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

25–097PDF 2017

THE ISS AFTER 2024: 

OPTIONS AND IMPACTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 22, 2017 

Serial No. 115–09 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE

HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

AMI BERA, California, Ranking Member 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 22, 2017 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Ami Bera, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 10 

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

Witnesses: 

Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Human Exploration 

and Operations, NASA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 

Dr. Robert Ferl, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Interdisciplinary 

Center for Biotechnology Research, University of Florida 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 46 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 48 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 57 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Human Exploration 

and Operations, NASA ........................................................................................ 74 

Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration ..................................................................................................................... 79 

Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation ..................... 87 

Dr. Robert Ferl, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Interdisciplinary 

Center for Biotechnology Research, University of Florida ............................... 90 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking 

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 94 

(1) 

THE ISS AFTER 2024: 

OPTIONS AND IMPACTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman BABIN. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Space 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The International Space Station after 2024: Options and Impacts.’’ I’d like to recognize myself 

for five minutes for an opening statement. 

The International Space Station ranks among humanity’s highest 

scientific, technological, and political achievements. As an internationally built and operated orbiting laboratory, the ISS conducts 

critical research that helps us both on Earth and in space. As a 

multinational project, this engineering marvel illustrates the power 

of U.S. leadership on the frontiers of exploration. 

However, frontiers are not static. NASA has worked hard to conquer the challenges of low-Earth orbit. We have learned how the 

human body reacts to a microgravity environment. We have grown 

food, crystalized proteins, launched satellites, and conducted scientific observations of the Earth and stars above. What was once 

the height of technological daring nearly two decades ago has become almost ordinary. 

Once such pioneering challenges are overcome, it is time to reexamine where the frontier really lies. In 2015, Congress extended 

ISS operations until 2024. Congress recently passed and the President just yesterday enacted the NASA Transition Authorization 

Act of 2017, which requires NASA to develop a transition plan for 

the ISS after 2024. NASA has estimated that the ISS will cost taxpayers between $3 and $4 Billion annually through 2024—roughly 

half of NASA’s total human spaceflight budget. A 2014 report from 

the NASA Inspector General calls this figure optimistic. That report also noted several hardware concerns, including the degradation of the station’s solar power arrays. If NASA stays on the ISS 

beyond 2024, we ought to be aware that remaining on the ISS will 

come at a cost. 

That cost means tradeoffs with other NASA priorities. Tax dollars spent on the ISS will not be spent on destinations beyond lowEarth orbit, including the Moon and Mars. What opportunities will 

we miss if we maintain the status quo? In its report, Pathways to 

Exploration, the National Academies stated that a continuation of 

flat budgets for human spaceflight is insufficient for NASA to execute any pathway to Mars and limits human spaceflight to LEO 

until after the end of the ISS program. And if you would put this 

slide up, please? As you can see on the screen, the longer we operate the ISS, the longer it will take to get to Mars. The ISS is there 

in the purple. You can see that. 

Subsequent reports, particularly by the Planetary Society in 

their Humans Orbit Mars report, evaluated different architectures, 

and found that Mars exploration could be conducted with flat budgets, but that transitioning from the ISS in 2024 would be considerably better. 

Many private sector stakeholders currently rely on the ISS and 

would need to seek out other options if they can should the ISS be 

unavailable. While I believe it is in the Nation’s interest to encourage a thriving economy in space, we must balance our support for 

private-sector efforts while also prioritizing NASA’s role as an ex-
5 

ploration agency. Can commercial use generate sufficient revenue 

by 2024 to cover the full cost of U.S. participation on the ISS? 

Could public-private partnerships or other novel approaches allow 

the U.S. to continue involvement in the ISS without tying up 

NASA funding? Will there be a sufficiently robust market that the 

U.S. will be able to procure service in low-Earth orbit commercially, or will the government need to continue to subsidize these 

activities in order to maintain access? 

Aside from private sector impacts, the international aspect is 

also a critical part of the puzzle. The European Space Agency has 

already shifted its focus from the ISS, changing its contribution 

from ISS resupply to collaborating with NASA on the Orion Crew 

Vehicle. Meanwhile, China will be putting their first space station 

into operation just as the presence of NASA and its international 

partners on the ISS could be ending, effectively turning over 

human presence in low-Earth orbit to China. 

Continuing NASA’s involvement on the ISS could arbitrarily 

limit or delay human exploration of deep space by the U.S. Let us 

not forget that China also plans to launch a crewed mission to the 

Moon in the 2030s. What we do in low-Earth orbit will dramatically influence global efforts in our space exploration. 

I want to thank today’s witnesses for being here, and we look forward to our discussions and having your answers to our questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman BABIN. And let’s see. Now I want to recognize the 

Ranking Member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. BERA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this obviously very timely hearing, The ISS After 2024: Options 

and Impacts. 

I’d also like to welcome our witnesses and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Two hundred and twenty miles above the Earth, the International Space Station, a complex assembly of interconnected nodes 

and modules, weighing almost a million pounds and spanning the 

length of a football field, orbits our Earth 16 times a day. 

NASA and its international and commercial partners have overcome many challenges during the many years of design, development and assembly to ensure the continued safe and productive operations of the Space Station, and I want to thank NASA’s employees, supporting contractors, researchers, and partners for their continued dedication and commitment. This is a marvel of what we 

can do when we put our minds to a challenge. 

That said, the current mission, ISS Expedition 50, is testing 

lighting effects to improve crew health and investigating changes 

in tissue regeneration while in space, adding to a growing array of 

scientific, biomedical, and technology research being carried out on 

the ISS. 

As NASA’s focus has turned to a vibrant research program, supported by a frequent schedule of visiting vehicles for crew transfer 

and cargo delivery, it is sometimes easy to forget how hard human 

spaceflight really is. Aboard the ISS, NASA is enabling the research, skills and capabilities that our astronauts need for taking 

the next step: moving out into exploring deep space. 

Taking these next steps is something this Committee and Congress have supported through multiple NASA Authorizations, most 

recently the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 that is 

now law. Again, as we start to set our sights on sending humans 

beyond low-Earth orbit, we also face some difficult funding decisions. Several independent panels have concluded that if we want 

to both extend the ISS past 2024 and undertake a meaningful 

human exploration program, we need to provide the required funding. Otherwise, we have to choose between NASA’s extending the 

role of ISS past 2024 or reconsider our goals and expectations for 

human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. 

The ISS is currently authorized to operate through at least 2024. 

Within the next few years, Congress will need to decide whether 

to extend the ISS beyond 2024, and what role NASA should have 

in low-Earth orbit once ISS operations cease. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this obviously is a very timely discussion that 

we’re having as we look at the broader NASA mission, and again, 

our stated goal of trying to get to human exploration and human 

travel to Mars by 2023—2033. We could bump it up, though, Mr. 

Trump. I look forward to this discussion this morning, and thank 

you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:] 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

Seeing that our full Committee Chair nor the Ranking Member 

are present, I’d like to go ahead and introduce our witnesses today. 

Our first witness is Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA. Mr. 

Gerstenmaier provides strategic direction for all aspects of NASA’s 

human exploration of space and cross-agency space support functions including programmatic direction for the operation and utilization of the International Space Station. He holds a bachelor of 

science in aeronautical engineering from Purdue University, and a 

master of science in mechanical engineering from the University of 

Toledo. He also earned his Ph.D.—so I apologize for not saying 

‘‘doctor,’’ Dr. Gerstenmaier—he earned his Ph.D. in dynamics and 

control with emphasis on propulsion at Purdue University. So we’re 

glad to have you here. 

Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, our second witness today, Executive 

Director of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration. We appreciate 

you being here. The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration is an industry trade group supporting human exploration, development in 

science and deep space. Dr. Dittmar has worked for the Boeing 

Company, where she coordinated research and development, and 

managed the Flight Operations Group for the International Space 

Station program. She has also served as a Senior Policy Advisor for 

the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space, or CASIS, 

which manages the ISS National Laboratory. Dr. Dittmar is also 

a Fellow of the National Research Society and an Associate Fellow 

for AIAA and a Board Member of AAS, and was a co-author of the 

Pathways to Exploration report produced by the NRC in 2014. Glad 

to have you here. 

