WEIR. Well, we do know that for at least the next 50 years, 

we have no dangerous asteroids heading our way. But yes, if we 

detected something that was a significant threat, I’m pretty sure 

this body and your colleagues on the other side of the building 

would be willing to, you know, put together some funding or something to shoot it down. So I feel confident that that could be taken 

care of. 

As for space debris, people often underestimate how big Earth 

orbit is. To give you an idea of how big it is, it’s bigger than the 

whole world. It’s the entire surface of Earth but bigger. So when 

people say hey, let’s clean up the space debris, that’s like saying 

hey, can we get rid of all the gum wrappers in the Pacific Ocean. 

There are few, they are far between. They are hard to find, and it’s 

just not viable for us to track them all down. 

What we should be doing is putting in place policies that prevent 

people from leaving stuff up in space for very long, put it into orbit 

so that it will eventually decay, and if parts break off, that they 

will eventually decay and come into the safety of Earth’s atmos-
74 

phere, and of course, protecting Earth from anything that we’ve 

launched is a non-issue because we haven’t launched anything 

that’s big enough to survive reentry and hit the ground. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. I do disagree with you on a couple of things but let me note that’s good. That’s what these hearings are all about is to get different points of view out. I wonder 

if the panel agrees with our witness that it’s impossible that there 

would be a rock headed toward the Earth enough to do great damage to our Earth that we wouldn’t see for 50 years out. I think that 

there could possibly be something that might emerge on the radar 

screen like the one that I think just recently went by a couple days 

ago. 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Yes, sir. There’s always a possibility that 

something could emerge, and as Congressman Bridenstine knows, 

if a target’s coming right at you in the air, you sometimes don’t see 

it until it’s right on top of you, and that could be the case. I participated in a study with the National Science Foundation a few years 

ago where we did look at the observational capabilities both on the 

surface of the Earth and in space to track the objects that are out 

there, and he’s right. We haven’t detected anything yet that we can 

track that is a threat to the Earth. I also agree with him that if 

we did detect something and we had time to do something about 

it, we would do something about it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If we had time. That’s the big ‘‘if.’’ 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Right, but right now if you were to say I want 

to do a specific thing to protect the Earth against a specific asteroid 

or any other object, there are so many different types of objects out 

there, settling on only one solution probably would not be cost-effective. You’d need to know the threat. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let’s put it this way. It would have to 

be one solution but at this point I would like to know, rather than 

spending billions of dollars to go to Mars when they might turn 

around to take a look at the Earth and see a big blip because all 

of a sudden something had hit the planet, we don’t have the plan— 

I’m not talking about one option. We don’t have a plan that has 

several options if something big is spotted headed toward the 

Earth, and to spend billions of dollars on what we can’t do now, 

which is what’s been outlined in testimony, and giving up those 

things we could do, we could put a plan in place to protect us, and 

we could put a plan in place that would actually deal with the— 

and I would disagree with—I think it’s a little more risky than just 

bubblegum wrappers in the Pacific Ocean. And so I think we 

should do that. 

One last question. You were talking about space habitat. Is 

Bigelow—you know, Bigelow put a lot of money, its own money, 

into developing new technology for space habitat. Is that part of 

the equation is what he’s done and what he offers? Is that going 

to be part of the equation of what we’re talking about here? 

Mr. CRUSAN. We have contracts right now under NextSTEP with 

four commercial firms: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Orbital ATK and 

Bigelow Aerospace. So all four are currently under our phase I activities, and they had an opportunity to move to phase II just like 

the others and an ability to on-ramp also other organizations beyond the four that we are currently working with. 
75 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, there’s lots of things that we can do in 

space. I hope that we make sure that we don’t waste dollars on 

things that we don’t accomplish anything with, and on that, the 

witness—see, I’m an author too. I’m a writer too. We’re both writers. And I agree with you totally. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

And now I recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Bridenstine. 

And by the way, we are going to go back through a second round 

of questions if that’s okay with everyone. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I approve. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to bring up a couple of things that I want to make sure 

people understand my philosophy on, primarily because of some of 

the testimony we just heard. 

