U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–136PDF 2014

MARS FLYBY 2021: THE FIRST DEEP SPACE 

MISSION FOR THE ORION 

AND SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Serial No. 113–66 

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 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 27, 2014 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chairman, Subcommittee 

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

Representatives .................................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 10 

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

Witnesses: 

Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George Washington 

University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

General Lester Lyles (ret.), Independent Aerospace Consultant and former 

Chairman of the Committee on ′′Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil 

Space Program′′ established by the National Academies 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Mr. Doug Cooke, Owner, Cooke Concepts and Solutions and former NASA 

Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

Dr. Sandra Magnus, Executive Director, American Institute of Aeronautics 

and Astronautics 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 50 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 58 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, George Washington 

University ............................................................................................................. 80 

General Lester Lyles (ret.), Independent Aerospace Consultant and former 

Chairman of the Committee on ‘‘Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil 

Space Program’’ established by the National Academies ................................. 91 

Mr. Doug Cooke, Owner, Cooke Concepts and Solutions and former NASA 

Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate .......... 100 

Dr. Sandra Magnus, Executive Director, American Institute of Aeronautics 

and Astronautics .................................................................................................. 117 
Page

IV 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................... 128 

Letter from Explore Mars expressing their support for a short-term flyby 

mission to Mars, submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology .................................................. 130 
(1) 

MARS FLYBY 2021: THE FIRST DEEP SPACE 

MISSION 

FOR THE ORION AND SPACE LAUNCH 

SYSTEM? 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Mars Flyby 2021: The First 

Deep Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch System.’’ I 

will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member for an opening statement. 

At a fundamental level, space exploration—the mission of 

NASA—is about inspiration. This inspiration fuels our desire to 

push the boundaries of the possible and reach beyond our own pale 

blue dot. 

For years, I have heard countless stories of how NASA inspired 

students to study math, chemistry and physics and adults to become scientists and engineers. However, some of these same people 

now feel that NASA no longer inspires them, their children or 

grandchildren. 

Mankind’s first steps to the Moon are a distant memory, and, 

with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA now is paying Russia $70 million per seat to transport American astronauts to the 

International Space Station. There is a sense that America is falling behind, with our best days behind us. Today, America’s finest 

spaceships and largest rockets are found in museums rather than 

on launch pads. 

Regrettably, the Obama administration has contributed to this 

situation. Within a few months of taking office, the President canceled NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the Moon, and in its 

place, the President proposed a robotic and human mission to an 

unnamed asteroid. NASA’s own advisory group on asteroids derided this plan and said, ‘‘It was not considered to be a serious proposal.’’ 

At a hearing before this Committee, all of the witnesses questioned the merits of the proposed mission. While consensus on Capitol Hill might be hard to find, there is general agreement that the 

President’s asteroid retrieval mission inspires neither the scientific 

community nor the public, who would foot the bill. 

So what is an inspiring mission? Maybe a journey to Mars. The 

red planet has long intrigued mankind. A Mars flyby with two astronauts onboard NASA’s Orion crew vehicle could use the Space 

Launch System that NASA is developing. This flyby would take advantage of a unique alignment between Earth and Mars in 2021 

that would include a flyby of the planet Venus. This alignment 

minimizes the time and energy necessary for a flyby. Under the 

2021 proposal, a trip to Mars would take roughly a year and a half 

instead of two to three years. 

We are not the only Nation interested in extending humanity’s 

reach into the Solar System. One of the three major space-faring 

nations will reach Mars first. The question is whether it will be the 

United States or China or Russia. 

Great nations do great things. President Kennedy’s call to the 

Nation wasn’t just about reaching the Moon, it was a reminder 

that we are an exceptional nation. We must rekindle within NASA 

the fire that blazed that trail to the Moon. 

The future of this Nation’s exploration efforts lead to Mars. The 

first flag to fly on another planet in our solar system should be that 

of the United States. 
9 

NASA, the White House, and Congress should consider this Mars 

flyby mission proposal. It will focus NASA’s energy and talent over 

the next decade, and most importantly, it will inspire our Nation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

At a fundamental level, space exploration-the mission of NASA-is about inspiration. This inspiration fuels our desire to push the boundaries of the possible and 

reach beyond our own pale blue dot. 

For years, I have heard countless stories of how NASA inspired students to study 

math, chemistry and physics and adults to become scientists and engineers. However, some of these same people now feel that NASA no longer inspires them, their 

children or grandchildren. 

Mankind’s first steps on the Moon are a distant memory. And, with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA now is paying Russia $70 million per seat to 

transport American astronauts to the International Space Station. 

There’s a sense that America is falling behind, with our best days behind us. 

Today, America’s finest spaceships and largest rockets are found in museums rather 

than on launch pads. 

Regrettably, the Obama administration has contributed to this situation. Within 

a few months of taking office, the President canceled NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the Moon. And in its place, the President proposed a robotic and human 

mission to an unnamed asteroid. 

NASA’s own advisory group on asteroids derided this plan and said, ‘‘it was not 

considered to be a serious proposal.’’ 

At a hearing before this Committee, all of the witnesses questioned the merits of 

the proposed mission. While consensus on Capitol Hill might be hard to find, there 

is general agreement that the President’s asteroid retrieval mission inspires neither 

the scientific community nor the public, who would foot the bill. 

So, what is an inspiring mission? Maybe a journey to Mars. The Red Planet has 

long intrigued mankind. A Mars Flyby with two astronauts onboard NASA’s Orion 

crew vehicle could use the Space Launch System that NASA is developing. 

This flyby would take advantage of a unique alignment between Earth and Mars 

in 2021 that would include a flyby of the planet Venus. This alignment minimizes 

the time and energy necessary for a flyby. Under the 2021 proposal, a trip to Mars 

would take roughly a year and a half instead of two years to three years.We are 

not the only nation interested in extending humanity’s reach into the Solar System. 

One of the three major space-faring nations will reach Mars first. The question is 

whether it will be the U.S. or China or Russia. 

Great nations do great things. President Kennedy’s call to the nation wasn’t just 

about reaching the Moon, it was a reminder that we are an exceptional nation. We 

must rekindle within NASA the fire that blazed the trail to the Moon. 

The future of this nation’s exploration efforts lead to Mars. The first flag to fly 

on another planet in our solar system should be that of the United States.NASA, 

the White House, and Congress should consider this Mars Flyby mission proposal. 

It will focus NASA’s energy and talent over the next decade, and most importantly, 

it will inspire our nation. 

Chairman SMITH. I am going to yield the remainder of my time 

to the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee, the gentleman from 

Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. 

The future of human space exploration is one that is personal to 

me. As other space-faring nations expand their programs and look 

to destinations such as the Moon and Mars, I consider American 

leadership in space as a matter of national pride but also national 

security. 

This Committee has been consistent in its commitment to human 

exploration. Yet, over the last decade, the human exploration program at NASA has been plagued with instability from constantly 
10 

changing requirements, budgets, and missions. We cannot change 

our program of record every time there is a new President. 

My Subcommittee and this full Committee passed a NASA Authorization Act last year that calls on NASA to develop a steppingstone plan to Mars. We must ensure that future exploration endeavors lay the groundwork for an eventual human landing on 

Mars. 

This Committee must also maintain strong support for the nextgeneration deep space vehicles: the Space Launch System and 

Orion crew capsule. I have visited Marshall Space Flight Center, 

which is leading development of the SLS rocket, and I have had the 

opportunity to see SLS engine tests firsthand at Stennis Space 

Center in my own backyard in south Mississippi. I believe we are 

on the right track but we must remain budget-focused and missionvigilant. 