And our third witness today is Mr. Eric Stallmer, President of 

Commercial Spaceflight Federation. Mr. Stallmer has worked at 

the Space Transportation Association, a nonprofit industry trade 

organization providing government representation to companies interested in the U.S. space launch industry. Glad to have you here 

this morning. Mr. Stallmer has also served as an officer in the 

United States Army Reserves and was awarded the Bronze Star 

Medal for Meritorious Service while engaged in combat operations 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He earned a master of arts in 

public administration from George Mason University and a bachelor of arts in political science and history from the Mount St. 

Mary College. Glad to have you here. 

Our fourth witness today is Dr. Robert Ferl. He is a Distinguished Professor and Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for 

Biotechnology Research at the University of Florida. Dr. Ferl cochairs the Committee on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space 

for the National Academies of Science and is the past President of 

the American Society for Gravitational and Space Research. Dr. 

Ferl and his lab have studied the aspects of microgravity environment as well as develop flight hardware for understanding biological effects of spaceflight. 

I now recognize Dr. Gerstenmaier for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 
14 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS, NASA 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the 

Committee for having me here. You were correct originally. I completed coursework for my Ph.D. but I never received my Ph.D. So 

‘‘Mister’’ is good and it works well. 

The International—— 

Chairman BABIN. You can have an honorary doctorate. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I don’t know about that. 

So the International Space Station is about humanity’s future in 

space. It also tells us about the roles major players participated in 

helping us to get there. 

ISS is the most complex engineering complex ever constructed. 

As an engineer, I’m tempted to quote numbers: 37 space shuttle 

flights, 1,000 hours of EVAs, or space walks, 197 space walks, both 

U.S. and Russian, 12 years to build, $67 Billion including the shuttle launch costs, and a mass of 925,000 pounds. 

The scale of what we’ve accomplished is enormous. Like the 

interstate highway system, it was designed to move our Nation forward, and it could not have been done without public investment. 

As a high-tech spaceflight endeavor, ISS has changed the way 

the Nation thinks about space. We’ve shown that humans can life 

off the Earth for extended periods of time. There’s been a continuous human presence off the Earth for over 16 years. We can assemble large structures in space via humans in spacesuits. We’ve 

changed the way that robotics can be used for assembly in space. 

All of the recent SpaceX external payloads were installed on the 

ISS via ground-controlled robotics, and the three external payloads 

were removed from the Space Station and installed in the SpaceX 

trunk for disposal, all again through ground robotics. SpaceX was 

even berthed at the Space Station via ground control and not by 

astronauts on board. 

ISS created the need for NASA to accept alternate engineering 

standards from a variety of grounds. This allowed NASA to build 

techniques to accept alternate commercial standards for commercial vehicles. Today ISS represents 13 percent of the total global 

launches to space. 

The relaxed reliability requirements for ISS cargo allowed for 

disruption of the U.S. launch industry and resulted in lower launch 

costs for all users and return of commercial satellite launches to 

the United States. 

One of the most enduring outcomes from the ISS is the ability 

for the governments of the U.S., Japan, Russia, Europe and Canada to work together peacefully in space. ISS has paved the way 

for international operations with 225 people from 18 countries having visited the International Space Station. This cooperation is 

much more than simply working together. We are dependent on 

each other for successful operations. 

The intergovernmental agreements developed to make this happen are phenomenal in their simplicity and ability to facilitate realtime operations of this incredibly complex facility. These arrangements paved the way for future exploration and allowed for the Eu-
15 

ropean Service Module to become part of Orion. Although the cost 

and effort—although the cost, effort and resources to build this facility was high, this is precisely the role of large government activities. The diversity of benefits from a single activity are enormous. 

The private sector could have done some of the individual items in 

part but not the entire suite of accomplishments and not with such 

broad national benefit. The role of government is to do things that 

the private sector cannot so both commerce and the broader society 

will have more opportunities in the future. 

As we go forward, how do we build off of the ISS achievement 

and utilize the International Space Station to strengthen the role 

of the United States as a leader in space and technology. The focus 

needs to be on using the ISS for the full range of national purposes 

both of those predicted in advance and those that we discovered 

through its use. 

It’s great to have this hearing today and discuss better uses of 

the ISS. How we utilize the ISS through 2024 can influence the options and impacts for ISS after 2024. The promise of ISS to continue to yield national benefits is high. We are exploring today with 

the ISS by using it to test out systems, both human and machine, 

and understand how those systems will work when applied to deep 

space exploration missions. ISS is perfect for that role. 

The use of ISS as our national laboratory in space to help develop the private sector demand and revenue for space-based activities as NASA prepares for deep space exploration will be critical to 

U.S. leadership in science and technology. We are today formulating plans to make available a port on the ISS for private sector 

use. We are looking at legislative proposals to help facilitate commercial uses of ISS. All of these activities are just starting and will 

be critical to advancing U.S. leadership. 

The external world is not static, and China’s plans for human 

space exploration are also likely to influence the options for the 

ISS. China is planning for a government space station in 2023. 

As NASA progresses towards moving human spaceflight into the 

solar system, the rate of this expansion will also be an influence 

on the operations and options for ISS. The continuity of human 

spaceflight from ISS in low-Earth orbit to regular missions of SLS 

and Orion to cislunar space is a critical requirement feature for 

U.S. leadership in space. A continuous U.S. national astronaut program is part of this leadership. 

The decision to extend the ISS to 2024 showed great leadership 

by the Administration and Congress. This decision was made without full knowledge of the future but is proving to keep the United 

States in a leadership role for space technology development and 

to benefit—to the benefit of both U.S. commerce and broader national goals. Likewise, the decisions for ISS after 2024 will be made 

without all of the data on future benefits required for a perfect decision, but we can today utilize ISS in ways that influence that decision towards a greater national benefit. 

Global leadership requires decisions with less-than-perfect data 

or foresight but that’s what leadership is all about. Where the 

United States leads, others will follow, and the future will be 

shaped by American values. 
16 

I look forward to your questions and discussions in the hearing 

today, and I thank you for the timely discussion on this topic. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:] 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

I now recognize Dr. Dittmar for five minutes to present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION 

Dr. DITTMAR. Chairman Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today on a subject of great importance to our national leadership in space: the future of the International Space 

Station after 2024. 

It is indeed an honor to appear before you and particularly in the 

company of this distinguished panel. 

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate you and the Committee staff on passage of the NASA Transition Authorization Act 

signed into yesterday by the President. On behalf of the Coalition 

for Deep Space Exploration and its 67 member companies, I want 

to thank you personally for your diligence and your ongoing support of the Nation’s space program. 

In 2014, in response to a request from Congress, the Committee 

for Human Spaceflight of the National Research Council produced 

the Pathways to Exploration report, which contained observations 

and recommendations supporting a robust program of human space 

exploration. Among other findings, the report described the funding 

constraints facing NASA should the ISS continue to operate after 

2024, namely, that if NASA is to continue making progress in deep 

space, it could not maintain the ISS without significant cost reduction. The committee discussed the role of ISS research and reducing risk in deep space exploration and understood that termination 

of the program would end opportunities for continued research in 

these areas as well as potentially cut short the research benefiting 

Earth going on at the ISS National Lab. 

Fortunately, thanks to Congress, in the three years since the report was published, NASA’s human spaceflight program funding 

has improved, and in my written testimony, I provide a moderation—a modification of the chart that you showed earlier, Chairman, that showed that line inching up a little bit there. 

However, the larger point remains: one political avenue for reducing the government’s investment in the ISS is by generating alternate sources of revenue. However, at present, there is no compelling economic driver apparent in LEO that can bridge the gap 

between current commercial activity and the revenues that are necessary to significantly offload ISS operations costs. Given that markets frequently take decades to develop, this is not surprising. 

The best answer for now is to create the optimal conditions for 

market breakthroughs, reducing barriers through the use of the 

ISS while working hard to enable innovation with economic value 

to occur and recognizing that this will take time and ongoing investment, and indeed, this is what NASA and CASIS have been 

doing. 