The Interagency Space Debris Coordination Committee put out a 

study not too long ago. It included five other space agencies from 

throughout the world and then NASA is the sixth, and it indicated 

that in that critical orbital regime from 700 kilometers to 900 kilometers, given the current regulatory environment, we will continue 

to see space debris grow. It’s not going to go away. It will continue 

to grow, and that’s if everything stays the same as far as launch 

frequency and the satellites that are launched right now, and we 

know that that is not the case. Launch frequencies are going to 

continue to increase. We’ve got constellations that are hundreds 

and in many cases—in some cases now thousands of satellites 

going into low-Earth orbit, and this is not going to be sustainable 

for the long term. We’ve got to make sure we’re doing the right 

things on this Committee so that we can mitigate the debris, as 

you talked about, but eventually there’s going to come a day when 

remediation is going to be necessary, and we need to be very serious and methodical about how we go about that. 

I wanted to ask you a question, Mr. Crusan, about one of the reasons to do the Asteroid Redirect Mission is for propulsion. Why is 

it necessary to do an asteroid redirect mission to create the propulsion capabilities necessary for a Mars mission? 

Mr. CRUSAN. So there are two aspects that are important, the actual funding of large-scale solar electric propulsion systems from 

the arrays to the power management systems to the actual thrusters. The other aspect is actually operating a large-scale system 

such as that in deep space for a prolonged period of time to get a 

good understanding. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So why is an asteroid redirect mission necessary for that? 

Mr. CRUSAN. It’s an opportunity to test those critical systems. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So it’s not necessary, it’s just something that 

would be a good idea because it gives us a reason to do what is 

necessary? 

Mr. CRUSAN. Yes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. I wanted to ask you a question regarding the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus. It directed NASA to have a 

cislunar habitat prototype ready by 2018 and directed NASA to 
76 

spend no less than $55 million specifically on a habitation module. 

However, NASA’s operations plan for fiscal year 2016 only allocates 

$25 million, not the total $55 million, to NextSTEP activities. According to the NextSTEP 2 announcement, ‘‘The initial solicitation 

is seeking ground prototype habitation systems.’’ It seems as if 

NASA is only spending $25 million explicitly on the development 

of a ground prototype. Can you explain how NASA’s other expenditures meet the Omnibus directive of $55 million specifically on the 

prototype? So $25 million, $55 million. Where’s the other $30 million? 

Mr. CRUSAN. So there’s two aspects that we’re looking at. You 

have the habitation systems, the things that which you put inside 

the habitat—the life support systems, the radiation mitigation, 

things like logistics and the outfitting. Those are all core systems. 

And then you have the integrated habitat itself, the actual module 

or modules that you would like. Both of those are needed to go forward. In fiscal year 2016, we’re actually spending in excess of $70 

million on habitat systems at the total level, part of that in the integrated capability with industry and part of that also with industry on the habitat systems that are actually going to be inside of 

that overall capsule or module that we’ll be actually building. So 

we believe we’re meeting the intent of that by spending in excess 

of $70 million on habitat systems and the integrated habitat capability. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Are you guys going to be able to achieve a prototype habitat for cislunar by 2018? 

Mr. CRUSAN. In our current budget profile? Yes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Now, when you think about—and this is just 

because I don’t know. I’m asking you, when you think about having 

a prototype, what does that mean? Does that mean it’s going to be 

on the ground? Does that mean it’s going to be in space? 

Mr. CRUSAN. No. So it’ll absolutely be a ground prototype, and 

we look at form, fit and function. Form and fit, obviously we believe 

we can have high fidelity of those. The level of function is a level 

of ability to actually build all the various systems, either in a computer model mode or actual physical hardware. So it will have 

high-fidelity form and fit, and variable fidelity of function, depending on what we see in our proposals actually on phase II. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Awesome. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m out of time. Thank you. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Now I think we will go back through one more time if that’s 

okay, and my next question would be for Mr. Crusan first but if 

anyone else would like to answer, I certainly would appreciate it. 