I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say today. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE CHAIRMAN STEVEN PALAZZO

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding this hearing today. The future of human space exploration is one that is personal to me. 

As other space-faring nations expand their programs and look to destinations such 

as the Moon and Mars, I consider American leadership in space as a matter of national pride but also national security. 

This Committee has been consistent in its commitment to human exploration. Yet, 

over the last decade, the human exploration program at NASA has been plagued 

with instability from constantly changing requirements, budgets, and missions. We 

cannot change our program of record every time there is a new President. 

My Subcommittee and this full Committee passed a NASA Authorization Act last 

year that calls on NASA to develop a stepping stone plan to Mars. We must ensure 

that future exploration endeavors lay the groundwork for an eventual human landing on Mars. 

This Committee must also maintain strong support for the next generation deep 

space vehicles: The Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule. I’ve visited Marshall Spaceflight Center, which is leading development of the SLS rocket, and I’ve 

had the opportunity to see SLS engine tests firsthand at Stennis Space Center in 

my own backyard in South Mississippi. I believe we are on the right track. But we 

must remain budget-focused and mission-vigilant. 

I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say today. Thank you Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. 

And if there is no objection, I would like to put in the record a 

letter from Explore Mars expressing their support for a short-term 

flyby mission to Mars to be put in the record, and if there is no 

objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman SMITH. And now I will recognize the gentlewoman 

from Texas, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for her opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Good morning. I want to join the Chairman in 

welcoming our witnesses to today’s hearing. I look forward to your 

testimony. 

I see that the hearing title asks the question: ‘‘Mars Flyby 2021: 

The First Deep Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch System?’’ Given that 2021 is currently the estimated date for the very 

first crewed mission of Orion, period—not just its first deep space 
11 

mission—I would guess that the likely answer will turn out to be 

‘‘no.’’ I doubt that a flyby of Mars will ultimately be considered to 

be an appropriate first shakedown flight for the new crewed spacecraft given the risks involved in a year-and-a-half trip to Mars and 

back. 

However, I think this hearing does provide a good opportunity to 

again stress that we need a clear, thoughtful roadmap for our Nation’s human exploration program. Successive NASA Authorization 

Acts have made clear that Congress believes that Mars is an appropriate goal for our Nation’s human spaceflight activities. It is time 

for NASA to tell us how they intend to achieve that goal. What 

technologies will be needed, what sequence of intermediate destinations should be pursued, and why, and what are the risks that will 

need to be addressed? 

We also need to hear from NASA about the progress being made 

on the Space Launch System and on Orion, the two systems that 

are critical to our exploration efforts beyond low Earth orbit. What 

are the challenges they are facing, how will they be used to support 

NASA’s roadmap to Mars, and are they being adequately funded to 

meet the milestones laid out for those two programs? 

Mr. Chairman, NASA has not been invited to participate in today’s hearing. That is unfortunate. I would urge you to schedule a 

follow-on hearing with NASA so that we can get a status report on 

the Space Launch System and Orion, as well as hear what NASA 

is doing to develop a strategic roadmap for human Mars exploration. We need to hear from NASA if we are to properly assess 

its human exploration program and the funding that will be proposed for it when the President submits his budget request to Congress next week. 

It will also be relevant for this Committee as we move forward 

on our reauthorization of NASA. Our Nation’s human exploration 

program can inspire our youth, advance our technological capabilities, and support our geopolitical objectives. However, it can only 

do those things if we are willing to keep our commitment to the 

dedicated men and women at NASA and elsewhere who are working hard to carry out the challenging tasks we ask them to undertake. As a National Academies’ panel has observed, and I quote, 

‘‘There is a significant mismatch between the programs to which 

NASA is committed and the budgets that have been provided or 

anticipated. The approach to and pace of a number of NASA’s programs, projects and activities will not be sustainable if the NASA 

budget remains flat, as currently projected. This mismatch needs 

to be addressed if NASA is to efficiently and effectively develop enduring strategic directions of any sort.’’ 

The long-term goal of humans to Mars, if properly pursued and 

supported, will inspire, will spur innovation, will promote international cooperation, and will advance science. In short, it is a goal 

well worth investing in. 

With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
12 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Good morning. I want to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses to today’s 

hearing. I look forward to your testimony. 

I see that the hearing title asks the question: ‘‘Mars Flyby 2021: The First Deep 

Space Mission for the Orion and Space Launch System?’’ Given that 2021 is currently the estimated date for the very first crewed mission of Orion, period—not just 

its first deep space mission—I would guess that the likely answer will turn out to 

be ‘‘no.’’ I doubt that a flyby of Mars will ultimately be considered to be an appropriate first ‘‘shakedown’’ flight for the new crewed spacecraft given the risks involved in a year and a half trip to Mars and back. 

However, I think this hearing does provide a good opportunity to again stress that 

we need a clear, thoughtful roadmap for our nation’s human exploration program. 

Successive NASA Authorization Acts have made clear that Congress believes that 

Mars is an appropriate goal for our Nation’s human spaceflight activities. It’s time 

for NASA to tell us how they intend to achieve that goal. What technologies will 

be needed, what sequence of intermediate destinations should be pursued and why, 

and what are the risks that will need to be addressed? 

We also need to hear from NASA about the progress being made on the Space 

Launch System and on Orion, the two systems that are critical to our exploration 

efforts beyond low Earth orbit. What are the challenges they are facing, how will 

they be used to support NASA’s roadmap to Mars, and are they being adequately 

funded to meet the milestones laid out for those two programs? 

Mr. Chairman, NASA was not invited to participate in today’s hearing. That is 

unfortunate. I would urge you to schedule a follow-on hearing with NASA so that 

we can get a status report on the Space Launch System and Orion, as well as hear 

what NASA is doing to develop a strategic roadmap for human Mars exploration. 

We need to hear from NASA if we are to properly assess its human exploration program and the funding that will be proposed for it when the President submits his 

budget request to Congress next week. 

It will also be relevant for this Committee as we move forward on our reauthorization of NASA. Our Nation’s human exploration program can inspire our youth, 

advance our technological capabilities, and support our geopolitical objectives. However, it can only do those things if we are willing to keep our commitment to the 

dedicated men and women at NASA and elsewhere who are working hard to carry 

out the challenging tasks we ask them to undertake. As a National Academies’ 

panel has observed: 

‘‘There is a significant mismatch between the programs to which NASA is committed and the budgets that have been provided or anticipated. The approach to 

and pace of a number of NASA’s programs, projects, and activities will not be 

sustainable if the NASA budget remains flat, as currently projected. This mismatch needs to be addressed if NASA is to efficiently and effectively develop enduring strategic directions of any sort.’’ 

The long-term goal of humans to Mars—if properly pursued and supported—will 

inspire, will spur innovation, will promote international cooperation, and will advance science. In short, it is a goal well worth investing in. 

With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, and I will now introduce our witnesses. 

Our first witness is Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy 

Institute and a Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at 

George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. Prior to his work at George Washington University, Dr. Pace 

served as NASA’s Associate Administrator for Program Analysis 

and Evaluation and as the Assistant Director for Space and Aeronautics in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Pace holds a bachelor’s in physics from Harvey Mudd College, master’s degrees in Aeronautics and Astronautics and in 

Technology and Policy from M.I.T. and a Ph.D. in policy analysis 

from the RAND Graduate School. 