In my written statement, I noted the significant progress being 

made in this regard. The growing number of applications and paying customers in space combined with an increased diversification 
26 

of research objectives, funding sources and actors improves the 

odds that one or more of these efforts will lead to sustained economic activity, and indeed, applications with strong market political are emerging, which in turn are leading to increased interest 

in the development of commercial modules and follow-on platforms. 

These efforts will not guarantee development of a market or establishment of sufficient revenues or investment to offload the government and reduce costs. However, abandoning the ISS too soon 

will most certainly guarantee failure. 

I would like to briefly turn to the importance of ISS to deep 

space exploration. First, the international partnership already 

mentioned at the heart of the ISS is a major building block for an 

international program to move humans off the Earth toward Mars. 

The ISS has demonstrated that a great multilateral enterprise 

such as this one brings to the table intellectual capital, scientific 

abilities, research, engineering, funding, and interest in peaceful 

technology development on the part of many nations. We have 

come to trust each other, to learn from each other, and to depend 

on each other for our very lives in low-Earth orbit. It will be the 

same in deep space. Continuing engagement with partners old and 

new through the ISS is required at least until such time as a robust international program is also established beyond low-Earth 

orbit. 

Secondly, innovation on the ISS has the potential to create 

breakthroughs that will inform deep space exploration and reduce 

costs there as well. A company called Made in Space is experimenting with 3D printing in LEO but wants to extend this work 

into deep space including on the surface of the Moon and Mars. 

The ability to manufacture tools and other equipment from native 

materials can reduce mass requirements and therefore cost for 

deep space missions. Other innovations are likely to follow. 

Third, NASA is now putting in place the exploration architecture 

that will take us out into the solar system. The next steps will help 

inform the uses of the ISS in helping that architecture to progress, 

doubtless in some ways that we cannot now anticipate. A good example of this is using the ISS as a testbed for systems that don’t 

always work the way we think they’re going to once they’re put 

into space. The Environmental Life Control System, or ECLSS, is 

very high on that list but as we move into deep space, there will 

be others. 

Finally, the next two years or so will see the return of Americans 

on American launch vehicles to the ISS and will see the return of 

Americans to deep space on American systems built for that purpose for the first time in almost 50 years. 

The ISS is the heartbeat of human spaceflight 24 hours a day, 

365 days a year. American leadership in space requires a constant 

and vigilant presence, one that the ISS has provided during the 

gap in our own flight access. Learning from history, we should not 

step away from the ISS until a robust human spaceflight program 

has been established in cislunar space. 

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dittmar follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Dr. Dittmar. 

Now I recognize Mr. Stallmer for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. ERIC STALLMER, PRESIDENT, 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION 

Mr. STALLMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STALLMER. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Bera 

and Members of the Subcommittee. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to present the Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s views on 

the ISS after 2024. 

CSF represents 70-plus companies and tens of thousands of employees dedicated to America’s future in space. In my testimony, I 

will lay out a sustainable vision not just for human spaceflight in 

low-Earth orbit but for America’s broader and deeper space ambitions. This discussion is not just about the value of ISS in and of 

itself or even NASA’s exploration agenda for the Moon, Mars and 

beyond. The right yardstick is America’s future economic development and settlement of space starting with LEO but expanding 

outward. Clearly, want our first long-term international space station to be a firm steppingstone to that grander future. 

By next year, for the first time in U.S. history, our space program will have multiple means of safely and affordably getting 

science experiments, other cargo, and crew to space. The ISS is currently expected to be utilized through at least 2024, but this Committee is posing the question of what should occur after. My testimony will focus on three of these areas. 

First, the ISS should be sustained beyond 2024 to the extent that 

the space station is technically capable and safe to remain in orbit. 

In addition, rather than abruptly ending such a major program 

without a functional successor, any ISS transition plan should prepare an evolutionary path in order to avoid disrupting science and 

operations on orbit, and any unnecessary economic upheaval to 

local economies. 

Second, to maximize return on investment for the Nation, commercial utilization of the ISS should be expanded, and NASA 

should take full advantage of these opportunities to offset some of 

the costs to maintain the space station.NASA should use public-private partnerships to develop commercial space capabilities and 

services to support its cislunar activities, and should use commercial launch systems to support and augment these activities. 

The International Space Station is one of the greatest is one of 

the greatest achievements of our time. It’s an engineering marvel, 

built and operated in concert with our partners around the world. 

It’s a treasured national lab, contributing to key scientific breakthroughs in science and research, and it represents the longest ever 

sustained human presence in space. It’s the foundation of humanity’s voyage to the stars, and the commercial spaceflight industry 

is proud to play a key role in its continued success. 

Given this incredible investment, we need to ensure that we are 

maximizing our scientific and economic return from this unique 

asset. We are grateful for the Committee and the Congress’s recognition of the value of Space Act Agreements, which has helped 
36 

further along the transportation goals for the ISS, and for your 

support of this important tool in the recent NASA Authorization 

bill. 

SpaceX as well as a growing number of new American commercial launch companies are recapturing a majority of the world’s 

multiBillion dollar commercial launch market after years in which 

the United States was simply not competitive, and the same Space 

Act Agreement partner with NASA has also helped restore getting 

American astronauts on American vehicles from American soil. 

The private sector has jumped at the opportunity to support research on the ISS. Companies like Bigelow Aerospace, Planet, and 

NanoRacks are testing new technologies like inflatable habitats to 

help us go deep into space, developing new generations of advanced 

satellites, and opening up opportunities to a broader utilization 

community to fly thousands of experiments. 

Understandably, in this era of fiscal constraints, it’s prudent to 

review opportunities that exist to introduce additional efficiency. 

But, to be very clear, the ISS and NASA’s deep space exploration 

programs are not in competition, but, rather, are complementary. 

Opening the ISS to private businesses now and continuing this 

agenda past 2024 will deliver an assured transition to a sustained 

private American presence in low-Earth orbit that can untether 

NASA from the fixed costs of the future space stations while continuing to make capabilities available whenever needed. The same 

technologies being developed for use traveling to and operating on 

ISS today, as well as other commercial capabilities, will enable us 

to sustainably go deeper in space than ever before. We must leverage the commercial capabilities, both those being proven out on 

ISS, as well as these others under development. 

Blue Origin right now has announced it’s developing its own 

deep space exploration architecture and has proposed to conduct 

what it’s calling Blue Moon by 2020, a lunar lander that will touch 

down on the resource-rich crater on the Moon’s south pole. This 

program would augment and enable NASA’s lunar activities. We’ve 

also heard that SpaceX which has recently announced a privately 

funded mission to Mars in 2020 on the Red Dragon spacecraft, a 

derivative of the Crew Dragon spacecraft they will be using to fly 

NASA astronauts. Made In Space, as Mary Lynne has mentioned, 

already manufacturing on ISS and is developing advanced commercial on-orbit manufacturing services producing products for use in 

space and on Earth. And Moon Express has announced that it has 

the resources it needs to ensure that the company can attempt to 

launch a small robotic lander to the Moon as soon as the end of 

this year. 

In conclusion, how should Congress enable a sustainable, robust 

American space enterprise, one that will continue to foster the burgeoning commercial activity in low-Earth orbit but also enable the 

United States to make meaningful progress in deep space? The answer is short. It’s to expand the use of public-private partnerships 

with American commercial space companies. Through private-sector competition, investment, and innovation, the commercial space 

industry has proven it can deliver reliable and affordable goods and 

services that support U.S. government civil space missions and initiatives, as well as recapture global market share. 
37 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallmer follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Stallmer. 

Now I recognize Dr. Ferl for five minutes to present his testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT FERL, 

DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR AND 

DIRECTOR OF THE INTERDISCIPLINARY CENTER 

FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH, 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

Dr. FERL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this 

morning from the scientist’s perspective of life and physical 

sciences as they both enable deep space exploration and are enabled by the unique opportunities of understanding physical and 

life processes in the absence of gravity. 

I speak to you today as a scientist with more than 25 years of 

experience in the broader areas of spaceflight research using many 

of the platforms, flights and tools that have been available to 

spaceflight over this time. My research is dedicated to understanding the molecular and physiological effects of spaceflight on 

terrestrial life forms in order to develop safer deep space capabilities for human exploration. 

