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

25–172 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–613 

NASA AT A CROSSROADS: REASSERTING 

AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN SPACE EXPLORATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 13, 2016 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 13, 2016 ............................................................................... 1 

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

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of George Whitesides, CEO, Virgin Galactic ................ 59 

Prepared statement of Casey Dreier, Director of Space Policy, The Planetary Society .................................................................................................. 60 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 54 

WITNESSES

William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and 

Operations, NASA ................................................................................................ 7 

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

Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration ..................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Michael Gold, Vice President, Washington Operations and Business Development, Space Systems Loral ................................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Mark N. Sirangelo, Corporate Vice President, Space Systems, Sierra Nevada 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Daniel L. Dumbacher, Professor of Engineering Practice, School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, College of Engineering, Purdue University ........... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

APPENDIX

Letter dated July 13, 2016 to Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Gary Peters 

from Scott Lehr, President, Flight Systems Group, Orbital ATK .................... 101 

Response to written questions submitted to William H. Gerstenmaier by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 110 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 114 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 115 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 115 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 116 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 119 

Response to written questions submitted to Michael Gold by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 120 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 123 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 123 

Response to written questions submitted to Mark N. Sirangelo by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 124 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 126 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 127 

Response to written questions submitted to Daniel L. Dumbacher by: 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 127 

(1) 

NASA AT A CROSSROADS: 

REASSERTING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IN 

SPACE EXPLORATION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:47 p.m. in room 

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

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Peters, Nelson, Daines, and 

Gardner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is called to order. Good afternoon 

and welcome. I apologize for the delay of the start of the hearing. 

We had a vote scheduled at 2:30, and so that delayed our beginning 

this hearing. But welcome. I want to thank each of the witnesses 

for coming and testifying. 

Exploration, the need to seek out the unknown, to expand our 

civilization, and to create new enterprise. Nearly 400 years ago, 

some of our Nation’s first pioneers, the pilgrims, set out across the 

white-tipped Atlantic Ocean in search of the New World. William 

Bradford, speaking in 1630, of the founding of the Plymouth Bay 

Colony said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied 

by great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome 

with answerable courage. It is that same answerable courage and 

restless desire to seek out the unknown that led our country to expand westward, to create new industries, and eventually to look toward the heavens to chart out a new course for American discovery 

and free enterprise. With names like Armstrong, Aldrin, Shepard, 

and Lovell, we set off through the vistas of space and inspired a 

nation. 

However, this journey hasn’t always been easy, and it has come 

at great cost as we remember fallen heroes like Grissom, Husband, 

and McAuliffe. Today we pay our respects to the achievements and 

lessons of history, but we also seek out a hopeful future that has 

its roots in our Nation’s frontier history and the promise of new 

discovery. 

We have come together in this committee room to reassert American leadership in space. My priority for this subcommittee is to enVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
2 

sure that the United States remains the leader in space exploration 

in the 21st century. We began last year by committing our Nation 

to fostering the continued development of a strong commercial 

space sector through the passage and enactment of the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. Now we look to build 

on that foundation by focusing NASA’s energies on continuing to 

make progress in exploring space and redoubling its partnerships 

with the private sector. 

Human space exploration and innovation are integral to the mission of NASA. That’s why this subcommittee will work to provide 

NASA with the security and stability that is necessary as the agency transitions from one administration to the next, and I look forward to working with Ranking Member Peters throughout this 

process. 

We have unfortunately seen what can happen to NASA and the 

spirit of its employees when worthy missions and programs are 

clouded in uncertainty and cancellations, cancellations to programs 

such as Constellation, which sought to return astronauts to the 

Moon and beyond, or the retirement of the shuttle program have 

had lasting consequences that NASA and the broader space community are still grappling with today. These cancellations have left 

our country completely dependent on the Russians to get American 

astronauts to and from low Earth orbit, at a cost of $82 million per 

seat. If we can keep NASA on its current path, it is likely that the 

Commercial Crew Program will finally launch American astronauts 

from U.S. soil by the end of 2017. Additionally, as we set our sights 

on a Journey to Mars, it is imperative that we continue to build 

the Space Launch System and Orion, which will take NASA into 

deep space and lead us to new discoveries. 

Our path forward is not easy, but it is necessary for the future 

of our American space program. We must continue to expand the 

domain of free enterprise deeper into space, to do it first, and to 

lead the world, and to ensure that we don’t squander the opportunity before us today. 

With that, I’ll recognize Senator Peters for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good afternoon. And I want to thank Chairman Cruz for 

calling this hearing today. I’m very pleased to be here to discuss 

the future of NASA, and I want to thank each of our distinguished 

panelists in advance for your testimony here today and your willingness to answer our questions on this very important topic. 

You know, being from Michigan, the epicenter of the automotive 

world, I can’t help to notice but some very striking similarities between human space exploration and the automotive industry. The 

auto industry enjoyed a long period of growth and prosperity during the 1990s and early 2000s, and then in 2007, what has been 

called the ‘‘Great Recession’’ occurred, and at the same time, the 

price of gasoline skyrocketed. That led to factories being shut down 

and thousands of employees being out of work, and the outlook for 

the American auto industry at that time was, as you recall, particularly grim. 

3 

But Detroit automakers responded by doing what Americans do 

best, they endured, they innovated, and they rose to the challenge. 

With U.S. auto sales now reaching a new high in 2015 and expected to be even higher this year, the U.S. automotive industry is 

emerging as a great American comeback story. 

Similarly, we’ve seen highs and lows in the space business. We’ve 

had a hiatus in human spaceflight after the end of the very triumphant Apollo program. We had amazing successes with the iconic 

space shuttle program, but we also unfortunately endured the 

Challenger and Columbia tragedies. 

We have constructed a football field-sized space station and 

maintained a continuous human presence in space for over 15 

years. But following the retirement of the space shuttle and challenges and false starts in fielding the successor program, our 

human spaceflight program hit a low similar to what the auto industry hit in 2007. But now, just like the American auto industry, 

human spaceflight is making a comeback, and it’s making a comeback in a very big way. NASA and American industry are working 

together with a common goal of leading to more efficient, safer, and 

more capable systems. We must continue to innovate, find new efficiencies, meet new deadlines, and maintain the highest standards 

of excellence. These are the same elements that helped bring the 

automotive industry back to where it is today, and I believe that 

these elements will continue to bring the U.S. human space exploration to a new high. 

Pushing out to the frontier of space certainly inspires the next 

generation of engineers and scientists, creates technologies and scientific advances that make life better here on Earth, and helps 

power the dynamo of American industry. The SLS and Orion programs alone engage thousands of suppliers and small businesses 

all across this great country. I’ve spent time with several of these 

suppliers in Michigan, including Futuramic, a company that has 

transitioned from the auto industry to the space industry. Investments in space don’t only help us understand the universe, they 

create jobs and drive innovation in Michigan and communities all 

across the Nation. 

A great deal of progress has been made since NASA Authorization of 2010, and with the first commercial crew flights to ISS, the 

first launch of the massive SLS rocket, and the launch of the massive James Webb Space Telescope, all planned for the next 2 years, 

there are some huge milestones just around the corner. 

Just about anyone who was alive at the time vividly remembers, 

as I do, watching the Apollo missions on TV. Achieving Kennedy’s 

goal of putting a man on the Moon by the end of the decade is certainly one of the most significant technological achievements in 

human history. Since we last left the Moon nearly 45 years ago, we 

are now on the cusp of journeying once again into deep space, and 

we are not going to just cautiously dip our toes in the water and 

then pull back, we’re going to go boldly and we’re going to go there 

to stay. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize 

NASA and provide the agency with the stability and consistency of 

purpose that is needed to achieve the ambitious goals that we have 

set for our space program, and this hearing is an important step 

4 

in that direction. And once again I would like to thank our witnesses for your testimony and for your leadership on this important 

journey. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Peters follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Cruz for calling this hearing. I am very 

pleased to be here to discuss the future of NASA. I’d also like to recognize and 

thank Ranking Member Nelson for his leadership on these issues. 

Being from Michigan, the epicenter of the automotive world, I can’t help but notice some striking similarities between human space exploration and the automotive 

industry. The auto industry enjoyed a long period of growth and prosperity during 

the 1990s and early 2000s. Then, in 2007, what has been called the ‘‘Great Recession’’ occurred. At the same time, the price of fuel skyrocketed. This led to factories 

being shut down and thousands of employees being out of work. The outlook for the 

American auto industry was grim. 

But Detroit responded by doing what America does best—they endured, they innovated, they rose to the challenge. And with U.S. auto sales reaching a new high in 

2015, the U.S. automotive industry is emerging as a great American comeback 

story. 

Similarly, we’ve seen highs and lows in the space business. We had the hiatus 

in human spaceflight after the end of the triumphant Apollo program. We had 

amazing successes in the iconic Space Shuttle program, but we also endured the 

Challenger and Columbia tragedies. We’ve constructed a football field size space station and maintained a continuous human presence in space for over fifteen years. 

But, following the retirement of the Space Shuttle and challenges and false starts 

in fielding a successor program, our human spaceflight program hit a low similar 

to what the auto industry experienced in 2007. 

Now, just like the American auto industry, human spaceflight is making a comeback in a very big way. NASA and American industry are working together with 

a common goal leading to more efficient, safer, and more capable systems. We must 

continue to innovate, find new efficiencies, meet our deadlines, and maintain the 

highest standards of excellence. These are the same elements that helped to bring 

the automotive industry back to where it is today, and I believe that these elements 

will continue to bring the U.S. human space exploration to a new high. 

Pushing out to the frontier of space inspires the next generation of engineers and 

scientists, creates technologies and scientific advances that make life better here on 

earth, and helps power the dynamo of American industry. The SLS and Orion programs alone engage thousands of suppliers and small business all over the country. 

I’ve spent time with several of these suppliers in Michigan, including Futuramic, 

a company that has transitioned from the auto industry to the space industry. Investments in space don’t only help us understand the universe, they create jobs and 

drive innovation in Michigan and in communities across the Nation. 

A great deal of progress has been made since the NASA Authorization of 2010, 

and with the first commercial crew flights to ISS, the first launch of the massive 

SLS rocket, and the launch of the massive James Web Space Telescope all planned 

for the next two years, there are some huge milestones right around the corner. 

Just about anyone who was alive at the time vividly remembers watching the 

Apollo missions on TV. Achieving Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the moon by 

the end of the decade is one of the most significant technological accomplishments 

in human history. 

Since we last left the Moon nearly 45 years ago, we are now on the cusp of journeying once again to deep space. And we are not just going to cautiously dip our 

toes in the water and then pull back—we are going boldly, and we are going to stay. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize NASA and provide 

the agency with the stability and constancy of purpose needed to achieve the ambitions goals we have set for our space program. This hearing is an important step 

in that direction. I would like to thank our witnesses and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Senator Nelson, would you care to make a brief opening? 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thanks. And I want to thank you, Senator 

Cruz, for calling the hearing. 

We’re going to Mars, and we’re going with human beings, and it’s 

going to be in the decade of the 2030s, and we’re starting to do the 

things that we need to do and develop the technologies and systems 

in order to support life, to get there, to stay there, and to return. 

All of this goes back to when my colleague from Texas Kay Bailey 

Hutchison and I had the opportunity of bringing in for a landing, 

the new direction of NASA in the 2010 NASA Authorization. 

Recently, I visited Stennis and Michoud, and I saw that they’re 

getting ready to test that new core that is being built, as we speak, 

in Michoud. We have Orion being put together at the Kennedy 

Space Center. Mind you, what they are putting together is the second because we’ve already put an Orion together and sent it out 

about 3,600 miles for a ballistic reentry. 

So we’re going to Mars, and the rockets and the engines and the 

spacecraft that are the building blocks of that mission are now 

being assembled and getting ready to test. And you can imagine 

what the day is going to be like in 2 years, only 2 years, when the 

largest, most powerful rocket ever, the Space Launch System, rolls 

out of the vehicle assembly building and then lifts off into that first 

full-up test. And so we are on our way. 

Now, all of that is being complemented by the fact that late next 

year we’re going to start flying American rockets with American astronauts on them to and from the Space Station just like we have 

been flying the cargo on American rockets. And so this committee, 

which has always worked in a bipartisan manner and is committed 

to continuing the tradition that we work together as we advance 

and pass another NASA reauthorization. So thank all of you witnesses for being here. Your testimony is exceptionally important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

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

Good afternoon, and thank you, Senator Cruz, for calling this hearing. I greatly 

appreciate our coming together to work toward a bill that will keep NASA moving 

forward in an exciting and productive manner. 

It’s notable that July 20, one week from today, marks the 40th anniversary of the 

first landing on Mars by NASA’s Viking 1. And the legacy of that mission, and subsequent missions to the Red Planet, is that we now know that Mars was once warm 

and wet and may very well have supported life. There’s even evidence of flowing 

water at the surface of Mars today. 

In 2010, we passed a bipartisan NASA Authorization Act calling on the agency 

to explore beyond the Earth’s orbit, with the long term goal of a human mission to 

Mars. 

I recently visited Stennis Space Center and the Michoud Assembly Facility on the 

Gulf Coast, as well as the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, and I can 

tell that progress toward that goal is real. We also have Orion at the Kennedy Space 

Center in Florida being prepared for its first journey beyond the moon. We are going 

to Mars, and the rockets and engines and spacecraft that are the building blocks 

of that mission are being assembled and tested right now! 

And if all continues to go well, by the end of next year, we will once again have 

American astronauts launching to space from Florida soil on American rockets, 

thanks to the partnerships NASA has forged with SpaceX and Boeing. 

It is truly an exciting time for our space program. 

6 

This committee has always worked in a non-partisan manner, and I am pleased 

to be a part of continuing that tradition in this Congress as we work toward advancing and passing a NASA reauthorization. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

I will now recognize and introduce the witnesses on the panel. 

We have Mr. William Gerstenmaier, who is the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA. A graduate of Purdue University and the University of Toledo, Mr. 

Gerstenmaier began his career at NASA in 1977 and has been integral in the strategic direction for all aspects of NASA’s human exploration of space and cross-agency space support functions of 

space communications and space launch vehicles. He provides programmatic direction for the operation and utilization of the International Space Station, development of the Space Launch System 

and Orion spacecraft, and is providing strategic guidance and direction for the Commercial Crew and Cargo Programs that will provide logistics and crew transportation to the space station. 

Our next witness is Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, who is the Executive Director for the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration. Dr. 

Dittmar has spent her career specializing in strategy, business development, stakeholder engagement, and space policy and planning 

working with defense, aerospace, research, and technology firms. 

Dr. Dittmar previously worked for the Boeing Company, where she 

oversaw new technology development, managed the flight operations and space flight training integration groups for International Space Station assembly flights, and served as Chief 

Science and Senior Manager for Commercial Payloads. 

Mr. Mark Sirangelo is the Corporate Vice President of the Space 

Systems Group for the Sierra Nevada Corporation and is a longtime voice within the aerospace industry. Mr. Sirangelo has helped 

build and grow Sierra Nevada’s product portfolio, including small 

satellites, space technologies that have enabled more than 450 

planetary missions, such as the Mars Curiosity Rover and New Horizons Pluto Mission, rocket motors, including motors that won the 

Ansari X Prize, and perhaps most notably he is responsible for developing the Dream Chaser spacecraft, which is the only reusable, 

lifting-body, low Earth orbit vehicle capable of landing on commercial runways around the world. I would also note that Mr. 

Sirangelo served our country proudly with distinction as an officer 

in the United States Army. 

Professor Dan Dumbacher is a Professor of Engineering Practice 

at Purdue University. A graduate of Purdue University and the 

University of Alabama, Professor Dumbacher spent 35 years with 

NASA prior to joining Purdue. While at NASA, Professor 

Dumbacher served as Deputy Associate Administrator in the Exploration Systems Development Division for Human Exploration, 

and Operations Missions Director at NASA Headquarters. In that 

capacity, he provided leadership and management as the Program 

Director for Exploration Systems Development, encompassing the 

Space Launch System, Orion, and ground systems development 

and operations development and integration efforts. Professor 

Dumbacher also served as the Director of the Engineering Directorate at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, which provided 

7 

support to the space shuttle program as well as the area’s launch 

vehicles. During his career at NASA, Professor Dumbacher was 

awarded the coveted Silver Snoopy Award, NASA’s Distinguished 

Service Medal, and the Presidential Rank for Meritorious Service. 

And I will now recognize Senator Daines to introduce Mr. Michael Gold, who is a former resident of the great state of Montana. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I get to formally welcome Mr. Gold here today. Mike Gold 

grew up in Montana, and I’ve got to believe it was nighttimes and 

night skies in Montana seeing those stars that probably gave you 

interest in space. 

Mr. GOLD. I felt like I was in space already, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DAINES. Mike is originally from Poplar. He graduated 

from high school—from Billings Senior High. So did my dad—‘‘Go 

Broncs!’’ As a young lawyer, he took his Montanan ingenuity and 

began his career representing commercial space clients in the early 

days before SpaceX. 

In 2008, Mike was appointed to the FAA’s Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory Committee, where he presently serves as 

the Chair. Now Mike is Vice President of Washington Operations 

and Business Development for Space Systems Loral, responsible for 

business development of emerging space technology. 

It’s a pleasure to see a fellow Montanan be successful in the tech 

industry, and I look forward to his testimony. 

Welcome, Mr. Gold. 

Mr. GOLD. Thank you, sir, and it has been terrific working with 

you and your staff. You’re making me homesick. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN EXPLORATION 

AND OPERATIONS, NASA 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Thank you very much for allowing me to 

represent the men and women of NASA here at this hearing. 

The workforce at NASA and its support base is part of the most 

talented, dedicated, innovative workforce in the world. Moving 

human presence into the solar system is not an easy task. If you 

look at the robotic success rate at Mars and the number of spacecraft that were lost in that endeavor, it shows that this is not an 

easy task, and it is extremely difficult. 

Mars is really the right long-term destination, as the Martian environment has resources that can be directly used to support 

human presence without requiring all of the resources to be 

brought from the Earth. Today, for almost 16 continuous years, 

crews have lived and worked on the International Space Station. 

Again, this is a difficult task, but in the Earth-Reliant region, resupply is possible many times a year with cargo vehicles, and crew 

rescue can occur in a matter of hours. 

This region allows for development of long duration space systems. The systems can be improved and repaired in low Earth 

orbit. This region is also important to the private sector. A meeting 

8 

with the terrestrial-based companies is occurring in San Diego this 

week, and there are 200 new companies that are associated with 

doing research in space at that event in San Diego. The purpose 

of this event is to expose the private sector to low Earth orbit research, enabling research off the Earth for the benefit of the Earth. 

The next activity in human spaceflight will occur in the region 

between the Earth and lunar orbits, called cislunar space, or the 

Proving Ground, and this is a great Proving Ground where crew 

rescue can take days and commercial companies can still assist in 

resupply. The Space Launch System and the Orion systems are designed to enable deep space travel, and the Proving Ground enables 

testing and verification of these systems for their ultimate role in 

moving human presence into the solar system. Operating in the 

cislunar space enables significant lunar activities if desired. 

Moving human presence into deep space and breaking the ties 

with Earth requires three basic capabilities: transportation, staying 

healthy, and working in space. The current activities at NASA support these capabilities through a variety of projects and programs: 

the Space Launch System, Orion, the Asteroid Redirect Mission, 

Electric Propulsion, Laser Communication, the NextSTEP, Deep 

Space Habitation Development, the Human Research Program, 

Space Station, Ground Operations at Kennedy, and Commercial 

Crew. Future areas needing work for Mars will be Mars entry, descent, and landing, Mars ascent and return to Earth, and in situ 

resource generation on the surface of Mars. 

The agency is well positioned on this long-term mission or journey and is focused on executing the plan that we have laid out. We 

intend to continue earning the continued support of the administration and congresses for this plan. 

The progress to date is nothing short of amazing. While a number of Government Accountability Office and Office of Inspector 

General findings have highlighted areas for concern, the good news 

is none of these findings are things that the programs were not already working on. They are the normal activities that occur as part 

of development. You know, space flight systems development is difficult and demanding, but we are overcoming the challenges. 

Around the U.S. and the world as we speak, real hardware is being 

fabricated and assembled, test facilities are being utilized, and people are working together to expand human presence into the solar 

system. 

Manufacturing and development of this magnitude involves a 

large variety of contractors, partners, and small businesses. There 

are substantive strides on this Journey to Mars. NASA is positioned for a vibrant future, and we continue to lead the world in 

space through a balanced program of exploration, science, technology, and aeronautics research. We look forward to your continued support for these activities by working together and by not 

overly specifying requirements. 

If President Kennedy would have challenged NASA with the specific requirements commonly levied today, there would have been 

no lunar landing. President Kennedy did not specify the type of 

rocket or the orbit maneuver planned. He simply stated, send a 

man to the Moon and return him safely to the Earth by the end 

of the decade. He simply stated the requirements that mattered to 

9 

the administration and let the technical experts work out the details. 

The technical experts had the authority within these requirements to change the plan as needed to accomplish the goal. The 

technical experts started with a plan for a direct lunar landing 

without needing a risky rendezvous in lunar orbit, but this approach required a huge rocket development. The teams had the 

flexibility to change to a lunar orbit rendezvous that lowered the 

requirements for rocket development and allowed us to reach the 

Moon. 

Specifying the right level of requirements and allowing for technical changes are critical to successful execution of the ultimate 

goal. Moving human presence into the solar system over the next 

several decades will take the best efforts of all involved. Your past 

support is appreciated, and your future support is absolutely needed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss NASA’s human space exploration efforts, which will expand humanity’s presence in the solar system in an evolving sequence. 

Our human space exploration efforts are part of a balanced portfolio of programs 

being undertaken by the Agency that enable the U.S. to be the world leader in aerospace research, development, and exploration. We are planning for significantly accelerated Aeronautics Research that will support a vigorous flight demonstration 

program to validate technologies to dramatically improve the aircraft of the future. 

In Science, the Juno Spacecraft entered Jovian orbit just last week. Starting in late 

2016, the Cassini spacecraft will begin its dramatic ‘‘Grand Finale’’ orbits of Saturn. 

The Solar Probe Plus (SPP), Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), the Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) 

mission to Mars, and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are all on track to 

launch over the next two years, and a new Mars rover is in development for a 2020 

launch on its way to join the spectacular Curiosity rover now exploring the planet; 

InSight and Mars 2020 will join the five NASA-led missions already at Mars. 

NASA’s Earth Science missions continue to advance our knowledge of how our home 

planet functions as a system. In the area of Space Technology, we are conducting 

rapid development and incorporation of transformative space technologies, such as 

solar electric propulsion and optical communication, to enable NASA’s future missions and address aerospace industry challenges. 

NASA’s Journey to Mars is guided by the strategic direction this Committee incorporated into the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. The Agency is well positioned to 

continue on this long-term mission, and we look forward to maintaining this constancy of purpose by earning the continued support of future Administrations and 

Congresses. Beginning with the Earth-Reliant phase in low Earth orbit (LEO) 

aboard the International Space Station (ISS), we will then move into the ProvingGround phase deeper into cislunar space around the Moon with the Orion crew vehicle and Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket (as well as the ground systems that support them), and future deep-space habitation capability. Once we have 

developed the required technologies and practiced the techniques necessary in these 

environments, we will move on into the Earth-Independent phase, in which we will 

send our crews on missions of exploration to visit a multi-ton asteroid boulder we 

have brought to cislunar space and then into deep space, and on to Mars in the 

2030s. NASA, in cooperation with its industry and international partners, has made 

significant progress in pushing the boundaries of human spaceflight, and we appreciate the Committee’s support of our efforts. The challenges associated with the 

Journey to Mars will require continued contributions from all parties and require 

us to work together. 

10 

ISS and Commercial Transportation: Research and Economic Development 

in LEO 

The ISS supports research across a diverse array of disciplines, including highenergy particle physics, Earth remote sensing and geophysics, molecular and cellular biotechnology, human physiology (including bone and muscle research), radiation, plant propagation and cultivation, combustion, fluids, materials science, and 

biology. In addition, the ISS is an invaluable platform for research and development 

for next-generation technologies, not only in areas directly related to NASA’s exploration efforts, but also in fields that have numerous terrestrial and commercial LEO 

applications. As of May of this year, the estimated number of investigations conducted aboard ISS was 2,184 (this includes 103 new investigations in Expeditions 

47/48), with over 800 investigators represented, and over 1,200 publications of scientific results. Through Expedition 42, over 90 countries and areas had participated 

in ISS research and education activities. 

The ISS—which has been home to a continuous human presence on orbit for almost 16 years—is humanity’s only long-duration flight analog for future human 

deep-space missions. The ISS is vital to NASA’s mission to extend human presence 

into the solar system. In order to prepare for human expeditions into deep space, 

we must first use the unique environment of ISS to conduct the research and technology demonstrations necessary to keep our crews safe and productive on long-duration spaceflights. NASA is planning to dedicate the equivalent of four research 

racks on ISS to test exploration-class environmental and life support hardware 

needed for deep space missions. NASA’s Human Research Program continues to develop biomedical science, technologies, countermeasures, diagnostics, and design 

tools to keep crews safe and productive on long-duration space missions. The 

progress in science and technology driven by this research could have broad impacts 

on Earth as it advances our ability to support long-duration human exploration. 

This past March, NASA astronaut Scott Kelly and cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko 

returned from their year in space aboard ISS. They conducted investigations in 

areas known to be important to safe and productive long-duration spaceflight, including: functional behavioral health, visual impairment, metabolic and nutritional 

health, physical performance, microbiology, and human factors. Researchers expect 

data from the mission to inform our understanding of biomedical, performance, and 

behavioral changes and challenges astronauts will face when they embark on 

longer-duration missions. Data from the expedition will be used to find ways to further reduce the risks on all long-duration deep space missions. 

Under the auspices of the ISS National Laboratory, managed by the Center for 

the Advancement of Science In Space (CASIS), NASA is encouraging broader use 

of the ISS by non-traditional companies and other Government agencies. Use of the 

ISS as a National Laboratory has increased significantly since FY 2012, which was 

the first full year of operations by CASIS, and users include the commercial sector, 

other Government agencies, and academic institutions. The ISS National Laboratory 

has reached full capacity for allocated crew time for research and will help establish 

and test the market for research and technology development in LEO beyond the 

needs of NASA. 

Under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts our two commercial 

cargo partners, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital ATK, have 

demonstrated not only the ability to provide cargo deliveries to ISS, but also the 

flexibility to recover effectively from mishaps. Both companies have worked closely 

with NASA to understand the anomalies they experienced over the last two years. 

In developing the launch vehicles for their cargo spacecraft, SpaceX and Orbital 

ATK have also helped to bring a significant portion of the commercial satellite 

launch market back to the U.S., and helped to significantly lower launch costs. This 

January, through CRS–2, NASA contracted with SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra 

Nevada Corporation to ensure that critical science, research, and technology demonstrations will be delivered to the ISS from 2019 through 2024. 

Our commercial crew partners, SpaceX and the Boeing Company, are developing 

the Crew Dragon and CST–100 Starliner spacecraft, respectively. The work, being 

done under two Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based, fixed-price Commercial 

Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts, is currently expected to result 

in flight certification for SpaceX in 2017, and for Boeing in 2018. In 2015, NASA 

ordered the initial post-certification missions, and in 2016, milestone completion and 

work are progressing well. U.S. commercial crew capabilities will enable the Station 

crew to be expanded from six to seven astronauts and cosmonauts, resulting in a 

doubling of on-orbit research time to almost 80 hours per week. This is because the 

additional work time equivalent of the seventh crew member will be dedicated almost exclusively to conducting experiments, rather than on Station operations and 

maintenance. 

11 

As you know, NASA plans to continue ISS operations and utilization through at 

least 2024. The Agency expects to support continued research needs in LEO after 

the end of the ISS program. The Agency will work with industry, academia, and 

other government agencies through consortia and other means to establish longterm LEO demand investment and research/technology development. Encouraging 

the emergence of economic activity in LEO has significant implications—and offers 

significant opportunities—for the Nation. Enabling the effective use of this unique 

environment will call upon expertise resident across the U.S. Government in areas 

including commerce, science, and transportation. NASA and other relevant agencies 

are working in a unified manner towards the important National objective of realizing the economic potential of this new frontier. 

Orion and SLS: Traveling Beyond LEO 

As we extend further into cislunar space, from LEO out into the Proving Ground, 

we will employ new deep space exploration systems, comprising the heavy-lift SLS, 

Orion crew vehicle, the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) that support them, new 

deep space habitation capabilities and new commercial and international partnership opportunities. We also have proposed increased investment in exploration research and development and space technologies, which are critical for making future 

missions safer, more reliable, and more affordable. 

NASA’s initial deep-space mission, Exploration Mission-1 (EM–1), is on track to 

launch to a distant retrograde orbit in the Proving Ground around the Moon in 

2018. The three-week flight without crew will provide the program with data to validate spacecraft design and operations. In 2015, the Agency baselined the Orion program plan, establishing an Agency baseline commitment for Orion that supports a 

launch readiness date for the first crewed flight on EM–2 no later than 2023. Current planning continues to support an EM–2 launch in 2021. In the initial phase 

of our Proving Ground operations, NASA will use this region of space to test and 

demonstrate flight and mission operations and staging of human-rated vehicles farther from Earth than ever before. These crewed Orion missions launched on the 

SLS in the 2020s will establish our capability to operate safely and productively in 

deep space. 

Orion, SLS, and EGS provide the foundational components critical to human 

spaceflight beyond LEO, and the vehicles are being designed to enable multiple deep 

space missions and destinations rather than being optimized for one particular mission or architecture. The Orion spacecraft includes both a Crew Module and Service 

Module designed specifically for the rigors of missions far from Earth and outside 

Earth’s protective radiation belts, and a Launch Abort System. Orion alone can support a crew of up to four, with enough internal stowage for 21 days of food, water 

and air, and its systems are designed to operate for over a year if necessary. The 

SLS is a heavy-lift, exploration-class launch vehicle that will transport Orion, as 

well as cargo and other systems, with a range of lift capabilities from 70 metric tons 

to LEO, evolving to up to 130 metric tons. Studies have shown the benefit of such 

a large, single-flight lift capability. EGS launch infrastructure design, development, 

and refurbishment at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) will support SLS and Orion. 