Our second witness is General Lester Lyles. In 2003, General 

Lyles retired as the Commander, Air Force Material Command at 
13 

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Prior to his command at 

Wright-Patterson, General Lyles served as Vice Chief of Staff at 

U.S. Air Force Headquarters and commanded the Space and Missile System Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base. General Lyles 

received his bachelor’s in mechanical engineering from Howard 

University and his master’s in mechanical and nuclear engineering 

from New Mexico State University. 

Our third witness, Mr. Doug Cooke, is an Aerospace Consultant 

with over 40 years of experience in human spaceflight programs. 

Mr. Cooke retired from NASA after a 38-year career at Johnson 

Space Center and NASA headquarters, where he served as the Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. Mr. Cooke led efforts to adopt the current vehicle designs 

for the Orion and Space Launch System. He also had senior leadership responsibilities during critical periods of the space shuttle, 

International Space Station and human exploration, human 

spaceflight programs. Mr. Cooke is a graduate of Texas A&M University with a Bachelor of Science degree in aerospace engineering. 

Our final witness is Dr. Sandy Magnus, Executive Director of the 

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the world’s 

largest technical society dedicated to the aerospace profession. 

After being selected to the NASA Astronaut Corps in 1996, she 

flew on Shuttle missions in 2002 and 2011 and spent four and a 

half months on board the International Space Station. Dr. Magnus 

followed her work on the ISS and the Exploration Systems Mission 

Directorate at NASA headquarters and served as Deputy Chief of 

the Astronaut Office. Prior to her work at NASA, Dr. Magnus 

worked for McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company as an engineer 

working on stealth aircraft. She holds a bachelor’s in physics and 

a master’s in electrical engineering from the Missouri University of 

Science and Technology. She earned her Ph.D. from the School of 

Materials, Science and Engineering at Georgia Tech. 

We welcome you all and appreciate your being here and appreciate your expertise, and Dr. Pace, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SCOTT PACE, 

DIRECTOR OF THE SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE, 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Dr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Johnson, for providing this opportunity to discuss the topic of a strategic 

framework for U.S. human spaceflight, and specifically the opportunity of a human flyby and return to the vicinity of Mars in 2021, 

which is only seven years from now. 

A primary challenge to creating a practical and sustainable program of human space exploration is not the lack of ambitious goals 

but the difficulties in organizing a practical sequence of projects to 

achieve larger strategic objectives. We also know space agency 

budgets are under great fiscal and political pressures and funds to 

build a large human-capable lunar lander, much less support 

human landings on Mars, are unlikely in the next decades. 

Fortunately, the debates of recent years and a literal alignment 

of the planets provides an opportunity to bring together several 

major programs, destinations and policy objectives into a sustained 

effort of human space exploration. As you will hear, a sequence of 
14 

affordable human space exploration missions could begin with 

Orion and SLS flights to cislunar space followed by a manned flyby 

of Mars, taking advantage of the 2021 alignment and the SLS. The 

2018 window, of course, for Mars is even more favorable but the 

SLS and other necessary capabilities are unlikely to be ready in 

time. 

Following a Mars flyby and the demonstration of the ability to 

reach Mars with humans that is feasible, the United States, international and private partners could begin a series of human and 

robotic lunar missions in the 2020s, phasing in as the ISS reaches 

the end of its operational life. These missions would build operational experience and demonstrate the technologies necessary to 

eventually land humans on Mars. 

The international consensus in places such as the International 

Space Exploration Coordination Group has coalesced around 

cislunar operations as the next logical step beyond the ISS. There 

are many cooperative ventures that we could talk about but the 

Mars flyby mission serves as an interesting bridge, a potential 

bridge, between where we are with the ISS, where we would like 

to be with Mars and where are our international partners and commercial opportunities are with human spaceflight beyond low Earth 

orbit. 

This approach that we are describing is consistent with the national space policy and Congressional direction. In a constrained 

budget environment, it allows major program elements to be 

phased in affordably. Conducting the Mars flyby in 2021 with a 

schedule firmly dictated by orbital mechanics would drive nearterm program planning and decisions on how to rationally trade 

costs, schedule, risk and performance goals. 

We need a vision and a strategy to be a preeminent space-faring 

nation. As many know, I have argued for taking a more geopolitical 

and international approach focused on the Moon. NASA has rightly 

said it doesn’t have the funds for a lander right now. The White 

House has wrongly said that it is uninterested in the Moon and 

has failed to connect the dots, in my opinion, of an exploration 

strategy that serves broader national interests. A Mars 2021 

human flyby would, as I said, provide kind of a bridge bringing together Mars and lunar community and in many ways may offer a 

faster and more efficient way of returning to the Moon. 

Much more detailed programmatic planning is urgently needed 

with respect to a 2021 deadline for a human flyby. Cost estimates, 

risk assessments, architectural trades are needed to see whether 

programmatic phasing and peak funding requirements are indeed 

feasible and supportable, and if borne out, the Mars 2021 flyby 

should become a top priority for NASA’s human space exploration 

activities after the safe operation of the International Space Station. 

I thank you for your attention and I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Pace follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Pace. 

General Lyles. 

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL LESTER LYLES (RET.), 

INDEPENDENT AEROSPACE CONSULTANT 

AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

‘‘RATIONALE AND GOALS OF 

THE U.S. CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM’’ 

ESTABLISHED BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

General LYLES. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Johnson and 

Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to 

speak to you today on issues concerning the nascent human 

spaceflight program. I am a Member of the National Academy of 

Engineers. I specifically chair the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council, which is part of the 

Academy. The National Research Council was created in 1967 to 

focus talents and energies of the engineering community on significant aerospace policies and programs. 

The ASEB works in concert with the NRC’s Space Studies Board. 

We work hand in hand, and over the past decade we have looked 

at various studies associated with programs related to space exploration and all of the activities that NASA is involved in. 

I also was a member of the 2004 President Bush Space Commission that looked at the implementation of the United States, new 

United States at the time, space exploration policy. I was part of 

that activity lead by Pete Aldridge, the former Secretary of the Air 

Force, and we came up with some very strong recommendations 

that we think underpin the current space exploration program that 

NASA is currently embarked upon. 

I also had the honor in 2009 to be part of the Augustine Committee. Norm Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, as 

you well know, was asked by the Administration and by the Congress to look at the civil space program and human space program 

for the United States. We were chartered specifically not to come 

up with recommendations but to look at options on how we might 

conduct space exploration for the United States. 

And then finally, I had the honor in 2009 of chairing an independent National Academies study titled ‘‘America’s Future in 

Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs.’’ 

The formal task of that commission, rather, was to look at the rationale and goals for our civil space program for the United States, 

and we specifically came up with recommendations to align our 

space program to the national needs of the United States. Hopefully during questions and answers I’ll get a chance to elaborate on 

each one of those previous studies. 

I will go back and mention that the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board has not specifically addressed all of the questions 

that you are interested in in this particular hearing. However, we 

have done a lot of things, I think, that touch upon the key elements 

and key concerns and opportunities associated with going to Mars, 

associated with space exploration, and certainly associated with the 

Mars flyby opportunity. 