NASA must ensure its investments in and acquisition strategies 

for deep space habitats are in the taxpayers’ best interests. At the 

same time, a legitimate part of NASA’s strategy for deep space 

habitats is to make investments that facilitate private-sector habitats in low-Earth orbit and beyond. In phase III of NextSTEP, 

NASA will determine its acquisition approach for deep space habitats. What types of acquisition mechanisms should NASA be considering, and what are the benefits and challenges of these respectively and how should NASA balance the interests of the taxpayers 

fostering commercial markets? 
77 

Mr. CRUSAN. So as you note, there are multiple strategies that 

we could go with the final acquisition. In NextSTEP phase II, we 

require a corporate resource contribution of 30 percent at a minimum eligibility requirement on that procurement, on that solicitation. That is to foster the dual use of whatever habitation systems 

for deep space are meant for low-Earth orbit for that kind of skin 

in the game of those procurements. That also allows us the ability 

for intellectual property related to commercial endeavors in lowEarth orbit to reside with the commercial entities as well. 

So going forward into the final acquisition, it could be that one 

choice we go to a standard cost-plus-type contract or it could be 

more of a fixed price in certain elements of the contract where 

there’s high alignment with commercial needs. When we talk about 

a habitat, it could be a subsystem, the entirety of the system. You 

could think about service modules or small propulsion buses that 

have high alignment, say, with commercial satellite buses, or the 

habitat structure be on a fixed-price basis. So it’s much more 

granular when you start dividing the various systems that we 

could approach. So you wouldn’t have to have a single contract 

methodology for the entirety of the system end to end. You could 

actually have customized acquisition pieces that match best with 

the commercial potential of those subsystems, and that’s what 

we’re looking at trying to achieve you of this phase II effort is looking at how do you divide a system up in such a way that optimizes 

the LEO use of components while getting at the deep space needs 

that we have, and we know there will be incompatibility in a few 

of those areas, and that’s what we’re trying to find during the studies. 

Chairman BABIN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crusan. Would anybody 

else like to add anything there? 

Mr. ELBON. I would like to add—— 

Chairman BABIN. Mr. Elbon, yes, sir. 

Mr. ELBON. —a couple of points. You know, the public-private 

partnership has worked really well for Commercial Cargo, and I 

think we’ll find that it’ll work really well for Commercial Crew. It’s 

important, I think, to remember that that mission is a mission 

we’ve been doing since we put John Glenn in orbit over 50 years 

ago, well understood the risk postures, understood the technologies 

there to do it, and so companies were able with some very top-level 

NASA requirements to develop solutions to do that mission. 

We’re now going beyond low-Earth orbit into deep space, the area 

around the Moon, and we haven’t done as much there. The requirements aren’t understood. I think NASA needs to stay in the middle 

of those requirements because this thing is going to evolve into 

what goes to Mars. And so it’s real important that we look at the 

differences in the mission and the whole situation and not look at 

everything as a nail because we’ve got a hammer here. 

Chairman BABIN. Exactly. Thank you. 

And one more question for Mr. Weir. As a writer, you’ve inspired 

many with the possibility of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and let’s not forget botany. We certainly need young people devoted to STEM fields if we are going to Mars. What recommendations do you have for this Committee and for NASA as to 

how we can continue to inspire people with space exploration and 
78 

the possibilities of STEM? And these four young ladies sitting in 

the back I think are perfect examples of people who are being inspired, and if you could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. WEIR. Well, I would recommend you keep doing cool stuff. I 

mean, basically—— 

Chairman BABIN. I’ve been trying to do that all my life. 

Mr. WEIR. Yeah. Well, basically people, especially kids, are motivated by results, by what they see. So ideologies or concepts or 

things we might do at some point in the future, those are less interesting to kids choosing potential careers than the things that are 

actually being done. So if you want to see more kids in STEM, do 

more cool stuff in space. 

Chairman BABIN. Good answer. Okay. All right. Thank you so 

much. 

And now I’d like to recognize the gentlewoman from Maryland, 

Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks to 

the witnesses. 

I have a couple of questions actually for the companies who are 

here because you have decades of work in space systems, and I’m 

just trying to figure out what it is that NASA needs to do now in 

conjunction with our elected leadership to make sure that we’re 

really on pace to get this done, and my concern rests with the fact 

that we continue to have this kind of push and pull with the Administration and the Committee over what platform we’re going to 

use as the springboard to Mars. Is it going to be an asteroid retrieval mission? Is it going to be on the Moon? I mean, all of those 

different considerations. And I want to know from your perspective 

when we need to resolve this so that we have the ability to move 

forward in a way that allows us to put the resources that are necessary to get the job done. Because I think as long as the Executive 

Branch and the Congress are in slightly different places, it’s very 

confusing, and it’s unpredictable, and we don’t have the resources 

that we need, and in fact, we could be just wasting money because 

we’ll come up on another Administration starting from scratch. 