My comments today are also informed by my roles with the National Academies. I was a member of the writing committee for the 

NRC study that ended up being called Recapturing Space for—Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration, Life and Physical 

Sciences for a New Era. That was published in 2011. And I wish 

to share with you a very positive regard—positive view regarding 

the current status and activities on the ISS, a view in fact enriched 

by experiments over the last few weeks conducted on the Space 

Station, monitored in real time from Kennedy Space Center 3 

weeks ago with Peggy Woodson doing our stuff on orbit. We spent 

last week at Glenn Research Center downloading in real time information from the light microscopy module on orbit, and our samples 

landed in the Pacific this weekend. I can tell you there’s essentially 

no better time to be a spaceflight researcher than right now given 

the capabilities of the International Space Station. 

The demonstration and the evolution of the quality of experiments as they’ve moved from the early days in the space shuttle 

era into the space station era is dramatic, and the kinds and difficulties and opportunities of science in the Space Station are remarkable. 

The space life and physical sciences are governed, enabled by, 

and monitored and managed by the Space Life and Physical 

Sciences Research and Applications Division of NASA. I wish to 

give my thanks to NASA for standing up that division. That division was stood up in alignment with the Decadal Study and has 

reinvigorated the scientific community such that we can indeed 

talk about the science of space and spaceflight now in ways that 

were not available in years past. They’ve done a great job getting 

our community back up and running and doing the science in support of the exploration agenda. 
47 

The ISS is currently the only space-based platform that provides 

extended access to the spaceflight environment, and as such, provides the only means to assess the long-term effects of this environment on terrestrial organisms and the physical systems that would 

be used to support them. Such data are crucial to inform—more 

fully inform the deep space exploration ideas such as missions to 

Mars. 

I wish to stress that the ISS is now a fully functional laboratory 

with trained personnel that are interested in science and that are 

doing the business of science on a daily basis in space. A shift to 

private sector platform providers as part of the increasingly 

privatized LEO ecosystem could be a part of a successful microgravity program provided that NASA’s stewardship of this portfolio 

of research is maintained. They’ve been great stewards of the 

science that it takes to move humans into deep space and they’ve 

been doing that on the International Space Station and any movement away from the International Space Station would be enhanced greatly but mostly only if NASA and Space Life and Physical Sciences within NASA remain stewards of this portfolio of research. 

There are important things for Congress to look at as we move 

forward towards the dates such as 2024 as crew time on orbit. As 

I mentioned, the access to the special laboratories that are represented in the International Space Station are enabled by a highly 

active and highly integrated, interested and capable crew there. So 

crew time on orbit is something that the Committee and Congress 

should be very much aware of, and in any notions of projecting 

whether we’ll be ‘‘ready’’ to enter deep space will be sort of deeply 

affected by how much crew time is dedicated to science between 

now and that time. 

So I wish to thank you again for the opportunity to present. I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferl follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Dr. Ferl. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. The Chair 

now recognizes himself for five minutes. 

This first one is to Dr. Dittmar. China plans to send a crewed 

mission to the Moon in the 2030s. The European Space Agency has 

discussed a Moon village. Assuming flat budgets, how is America’s 

leadership in space impacted by continuing the ISS into 2028 or 

even into 2030? For every year we extend the ISS, are we delaying 

the development of new deep space projects by year? 

Dr. DITTMAR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don’t know about the 

one-to-one relationship that you described which is that for every 

year that station continues to fly, there’s a delay by a year. I would 

not really know how to go about answering that question. 

What I would say is that there is no question that under a flat 

budget you’re basically in a zero-sum game unless you’re able to 

find ways to offset that game with either significant cost reductions 

or the influx of additional revenue from some source, whether that 

source is coming from commercial ventures or whether it’s coming 

by contributions of international partners or in some other way. 

So with regard to continuing to fly the ISS and while still planning to move into cislunar space and beginning to generate activities there, what’s going to have to happen, okay, is that there—the 

things I’ve already started talking about in testimony, in order for 

the station to continue, you’re going to have to find ways to reduce 

cost. The clearest way that we see that happening right now is 

through the advent of things like public-private partnerships, 

which Eric mentioned, as a way of sort of doing acquisition that’s 

a little bit different. We need acquisition reform in general, and so 

that’s one path to being able to reduce costs. Continuing to encourage the existing partners who are develop corporate partners with 

NASA who are developing deep space exploration activities to find 

ways to reduce costs in production as well as in operations is another way to reduce cost, trying to get costs down on that end as 

opposed to the ISS end. 

I think the thing that’s most important is to look at the entire 

portfolio of activities that NASA’s considering, to try and find opportunities for cost reduction everywhere along the way. I think we 

make a bit of a mistake, we’re not thinking about things systematically if we’re just focusing on reducing costs associated with ISS. 

I think we have to look at it across the board: Where can we find 

cost reductions in the entire human spaceflight enterprise and/or 

opportunities to bring in additional revenues across that entire 

spaceflight enterprise, and I think that’s what we really have to 

focus on and NASA has to focus on very carefully. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Stallmer, NASA has invested a lot of money in the 

United States commercial space companies in the hopes of developing a self-sustaining space infrastructure. Could the ISS be selfsustaining without NASA subsidizing transportation or operations 

costs? Do any of your members have plans to offer low-Earth orbit 

Space Station Services in the near term absent NASA development 

funding? 

Mr. STALLMER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That’s a 

great question. I appreciate that. 
58 

I think as Mary Lynne had said earlier, echoing the public-private partnerships that NASA has engaged in with the commercial 

sector, I think we are already seeing the NASA investment in these 

partnerships are already paying huge dividends. We’re seeing this 

in the cost to access to space, with the Commercial Crew program, 

the tremendous reduction in costs that has afforded NASA, as well 

as coming online next year the Commercial Crew program that will 

be returning astronauts to the Space Station. Those are already 

yielding great benefits for NASA. 

I see also the value of what a lot of the commercial companies 

are doing currently on the Space Station, most recently the investment that Bigelow Aerospace has made with the module that they 

attached to the Space Station. I think that—you’re going to see 

commercial benefits yielded from that, not just on the Space Station but for future missions outside and off the Space Station. And 

also the manufacturing that we’ll see, the potential there, a very, 

very small investment that NASA made years ago, just a few years 

ago on 3D printing with Made in Space and the benefits that that 

is reaping right now. 

So I’m very excited about the returns that NASA will see from 

the investment in the commercial community. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much. 

And then finally, Mr. Gerstenmaier, at a 2015 NASA Advisory 

Council meeting, you were quoted as saying ‘‘we’re going to get out 

of ISS as quickly as we can whether it gets filled in by the private 

sector or not. NASA’s vision is, we’re trying to move out.’’ Is this 

statement still accurate? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think the accuracy in the statement or the 

discussion is really, we have a—we need to do a transition. It was 

described in some of the earlier testimony, it’s not good to end 

Space Station and then try to start exploration. There needs to be 

a smooth handoff from the one activity on Space Station to the exploration activity moving forward. 

I think it’s also wrong to assume that exploration and ISS are 

competing with each other. They’re really helping each other. We’re 

working today on Space Station to understand the physiological 

problems of being in microgravity on the human body. Those are 

not fully resolved yet. We just recently discovered several years ago 

the intracranial pressure problem that causes vision problems on 

station. If that was not discovered on Space Station, we would have 

carried that potentially with us into Moon, Mars activities and it 

could have been detrimental to our crews. So that work and that 

research is absolutely critical to what we’re doing going forward. 

We’re also testing Orion life support systems today on station, so 

I think there’s a transition, but I think NASA’s predominant role 

should be to move to deep space, take the private sector along with 

us to deep space, and continue that activity moving forward, and 

to do that, we need to relinquish the NASA role in low-Earth orbit, 

so it’s a natural transition. It’s not quite as stark as maybe it was 

described in the quotes that you previously read to me. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

I now recognize Mr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
59 

I think, Mr. Gerstenmaier, and actually all of you talked about 

the remarkable engineering accomplishment of the International 

Space Station. In addition, it was a remarkable accomplishment of 

different governments working together, you know, finding that cooperation. That’s going to be necessary as we go on to our next mission into deep space, so I think that’s as equally a remarkable 

achievement. 