Subsequent missions in the Proving Ground will target challenges and strategic 

knowledge gaps while helping develop the core capabilities necessary to expand 

human activity farther into deep space. NASA is planning an early SLS and Orion 

mission to rendezvous with a multi-ton asteroid boulder that will be stationed in 

lunar orbit using a demonstration of advanced solar-electric propulsion. In this mission, our astronauts will use deep-space Extravehicular Activity (EVA) technologies 

to select, extract, and contain samples from the multi-ton primordial planetary 

mass. This Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) also provides demonstration of a deflection technique called the enhanced gravity tractor that could be used on potentially 

hazardous asteroids and help us assess the potential for asteroid resource utilization 

for both exploration and commercial purposes. In addition, ARM provides a demonstration of advanced solar-electric propulsion to move multi-ton masses, advanced 

autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations at a microgravity planetary body, 

complex crew operations in the Proving Ground of lunar orbit, and a power/propulsion bus asset in cislunar space that may be used after this mission. ARM is developing technologies and capabilities necessary for deep space exploration by crews. 

Moving large objects such as a boulder presents essentially the same technical challenges as moving large cargo vehicles to support long-duration deep space crewed 

missions. 

The NASA-Industry teams building SLS and Orion have made tremendous 

progress over the last year in building and testing vehicle components. For SLS, 

core stage production is accelerating at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in 

Louisiana. After a delay to correct a structural alignment issue with the weld tool, 

12 

the largest friction stir weld machine of its kind in the world, the Vertical Assembly 

Center is now operational and has completed production of the qualification article 

for the 131-foot-tall liquid hydrogen core stage tank and the first flight article engine section. The giant structural test stands at the Marshall Space Flight Center 

in Alabama and the B–2 core stage test stand at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi are nearing completion. In June, SLS conducted the final qualification test 

of the five-segment solid rocket motor, and while the results are still being analyzed, 

the early indications are that the booster passed this critical test. The first three 

EM–1 booster motor segments have been cast and production of the remaining flight 

motors continues on schedule at the Promontory facility in Utah. Core stage engine 

testing has continued its success with the first test of a flight engine, and the next 

engine test series will begin later this month. 

For Orion, the EM–1 flight article has entered the assembly phase. The Crew 

Module primary structure, which is the pressure vessel to hold the crew’s atmosphere against the vacuum of space, is at KSC undergoing outfitting and integration 

after having completed pressure testing. The European Service Module primary 

structure is undergoing outfitting in Bremen, Germany. The Service Module, which 

provides propulsion, power, and life support to the Crew Module, is being provided 

for EM–1 through a partnership agreement with the European Space Agency (ESA). 

In March 2016, NASA exercised an option for ESA to provide the Service Module 

for EM–2. ESA recently completed the Critical Design Review (CDR) for the Service 

Module. While the NASA and ESA teams continue to assess a three-month delay 

in delivery of the EM–1 Service Module to KSC, the CDR board confirmed that the 

Service Module design is cleared for manufacturing, and the teams continue to hold 

for an EM–1 launch in 2018. In addition to the EM–1 flight article, Orion is also 

conducting extensive ground testing to demonstrate the systems for deep space. 

Software testing is underway in the Integrated Test Lab in Denver. A dedicated 

Crew Module structural test article is undergoing manufacturing at MAF. Meanwhile, the European-built Service Module structural test article is undergoing acoustic, vibration, solar array deployment, and thermal tests at Plum Brook Station in 

Ohio. Water landing tests are underway at NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia, and parachute qualification testing is starting in Arizona. Between the EM– 

1 flight article assembly and the thorough ground test campaign, Orion is progressing methodically toward the first crewed flight on EM–2. 

In Exploration Ground Systems, four of the ten giant platforms in High Bay 3 

of the Vehicle Assembly Building have been installed, and the remaining platforms 

continue to arrive at KSC. Mobile Launcher structural modifications are complete 

and outfitting is underway, while modifications to the Crawler Transporter are 

nearly complete. The umbilical systems used to interface the Mobile Launcher with 

SLS and Orion are also being tested at KSC. Software development and integration 

continues to be a major focus for all the programs and the exploration enterprise, 

and the successful validation of Spacecraft Command and Control Software version 

3.4 is a major milestone in this effort. 

Orion, SLS, and EGS teams are using the latest in systems and manufacturing 

technology with the intent of developing a safe system capable of extending human 

presence to cislunar space and to Mars. For example, the Orion team is using timetriggered Ethernet and is taking advantage of the standards for this technology that 

are used in the automotive industry. Both Orion and SLS are utilizing friction-stir 

welding (including on large structures, such as the SLS core stage), with the largest 

friction-stir weld machine in the world. The EGS team has stripped out the old copper cables from Pad 39B and replaced them with the latest in fiber optics. Orion 

and SLS plans take advantage of advances in additive manufacturing, or ‘‘3D printing.’’ For example, Orion is using this technology to reduce testing costs by printing 

test versions of flight hardware for use at the Integrated Test Lab in Denver, while 

SLS is assessing the use of 3D printed parts in future RD–25 engine production. 

These are just some examples of how NASA’s Exploration Systems are utilizing and 

advancing the latest in technology. 

In developing the Orion, SLS, and EGS, NASA is working toward building a sustainable national capability for the long-term human exploration and pioneering of 

space. Necessary to this is working to ensure that post-development operating costs 

will be affordable, and making the necessary investments in technology and other 

development efforts that will be fundamental for extending human presence to 

Mars. NASA is keeping each element of the program—Orion, SLS, and EGS—moving at its best possible speed toward the first integrated launch, optimizing each element effort’s schedule while being aware of the overall plan. This is best achieved 

when each element is allowed to progress on its own schedule, rather than being 

linked too tightly to the others. When tasks related to EM–1 are completed, the 

workforce can progress to EM–2. NASA is on a solid path toward an integrated misVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
13 

sion and making progress in all three programs every day. With the EM–1 flight 

just over two years away, and with flight hardware for the mission arriving in about 

one year, there is real sense of flight preparation cadence building. 

Preparing for Mars: Deep Space Habitation Capability and New 

Technologies 

Among the additional capabilities needed for human exploration is long-duration 

habitation. Validation of this capability in cislunar space will mark our readiness 

to begin Earth-Independent exploration beyond the Earth-Moon system. An effective 

habitation capability is comprised of a pressurized volume, and an integrated array 

of complex systems and components that include a docking capability, environmental control and life support systems, logistics management, radiation mitigation 

and monitoring, fire safety technologies, and crew health capabilities. NASA’s current strategy is to test these systems and components on the ground and in LEO 

on ISS, then as an integrated habitation capability for long-duration missions in 

cislunar space and Mars transit. NASA plans to conduct a long-duration (one-yearplus) mission in cislunar space by the end of the 2020s; this will be critical preparation for crewed missions to Mars. NASA will utilize public-private partnerships to 

the extent possible for these activities. 

One example of habitation technology being tested on ISS is the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM), which was launched to ISS on the commercial SpaceX 

Dragon spacecraft on April 8, 2016, installed on April 16, and expanded on May 28. 

BEAM will undergo a two-year demonstration period, during which Station crew 

members and ground-based engineers will gather performance data on the module. 

While the BEAM demonstration supports a NASA objective to evaluate design options for the development of a long-duration, deep space habitat for human missions 

beyond Earth orbit, the results of the demonstration will also have applications to 

private space stations/habitats, which is why Bigelow has co-funded the development of this module. 

NASA has been undertaking substantial private-sector and international engagement to define habitation concepts, systems, and implementation approaches to costeffectively achieve NASA’s goals for deep space and enable progress towards LEO 

commercial space station capabilities. The Agency’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is an effort 

to stimulate deep-space capability development across the aerospace industry. 

NASA issued the original NextSTEP BAA to U.S. industry in late 2014. In March 

2015, NASA selected 12 awardees—seven in habitation, three in propulsion, and two 

in small satellites. NASA has since entered into fixed-price contracts with the selectees. During this same timeframe, NASA has also been conducting architecture studies with our international partners to define the potential areas of contribution from 

other space agencies, continuing to build on the successes of ISS in exploration. 

In April 2016, NASA issued a NextSTEP–2 BAA, an omnibus announcement covering all aspects of basic and applied supporting research and technology for human 

space exploration and robotic precursor activities. The April release of the 

NextSTEP–2 BAA included Appendix A: Habitat Systems, which is focused on developing long-duration, deep space habitation concepts, resulting in ground prototype 

units. This ground-based effort will support development of deep space long-duration 

habitation concepts and demonstrate systems that NASA will later need to test in 

the microgravity environment of space. The objective is to identify habitation concepts that can support extensive human spaceflight missions in the Proving Ground 

and beyond while encouraging application to commercial LEO habitation capabilities. One goal of this public-private approach is to enable the United States to develop the deep space habitation capability at a lower cost than through a cost-plus 

procurement approach. The Agency plans to select multiple proposals under 

NextSTEP–2, Appendix A, in the near future, with an estimated period of performance to begin in September 2016 and extend out to about April 2018. NASA intends 

to integrate functional systems into a prototype habitat for ground testing in 2018. 

Our missions into deep space will require the development of an array of new 

technologies in a variety of areas, including advanced, high-thrust, in-space propulsion, environmental control and life support systems, in situ resource utilization 

(ISRU), and communications. NASA is working to develop and demonstrate highly 

efficient solar electric propulsion through ARM. The same spacecraft ‘‘bus,’’ and extensions of it, could be used in the future to transport large masses of systems and 

cargo to the vicinity of Mars in advance of the crewed expedition to the planet. Advances in ISRU will one day allow exploration crews to utilize space resources to 

manufacture fuel and oxidizers for propulsion systems, provide water for human 

consumption, produce materials for additional radiation shielding, and even serve 

as the building blocks for additive manufacturing. The Mars Oxygen ISRU ExperiVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
14 

ment (MOXIE), which will fly on Mars 2020, will verify that ISRU technologies can 

produce oxygen from the atmosphere of Mars to supply both human breathing needs 

as well as propellant oxidizer for Mars ascent vehicles. Optical (i.e., laser-based) 

communication will enable the transfer of data from distant missions back to Earth 

at much higher rates than are attainable using current radio-frequency communications systems. The Agency is also testing on-board systems to keep crews safe, including fire detection, suppression, and cleanup technologies. In order to better understand fire in space, in June 2016, NASA conducted the Spacecraft Fire Experiment (Saffire-1), which intentionally lit a large-scale fire inside an empty Cygnus 

cargo vehicle after it left the Station, but before re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. Instruments and cameras measured flame growth, oxygen use, heat generated, and 

more, improving understanding of fire growth in microgravity and safeguarding future space missions. 

Ensuring Astronaut Health 

The spaceflight environment includes hazards and stressors that are unique and 

whose effects on humans are not always well understood, due largely to the limited 

data set generated during the relatively short time that humans have been flying 

extended missions in space. NASA has presented a legislative proposal to Congress 

that would allow the Agency to perform enhanced annual medical monitoring and 

provide diagnosis and treatment for former astronauts for medical conditions which 

are deemed to be associated with human spaceflight. The comprehensive preventive 

screening would enable NASA to minimize catastrophic issues through early detection and the additional data acquired would enable NASA to better understand the 

risks of spaceflight, minimize these risks, and enable future long-duration missions 

to Mars and beyond. The Institute of Medicine (IOM), part of the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, has issued three reports in the last two 

decades, emphasizing NASA’s ethical and moral imperative in taking care of our astronaut corps. We would greatly appreciate Congress’ support for this important 

proposal. 

Conclusion 

NASA’s exploration strategy aims to pioneer multiple destinations in the solar 

system in an affordable and sustainable manner. In the 2020s, we will extend our 

capabilities deeper into cislunar space, beyond our continuous presence in LEO on 

ISS, to begin testing deep space exploration systems during this Proving Ground 

Phase of the Journey to Mars. From there, we will develop a better understanding 

of the risks and mitigations of sustained deep space travel, and we will continue 

to expand human presence in the solar system and to the surface of Mars. We will 

partner with industry in this endeavor and leverage private sector activity to gain 

key insight into technologies such as Mars entry, descent, and landing. We will also 

partner with the private sector in addition to SLS and Orion to support activity in 

cislunar space and lower the cost of space activities, and lead an international community in this activity. With constancy of purpose and support from the Congress, 

we look forward to extending human presence into deep space over the course of 

the next decade. 

The Agency is well positioned to continue on its long-term mission, and, by focusing on executing the plan we have laid out, we intend to continue earning the support of future Administrations and Congresses for this plan. The progress to date 

has been nothing short of amazing. Findings from our partners at the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) and Office of Inspector General (OIG) have highlighted 

areas for concern and issues that we were already working to resolve. They did not 

discover any problems that we were not already working. Spaceflight systems development is difficult and demanding, but we are overcoming the challenges. Around 

the U.S. and the world, real hardware is being fabricated and assembled, test facilities are being utilized, and people are working together to expand human presence 

into the solar system. These are substantive strides on the Journey to Mars. NASA 

is positioned for a vibrant future, and we continue to lead the world in space 

through a balanced program of exploration, science, technology, and aeronautics research. 

I would be happy to respond to any questions you or the other Members of the 

Subcommittee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

Dr. Dittmar. 

15 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION 

Dr. DITTMAR. Chairman Cruz, Senator Peters, and members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss with 

you my thoughts on U.S. leadership in space exploration. 

I would first like to say it’s an honor to be asked to testify both 

before you and as a member of this august panel. My own background is diverse, but in my current role, I serve as the Executive 

Director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, which is the 

voice of America’s industry working on a range of human exploration and science missions. 

With more than 50 members across the Nation, we are proud to 

be a part of America’s deep space programs, and we’re grateful for 

the support of this committee and the Congress, who sustain them. 

NASA stands at the cusp of a new era of exploration in deep 

space. For the first time in human history, we are poised to answer 

some of humanity’s biggest questions. Where did we come from? 

Where are we going? Are we alone? Under NASA’s leadership, an 

architecture is developing that will maximize the use of industry, 

international partners, scientists, operations experts, entrepreneurs, engineers, and program managers working in collaboration to answer the big questions and to generate a range of other 

returns to the Nation. 

Despite challenges driven by budget disconnects between the administration and Congress, the programs underpinning this architecture have made tremendous progress over the last 7 years. Like 

you, Senator Nelson, I was recently at Michoud, where the Space 

Launch System and the Orion-crewed spacecraft are being developed, and they will carry humans into deep space, and I was blown 

away. The last time I had been around so much hardware was in 

the late 1990s when I stood in a high bay at the Marshall Space 

Flight Center, which housed all at one time, five modules prior to 

launch. At Michoud, there is a similar excitement palpable on the 

factory floor, only now it’s focused outward toward Mars. We are 

going somewhere. 

In a real sense, NASA’s job is to plan for what is ultimately an 

optimistic vision of the future. Negotiating and executing programs 

for space exploration and science over decades is even more challenging than the engineering and technology upon which they rest. 

As we enter the election season, we are keenly aware of the potential for change. Change can be good, but let me state unequivocally 

that it’s the position of the Coalition that major disruptions stemming from abrupt shifts in space policy risk derailing all of the 

progress that’s been made and jeopardize our future as a nation. 

With regard to my membership, which is made up in large part 

by small companies, such rapid shifts result in shuttered offices, 

abandoned factory floors, and ruined firms. Yet these same companies are the ones most likely to generate new inventions, drive 

most job creation in the United States, and exemplify the enterprising spirit that powers our economy and our Nation. 

NASA’s SLS and Orion programs alone have sustained hundreds 

of companies in this sector, enabling innovation, new technology, 

new production methods, and the achievement of entrepreneurial 

dreams. In return, these companies have provided critical compoVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
16 

nents needed to lead the way back to deep space. Constancy of purpose is critical. 

In my written testimony, I detailed the critical roles played by 

various components of NASA’s architecture, beginning with the ISS 

as a hub of commercial development, and, importantly, as an indispensable facility for the development and testing of deep space exploration systems. 

With regard to deep space systems, the long awaited moment 

when our solar system is reopened to human exploration and development is approaching and will become real in a little more than 

2 years with the first integrated flight of Orion and SLS. In 2021, 

NASA will return American astronauts to deep space. 

These initial flights will open up a new era as NASA and its industry and international partners begin assembling a true deep 

space infrastructure, leading to new possibilities in human exploration and science. Like the generations of explorers before us, we 

will learn as we go. Eventually, once we’ve developed sufficient 

skills and validated the systems, we’ll push deeper into space to 

Mars. 

NASA’s diverse portfolio represents consensus and compromise 

among many stakeholders. It has been painstakingly developed on 

a bilateral, bicameral basis across 2005, 2008, and the 2010 NASA 

Authorization Acts. Looking back across a decade characterized by 

transition, progress, and opportunity, it is evident that this course 

has been a wise, measured, and effective one. In my written testimony, I offered some suggestions regarding essential elements I believe should be addressed for our continued progress. 

I wish to thank the Congress and this committee for your commitment to SLS, the Orion-crewed exploration spacecraft, ISS crew 

and cargo transportation, the James Webb Space Telescope, the 

start of deep space habitat development, as well as ongoing operations of the ISS and the recent triumphs of science missions, such 

as New Horizons and Juno. I encourage you to review the Coalition’s recent paper, ‘‘A Space Exploration Roadmap for the Next 

Administration,’’ which I respectfully submit for the record. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dittmar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION

Chairman Cruz, Senator Peters, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss with you my thoughts on U.S. leadership in space exploration. Our daily lives are inextricably interwoven with space-based assets, including GPS, communications, systems for weather monitoring and prediction, and intelligence and defense. Beyond these applications, our national human spaceflight and 

space science programs directed by NASA and executed in partnership with industry provide opportunities for discovery, scientific advancement, geopolitical influence, emerging technology, space commerce, and education. In addition, NASA 

stands at the cusp of a new era of exploration in deep space. For the first time in 

human history, we are poised to answer some of humanity’s biggest questions: 

‘‘Where did we come from?’’ ‘‘Where are we going?’’ ‘‘Are we alone?’’ 

This hearing is entitled ‘‘NASA At the Crossroads.’’ I think of it as ‘‘NASA In 

Transition’’—or actually, transitions. By this I do not mean the upcoming Presidential and Congressional transitions—to which I will return—but first, a transition 

that is reflective of the constant change that is all around us—in technology, manufacturing, business models, science, and regional interests, and the global shifts in 

governance, geopolitical dynamics, the exercise of power, and changes in interVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
17 

national economic strength. NASA’s space exploration programs have been impacted 

by or have impacted every one of these global factors. Against this changing backdrop NASA must plan for what is, ultimately, an optimistic vision of the future. A 

disruption in programs stemming from abrupt change in space policy derails this 

process and jeopardizes that future. Our national destiny and our ability to guide 

it rests on decisions made yesterday, today and tomorrow to sustain and advance 

a flexible and multifaceted exploration architecture—such as the one currently being 

put into place—that will assure U.S. leadership in space over the decades ahead. 

I am pleased to share these perspectives in my capacity as Executive Director of 

the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, which is the ‘‘voice’’ of America’s industry 

working on a range of human exploration and space science missions. The Coalition 

represents nearly 50 large and small businesses building these deep space capabilities. I also bring the perspective of a small business owner and entrepreneur, a 

former human spaceflight operations manager for the International Space Station 

(ISS) Program (Boeing, a member of the Human Spaceflight Committee at the National Research Council, and a current member of the Executive Committee, Space 

Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 

The International Space Station 

America’s architecture in deep space begins near the Earth, in Low Earth Orbit 

(LEO), where a second transition is taking place. Across 50 years of government investment in space exploration and science, and in collaboration with industry partners, NASA has matured technologies, techniques and capabilities that are being 

transitioned to the private sector. New transportation systems dedicated to shuttling cargo to the ISS have come on line. Crewed flights will begin in 2017–2018. 

The transition of space transportation services to industry, under a NASA program 

where industry partners have benefited from government development funding and 

technical support, coupled with the availability of the ISS as a research and development platform, has attracted investors interested in establishing commercial enterprises in LEO. The growth of these entrepreneurial interests is laying the 

groundwork for finally expanding the sphere of human economic activity off the 

Earth, into LEO. As this happens, NASA can turn its attention more fully to deep 

space exploration. 

Here, too, the ISS plays a crucial role. In addition to its facilitation of science, 

international collaboration, and commercial activity, the ISS is a mission-critical 

technology and engineering test bed for deep space systems—for example, the development of a next-generation Environmental Control and Life Support System 

(ECLSS) needed for deep space habitats. It is also a living laboratory for studying 

how human beings live, work, thrive and survive in space. Ensuring the fullest utilization possible of the ISS through 2024, with continued study of the feasibility of 

extension beyond that time, is of paramount importance. 

Deep Space Exploration 

Since the end of the Shuttle program, NASA human spaceflight has been in yet 

another transition—from two operational programs (Shuttle and ISS) to one of longduration operations on the ISS and another engaged in development of deep space 

exploration systems and the ground infrastructure needed to support them. Though 

tremendous activity is ongoing, development programs lack the visceral or visual 

punch of Shuttle launches. Virtually all of the planning and development activity 

is under the radar, invisible to the public—and to policy makers—until major milestones are reached, such as the successful Exploration Flight Test (EFT–1) of the 

Orion spacecraft in December of 2014 and the final test of the five-segment Space 

Launch System (SLS) boosters last month. On behalf of the companies that I represent here today, I wish to thank the Congress and this committee for your sustained commitment to development of the SLS super-heavy rocket, the Orion crewed 

exploration spacecraft, ISS crew and cargo transportation, the James Webb Space 

Telescope (JWST), the start of the deep space habitat development, as well as the 

ongoing operations of the ISS and the recent triumphs of science missions such as 

New Horizons (Pluto) and Juno (Jupiter). Such support takes foresight and patience, 

and I believe the American people will soon begin to see the full range of benefits 

and tremendous impact of these investments in our future in deep space. 

Looking ahead, we see a continuing need for constancy of purpose, vision, and 

commitment to pursue steady progress toward America’s future in deep space across 

all of the transitions NASA faces. The long-awaited moment when our solar system 

is re-opened to human exploration and development will become real in a little more 

than two years as the first integrated test flight of Orion and SLS, Exploration Mission 1 (EM–1), lifts off in 2018. In 2021, NASA will return American astronauts to 

deep space as they travel in Orion, powered by the mighty SLS with an Exploration 

18 

Upper Stage, past the Moon and farther into space than any human being has gone 

before. These initial flights will open a new era as NASA and its industry partners 

begin assembling a true deep space infrastructure, with habitats enabling crewed 

missions in the lunar vicinity, and the development of long distance cargo carriers 

powered by solar electric propulsion (SEP). Transit of cargo and people between the 

Earth and cislunar space will commence, inviting participation from current and 

new international partners and enabling commercial interests in deep space as new 

capabilities come on line. Eventually, once we have developed sufficient skills and 

validated our systems, procedures, operations concepts, and technologies, we will 

push deeper into space, to Mars. 

SLS and Orion are being built for decades of use, not just a mission or two. The 

Orion crew vehicle is capable of sustaining astronauts for up to 1,000 days—a mission to Mars—provided sufficient consumables are available. In addition, there are 

powerful reasons for the use the super-heavy lift SLS for exploration missions. Future Mars landings, for example, require at least the equivalent mass of the ISS 

launched from Earth. Assuming NASA is able to incorporate new technologies such 

as 3D printing and technical approaches to reduce propellant boil off during transit, 

this mission would require 6 to 7 SLS vehicles with 130 metric ton lift capability. 

In contrast, considering only the mass requirements, it would take up to 30 

launches of smaller, commercially available rockets to conduct a similar mission. 

The cumulative risk of mission failure from that many launches compared to the 

number of SLS launches is significantly increased, assuming similar launch probabilities Simply put, the more launches, the higher the overall probability of failure. 

In the case where the mission is dependent upon the order in which launches 

occur—as in an assembly sequence—the problem is amplified; failures early in a 

launch sequence may disrupt the rest of the sequence until a workaround can be 

found or a replacement payload developed. As a result of these factors and others, 

the SLS—and the Orion crew vehicle—are key enablers for America’s deep space future. 

As EM–1 draws near, the opportunities for human exploration and planetary 

science mission that these systems will make possible are inspiring the imagination 

and interests of governments, industry, and the public. There is talk of international 

lunar science missions, lunar surface operations, concept development of a Mars 

base camp in orbit, plans for joint science and exploration missions, and proposals 

for new technologies to enable humans to explore Mars sooner rather than later. 

Planetary missions, harnessing the unparalleled capability of SLS to cut travel time 

to outer planets in half, such as the Europa mission, are on the drawing boards. 

Human missions, making use of the capabilities of the Orion crewed vehicle to carry 

crewmembers to multiple destinations in the solar system, provide tremendous flexibility over the next 20 years. As we lift our gaze beyond the ISS into deep space— 

to the Moon, to asteroids, and to Mars, to planetary science missions and deep space 

telescopes that will not only see all the way back to the Big Bang, but tell us for 

the first time in human history whether we are alone on the Universe –the realization of these opportunities and more that we cannot yet imagine has never been 

closer than it is right now. 

Political Transition: Preserving the Industrial Base 

In my current position, I represent a segment of the U.S. industrial base focused 

on aerospace, with members that range from large scale systems engineering and 

development companies with decades of in-space experience—such as our founding 

members Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aerojet Rocketdyne, and Northrop 

Grumman—to entrepreneurial startups such as Made In Space, currently testing 

the potential for using 3D printing in space missions onboard the International 

Space Station. Our members also include Jacobs Technology, an experienced aerospace company supporting upgrades to the launch and processing capabilities at the 

Kennedy Space Center; Axiom Space, a commercial space company focused on orbital habitats; Cain Tubular Products, a very small, family-owned company with a 

50 year heritage in the space program, and Futuramic, a Detroit company that retooled and rebuilt itself after auto manufacturing left that city into an engineering 

and manufacturing firm that contributes substantially to NASA’s deep space programs. 

Our membership is rich with capabilities, innovation, technologies, and dedication 

to programs that they see as the ‘‘the tip of the spear’’ of United States achievement 

and leadership in the 21st century and beyond. The U.S. space industrial base is 

key to enabling our national security, civil, and commercial space programs, with 

skill sets that overlap all three of these domains. The supply chain for human space 

exploration alone—SLS, Orion, and Exploration Ground Systems—is distributed 

across all 50 states and is made up of hundreds of companies, ranging from large 

19 

contractors with thousands of employees to hundreds of small, privately owned businesses. This large and diverse industrial base ensures the kind of competition that 

drives technological innovation and ensures American competitiveness. 

Small businesses, in particular, bring technical innovation, creativity, expertise 

and rapid adoption of new approaches to the American deep space enterprise. Space 

exploration is exacting and technically challenging, requiring years to build workforce expertise. Large companies may have some flexibility to adjust to fluctuations 

in program funding; however smaller businesses often do not. As a business owner 

and entrepreneur I can attest to the vulnerability of small firms. It is not unusual 

for such businesses to have an operating window of only 90 to 120 days before cash 

flow becomes critical. Major changes in space policy and direction, such as happened 

between 2009–2011, inevitably result in shuttered offices, empty factory floors, and 

the ruination of many businesses. Yet, with consistency of policy and contracts, 

these same firms are the ones most likely to generate new inventions and patents. 

They also represent the vast majority of new company startups, drive most job creation in the U.S., and exemplify the enterprising spirit that powers our economy 

and our Nation. NASA’s SLS and Orion programs have sustained hundreds of companies in this sector, enabling innovation, new technology, new production methods, 

and the achievement of entrepreneurial dreams. In return, these companies have 

provided critical components needed to lead the way back into deep space. 

The Rationale for a Government-Led Space Exploration Program 

Recently, an argument for transition from government to private sector programs 

for deep space exploration has been put forth. This is not a good idea. In its most 

common form it reduces the entire value of NASA’s human space exploration programs to an economic equation. It disregards the intangible and incalculable benefits that have been conferred on the Nation by a government-led program: Collaboration between governments, the free return of scientific, engineering and technical 

data to all citizens, the establishment of a pre-eminent national presence in deep 

space (with implications for national security), preservation of the aerospace industrial base, and national aspiration and pride stemming from collective, extraordinary achievements. It is true that these benefits are impossible to assess by economic means. But the counterargument is too narrow in scope, focused on the cost 

of a launch vehicle, the cost of a crew capsule, the cost of operations, and the cost 

of a mission. In a time of downward pressures on discretionary accounts, cost is certainly an important factor. But it is clear that a robust human space exploration 

and science program has returned benefits to the Nation that go far beyond a simple 

cost equation or Return on Investment (ROI) calculation. 

It may be worth pointing out that none of the opportunities before us now—in 

LEO or in deep space—would have been possible without government programs in 

human exploration and science over the past decades. To continue building upon the 

progress we have made, the bilateral, bicameral support that has characterized 

these programs must continue. To those who would ask, ‘‘what has the money 

bought us?’’, we can answer: America is the only nation on Earth to have visited 

every planet in our solar system. America is the only nation on Earth that has leveraged 50 years of investment in human space exploration into the private sector, 

where it has disrupted industries and opened the door to entrepreneurial interests 

in space. America is the only nation on Earth striving as a matter of policy to expand the sphere of human economic influence beyond the Earth. America is the only 

nation on Earth bold enough to envision and then build a deep space transportation 

and infrastructure system for the solar system. America is the only nation that has 

successfully led an international coalition to build and operate a multi-decade space 

station. And soon, America will be the only nation capable of transporting astronauts to the Moon and beyond. 