In 2012, specifically, the Aeronautics and Space Engineering 

Board, the National Research Committee and the National Acad-
25 

emy itself completed reviewing a series of NASA space technology 

roadmaps. We provided NASA with what we considered to be a 

very comprehensive list of technologies that need to be addressed 

if there was going to be any chance of getting to Mars even in the 

year 2030, 2020 time frame. We provided that to NASA. They embrace it, as I understand, and our recommendations for a technology roadmap are the underpinnings for the current technology 

programs that NASA has embarked upon. Those technology roadmaps indicated that there are several high-priority technologies 

that require further development in categories such as radiation 

mitigation for human spaceflight, environmental control, life support systems, space propulsion, et cetera. It was a very, very comprehensive activity conducted over a year-and-a-half time frame, 

and again, it underpins most of the technology programs that 

NASA is currently embarked upon. 

Relative to the Mars flyby task that we are specifically looking 

at here, in my personal opinion, the Inspiration Mars proposal provides, I think, an exciting opportunity for our space exploration 

program and certainly for NASA. It certainly is one that would provide vision. It addresses many of the concerns that each of the 

studies I participated in was concerned with including technology 

and technology maturation but, in my opinion, and based on my experience of 35–1/2 years in the Air Force, mostly developing space 

systems or high-technology systems, it does have high risk associated with it. Scott Pace just described some of the things that need 

to be addressed—looking at cost, looking at risk and looking at 

technologies—but to me it is something that needs to be addressed. 

I think it fits in some respects with most current space policy and 

certainly with the things that were addressed in the studies that 

I touched upon. 

Mr. Chairman, I will stop my remarks there. I have provided 

some specific written comments, and I look forward to your question and the opportunity to talk about some of the previous studies 

in more detail in the Q&A. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Lyles follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, General Lyles. 

Mr. Cooke. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. DOUG COOKE, OWNER, 

COOKE CONCEPTS AND SOLUTIONS 

AND FORMER NASA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR EXPLORATION SYSTEMS MISSION DIRECTORATE 

Mr. COOKE. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Johnson and Members of the Committee for this unique opportunity to discuss with you the exceptionally important need for a 

space exploration roadmap and specifically how a human Mars 

flyby mission in 2021 contributes to long-term exploration goals. 

It is long past due for the United States of America to have a 

cogent, meaningful plan for human space exploration. At a time 

when there is so much potential to make significant progress, I am 

more concerned than ever about the future of human space exploration due to the current void in long-term direction. We are, in my 

opinion, in dire need of a strategic plan consisting of logical goals 

supported by tactically placed specific missions that lead to landing 

of astronauts on Mars. 

Logically sequenced missions should address science exploration 

and other objectives. International collaboration is essential but the 

United States must lead. Capabilities and technologies should be 

developed incrementally and paced with available budgets. Every 

mission undertaken and every capability developed should contribute to long-term exploration objectives. Investments in current 

NASA human spaceflight programs are important, providing a balanced and solid foundation for human space exploration including 

the International Space Station, crew and cargo transportation to 

low Earth orbit and the Space Launch System Heavy Lift Rocket 

and Orion capsule. These are the critical building blocks of an exploration infrastructure. 

Additional enabling capabilities, technologies and research including advanced in-space propulsion, space radiation research and 

protection, cryogenic fuel storage, closed-loop life support systems, 

spacesuits, entry, descent and landing technology and others 

should be the focus of NASA technology programs. 

First, we need a long-term roadmap that can gain traction 

through debate and refinement by stakeholders and advocates of 

the various approaches beginning with human Mars-Venus flyby 

mission in 2021, a unique mission opportunity with a free return 

trajectory made possible by the exact Earth-Venus-Mars planetary 

alignment. It is the least complex profile for reaching the Mars vicinity. The next comparable flyby opportunity is not until 2033. 

The mission provides an opportunity for an incredible first step 

that will make travel to Mars real to the people of the world, demonstrating previously unimaginable possibilities in the span of a 

few short years. 

The essential capabilities for such a mission are an SLS vehicle 

with a fully capable upper stage, a habitat with an advanced life 

support system and an Orion capsule with an advanced heat 

shield. A human mission to a large asteroid in its own orbit would 

be achievable with these same capabilities. The most logical next 

steps for the 2020s are mission to our own Moon. Space-faring na-
35 

tions including China and Russia are all very interested in the 

Moon. Astronauts would collect samples in high-priority locations 

already identified by scientists to learn about the history of the 

sun, Earth and solar system. They will employ certain operational 

techniques and test systems in the hostile lunar environment that 

will prepare for future human Mars surface operations. 

After initial lunar missions, Mars’ moons Phobos and Deimos, become logical destinations. Missions will require efficient propulsion, 

possibly through evolution of solar electric propulsion technology 

used today, nuclear electric propulsion, electric plasma engines or 

nuclear thermal propulsion. Astronauts will be in close proximity 

to Mars for a period of weeks harvesting science samples and operating robots on the surface with minimal communication delays. A 

mission to Phobos and Deimos would inspire and prepare us for an 

ultimate landing of crews on the Martian surface. 

A human landing on Mars will require a large lander capable of 

atmospheric entry, surface habitat, nuclear surface power, lightweight spacesuit, a rover and other assets. Human missions to 

Mars will be challenging and tremendously momentous as astronauts explore the planet most like our own. 

There is a logical progression and meaningful missions. I believe 

Americans will be motivated to support appropriate but reasonable 

budgets that are commensurate with the value of the plan and the 

work needed to accomplish it. We cannot afford to delay or prolong 

the debate because timing is critical to catch the unique planetary 

alignment that makes the first step possible in 2021. NASA should 

seriously consider these concepts and challenges and objectively examine how they can be accomplished. 

With a long-term plan, we can provide our youth and the rest of 

the world a future marked by technological progress and discovery 

that will inspire all to higher aspirations. In the process, we will 

regain U.S. leadership in space exploration with a cadence of 

achievements. 

I thank you for inviting me. I also want to thank this Committee 

and your staff for your continued leadership in human spaceflight. 

I will be happy to answer questions. 

I do have a short video clip if you have time. It is 40 seconds. 

Chairman SMITH. Why don’t we proceed and hear the video clip? 

Is that all right with the Ranking Member? Okay. Yes. 

Mr. COOKE. This video clip will show the mission, the mission 

trajectory starting from Earth, and then show what it might look 

like to go past Venus and Mars. So you will see a trajectory path 

hopefully that gets to the Venus vicinity by April of 2022. This is 

what the crew would look and see—Venus as it flies by, not this 

fast, and then a Mars flyby in October 2020–2022. They would 

have about 40 hours of looking at Mars when it is at least as big 

as the Moon is from the Earth, and there would be an Earth return 

in June 2023. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cooke follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Chairman SMITH. That is great. That is the first time I have seen 

it sort of the practical application of the proposal. Thank you, Mr. 

Cooke. 

Dr. Magnus. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. SANDRA MAGNUS, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF 

AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS 

Dr. MAGNUS. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and 

distinguished members. I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

address you today concerning the future of human spaceflight. 

I was asked to address the importance of having an exploration 

architecture and strategic framework to guide NASA’s investments 

in space. In order to understand how important this is, I think we 

need to examine the trajectory of human spaceflight program over 

the previous decades. 

As we all are very well aware, President Kennedy’s famous 

speech to Congress on May 25, 1961, challenged the country to 

land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth within the 

next decade. Even though Kennedy’s proposal was a noble goal, it 

was just that: a goal. Underlying that goal was neither a long-term 

strategy nor vision let alone political consensus for how or what the 

United States should do in space, and because of this view, our 

space program has since suffered in the absence of a long-term 

strategic vision. We instead planned and executed short-term tactical goals outside of a larger defined stable framework, and this 

is the operational load we are still working under today. 