In your comments, this is not an abrupt let’s stop in 2024. This 

should be a transition as we move from one mission to the next 

mission, and if we’ve got a workable asset that still is safe and can 

be used, we clearly—there’s clear scientific value in continuing to 

use that asset, and I have to imagine there’s commercial interest 

in how you use that asset. So I think for this body as we start to 

think about this transition, it shouldn’t be an either/or, it should 

be how do we broaden and bring in other partners. 

I think, Dr. Dittmar, you talked a little bit about this, you know, 

you can either lower costs or increase revenue, or do both simultaneously, which is what you do in the private sector and what we 

ought to be thinking about doing here. In your view, or Mr. 

Stallmer, is there sufficient commercial or academic interest that 

could start raising revenue or even international interest, other 

companies that have growing interest in space like India and others who may want to bring in additional partners. Dr. Dittmar? 

Dr. DITTMAR. One of the things that’s really interesting when 

you take a look at the ISS in terms of utilization of it is the growth 

curve, which is astonishing over the last ten years. I started a few 

companies, and if I had gone from four, five, well, 15 originally 

countries who were eventually—originally engaged in the ISS to 

over 100 given all the barriers that are involved in flying to the 

ISS and actually doing operations in space, and these are really 

significant. They’re not—it’s not the same as doing work here on 

Earth. 

When I was preparing for this testimony, I went and looked at— 

one interest I have is the amount of time that it takes for technology once it’s introduced to basically kick off a market, and those 

numbers sort of average around 15 to 20 years, but they can be 

even longer. So for example, the interval between the integrated 

circuit and the iPhone is about 49 years. We think about these 

things as they occurred very closely in time but they didn’t. Twenty-seven years ago, we began the Human Genome Project, and despite the fact that we basically have unraveled the genome and are 

now doing a lot of research in that area, we still don’t have the 

cure for cancer. However, we’ve grown a lot of markets that have 

developed off of that research, a lot of which couldn’t originally 

been predicted when you looked at the original definition of trying 

to define the genome. 

So the point I’m basically trying to make is, I think that it’s impossible to predict commercial activity that’s based on research and 

innovation. What we do know are the kinds of conditions that you 

can create to help bring that about, and I think that NASA and 

CASIS and other entities have done—and international partners 

have done a fantastic job in trying to lower the barriers to the use 

of ISS and create that sort of environment. 
60 

So I think there are a growing number of commercial companies—right now there’s six companies flying onboard the station 

with their own commercial facilities with paying customers. That’s 

a huge change from ten years ago. And there’s certainly a lot of 

companies that are interested in developing a commercial module. 

Eric mentioned Bigelow. There’s Axion, there’s some other companies that are trying to do it, and then there’s international—as I 

mentioned, international participation which has grown to over 

100. So I think that what we really have to do is look at the trend 

lines, which are all very positive, but if you’re going to ask me to 

predict a date and a time when that would happen, I’m not able 

to do that. 

Mr. BERA. And we certainly shouldn’t predict that day and time. 

It may happen sooner than 2024, which allows us to free up additional resources to do other missions. 

Mr. Stallmer, you know, just playing off of Dr. Dittmar, it does 

seem like there’s that interest if we created that space for the commercial sector. You know, again, they may not know exactly what 

they’re going to do but there’s an interest in using this asset and 

the potential for generating revenue to offset the costs of operating 

ISS. Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. STALLMER. I think that’s a very accurate statement. I think 

you’re seeing work being developed on the ISS by companies, some 

that didn’t exist a decade ago, and the technologies that they are 

doing and the research that they’re learning from the microgravity 

experience that they have. We touched on a few of them, but I see 

the manufacturing that is going to go on in the Space Station. It 

really is a tremendous building block of what we’re going to do and 

it’s just critical that any deep space exploration that we’re going to 

do down in the future that we’re developing that technology and research now on the station. 

Mr. BERA. So we don’t know what 2024 looks like but we do 

know there’s a curiosity and a desire, and we ought to create that 

space for other international partners or commercial partners to explore that space. 

Mr. STALLMER. And there’s investment. 

There’s commercial investment. That’s, I think, the most important takeaway. 

Mr. BERA. Great. I’ll yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you. 

I now recognize other members for questions, and we’ll start with 

the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ladies, ma’am, gentlemen, thank you for appearing before the 

Committee. Thank you for the work that you do for our Nation and 

indeed our world. 

This Committee is certainly committed to the revitalization of 

NASA’s manned space program. Keeping that in mind, we’re also 

committed and indeed bound in our duty to protect and be careful 

stewards of the people’s treasure. 

So considering the fact that new technologies are developed every 

day, technologies like carbon nanotubes, which have the diameter 

of 10,000 times less than that of a human hair, they’re stronger 

than steel, and have the stiffness properties of diamond; 3D print-
61 

ers, which are developing quite remarkable products every day 

with new technologies across the world; it leads one to wonder, considering although the unbelievably successful service that existing 

International Space Station has rendered to America and the 

world, leads one to wonder whether or not the continued investment beyond 2024 in the ISS is reasonable. 

On the other hand, the same technologies that are being developed which could ultimately lead to perhaps a next-generation 

International Space Station will also present us new opportunities 

to extend the life of the existing Space Station. 

So my question, first, to Mr. Gerstenmaier, specifically regarding 

manned spaceflight and deep space exploration for the American 

space program led by NASA, do you envision beyond 2024 the existing ISS to be in any way useful for that manned space exploration or does it have a role, do you envision that role, and if so, 

please explain, and if not, please expound. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I believe the station has a critical role in exploration as we have technical challenges that we have to conquer 

or overcome as we go beyond low-Earth orbit. The requirements to 

keep technology highly reliable with low resources to essentially 

break the tie back to the planet Earth—Space Station is resupplied 

all the time today by cargo vehicles to and from the Earth, but as 

we move human presence deeper into the solar system, we need to 

break that tie back with Earth, and the Space Station is a great 

testbed to test that technology, to understand the next generation 

of life support systems. You know, we tested the systems for many 

years on the ground terrestrially before we took them to the Space 

Station. They did not work nearly as well in space as we had anticipated because of the loss of gravity. The carbon dioxide removal 

system is still a problematic system for us on board Space Station. 

We can operate it and keep it working well but it’s not easy. We 

need to use the unique properties of Space Station to actually test 

that next generation of life support systems. Understanding how 

the human performs in space is important, and understanding even 

how we break that tie and we keep sensors like oxygen measurement devices calibrated for years without returning to the ground 

for recalibration. So I think station plays a pretty critical role. I 

don’t think we’ll have all those technology challenges done. We’re 

going to need some facility in space beyond 2024 to keep working 

as we break the tie of the planet and move human presence further 

into the solar system. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Dr. Dittmar, would you comment on that question, 

please? 

Dr. DITTMAR. I don’t think there’s any disagreement that we 

have to move off station. I think the only issue is when and how 

and what needs to happen between now and then. So it’s already 

been talked about that there has to be a transition plan of some 

type. I don’t know about you but I really like a certain amount of 

certainty, as a business owner in particular. I like it when I can 

predict outcomes. I don’t like it when I can’t predict outcomes. This 

is one of those circumstances where you just can’t really predict the 

outcomes. 

We do know that there are certain things that have to happen, 

right? We have to meet as many of the research objectives that are 
62 

involved in going to deep space as we possibly can, and NASA in 

fact has a risk matrix that it’s been burning down, okay, doing that 

kind of research. We know that we want to enable researchers like 

Dr. Ferl to be able to do as much research as they can, and we 

want to establish some mechanism to be able to continue to do that 

research after we’re finished with ISS. We know that for all the 

reasons that Bill just talked about and Eric just talked about, we 

want to be able to continue to have facilities available for people 

to do commercial development as well as to be able to test systems 

that we need to go into deep space. So the only real question is how 

do we get from here to there, right? I mean, that’s the question. 