The Coalition I represent endorses full funding for NASA’s ISS cargo and crew 

transportation services and includes members who participate in both. We also support government-led programs pushing human presence into the solar system over 

distances and at a scale for which no business case exists. This is not an ‘‘either/ 

or’’ scenario; rather it is a case-in-point for the evolving roles of government and private industry in the American space program. The funding for SLS, Orion, JWST 

and other systems also pays for facilities, refinement of engineering expertise and 

technique, development of new technologies, stimulation of commerce, a rich international collaboration, and educational opportunities, among other core NASA functions. Our national space program enjoys—and must sometimes negotiate among— 

a wide range of stakeholders. NASA’s challenging and diverse portfolio represents 

an attempt at consensus and compromise among those stakeholders that has been 

painstakingly developed on a bilateral, bicameral basis across the 2005, 2008, and 

2010 NASA Authorization Acts in which this committee has played a significant 

20 

role. Looking back across a decade characterized by transition, progress, and opportunity, it is evident that this course has been a wise, measured, and effective one. 

Going Forward: Essential Elements 

A government-led program that opens the frontier beyond Earth for ourselves, our 

international partners, commerce, and science is crucial if we wish to control our 

national destiny and lead the way to a future guided by American values and freedoms. For the past decade there has been bipartisan consensus on the path forward 

for human exploration of deep space, using NASA’s new Orion crewed spacecraft 

powered by the super-heavy Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. In my view, there 

are some essential elements that should be maintained, and other that may be considered, in order to ensure that U.S. leadership in deep space human exploration 

and science continues: 

• That to the greatest extent possible, close alignment between the new Administration and Congress should be developed and maintained on space policy, priorities and funding levels that build on the bipartisan consensus reflected in the 

2010 NASA Authorization Act and in the annual appropriations adopted over 

the past six Fiscal Years. Budget instability has been a tremendous challenge, 

requiring rework and—across each year of development. For the last several 

years the President’s budget request and Congressional appropriations have 

been out of sync, forcing NASA and its contractors to work at a slower pace 

under greater budget pressure for the first part of the year until Congressional 

appropriations are set at the necessary levels. This draws out the program and 

drives up costs. Reduction of political uncertainty together with budget stability 

would significantly reduce costs and clarify planning. 

• That a restatement be made that it is the policy of the United States to expand 

permanent human presence beyond low Earth orbit. . .and that it shall explore 

beyond Earth orbit using the national assets developed for such purpose: The 

super-heavy exploration rocket—the Space Launch System—and the exploration 

crewed spacecraft, Orion. 

• Ensure funding sufficient to complete development of NASA’s human exploration systems: SLS (including the Exploration Upper Stage beginning on EM– 

2), Orion, and Exploration Ground Systems, and maintain the schedule for EM– 

1 in 2018 and EM–2 in 2021. 

• Ensure funding for development of a Deep Space Habitat, with sufficient follow 

on funding to carry out testing and eventual deployment of that habitat while 

the International Space Station is still operational, so that there will be no 

‘‘gap’’ in human spaceflight missions. 

• Enable NASA to fund mission planning using SLS and Orion for EM–3 through 

EM–10 throughout the 2020s, with funding that permits investments to be 

made for early development of capabilities important to the successful completion of these missions. 

• Provide NASA the authority to negotiate with international partners on contributions to EM–1 through EM–10.. 

• Extend indemnification for SLS and Orion, extending coverage as provided to 

the Space Shuttle program in a manner similar to the coverage provided for 

commercial launch providers under the CSLCA. 

• Restate authorization for NASA operations on the International Space Station 

through 2024, ensuring its use as a critical test bed for deep space exploration, 

science, and as a catalyst for commercial development of LEO, and encourage 

continued analysis of extending ISS utilization beyond that time. 

• Ensure that cargo and crew transportation services for LEO are fully funded. 

Focus these programs on supporting NASA’s low-Earth orbit activities and missions without sacrificing safety and mission assurance. 

• Ensure robust funding for successful planning, execution and completion of 

space science missions, including completion of the James Webb Space Telescope and Mars Insight mission for 2018 launches, as well as continued execution of missions such as Juno and New Horizons, and development of upcoming 

planetary missions to Mars, Europa, and other bodies in the solar system. 

• Ensure increased funding for Planetary, Astrophysics, and Heliophysics space 

science accounts. 

• Where appropriate due to payload mass or reductions in travel time, make use 

of SLS to launch space science missions. 

• Adopt the highest possible authorization levels drawn from the House and Senate FY 2017 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bills, including a NASA 

21 

top line of at least $19.5B, with increases in the out years to keep pace with 

inflation, at a minimum. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Peters, thank you again for the opportunity to address 

the Committee on this important topic today. I encourage you to also review the 

Coalition’s recent white paper, ‘‘A Space Exploration Roadmap for the Next Administration,’’ which I respectfully submit for the record. Our members are deeply committed to the success of NASA’s human exploration and space science programs, and 

we couldn’t be more excited about the upcoming milestones on the road to returning 

American astronauts to deep space and exciting scientific discoveries in the years 

ahead. Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and thank you for your time and 

attention. I look forward to your questions. 


713OVERV1.eps
22 


713OVERV2.eps
23 


713OVERV3.eps
24 


713OVERV4.eps
25 


713OVERV5.eps
26 


713OVERV6.eps
27 


713OVERV7.eps
28 


713OVERV8.eps
29 


713OVERV9.eps
30 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Dittmar. 

Mr. Gold. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOLD, VICE PRESIDENT, 

WASHINGTON OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, 

SPACE SYSTEMS LORAL 

Mr. GOLD. I would like to thank you, Chairman Cruz; Ranking 

Member Peters; Commerce, Science, and Transportation Ranking 

Member, Senator Nelson; members of the Subcommittee; and the 

talented and hardworking staff of this subcommittee for this opportunity to further discuss the future of NASA. 

My name is Mike Gold, and I am the Vice President of Washington Operations and Business Development for Space Systems 

Loral, or SSL. SSL is America’s most prolific commercial satellite 

manufacturer, a global leader in space-based robotics, and an innovator for spacecraft technologies, such as solar electric propulsion. 

America’s human spaceflight journey began with Alan Shepard’s 

first foray into the final frontier, and while NASA has and will continue to push far beyond the historic flight of Friendship 7, the low 

Earth orbit environment, or LEO, has never been more important. 

Per the title of this hearing, NASA is indeed at a crossroads. The 

ISS is aging, and while NASA intends to maintain the Station 

through 2024, the end of the ISS era, particularly in terms of the 

long lead-times required by major aerospace projects, is nearly 

upon us. 

Although the ultimate path forward remains uncertain, it’s clear 

that NASA will not build another government-sponsored LEO 

space station. Therefore, the future of LEO remains squarely on 

the shoulders of the private sector, which presents both an extraordinary challenge and an equally extraordinary opportunity. Thus 

far, LEO human spaceflight in general, and the ISS in particular, 

have been able to depend upon funding from governments to support operations. This will change substantially as LEO is transitioned from government to private sector auspices, and the greatest 

hurdle that America will face in maintaining human presence in 

LEO is developing the robust private sector demand necessary to 

fund such space-based activities. 

A potential solution to this funding challenge can be found just 

above the ISS in geostationary orbit, or GEO. Hundreds of billions 

of dollars are pouring into GEO every year to support and purchase 

satellite services. NASA and the private sector should abide by the 

old Washington adage to follow the money. 

Specifically, manufacturing satellites in space could revolutionize 

the telecommunications industry. Freed from the constraints of 

rocket fairings and the launch environment, numerous large radio 

frequency reflectors could be affordably fabricated in space leading 

to dramatic increases in radio frequency reflector sizes, which 

would substantially bolster satellite capabilities, increase satellite 

fleet resilience, and lower customer costs. The hundreds of billions 

of dollars spent on telecommunications could be the fuel for a new 

era in LEO human spaceflight. And SSL stands ready to unite 

these two endeavors, joining with NASA to demonstrate a vital 

new capability. 

31 

This subcommittee’s purview includes both space and competitiveness, and I can assure the Subcommittee that the competition 

in the global marketplace, and particularly in the satellite sector, 

is fierce. The primitive days of building a satellite, launching it, 

and throwing away a piece of hardware worth hundreds of millions 

of dollars simply because it ran out of fuel is coming to an end. 

As I described at a House hearing just last month, we are now 

entering a new era of ‘‘Satellite 2.0,’’ wherein satellites are refueled 

and restored while still in orbit. The companies and countries 

which master satellite servicing will gain a critical economic and 

military advantage over international competition. DARPA already 

recognizes this fact and has initiated the Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites, or RSGS, program to create new domestic 

satellite servicing capability for both defense and commercial satellites. NASA has its own satellite servicing program, Restore-L, 

which will service the Landsat 7 satellite. 

While both RSGS and Restore-L are worthy endeavors, much 

more needs to be done in this arena. Less than 2 weeks ago, China’s National University of Defense Technology successfully refueled a satellite in orbit. America cannot afford to lose the satellite 

servicing race, and NASA has a critical role to play by using its 

power as a customer to execute contracts with domestic providers 

to service the agency’s fleet of satellites. This would not only save 

NASA money, it would enhance the agency’s capabilities, all while 

creating new private sector jobs. 

Again, NASA is indeed at a crossroads, and all of those roads 

lead toward more robust collaborations with the private sector. 

NASA must search out an intersection of public and private sector 

interests and leverage those points of intersection both to lessen its 

own financial burden and to bolster American competitiveness 

abroad. 

An example of this is the work being done via the Next Space 

Technologies for Exploration Partnerships’ habitat initiative. NASA 

needs a habitat to support beyond LEO exploration, and the private sector needs a habitat to support commercial activities in 

LEO. Both needs could be met by NASA and the private sector 

sharing the cost of development for a habitat and subsequently 

launching it to the ISS to test a vital piece of NASA’s beyond LEO 

architecture while validating the business case for the commercial 

activities needed to sustain a private sector space station successor 

to the ISS. NASA and the private sector must move forward together hand-in-hand because, to quote the great entrepreneur and 

statesman Benjamin Franklin, ‘‘We must all hang together or most 

assuredly we will all hang separately.’’ 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gold follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GOLD, VICE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON

OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, SPACE SYSTEMS LORAL

Thank you Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Peters, distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee, as well as the Subcommittee’s dedicated and hardworking staff, 

for this opportunity to discuss the future of NASA. My name is Mike Gold and I 

am the Vice President of Washington Operations for Space Systems Loral. Space 

Systems Loral (‘‘SSL’’) is America’s most prolific commercial satellite manufacturer, 

32 

a global leader in space-based robotics, and an innovator for spacecraft technologies 

such as solar electric propulsion. 

I would like to begin by taking a moment to acknowledge my fellow witnesses, 

starting with the Atlas of NASA, William Gerstenmaier. Mr. Gerstenmaier’s unparalleled leadership and unflagging devotion to NASA’s human spaceflight program 

has been the foundation which the Agency, this Congress, and the American people 

have consistently relied upon. Those of us who care about NASA and space exploration owe a great debt to Mr. Gerstenmaier whose consistent, calm, and steady 

hand has helped steer the Agency through extraordinary and challenging times. 

Similarly, it’s an honor to testify with Mark Sirangelo. Mr. Sirangelo has been 

doing no less than transforming dreams into reality via the design and development 

of Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser spacecraft. Like Mr. Gerstenmaier, 

Mr. Sirangelo has provided vital leadership within the human spaceflight community, both as a Vice President of Sierra Nevada Corporation and as the former Chair 

of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. It has been a privilege to work with Mr. 

Sirangleo over the years and to appear with him at this hearing today. 

Mary Lynne Dittmar has also provided critical leadership in the space world 

throughout her august career, first as an executive with Boeing, and later as an expert advisor to the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (‘‘CASIS’’), the 

National Academies, and the American Astronautical Society. Now, as the Executive 

Director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, it has been a pleasure to continue to work with Dr. Dittmar to support NASA’s efforts to push further into the 

final frontier. 

Finally, few people have contributed as much to the future of deep space exploration as Dan Dumbacher. The cornerstones of America’s beyond LEO exploration 

efforts, the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft, would not be where they 

are today without the tireless efforts and leadership of Professor Dumbacher, both 

at Marshall Spaceflight Center and at NASA Headquarters and, again, it’s a privilege to join him and our fellow witnesses at today’s hearing. 

Technology and Policy are important, but ultimately, the success of America’s 

space exploration program is dependent upon people, and my fellow witnesses and 

our colleagues in government and industry are why I continue to remain optimistic 

regarding this country’s future in space. However, now more than ever we will need 

every bit of creativity and perseverance that America’s space workforce and leadership can muster, since the challenges that this Nation faces in space exploration are 

both numerous and robust, starting in Earth orbit. 

I. Maintaining an American Presence in LEO 

America’s human spaceflight journey began with Alan Shepard’s first foray into 

orbit, and while NASA has and will continue to push far beyond the historic flight 

of Freedom 7, the environment in and around Earth orbit has never been more important. Specifically, the International Space Station (‘‘ISS’’) is the crown jewel of 

not only NASA’s but the world’s human spaceflight capabilities. I fear that the general public and even those of us in the space industry far too often take the ISS 

for granted, and fail to acknowledge the titanic accomplishment that the station represents. Per the title of this hearing, we now stand at a crossroads, with Congress 

and NASA asking what comes next. Although NASA should and must push forward 

into the final frontier, it’s just as vital that the Agency and America not abandon 

space’s first frontier, low Earth orbit (‘‘LEO’’). 

The ISS is aging, and while NASA intends to maintain the station through 2024 

the end of the ISS era, particularly in terms of the long lead times required by 

major aerospace projects, is nearly upon us. Although the ultimate path forward remains uncertain, it’s clear that NASA has no desire or intent to build and launch 

another government sponsored LEO space station. Therefore, the future of LEO remains squarely on the shoulders of the private sector, which presents both an extraordinary challenge and an equally extraordinary opportunity. 

Thus far, LEO human spaceflight in general, and the ISS in particular, have been 

able to depend upon funding from governments to support operations. This will 

change substantially as LEO is transitioned from government to private sector auspices. The greatest challenge that America will face in maintaining a human presence in LEO is developing the robust private sector demand necessary to fund such 

space-based activities. NASA, as well as various other organizations and associations, have held numerous discussions regarding ‘‘LEO commercialization’’ and what 

the path forward will look like. Microgravity research and development has certainly shown promise, but it’s highly unlikely that scientific activities alone can generate sufficient near-term revenue to meet the relatively high costs of orbital crewed 

operations. 

33 

A. Orbital Satellite Manufacturing 

A potential solution to this funding challenge can be found just above the ISS in 

geostationary orbit (‘‘GEO’’). Although NASA and the domestic space industry have 

struggled to identify revenue generating activities in LEO, hundreds of billions of 

dollars are pouring into GEO annually to manufacture and launch satellites, construct ground stations and related hardware, and pay for satellite services. The answer to NASA’s question of LEO commercialization could be as simple as abiding 

by the old Washington adage to follow the money. 

No one doubts the importance of GEO telecommunications activities or its strong 

financial underpinning. The potential opportunity that NASA has before it is to 

merge this robust, existing industry with crewed LEO activities, and this should be 

explored as expeditiously as possible. 

The satellite telecommunications industry is in a constant competition with terrestrial capabilities. Innovation in the satellite world isn’t just a luxury, it’s a necessity, and it’s this dynamic that has resulted in the consistent improvement of telecommunications services even while costs to the consumer are dropping. This ongoing need for innovation may actually drive the next evolution of satellite innovation 

off of Earth and into LEO. 

Currently, telecommunications satellites face numerous constraints. The number 

and size of a satellite’s radio frequency (‘‘RF’’) reflectors are limited by the dimensions of a launch vehicle’s fairing. Moreover, due to high launch costs, satellites are 

usually designed to last for at least fifteen years, a period of time that is a virtual 

eternity when compared with the rapidly changing pace of customer demand, evolving population centers, and constant technological innovation. GEO satellite operators need to be able to refresh their technologies with much greater frequency while 

increasing their RF reflector sizes, and on-orbit satellite manufacturing via a platform such as the ISS presents a potentially attractive solution to address both of 

these needs. 

In any future reauthorization bill, Congress should encourage NASA to work 

jointly with the private sector to conduct a near-term demonstration of satellite 

manufacturing and assembly aboard the ISS. Working together, NASA and the private sector could execute a pilot program that would validate orbital satellite manufacturing techniques and demonstrate the value of such operations to private sector 

satellite manufacturers. Subsequent to demonstrating the genuine economic value 

of satellite manufacturing aboard platforms such as the ISS, the private sector could 

move forward in a robust fashion establishing a long-term and sustainable commercial activity. 

Specifically, in cooperation with the private sector, NASA could demonstrate the 

viability of fabricating large, shaped surfaces capable of reflecting millimeter-wave 

RF energy, as well as the ability to produce milli-degree level accuracy relative to 

surfaces as defined by transcendental equations. Additionally, such an initiative 

should demonstrate the manufacture and/or installation of tight tolerance joints to 

allow for the reliable installation of large reflectors to in-space assembled truss 

structures. This demonstration will require NASA, possibly in conjunction with an 

organization like CASIS, to provide a private sector partner with (1) the transportation of relevant material and/or components for the orbital manufacturing process 

to the ISS, (2) sufficient crew time to conduct the demonstration, and (3) external 

robotics support for the assembly of various satellite components that were manufactured inside the ISS. 

Again, this demonstration would validate the benefits of orbital satellite manufacturing and assembly, while also refining various techniques and establishing the 

proper balance between the contributions of people and robotics. Orbital satellite 

manufacturing could be the anchor activity that the private sector has been searching for to fund the expense of crewed commercial operations in LEO. Unlike many 

potential commercial LEO activities that I have explored over the course of nearly 

two decades, the market for commercial satellites is already mature and robust. Orbital manufacturing of satellites could unite this strong, existing market with 

crewed operations in LEO, potentially transforming both activities and entire industries, while providing the U.S. with a unique and nontrivial economic advantage 

over international competition. 

B. Microgravity R&D and Space Tourism 

While orbital satellite manufacturing has great promise, NASA should also continue and expand efforts to support microgravity research and development aboard 

the ISS. The Agency and partners such as CASIS should focus on projects and concepts that have the potential to deliver near-term economic value. When I last testified before this Subcommittee in 2012, I noted the potential for breakthroughs in 

biotechnology that the microgravity environment offers. I still believe this is true 

34 

and recommend expanding biotech research aboard the ISS to include stem cell production, agricultural engineering, and the development of niche drug treatments. 

NanoRacks, led by Jeffrey Manber, the only CEO who has actually run a commercial space station, is leading the way in commercial biotech R&D and NanoRacks 

has already created a business for cubesat deployment from the ISS. SSL and 

NanoRacks teamed on a recent proposal to NASA under the NextSTEPs program 

and, if selected, I’m eager to see what America’s most prolific commercial satellite 

manufacturer can do in combination with the country’s leader in LEO utilization. 

NASA should also take whatever actions it can to enable the orbital tourism market. The Agency initially spurned space tourism forcing Americans to go overseas 

and fly with the Russians. As we have seen all too often in the space world, despite 

its history as a former communist regime, Russia has been far more successful at 

commercializing its human spaceflight program than America. Working in cooperation with companies such as Space Adventures, it’s my hope that NASA will continue the recent trend of being more supportive of space tourism, since tourism, as 

well as flying professional astronauts from foreign nations, could play an important 

role in the ability of the private sector to maintain an American presence in LEO. 

C. Benefits to Beyond LEO Activities 

NASA support for these commercial activities is critical, since in the very near 

future, responsibility for maintaining an American human presence in LEO will be 

left to the private sector. Our great nation must not and cannot abandon its presence in LEO. Active and robust public and private sector operations in LEO is the 

foundation that all future human exploration missions, including beyond LEO exploration, will be built upon. Traveling to LEO is the terrestrial equivalent of going 

to the airport, once you’re there, you can easily be transported to a wide variety of 

destinations both near and far. Countries that have a strong LEO infrastructure 

will be able to move crew and cargo quickly, safely, and affordably to orbit, where 

large spacecraft and supplies can be assembled and staged for future missions to 

the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In drafting a future NASA reauthorization bill or any 

other legislation related to NASA, I urge the members of this Subcommittee to recognize that LEO and beyond LEO activities are not in conflict, and are both required for either endeavor to be successful. 

However, I am not blind to the funding shortfall that NASA faces. NASA has been 

given numerous missions, and not nearly enough funding to execute them all. Unfortunately, this is an inevitable product of the fiscally constrained environment 

that the U.S. finds itself in, and far from blaming Congress, I’m grateful to the 

members of this Subcommittee as well as your colleagues on the Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for their generosity towards NASA despite an overall paucity of available Federal funds. Since NASA cannot and should not count on anything more than stable funding in the future, and 

perhaps not even that, the Agency must find creative ways to leverage private sector investment in conjunction with its own funding to ensure that America does not 

abandon its presence in LEO. 

D. AES’s NextSTEPs Habitat Initiative 

An excellent example of how NASA can husband its resources with private sector 

financing and capabilities is the habitat initiative under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (‘‘NextSTEPs’’) program. NextSTEPs, which 

falls under the auspices of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Advanced 

Exploration Systems (‘‘AES’’) division, is run by Jason Crusan, one of Mr. 

Gerstenmaier’s best and brightest executive managers. Mr. Crusan has a longstanding reputation for innovation and leveraging private sector resources to vastly 

multiply the impact of a relatively meager amount of Federal investment. For example, the current NextSTEPs habitat procurement is crafted to identify and support 

the intersection between NASA’s needs for beyond LEO human exploration missions, and the private sector’s plans for LEO commercialization. Specifically, the 

NextSTEPs solicitation envisions the possibility of a private sector habitat being developed, launched, and attached to the ISS. Such a habitat would serve as a critical 

testbed for the discrete validation of systems and technologies that NASA needs for 

ambitious beyond LEO human exploration missions. Moreover, such a habitat would 

not only demonstrate new technologies but, just as importantly, the habitat could 

serve as a hub for demonstrating the business case for private sector LEO operations including satellite manufacturing and deployment, microgravity research and 

development, and space tourism. A NextSTEPs habitat attached to the ISS could 

be a laboratory for commercial development, identifying and maturing the most 

promising activities that can later be transitioned to a future private sector space 

station. 

35 

The brilliance of NextSTEPs is that by leveraging the intersection of public and 

private sector interests, AES will be able to gain commercial support for a key piece 

of human exploration hardware that the Agency would otherwise bear the costs for 

on its own. However, even under NextSTEPs, some government support will be required. For example, at a minimum, NASA should commit to launching the habitat 

and paying the private sector partner for the right to utilize some its volume and 

resources. For its part, a private sector partner should also be responsible for contributing a nontrivial percentage of the financing for the habitat’s development, and 

the private sector partner must also fund the vast majority of the habitat’s ongoing 

operation expenses via commercial activities. Leveraging and combining public and 

private sector interests in this manner is the future of NASA, and a NASA reauthorization bill or other relevant forms of legislation should embrace this ideology, 

bolster the NextSTEPs program, and encourage similar activities throughout the 

Agency. 

Moreover, as stated previously, LEO and beyond LEO activities are not in conflict. 

An important reason to turn LEO over to the private sector is to ensure that NASA 

has the funding that it needs to conduct ambitious beyond LEO missions. NASA 

cannot sustain the existing costs of the ISS while supporting robust beyond LEO 

human exploration. However, NASA cannot and should not abandon LEO. Therefore, the only option available to the Agency is to lower its costs by leveraging commercial support whenever and wherever there is an intersection between public and 

private sector interests. Again, I implore the members of this Subcommittee to recognize the necessity for NASA to collaborate with the private sector via partnerships 

such as NextSTEPs, and to weave this concept into the fabric of a future reauthorization bill. 

II. Emulating DAR PA’s Use of BAAs 

Government agencies leveraging private sector funding and capabilities is not a 

new concept, and instead of reinventing the wheel, NASA would do well to learn 

from and even imitate the methodologies of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency (‘‘DARPA’’). DARPA has a longstanding tradition of working closely with the 

private sector to develop new technologies and capabilities that are equally important to the government and the private sector. For example, via the Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (‘‘RSGS’’) program, DARPA is seeking to service 

defense and intelligence satellites by establishing a private sector capability that 

will meet government needs without requiring as large a government investment as 

would otherwise be necessary since the system will be sustained primarily by commercial missions. 

DARPA’s robust partnerships with the private sector can be attributed in large 

part to the Agency’s unique contractual strategies. There has been a great deal of 

discussion of Space Act Agreements (‘‘SAAs’’) by NASA officials and policymakers, 

and DARPA does indeed use a form of ‘Other Transactional Authority’ to execute 

many if not most of its programs. However, what has largely been ignored due to 

the prominence of the SAA debate is the importance of the contractual vehicle that 

is used to solicit proposals, and this is an area where DARPA excels. Specifically, 

DARPA uses standing Broad Agency Announcements (‘‘BAAs’’) as its primary means 

of outreach to the private sector community. At NASA, the private sector has to 

wait for specific procurement opportunities to be announced, such as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, or the Space Technology Mission Directorate’s (‘‘STMD’s’’) Tipping Point program. Conversely, DARPA uses standing 

BAAs which are so broad that the private sector is able to submit any relevant idea 

to DARPA at any time. Moreover, instead of being forced to immediately submit 

lengthy proposals for Agency consideration, the DARPA BAA process begins with 

the submission of a short executive summary, and then moves on to a white paper 

and eventually a full proposal if DARPA is sufficiently interested in the activity. 

This saves the contracting community a great deal of time and effort since the private sector can quickly bring a concept to DARPA’s attention and does not need to 

commit a great deal of resources to proposal writing unless there is already a nontrivial interest by DARPA to support the project. DARPA’s use of BAAs has encouraged creativity, broadened the amount and type of companies that can work with 

the Agency, and increased the flexibility and pace of the government procurement 

process. 

NASA AES has already been using BAAs to great effect, for example, both phases 

of the NextSTEPs habitat initiative used BAAs. NASA should increase the utilization of BAAs throughout the Agency, and STMD in particular should establish a 

DARPA-like BAA system as NASA’s primary means of engaging with the private 

sector. As a member of the National Academies Space Technology Industry-GovernVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
36 

ment-University Roundtable, I have recommended this concept to STMD leadership, 

and they have been receptive to the idea. 

III. American Competitiveness 

A. Satellite Servicing 

This Subcommittee’s purview includes not just space and science, but American 

competitiveness, and this is an arena where NASA has a critical role to play. Last 

month, I testified in the House regarding ‘‘Satellite 2.0’’. I described a new era 

wherein satellites are no longer built on the ground, launched, and then thrown 

away at the end of their lifetimes, but will instead be refueled, refurbished, and enhanced while in orbit. Currently, only about 20 percent of a satellite’s mass generates revenue. This equation can and inevitably will change dramatically when satellite servicing becomes a reality. The companies and countries that develop this 

critical capability will not only become leaders in space exploration, but since satellite technology impacts nearly every aspect of our daily lives, the first nation to 

perfect and implement these systems will enjoy substantial economic and military 

advantages over its global competition. I implore this Subcommittee and this Congress not to sit idly by and let other nations surpass America in this vital technological capability. 

I have already described DARPA’s RSGS program, and NASA also has its own 

satellite servicing activity, Restore-L, which is being developed to refuel and relocate 

the Landsat 7 satellite. However, NASA, and the U.S. Government in general, need 

to do much more than sponsor two relatively limited programs to bolster this critical 

capability. America cannot afford to lose the satellite servicing race, and we are already falling behind. 

China’s National University of Defense Technology recently announced the successful orbital refueling of a satellite, enhancing both its maneuvering capabilities 

and functional lifetime. This was accomplished using the Tianyuan-1 refueling system which was deployed on July 2nd by a Long March 7 rocket. During this mission, China tested various processes and validated Tianyuan-1’s operations via telemetry and video. China is now a leader in satellite servicing providing the Nation 

with a substantial advantage over the U.S. for both commercial and national security operations. 

If the U.S. is to match and hopefully surpass Chinese capabilities, new programs, 

opportunities, and additional funding should be directed toward satellite servicing 

and, most important of all, NASA should use its power as a customer to inspire the 

development of private sector systems. The private sector is willing to make substantial investments in next-generation satellite servicing but, like in any new business endeavor, potential customers remain somewhat wary of unproven concepts. 

NASA could help the private sector overcome such challenges by acting as a catalyst 

via the execution of contingent contracts with domestic companies to service its own 

fleet of satellites. NASA would thereby support the demonstration of private sector 

satellite servicing systems, providing the assurances and predictability that commercial satellite operators need to become customers for these services, leading to 

the development of a firm and large private and public sector market. By acting as 

a customer for commercial satellite servicing capabilities, NASA would also benefit 

by saving vital funding at a time when its budget is being stretched thin, all while 

simultaneously creating new private sector jobs and bolstering American competitiveness. Therefore, I strongly recommend that in any future NASA reauthorization 

bill or related legislation, the Senate should commend NASA for its existing satellite 

servicing activities, while also encouraging the Agency to do more and, in particular, 

to act as a robust customer for domestic commercial satellite servicing capabilities. 

B. Solar Electric Propulsion 

Another technology that is vital to NASA’s future is solar electric propulsion 

(‘‘SEP’’). SEP and electric propulsion (‘‘EP’’) systems in general, are a critical capability for commercial satellites, NASA robotic spacecraft, and such systems even 

have an important role to play in LEO and beyond LEO crewed spacecraft. America 

can ill afford to fall behind in SEP, and I applaud NASA for moving forward with 

programs such as Psyche (a Discovery Mission currently in Phase A) which will test 

and demonstrate SEP capabilities. Other space agencies are already funding their 

private sector contractors to develop new and better EP systems for commercial satellites. SSL finds itself competing against these entities and we need NASA to do 

more to level the playing field and ensure that American companies are not shut 

out of the global marketplace by subsidized international competition. Similar to the 

NextSTEPs habitat initiative, SEP represents an intersection between government 

and private sector interests, and in future legislation, I hope this Subcommittee will 

encourage NASA to identify and develop new means to bolster domestic SEP capaVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
37 

bilities while supporting ambitious NASA missions to exciting beyond LEO destinations such as the moons of Mars, Europa, and Titan. 