So what has been at the heart of the problem of identifying and 

committing to a consistent national long-term strategic plan for the 

United States space program? Unfortunately, I believe that part of 

the problem is buried in human nature and our difficulty as humans in focusing in general on the long term and coupled with our 

inherent short-term attention spans as the Federal Government 

turns over at least a fraction of its governing structure every two, 

four or six years and the barriers to a long-term consistent strategy 

become painfully apparent. 

It is important to acknowledge these issues and overcome them 

together as we determine the course for our country and space for 

the next few decades. We live in interesting times. We find ourselves at a pivotal point where private enterprise leveraging off of 

the foundational and groundbreaking work that the government 

has been conducting for the last five decades feels that it understands the risk-reward equation well enough to start engaging in 

activities in low Earth orbit. But government has a role that it 

must continue to play in space exploration and utilization. The role 

of the government is to do the hard things: invest in the research 

and development the industry cannot and to take on the tasks and 

push the boundaries the private sector will not. Our strategy 

should consider how do we want the United States to be leveraged 

for future roles in space both in commercial and civil and low 

Earth orbit and beyond. It should not be an ‘‘or’’, it should be an 

‘‘and.’’ Our plan, our vision needs to be long term and stable in nature and comprehensive in scope, well thought out and well-articu-
49 

lated, and most importantly, fully resourced and executable. And finally, we need to maintain our long-term focused and steadfast 

commitment to our strategy on the order of a decade or so at a 

minimum. 

So the question being addressed today is, can the Mars flyby mission be a candidate for deep space mission for the SLS System. I 

would say it is certainly one of many possible missions that could 

result but once again let me caution you: let us not return to the 

misguided lessons of the past. Any mission chosen cannot be done 

merely with the mindset of accomplishing a goal without clearly 

being tied to an overarching strategy. A mission such as the Mars 

flyby or an asteroid retrieval or a lunar base should be put in the 

context of required longer-term strategy. In the context of a coherent strategy, the appropriate missions will be defined logically 

based on the requirements developed within that strategic framework. The Mars flyby, thus, can only be discussed in the context 

of a larger strategy and the associated missions and operational 

goals. 

I would like to underscore that any plan, whether its goal is to 

retrieve an asteroid, establish a lunar base or send people to Mars, 

is doomed to failure without the resources to support it, resources 

provided in a sustained and sustainable manner based on realistic 

projections. 

NASA has found itself often in a position where it is given tasks 

to perform but then provided inadequate resources to fulfill them. 

Failure to adequately resource such large-scale endeavors from the 

outset inevitably leads to higher costs and inefficiencies. We must 

have a long-term commitment. 

Currently, NASA gets about five-tenths of a percent of the U.S. 

budget. If we are going to be a Nation that has a future in space, 

a nation with a strong strategic plan and the will to execute it, 

five-tenths percent of the national budget is simply not adequate. 

The Nation has some major budgetary issues to address. I will not 

deny that. But the heart of our budget problems does not lie in an 

increasingly small fraction of the budget available to discretionary 

programs like NASA. 

I believe a strong, stable, strategically directed and appropriately-resourced space program is vitally important to our country. A sustained national commitment to such a program will not 

only benefit our country economically but also will serve as a 

strong motivation for our younger generations to pursue challenging and exciting careers in science, math and engineering, an 

intangible benefit but an important one. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee, 

and thank you for your continued support of the United States 

space program. I look forward to discussing this issue with you further, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Magnus follows:] 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Magnus. 

I will recognize myself for questions, and let me address my first 

one, Dr. Pace, to you, and that is, how does the possible Mars flyby 

benefit from the continuing development of SLS and Orion? Are 

they a good fit for each other? 

Dr. PACE. Well, yes, I believe they are a good fit. I mean, one of 

the things that is the challenge for Mars flyby is of course on return, that you are coming in at a very, very high speed, so some 

of the experience from the Orion program developed for a lunar return, high speed, is also applicable to the high-speed returns you 

would require from Mars. The size and volume of the SLS is also 

very helpful. Many payloads on long-term exploration architectures—Doug Cooke can speak to this even better than I can—you 

wind up being volume constrained, so the large volumes than an 

SLS can place up also are very helpful for our lunar and Mars exploration efforts, and of course, the propulsion capabilities that the 

SLS provides are really going to be quite impressive, and I should 

note that one of the requirements in here is a high-performance 

upper stage, a dual-use upper stage, to provide the kind of transMars injection velocities that you are going to need. But if we are 

going to be a spacefaring Nation, going to the Moon, going to Mars, 

asteroids and other destinations, then a workhorse heavy lift capability like this is integrally necessary to the Nation to have. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. 

Pace.immovableimmouable? Are we going to be able to stay on 

track with SLS and Orion? What would be required for us to meet 

that deadline? 

Mr. COOKE. Yes, sir. I believe that 2021 is possible if the focus 

is put on getting that mission on our books. I think the development of the SLS is well underway. It would take a commitment to 

develop the upper stage in the time frame that we are talking 

about. We would need a small hab, perhaps using an existing 

structure but with advanced life support, which actually the Inspirations Mars Foundation contributed money to develop in the last 

year, and Orion would have to get there. But there are enough 

years ahead of us that I believe it is definitely possible but obviously you have to focus on it near term in order to accomplish it. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cooke. 

General Lyles, I appreciate your encouraging comments, and 

wanted to ask you and Dr. Magnus a question, but if I may set it 

up first. Even though you are encouraging, we all recognize that 

there are challenges there to achieving this particular mission. 

There are risks and technological challenges that would include, for 

example, trying to figure out a way the radiation would not be as 

dangerous, carrying sufficient fuel and food and water and so on. 

Dr. Magnus, you mentioned JFK’s announcement in 1961 about 

getting to the Moon within a decade. He beat that by a couple of 

years. But the point is that when Apollo was announced, no one 

had any idea how to accomplish that mission. The technological 

challenges were almost thought to be insurmountable and yet we 

achieved them. So I guess I don’t feel like the challenges here are 

any greater than NASA faced in 1961 and yet did a magnificent 

job of achieving the goal that had been set by President Kennedy. 
59 

General Lyles, do you think even though we have these challenges, do you think that it is possible that we can make the technological breakthroughs, that we can accomplish what we need to 

do in order to meet the 2021 deadline? 

General LYLES. Mr. Chairman, I think my personal opinion is 

yes, we can. I would never underestimate what the American spirit 

can do and American innovation and American interest in technology can do. 

My concern, tempered a little bit by experience in looking at previous programs, not just NASA programs but Department of Defense high-technology programs, you never know for sure exactly 

what you are going to encounter, those unknown unknowns to 

quote one of our former Secretaries of Defense. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

General LYLES. There was a comment that we made in the Aldrich Commission, the President Bush space commission, that I 

think is very applicable here. It was a pay as — excuse me — goas-you-can-pay sort of strategy. It was looking at a specific goal, 

whether it is going to a flyby of Mars or whatever it might be and 

making sure that every step that you are taking advances towards 

that goal and being flexible enough to take advantage of technological achievements that we can’t estimate right now or even some 

technological challenges that we probably can’t estimate right now. 