That’s the one that’s sort of facing everybody. 

The kinds of things that we know we want to allow for more time 

for have to do with commercial development, the kinds of things 

that we’ve already been discussing here, learning what kinds of 

systems work we may need to do as we go forward into deep space. 

So do I think that this is a value to the Nation to continue doing 

this? I certainly do. The unique properties of microgravity are 

things that we’re just still starting to—I mean, we’re really just 

early in trying to figure those out. Think about when radiation was 

discovered and all the things that we’ve learned about what to do 

with that in the years since, right? We had no idea when we first 

started. That was a unique physical property, right? What we’ve 

learned to do with that in the decades and decades since is extraordinary. It’s actually in most aspects of our lives. So I think that it’s 

just—I hate to counsel patience but I’m going to counsel patience. 

We need a little bit more time, I think, to allow these things to develop before we can get a real clear view of what that transition 

looks like. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Those are very helpful responses. Thank you both, 

ma’am, gentlemen, for appearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this hearing. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony 

today. 

I want to ask Mr. Stallmer and Dr. Dittmar, can you speak to 

the readiness of the private sector to fly its own modules in lowEarth orbit without NASA assistance or physical attachment to the 

ISS? And then can you talk about what roles that NASA and ISS 

played thus far and what role can it should it play in the future 

for this? Mr. Stallmer? 

Mr. STALLMER. I think what you’re seeing right now with the flying of modules and the role of NASA in commercial is a tremendous partnership. It’s a partnership that I think can’t have one 

without the other, and I think what the assistance that NASA is 

providing is the technical assistance and some of the resources that 

are enabling these technologies to kind of crawl, walk, run. As I 

mentioned earlier, we saw this with Bigelow and we’re seeing this 

with the possibilities of Axion and what they’re looking to do. 

You know, time is going to be the best indicator of how we can 

move away to, you know, purely commercial space stations. I feel 

that the steppingstone that what is ISS and what they’re doing is 
63 

critical, and I think that partnership with NASA and the technology transfer and the investment that they’re making intellectually is really critical. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Dr. Dittmar? 

Dr. DITTMAR. I don’t have much to add to that except to say that 

there are things about learning how to operate in space that you 

can only learn by operating in space. It sounds ridiculous but it’s 

true. So when it comes to the development of commercial modules, 

I think that there are folks that are doing some really good work 

in thinking about how it is that they want to develop those, but 

a steppingstone approach where you have attachment to the station, for example, and you’ve got essentially the station resources 

available to you, knowledge available to you, that’s a reasonable 

approach. If you had a commercial provider that really wanted to 

go try and do it all, I’d be a little concerned about that, only because I think that really, there’s a unique knowledge set that just 

has to do with operations. It’s different than launch, it’s different 

than landing. All these things are a little bit different. 

So the partnership that NASA affords, I think, in developing 

those kinds of capabilities and sort of handing over that knowledge 

that’s been developed over all these years I think is critical to commercial success, really important to those people who were wanting 

to go in that direction, and it’s wonderful that NASA makes that 

available. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So will the ISS or a replacement and NASA work 

in cooperation with commercial operations, will it always be necessary in order for this to be viable, or do we not know? 

Mr. STALLMER. ‘‘Always’’ is such a tricky word, and as I said, you 

know, it’s a timetable—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. That’s why I said we probably don’t really know. 

Mr. STALLMER. Yeah. I do see the greater role that commercial 

is going to play, and I think, as we say these steppingstones, as we 

are making these technological breakthroughs at the ISS through 

microgravity, I see a greater interest in the investment community 

of enabling more commercial companies to do this and whether it’s 

on medical research or just technologies that will be applicable 

here on the ground, I think that you’ll only see that growing and 

with time you’ll see the commercial impact on the station grow. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Anyone else want to add anything on that? 

All right. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Dunn. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I spent the last few years on the board of Space Florida, very 

much a commercial sort of focused entity, and with some pride we 

like to say we actually ran that thing in the black, so I know there 

is a commercial niche for space. I’d like to sort of focus on the commercial niches of the ISS specifically so let me start with Mr. 

Stallmer. Can you quantify for me the likelihood that the ISS 

would be supported entirely by commercial partners by 2024 or at 

any other time frame? 

Mr. STALLMER. I think it would be hard to speculate by 2024. I 

think the commercial sector is moving in the right direction with 
64 

NASA to fully privatize the station. It would be difficult but—because I think you do need that expertise that NASA offers. But I 

see more and more breakthroughs, you know, with—and it’s going 

on in your state with the onset of the Commercial Crew program 

and the doubling of the crew that it would be able to work, more 

and more work on the station. I think that’ll move the ball in the 

right direction to a greater and greater commercial percentage to 

allow NASA to do those—— 

Mr. DUNN. Can you quantify, give me a percentage you think we 

can get to? Is it 50/50, 70 percent? 

Mr. STALLMER. I would love to see 50/50. I think that would be 

a great starting-off point and move in a higher direction. 

Mr. DUNN. Dr. Dittmar, same question, likelihood or, commercial 

balance versus NASA in the ISS? 

Dr. DITTMAR. Very difficult to quantify. What I would point 

out—— 

Mr. DUNN. That’s what we have to do, though. You’re going to 

help us. 

Dr. DITTMAR. I understand. One of the things I would point out 

is that the cost of ISS, when we talk about the operations, we’re 

talking about transportation as well as the actual operation of the 

vehicle, right? So let’s assume for a moment, let’s do a thought experiment, and let’s just say that you’re able to generate commercial 

revenues sufficient to support the entire operating cost of the vehicle itself, the M&O of the vehicle itself, that still leaves you right 

now—I know Bill’s probably going to correct me if I’m wrong here— 

about 1.7 Billion of transportation costs, roughly, which I would assume would go up over time. So one of the questions really is, is 

when are you generating enough business that you can start shifting the transportation costs back to the people who are actually 

generating the business. In other words, pay for your ride, right? 

Mr. DUNN. Yes. 

Dr. DITTMAR. And that’s for me actually even a more important 

question than the actual operations and the M&O part of the station. I think that’s a difficult one to call because it’s not just the 

United States, right? There’s an international component to that. 

I think it’s around half a Billion is being contributed right now by 

the international partners. So I’m much more interested in when 

you can start getting payback on the transportation end. 

Mr. DUNN. Good point. Thank you very much. 

Again, Mr. Stallmer, so how disrupting would it be to the commercial space industry to lose the ISS, if you just lost it entirely? 

Mr. STALLMER. I think it would be tremendously disruptive. 

Mr. DUNN. Can you quantify that? 

Mr. STALLMER. A hundred percent? We would lose—— 

Mr. DUNN. That’s what we’re talking about here at the end, 

right? 

Mr. STALLMER. That’s a number. We would lose our outpost in 

space where, you know, we’re doing all the low-Earth orbit experimentation, all the advance sciences. I mean, to lose the ISS would 

be critical, you know, in part on the transportation sector of where 

we’re going in space. It would, I think, infringe tremendously on 

our ambitions as a Nation for deep space exploration. 
65 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. Dr. Ferl, are you doing any commercial research or is it pure science? By the way, very near my district and 

home. So nice to have you here. Any commercial-based research? 

Dr. FERL. The simple answer to that question is yes. We’ve seen 

as—— 

Mr. DUNN. Well, I only have a minute so keep it simple. 

Dr. FERL. We’ve seen from the community over time increased 

interest in the industrial private commercial sector in doing experiments on station. By nature, those experiments involve scientists. 

Some of those scientists are within the company and some of those 

scientists are contracted by the company from—— 

Mr. DUNN. Are you working on the commercialization of a product by any chance? 

Dr. FERL. People are, yes. Am I? No. 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. That’s good. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And thank you all for 

your work. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. [audio malfunction in the hearing room.] 

Chairman BABIN. No, we can’t wait. I’m sorry. 