Whether it’s utilizing EP, executing contracts for commercial satellite servicing, 

or releasing BAAs to support broader and more efficient STMD outreach, NASA 

must find new and better ways to work with the private sector. Again, per the title 

of this hearing, we are indeed at a crossroads, and clearly every road leads toward 

more private sector engagement. In today’s competitive global economy, America is 

not only in a race to destinations such as the Moon or Mars, but we’re in a race 

for the economic and national security advantages that new space technologies will 

engender. Therefore, NASA must remain vigilant in every one of its activities to find 

ways not only to achieve its own goals, but to bolster American domestic private 

sector capabilities in the process. Moreover, NASA can actually save money while 

doing this without sacrificing safety or quality. For example, SSL recently submitted 

a bid for Landsat 9 which leveraged our company’s low-cost, heritage capabilities 

to achieve an extraordinarily affordable price point. By taking advantage of private 

sector products that are already being sold commercially, NASA can bolster domestic businesses and job creation while reducing its own expenses. 

IV. American Leadership 

America must lead. Nowhere is this more true than in the global space community where nations across Europe and Asia are clamoring for America to join with 

them in executing a clearly articulated space strategy. NASA’s future in LEO after 

ISS retirement remains uncertain both domestically and abroad. Since no future 

government station will be built, NASA should fully commit to an ISS transition 

and redouble its efforts via NextSTEPs and similar programs, while reaching out 

to the private sector to bolster customer demand via collaborative projects such as 

the demonstration of orbital satellite manufacturing, assembly, and deployment. 

At a time when policymakers are decrying American dependence on Russia for 

crew transportation to the ISS, we are already in the process of creating another 

capability gap for the space station itself. Far too soon after American human 

spaceflight systems begin delivering crews to LEO the ISS will be retired. As Mr. 

Gerstenmaier and his colleagues at NASA can tell you, deploying a space station, 

even one that is smaller than the ISS, will take time, and it will already be difficult 

to develop, build, deploy, and test an operational station before ISS retirement. If 

America fails to field a new space station U.S. leadership in this arena will quickly 

be subsumed by China, which has plans to deploy its own space station using a new 

heavy-lift rocket capability. The Chinese station will likely become operational in 

the early 2020s, nearly matching the anticipated time-frame for ISS retirement. 

China has made overtures bilaterally and in the United Nations for the world to 

join its space station effort while, again, the U.S.’s future in LEO remains uncertain. America should embrace international cooperation and even a collaboration 

with China could be beneficial under the right circumstances. However, while cooperating with another country is commendable, being dependent upon another 

country is deplorable, and NASA must avoid abandoning LEO to China, Russia, or 

other nations. 

The greatest success of the ISS has nothing to do with technology. The station’s 

most important achievement was demonstrating that over a dozen nations, representing a diverse array of cultures and ideologies, could come together as one to 

deploy and operate the most complex spacecraft in the history of humanity. The ISS 

partnership was hard earned over several decades and must be preserved. NASA 

and this Nation should provide a clear vision to its international partners for what 

will come after the ISS, and if the path forward is a private sector station, or stations, then we must move forward with alacrity to build the necessary commercial 

demand for such space platforms to become a reality. 

Moreover, NASA should reach out to new entrants into the space arena. For example, the Senate should commend the recent execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between the United Arab Emirates Space Agency and NASA as an example of NASA showing leadership abroad by engaging with a new, ambitious, and 

capable space agency. NASA should deepen relations with the UAE and reach out 

to other new national players in space, demonstrating that America is a ready and 

willing partner, and is fully prepared to lead the world into the final frontier. 

Whether in LEO or beyond, it’s vital that America show both consistency and clarity of purpose. The rewards of America reasserting its leadership in space exploration are only exceeded by the financial and political challenges we will face along 

the way. Achieving success will demand the contributions, creativity, and perseverance of every one of us in the space sector, public and private institutions, large 

established companies, and entrepreneurial newcomers alike. America has never 

faced more competition in space than it does today and the stakes have never been 

38 

higher. The domestic space sector, both public and private, can ill afford divisiveness 

and discord at this critical juncture. I urge this Subcommittee to use any future legislation to bring us all together, as an industry and as a people. We must follow 

the advice of the great American entrepreneur and statesman Benjamin Franklin, 

that if we in the domestic space sector do not hang together, we will assuredly all 

hang separately. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gold. 

Mr. Sirangelo. 

STATEMENT OF MARK N. SIRANGELO, CORPORATE VICE 

PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS, SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION 

Mr. SIRANGELO. Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator Cruz and 

Senator Peters, for coordinating this, and to all the Senators on the 

Committee. This is a wonderful opportunity to talk about what 

we’re going to be doing in the future, and it is exciting for all of 

us to be thinking about it. 

I also wanted to thank the staff for putting this together. It’s not 

easy to bring this group of people together, and I’m honored to be 

here with these four distinguished members of our committee—and 

those who are here from our community. 

For a long time, this industry has been growing. And I remember 

at the very beginning of what is now called the commercial space 

industry. There were less than 10 of us sitting around a table in 

a restaurant deciding what we wanted to do, and that discussion 

eventually became known as something called now the Commercial 

Spaceflight Federation, and over the course of what has only been 

about 12 years, it has now grown into an industry that is worth 

billions of dollars and employs tens of thousands of people. It is 

something that is uniquely American and something that is amazing, that we can do this in our industry and in our world. 

Sierra Nevada designs and manufactures all sorts of things for 

space: spacecraft, space vehicles, rocket motors, spacecraft systems, 

and components. We’ve been doing this for quite a long time now, 

over 25 years, and have produced over 450 successful space missions, over 4,000 things that we’ve built for space. And that’s a 

wonderful record, we’ve been recognized for it in many ways, but 

what it really says is that we know how hard it is to be in space, 

we know how hard it is to do what we’re doing, and how hard it 

is to be successful. 

Our diverse technologies are used in many areas—telemedicine, 

navigation, threat detection, security, commercial aviation, science, 

infrastructure, and protection of the United States—and currently 

we employ a workforce corporate-wide of about 3,000 people in 34 

locations in 19 states, and all that has come from a very, very 

small start. We are still an entrepreneurial company. We know 

what it’s like to grow a business. We know how hard it is to build 

a company up. 

As the head of Sierra Nevada Space Systems as well as a founder 

and Chairman Emeritus of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, 

I hope to share with you a little bit of our industry’s insight and 

my perspective as you chart your course ahead. 

The current National Space Policy in the United States and the 

current NASA Authorization Act were both established in 2010, 

and that was a really pivotal year, I believe, for our space industry. 

39 

Many of the things that we had talked about in principle began to 

turn into reality. Several foundational programs, such as the Cargo 

Resupply Services effort began to take hold, and that was really 

built on a bipartisan effort between Congress, the White House, 

and these enabling policies significantly advanced the strength and 

leadership of the United States, NASA, and other key department 

and agencies. And just as importantly for us, I think, is creating 

jobs and expanded our U.S. industrial base. 

The imperative is clear in this National Space Policy. The utilization of space has created new markets, helped save lives by warning us of natural disasters, expediting search and rescue operations, making recovery efforts faster and more effective, made agriculture and natural resource management more efficient and sustainable, and expanded our frontiers. It really has enabled so many 

different industries, and I think that’s one thing that sometimes 

gets lost about space, is how many industries space is involved 

with. 

More than anything, I think, though, our growing space program 

provides excitement for our young people. I’m sure every one of us 

can remember something about the space program that fascinated 

us. I know I did. One day I had that awe in my childhood that said 

someday I’m going to be involved in it. And the idea that someone 

like me, coming from a background that did not have space associated with it, could be in this room talking to you today is really 

what we are here to talk about. We can’t forget, as we do this, our 

young people and the inspiration that what you do in your choices 

and what we do in space provides to them. 

Out of the many things I think that can divide us, the one thing 

we can all agree upon in this room, I think in our country, and indeed throughout the world, is that we want the future of our children to be better than our lives are today. We want to remember 

the wonder we had as being that child of looking up in the stars, 

as you said, Senator, and seeing what the future would be and 

thinking about it and going there and flying there. And in my view, 

we never want to lose that inner child or the importance of it because that’s what exploration is based on. We want to feel something we don’t feel today. 

As I like to say, dreams don’t have an expiration date and they 

do sometimes come true, and they certainly have for me, in part 

because of the work that you have done over the last 5 years and 

the last NASA Authorization Act. 

Our space program provides amazing technical achievement, but 

equally as important, it provides hope for our next generation, enabling them to do something remarkable like perhaps building a 

new space company, becoming a respected leader at NASA, or even 

becoming a Member of Congress who might go to space one day as 

a Senator here has. These dreams are started, in part, through the 

thousands of internships and entry level jobs that my company and 

those of my colleagues provide. These opportunities fuel the demand and drive for education and careers in science, technology, 

engineering, art, mathematics, something which I prefer to call 

STEAM instead of STEM. This, in turn, enables, I believe, our U.S. 

global leadership in technology and other key fields. 

40 

Bold moves like our country’s space program excites students 

and uplift all elements of society. Isaac Asimov, one of our country’s famous space writers, once said, ‘‘If I was in heaven, I would 

do what I’m doing right now forever.’’ And for me, space is not just 

a job, and for many in my industry, it’s also human instinct, it’s 

also art, and it’s also passion. It’s really important for us to look 

at this in that way. 

In the last few years, the United States has imagined and defined the next phase of global commercial space environment, 

which has a market value now over $300 billion annually by our 

most recent Space Foundation Report. This success has not gone 

unnoticed around the world. Lots of countries are coming after us. 

They’re seeing what we’re doing. They’re seeing what we’ve been 

about. And they’re also seeing the benefits that accrue to society 

from this. 

And today, because of these rapid advances, we have a position 

of leadership, we have a position of leadership in this area and the 

world. We need to continue, however, our joint government, academia, and industry efforts if we want to further extend this bold 

path and continue this leadership in the future. Even though it has 

been 47 years since the Moon landing, there’s a reason why U.S. 

space leadership, the Moon landing, or shuttle program are still 

talked about all around the world, and there’s a reason why our 

landings on Mars and our flights to Pluto and the most recent 

flight to Jupiter are covered by every media in the world. 

As a personal connection, I believe that these enabling policies 

that we’ve had have supported us in creating groundbreaking 

agreements, such as the one that my company just signed with the 

United Nations to utilize Dream Chaser for global research. 

America is a world leader in this area, and it’s critical to our 

country that we remain that way. Space achievements take full 

years to realize, but the extraordinary is worth waiting for. 

A truly self-sustaining low commercial—sustaining commercial 

market in low Earth orbit does not yet fully exist. I believe it can 

and should be led by the United States. Collaborative action by the 

Congress, by White House, by NASA, industry, and academia are 

needed to bring this to reality. 

At SNC in particular, we know the value of this collaboration. 

Our journey with Dream Chaser, which is the only reusable commercial lifting body in the world, has taken over a decade. It’s lived 

the American dream of believing that the impossible is possible. 

Ten years ago, eleven years ago now, we looked at it and said, ‘‘Is 

it really possible for a company of our small size to build the next 

space shuttle, effectively working out of a garage in California?’’ 

Many people laughed at us; many people said it wasn’t going to 

happen. You know, some—it was famously said, ‘‘Some look at the 

world and say, ‘Why?’ and others look at the world and say, ‘Why 

not?’ ’’ We looked at it and said, ‘‘Why not?’’ and believed with the 

help of our country that we could get there. 

Dream Chaser is now in test flight as a true multi-mission space 

utility vehicle. It can safely execute new expanded missions. And 

it’s NASA’s strategic investments and our very successful publicprivate partnership that has really enabled this. It’s the way that 

we’re now thinking in this new world of commercial space. The conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
41 

fidence that NASA had brought forth and the investment that 

NASA had made has spurred us to make the same type of investment, a commercial investment worth hundreds of millions of dollars to create something new for our country. It is now I think the 

future. 

Thank you for listening, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sirangelo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK N. SIRANGELO, CORPORATE VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE

SYSTEMS, SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION

Thank you Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Peters, distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee as well as the Subcommittee Staff for this opportunity to address 

the Subcommittee. 

My name is Mark Sirangelo from the Sierra Nevada Corporation and I am here 

today to speak with you about the importance of a competitive and diverse U.S. 

commercial space industry as a vital component of our broad national space enterprise. It is my honor to be here testifying along with these respected leaders of our 

space industry all of whom have contributed significantly to our Nation’s space program and to what we are going to talk about today. 

Congress and NASA have played pivotal leadership roles in stimulating, creating, 

sustaining, and expanding U.S. commercial exploration space missions, markets, 

and opportunities. I wanted to thank you for all the support that has been provided. 

The balanced and enabling positions taken to date by Congress have served us well 

should be maintained as a key strategic element of the NASA Authorization considerations. These policies have established the United States as a global leader in 

commercial space and have opened many new markets to American industry and 

ingenuity. 

Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Space Systems designs and manufactures advanced 

spacecraft, space vehicles, rocket motors and spacecraft subsystems and components 

for the U.S. Government, commercial customers, as well as for the international 

market. We have more than 25 years of space heritage and have participated in 

more than 450 successful space missions through the delivery of over 4,000 systems, 

subsystems and components. During our history we have concluded more than 70 

programs for NASA. SNC has been honored as one of ‘‘The World’s Top 10 Most Innovative Companies in Space,’’ and one of America’s fastest growing companies. Our 

diverse technologies are used in applications including telemedicine, navigation and 

guidance systems, threat detection and security, commercial aviation, scientific research, and infrastructure protection. We have a corporate wide workforce of nearly 

3,000 personnel in 34 locations in 19 U.S. states and three countries. 

As the head of Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Space Systems as well as a founder 

and Chairman Emeritus of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, I hope to share 

with you some of my industry insight and perspective as you chart the course 

ahead. In my testimony today, I will provide comment on the recent growth of the 

commercial space industry and the policies that have helped enabled it, the need 

to sustain a U.S.-led global commercial space market and the key future enabling 

elements that will provide ongoing success for America in this area. Finally, I will 

highlight the importance of continuity and stability for NASA and our National 

Space Policy as we move forward in these dynamic and challenging, yet exciting 

times ahead. Your continued visionary leadership in the development of NASA’s 

next Authorization will be pivotal to unleashing the true potential of the U.S. commercial space industry at this unique point in history. 

The Impact of U.S. Policy and Law 

The current National Space Policy of the United States of America and the current NASA Authorization Act were both established in 2010, which I believe was 

a very pivotal year for the U.S. space industry. Several important foundational programs such as the Cargo Resupply Services effort began to take hold. Building on 

a strong bipartisan partnership between Congress and the White House, these enabling policies significantly advanced the strength and leadership of the United 

States, NASA, other key Departments and Agencies, and just as importantly, created jobs and expanded our U.S. industrial base. The imperative is clear, as stated 

in the current National Space Policy: ‘‘The utilization of space has created new markets; helped save lives by warning us of natural disasters, expediting search and 

rescue operations making recovery efforts faster and more effective; made agriculture and natural resource management more efficient and sustainable; expanded 

42 

our frontiers; and provided global access to advanced medicine, weather forecasting, 

geospatial information, financial operations, broadband and other communications, 

and scores of other activities worldwide.’’ 

More than anything a growing space program also provides excitement for our 

young people. I am sure that every one of us here can remember some element of 

our space program which fascinated us. My own childhood awe about space led me 

to this room today. Out of the many things that may divide us, one thing we can 

all agree upon in this room, in our country and indeed throughout the world is that 

we want the future for our children to be better than our lives are today. We want 

to remember the wonder as a child of dreaming about the stars and wanting to fly 

there. We never want to lose that inner child nor the importance of it to exploration. 

Dreams do not have an expiration date and do sometimes, as they have for me, 

come true with the help of the creative thinking that both NASA and Congress have 

demonstrated. 

Our space program provides amazing technical achievements but equally as important, it provides hope for the next generation enabling them to do something remarkable perhaps like building a new space company, becoming a respected leader 

at NASA or maybe even becoming a member of Congress who gets to go to space. 

These dreams are started, in part, through the thousands of internships and entry 

level jobs that my company and those of my colleagues provide. These job opportunities fuel the demand and drive for education and careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics, which in turn has helped enable the continued 

U.S. global leadership in technology and other key fields. Bold moves, like our country’s commercial space program, excite students, fuel these lifelong dreams and uplift all elements of society. Isaac Asimov, one of our most famous science writers, 

once said, ‘‘If I were in heaven I would be doing what I am doing now forever.’’ For 

many, including me, space is not just a job but it is also human instinct, art and 

passion. 

Our U.S. Space Policy highlights ‘‘A robust and competitive commercial space sector is vital to continued progress in space. The United States is committed to encouraging and facilitating the growth of a U.S. commercial space sector that supports U.S. needs, is globally competitive, and advances U.S. leadership in the generation of new markets and innovation-driven entrepreneurship.’’ The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and subsequent NASA Appropriations by Congress have 

begun to bring this to reality and have created a broad portfolio of NASA commercial space initiatives. Most prominent and positive amongst them have been the 

NASA Commercial Cargo and Crew Transportation Services programs. Using both 

NASA Space Act Agreements in the beginning and now Federal Acquisition Regulation Firm Fixed Price contracts, NASA has awarded Commercial Cargo Resupply 

contracts and Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities contracts that have 

succeeded in stimulating a globally-exceptional and truly extraordinary renaissance 

of space launch, spacecraft, space operations, and space commerce capabilities. 

These successes, funded and supported by Congress, have incurred less cost and 

time to the government than historical traditional programs and have forever 

changed the space landscape for the better while providing the needed incentives 

for companies like ours to invest and take risk. 

In the span of just a few years, the United States has imagined and defined the 

next phase of the global commercial space environment, a market valued at over 

$300 billion annually by the most recent Space Foundation Space Report. This success has not gone unnoticed and has spurred committed competitive efforts around 

the world to try and catch up or keep pace with the U.S. The benefits of commercial 

space are widespread and countries and organizations around the world are all putting time, money and effort into increasing their positions. Today, because of our 

rapid early advances, we have a position of leadership. We need, however, to continue our joint government, academia and industry efforts if we want to further extend this bold path and continue to hold this leadership in the future. Beyond the 

money, the impact of your decisions importantly effects how the U.S. is viewed 

around the world. Even though it has been 47 years, there is a reason why U.S. 

space leadership, the moon landings and our Space Shuttle program are still talked 

about with admiration. And there is a reason why our landings on Mars and our 

flights to Pluto and Jupiter are covered by the media in detail in virtually every 

country. And, in a personal connection, I believe that there is a direct connection 

to how these enabling policies have supported SNC in developing and signing a 

ground breaking agreement with the United Nations to explore utilizing Dream 

Chaser for global research missions. America is a world leader in this area and it 

is critical to our country that we remain that way. Space achievements take years 

to fully realize but the extraordinary is worth waiting for. 

43 

A truly self-sustaining commercial market in low Earth orbit does not yet fully 

exist. I believe that it can, should and will be led by the United States. Collaborative future action by Congress, the White House, NASA, industry, and academia 

are needed to bring this to reality. At SNC in particular, we know the value of this 

collaboration firsthand. Our journey with Dream Chaser, which is the only reusable 

commercial lifting body and runway-landing capable spacecraft in the world, has 

taken over a decade. We have lived the American Dream of believing in the impossible. As was so famously said, ‘‘Some look at the world and say why. Others look 

at the world and say why not?’’ We were a handful of people in a garage who said 

‘‘why not?’’ and believed that we could build the next generation Space Shuttle when 

few others did. Dream Chaser is now in test flight as a true multi-mission Space 

Utility Vehicle that can safely and affordably execute new and expanded earth orbit 

missions. NASA’s strategic investments and our very successful Public Private Partnership have brought this 21st Century spaceplane to flight. The confidence we had 

in NASA provided the basis for our ownership to invest and risk hundreds of millions of dollars alongside the critical investment of time, talent and money made by 

NASA. 

But there is more. Now that we are in test flight, we see ourselves carrying the 

torch that was passed on to us by the Space Shuttle program and the thousands 

of people throughout America who made it successful. Space is multi-generational. 

One must respect and embrace the past as a key to the future. As my generation 

seeks to honor those who came before us by taking their achievements to the next 

level we must, at the same time, create the path forward for the next generation 

who, I am certain, will do amazing things that I can only imagine. 

Creating ‘‘Real’’ Markets and Missions 

A core element of NASA’s charter is to create and transfer knowledge and technology to the Nation. SNC’s Dream Chaser is an excellent example of this technology transfer as it started its life as a continuation of NASA Langley’s HL–20 

Lifting body program from the 1990s. Years of tests and significant design and aerodynamic work by NASA paved the way for development of the current Dream Chaser spacecraft and, without which, we could not have been successful. This broadly 

applicable research and development, collaborative public-private work and applied 

technology transition should remain a core aspect of NASA’s mission. NASA’s role 

as a facilitator and as a foundational launch customer should be used strategically 

to enable nascent American science and technology to be developed to market. But, 

from my perspective, a competitive and diverse commercial space industrial base 

pursuing multiple opportunities is fundamentally important to a self-sustaining 

market ecosystem that exists beyond government support alone. 

Diversity and Innovation 

Due to the current state of the industry, different approaches are necessary to ensure an innovative and self-sustaining marketplace. This diversity in our national 

space ecosystem right now leads to opportunity and creates an unbeatable combination for global competitiveness and national mission success. This includes continued and expanded use of appropriate contracting and procurement approaches, including: Space Act Agreements, Public Private Partnerships, Other Transactional 

Authorities, Firm Fixed Price contracts, Enhanced Use Lease Authorities and others. In addition to these proven approaches, the Congress and NASA should remain 

committed to acquisition reforms. Since government contracting and procurement 

remain barriers to some of our Nation’s most innovative and agile small businesses 

we must fully harness the power of all types of suppliers in our industrial base in 

a way that balances risk and benefit. 

Embracing new and enabling technologies across a broad range of applications is 

essential to achieving our national space goals. NASA remains a major enabler to 

technology stimulation and spinoffs from both providing new technology to using it. 

Significant breakthroughs are occurring at the intersection of different fields or 

through the application of existing systems in new and creative ways. For example, 

the use of space robotics in the next generation of human prosthetics or space enabled agriculture to help grow food in challenged areas on Earth. Within SNC, we 

are harnessing the technologies and capabilities across our portfolio of Mars robotic 

rovers, small satellites, innovative propulsion systems, environmental life support 

systems, space plant growth capabilities, and diverse special mission aircraft experience to bring space technologies to many other industries and to enhance society. 

A successful space program is not a solo act. There is power in partnerships. Already we are working with large, small, and disadvantaged organizations in 25 

states and together we are expecting to hire hundreds of people this year. This 

would not be possible without that NASA catalyst and partnership. 

44 

Continuity, Stability, and Balance 

With the upcoming elections this Fall, I believe it is necessary to re-affirm the 

importance of stability in the space enterprise at this critical time in history 

through a broadly supported NASA Authorization Act of 2016. For NASA and the 

United States, expanded utilization of the International Space Station through at 

least 2024 is fundamentally important. We have invested much into the creation of 

the Space Station and need to leverage this still valuable investment for the longest 

time possible. The development of real commercial markets and missions may wisely warrant extension of the ISS to 2028 as the International Space Station also 

serves as the cornerstone of exploration. During this period I fully expect new platforms and capabilities, both domestic and international, to emerge. In turn, these 

capabilities will accelerate the critically important beyond low Earth Orbit, or deep 

space, exploration activities of both NASA and industry. I strongly believe synergy 

between commercial low Earth orbit and deep space exploration activities are vitally 

important and essential to the Nation’s success. All too often, some people would 

like to create conflict between commercial and government, low Earth orbit and 

deep space activities, crewed and robotic, science and exploration, public versus private, and domestic versus international where no conflict needs to exist. True mission success, sustained benefits, and broad achievement of all of our national goals 

related to space will only come from a balance and mutually-beneficial approach 

that includes all of these elements in a well-integrated, prioritized, and appropriately resourced plan. Building on this concept on an even broader level, I would 

like to drive home the importance of a U.S.-led low Earth orbit commercialization 

initiative that creates and sustains diverse commercial markets and missions so 

that NASA can focus vital resources to the pursuit of beyond low Earth orbit human 

and robotic exploration. 

As part of this very-achievable vision, I expect new breakthroughs in commercial 

communications, remote sensing, weather, on-orbit servicing, research and development, testing, production/manufacturing, tourism, resource extraction, energy production, and many other real economic and value driving activities from our commercial space efforts. Our nation must continue to invest and stimulate the space 

commercialization business environment and in doing so it will realize a substantial 

return on investment. We also must do so in a timely manner as our global competition has firmly grasped the importance of this period in space history. Space opens 

new frontiers, new resources, new markets, and new opportunities for our youth and 

together we need to act strategically as this is a priceless investment in our future 

as a nation. 

Summary 

In closing, I want to sincerely thank Congress and the Committee for this opportunity to provide our thoughts and project the voice of the commercial space industry. The stability, diversity, and continuity of the current Authorization are the hallmarks that must form the core of NASA’s next Authorization. Balance among 

human and robotic spaceflight, low Earth orbit commercial utilization and deep 

space exploration, science and technology development, and evolutionary development of a robust and diverse U.S. space industrial base will deliver revolutionary 

results that will launch the dreams of our Nation both now and in the foreseeable 

future. We must be bold, we must be smart, and we must provide the resources necessary to deliver that value to fulfill the tremendous potential of space. At SNC, our 

dream is alive through the Dream Chaser and our broad portfolio of space but we 

are only one piece in a constellation of U.S.-developed capabilities that are poised 

and prepared. We look forward to serving the needs, ambitions, and worthy goals 

of the United States. 

Thank you and I would be happy to answer any of the Committee’s questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sirangelo. 

Professor Dumbacher. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. DUMBACHER, PROFESSOR 

OF ENGINEERING PRACTICE, SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS 

AND ASTRONAUTICS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, 

PURDUE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Peters, Senator Nelson, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my thoughts on leadership in space exploVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
45 

ration. I believe reasserting leadership in space exploration involves the broader space exploration community: NASA, industry, 

emerging space companies, space research communities, the general public, and, most importantly, future generations of explorers, 

to whom we are accountable. 

We live today on the shoulders of those that have taken us to the 

Moon, extended our view into deep space, robotically explored the 

solar system and beyond, and developed the International Space 

Station. We owe it to the next generation to do for them that which 

our predecessors accomplished for us. 

We are at a crossroads, a crossroads where NASA is on the cusp 

of transition, not just transition in the political sense, but a transition in exploration. The capabilities to again get humans beyond 

low Earth orbit, to the Moon, Mars, and beyond are nearing completion in design and development. These capabilities will enable 

return of humans to the area around the Moon, the human exploration of Mars and beyond, and the possibility of answering the 

three big science questions. 

NASA’s 40-plus years of investment in low Earth orbit have 

blazed a trail that has opened up economic possibilities, rewritten 

science textbooks, not to mention all the applications that have 

spun off from this investment to make things better here on Earth. 

Space exploration requires long-term focus, commitment, and investment. Using the roles of government and commercial entities 

in the correct balance, technical risks are reduced, eventually opening up new markets in space for investment. Through space exploration, we gain new scientific knowledge for application on Earth, 

new technologies to further U.S. economic leadership, and develop 

innovative global markets. In addition, exploration serves to continually challenge human capabilities and feed human curiosity. 

In the past, major financial and programmatic disruptions to 

NASA’s exploration activities have misspent taxpayer resources, 

confused the general public, demoralized a talented workforce, and 

diminished or wasted technical and economic capability. Also, I believe that improvement must be continuous, challenge the status 

quo, and enhance our capabilities for the future. 

My lessons learned in the 2009 to 2011 timeframe, as well as 

program planning and implementation challenges through 2014 

are: Why we continue to explore space can be better communicated; 

number two, debates over specific destinations generate ‘‘camps’’ 

and an unhealthy environment of ‘‘our’’ plan versus ‘‘their’’ plan; 

three, continuity of purpose and execution is essential for efficient 

use of resources and timely, tangible accomplishment. Budget stability and appropriate funding growth is critical to keeping exploration programs on schedule. 

We can address these lessons by, number one, a dedicated and 

transparent effort which works toward building and maintaining 

consensus on why we explore. This should build from the 2010 Authorization Act, which provides clear goals and objectives, the 2014 

NRC ‘‘Pathways to Exploration’’ report, and efforts such as the Pioneering Space Summit. We must combine this with an associated 

top-level strategy. This is a continual effort with the needed perspectives represented: NASA, industry, including emerging space 

46 

companies, researchers, politicians, communications experts, cultural thinkers and writers, and the general public. 

Number two, focus on what needs to be accomplished and how 

to accomplish it in order to develop a sustainable strategy leading 

to a thriving space economy. Destinations are secondary to what 

should be accomplished. A sustainable strategy is well communicated, requires executable and affordable programs, and includes 

international partners on the critical path. Clear expectations and 

use of appropriate roles for government and private industry will 

support building a consensus strategy. 

Number three, continuity of purpose and execution is needed to 

avoid loss of momentum, massive replanning, and lost of talent. 

Space exploratory goals should be adjusted only based on what is 

discovered through progress and innovation. 

Number four, assure budget stability. Dr. Wernher von Braun 

once said, ‘‘Conquering the universe, one has to solve two problems: 

gravity and red tape. We could have mastered gravity.’’ 

Budget stability results in efficient program implementation. 

Continuity across administrations and stable budget requests and 

appropriations will provide the strong foundation for building an 

executable consensus strategy that can be well communicated with 

all stakeholders. Stable budgets that allow for program planning 

over the budget horizon, including inflation to maintain purchasing 

power, are critical to continued progress. Stable budgets include 

minimizing the annual NASA budget debate, as well as the national budget debate brinkmanship. Budgets should grow and be 

commensurate with the work required in any given year. 

In conclusion, I can attest through personal experience with students, researchers, and the general public that space exploration is 

relevant across the globe. Today, there are over 8,000 talented 

workers across all 50 states developing and building our space exploration elements. With so many on Earth eager to explore, it is 

imperative that we take lessons from the past, benefit from that 

knowledge, and fashion a space exploration strategy that is continuous, communicated, sustainable, and suitably funded. 

Thank you for your past and present support. Thank you for this 

opportunity to present my views. Thank you for your time and attention. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dumbacher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. DUMBACHER, PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING

PRACTICE, SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, COLLEGE OF

ENGINEERING, PURDUE UNIVERSITY

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss my thoughts on leadership in space exploration. 