The focus, somewhat like Doug Cooke mentioned, is to make sure 

we have a long-term goal and to focus on getting there and not be 

deterred in terms of that is our mission. I think the American spirit is such that we can do that but we have to have the focus. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Thank you, General Lyles. 

Dr. Magnus, anything to add? I know you mentioned the strategic vision as well as the practical, but do you think we can do 

it? 

Dr. MAGNUS. Well, I would certainly echo General Lyles. We can 

do anything we put our minds to, and it seems like my whole adult 

life we have been 20 years from going to Mars, and it really just 

comes down to a matter of national will and commitment. If we decide as a country that it is important for us to go to Mars, we will 

do that because we will be given the community, the resources and 

things like that. 

But I would like to comment. As we discussed what going to 

Mars means, we have to be aware of, once we get to Mars, what 

are we going to do there. I mean, one of the problems with the 

lunar program, which was a great program, I am not certainly implying anything negative came out of that, but we went to the 

Moon and it was like okay, we have been to the Moon, now what, 

you know, we have been there, done that, and we shouldn’t go back 

again. So we need to have a big-picture plan. What are we going 

to do? We are going to do Mars and we are going to do X, so we 

just don’t go to Mars and then we stop going to Mars because we 

have now been to Mars. So that is why when I was speaking about 

a long-term strategy, that is what I am talking about. 

Chairman SMITH. The larger vision. 

Dr. MAGNUS. The bigger picture, our goals, our objectives, what 

are we going to do there, things like this. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Magnus. 
60 

The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Lyles, what criteria should Congress use to assess the 

adequacy of an exploration roadmap such that it can garner sustained support and funding from successive Congresses and Administrations and how can Congress ensure that the roadmap is adaptable to evolving technologies tied to scientific discoveries and can 

be a source of inspiration to future generations? 

General LYLES. Congresswoman, I think Congress is owed in 

some respect a better definition of what NASA’s technology roadmap is today. I would mention again the technology roadmap that 

was provided by the National Research Council, the National Academy to NASA in 2012, and I think if we look at that very closely, 

it gives you sort of a measure, is NASA really focusing on the kind 

of technologies that the academic community has mentioned are 

the right things to do if you are going to advance space exploration. 

That gives you sort of a barometer, if you will, a measuring stick 

to see if they are doing the right kind of things or even if the resources are adequate to do that. 

I would also recommend, Congresswoman, the study that I led on 

rationale and goals for our civil space program. We specifically titled the report that we gave back what aligning the civil space program to national needs. Whether those national needs, those greater national needs are energy, climate, health, environment, I think 

is an opportunity to ensure that our civil space program even going 

to Mars as a flyby has adjuncts to it that relate to the other greater 

national needs that are of such importance to the citizens of the 

United States, and knowing and understanding that linkage is another barometer that Congress can look at to see if these programs 

are indeed not just giving us an opportunity to go to Mars but also 

addressing things that are critically important to the United 

States. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

What is your assessment of the progress being made by the SLS 

and Orion, Mr. Cooke? 

Mr. COOKE. I believe that great progress is being made. As I understand it from reports, SLS is ahead of schedule. They will have 

their critical design review this year. There are parts, pathfinder 

parts for the tanks being made as well as flight hardware. I think 

that there is a pathway forward this year to get to qualification 

motor firings for the boosters. They have had successful tests of the 

test motors, very successful that were predicted and resulted in— 

they had results right on the money. The Orion vehicle is being 

worked out at the Cape right now down at Kennedy Space Center, 

getting ready for a test flight in, I believe it’s planned in September 

at this point. Ground facilities are being modified and gotten ready 

at Kennedy Space Center as well, so the programs, I believe, are 

making very good progress. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Dr. Pace, would you like to comment? 

Dr. PACE. Thank you. I guess I don’t have anything to add to 

what Doug Cooke has said about the SLS programming. I have the 

same impression that he has in terms of the progress being made 
61 

in terms of people focused on hardware. As we sometimes said in 

NASA, head down, coloring hard. People are working away at it. 

What I would like to add is to echo a comment from Dr. Magnus 

on the need for a larger context for all of these things. I think that 

is absolutely true for asteroid retrieval missions, it is true for a 

lunar base, it is true for a Mars flyby mission, and I think that the 

larger context that we are often missing is some of our national security and our foreign policy interests in civil space cooperation. 

Civil space cooperation is not something done just for fun or even 

just only for inspiration, as important as that is. It is also a way 

of drawing other countries to us and having them work and cooperate and participate with us. We as a country are more dependent 

upon a peaceful, quiet and stable space environment than any 

other nation in the world. There are many, many new players coming into the world who are active in space and many of them don’t 

have the kind of experiences that we have. 

So how do we bring them into the community of spacefaring nations, to act in responsible ways? Getting them involved in cooperation, getting them involved in caring about having a peaceful and 

stable space environment is something that I think is deeply in our 

national security and foreign policy interest. So to the extent that 

we can create cooperative opportunities on the Moon, Mars, asteroids that provide opportunities for other countries to work with us, 

we will be protecting our own national security and that is a longterm geopolitical interest this country will have. 

President Kennedy met a short-term geopolitical interest with 

his lunar decision. We have, I think, an opportunity to serve our 

long-term national security and geopolitical interests with a program of space exploration. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, the Vice Chairman of the Committee, is recognized. 

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

when I first heard about this concept of the flyby with Mars, 

human flyby, it was presented to me by a man who I deeply admire, Dennis Tito, who is a man who has inspired many, many 

Americans with his own courage and his own vision accomplished 

years ago and then over the years has been very, very creative in 

his approaches to space. But one of his first — and it was a great 

idea, but his proposal to me was — and to us was a project that 

was fully funded by the private sector, and now all of a sudden it 

is not funded by the private sector anymore. It is the same mission 

but now it is going to come out of the public sector money. And 

while I thought it was a great idea, people were willing to take the 

risks and spend the money in the private sector, I think this is a 

foolhardy use of very limited government resources as compared to 

if private people want to put their money up. 

General Lyles, good to see you again, sir. Always great to see 

you. 

And you talked about 35 years in the Air Force and how you understood high risk that is associated with various projects. There 

is a very high risk associated with this, is there not? 

General LYLES. Congressman, yes, there is—— 
62 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

General LYLES. —whether you are talking the technology itself 

or even from a policy perspective and certainly the funding aspect 

of it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The—both the technology end of it, both the 

funding end of it, and both the actual accomplishing the mission 

is just—there are many, many risks, a lot more risks than other 

things that we might accomplish in space with the limited dollars 

that we have if we expended those dollars toward those other goals. 

Isn’t that the case? 

General LYLES. Congressman, I would not disagree with that but 

I think that is one of the reasons why I think it is very important 

to look at how that particular idea, a Mars flyby, could be linked 

to other things that we are already doing. The program that we are 

currently embarked upon, whether you call it asteroid retrieval or 

whatever the right title is, there are aspects of the technology we 

are developing for the current program, obviously SLS, Orion, that 

could be applied to a mission such as the flyby. I am not quoting 

a specific time—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

General LYLES. —so I think it could be linked to other things. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, but that is just for the Space Launch 

System, undo other things. General, when we are talking about the 

risk, what would you say? Would you—if you had to put your own 

money into this, let’s say you had to bet your mortgage money, 

would you bet your mortgage money on the success of this mission? 

General LYLES. Congressman, my money wouldn’t get us very 

far, probably at all. But the answer is right now in terms of a vision, innovative idea, I like it. In terms of understanding all the 

risks, I would be reluctant to put my own money into that until I 

better understood what all the challenges are. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much being very frank 

with us on that. 