Then I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Crist. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I have— 

actually I have a question for Dr. Ferl, my fellow Floridian. I was 

curious, there’s a lot of discussion obviously today about the International Space Station. There’s also a lot of discussion about a potential mission to Mars, and I noticed that in some of you work 

you’ve looked into—let me get my eyes back on—the Haughton 

Mars Project in the Arctic is some of your body in work, and I was 

just curious if you had to prioritize between continuing the International Space Station beyond 2024 or pursuing getting to Mars 

sooner, how would you prioritize those two if you would, or do you 

think it’s just as important to simultaneously pursue both? 

Dr. FERL. I would agree with my compatriot from the other end 

of the table here who says there has to be a transition and basically a dual-use appreciation for all the science that occurs in 

space. The notion that the station stands sort of alone as the way 

in which we derive scientific benefit for the trip to Mars is too simplistic. And by the way, touching the commercial sector are all the 

other vehicles that also currently inform scientific research for that 

mission to Mars—suborbital space, parabolic flight. Commercial 

providers now are giving science the opportunity to develop the 

processes, experiences and data that it takes to get us to Mars. So 

the long way around to answering to your question is, I wouldn’t 

prioritize as a scientist one or the other but I would say that maximal use of every opportunity from ground-based studies that do 

analog environments through suborbital projects and on-station 

projects all richly inform that mission when we do decide to go to 

Mars. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you very much. To pursue that a little bit because getting to Mars is fascinating obviously, and what we might 

glean or be able to learn by, you know, that opportunity to explore 

it in greater detail fascinates me, but I can’t help but recognize the 

fact that this week I read in the press about the potential addi-
66 

tional discovery of significant amount of planets. Are you familiar 

with what I’m referring to? 

Dr. FERL. I am, yes. 

Mr. CRIST. I bet you are. And if you could elaborate on that, I 

would just be very grateful for your insight into what you think is 

happening, why they may have been missed prior or just—I’m a 

lawyer so I don’t—my dad’s a doctor and my sister’s a doctor but 

I don’t have your expertise and that’s why we appreciate you all 

being here today, or I do, for sure. 

Dr. FERL. From my perspective, the discovery of additional planets and additional Earth-like planets is simply going to continue 

and continue at a very rapid rate. We’re going to continue to find 

that there are more and more planets like ours and like Mars the 

better our observation opportunities progress. I would not be surprised at all if we find that planets like ours are quite common in 

the universe, and don’t be surprised the next time another handful 

of rocky Earth-like planets is discovered. 

Mr. CRIST. Well, if I could take it a bit further, we’re on a line 

of questioning, what do you think the possibilities or probabilities 

are that those planets that are similar to Earth would have any 

kind of life similar to ours? 

Dr. FERL. One hundred percent. 

Mr. CRIST. I would agree. I’ve always thought that it was almost 

arrogant to think that we’re like the only thing moving around the 

entire universe. 

Dr. FERL. Well, and again, I’d like to expand on that just a little 

bit, drawing back to—— 

Mr. CRIST. But that’s just a gut feel for me. For you, it’s a scientific conclusion. 

Dr. FERL. And drawing back to the matter at hand, as we take 

our biology, ourselves, the creatures that go with us as we go into 

space, we learn an awful lot about what it takes for life to move 

around the solar system and therefore life moving around the universe. So the human exploration mission that NASA currently provides also richly informs a lot of our information on where we are 

in the universe and tells us how easy, hard, difficult it is to move 

life around. So it does reach out to your question about, you know, 

what’s out in the universe in terms of other planets as well. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir, good questions. Thank you. 

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I may be the only one on the panel that was here when 

we approved the Space Station, and I think I was sitting way over 

there at that time, and I listened to all the arguments, and it was 

not a certainty that the Space Station would be approved because 

I remember that we were also trying to balance the budget at the 

time, and we had to take some budget considerations and put them 

into the debate. Can you tell us, can anyone on the panel tell us 

how much has already been spent now on Space Station from the 

time we voted to move forward with the project? 
67 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. As I said in my opening remarks, the num- ber we have is $67 Billion, and that includes the shuttle transportation costs is our current estimate. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Fifty-seven Billion dollars? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. No, 67. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Oh, 67? All right. Sorry, I came in about 15 

minutes late here for the hearing today. 

Okay. And if we maintain the Space Station, we decide to keep 

it in service, how much more will we be spending? Does anyone 

know that? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We’re spending about $3 Billion per year on Space Station. That’s made up of about $1.7 Billion of transportation costs. Those are the 13 percent of the global launch market, 

700 to 800 million for research, and then roughly about a Billion 

dollars for just operation costs on station. That’s U.S. costs. The 

international partners are also contributing to that overall. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I was going to ask, how much do our partners contribute? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. They’re probably contributing, the other 

three, probably roughly about a Billion dollars per year. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All of them together? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. All of them together. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. And how many partners do we have? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have the Canadians, Japanese and Russians, and Europeans. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Now, when we were being—and by the 

way, I voted for it. It won by one vote, and it was my vote, just 

so you know. 

There is one element here that people don’t realize. I’m not sure 

if the scientific research that has been done on the International 

Space Station has justified the expense of the $67 Billion that we’re 

talking about, and I’m not sure that’s the case, but there are other 

factors rather than just scientific research that come into play, and 

Space Station certainly renewed our national self-assuredness that 

we could do great things, and I think it’s hard to put a price tag 

on that, and when people are demoralized and they don’t think 

they can do great things, they don’t do great things, and that costs 

a certain amount of money. 

Let me also note that Space Station played and continues to play 

an important role in creating an image of peaceful cooperation between the two countries that were willing to destroy each other and 

destroy the planet for the 40 years prior to building the Space Station, mainly the Soviet Union, which now has devolved away and 

is now Russia, but the example of Russian-American cooperation in 

space, there had been an attempt at earlier on at a much smaller 

level, Skylab, but I think that the—Mr. Chairman, we have to 

make sure that we understand that especially in Russia but in the 

United States as well, we have examples of now even at this time 

intentions are very on the upswing now between Russia and the 

United States, that we have an example of cooperation of what we 

can do technologically rather than just building better technology 

of how to destroy one another. And so I would think that even 

though the promises—and I will add there were many promises 

that cancer would be cured. I mean, I sat and listened to them. 
68 

While I never did buy that, I hoped it would be true but I never 

really counted on that, but I do think that we can say that when 

we write our history of what was accomplished in the last century, 

Space Station will be up there on the list of great accomplishments 

and of things that showed there is a better way for mankind. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

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

I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you, and I agree with Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I think that the accomplishments of the Space Station are tremendous, and both scientifically as well as in connection with international relations. The ability of so many countries to work together, to cooperate, to face challenges together I think bodes well 

for us as humans, and hopefully we will continue to do that. 

Now, where I don’t agree with him and oftentimes that happens, 

is on the funding side of all of this, and I don’t—I mean, he was 

here during the budget discussions for the lab. I was here during 

the budget discussions for the banks, and we were somehow able 

to come up with $800 Billion over a weekend to save the financial 

system, and so when there is a priority, when there is a will, we 

can do a lot of things whether it’s an emergency or in a planned 

sort of setting, and I think we can maintain the laboratory and 

transition it to commercial operations and use over time and go to 

Mars. 

And so I would like to start with you, Dr. Dittmar, and just have 

you respond to sort of what I think we can do, and oh, by the way, 

I’ve always got to put my commercial up, which is to get to Mars 

by 2033. It says ‘‘We can do this.’’ 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would—would the gentleman yield for 15 

seconds? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. To my friend from California, sure. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just to remind you, I voted against the bailout of the banks. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Doctor? 

Dr. DITTMAR. I was going to be very disappointed if you didn’t 

flash that bumper sticker, so thanks for doing that. 

I like your vision, of course. I’ve been at this for not as long as 

some people around the table but enough of my life that I’m deeply 

invested in forward progress in space. To echo something that you 

said, Congressman Rohrabacher, I believe that aspiration is absolutely critical to advancing society and advancing the human condition, and I also believe that aspiring to do great things—the Space 

Station is certainly one of them, moving into deep space is another 

one, going to Mars is an extension of that. Aspiring to great things, 

especially great, I mean truly great, daunting goals that we set 

ourselves to forces us to advance not only our technology and our 

science but the human condition. 