First, I must be clear: in my mind, reasserting leadership in space exploration involves more than just NASA, it extends to the broader space exploration community-industry, emerging space companies, space research communities, the general 

public and, most importantly, future generations of explorers, to whom we are all 

accountable. This community, those of us on this Earth who are lucky enough to 

share a passion for space exploration, live today on the shoulders of those that have 

taken us to the moon, extended our view into deep space, robotically explored the 

solar system and beyond, and developed the International Space Station. We owe 

it to the next generation to do for them that which our predecessors accomplished 

for us. 

Yes, we are indeed at a crossroads as the title of the hearing suggests—but a 

crossroads where NASA is on the cusp of transition. Not just transition in the politVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
47 

ical sense, but a transition in exploration. NASA has focused on LEO for the past 

40 years but the capabilities (Orion, SLS, GSDO) to again get humans beyond LEO 

to the Moon, Mars, and beyond are nearing completion in design and development 

putting us on the cusp of a new era in exploration that we have spent decades 

dreaming about. The capabilities being built today will enable the return of humans 

to the area around the Moon, the human exploration of Mars, and beyond, and the 

possibility of answering the Big 3 science questions: Where did we come from? 

Where are we going? Are we alone? 

At the same time, NASA’s 40+ years of investment in low earth orbit have blazed 

a trail that has opened up economic possibilities, rewritten science textbooks, and 

is beginning to address ageing issues as we learn from zero-gravity—not to mention 

all the applications that have spun of from this investment to make things better 

here on Earth. 

Space exploration requires long-term focus, commitment and investment. I emphasize commitment because exploration is both challenging and risky, and the payoffs are spread over the longer term. Using the roles of government and commercial 

entities in the correct balance, technical risks are reduced, eventually opening up 

new markets in space for investment. Through space exploration we also gain new 

scientific knowledge for application on Earth, as well as new technologies to further 

U.S. economic leadership and develop innovative global markets. In addition, exploration serves to continually challenge human capabilities and feed human curiosity. 

In my opinion, it is imperative that the United States, and its international partners, continues to pursue and build upon their existing commitments of space exploration to extend humanity’s reach into deep space. In the past, however, there have 

been major financial and programmatic disruptions to NASA’s space exploration activities. These changes have: misspent taxpayer resources, confused the general 

public, demoralized a talented workforce, and diminished or wasted technical and 

economic capability. The result left exploration efforts slowly creeping, rather than 

boldly going forward . . . a position significantly below this Nation’s capability. Let 

me state unequivocally, I believe that improvement must be continuous, challenge 

the status quo, and enhance our capabilities for the future. My experience at NASA, 

and now preparing the next generation, has taught me that change is often needed, 

but also that disruption often yields changes, but not necessarily improvement. 

My lessons learned in the 2009–2011 timeframe, concerning the changes to the 

NASA human exploration budget and associated program adjustments, were many. 

In addition, program planning and implementation challenges through 2014 provided further lessons. I would like to discuss these lessons and provide suggestions 

for moving forward. 

The key lessons and their impacts are: 

(1) ‘‘Why’’ We continue to explore space has not been well communicated. The 

result is a lack of understanding and ‘‘buy-in’’ from the American public and 

all .. This directly leads to an unhealthy state of individual ideas being argued with minimal possibility of consensus and integration. 

(2) Debates over specific destinations generate ‘‘camps’’ and an unhealthy environment of ‘‘our’’ plan versus ‘‘their’’ plan. In reality, the destinations are, 

at best, secondary to the real need of near and far term benefits for society. 

(3) Continuity of purpose and execution is essential for efficient use of resources 

and timely, tangible accomplishment. Cancellation of major programs, or 

making significant changes to programs, thwarts continuity. 

(4) Budget stability and appropriate funding growth is critical to keeping exploration programs on schedule. 

All of these lessons must be addressed to maintain U.S. leadership in space exploration and efficiently execute the programs. 

It is imperative that as a nation, and a global community, we address these lessons to obtain the benefits of space exploration. 

With similar and coordinated actions, we can address the lessons of communicating the ‘‘why we explore’’ and the related debate over destinations. A dedicated, 

and transparent effort, which works toward building AND maintaining consensus 

on why we explore is needed. This must be combined with an associated top-level 

strategy. This is not a one-time activity, this should be a continual effort with 

NASA, the aerospace industry—including emerging space companies, researchers, 

politicians, marketing and communications experts, cultural thinkers and writers, 

and representatives of the interested general public. This effort must consider what 

is needed to enlarge a space economy, engage the general public and their representatives, and how NASA and government investment can best support space exploration. The 2014 National Research Council, ‘‘Pathways to Exploration’’ report 

48 

provides a sound starting point for this activity. This report engaged the needed perspectives and cross-sections to arrive at its conclusions. 

Secondly, we need to focus on what needs to be accomplished, and how to accomplish it, in order to develop a thriving space economy. To get past the destination 

discussion, a coordinated strategy for this development is required. Comments circulated during previous transitions, in reference to the Moon as a ‘‘been there, done 

that, got the t-shirt’’ destination are unproductive. There were also incorrect claims 

that NASA did not plan on going to Mars. Finally, the often intoned ‘‘Moon’’ versus 

‘‘Mars’’ versus ‘‘asteroids’’ argument, led only to a fight between the respective 

camps. The space exploration community was ‘‘shooting inward’’, not communicating 

an organized strategy. 

A sustainable exploration strategy is what is needed. This requires an immediate 

cessation of ‘‘shooting inward’’ and recognition of what is sustainable. Sustainability 

requires a communicated strategy and that implementation programs be executable 

and accomplish milestones. The strategy must be affordable and include international partners on the critical path. Clear expectations and use of the appropriate 

roles for government and private industry will support building a consensus strategy. 

Continuity of purpose and execution pairs well with budget stability. When the 

NASA Constellation program was cancelled in FY 2011, significant progress had already been made. Unquestionably, there was need for improvement in the planning 

and execution of Constellation. However, effectively canceling a five-year, $9 billion 

effort resulted in loss of momentum in all projects (Ares, Orion, Ground Systems), 

massive re-planning of the on-going Constellation activities, and loss of talent across 

the Agency, particularly at NASA’s Johnson, Kennedy, and Marshall Centers. Hundreds of prime and support contractor jobs, along with those at suppliers, were 

eliminated due to this major policy change. 

Paired with continuity is budget stability. This was a key topic in my testimony 

to the House Science Committee in October 2015. As part of the effort to respond 

to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (Public Law 111–267), the Office of Management and Budget directed NASA to plan human exploration efforts (what became 

Orion, the Space Launch System or SLS, and Ground Systems) within a $3B annual 

funding level, without inflation over the budget horizon. This established the SLS 

configuration, and programmatic phasing for the Exploration Systems efforts. However, the annual budget requests were consistently less, FY 2012—$2.81B, FY 

2013—$2.76B, FY 2014—$2.73B. Each year, Congress increased appropriations to 

near the $3B level, and in FY2014 appropriated over $3.1B. This annual appropriations debate results in continuous re-planning, loss of team focus on very challenging technical tasks, programmatic delays, and confusion and miscommunication 

across the team, and among all stakeholders. 

Continuing resolutions, government shutdowns, brinksmanship in the national 

appropriations process, and tardiness in receiving final appropriations all adversely 

impact budgetary stability. These national level budget debates lead directly to program cost and schedule changes. They serve to increase confusion, and result in loss 

of focus due to constant revision. For example, the fifteen-day government shutdown 

in October 2013 resulted in overall Exploration System inefficiencies of at least 

$240M, accounting for 1 week of phase down, 2 weeks of shutdown, 1 week of ramp 

up. 

‘‘Conquering the universe one has to solve two problems: gravity and red tape. We 

could have mastered gravity.’’—Dr. Wernher von Braun 

For space exploration leadership, it is essential to maintain continuity of purpose, 

coupled with budgetary stability. This results in efficient program implementation. 

Continuity across Administrations, and stable budget requests and appropriations, 

will provide the strong foundation for building an executable consensus strategy 

that can be well communicated with all stakeholders. Stable budgets, that allow for 

program planning over the budget horizon, including inflation to maintain purchasing power, are critical to continued progress. Budgets should grow and be commensurate with the work required in any given year and then grow as needed to 

develop and operate the essential exploration elements—currently to include SLS, 

Orion, and habitats. Today, there are over 8000 talented workers across all 50 

states developing and building these systems, in addition to the European Orion 

service module. 

Additionally, it should be recognized that Administration changes, driven by the 

voice of the voters, can adjust exploration priorities and strategies due to economic 

or security concerns. Such adjustments, however, should not indiscriminately eliminate or alter major programs without addressing proper and sufficient coordination 

49 

among all stakeholders. Space exploratory goals should adjust based on what is discovered through progress and innovation. 

In conclusion, I can attest through personal experience that space exploration is 

relevant across the globe. Researchers, rocket scientists, academics, both University 

and elementary students and stargazers from all walks of life, express enthusiasm 

for emerging launch systems, be they built by NASA, Blue Origin, ULA, or SpaceX. 

International Space Agencies eagerly host groups of engineering students keen to 

become the next trailblazers, improving our awareness of the universe. With so 

many on Earth eager to explore, it is imperative that we take lessons from the past, 

benefit from that knowledge and fashion a space exploration strategy that is unanimous, continuous, communicated, sustainable and suitably funded. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak, thank you for your time and attention, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Professor Dumbacher, and thank you 

to each of you for your learned testimony. Before 2005 and 2010, NASA spent roughly $13 billion on the 

Constellation program before it was canceled in 2011. The first 

question I would like to ask the members of this panel is, What are 

the lessons we can learn from the cancellation of the Constellation 

program? And what steps should Congress take to ensure that the 

Space Launch System and Orion don’t face the same fate in years 

to come? 

Mr. Gerstenmaier? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think we’re at a very different posture this time with the current programs. As has been described 

earlier, the amount of hardware that’s getting ready to go fly, the 

amount of development that’s behind this, the teams have made 

tremendous progress in moving forward. We’re essentially roughly 

2 years away from launch of really the next generation of launch 

systems that allow us to go to deep space. We’ve made tremendous 

progress, and I think we need to all recognize that progress. 

We also need to recognize that it’s difficult making that progress. 

Development is not easy. There will be problems discovered as we 

build this hardware, and we need to look that we’re building a system and not just focused on a single launch or a single two 

launches, we’re actually building a system for the future. And I 

think if we all collectively keep those things in mind, we’ll see the 

long-term vision of what we need to go forward with and we’ll be 

not tempted to jump to the next shiny object or to make a change 

in direction, as occurred in the past. 

So I think we need to look at these systems. They clearly are 

world-leading systems. Every nation around the world is determined they need a heavy-lift launch vehicle. We are building a 

heavy-life launch vehicle. We are not designing, we are not talking 

about it, its hardware is available to go be seen, touched in New 

Orleans. The capsule is in Florida. The hardware is there. Our systems are there. We need to continue the course, stay where we’re 

moving forward, and we’ll continue to be a leader in space. 

The CHAIRMAN. And let me ask you, What is the impact of SLS 

and Orion deep space capability, what does that mean for United 

States leadership in space? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We will be the only nation that has the ability to take crews beyond low Earth orbit to the vicinity of the Moon 

on a regular basis with this system. And eventually with the additional work we’re starting on habitation systems, we can add those 

to Orion, and we can then essentially move human presence beVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
50 

yond the Earth-Moon system into the solar system. So we will be 

the only nation really going beyond low Earth orbit with humans 

moving into the solar system as we described through this methodical process, heading ultimately toward Mars. 

The CHAIRMAN. And if a subsequent administration were to cancel SLS or Orion, as we did with the Constellation system, what 

would the consequences of that be? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, you’ve described the dire consequences that occurred when we canceled Constellation, and you 

described the impacts—to the auto industry and what occurred in 

this huge downturn. We’ve essentially recovered from all that, 

we’re moving forward. Cancellation of Constellation [sic] and SLS 

would essentially put us back in that start-all-over-again posture 

to begin again with all the negative consequences that you’ve described earlier as you talked to us before, and all those would be 

realized again. You know, even the workforce that I work with, you 

know, it was a devastating blow to them when this work got pulled 

away from them, as you’ve described. 

I think people in our industry, as described by these panelists, 

maybe work for more than just the paycheck. There’s a passion 

that sits below us, and when you cancel a program or you take 

something that’s your life work, that you’ve really sacrificed, and 

you take that away for seemingly a trivial reason, that is very devastating to our workforce, and that can have huge implications to 

this Nation, to our culture, to our psyche, and to our world leadership, and I don’t think we should go through that again if we can 

avoid it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would anyone else care to amplify? 

Mr. Gold? 

Mr. GOLD. Senator Cruz, if we don’t develop heavy-lift, I assure 

you the Chinese will. They’re working on it today, and China will 

use that system to deploy their new space station, which, by the 

way, will be introduced while our space station is being retired. So 

if we do not develop this critical capacity, we will be behind China, 

who is making, frankly, all of the right decisions. 

And I think what you need to do with SLS, and, frankly, with 

any of our space systems, is link them to the private sector, make 

sure there is a connectivity there, because I can’t tell you who is 

going to be in charge of NASA eight, 9 months from now, but I can 

tell you who is going to be in charge of Space Systems Loral. And 

I think the private sector brings stability and support to the space 

program that can allow NASA’s initiatives to move forward without 

interruption. 

The CHAIRMAN. And what are the consequences to our national 

interest if we were to remain dependent on Russia for low Earth 

orbit and access? 

Mr. SIRANGELO. Senator, I’ll take that. In your opening statement, you talked about what we are spending outside the United 

States, and I think one element of the beyond low Earth orbit system that Bill Gerstenmaier talked about that isn’t so much recognized is that by turning over low Earth orbit activities to the commercial sector, one of the things we have been able to do is enable 

NASA to look beyond low Earth orbit, take their resources, take 

their energy, take the ability that their people have and look toVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
51 

wards, ‘‘What else could we do?’’ which is really most definitely a 

government sector operation. We’ve received that benefit by enabling companies like mine and others to start operating in low 

Earth orbit. 

At the same time, we’re getting the dual benefit of being able to 

bring back home those dollars that would be spent outside of the 

United States. We’re launching our astronauts and our services 

and our supplies from American soil with American spaceships on 

American rockets, and that’s what we believe we should be doing. 

Mr. GOLD. However, Senator, I think it’s also important to ask 

the question, will we have an American station for Mr. Sirangelo’s 

spacecraft to go to? It’s good that we’re concerned about U.S. dependence on launching with the Russians right now, but, unfortunately, what we also have to worry about right now is whether 

there will be a U.S. platform in orbit for them to go to. And as I 

mentioned in my testimony, we’re already potentially behind schedule in trying to figure out what that transition will look like. 

The countries and companies that can operate in LEO will have 

the greatest impact economically, that’s where our satellites are, 

that’s where our commercial and military interests are. So while 

we ask about getting people to LEO, I also hope that we don’t forget about LEO utilization, what we’re doing there, and what the 

competitive industry and markets look like in that environment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again 

to our panelists. 

Actually, Mr. Gold, I just want to pick up on the statement you 

made about the SLS rocket and public-private partnerships having 

commercial investments in that as well. There are some folks who 

have argued that NASA probably shouldn’t be leading that, that 

there might be commercial companies that will pick that up. I don’t 

think that’s what you were saying, but could you explain what you 

are implying by that statement? And is NASA on the right track 

as being the leader in developing this initial SLS rocket? Or what 

are your thoughts? 

Mr. GOLD. So, as Benjamin Franklin was trying to counsel us, 

Senator we need to hang together—and thank you for this question, because I think this is the conundrum that we all struggle 

with. You heard every one of us talk about the industry trying to 

come together, that we all share this spark of inspiration that Mr. 

Sirangelo and Mr. Gerstenmaier mentioned. 

I think what we need to do is the all-of-the-above solution here, 

to stop dividing ourselves, believing that there is only one way to 

get this done, that there is only one solution. As I described in my 

testimony, we need to seek out those intersection points where the 

private sector and government interests are aligned, and feed 

those. I don’t see any problem in proceeding with the SLS system, 

which could potentially benefit the private sector with its capabilities, and if we do have a presence in cislunar or the Moon or Mars, 

that’s going to open up all kinds of opportunities for the private 

sector. You could have a second Commercial Cargo program for 

bringing cargo out to cislunar locations or the Moon or Mars. So 

52 

I don’t see a conflict here, I see the potential for great synergy and 

complementary activity. 

Senator PETERS. All right. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, I would surely echo the same sentiment. I think by using the private sector who are there, in some 

sense, they can be more nimble than we can on the government 

side. We need to go do that. We’re seeing the innovation occur in 

both Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew. That’s very important for them coming online. 

We just put out a unique proposal to industry, it’s called a Request for Information, where we essentially have one of the ports 

on board the Space Station that we’re going to make available to 

the private sector to go utilize how they want to go utilize it. So 

we asked them for ideas. We said, ‘‘We’ll provide power to you, 

we’ll provide atmosphere to you, you can attach your module to station. So think of it as having a piece of land somewhere in some 

prime city and we’re saying that piece of land is available for you, 

you can build what you want there. You can use cargo transportation to get there, you can buy that on the private sector market, 

you can get crew transportation privately to this location.’’ And we 

asked them for ideas of how they would use this port. 

So it will be exciting to see what the private sector tells us in 

this response. How can they use this unique aspect? They could put 

their station there, they could operate for a while as a separate entity with purely private sector demand to this research facility. And 

then at some point when this station’s life is exceeded, it could 

undock from station and be the basis for the next private sector 

station. 

So we are actively working to bring the private sector along. It 

enables us to do these harder, more difficult things that I think are 

the right things to do for the government until there’s a proven 

market, until there’s demand shown. It’s the right thing for the 

government to do those harder things that don’t quite make sense 

to the private sector, but then as soon as we can, bring the private 

sector behind us so they can follow along with us, and we can use 

them in a very effective manner to keep advancing into space. Because these challenges we describe, they can’t be done by one nation, they can’t be done by one government entity, they have to be 

done with the best of all of us, and that includes the private sector 

as well as international partners. 

Senator PETERS. And I think as you make the statement about 

how we have to be together, both private sector, other nations coming together, it’s not just technical, it’s really financial. In fact, I 

think the ‘‘Pathways to Exploration’’ report from the National 

Academies noted that our biggest challenge is not technical to do 

these wonderful things that we want to do, it’s really financial and 

how we have the wherewithal to fund these kinds of projects. 

And all of you are aware that funding for NASA has not kept 

pace with the trajectory that was envisioned in the 2010 Authorization, and yet given that, you still have been able to make significant progress with the SLS, Orion, and other related systems for 

deep space exploration as well. 

But I guess that leads to a question, and I’ll ask Dr. Dittmar 

first, in your view, is NASA on a sustainable trajectory financially? 

53 

Or quite simply put, can we fund a human mission to Mars on this 

course without sacrificing some other types of programs? 

Dr. DITTMAR. Those are two little bit different questions. Let me 

just put on my Human Space Flight Committee hat, because, as 

you know, I was on the NRC ‘‘Pathways’’ report. The first thing I 

would say is that what we found in the report is that where NASA 

is now it is sustainable. It’s developing these programs. It’s eventually going to need us to sort of say, ‘‘Okay, we’re going to go do this, 

this, and this, but right now the focus is on developing those capabilities.’’ And the budget that Congress has provided has allowed 

that progress to continue to be made. There is no question, however, that as you move forward and really begin to start rolling on 

this stuff, you probably are going to need an increase. 

One of the things that would really help would be for the funding 

to keep track with the rate of inflation, because if it doesn’t keep 

track with the rate of inflation, you’re in a decreasing situation. It 

looks like flat funding, but it’s really not, because your buying 

power actually decreases over time. So maintaining the rate of inflation is the very first thing that needs to be addressed. Over time, 

you’re definitely going to need modest increases. 

But another thing that we noted in the report, and this one gets 

lost a lot, and so I want to just make the point, is that technology 

is increasing by leaps and bounds all around us. Every week something new happens, things are changing. And one of the assumptions that we made, and it’s one of the reasons we didn’t tag a dollar figure on this, is that over time what would happen is technologies would improve to the point where NASA was able to incorporate some of those technologies and reduce costs as it goes forward. Also, there will be relationships with international partners, 

where partners are basically bringing parts to that whole architecture, and we assume, as Mike was just talking about, that commercial enterprise will also begin to pick some of this as we’re moving 

forward. 

So is it on a sustainable trajectory? Yes, for now, it is on a sustainable trajectory, but in the outyears, you will need modest increases in funding. 

Senator PETERS. That’s to achieve the Mars mission, you would 

need modest increases, in your estimation? 

Dr. DITTMAR. Well, you need—it’s very difficult to say because 

some of this depends on where it is that you’re going and in what 

order you’re doing what you decide to do there. If we’re talking 

about—we start here, we launch, we go to Mars—then that’s one 

funding profile. If we say—we’re going to start here, we’re going to 

go into cislunar space, we’re going to take some time and figure out 

what it is that we need to know that we don’t know that we need 

to know, which is part of what exploration is about, we’ll need to 

be learning as we go—then that’s a different funding profile. If you 

do what the ‘‘Pathways’’—what I refer to in the Pathways Report 

as the ‘‘go everywhere and do everything’’ model, which is essentially a whole lot of steps on the way the Mars, that’s yet another 

funding profile. That funding profile is going to be the most expensive but it’s also going to be the least risky because you’ll have 

been learning at each step that you take. 

54 

So there’s not a single answer to your question. It depends on 

what choices get made at what point along the line. Do I think that 

you’re at a place right now to be moving out on that program? Yes, 

I do. 

Senator PETERS. OK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Senator Daines. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for testifying here today. There’s a lot of conversation about the future of space travel, as we’ve heard today, 

and this public-private-commercial kind of partnerships, and I 

think this whole problem is frankly for future high-tech job growth, 

coming from somebody who’s spent a lot of time in the high-tech 

sector. And I want to really direct my questions thinking about, 

how do we inspire the next generation of engineers and so from the 

partnerships of building an upstream farm team, if you will? I 

heard a lot of conversation about STEM and STEAM. I’m the only 

chemical engineer on the Hill, so I hold down a caucus by myself, 

but a big, big proponent on the sciences and engineering. 

My alma mater, by the way, at Montana State University, 

they’ve got an eclipse ballooning project. They’re guiding 60 student 

teams across 30 states to build and launch the hardware to send 

live video from the edge of space to NASA’s website during next 

summer’s total solar eclipse. What’s great about that is they’re 

working—students working on projects will have tangible results, 

something they can really see, which I think is very exciting. 

I’m going to start with Mr. Gold, a graduate of Billings Senior 

High, a Bronc. I know you’ve had both a personal and familial connection to NASA and have helped bring their outreach activities to 

Montana, which I thank you for that. Could you elaborate on the 

HUNCH program? And for those who don’t know what HUNCH is, 

it’s High Schools United with NASA to Create Hardware. Tell me 

about that. And it really is getting into this, how do we inspire 

more technically trained students for the future here? 

Mr. GOLD. Thank you so much for that question, Senator. 

HUNCH, in my opinion, is one of NASA’s most important programs. Although in the interest of full disclosure, my mother runs 

it, so I’m anything, if not biased. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLD. HUNCH is operated out of Billings, Montana, as you 

noted. And what it does is it partners NASA Johnson Space Center, in Senator Cruz’s great state of Texas, and five other NASA 

facilities with schools in Montana and across the country for the 

purpose of inspiring students to pursue careers in science and engineering by linking them up with NASA to provide real world products to the Agency for their use. For example, the galley table that 

the astronauts are using on the ISS today was built by HUNCH. 

The astronauts are eating off a table built by the students. And I 

cannot overstate the impact that I think it would have on a student 

for them to be able to say that, ‘‘I worked on a piece of the International Space Station that astronauts are eating off of today.’’ I 

55 

think if something like that had been available when I was at Billings Senior High, I might have been a useful engineer instead of 

a useless lawyer. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLD. Not that lawyers are useless, as Senator Cruz and I 

know. 

Senator DAINES. I think you turned out OK. 

Mr. GOLD. Absolutely. I turned out. Thank you. I appreciate that, 

absolutely. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Gerstenmaier, in your testimony, you didn’t 

talk a lot about engaging younger generations. I know you have a 

lot to say about that. Would you also elaborate on experiences with 

this HUNCH program and other programs to inspire this next generation of engineers and astronauts? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think the HUNCH program is unique in 

the fact it focuses on high school students, and the fact it also 

reaches out to more of the vocational side of the high school students, so it’s not necessarily the high engineering college students, 

but it’s more the vocational side. So they actually get hands-on experience working with our engineers manufacturing hardware, like 

Mike described, the table on board Station. They’ve built 150 crew 

transfer bags, so when you see the crew transfer bags going across 

the hatches, those were manufactured by high school students. 

It’s also exciting to actually visit with the students and talk to 

them and hear their personal stories of where they weren’t sure 

what they wanted to do with their careers, and now all of a sudden 

they’re building hardware, they’re in the trainers in Houston working side-by-side with an astronaut, understanding how a transfer 

bag should be manufactured, how to put handholds on it, how it 

can be used in microgravity. All of a sudden, they’ve got a real purpose for what their career trajectory is and what they want to go 

do. So it’s a tremendous program to get young folks excited, especially high school age. 

I would say another group that I just got a chance to meet with 

are young professionals. Those are college age students. You know, 

sometimes we think of ourselves as the Apollo generation, where 

we were motivated by what occurred in Apollo. It’s interesting talking to this college group of students; they see it as the Space Station generation. So they see the Space Station and this international activity as an unbelievable motivating force for them and 

their careers and the chance that they get to work internationally 

and globally with people on this Space Station. It’s as large as a 

football field, that was talked about. 

So I think sometimes we discount the benefit of what we’re actually doing today or the preciousness of the activities we’re doing, 

and we take them for granted, and we don’t see them in the context of where they are, but I think they are tremendously motivating to our students. If you look when we do activities now, we 

do social media activities where we have tweetups where we have 

a bunch of college students come in and talk about our programs. 

They are probably more knowledgeable about our programs than 

the general population in general. 

56 

So I think we have a tremendous ability and a tremendous responsibility to educate both the younger students all the way from 

grade school through high school all the way into college. 

Mr. SIRANGELO. And if I could just add, Senator, if it wasn’t for 

Bill Gerstenmaier, there wouldn’t be a HUNCH, it wouldn’t be in 

Montana, and that’s true of many of these educational programs. 

So thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. And I’m out of time, but I’ll just conclude, I really appreciate also how we motivate and encourage students who may want to go to a two year vocational training. We 

need to be training a generation of folks who know how to make 

things work and to celebrate two year institutions just like we do 

the four year. That’s an issue. I think we need to elevate the 2 

years to the 4 years in many ways and celebrating that for those 

who don’t want to go for a full four-year education. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. And I think that’s again the real advantage 

we get. The benefit is by celebrating diversity and bringing a large 

population, it’s amazing what support we can get and what we can 

accomplish. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. SIRANGELO. Senator, if I could maybe add to that. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. 

Mr. SIRANGELO. One other thing I think is as important to what 

my colleagues have been talking about is that when you speak to 

the young people, not only do they want to go out and build something and hold it, as you said, and be able to touch it, they want 

to know that there’s a future for this. They want to know that future is going to be longer than a year or two or three or four because if they’re going to commit to going into these industries and 

doing what we want them to do, they need to see that that future 

for NASA and for this industry is one that’s going to last for 10 

or 20 years as they look forward to the next couple of generations. 

And I think in doing that, the continuity, taking the space program 

outside of what might be a year-to-year concept and putting it into 

a place where people can look at it and say there is going to be a 

long-term future is going to be one of the most motivating things 

we can do for our young people, and I’m not just talking about the 

rocket scientists of the world. We value the electrician who wires 

our spaceship as much. 

What we’re really doing in many ways, at least in our business, 

is creating the infrastructure, the equivalent, the Internet equivalent of creating an iPad or a laptop, and being able to say the next 

group of people coming through are going to create the apps in the 

industry behind that, and that’s what we want to motivate them 

to, and in doing that, I think we need to show them that there is 

going to be a long-term path for this, and that’s going to create the 

inspiration. Many of them want to be entrepreneurs. Many of them 

don’t just want to come out and go work for a company, they want 

to create their own company. And I think showing them that path 

and realizing that’s what sparks that inspiration is quite important 

for us as well. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Sirangelo. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

57 

Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been an excellent panel, and each of you have brought 

a lot to the table. For example, in your talking about the future of 

commercial putting a module on the Space Station. Now, that begs 

the question, we certainly ought to expand the authorization of the 

Space Station. It wasn’t too many years ago that the authorization 

was only to 2016, the present year. We have it out to 2024, but 

there’s a lot more that we can do on that platform, it ought to be 

extended. And I will predict that shortly, in the next few years, if 

not immediately, you will see an extension even on out to the end 

of the decade. That will give part of the certainty of what you all 

have been talking about, and the certainty of funding is certainly 

key. 

Now, what you said, Dr. Dittmar, is so important; that we’re 

going to develop all these technologies that we don’t know about 

today. But in order to get to the goal of getting to Mars, we’re going 

to have to develop them, sustain life, and then bring that life back. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, it would take us under conventional technology 6 to 8 months to get there, and then because the planets 

would be out of alignment, you’d have to stay on the surface a long 

time, then to come back, another 6 to 8 months. Now, under 

present technology, how are you going to sustain life that long? It’s 

going to be very difficult. So what we need to do is to sprint to 

Mars, stay a week or two, come home. Have you got anything in 

mind in the way of those new technologies? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We’re looking at electric propulsion and specifically higher thrust electric propulsion. The VASIMR activity, 

which we’re investigating is one area we’re looking at. Actually, 

we’re under a NextSTEP Phase 1 activity in propulsion to take a 

look at the next generation of propulsion, and the idea is to actually run one of these VASIMR engines in a chamber on the ground 

for 100 hours to prove the technology, to understand that the system can actually operate for those kinds of durations, and if that 

test is successful, I think that proves to a lot of skeptics out there 

that this technology is ready to then be fielded and moved. 