And, Dr. Pace, the—you just mentioned the cooperative efforts, 

how important that is and for all nations to participate. Are there 

any other nations involved with putting money into this project? 

Dr. PACE. No. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. That is it. Thank you. I appreciate 

that. There isn’t. 

Mr. COOKE. Could I—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. There are not. And—— 

Mr. COOKE. Could I add one thing? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. COOKE. There were initial conversations on the possibility of 

contribution of a habitat structure. I mean obviously all those kind 

of things have to—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. COOKE. —play their course, but there have been some initial 

discussions—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Mr. COOKE. —internationally. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There are some discussions. All right. When 

we go from some discussions to actually commitments, so there is 

a lot of space between those two. 
63 

Now, let us note that this is a mission that has to be accomplished in seven years. I mean we have to do this within that 

seven-year period. All of these factors have to be together. And 

then the technology has to work, and I think isn’t this mission the 

very first mission that an SLS is going to have and it has got to 

happen within that seven year period? Would you like to give us 

your estimate as to—guesstimate as what the chances of—I mean 

you have followed programs. How many have really met their deadline in last few years? Yes? 

Dr. MAGNUS. I am sorry. I wasn’t aware you were addressing it— 

well, I think, again, if we really wanted to do this and we committed to do it, we could do it, but that means it has to be fully 

resourced with the appropriate manpower and money—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Now, when you said—— 

Dr. MAGNUS. —and everything else. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —the word—the most important words you 

use and you used when you testified was the word ‘‘can’’ and 

‘‘could.’’ 

Dr. MAGNUS. Yeah. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is a lot different than ‘‘will.’’ 

Dr. MAGNUS. Exactly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And the fact is that do you really see that 

the—right now that there is a commitment in this country so that 

we don’t start down this trail, spending a lot of money and then 

at the end of the trail not an accomplished mission because the will 

wasn’t there? 

Dr. MAGNUS. Yeah, that is the big problem. We don’t have a really strong commitment for a long-term vision for our space program—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we don’t have it now but we should move 

forward on this even though we don’t have that? Well, now—— 

Dr. MAGNUS. If you recall in my testimony, I commented that 

any mission that we do, whether it is a lunar mission or an asteroid mission or the Mars flyby all needs to be in the larger context 

of what are we trying to do long-term as a country in space—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah—— 

Dr. MAGNUS. —and we need to make that plan—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman’s time has long since expired. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Give the gentleman just—— 

Chairman SMITH. And—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —10 seconds, and that is just to say there 

are many great space projects that we need to fund. 

Dr. MAGNUS. Um-hum. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. There are many of them and this—— 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not funding this would mean—not that we 

are retreating from space. 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentleman from California, Dr. Bera, 

is recognized. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ranking 

Member, for calling this important hearing today. 

You know, I think we have done our job as Congress and as this 

Committee and Subcommittee really codifying this commitment to 

future deep space exploration and we want to see that happening. 
64 

I think in the opening remarks by the Chairman and Ranking 

Member, as well as the opening remarks for all the witnesses, 

there is a consistent theme here. We need a vision and a strategy. 

And, Dr. Magnus, you talked about having this broader strategic 

vision, you know, where do we want to go and then setting concrete 

goals. And I couldn’t agree with you more. 

I mean I grew up in a time—many of us grew up in a time when 

we were curious. We set goals. We didn’t how we were going to get 

to that goal. You invoked President Kennedy setting out that goal. 

We grew up in a time where we talked about what we could do as 

Americans. General Lyles, you talk about if we want to do this, we 

can do it. We don’t shy away from that challenge. In fact, we can 

meet that challenge if in fact that is what we want to do. So we 

have got to set that goal. 

We have had the opportunity to meet with Administrator Bolden 

a few months ago again expressing this commitment to set—for 

NASA to set a goal, for the Administration—the President to set 

a goal. We are working—with this Committee we have drafted a 

letter to the President because we want to see that commitment. 

We want to see a clearly articulated strategy from the President 

that says here is what we are going to do, here is the time frame 

we are going to do it in, and here is how we are going to get there. 

We need that as a time frame. 

Dr. Pace, you touched on this is just not about going to Mars. It 

is in our geopolitical and national security interest to also, you 

know, continue to reaffirm our commitments and our, you know, 

leadership in space because it is increasingly a national security 

issue. It is increasingly a geopolitical issue. With that, I look forward to working with our Committee and Subcommittee as we 

push the President to clearly articulate a commitment to deep 

space exploration. 

With that, let me ask, you know, some of my questions. Dr. Magnus, I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to have a strategy here and that we have to have clearly defined goals. What 

would you articulate as the President were sitting right here, what 

that strategy should be? 

Dr. MAGNUS. Well, clearly, there has been enough discussion 

around Mars that the consensus in the community is that is our 

ultimate place to go. I think we still need to flesh out the what are 

we going to do when we get there and what is going to be our sustaining effort on Mars? Are we going to set up a base and have people visit it occasionally? What kind of science are we going to do? 

What kind of technology do we need to develop there to move even 

further beyond? So I think we still need some discussion about 

that. 

But in that context, then, I think the questions you need to ask 

are what the kind of—what technology needs to be developed, what 

capabilities are important for our country to develop versus how we 

might leverage international cooperation, because I think it will be 

an international effort so we have to look strategically at the capabilities and the technology and the types of experience we want our 

country to lead in and then build that into the plan. Then we have 

to look at where we are from an industrial viewpoint, how we want 

to leverage the architecture to continue the utilization of low Earth 
65 

orbit, and then what series of missions do you use to build up these 

capabilities and demonstrate them to reduce the risk of going to 

Mars? And those are the questions that would frame that plan. 

Mr. BERA. Fabulous. In a matter of 30 seconds you have laid out 

a strategy, a goal, and some steps to reach that long-term goal. 

Part of this also is all the additional benefits we get when we 

stretch our goals. I am a physician by training. I can think of innumerous medical benefits as we deal with how we are going to deal 

with the radiation risk, how we are going to deal with the subzero 

temperatures and so forth. And there are tons of applications that 

are going to come off of this, tons of jobs that will be created off 

of this. 

So, again I wholeheartedly encourage the President and again 

with this Committee and look forward to working to push the 

President to clearly articulate what that strategy is, that goal is so 

then we can do our job in Congress working towards hitting that 

goal. 

And again, I would say we are country that doesn’t shy away 

from challenges. If we set a goal and we clearly articulate that 

goal, I think to quote General Lyles, never underestimate what the 

American spirit can do. And I wouldn’t. If we want to do this in 

seven years, we will do it in seven years, but let’s actually make 

that commitment. Thank you. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. Thank you, Dr. Bera. 

The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Palazzo, is recognized. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It has often been said that space exploration is a ‘‘go as we can 

afford to pay’’ endeavor. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Congress has 

consistently provided more funding for the Orion and Space 

Launch System than the Obama administration has requested over 

the past several years. Congress has placed a higher priority on 

human spaceflight than the Obama administration. The current 

schedule for NASA’s first manned flight is 2021 on the Orion and 

SLS, but that is based on the President—on President Obama’s 

budget plan, not the higher budget level that Congress has authorized and appropriated over the past several years. 