And so I would just like your opinions of that. Mr. Elbon? 

Mr. ELBON. Yeah, I’ll start. I was asked in the Human to Mars 

panel this morning what the biggest tent pole was for us getting 

to Mars, and my response was just about what you said, and that 

is, we need to get on a path and stay on that path, and it has to 

survive several Administrations, you know, in a couple decades 

here. So I think we have to be careful not to be distracted by other 

ideas, not to invest in one path and then switch to another path. 

So the answer I would give is as soon as we can we need to nail 

down the architecture and the approach and then stay on that 

path, keep it funded, and that will allow us to get to Mars at lower 

cost and a lower schedule than switching back and forth. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Ms. Sigur? 

Ms. SIGUR. And my comment is much along the same lines. A 

level of commitment and vision I think are mandatory. NASA has 

a great vision to establish certain types of capability. What we 

can’t afford to do is to start and stop and start and stop and start 

and stop. The questions and the issues are very hard. Multiyear 
79 

funding would be beneficial, and that once we establish that there’s 

a vision that we’re going to go after, let’s commit. 

There’s a difference when we’re trying to get a commitment for 

someone to make a one-off and something that feels like a business. So having that vision, establishing it for multiple years and 

sticking to it I think would be a real benefit. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Culbertson? 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Yes, ma’am, pretty much along the same lines. 

We need a vision. We need leadership. We need decisions out of the 

government, both branches of the government, and we need everybody to be pretty much on the same page. So in my view, it needs 

to be as non-partisan as possible, bipartisan where necessary, but 

we need decisions and we need the right level of funding, and also 

you need to know that as industry, you’re investing in this, it will 

eventually pay off for you too, and so if we’re going to have to have 

skin in the game, we need to understand how NASA or other agencies will allow us to commercialize that. For example, if we had an 

X percentage investment in it, we ought to be able to sell X percentage of that capability while we are providing that kind of service and support. Services are a good way to start in this, and we’re 

doing that with Cargo and Crew and other ways of continuing 

those kind of operations in space, and of course, communications is 

a great example of how that can evolve into a standalone industry. 

Whether we can establish an industry like that around the Moon, 

I think that’s a long way off but it certainly could happen, depending on what we discover there. 

I also think, to address some of the earlier discussion, developing 

the capabilities to do these kind of things will allow us to address 

some of the other really hard problems such as protection of the 

planet and detecting things further out and sooner so that if we 

need to take action, we can do that. That comes as a byproduct of 

doing really hard things like this as we saw going to the Moon. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And we don’t have time for it here 

today but I do think that there’s value in providing information to 

the Committee about what you perceive as the job creation and 

technology creation capabilities that would lend itself to the way 

that we begin to think about the value of investing in this really 

long-term and quite expensive endeavor, and the question is, will 

it pay off in the kind of way that the space program has over these 

last almost six decades. So thank you very much for your consideration. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

Now I’d like to recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 

Bridenstine. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Sigur, I wanted to second your comments about, we need to 

have a vision and we need to have something that we can stick to, 

and I think all of us on this Committee on both sides of the aisle 

agree with that 100 percent, and I agree with you especially because you’re a graduate of Rice University, which everybody knows 

is the preeminent engineering school in the country. Although I 

was not an engineer there, I highly respect those who were. 

I want to go back for a second. I’m going to sound like a broken 

record here but when you think about the space debris challenge 
80 

that we have, it is very real, and I know Orbital ATK, you guys 

are working on doing some mitigation by extending the life of satellites that currently exist in space so that we don’t have to continue launching new, but I’m on the Armed Services Committee, 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and I can tell you, you go back 

to 2007, the Chinese shot down a weather satellite, created 5,000 

pieces of orbital debris. A couple years later you had an Iridium 

satellite collide with a Cosmos satellite, created thousands of more 

pieces of orbital debris, all in these critical orbital regimes, and this 

Interagency Committee on Space Debris Coordination said that 

those kind of collisions, Iridium and Cosmos, will continue to happen on average every five to nine years, which means they’re going 

to continue to grow. So these are absolutely necessary. 