Again, the high thrust electric propulsion makes sense at the 

greater than 100 kilowatt thrust levels. The smaller electric propulsion is fine for things like the Asteroid Redirect Mission, but for 

the bigger missions, this potentially has a lot of benefit. But we’re 

actually proving today, there’s a group at Ad Astra that’s actually 

working on this technology, they’re going through a series of gates 

that lead up to this ground test that I described, and when we see 

that, I think that will clear the way for this new technology, and 

that’s one area that we’re pursuing to try to get there faster, as you 

described. 

Mr. GOLD. And if I may, Senator, solar electric propulsion is another area of intersection between the private and public sector. 

SEP is the future for satellite systems, which is already arriving, 

and the European Space Agency is subsidizing SEP systems, not 

just for exploration, but for commercial pursuit of the satellite business. As you say, we should be leveraging the International Space 

Station, and part of that could be a SEP demonstration on the ISS. 

58 

Senator NELSON. OK, now, we’re talking about different payloads 

here because with solar propulsion, it’s going to be that you can 

move a big mass very slow. I don’t want to get bogged down in the 

details. We’re talking about a sprint. But what Mr. Gerstenmaier 

said is we’re testing one on the ground. Eventually, you’re going to 

have to go to space. It’s another reason we need the Space Station 

up there, as a platform to do the testing. 

All right, let’s talk—I want to get to you, Dr. Dumbacher, but let 

me ask Mr. Gerstenmaier first. Asteroid Redirect: now, I don’t 

know why that has gotten some political commentary in it. You 

said something I think prophetic a while ago. You said what we did 

when Kennedy said we’re going to the Moon and back, and then 

leave it to the technicians, the engineers, and the scientists to decide how we’re going to do it. All right, we said we’re going to 

Mars, the President said that. You all came up with an Asteroid 

Redirect, and yet we’ve had political commentary that that’s not 

the thing to do. Do you want to comment about that? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, when we looked at the Asteroid Redirect Mission, we knew we needed to look at electric propulsion to 

potentially position large cargo in the vicinity of Mars because even 

with the advanced propulsion, it’s still going to take a while to get 

to Mars, you’re going to have to generate propellant on the surface 

of Mars to come back, but that’s a very long journey. So we’re going 

to have to carry supplies in some way. So we need electric propulsion to move large masses. 

The Asteroid Redirect Mission does that, it builds electric propulsion. It builds off of communication busses, that Mike is aware of, 

to actually move those large masses. We move a large boulder to 

simulate effectively a cargo that we could be moving. We also bring 

that back to the vicinity of the Moon, where we can then do activities with crews to interact with that large asteroid boulder. We can 

remove samples with crews. 

We need to learn how to do spacewalks where there is not continuous communication with the crews like there is in low Earth orbit. 

We’ll do that around the Moon, where there are periodic comm outages, the crews will have to be more autonomous. Those crew interactions remotely and being independent are direct actions that we 

need to understand when we go to Mars. 

So when we took all of those capabilities and we looked at what 

we needed to go do, this Asteroid Redirect Mission became a very 

excellent way to realistically demonstrate and learn the skills and 

develop the hardware, techniques, and capabilities that will be 

needed for Mars. So that’s the genesis of how the mission came up 

and that’s how it fits in the vision for Mars. 

We may not have done as good a job at the beginning explaining 

what we did, maybe that’s some of the problems, but I think we’ve 

crisped that discussion up. Our teams are moving forward, we’re 

making good progress. We’re understanding the benefits of this directly, and it has direct application to what we’re trying to do in 

the Journey to Mars activity we’re pursuing. 

Senator NELSON. May I impose on the Chairman to have Professor Dumbacher comment? 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

59 

Mr. DUMBACHER. Yes, Senator, I think the Asteroid Redirect Mission is one of those things that is in the system. Back to my point 

that we need to figure out what needs to be accomplished and go 

accomplish it. In the list that Bill, Mr. Gerstenmaier, just gave you, 

I think is an excellent list. I would add one thing to it, and that 

is, we have to learn how to live and work in space further and further away from home. Right now, our astronauts are an hour and 

a half away, 2 hours away, from getting home safely. When we go 

to the Moon, in our past experience with Apollo, we were 3 days 

away. In the distant retrograde orbits, and eventually working our 

way out to Mars, we’re going to be 9 days away from home, and 

that sets a whole new standard for operations, how you handle 

abort scenarios, how do you handle the human life and maintaining 

human life in abort scenarios, as well as developing and designing 

hardware that has much better reliability than we have today. 

We have to have the ability to repair that hardware in place. We 

can’t just call the guys up back on Earth and say, ‘‘Send me something up on the next ship,’’ because we’re further away from home 

and we have to learn—that changes the whole thought process, the 

whole mentality, and activities in the cislunar space gives us that 

experience base that we can build from to go on to Mars. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the 

members who testified. Before we close, I want to ask for unanimous consent to insert the following letters into the hearing record: 

a letter from Virgin Galactic, and a letter from Planetary Society. 

Without objection, they’ll be admitted to the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE WHITESIDES, CEO, VIRGIN GALACTIC

Virgin Galactic, along with a number of other innovative companies in the commercial space sector, is aiming to provide cost-effective, frequent, and responsive access to space for small payloads within the next two years. This next generation of 

launch capabilities will advance our country’s leadership in space, and will strengthen our industrial base and national security. 

U.S. companies combined invested nearly $1 billion to develop these new launch 

capabilities. We have been able to make such a significant investment because for 

decades, successive Administrations have worked with Congress, on a bipartisan 

basis, to support the commercial space transportation industry and to prevent government programs from unnecessarily competing with industry. 

One issue—the potential commercial use of refurbished ballistic missile rocket 

motors—has been examined multiple times over the last 25 years and has been determined to be against our national interest. However, once again, a few companies 

are now arguing that the U.S. Government should make up to 900 excess ballistic 

missile assets available to private companies to be used for commercial launch services. Such a decision would have lasting, negative impacts. In particular, it would: 

• Flood the market with artificially cheap launch vehicles, just as several U.S. 

companies are fielding their own launch vehicles; 

• Discourage further investment in small satellite launch, and in other aerospace 

capabilities where there is a risk of government competition; and 

• Pick winners and losers in the marketplace, with one company receiving a 

windfall and the rest being forced to compete unfairly. 

Virgin Galactic urges that Congress maintain its longstanding policy in support 

of commercial launch capabilities. We believe it would be especially unwise to make 

any changes before this issue is examined by the Department of Commerce, the Department of Transportation, and other involved agencies. 

Failing to limit the use of excess ICBMs will stifle innovation for emerging commercial space companies while favoring a few established aerospace businesses and 

60 

damage our country’s space industrial base. A radical change in U.S. space policy 

now would have significant negative impacts on these commercial companies while 

increasing cost of services to the Government. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CASEY DREIER, DIRECTOR OF SPACE POLICY, THE PLANETARY SOCIETY

Today, the United States leads the world in space exploration. No other nation 

has landed humans on the Moon. No other nation has successfully landed on Mars 

or driven rovers on its surface. No other nation has visited every planet in the Solar 

System. The International Space Station (ISS) is the largest international civilian 

science project and most complex spacecraft in history. The ISS would not exist 

without U.S. leadership. There is a growing commercial space sector in the U.S. that 

has launch capability to low-Earth orbit for cargo and soon for humans. No other 

nation has accomplished as much, explored as many places, or advanced as far into 

space as has the United States. 

While U.S. leadership and accomplishments over the past several decades are 

clear and demonstrable, the outlook ahead is far less certain and will depend more 

on political will than technological ability. 

For the first time in human history the technical tools are within reach to directly 

search for life (or signatures of past life) at Europa or Mars. Such a discovery would 

represent a turning point in human history, and would help unlock answers to fundamental questions about the origin of life and the extent of life beyond our own 

solar system. Congressional rejection of proposed budget cuts to planetary exploration have ensured that NASA will continue to be the leader in deep space exploration. Similar congressional and White House support has been critical to the 

health of NASA other leading science divisions: Earth Science, Astrophysics, and 

Heliophysics. NASA’s sciences are actively working on next generation missions 

such as the Mars 2020 sample-caching rover, the James Webb Space Telescope, and 

Solar Probe Plus that will all return unprecedented science. Missions beyond these 

will depend on continued bipartisan support of Congress and the White House. 

U.S. is the clear leader in human spaceflight, not just by NASA to the ISS, but 

through an advanced commercial sector that has developed (and is developing) its 

own independent launch capability with ambitions for humans and commerce for 

low-Earth orbit and beyond. 

NASA’s human space exploration program, however, faces far greater uncertainty. 

While there is widespread support for the goal of sending humans to Mars—a goal 

we strongly support—NASA has yet to define a plan and strategy for how and when 

it hopes to achieve this goal. To be clear, NASA is making progress developing some 

of the key components, such as the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion crew 

vehicle, and NASA has adopted Mars as its organizing principle for human exploration. But an intent to send humans to Mars is not enough to sustain what will 

be a multi-decadal, multi-Administration program. 

The Planetary Society believes that NASA should, and can, develop a sustainable, 

affordable, and executable human exploration program leading to Mars, and should 

do so soon. To help advance the debate on how NASA might move forward, The 

Planetary Society convened a workshop last year that brought together key leaders 

in industry, NASA, and the scientific and public policy communities. The workshop 

provided a broad-based, expert synthesis of the technical, programmatic, and policy 

issues necessary to create a sustainable program of human Mars exploration. 

A key conclusion of the workshop was that the goal of sending humans to Mars 

is attainable and affordable if NASA develops a minimal architecture focused on 

sending humans to Mars. We evaluated one proposed plan in the Society’s Humans 

Orbiting Mars report (attached), which would send an orbital mission to Mars in 

2033 as a critical step to safely landing humans on the surface shortly thereafter. 

The workshop found that such a program made excellent use of existing hardware 

programs, was technically feasible with existing technology, and would fit within a 

human spaceflight budget that grows only with inflation. We do note that this is 

only possible if NASA hands off primary funding responsibility for the International 

Space Station in the 2024–2028 timeframe. More recently, Lockheed-Martin released a similar minimal architecture concept called Mars Base Camp, which embraces many similar ideas as our report, though it advances the first human mission 

to Mars orbit to 2028. 

No matter which ultimate strategy is selected, a key component for any future 

Mars architecture is a deep space habitat to sustain humans during the long voyage 

to the Red Planet. Fortunately, Congress has provided NASA with funds in FY 2016 

to begin initial formulation of such a habitat, and we encourage NASA to focus its 

61 

near-term human spaceflight efforts on developing and validating this hardware in 

cis-lunar space. A cis-lunar habitat can serve as a testbed for long-duration, closedloop life support, deep space operations, and provide enabling support for international or commercial partners should they wish to explore the lunar surface. This 

allows NASA to enable broad access to the Moon while maintaining a hardware development path focused on Mars. 

The United States has an opportunity to lead the world to Mars—and in doing 

so U.S. leadership in human space exploration will be assured. NASA’s scientific efforts already demonstrate clear vision and leadership, and congressional actions 

have been crucial to enabling this success. The future for human and scientific exploration is a matter of political will, and Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate strong support for both as the White House transitions in 2017. 

ATTACHMENT


713MARS1.eps
62 


713MARS2.eps
63 


713MARS3.eps
64 


713MARS4.eps
65 


713MARS5.eps
66 


713MARS6.eps
67 


713MARS7.eps
68 


713MARS8.eps
69 


713MARS9.eps
70 


713MARS10.eps
71 


713MARS11.eps
72 


713MARS12.eps
73 


713MARS13.eps
74 


713MARS14.eps
75 


713MARS15.eps
76 


713MARS16.eps
77 


713MARS17.eps
78 


713MARS18.eps
79 


713MARS19.eps
80 


713MARS20.eps
81 


713MARS21.eps
82 


713MARS22.eps
83 


713MARS23.eps
84 


713MARS24.eps
85 


713MARS25.eps
86 


713MARS26.eps
87 


713MARS27.eps
88 


713MARS28.eps
89 


713MARS29.eps
90 


713MARS30.eps
91 


713MARS31.eps
92 


713MARS32.eps
93 


713MARS33.eps
94 


713MARS34.eps
95 


713MARS35.eps
96 


713MARS36.eps
97 


713MARS37.eps
98 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question? 

I didn’t know you were ready to adjourn. 

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. 

Senator NELSON. I thought we were going back through another 

round, and so I’ll just cut it real short. 

I want to ask Mr. Gerstenmaier if he could tell us, what have 

we learned from the two failures of the cargo resupply? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Cargo, yes. Again, I think when we set up 

the cargo resupply program, it’s important to recognize we set it up 

and we recognized we could take more risk with our cargo than we 

could with crew flights. So it was purposely designed where NASA 

protected really the Space Station to make sure these vehicles 

could not damage the Space Station, but we essentially let the private sector manage the launch requirements, manage the launch 

reliability, manage the launch safety. 

So this was a chance for us to see what industry could really do 

with minimal NASA involvement. And we recognize we might have 

some failures, but that would not be a problem to us overall because we had robust planning and we had enough cargo flights and 

enough diversity that we could keep stations supplied, so we could 

tolerate failure. 

I think what we learned is that the private sector can recover 

from these failures fairly quickly. You know, we didn’t have to 

stand down for an extended period of time for 2 years to go do an 

investigation to write a big report. They understood what failure 

occurred, they were very motivated to get back flying again. 

In the case of the Orbital ATK vehicle, they knew they were 

going to have to redesign their launch vehicle, so they went out to 

the market and they found another launch vehicle to go launch on. 

They found the Atlas 5 that was available to go launch on to keep 

their cargo vehicles flying, and so they were able to fly two flights 

on the Atlas 5 vehicles and keep the Station resupplied. 

So that showed the innovation, that they could take a spacecraft 

that was designed to fly on one rocket, move it to a different rocket, 

and still supply the Station with really no NASA involvement. 

They did that on their own. They did that based on their own 

knowledge. And that shows the resilience of the private sector to 

recover from those failures. 

In the case of SpaceX, again, they turned around very quickly. 

They understood what their problem was. Within a matter of days, 

they were actually in a test facility on the ground testing the failure that they thought had occurred on orbit to verify that that failure occurred. That getting into test was much faster than I could 

have ever done on a NASA side. By the time I would have had the 

ability to get contracts written and done the proposals and put the 

test sequence in place, it would have been a half a year. They did 

that in 2 days. They were very quick getting back. They involved 

us in that. We got to see the activity. And again they returned to 

flight. 

So I think we provided them some comments on ways they can 

get better, some things they can think about from a systems engineering standpoint, but I think what we really learned is the private sector, if we give them the right incentives and we have the 

99 

contracting structure set up, they can deliver the capabilities that 

we, NASA, need in a very effective manner. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Peters wanted to give a brief closing 

statement. 

Senator PETERS. Right. Thank you. I just want to say that, because of time constraints, we have many questions. I’ll look forward 

to have an opportunity to following up with each of you. And thank 

you so much for your testimony. 

I just want to leave with one thought, Mr. Gerstenmaier. You 

mentioned about the Space Station generation. I’m part of that 

Apollo generation with all of you, but I had an opportunity to see 

this firsthand, which is why it’s so important that we continue to 

focus on this with NASA. Is one of the programs you had with a 

high school in Michigan where the students all came in, in a big 

assembly and had an opportunity to talk directly to the Astronauts 

on the Space Station as they were floating in the Station. And I 

was up on stage looking out at the audience, and the look on the 

faces of those young people, how excited they were. They were asking fabulous questions, and then after the program was over, I 

asked them, ‘‘How many of you would like to go into engineering 

or science?’’ and the whole auditorium raised their hand. 

So it is an incredibly powerful thing. Thank you for what you’re 

doing. Thank you all for inspiring our next generation to be great 

scientists and explorers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. And I will say if we 

truly want to inspire our Nation, we could have a program to 

launch Congress into space—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN.—but that may be a more ambitious endeavor, 

and the nice thing is it would only be a one-way trip. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I want to thank all the witnesses for 

being here, for your learned testimony. And the hearing record is 

going to remain open for 2 weeks. During that time, Senators are 

asked to submit any questions for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. 

And with that, I want to thank you again for being here. And 

this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(101) 

A P P E N D I X 


713LTRS1.eps
102 


713LTRS2.eps
103 


713LTRS3.eps
104 


713LTRS4.eps
105 


713LTRS5.eps
106 


713LTRS6.eps
107 


713LTRS7.eps
108 


713LTRS8.eps
109 


713LTRS9.eps
110 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER

Question 1. Kennedy Space Center and the state of Florida is the world’s space 

capital with the largest concentration of aerospace launch providers and suppliers. 

We’ve already seen Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS cargo launches from there and soon 

both Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion will be launching. Could you discuss what 

this means for the future of Florida’s Space Coast, and what you foresee happening 

in the State in the next few years? 

Answer. Under NASA’s human spaceflight plans, Kennedy Space Center (KSC) 

will continue to be a vibrant hub of activity, serving as the launch site for future 

human deep space missions (using the Space Launch System [SLS] and Orion) and 

Commercial Crew missions to the International Space Station (ISS), and as one of 

the launch sites for Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) flights to ISS. We also expect commercial launch service providers under contract to NASA’s Launch Services 

Program (LSP) to continue to use the Cape as a launch point for NASA’s planetary 

robotic probes and the civil sector’s geosynchronous communication and weather satellites. 

In addition, NASA has been working with both the State of Florida and commercial entities to provide a number of assets for use by the commercial space industry 

(e.g., Orbiter Processing Facility 3 and associated Processing Control Center, 

Launch Complex 39A, and the Shuttle Landing Facility and associated land). 

KSC is being transformed from a government-and program-focused, single-user 

launch complex to a more capability-centric and cost-effective multi-use spaceport, 

enabling both government and commercial space providers. NASA’s 21st Century 

Space Launch Complex (21CSLC), extending from FY 2011 through FY 2017, has 

been modernizing and transforming the Florida launch and range complex at KSC, 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), and Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) in 

Virginia into a more robust launch capability that can support multiple users. Beneficiaries of this activity included current and future NASA programs, other U.S. 

Government agencies, and commercial industry. 

For further information on planned developments at KSC through 2032, please 

see the KSC Master Plan at: http://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/. 


713LTRS10.eps
111 

Question 2. During the birth of the Apollo program, the United States, under the 

leadership of President John F. Kennedy, was determined to beat the Soviets to the 

moon. Is the United States still in a position to remain competitive and challenge 

the likes of other global powers? 

Answer. The Administration and Congress share the goal of sustaining U.S. leadership in space exploration, and NASA is working to extend human presence into 

the solar system and to the surface of Mars through an integrated human and 

robotic exploration strategy that yields a series of tangible milestones and capabilities that lead toward future human missions to Mars. This strategy embraces international and commercial partnerships and maintains America’s role as the world’s 

leader and foundational partner in space exploration. In building the SLS and 

Orion, as well as supporting ground systems, developing deep space habitation concepts, and proposing investments in technology development programs that are critical to any sustainable and affordable space exploration program, the U.S. is creating capabilities for mounting deep space missions that no other nation possesses. 

In low Earth orbit (LEO), the International Space Station (ISS) is helping to cement continuing U.S. leadership in human spaceflight, with over 15 years of humans living off the planet, and Station is a clear demonstration of the benefits to 

humankind that can be achieved through peaceful global cooperation. Through the 

encouragement of a LEO economy, NASA is supporting the development of competitive American industrial capabilities and markets. The ISS partnership, with America as its leader, is very important; leadership in space brings with it economic 

growth, technological prowess, and national pride, and contributes to American global leadership more broadly. 

Question 3. As the Senate looks to reauthorize NASA in the coming year, what 

reforms do you suggest? 

Answer. The legislative proposals noted below, which were approved for the 113th 

Congress, are still of great interest to NASA: 

• Astronaut Occupational Healthcare—would provide the Administrator the authority to allow NASA to perform medical monitoring and treatment of occupational diseases for current and former crew members. 

• Retention of Intellectual Property Rights by Users of the ISS National Lab— clarifies the ownership of intellectual property resulting from commercial research projects on the ISS that are conducted under the auspices of the 

501(c)(3) entity managing this research. 

• Authority for Negotiated Disposal of Property for Use by Commercial Space Industry—would provide a mechanism for Federal agencies, including the NASA 

and DoD, to transfer surplus Federal property directly to commercial space companies when the property is no longer needed by the United States Government. 

• Authority to Protect Certain Technical Data from Public Disclosure—would align 

Freedom of Information Act Requests with the requirements of Export Control 

Laws. 

• Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts—this proposal mirrors 

language contained in the FY 2012 NDAA legislation, and affords NASA the 

same protections as DoD for the use of trusted suppliers. 

• Confidentiality of Voluntarily Provided Safety Information—would protect the 

confidentiality of witness statements taken by mishap investigation boards. 

This is the same authority FAA and DoD currently have. 

• Confidentiality of Medical Quality Assurance Records—would amend the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (P.L. 85–568) to establish that records 

created by NASA as part of its medical quality-assurance program are confidential and privileged and may not be disclosed to any person. This is the same 

authority Department of Veterans Affairs and DoD currently has. 

• Authority to Support Commercial Space through Acquisition and Joint Infrastructure Development—would provide a mechanism for DoD and NASA to accept funding from the private sector to develop, enhance and maintain the Federal Government’s launch range sites. DoD was given this authority in the 

FY13 NDAA legislation. 

• Improvements to Baselines and Cost Controls Breach Reporting Process— 

changes the timeline to better align the breach reporting process to the existing 

NASA processes on budget formulation. 

• Removal of Sunset to NASA’s Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) authority—Would enable NASA to continue to enter into EUL agreements for underutilized but nonexcess NASA real property. NASA’s current EUL authority (51 U.S.C. Section 

20145(g)) is set to expire in December 2017. 

112 

Question 4. What programs within the agency pull its focus away from its intended main goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars? 

Answer. The National Aeronautics and Space Act (as amended) sets out diverse 

yet complementary objectives of aeronautical and space activities. The shared underpinning of these objectives is two-fold: recognized national needs that can best 

be met via aeronautics and space research and development, and NASA’s unsurpassed scientific, technical and systems engineering expertise. NASA works to maintain a balanced portfolio of programs that enable the U.S. to be the world leader 

in exploration, science, technology, and aeronautics research. 

Question 5. Just last year, the President signed into law the U.S. Commercial 

Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which I proudly cosponsored in the Senate. This 

law clarifies the private right to space resources for commercial companies. One of 

these companies, Moon Express based in Cape Canaveral, has made an application 

to the FAA for authorization of its planned maiden mission of its robotic lander in 

2017, which will make them the very first commercial space company to land on 

the lunar surface. How can NASA work with commercial space companies, 

leveraging private sector investment, to increase future mission success for NASA 

from both a scientific and operational standpoint? 

Answer. NASA has partnered with U.S. commercial entities to transport cargo, 

and soon crew, affordably to LEO and has focused ISS operations and research to 

enable the development of a demand-driven commercial ecosystem. The commercial 

crew and cargo systems that support ISS will also enable NASA to focus its own 

development efforts on the Orion and SLS, which will send U.S. astronauts on missions of exploration beyond LEO. It is NASA’s intention to transition LEO to private 

platforms and capabilities enabled by commercial markets and Government agencies 

with interest in LEO research and activities, while NASA’s primary focus for exploration shifts toward deep space beyond LEO. Private enterprise and affordable commercial operations in LEO will enable a truly sustainable step in our expansion into 

space. 

In 2014, NASA introduced an initiative called Lunar CATALYST (‘‘Lunar Cargo 

Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown’’) and entered into competitively 

awarded partnerships with three U.S. firms (Astrobotic Technology, Masten Space 

Systems, and Moon Express) to provide in-kind support to develop commercial lunar 

robotic landing capabilities. The purpose of the initiative is to encourage the development of U.S. private-sector robotic lunar landers capable of successfully delivering 

payloads to the lunar surface using U.S. commercial launch capabilities. Commercial lunar transportation capabilities could support science and exploration objectives such as sample returns, geophysical network deployment, resource utilization, 

and technology advancements. 

NASA is assisting SpaceX in developing the capability to land an uncrewed Dragon spacecraft on the Martian surface (‘‘Red Dragon’’). This partnership began in 

2014 as part of the Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities initiative. In 

October 2015, SpaceX requested an expanded level of support from NASA to pursue 

a 2018 flight opportunity to Mars. NASA performed an internal feasibility study 

which determined that the support was feasible, would cost approximately $30 million, and would benefit NASA with flight data in the Mars environment on supersonic retro-propulsion, a candidate technology for human-scale Mars entry, descent, 

and landing (EDL). NASA approved proceeding in January 2016, resulting in a 

Space Act Agreement (SAA) amendment being executed in April 2016. 

NASA learned in 2014 and 2015 through a Request for Information and studies 

solicited through a Broad Area Announcement of emerging commercial interest in 

the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) to answer questions in and act as a catalyst 

for future asteroid mining opportunities. Commercial industry was represented on 

the Formulation Assessment and Support Team in late 2015 and early 2016 which 

provided critical assessment for requirements formulation and partnership strategy. 

NASA released in early September 2016 a Broad Area Announcement soliciting 

partnerships for hosted payloads on the ARM robotic spacecraft and an investigation 

team to define investigations and exploit opportunities for the mission to benefit 

broad interests. 

NASA has also been undertaking substantial private-sector and international engagement to define habitation concepts, systems, and implementation approaches to 

cost-effectively achieve NASA’s goals for deep space and enable progress towards 

LEO commercial space station capabilities. The Agency’s Next Space Technologies 

for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is an 

effort to stimulate deep-space capability development across the aerospace industry. 

• NASA issued the original NextSTEP BAA to U.S. industry in late 2014. In 

March 2015, the Agency selected 12 awardees—seven in habitation, three in 

113 

propulsion, and two in small satellites. NASA has since entered into fixed-price 

contracts with the selectees. 

• In April 2016, NASA issued a NextSTEP–2 BAA, an omnibus announcement 

covering all aspects of basic and applied supporting research and technology for 

human space exploration and robotic precursor activities. The April release of 

the NextSTEP–2 BAA included Appendix A: Habitat Systems, which is focused 

on developing deep space habitation concepts, resulting in ground prototype 

units. This ground-based effort will support development of deep space long-duration habitation concepts and demonstrate systems that NASA will later need 

to test in the microgravity environment of space. The objective is to identify 

habitation concepts that can support extensive human spaceflight missions in 

the Proving Ground of cislunar space and beyond while encouraging application 

to commercial LEO capabilities. One goal of this public-private approach is to 

enable the United States to develop the deep space habitation capability at a 

lower cost than through a cost-plus procurement approach. In August 2016, 

NASA announced the selection of six proposals from U.S. companies under 

NextSTEP–2. NASA intends to perform integrated ground testing using habitation capabilities developed by the commercial partners in 2018. 

Question 6. NASA’s Viking Lander 1 successfully reached the Martian surface on 

July 20, 1976. Exactly seven years before that, man landed on the moon. It has been 

40 years now since Viking 1 reached Mars. Has NASA appropriately used its funding since then to put man on Mars? 

Answer. Since the Viking missions to Mars in the 1970s, NASA has learned a 

great deal—both about the Red Planet and about how to live and work in space for 

extended durations. Through a robust program of robotic exploration, the Agency 

has sent a dozen missions to Mars since Viking and collected data about many aspects of the planet, including its varied surface features (including evidence of past 

and present water on Mars) and atmosphere—a critical foundation for future human 

exploration. The Space Shuttle Program enabled the conduct of science and technology research and development by astronauts in LEO, the launching of key 

science missions, and the construction of the ISS, the foundation of our Journey to 

Mars. 

NASA’s robotic missions since Viking have paved the way for greater understanding of Mars’ surface and atmosphere that informs where and how humans will 

get to Mars. Understanding of resources needed for in situ resource utilization, radiation environments, terrain features, landing techniques, and autonomous operations have all aided the decisions being made today in architecture trade studies 

to reach Mars. 

Now, NASA’s strategy is to make human exploration of the solar system affordable and sustainable. Our Journey to Mars is guided by Administration policy as 

well as the strategic direction included in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010; the 

Agency is well positioned to continue on this long-term mission. Today on the ISS, 

we are already conducting research and evolving the critical technologies necessary 

to support humans on the Journey to Mars. From this Earth-Reliant phase in LEO 

aboard the ISS, we will then move into the Proving-Ground phase deeper into 

cislunar space around the Moon with the Orion crew vehicle, SLS (as well as the 

ground systems that support them), and other commercial and international capabilities. We will demonstrate key capabilities such as high power solar electric propulsion, deep space docking and crew EVA interacting with a natural space object 

through the Asteroid Redirect Mission, as well as deep-space habitation capability. 

Once we have developed the required technologies and practiced the techniques necessary in these environments, we will move on into the Earth-Independent phase, 

in which we will send our crews on missions of exploration and on to Mars in the 

2030s. 

Question 7. As you know, earlier last week the Juno Spacecraft entered into Jupiter’s orbit. It is my understanding that NASA plans to terminate Juno in CY18 to 

avoid contamination of Jupiter’s environment. Do you feel NASA’s plans for this 

$1.1B mission after its completion in February 2018 is an efficient use of Federal 

funds, or could Juno’s mission be extended until it experiences hardware failure? 

Answer. Juno’s primary goal is to reveal the story of Jupiter’s formation and evolution. Using long-proven technologies on a spinning spacecraft placed in an elliptical polar orbit, Juno will observe Jupiter’s gravity, magnetic fields, atmospheric 

dynamics and composition during its planned primary mission. 

While facilitating the science goals, Juno’s close orbit also enables it to avoid the 

most intense region of Jupiter’s harmful radiation, which is concentrated in a belt 

around the planet’s equator. In this region, ions and electrons zip around at nearly 

light speed and can damage a spacecraft’s electronics. Even with this special orbit 

114 

and the titanium vault that houses the electronics, the amount of radiation that’s 

expected to bombard Juno over 20 months of science operations is the equivalent 

of more than 100 million dental x-rays. This extreme dose of radiation is destructive 

to electronics and is the main limiting factor for the length of the mission. 