The International Space Station, in my view, is an exemplar of 

this for the reasons that have already been discussed here. Having 

been involved in it when the transition was really occurring for the 

Russians coming on board, I can tell you that I used to sit in meetings where I had the Japanese on one side and the Russians on the 

other side and the Americans in the middle, and this represents a 

range of cultures in a whole lot of different ways, and the intensity 
69 

and focus of the individuals that are in that room to learn how to 

transcend language boundaries, cultural boundaries, technical 

boundaries and figure out how to work together is the reason that 

the ISS has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and I hope 

will be again. 

Going forward to Mars is that times 100. It’s a truly exciting 

goal, a very challenging goal. It will bring out the best of us in this 

country. There is no question in my mind that the United States 

must lead that way forward, and I believe that it’s worth the investment of our treasure and our resources and our commitment 

and our time over decades in order to be able to achieve that goal. 

I do believe it is achievable, and I think that we do have the resources to be able to reach it. We just have to choose to do it. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Stallmer, go ahead. 

Mr. STALLMER. I’d love to address that issue. I think at times 

when you look at cost, you have to look at intangibles and sometimes numbers aren’t always black and white. With $3 Billion as 

in the $3 Billion of investment this Nation makes on the International Space Station per year, look at maybe where that $3 Billion gets you at the Department of Defense. I can say that firsthand working at the Pentagon. My colleague up there, who also 

works with me in the Reserves, how do we spend our dollars, and 

I think when you put it in that perspective, if it’s a $3-Billion-ayear investment on what we’re doing in space, I would tell you that 

today there’s no place I’d rather be in this world than in front of 

you except for one other place: my daughter’s first-grade class is 

doing a field trip to the Air and Space Museum today, and I was 

supposed to chaperone it, but again, I’m here with you guys by 

choice. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. What time do you got to be there? 

Mr. STALLMER. It’s too late. It’s too late. They got there at 9:00. 

However, that being said, I get to talk to them enough and I get 

to see the excitement in their space, and to take—to look up above 

sometimes and to see the International Space Station with young 

people and to talk about the things that they’re doing up there and 

the vision that they have, that my daughter and my sons and this 

younger generation are going to have in space because of the investment, the $3 Billion a year that we’re spending. You know, 

there’s some things I don’t think you can put a price tag on, and 

I think that might be one of them. 

Now, in Congress, you’ve got to put a price tag on everything, 

and I certainly understand that challenge, but I think the benefit 

that we’re getting from an international perspective from just a domestic perspective of our leadership in the world I think is well 

worth the cost. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. And I thank you. And we’ve got to be smart 

with the people’s money, no ifs, ands or buts about it, but the intangible investments that we’re making, it’s hard to quantify it but 

we’ve got to consider that, so thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. STALLMER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. 

Now I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks. 
70 

Mr. BANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each of you 

for your testimony. 

I wonder if each of you could comment briefly on the impact of 

the Chinese station on commercial interests and low-Earth orbit 

and specifically what—in what ways might a Chinese station compete with commercial platforms? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, that’s difficult to predict exactly how 

that comes about or what happens but we’re also—you know, today 

as a national Space Station program, we have international agreements with all the countries I described earlier, and what works 

well there is we do a barter agreement where there’s no exchange 

of funds between us and the other countries so, for example, if the 

Europeans want to build a module, they do that investment in Europe and then that module flies to Space Station and is attached 

and is used for all of us and it’s to the benefit of all the partners. 

So that’s the basic model that the Space Station, the U.S. Space 

Station operates under. 

I could imagine the Chinese space station doing the same thing. 

I can see other countries interacting with China, and if we don’t 

have a U.S. space station, then that would be the only space station available essentially to go to for these agreements, and that 

could pull away from America’s leadership in space and technology 

towards China. 

So I think it’s important that we keep our focus, we use the private sector as we’ve been doing before to leverage the private sector 

as much as we can. That gives us a unique competitive advantage 

over other countries but I think there is a threat from the Chinese 

and their potential relationship with other governments and other 

countries that our international leadership role could be diminished unless we have a very strong human presence in space at 

that time. 

Dr. DITTMAR. I don’t have anything to add to that. 

Mr. STALLMER. I would just add that it would—I think it’ll push 

us harder as a Nation, as an industry, as a collective voice to work 

harder to achieve what we’re looking to achieve in space from a 

commercial perspective. I think there’s a laundry list of ambitions 

that we want to do in space, so it would be a challenge and a competitive nature, I think. 

Mr. BURNETT. And I can’t speak to the commercial impacts but 

I can tell you that leadership in science is an important thing for 

our science community, the role that the United States plays with 

regard to its current leadership. Its current ability to point science 

in the right direction is a very, very treasure that we would like 

to maintain. 

Mr. BANKS. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Banks. 

Now I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey. 

Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I appreciate everything today. 

I wanted to ask about some of the key objectives in order of priority that argued for extending ISS operations until 2024 and what 

is the status of progress on meeting those objectives. Mr. 

Gerstenmaier? 
71 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. One of the things that we need to do is, we 

need to understand how the human body performs or how the 

physiology works in microgravity environments so we can go further into space. We have 33 items that we track on a list of things 

such as bone loss, vestibular ability of the balance system, fluid 

shifts, those kind of things, tolerance to radiation. There’s 33 items 

listed on that list of which 22 are being actively mitigated or being 

investigated on board Space Station so those 22 items are helping 

us with that activity. Then separate from that, we’re testing life 

support systems. The Orion carbon dioxide removal system is on 

board the Space Station and has been operating, and we’re testing 

that system that is needed. 

And then also we’re working with the commercial and private 

sector to expand the ability of commerce in space. We have awarded some new contracts for cargo resupply to the Space Station. Sierra Nevada Corporation out of Colorado is going to be one of the 

providers for cargo in the future. They have a different vehicle that 

comes back and can actually land on a runway. We think that has 

some advantages to us in returning samples from space, not landing in a capsule in the water and then picking the vehicle up, so 

that’s another thing the station’s doing. It’s helping expand and 

help commerce get more experience. 

We’re also kind of teaching the private sector how to operate in 

space and build space stations and do those things, and then 

there’s some very fundamental research activities on station that 

are very unique. There’s the alpha magnetic spectrometer, which 

looks for dark matter, looks for kind of the high-energy particles 

traveling through space. That research is purely fundamental in 

nature. We’re about ready to fly an experiment called the Cold 

Atom Lab, which will be the coldest location in the universe where 

we can essentially take a molecule and despin the molecule and 

look at basic physics principles. That can be done absolutely nowhere else in the world, and that’s a pure fundamental research 

of basic physical science. 

And I’m sure some of the other members on the panel here can 

add some more, but those are the things that we said we would do 

between now and 2024, and those things that we are actively working on today as we go through the operations on Space Station 

every day. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Dittmar, Mr. Stallmer, Dr. Ferl, anyone else want to comment? 

Dr. FERL. I’d be happy to jump in there just a little bit on a couple of the notions that Mr. Gerstenmaier put forth. One is that the 

science behind some of the technology challenges that he mentioned, for example, the fluid shifts in biological systems and the 

management of life support systems involve physical and biological 

principles that are now being understood because of Space Station. 

In other words, the notion that you have to fix fluid shifts in humans is an interesting technological challenge. Understanding the 

reason behind them and how you might mitigate them before they 

occur is a scientific challenge. So too with the movement of fluids 

and particles in biological systems and in physical systems such as 

the ECLSS system that supports human respiration and function. 
72 

The additional notion is that the ecology within a closed environment such as the International Space Station is a unique environment to study what happens when humans and their microbes and 

their plants and their entire life system are kept in close quarters, 

and this informs a lot of clean building and other technologies here 

on Earth. But the other thing is that it is a scientific challenge to 

integrate across the biological and physical domains, not only to 

understand how to get into deep space but just to understand them 

better, period. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Well, I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the 

Members for their questions. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and written questions from Members. 

And so with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(73) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
74 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. William Gerstenmaier 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Responses by Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Responses by Mr. Eric Stallmer 
88 
89 
90 

Responses by Dr. Robert Ferl 
91 

(93) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
94 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE

RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
95 

Æ