I believe by making the right investments today, not only are we 

protecting low-Earth orbit but we’re protecting our ability to do 

what’s necessary to get to Mars one day. That’s what we’re doing. 

On the Mars issue going back for a second, the Mitch Daniel report that came out, the National Research Council put out a report, 

said, you know, our budgets, the money we are spending today and 

our missions and our strategy absolutely will not get us to Mars. 

It wasn’t that it was going to be delayed ten years or delayed 20 

years. They flat-out said we’re not going to get there. That should 

have sounded an alarm for all of us on this Committee. What is 

we’re doing wrong? And we need to get real assessments over what 

we’re doing wrong on this Committee so that we can actually go 

home and tell our constituents that we are not investing their 

money in vain. I mean, that should have infuriated all of us on this 

Committee. And so we have those issues. 

Now, when you talk about SLS and you think about specific mission plans beyond EM–1, I believe we need an increased launch frequency. I don’t think that, you know, launching every four years 

is going to get done what we need to get done and have it be safe. 

But barring that we’re going to increase launch frequency given the 

budgets that we have, we need to increase the utility of every 

launch that we do, and I wanted to ask if when it comes to EM– 

2, Mr. Crusan, do you know, is there going to be a secondary payload that might be a habitat that could go out to cislunar or beyond 

low-Earth orbit? 

Mr. CRUSAN. So one of the things we’re looking at is how do you 

do that sequence of habitation buildout. So part of the NextSTEP 

analysis with industry here is looking at the ability to co-manifest 

on SLS and looking at the crew and the ability for habitation elements or habitation modules per se and how would you put those 

on. Consideration for the EM sequence will have a direct impact on 

what cargo and what capabilities fly on each of the exploration missions on SLS. That’s what we’re studying actually with industry. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So when we think about—and I know I just 

asked you the question about the Asteroid Redirect and why is that 

necessary, is it possible that we could launch a habitat on EM–2 

and then have that be the target, in essence, for follow-on SLS missions? 

Mr. CRUSAN. Depending on the size of the habitat, yes. Technically, there is no reason why you wouldn’t put on there. It’s an 

ability of, is that the right first element or do you want to split 
81 

apart your elements of station-keeping capability or a node or habitat. That’s one of the things that we’re working with industry, 

which pieces of those do you sequence first. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So is it possible, could we use a Delta IV to 

put a habitat where it needs to go to make that a target for the 

follow-on EM missions? 

Mr. CRUSAN. So under the NextSTEP phase II, we have the comanifested option with SLS that people can study and give us options for that. We also have the ability for industry to propose alternative launch vehicle options as well including Delta IV and others, and where we stage that is in deep space, so as long as those 

vehicles or whatever proposed vehicle that they’re talking about 

can throw a reasonable size volume to cislunar space, then yes, 

that’s an open consideration. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Chairman, if it’s all right—I know I’m out 

of time. We need to make sure that Congress is aware and understands what the objective here is and ultimately the direction we’re 

going to go because I don’t want to get another report in ten years 

that says under no circumstances will we ever get to Mars and between now and ten years from now we will have made all these investments believing one thing and being told later something else. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. Well stated. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Sigur, we—my understanding through this is that we’ve 

been taking about habitats in orbit around Moon and later obviously the habitat that takes us through the thousand-day journey. 

And then you’ve written about the habitats in a Mars orbit and 

stationing it there instead, and suggested, at least in the written 

testimony, that you might be able to do that by 2028, which is, you 

know, 4 or five years earlier than we planned with NASA. Is this 

built into NASA time frame? And what are the necessary steps to 

move to essentially a Mars orbit rather than something cislunar? 