The baseline plan for the end of mission is to purposely steer Juno into Jupiter 

prior to a loss of control due to radiation damage to the computers, so as to not risk 

any chance of contaminating Europa or the other potentially habitable moons. However, NASA is already evaluating alternative plans that would potentially allow for 

an extended mission. This includes the idea of making minor orbital adjustments 

so that Juno would eventually enter Jupiter on its own, even if control of the spacecraft is lost due to the radiation damage to the spacecraft components. This would 

allow for additional science data above and beyond what is expected from the primary mission, if an extended mission is approved. 

Question 8. How often have our space exploration programs been able to conduct 

operations beyond the forecasted end date? 

Answer. Science missions that have successfully completed their primary objectives are eligible to enter into extended operations to continue conducting science. 

Such missions are reviewed by a panel of established and respected senior scientists 

from the community, to assess the scientific value and cost effectiveness of the proposed extension. SMD is currently flying 46 extended science missions, and since 

1990 has extended over 40 more. 

Question 9. NASA recently conducted a successful expansion of the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) aboard the International Space Station (ISS). 

Can you elaborate on how technology such as this can help alleviate some of the 

payload obstacles created by sustaining human life during deep space exploration 

and possible extraterrestrial surface landings? 

Answer. NASA is investigating concepts for habitats that can keep astronauts 

healthy during space exploration. Expandable habitats are one such concept under 

consideration—they require less payload volume on the rocket than traditional rigid 

structures, and expand after being deployed in space to provide additional room for 

astronauts to live and work inside. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module 

(BEAM) is the first test of such a module attached to the ISS. It will allow investigators to gauge how well it performs overall, and how it protects against solar radiation, space debris and the temperature extremes of space. 

In late May, BEAM was filled with air and expanded. Astronauts enter BEAM 

on an occasional basis to conduct tests to validate the module’s overall performance 

and the capability of expandable habitats. After the testing period is completed, 

BEAM will be released from the space station to eventually burn up harmlessly in 

the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Through the NextSTEP activity, noted in the response to Question #5, above, 

NASA is engaged with several commercial partners to advance and test a variety 

of habitation technologies. This activity, plus related technology developments and 

partnerships, will enable deployment of a deep space habitation capability in the 

mid-2020s, which in turn will validate systems needed for the long journey to Mars 

in the 2030s and beyond. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER

Question 1. Congress recently authorized an extension of the International Space 

Station until 2024. Mr. Gerstenmaier, what human spaceflight capabilities or services will NASA need in low-Earth orbit after we retire the space station? 

Answer. ISS operations in LEO constitute a foundation for future exploration missions, but once key research and technology development efforts have been completed, NASA plans to begin operating at greater distances from Earth. NASA is 

actively working transition strategies for the post-ISS era and is engaged with the 

private sector to foster both commercial demand and supply for LEO services. It is 

NASA’s intention to transition LEO to private platforms and capabilities enabled by 

commercial markets, academia and government agencies. NASA has no specific 

plans or requirements to conduct human spaceflight activities in LEO after the conclusion of ISS operations, but should a requirement arise, NASA would obtain services from commercial capabilities on the same basis as other users. 

Question 2. Mr. Gerstenmaier, what is preventing NASA from more actively monitoring, diagnosing, and treating former astronauts for the long-term health effects 

from space travel? 

115 

Answer. The present monitoring authority was derived from limited testing performed under NASA’s Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health (now known as the 

Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH)). 

NASA does not believe that existing authorities are sufficient to provide ongoing 

comprehensive medical evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of former astronauts. 

NASA has not been authorized to use appropriated funds to provide on-going medical care for retired astronauts that may be result of exposure to space. Without this 

authority, NASA is unable to provide preventive health monitoring that should be 

accomplished for retired astronauts following their space flight exposures or to appropriately remedy such conditions. 

In the absence of an accepted covered injury, the existing Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act (FECA) does not provide for medical monitoring and testing of 

the type needed here. If given the authority, NASA can readily apply national level 

space medicine and disease specific expertise to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of potential causation, with the goal of much earlier detection. 

While the Space Act gives the Administrator broad authority to ‘‘plan, direct, and 

conduct aeronautical and space activities,’’ the Agency does not believe the Space 

Act expressly provides it the authority to diagnose and treat former employees. 

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 668, it is the responsibility of each agency to establish 

an occupational and safety program and provide a safe environment for its employees. NASA’s authority to provide occupational safety and health programs is limited 

to current Federal employees. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER

Question. In the recent debate on the defense bill, we took a close look at the role 

that Russian-made rocket engines play in lifting military payloads into space. The 

House and Senate-passed versions of the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA) both permit the U.S. Air Force to award contracts for up to eighteen national security space (NSS) launches powered by Russian-made rocket engines. They 

also establish that no Russian-made rocket engines may be used for a NSS launch 

after 2022. It is my understanding that no such restrictions currently apply to commercial or civilian launches. I am very concerned about relying on Russian-made 

rocket engines for access to space and am eager to see American-made rocket engines become the means of taking defense-related, civilian and commercial payloads 

into orbit. 

What steps is NASA taking to ensure that Russian-made rocket engines are 

phased out of civilian and commercial space flight? As additional American-made 

rocket engines are developed, is your agency committed to contracting with launch 

firms that only use domestically produced rocket engines? What is the timeline for 

a full transition to American-made rocket engines for NASA launches? 

Answer. NASA follows U.S. law and policy for its acquisitions. NASA is supportive 

of the Department of Defense’s strategy to transition to domestic launch systems by 

2022, and is providing NASA expertise and access to NASA facilities to support the 

DoD-led efforts. 

NASA relies on the U.S. space transportation industry, and what it is able to 

offer, for the commercial launch services NASA acquires, and expects its commercial 

providers to provide launch solutions that meet their contractual commitments. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

WILLIAM H. GERSTENMAIER

Question. We are going to need a ‘‘Mars Ascent Vehicle’’—a rocket that can lift 

astronauts off the Martian surface back into space for the journey home. Additionally, the National Academies identified the need to return a sample from Mars as 

a top priority for NASA’s planetary science program. This would also require a Mars 

Ascent Vehicle of sorts. Mr. Gerstenmaier, What progress is there on developing a 

Mars Ascent Vehicle for a human mission? Does it make sense to prove out the technologies for a crewed Mars Ascent Vehicle on a robotic sample return mission from 

Mars? 

Answer. At this time it is premature to begin developing a Mars Ascent Vehicle. 

As part of Mars architecture studies, NASA is studying the full range of architectural elements required for such a mission, including: in-space power and propulsion; entry, descent and landing; in situ resource utilization (ISRU); Mars landing 

site selection; surface and mobility operations; life support systems; and ascent from 

Martian surface, etc. ISRU can yield very different systems design and mission conVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
116 

siderations, and shows large potential gains from an overall mission design standpoint. NASA is beginning to understand options to pursue ISRU technology development. Given the difference in scale and performance between a robotic mission and 

a human mission, it is not obvious that the two vehicles would be based upon exactly the same technologies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

DR. MARY LYNNE DITTMAR

Question 1. Kennedy Space Center and the state of Florida is the world’s space 

capital with the largest concentration of aerospace launch providers and suppliers. 

We’ve already seen Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS cargo launches from there and soon 

both Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion ‎will be launching. Could you discuss what this means for the future of Florida’s Space Coast, and what you foresee 

happening in the State in the next few years? 

Answer. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Florida are indeed critical to U.S. development and use of launch capabilities, and competitiveness vis-a`-vis launch markets across the world. The entrance of new players into launch markets has had disruptive effects in both the positive and negative sense. On the positive side, innovation appears to be driving down cost, which will in turn make U.S. markets more 

competitive, assuming that performance follows. On the negative side, uncertainty 

regarding outcomes poses challenges for the government, industry, customers, and 

investors who have been and may continue seek entre ́e to what they see as a growing space sector. It is imperative that we leverage new opportunities to the benefit 

of U.S. taxpayers and the economy without compromising core capabilities and missions that are essential to national security and civil missions, including NASA’s exploration program. 

Assuming that current trends continue in a positive direction, KSC’s work—including spacecraft prep and payload integration, development of ground systems, 

and the actual launch operations themselves—are an integral part of both government and non-government (private) programs. As the Nation’s most active spaceport, KSC (and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station/CCAFS) are crucial enablers of 

the economic development of low-Earth orbit, and for launching the new generation 

of exploration-class super-heavy launch vehicle—the Space Launch System—carrying the Orion crew vehicle farther into space than ever before. The state of Florida 

should continue to benefit as it recovers from earlier reductions in force at the Space 

Coast following the end of the shuttle program and will attract more aerospace 

workers who are contributors to the local economy. Thus KSC is a ‘launch pad’ in 

more than one way, returning benefits locally and regionally as well as supporting 

U.S. leadership in the peaceful exploration of deep space. 

Question 2. During the birth of the Apollo program, the United States, under the 

leadership from President John F. Kennedy, was determined to beat the Soviets to 

the moon. Is the United States still in a position to remain competitive and challenge the likes of other global powers? 

Answer. The United States is still in a position to remain competitive. However, 

our ability to maintain our global leadership is dependent upon political will and 

sufficient funding for what are long-lead-time programs, with horizons that stretch 

across multiple Congresses and Administrations. It is said that Rome wasn’t built 

in a day—indeed it wasn’t; it was built over hundreds of years. The same goes for 

the pyramids of Egypt. Those governments operated on a very different set of values 

and principles from those of the U.S. in the 21st century. However, successive leaders in those days were able to grasp the vision and importance for their nations (or 

nation-states) to build such monuments, establishing them as centers of their regions and—in the case of Rome, for a time—the world. Surely we are capable of the 

same vision, and understand the value of global leadership. The architecture we are 

building—in low Earth orbit, and in deep space—these are our pyramids. 

History teaches us that great nations explore, and that those that turn away from 

exploring, flounder. The case of China burning its massive exploration fleet and falling back, away from the burgeoning global trade routes and eventually turning inward into feudal states may be instructive. It is critical that the U.S. Administration(s) and Congress(es) work together to build upon the extraordinary achievements of NASA and her industry partners over the past 50 years. Together we have 

taken men to the Moon, furthered de ́tente and the peaceful use of outer space with 

Apollo-Soyuz, built and flown the space shuttle—establishing knowledge and experience that continues to inform innovators struggling to address reusability today— 

assembled and operated the International Space Station that has now involved over 

117 

90 countries in the peaceful pursuit of knowledge and the establishment of nascent 

economic development in low Earth orbit. 

We are now at the cusp of a new era of exploration, one that will take humans 

farther, faster than ever before, and will open the door to new scientific missions 

using the Space Launch System and the Orion crew vehicle—leveraging the expertise and leadership that only the American space program can provide the world. 

These systems are pushing the limits of technology, employing new manufacturing 

methods to extraordinary tolerances, inventing solutions to the challenges of deep 

space. Just as Apollo did 50 years ago, the knowledge gained by NASA’s ‘‘pushing 

the envelope’’ will be returned to all American citizens, eventually spurring even 

more innovation and advancing U.S. competitiveness. It is imperative that the U.S. 

not turn back. We must look ahead and beckon the future with the type of vision 

and commitment we as a nation have demonstrated so many times before. Our 

international partners will follow us, and support our exploration goals, if we continue to demonstrate continuity of purpose and opportunity for them to join America 

on its journey in space. 

Question 3. As the Senate looks to reauthorize NASA in the coming year, what 

reforms do you suggest? 

Answer. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act (PL 111–267) defines the primary goal 

of NASA’s human space exploration program as ‘‘to expand permanent human presence beyond low earth orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving 

international partners.’’ 

To this I would add ‘‘. . . in a manner involving international and industry partners.’’ (To be clear, all industry partners are ‘‘commercial’’ by their very nature, returning profit to shareholders or investors.) The key thought here is that this vision—wherein the United States leads humanity into the solar system on a permanent basis—will require collaboration, technology, innovation, industry, other nations, new technology development, and the ability to manage technology acquisition 

and programs with a degree of complexity the agency has never before attempted 

(although the International Space Station program is an excellent precursor and 

teacher). A new Authorization Act should reaffirm this as a goal, and state explicitly 

that continuing to expand our scientific technical, human exploration and habitation, and economic spheres beyond low Earth orbit is imperative if the U.S. wishes 

to control its own destiny. Human space exploration has for 50 years been an indicator of global leadership; we dare not cede that leadership and our ability to guide 

the rules of engagement in space. Particularly at transitions in Administration— 

such as the one upcoming—Congress should reaffirm these goals and our national 

commitment to them. 

In addition, I would offer the following recommendations: 

1. Continuity of purpose for NASA’s strategic direction, and its core exploration 

programs, including the Space Launch System, Orion and Exploration Ground 

Systems, to restore our ability to send humans to deep space in 2021, following 

an un-crewed ‘‘shakedown cruise’’ in 2018. 

2. Support the development of key exploration capabilities, such as deep space 

habitats and in-space propulsion, to enable robust Exploration Missions on SLS 

and Orion during the 2020s. 

3. Reaffirmation of the current path for human space exploration, with the horizon destination of Mars as the eventual goal, but with emphasis upon a ‘‘learn 

as you go’’, discovery-based approach that emplaces the next capability (for example, a deep space habitat), and then the next, as we learn to operate, explore, and conduct science capitalizing on the unique capabilities of human 

beings. A ‘‘race to Mars’’ that may ensue should the focus shift solely to boots 

on that surface is not consistent with the goal to ‘‘expand human presence’’ on 

a permanent basis. Rather than a race—which we had with Apollo, and for 

good reason—we are embarked upon an American epoch in deep space, more 

akin to the opening of the West in our Nation’s history. This approach should 

be to emphasize meaningful progress with milestones that are demonstrable to 

Congress, the Administration, and in particular the American people. 

4. Focused investment in key technologies that will be necessary to undertake 

opening a new epoch. These have been identified in many studies; most recently in the National Research Council’s Pathways to Exploration report 

(2014) and include (a) radiation mitigation, (b) advanced in-space propulsion, 

and (c) the capabilities an technologies required for entry, descent, landing, 

and ascent through the Martian atmosphere of hundreds of tons of equipment, 

consumables, and habitats enabling human presence. 

118 

5. Sufficient resources and direction to share the journey with the American people to the fullest extent possible—through video, documentaries, digital publishing, social media, remote viewing, and virtual reality participation in missions, real-time mission information and updates, opportunities to capitalize on 

the increasing availability of technology and decreasing transaction costs for 

such interaction and participation. NASA leads all other agencies in its use of 

social media, but if this is our ‘‘pioneering’’ into space, as many of our citizens 

who can participate, should participate. As a side benefit, this approach will 

create missions that are more interactive and open up opportunities for 

science, education, and inspiration of the next generation of explorers. 

6. Create an organization with a free hand to further develop and hone NASA’s 

capabilities in technology scanning, selection, harvesting, acquisition, development, and rapid fail approaches. The world has changed, and is continually 

changing. NASA does not and cannot lead the world in the development of all 

technologies beneficial to and needed by science, aeronautics, and exploration; 

instead it must develop methods to identify and select technologies with clear 

potential to advance its missions, and to rapidly partner to bring these in 

house or establish reciprocal relationship with the owner or developer of that 

technology. This is all much easier said than done as it requires changes to 

procurement, contracting, technology requirements assessment, technology 

identification, and (probably) further evolution and refinement of the NASA 

‘‘Technology Readiness Level’’ (TRL) successful pioneered by the agency many 

years ago and widely adopted since. 

7. Authorize funding for NASA’s exploration programs at the level required to 

avoid drawing out development beyond the point where costs necessarily rise 

as a result. In addition, authorize full funding for continued development and 

operation of the International Space Station, including acquisition of new 

equipment and capabilities as may be useful to private interests intent upon 

developing successful space-based businesses in low-Earth orbit. Similarly, continue full funding for NASA’s ‘‘Commercial Crew’’ and ‘‘Commercial Resupply 

Services’’ that enable provisioning of the ISS and that will return American astronauts to flight to low-Earth orbit even as the Space Launch System will return American astronauts to deep space. 

8. Fully fund and streamline the accounts associated with the Exploration Systems portfolio. Multiple accounts associated with Orion, SLS and Ground Systems reduce the flexibility of program managers to allocate funding as needed 

to buy down risk or, alternately, to speed development of elements or sub-elements in order to maintain an integrated program schedule, cost, and risk 

management approach. In addition, multiple accounts encourages additional 

overhead both within the agency and within extra-agency overseers, inevitably 

resulting in increased costs. 

9. Reduce the number of duplicative studies demanded of NASA each year to the 

minimum required to provide sufficient oversight of NASA activities and expenditures. 

Question 4. What programs within the agency pull its focus away from its intended main goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars? 

Answer. With respect, this question is driven not by content of NASA’s portfolio, 

but by competition within the portfolio engendered by NASA’s funding profile, which 

numerous reviews, studies, assessments, reports, and evaluations have determined 

to be insufficient relative to its mission(s). In a budget-and-budget-process-constrained environment, it is difficult to argue for additional funding for the agency, 

yet additional funding is precisely what is needed. On the whole NASA manages 

its broad portfolio of science, human exploration, aeronautics and technology development/management well, arguably achieving more ‘‘bang for the buck’’ than any 

other agency. 

The National Research Council’s Pathways report recommended an increase of 

double the rate of inflation + another small percentage increase in NASA’s exploration budget in order to achieve the goal of reaching Mars by the 2030s. This recommendation should be extended to the agency as a whole. At minimum NASA’s 

funding should track inflation. NASA’s funding is now less than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of 

GDP, yet NASA is the only agency in the government that is tasked specifically to 

create and bring about the vision of an optimistic future. As a nation we rely on 

all of NASA’s portfolio to advance scientific knowledge, streamline and advance 

mass transportation technology, teach us about our own planet, find and fund promising technology, and push human presence into the solar system. 

119 

1 Crawford, I.A. (2012). Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: Why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone. Astronomy 

and Geophysics, 53, 2.22–226. 

At the same time, NASA can and should continue to look for duplication, obsolescence, and for opportunities to streamline bureaucracy and acquisition approaches, 

as recommended by the ‘‘Pathways to Exploration’’ report. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

DR. MARY LYNNE DITTMAR

Question 1. We are going to need a ‘‘Mars Ascent Vehicle’’—a rocket that can lift 

astronauts off the Martian surface back into space for the journey home. Additionally, the National Academies identified the need to return a sample from Mars as 

a top priority for NASA’s planetary science program. This would also require a Mars 

Ascent Vehicle of sorts. Dr. Dittmar, what opportunities do you see for synergy between NASA’s science and human exploration programs, be it for Mars Sample Return or elsewhere? 

Answer. There is tremendous opportunity for synergy between NASA’s science 

and human exploration programs. 

In Congressional testimony in both 2009 and 2013, Dr. Steve Squyres, the Principal Investigator for Mars Exploration Rovers, stated that human beings are far 

superior to robots for identifying novel features, processing complex information, 

and exploring new environments and can conduct science at a far faster rate with 

much great efficiency than robots. Further, when one accounts for the cost associated with maintaining an operations center, developing, testing and uploading software upgrades, and the elapsed time associated with piecing together scientific returns that come in bits rather than in whole, the ‘‘higher costs’’ of human-aided scientific research in space are not as sharply delineated from robotic missions as is 

commonly believed.1 There is no doubt but that human exploration and scientific 

investigation of Mars will yield scientific returns beyond that of robotic missions, 

which is why so many scientists with interest in Mars are eager for humans to go. 

With regard to science enabling exploration, this has already happened, notably 

in the years leading up to Apollo. The U.S. first sent probes to the moon in the early 

1960s beginning with the Ranger series, which finally succeeded in sending back detailed photographs and television. The Russian Luna 9 probe soft-landed—the first 

human-made object to do so—and demonstrated that the soft regolith would not act 

as a lunar ‘‘sand trap’’ into which a lander might sink. The U.S. Surveyor series 

of missions began in 1966, and sent television pictures back to Earth that showed 

the Moon’s surface and its physical properties in detail. Importantly, Surveyor also 

collected data on soil properties, including chemical features. 

The Surveyor data led directly several discoveries about the Moon’s composition. 

Once astronauts were on the surface collecting samples and returning them to 

Earth, the Surveyor data joined the sample data to inform new theories about its 

origins and the origins of the Earth Moon system. In addition, the robotic missions 

provided information that was fed directly into the design of missions—including 

the design of crewed lunar landers and ascent vehicles that served the crews of 

Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17– as well as to help define the parameters of surface 

operations and sojourns. 

With regard to Mars, early work on soil characterization has revealed chemical 

compounds (perchlorates) that will need to be addressed via system or procedure designs supporting human exploration. The Mars 2020 rover, currently in development, will carry instruments that will conduct research and acquire information 

about Martian geology, atmosphere, environmental conditions, and potential biosignatures. In addition to the science returns, these studies will provide critical information to help determine habitability of Mars for human beings. 

With regard to sample return from Mars—as on the Moon, human sample return 

will speed scientific discovery. Sample return can be to Earth, or to an orbiting laboratory near Mars or one of its moons. There, samples can be researched and guidance provided to humans on the surface for additional fieldwork. 

These and other synergies are pervasive throughout the history of exploration, 

and will continue to develop. Together, human exploration and science each enable 

the other. 

Question 2. Mr. Gold’s testimony discusses using the International Space Station 

and eventually a future commercial LEO outpost as an assembly facility for commercial satellites. Of course, from a NASA perspective, we wouldn’t have the world 

changing science of the Hubble Space Telescope without human servicing nor would 

120 

the Space Station have been possible. Dr. Dittmar, could you discuss the potential 

for on orbit assembly and servicing techniques in conjunction with the game changing lift capabilities of SLS to enable paradigm shifting scientific missions, such giant 

space telescopes that could possibly detect life on planets outside our solar system? 

Answer. On orbit assembly has been performed with great success by NASA, most 

notably with the International Space Station. Techniques and technology were developed to enable astronauts working in space suits to assemble the largest structure ever put in space. The success of the system design and production, and the 

development of procedures for assembly, activation, and checkout of the ISS in 

many phases of development, can best be measured by the on-orbit performance of 

the ISS over the past 16 years of human habitation. It has performed in an exemplary manner. 

Servicing the ISS—and the Hubble telescope—has been done on several occasions 

by astronauts engaged in ExtraVehicular Activity (EVA). In each case, these servicing missions were conducted in a relatively benign environment—Low Earth 

Orbit—shielded from much of the radiation found in deep space. Nonetheless the 

techniques learned during assembly and servicing missions will have direct applicability to future missions where human beings must manipulate objects both large 

and small for different purposes in locations much more remote than LEO. 

Use of the Space Launch System to emplace large aperture telescopes in deep 

space is a very real possibility. The National Research Council has identified several 

flagship missions with large telescopes that would be enabled for the very first time 

by a super-heavy lift vehicle such as SLS. These telescopes require massive shrouds 

and cannot be lifted by existing launch vehicles. Depending upon the complexity of 

the assembly task, SLS could carry a crewed Orion spacecraft and a telescope for 

assembly. (The engineering strengths and weaknesses of this approach would need 

to be ‘traded’ against risks to humans v. the risk of loss of mission should an unattended telescope run into problems.) The speed of the SLS enables rapid transit 

through the solar system, which reduces risk to crewmembers and brings great distances within closer ‘‘reach’’. Crewmembers could then assemble such instruments. 

In the case of human-aided deployment, servicing could also be ‘‘built in’’ to the design (see above comment re: trades.) Once in place, such instruments would enable 

us to peer into the origins of not only our galaxy, but other galaxies, to investigate 

dark matter, and to provide information about the origins and working of the universe—and therefore, our own origins. In the case where human servicing was possible, the ability of crew members to address disruptions or malfunctions could save 

the viability of the instrument (as was done with Hubble), resulting in loss avoidance of unique and powerful scientific observations, and maximizing the benefits of 

national investment in both science and exploration programs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

MICHAEL GOLD

Question 1. Kennedy Space Center and the state of Florida is the world’s space 

capital with the largest concentration of aerospace launch providers and suppliers. 

We’ve already seen Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS cargo launches from there and soon 

both Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion will be launching. Could you discuss what 

this means for the future of Florida’s Space Coast, and what you foresee happening 

in the State in the next few years? 

Answer. I believe that the future is extraordinarily bright for Florida’s Space 

Coast. Due in no small part to the vision and leadership demonstrated by NASA 

Kennedy Space Center leadership and personnel such as Robert Cabana, Amy 

Houts-Gilfriche, and Doug Gruendel, as well as the tireless efforts of Frank DiBello 

and his staff at Space Florida, the sunshine state has become a hub for commercial 

space activity. SpaceX’s operations and footprint continues to grow on Florida’s 

Space Coast and new additions such as Blue Origin and Moon Express have added 

even greater vitality and potential to a region that is already synonymous with 

space exploration. 

However, the renaissance that Florida’s Space Coast is experiencing could be 

ephemeral if the United States Government (‘‘USG’’) does not take decisive action 

to ensure that the fundamental underpinnings of public and private sector launch 

activities remain strong. Specifically, the United States must not abandon human 

spaceflight in low Earth orbit (‘‘LEO’’). Although NASA and the private sector 

should continue to leverage the benefits of the International Space Station (‘‘ISS’’) 

for as long as possible, the ISS era will soon come to an end. Even with an additional extension for the ISS beyond 2024, work must begin immediately to develop 

a commercial replacement. America is currently dependent on Russia for launching 

121 

astronauts, and if NASA and the private sector don’t address this issue with alacrity, soon after the U.S. regains its ability to send its own astronauts to orbit, the 

only destination for those astronauts to travel to could be a Chinese space station. 

Although international cooperation is commendable, international dependence is deplorable, and policymakers must take action to avoid repeating the same mistakes 

that were made with crew transportation. 

Without an American destination in LEO for astronauts, the growing demand for 

crew and cargo launches from Florida’s Space Coast could quickly atrophy. Moreover, as demonstrated by SpaceX, there is a synergistic relationship between the development of human spaceflight transportation systems and the ability of domestic 

companies to successfully compete for global commercial space launch opportunities. 

Beyond the need to continue to support human spaceflight, the USG must take 

expeditious action to bolster domestic satellite manufacturers. If the U.S. falls behind other nations, particularly China, in next-generation satellite technologies such 

as satellite servicing, optical communications, and high throughput satellites, a 

great deal of launch activity could shift back overseas. 

Moreover, Congress must continue to aggressively support the development and 

launch of the SLS. The heavy-lift capacity provided by the SLS is critical to implementing robust beyond LEO human spaceflight exploration missions. Other nations 

are striving to develop heavy-lift capabilities and the U.S. cannot fall behind its 

global competitors in this critical arena. 

If these public and private sector activities receive sufficient support from NASA 

and the USG generally, the future of Florida’s Space Coast will remain bright. However, international competition remains fierce and neither Florida nor the country 

as a whole can afford to rest on its laurels. 

Question 2. During the birth of the Apollo program, the United States, under the 

leadership from President John F. Kennedy, was determined to beat the Soviets to 

the moon. Is the United States still in a position to remain competitive and challenge the likes of other global powers? 

Answer. The U.S. is still in a position to challenge other global powers but the 

Nation’s ability to be successful remains in question. As described previously, the 

competition in the commercial satellite marketplace is fierce. Rival satellite manufacturing companies in Europe and China receive direct funding and subsidies from 

their national governments not just to conduct scientific or military missions, but 

also to support commercial activities. If the U.S. is going to continue to be able to 

compete and challenge other global powers much more must be done to bolster domestic private sector capabilities. Specific concepts and strategies are described in 

response to the following question. 

Question 3. As the Senate looks to reauthorize NASA in the coming year, what 

reforms do you suggest? 

Answer. Per my testimony, NASA should leverage its influence as a customer to 

encourage the private sector to invest in, develop, and operate commercial satellite 

servicing systems. Specifically, the upcoming NASA Reauthorization bill should instruct the Agency to identify when and which satellites will require servicing and 

release contingent contracts for domestic companies that can execute the requisite 

missions. As described previously, this will drive private sector investment into satellite servicing systems obviating the need for further substantial government investments and leveraging private sector efficiencies. America will become a global 

leader in a vital new technological and economic arena while simultaneously saving 

NASA money by avoiding the need for the purchase and replacement of existing satellite systems. Several domestic companies are already developing such capabilities 

in response to DARPA’s Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (‘‘RSGS’’) 

program and NASA’s Restore-L mission. If the NASA Reauthorization bill leverages 

this progress with the introduction of contingent contracts to service NASA satellites, America could quickly develop a vital new capability that would enhance scientific, commercial, and military operations. 

Moreover, NASA must do more to bolster American technological innovation and 

even the playing field with subsidized foreign competition. DARPA has already demonstrated how a government agency can play an important role in supporting domestic innovation. DARPA uses standing Broad Agency Announcements (‘‘BAAs’’) to 

ensure that any company or entrepreneur with a good idea can quickly bring it forward without having to wait a year or more for a relevant NASA Request for Proposal to be developed, approved, and released. The NASA Reauthorization bill 

should direct the Agency’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (‘‘STMD’’) to adopt 

this approach and establish a series of standing BAAs to support domestic technological innovation. Congress should also encourage STMD to mimic DARPA’s process which begins with the submission of a one-page executive summary. Requiring 

122 

only a single page executive summary substantially reduces the barrier to entry 

that other NASA programs suffer from and will ensure that small businesses can 

participate in the program without immediately dedicating substantial resources to 

proposal development. 

In regard to human spaceflight, again, NASA cannot abandon LEO. In order to 

avoid becoming dependent on a foreign space station the Agency must act now to 

bolster the development of crewed, private sector LEO platforms. The first and best 

way to do this, is to direct the Agency to develop a node that can be attached to 

the ISS that will accommodate several commercial habitats while also providing additional docking opportunities for crew and cargo delivery systems. This node would 

support the demonstration of multiple habitat technologies and commercial operations, preventing the need for NASA to select winners and losers and instead properly leaving such decisions to market forces. 

The NASA Reauthorization bill should also direct the Agency to, in conjunction 

with a private sector partner, support the demonstration of orbital satellite assembly as an ISS pilot program. Like satellite servicing, this is another critical capability for domestic companies to develop for the U.S. to remain competitive in the 

global marketplace. If NASA can demonstrate the value of orbital satellite assembly 

it will quickly lead to substantial private sector investment in such capabilities. Orbital satellite assembly would not only lower costs and increase the capabilities of 

future NASA satellites, but such operations could provide substantial commercial 

and national security benefits as well. 

Finally, the Reauthorization bill should provide strong support for robotic exploration missions. Robotic missions will play a vital role in exploring the Moons of 

Mars, Europa, and destinations throughout the solar system. Robotic exploration 

can gather critical data to support human exploration missions to Mars and other 

destinations in an affordable and effective fashion. Moreover, the technologies developed for robotic space exploration also have commercial applications and can help 

bolster the ability of the American aerospace sector to compete in an increasingly 

challenging global marketplace. 

Question 4. What programs within the agency pull its focus away from its intended main goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars? 

Answer. Most if not all of NASA’s activities can play some role in contributing 

toward the goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars. However, some programs 

certainly have greater relevance than others. For example, a Mars mission will require robust propulsion capabilities in general and the further development of solar 

electric propulsion in particular. Similarly, developing affordable habitat systems 

will also be necessary to execute a crewed mission to Mars of any kind. NASA 

should focus on low-cost options such as repurposing upper rocket stages to serve 

as habitats. Robotics also have a vital role to play in supporting a Mars mission. 

The technologies being developed for satellite servicing via Restore-L and DARPA’s 

RSGS program will make strong contributions to a future Mars mission. 

Beyond technological developments, NASA should also focus its global outreach efforts on assembling an international coalition to support a human mission to Mars. 

This coalition should not only involve all of the traditional ISS partners, but should 

also focus on developing strong relationships with emerging space powers such as 

the United Arab Emirates which is already planning a historic robotic Mars exploration mission. 

It’s also worth considering the role the Moon has to play as a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of a human mission to Mars. Almost the entire international 

space community supports a return to the Moon and such a mission could also create some excellent opportunities for robust commercial participation. Additionally, 

the technologies and lessons learned from establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon would have both direct and indirect relevance to supporting missions to Mars. Mars remains an important horizon goal for NASA and the entire 

world’s human space exploration efforts. However, the Moon may represent a critical stepping stone to develop the technologies, knowledge base, and global partnership necessary to execute a successful human landing on the surface of Mars. 

123 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

MICHAEL GOLD

Question. Mr. Gold and Mr. Sirangelo, what are the biggest impediments that 

stand in the way of a robust commercial human spaceflight environment? 

Answer. The greatest single impediment to a robust commercial human 

spaceflight environment is insufficient emphasis, funding, and progress on revenue 

generating private sector LEO activities. There has been a substantial focus by 

NASA and the private sector to develop transportation systems. Transporting crew 

and cargo to LEO, particularly in an affordable fashion, is of course critical for commercial human spaceflight to succeed. However, even affordable crew and cargo 

transportation will not result in a robust commercial human spaceflight environment if there isn’t a substantial increase in demand for space-based activities. 

Although NASA and the domestic space industry have struggled to identify revenue generating activities in LEO, hundreds of billions of dollars are pouring into 

GEO annually to manufacture and launch satellites, construct ground stations and 

related hardware, and pay for satellite services. Per my written and oral testimony, 

a combination of human and robotic support could be used to manufacture and/or 

assemble satellites in orbit. Orbital satellite manufacturing and assembly has the 

potential to revolutionize the industry, enhancing the ability of domestic companies 

to compete in an increasingly challenging global marketplace while simultaneously 

bolstering NASA’s scientific capabilities. 

A first step toward creating a robust commercial human spaceflight environment 

via orbital satellite manufacturing and assembly would be for Congress to include 

language in the upcoming NASA Reauthorization bill encouraging the Agency, in 

collaboration with a private sector partner, to conduct a demonstration of robotic orbital assembly techniques via the ISS. The ISS is a tremendous resource for demonstrating innovative new commercial strategies and NASA should be directed to 

fully utilize the value the Station provides. 

Moreover, regulatory barriers hinder the development of a robust commercial 

human spaceflight environment. The U.S. Government’s failure to craft a predictable, efficient, and transparent process to implement its obligation under the Outer 

Space Treaty to provide ‘‘continuing supervision’’ for private sector activities hangs 

over the industry like the proverbial Sword of Damocles. Congress, in consultation 

with relevant leadership within the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (‘‘FAA AST’’), the Department of State, and the Department of Defense, must 

address this issue with alacrity. Congressman Jim Bridenstine has already introduced an attractive strategy to resolve the matter by establishing an ‘enhanced payload review’ process within the FAA AST. Again, within the upcoming NASA Reauthorization bill, this issue could be quickly addressed by including language providing the FAA AST with enhanced payload review authority. 

Finally, while substantial progress has been made over the last several years, obsolete export control policies continue to burden the private sector while also harming American national security interests by reducing the domestic defense industrial 

base. Congress should applaud and support the work being done within the Department of State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls to review and update Category XV, ensuring that benign, commercial technologies that are available in the 

international marketplace are removed from the United States Munitions List 

(‘‘USML’’). Additionally, since technology is constantly evolving, a regular and mandatory process should be established to continuously review and revise the USML 

to ensure its ongoing relevance and efficacy 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

MICHAEL GOLD

Question. Russian-made rocket engines, specifically the RD–180, are commonly 

used to bring commercial payloads to space. Are American satellite manufacturers 

and commercial space firms committed to supporting the expeditious development 

of safe, reliable and cost-effective American-made rocket engines? As additional 

American-made rocket engines are developed, are your firms committed to contracting with launch firms that only use domestically produced rocket engines? 

Answer. SSL strongly supports the development of safe, reliable, and cost-effective 

American-made rocket engines. SSL is constantly attempting to innovate new domestic capabilities both unilaterally and via partnerships with other domestic entities as well as the U.S. Government. However, the selection of launch providers are 

made by satellite owners and operators, not by satellite manufacturers such as SSL, 

and therefore I cannot address the question directly. 

124 

However, it’s worth noting that whether it’s rocket engines or satellite manufacturing, foreign firms often receive direct subsidies from their governments making 

it difficult for U.S. companies to compete in an increasingly challenging global marketplace. The U.S. needs to do much more to support its domestic aerospace capabilities as outlined in my written testimony and responses to Senator Rubio’s questions for the record. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

MARK N. SIRANGELO

Question 1. Kennedy Space Center and the state of Florida is the world’s space 

capital with the largest concentration of aerospace launch providers and suppliers. 

We’ve already seen Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS cargo launches from there and soon 

both Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion will be launching. Could you discuss what 

this means for the future of Florida’s Space Coast, and what you foresee happening 

in the State in the next few years? 

Answer. SNC will continue the long pedigree of launches from and landings on 

Florida’s Space Coast with both its Dream Chaser reusable lifting body spacecraft, 

the launch of its small satellites and space technology products, and as part of the 

propulsion systems for new launch vehicles. SNC’s Dream Chaser activities expects 

to leverage Florida’s capabilities throughout the lifecycle starting with: final integration and test at Kennedy Space Center; payload processing; launch from Cape Canaveral; landing at the former Shuttle Landing Facility; payload, experiment, and 

cargo processing in the Space Exploration Park and nearby areas; refurbishment 

and reprocessing in NASA and Air Force facilities; and finally re-launch activities 

again from Florida’s Space Coast. With preparation ongoing now, a first launch 

being planned, and multiple subsequent flights each year, SNC will be a regular 

and frequent customer, user, provider, and employer in the state of Florida. 

Question 2. During the birth of the Apollo program, the United States, under the 

leadership from President John F. Kennedy, was determined to beat the Soviets to 

the moon. Is the United States still in a position to remain competitive and challenge the likes of other global powers? 

Answer. Absolutely yes—if we remain bold and committed. The Dream Chaser is 

the only commercial, reusable lifting body in the world. It embodies the 21st Century capabilities of the United States in space by leveraging over 40 years of NASA 

and U.S. X-plane experience and operations, while harnessing the significant advancements in materials, systems, propulsion, and other technologies. Safe, affordable, flexible, evolvable, and reliable Dream Chaser space services and commercial 

transportation operations will create, enable, and sustain new missions and markets 

that generate significant value for the Nation while advancing U.S. leadership in 

this vitally important sector to our global economic and national security. 

Question 3. As the Senate looks to reauthorize NASA in the coming year, what 

reforms do you suggest? 

Answer. SNC supports a strong level of bipartisan and bicameral support for a 

NASA reauthorization that provides stability, balance, continuity, and enabling policy leadership for the United States in the globally competitive space arena. Specifically, SNC recommends the following reforms in order to more efficiently and effectively enable U.S. leadership through NASA in aerospace: (1) Grant NASA the ability to do multi-year program planning and funding to provide stability for its strategic programs, (2) Apply International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) reform 

for human spaceflight such that commercial human spacecraft are governed by the 

Export Administration Regulations and the Commerce Control List rather than the 

ITAR control regime, thus enabling broader use of the Dream Chaser being developed under NASA contract, (3) Ensure the long-term continuity of the Commercial 

Cargo and Crew programs supporting the International Space Station in addition 

to a balanced portfolio of deep space exploration directives, (4) Stimulate the development of multiple commercial space platforms and capabilities in low Earth orbit 

in order to firmly establish and sustain U.S. leadership and jobs in these areas and 

to enable a later budgetary focus on inherently government missions, (5) Emphasize 

hypersonics as a national priority and provide the DoD and NASA a mandate for 

hypersonics research and development and leverage use of the Dream Chaser as a 

hypersonics testbed. 

Question 4. What programs within the agency pull its focus away from its intended main goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars? 

Answer. We have no direct view on the question. Placing humans on the surface 

of Mars is a compelling and challenging main goal for NASA that will require 

125 

steady advancements, stability of purpose and programs, along with effective leadership and management of the programs necessary to develop the requisite capabilities and competency necessary to achieve this worthy goal. NASA must focus on cost 

and schedule execution consistent with the priorities provided to them as part of a 

balanced portfolio. It must also have the ability to plan and budget for the longterm so that enabling programs such as NEXTStep-2 are able to funded concurrently along with the Orion and SLS programs. 

Question 5. It has come to my attention that basic infrastructure challenges are 

impacting the growth of the commercial space marketplace at Cape Canaveral. 

These infrastructure challenges range from gaseous Nitrogen and Helium pipelines 

to support launch operations, to deteriorating bridges and roads. Has Sierra Nevada 

encountered any infrastructure challenges in the development of your new role in 

the Commercial Cargo contract? 

Answer. SNC agrees that a national investment in the Nation’s vital launch and 

range infrastructure on the Space Coast, and particularly at Kennedy Space Center 

and Cape Canaveral is essential to mission success and global leadership in this 

area. SNC seeks to avoid costly delays and high infrastructure costs for both basic 

and specialized capabilities by supporting early and sustained operations and maintenance activities that enable safe, timely, and affordable execution of commercial 

launch and landing operations on Florida’s Space Coast. Specifically, transportation, 

bridge fortification, facilities, and range capabilities have been identified as early 

elements requiring attention. 

Question 6. Would you be supportive of more innovative solutions to meeting those 

basic infrastructure needs, such as better partnerships with the state? 

Answer. Yes—SNC is always open to creative and innovative partnerships that 

serve as win-win relationships for all parties. As a firm fixed price commercial services contract provider, we are strongly motivated to control costs while maintaining 

an extremely high level of safety and mission assurance. The hallmarks that SNC 

seeks for any relationships, including the State of Florida or any other entity, are 

responsiveness, flexibility, agility, excellent communication, robust resourcing, simplicity, and timely decision-making. SNC is open to expanding existing partnerships 

or forging new ones. 

Question 7. Can you speak to how policies need to be reformed in order to accommodate a robust and competitive U.S. commercial space sector, especially in low 

Earth orbit (LEO)? 

Answer. Creating a robust and competitive U.S. Commercial space sector, especially in low Earth orbit (LEO) is fundamentally important to the United States. 

The U.S. must preserve and extend its lead in this area through smart incentives 

(space investment tax credits, access to national facilities and capabilities on a use 

basis instead of full cost basis, third party liability insurance), aggressive national 

policy making (elements of the House-proposed Space Renaissance Act) to create the 

‘‘Most Conducive National Business Climate’’, and assertive and forward-leaning 

leadership in the international law arena (Property rights, space salvage law, orbital 

debris mitigation). International Traffic in Arms Reduction (ITAR) reform should 

continue to specifically include human spaceflight. Specifically, the Senate should 

eliminate ITAR barriers to our ability to sell Dream Chaser missions commercially 

to those interested in buying into a launching and landing both uncrewed and 

crewed vehicles throughout the world. The Dream Chaser and similar commercial 

vehicles should be placed on the Commerce Control List under EAR control, rather 

than ITAR control. 

The government’s stimulation of a competitive U.S. commercial space industrial 

base and NASA’s use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) has been very successful 

by reducing the cost of NASA programs such as crew and cargo transfer to ISS by 

hundreds of millions of dollars and also in stimulating a growing commercial space 

industry sector that is creating jobs and economic benefits in many states. Continue 

the emphasis on, and use of, PPPs, Firm Fixed Priced contracts, streamlined acquisition activities, and Enhanced Use Lease (EUL), allowing U.S. industry to apply 

innovation and lower government costs. 

Additive Manufacturing, both terrestrially, and in-space, should be a key focus 

area for investment and broad application to enhance U.S. domestic manufacturing 

capabilities and associated business benefit. Investment tax credits, shared use of 

government facilities and equipment, plus national research and development 

grants and funding should be focused in this area. Similarly, advanced materials, 

nanomaterials, biomaterials, and advanced coatings/films should also be the focus 

of strategic investment and PPPs. Investments and PPPs focused on autonomy, Artificial Intelligence, and human-machine teaming should be an important focus area 

for research and development, investment, incentives, and collaborative governmentVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
126 

industry focus. Finally, creation of a supportive policy, liability, international law/ 

treaty, and economic environment for the control, mitigation, and active removal of 

orbital debris in LEO and GEO is critical for use of space in and around the Earth. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

MARK N. SIRANGELO

Question. Mr. Gold and Mr. Sirangelo, what are the biggest impediments that 

stand in the way of a robust commercial human spaceflight environment? 

Answer. A robust commercial human spaceflight environment must be founded on 

a sustainable mission and market demand that is met by competitive and capable 

market capabilities and offerings. To address the biggest impediments that stand 

in the way of this, one must first address the underlying commercial market it LEO 

as the fundamental or driving foundation. The U.S. Government has long been a 

global leader in enabling the commercialization of space industries. From earth observation, to satellite communications as well as to launch vehicles today, NASA 

and the Government have set the gold standard in pioneering new fields; developing 

technologies, demonstrating their feasibility and eventually transitioning from Government to commercial hands. This is reflected in the U.S. National Space Policy 

which calls for a ‘‘robust and competitive U.S. commercial space industry’’ and directs various U.S. departments and agencies to utilize and advance the U.S. commercial space sector. 

The benefits for pursuing a commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) market are clear. 

Increased utilization of space creates new markets and stimulates economic growth 

and demand for high paying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics jobs 

with broad benefits for the U.S. through advances in science and technology. The 

transition to commercializing LEO could free up NASA’s resources to move on to 

their broader objectives of deep space exploration and the Journey to Mars. As an 

important part of a robust LEO ecosystem, commercial human spaceflight capabilities will emerge to fill real and compelling mission and market demands. 

In 2005, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin challenged U.S. private industry to develop cargo and crew space transportation capabilities that could meet the needs of 

the International Space Station (ISS). Since then, NASA, under Administrator 

Charlie Bolden, has supported the commercial space sector through its COTS, 

CCtDev, CCtCap, and CRS1 programs. This approach has resulted in three commercial companies contracted to provide cargo services to the ISS; the SpaceX Dragon 

which also provides crew services, Orbital ATK’s Cygnus, and most recently the Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser and an additional one Boeing providing 

crew services. 

In 2005, Congress advanced public use of LEO through its designation of the U.S. 

portion of the ISS as a National Laboratory (NatLab), followed by the 2010 NASA 

Authorization bill that articulated the establishment of an independent non-profit 

group to manage this lab for public use. The hope was that the ISS NatLab would 

leverage the significant investments in the ISS program to become an anchor platform for attracting, encouraging, and enabling commercial uses of LEO. Together all 

of these activities have stimulated market demand driven by the U.S. Government 

in order to develop this emerging sector. At present, a focus on LEO commercialization is most prudent, given the greater market and mission challenges and complexities associated with beyond LEO commercial activities, including human 

spaceflight. 

There is no question that a robust U.S.-led commercial LEO market is budding, 

but still in its development stage. The stage is set, but there is not a clear substantive national strategy among all of the stakeholders for harnessing the collective 

public and private assets of the country with a clear objective and national rationale. There is an opportunity between to create a continued fertile environment for 

success. Although there are government initiatives to address some of these concerns, government lacks the capability to truly solve the problem alone and must 

look to industry for leadership in a shared solution. However, the private sector 

must have a clear understanding of what it needs to be successful and provide clear 

guidance so the government can develop policy and incentives that help enable the 

market, including addressing: barriers, liability, export control, tax, and the financial incentives to make strategic use of resources. 

We believe the time has come to consider a new approach to leveraging the investments made by both the U.S. Government and the private sector bringing the opportunities identified in these studies to life. SNC alone has invested many millions 

of dollars into Dream Chaser alongside of NASA. Although government stimulus 

funding may be required, it must be led by the private sector with the goal of creVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
127 

ating a robust demand for an ecosystem of space assets that include ISS and other 

LEO destinations. 

The SNC Dream Chaser® is the only reusable commercial lifting body spacecraft 

in the world capable of a responsive runway landing, the first spacecraft in history 

to use all non-toxic consumables and propellants, and a true multi-mission Space 

Utility Vehicle platform that can safely, affordably, and flexibly execute new and expanded missions. NASA’s strategic investments in this American-built 21st Century 

spaceplane (through the CRS2 program) has formed a key multi-mission platform 

element of a broader constellation of space capabilities that will achieve our national 

goals, foster an ecosystem of ideas and innovation, and serve as an instrument of 

global diplomacy. SNC’s strategy is to fully harness the Dream Chaser’s multimission capability. In assembling our strategic partner network, now over 50 entities 

in over 20 states, we have found the need for an enabling capability that harnesses 

this constellation of providers, suppliers, users and governments. 

Exploiting nascent LEO markets requires innovative approaches to structuring 

and coordinating public and private space related capabilities. In the near term, 

there are several actions the Congress and the White House can take to contribute 

to this effort: 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

MARK N. SIRANGELO

Question. Russian-made rocket engines, specifically the RD–180, are commonly 

used to bring commercial payloads to space. Are American satellite manufacturers 

and commercial space firms committed to supporting the expeditious development 

of safe, reliable and cost-effective American-made rocket engines? As additional 

American-made rocket engines are developed, are your firms committed to contracting with launch firms that only use domestically produced rocket engines? 

Answer. SNC cannot speak to the activities of the industry at large but as a company and buyer of launch we support and benefit from a vibrant and competitive 

U.S. launch industry. SNC buys complete turn-key launch systems and not individual subsystems such as motors so the decision to which motors are used is an 

internal one of the launch providers. Often it is our ultimate client who direct rocket 

purchase however when we are the prime our general practice is to issue request 

for proposals (RFPs) for our launch that require many factors to be provided by the 

bidder. Some of these factors are which are evaluated and scored are suitability to 

the mission, complete launch price and pricing terms, ability to meet schedule, 

launch success history, production schedule, need for customization, insurability and 

cost of insurance, special requirements of our clients as well as many other factors. 

For example, SNC has opened up our launch procurement informational process for 

our Dream Chaser missions to all current or future U.S. launch providers. We support and encourage all viable U.S. launch companies to advance their technology 

and hope that they will respond to our future launch needs. We certainly agree that 

the U.S. needs to be developing new and innovative rocket engines for the future. 

Our company is focused on building new American-made rocket engines that may 

be used in such systems. They incorporate next generation technology to improve 

performance and reduce cost and are competitive with engines built anywhere in the 

world. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

DANIEL L. DUMBACHER

Question 1. Kennedy Space Center and the state of Florida is the world’s space 

capital with the largest concentration of aerospace launch providers and suppliers. 

We’ve already seen Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS cargo launches from there and soon 

both Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion will be launching. Could you discuss what 

this means for the future of Florida’s Space Coast, and what you foresee happening 

in the State in the next few years? 

Answer. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the state of Florida is, and will continue to be, the primary space launch ‘‘hub’’ for United States space endeavors as 

the Nation’s Spaceport. The work of preparing spacecraft, preparing launch vehicles, 

and launching vehicles to orbit is on the critical path to establishing a permanent 

human presence in space and expanding our economic sphere. KSC and the state 

of Florida are ‘‘launching’’ the majority of exploration and commercial activities 

needed to continue development of space for the future. Providing launch infrastructure for emerging space utilization activities and exploration beyond low Earth orbit 

128 

will expand United States leadership, and the peaceful uses of space for global society. 

Question 2. During the birth of the Apollo program, the United States, under the 

leadership from President John F. Kennedy, was determined to beat the Soviets to 

the moon. Is the United States still in a position to remain competitive and challenge the likes of other global powers? 

Answer. The United States is definitely in a position to remain competitive based 

on its current and long-time leadership of human space exploration. The principle 

threat to not being competitive is the United States abdicating this leadership 

through lack of commitment, inattention, or naivete ́. Therefore, the United States, 

must continue to act, develop the commercial cargo and crew opportunities for 

transportation to and from low Earth orbit, maintain productive use and permanent 

presence at the International Space Station, lead development of capabilities for astronauts to explore, and extend permanent human presence beyond low Earth orbit. 

The United States won the race to the moon (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo), initiated 

routine access to space (Space Shuttle), learned how to live and work in space 

(Skylab, Spacelab, ISS), developed International Partnerships (Apollo–Soyuz, Spacelab, Shuttle-Mir, ISS), and is now building the strategic relationship between government exploration and enabling the commercial development of space (Commercial Cargo, Commercial Crew, NextSTEP). Each of these steps builds upon the previous phase, was difficult to accomplish, and was a vital step. The United States 

and NASA were successful in each and will be successful in the future. United 

States leadership continues to build the narrative to establish permanent human 

presence in space. 

With this hard earned experience, the United States, with continued Administration and Congressional leadership, can remain the global space exploration leader. 

This leadership needs to be demonstrated with clear political communication on the 

value and ‘‘why’’ we explore space, and building the narrative for permanent human 

presence in space. 

History clearly shows that the nations continuing to explore new horizons, solving 

new challenges, and leading other nations to settle new lands, maintain their leadership and prestige in the world. The United States is at a key crossroads, one that 

will determine whether we continue to take on new challenges, enhancing our global 

leadership, or whether we will build walls and focus internally. It is essential that 

the United States political leadership recognize and clearly communicate the goals 

and objectives, and shape the clear narrative for long term sustainability and investment in space exploration. In today’s environment, the narrative must be built 

upon the value of a nation continuing to search beyond the next horizon. In doing 

so, our Nation can garner the enormous political, national defense, scientific, technological, and economic value from space exploration. 

There is also an urgency in maintaining and building the United States leadership in space. We are the global leader in the space economy and thus in a position 

to establish the precedents that others will follow. With the number of international 

and commercial actors and activities rapidly increasing in numbers and scope, the 

United States must actively engage and stay in the lead to establish the space frontier ‘‘rules of the road’’ based on American values. Permanent human presence in 

space is required to do this. 

For the benefit of the generations that follow us, the continued excellence of the 

United States, we MUST push ourselves to explore and utilize space, grow our industrial and technological base and skills, lead and work with other countries, continue to take on the hard challenges, and expand the human neighborhood in and 

beyond low Earth orbit. 

Question 3. As the Senate looks to reauthorize NASA in the coming year, what 

reforms do you suggest? 

Answer. The next NASA Authorization bill is extremely important for the future 

of space exploration to build on current programs and achievements. A clear reaffirmation of the goals and objectives from the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (Public 

Law 111–267), particularly ‘‘to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit, and 

to do so, where practical, in a manner involving international partnerships.’’ Reaffirmation and building on this long-term goal will drive space exploration enterprise 

stability, sustainability, and prepare for the next steps, thereby minimizing the 

‘‘stop/start’’ churn NASA has experienced in the past. 

Congress at every opportunity, particularly following a national election, needs to 

clearly state and reaffirm the guiding goals and objectives for the use and exploration of space and avoid a major ‘‘reset’’ that can lead to policy confusion, programmatic uncertainty, and accompanying wasteful and inefficient use of valuable 

human and financial resources. The goal should not be just for NASA to place huVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:24 Apr 25, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\25172.TXT JACKIE
129 

mans on the surface of Mars or, like Apollo, it will be perceived that boot prints 

mean exploring is done. The next NASA Authorization Act must clearly delineate 

the goal of humans permanently in space and beyond low Earth orbit. 

It is also essential to continue the 2010 Authorization Act mandates on Key Objectives to deliver value to the Nation in key areas such as building the foundation 

for sustainable economic activities in space, supporting U.S. security and global 

competitive posture, advancing knowledge of the universe, and inspiring young people. United States permanent human presence in space, with the rapidly growing 

international and commercial activity, is required for the United States to lead the 

establishment of the space frontier ‘‘rules of the road’’ in a manner consistent with 

American values. This is the source of the urgency, as other actors take on greater 

activity in space, the window for U.S. leadership in establishing the ‘‘rules of the 

road’’ is closing. 

Specific suggested NASA Authorization Act reforms include: 

1. Build on and refine the 2010 NASA Authorization Act’s long term goal to be: 

The long term goal of the human spaceflight and exploration program of the 

United States is to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth 

orbit in a way that will enable human settlement and a thriving space economy. 

This will be best achieved through public-private partnerships and international collaboration. 

This goal was a consensus statement of a diverse group of over 100 space leaders 

from academia, government and industry at the 2015 Pioneering Space National 

Summit. All of the participants agreed that this statement is consistent with, and 

builds upon, the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. This national journey will serve 

many national interests and benefit the American people. 

2. Mandate that NASA specifically address this goal in its strategic planning; 

3. Mandate that NASA on a yearly basis report to Congress its progress in pursuing this goal, and report on policy or other impediments that stand in its 

way of doing so; 

4. Mandate that NASA on a yearly basis report to Congress its progress in implementing recommendations of the 2014 National Academy’s Pathways to Exploration Report, and report on policy impediments that stand in its way of doing 

so, or provide sound rationales for different direction than that recommended 

by the report; 

5. Based on the selected goals and objectives for NASA, Congress needs to clearly 

define the resources to be made available for space exploration. The resources 

must grow consistent with the expected work to be accomplished on a reasonable schedule and account for inflation to avoid loss of buying power. 

6. Provide NASA the ability, within its Budget Authority, to have a single appropriations line for Exploration Systems to permit the efficient use of resources 

for attaining the necessary technical and schedule objectives. Multiple appropriations lines greatly complicate the program management of the SLS, Orion, 

and Ground Systems development. Further fragmentation of funding into 

smaller and smaller accounts effectively inhibits sound program management 

and inevitably drives up the cost of programs while introducing greater risk. 

As additional elements such as habitats are added to the exploration portfolio, 

the ability to efficiently address programmatic issues is essential for efficient 

use of valuable taxpayer resources; 

7. Provide NASA the programmatic and technical discretion to implement the 

plans necessary to meet the goals and objectives consistent with available resources, and appropriate Congressional oversight; 

8. Require NASA to evaluate and use programmatic and technical best practices 

from other industries and government agencies. Consideration should be given 

to a NASA version of DARPA to allow new methodologies to be tried unencumbered by the traditional and bureaucratic approaches. It is imperative that 

NASA remain at the forefront of technology and program management. NASA 

developed the systems engineering and program management tools necessary 

for Apollo. These tools have served this Nation well as programs have increased in complexity. The landscape is evolving with emerging space companies and the government role of tackling the technical challenges, and NASA 

must be flexible while assuring the safety and appropriate use of taxpayer resources. This necessitates a continual learning organization, willing to experiment and test new technical and program management methods. 

130 

Question 4. What programs within the agency pull its focus away from its intended main goal of placing humans on the surface of Mars? 

Answer. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act clearly states the goals and objectives 

for NASA and its respective mission directorates. These goals and objectives are defined for human space exploration, Earth Science, Space Science, Aeronautics, and 

Education. Relative priority is established by the Administration and Congress 

based on the respective value provided to the Nation. 

Consistent with the long-term goals and objectives to expand human presence beyond low Earth orbit to enable human settlement and a thriving space economy via 

public-private partnerships and international collaboration, Congress should consider increasing the investment in NASA to at least double the expected inflation 

rate. This would be a rational investment for the future within the constraints of 

the current and expected fiscal environment, provide an improved foundation for our 

Country’s future, and assure U.S. leadership in space. 

Even in the difficult current fiscal environment, with many needs and demands 

placed on the Federal Government, a steadily increasing investment for our future 

is appropriate. Not only do such investments help grow the economy through advancements in competitiveness and innovation, and thus pay for themselves in the 

long run, they ensure the realization of future economic opportunities for our citizens and our children, which are essential. As all U.S. citizens see more opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities, hope for the future is increased, and provides the foundation for an optimistic and engaging vision of the 

future for all our citizens. Space exploration, is and will continue to be an important 

pathway towards new economic opportunities, and the development of new technologies, all leading to a better future for all. 

It is imperative that Congress and the Administration demonstrate the leadership 

required to build a better future with the benefits of space exploration. NASA’s accomplishments and lessons learned through the decades have provided inspiration, 

new economic opportunities and new technologies that are an important part of our 

international leadership, national defense, and emerging commercial opportunities. 

Would we be satisfied if we turned off GPS for a day, did without weather satellites or space based communications, did not have astronauts running experiments 

for new medicines, new materials, and learning how to live and work in space with 

direct application to the human ageing process, understanding our solar system 

through our rovers and planetary probes, obtaining a better understanding of the 

cosmos through our telescopes, and providing more efficient means for commercial 

air travel? I think not. 

I believe a modest increase in NASA’s funding at double the expected rate of inflation is the appropriate funding level to be included in the next NASA Authorization 

Act. 

Æ 

131 

This page intentionally left blank.