Ms. SIGUR. Let me add a couple of points of clarification. The 

proposed mission would be one that would be in Mars orbit, not 

supplanting a mission to the surface of Mars, which is still planned 

as scheduled for the 2030s. The concept is that at Mars orbit, we’d 

be able to get smarter, we’d be able to get information and data, 

and it would allow for us to have real information about the planet 

and make real-time decisions and accelerate some of the milestones 

that would be forthcoming, and again, could happen a lot faster because we’re in close proximity. The steps that we propose are taking advantage of existing committed missions that we have for 

Orion SLS with a view towards leaning forward as was just recently suggested by Congressman Bridenstine to say let’s look to 

see what’s happening in EM–1, 2, 3 and beyond to see if there are 

ways for us to do prepositioning, to see if we can work early tests 

with a target towards having before we get to 2024 a habitat system around the Moon, which does take advantage of using that as 

a testing ground for the deep space systems that we have before 

we go even further beyond. 
82 

So nothing that I’ve said is intended to preclude those milestones 

as steppingstones but really push towards how we can bring things 

forward to the left by doing some of the hard tests earlier. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you. 

Mr. Culbertson, you mentioned that Orbital ATK’s cislunar habitat design incorporates lessons that you’ve learned from delivering 

cargo to ISS. Can you talk about what some of those lessons are? 

Mr. CULBERTSON. Yes, sir. Many of them have to do with acquisition process in terms of how we built this as an orbital investment 

with NASA co-investing but we own the system basically and we 

provide the service, and they pay for the service. You can take that 

same principle almost anywhere in the local vicinity—by that, I 

mean the Moon—by providing cargo services, crew services, power, 

other things that you could provide to any NASA activity that was 

happening around the Moon. But a lot of it has to do with how the 

hardware’s developed, what the level of oversight versus insight is 

that NASA would have to have. As long as they set the goals and 

the standards and we can meet them, then you can provide the 

service and they can get what they need without investing in a 

whole lot of hardware. But the commercial industry, of course, has 

to show a return for shareholders in order to be able to do that. 

On the technical side, of course, the spacecraft has performed 

very well autonomously going to the Space Station, achieving its 

rendezvous, stopping at 10 meters and being grappled by the crew. 

That kind of autonomy certainly can apply to any activities in 

cislunar space. The redundancy that we have, the spacecraft was 

based on our 15-year life geocoms that have a lot of resiliency and 

reliability in their systems, and we can fly a lot longer than the 90 

days that we currently do on a Space Station mission. So we think 

we’ve got the basics available to us to move to low-Earth— I mean 

to cislunar. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Elbon, you talked and wrote about the challenges of in-space 

propulsion, which obviously is very different from blasting off at 

Wallops Island. You also wrote about the solar electric tug using 

the power of the sun to do the propulsion. Is that what’s generally 

established as the way we’re going to move from, say, a cislunar 

station all the way to Mars? 

Mr. ELBON. Yeah, one of the building blocks of the architecture 

is a solar electric capability that would be used to accelerate on the 

way to Mars and then after you’re halfway there you can decelerate, and that is a very efficient kind of propulsion system from 

a mass perspective, and as Mr. Crusan was talking, it’s a big part 

of what will come out of the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, so we’ll 

have that capability. It’s important for us to be able to do the mission. 

Mr. BEYER. And is that really the only form of in-space propulsion that’s being considered? 

Mr. ELBON. Well, it will take a lot of—not a lot. In addition to 

that, we’ll need cryopropulsion, and that gets into technologies of 

being able to store the cryo, maybe not just cry but at least chemical propulsion to allow us to make the initial increase in Delta V 

to get away from the Moon and on the way back from Mars as well. 

Mr. BEYER. One last short question. 
83 

Mr. Weir, did you pick Matt Damon to play you or—— 

Mr. WEIR. No. My main job on the film was to cash the check. 

Chairman BABIN. That is not a bad job, I can tell you that. 

This concludes our hearing, and I want to thank each and every 

one of you, Mr. Crusan, Mr. Elbon, Ms. Sigur, Mr. Culbertson and 

Mr. Weir. It’s been a fascinating hearing and I really have enjoyed 

it, and we’ve learned a lot, and I want to also announce that the 

record will remain open for two weeks for additional written comments and written questions from members who perhaps were not 

able to make it. 

So with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(85) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
86 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Jason Crusan 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Responses by Mr. John Elbon 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Responses by Ms. Wanda Sigur 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 

Responses by Mr. Frank Culbertson 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 

Responses by Mr. Andy Weir 
133 

(135) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
136 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE FULL COMMITTEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
137 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 

Æ