So my question for Dr. Pace is in terms of affordability for a 

Mars 2021 flyby or other space exploration endeavors like a return 

to the Moon, it is about setting budget priorities. In your opinion, 

what priority has the Obama administration’s budget proposals 

given to human spaceflight compared to other priorities for NASA? 

Dr. PACE. Well, I think there has been a decline in the overall 

NASA budget certainly over the last several years. It has been 

quite volatile. The top line has vibrated quite a bit and exploration 

monies have declined. So monies have shifted over into other priorities, certainly climate change research, technology work, all of 

which are perfectly reasonable and important things to do, but 

human space exploration has seen a long-term decline. 

But even more critical than the money I think has been the lack 

of a sense of, well, what do you do next? For example, what comes 

after the space station? What are the next steps that we are going 

to engage with other countries in? 

I generally have a very positive view of the President’s national 

space policy, which by and large I think is a very well-written and 
66 

thoughtful document. The section of it that I disagree with is one 

on exploration because I don’t think it sets out a clear set of milestones; it doesn’t set out a clear set of priorities. So it is understandable that the monies that NASA does get often get diverted 

into other things other than human space exploration because the 

national policy itself doesn’t really clearly articulate what those 

priorities ought to be. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Mr. Cooke, in your assessment, approximately how 

much more money would be needed beyond the President’s budget 

plan to accelerate the first crewed flight on the Orion and how 

much more money would be needed to meet the 2021 flight to 

Mars? 

Mr. COOKE. I would say at this point there is more work that 

needs to be done on the 2021 mission. A fair amount of work did 

go into studying the technical aspects of the 2018 mission by the 

Inspiration Mars Foundation. I think that questions should be 

asked of NASA to go look at this mission seriously and get to an 

understanding of what it takes, along with taking advantage of the 

work that has been done in the 2018 mission. But to my knowledge 

there has not been a detailed cost analysis of this. I would hesitate 

to state a number. 

But I would say that the directions that would be taken in terms 

of developing the large upper stage for SLS is what is needed longterm. There are synergies that can be brought into that because of 

the work currently going on in the core stage of the vehicle in tooling and actually in the design process. The—there are structures 

that can be used for the habitat. There is work that has gone on, 

on a more advanced life support, which is important for this flight, 

and the Orion vehicle was designed for missions beyond Earth 

orbit. 

So I believe there are steps that are not unreasonable and 

could—with a commitment—as has been discussed, with a commitment, I think it is a reasonable approach, but the mission needs 

to be looked at in the terms, once again, of a long-term plan so we 

know how it feeds forward. And I believe it does. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you. 

Dr. Magnus, as a former astronaut and Deputy Chief of the Astronaut Office, as well as an accomplished engineer and Executive 

Director of the world’s largest technical society dedicated to the 

global aerospace profession, how would a Mars flyby mission be 

perceived by those individuals responsible for designing and flying 

such a mission? And understanding that you do not officially speak 

for them, would astronauts be comfortable with the risk posed by 

such a mission? 

Dr. MAGNUS. Well, I can state quite frankly any mission that you 

can come up with that sends people into space, you will have plenty of volunteers to go. That is unquestionable. I mean there are 

people signing up to go one way to Mars regardless of the definition. That is the pull of spaceflight. That is the pull of space exploration on everybody. 

Now, as an experienced astronaut, the questions that I would ask 

at this moment where the mission definition is coming together is 

what exactly does the life-support system look like? You know, how 

were—how is it working? What kind of redundancies are you going 
67 

to have? The radiation question is still a big question, understanding—we are getting some data from Curiosity of course in its 

traverse. And even currently I would want to understand a little 

bit more about how we are going to design to fix the radiation problem. 

And then after I came back, if I was going to be exposed to a lot 

of radiation and accept that as a risk, what were you going to do 

to take care of me long-term if ten years from now some weird 

thing happens to my body? I would ask those kind of questions. 

I would also ask, as someone who is going to be an operator on 

a mission like this, what am I going to do during the mission itself? 

There is a lot of work to do on the Space Station. We are extremely 

busy on the Space Station. We do have time to relax and sort of 

decompress a bit. And you guys have very challenging work schedules here and I think you understand that when you are busy, time 

is flying by. You are feeling like you are very useful and you are 

contributing to something. But if you are sending two people to 

Mars on a flyby, they are going to need something to occupy their 

time. They are going to—so I would want to know what am I going 

to be doing during the mission as well? 

I would want to understand the systems and the mission parameters. You know, you are asking me to take this risk and what are 

we going to get out of it? What is the goal? What context is it in? 

What comes next? How does this work into the bigger plan? So 

these are the kind of questions that I would be asking. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. 

The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking 

Member and to the witnesses today for your testimony. 

I have to say it has been interesting to listen to the concerns that 

have been expressed about the budget because, of course there 

were people who were perfectly prepared to see NASA operate 

under sequestration levels that would certainly—would never get 

us to an overarching vision to make our way to Mars and back. 

And so I am glad that we have tried to change this conversation 

a little bit and look realistically at what it is that the space community needs to do, the scientific and research community, but also 

NASA. 

I have been really—and I am, Dr. Magnus, one of those people 

who would probably certainly volunteer to leave this committee 

and the Congress and go to Mars and not return, but nonetheless, 

I do think that there are some questions that we need to answer 

and I think, Dr. Magnus, you have laid those out quite well. 

I am really—I am curious as to what you all think the Congress 

needs to do in terms of directing NASA in terms of a timeline to 

provide a roadmap that would be reasonable then if we were to 

proceed along this goal to 2021 and then into the 2030s. So do we 

need to be more directive in terms of asking for something back 

from NASA by a date certain? And do we need to say to the Agency 

you and who else around the table should come up with the roadmap and the plan? 
68 

My fear is that it might be left to Members of Congress who have 

no real scientific expertise at all to be able to determine whether 

it is the Moon or a Lagrangian point, the International Space Station, or an asteroid that makes most sense for precursor missions 

to get us on our way to Mars. And so I would hate to leave it to 

us to do that, and I would like you to help me think through who 

needs to be around the table and by when do we need something 

so that we can begin the kind of planning that we need for budgets 

and programming. 

So any of you, if you have some comments about that. 

General LYLES. Congresswoman, let me just take a quick stab at 

that if you will from perhaps a little different perspective than 

some of the other witnesses might espouse. I would hope that the 

Congress would look at NASA as an agency from an enterprise perspective, and by that I mean when I go back and look at President 

Bush’s original space exploration program that was laid out and 

the Commission that I served on as part of that, we looked at the 

broader sense of space exploration. Even the space policy, the new 

space policy that Scott talked about looks at space in a holistic 

sense. Human spaceflight is just one element of that and I would 

hope that the Congress, when considering budget needs and budget 

concerns for the Agency, would look at the broader context of space 

exploration and even if I add for the first A in NASA, the aeronautics needs for this Nation and look at it from a broad sense of 

understanding how all of those contribute to the needs for the 

United States, whether it is addressing other national needs, as I 

mentioned earlier, whether it is addressing the broad needs of 

space exploration, but look at it all in a holistic manner, not just 

human space and going around Mars. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks, General Lyles. 

Dr. Pace? 

Dr. PACE. Thank you. I would actually say that the 2010 NASA 

authorization bill, certainly at the policy level in terms of framing 

what the Congress’ priorities are, is really quite good. I mean I 

would personally like to see some of that language maybe incorporated into the national policy. So in terms of a philosophy and 

a priority, I think that is already there. 

I think we know some of the constraints that bound the analysis 

that NASA would have to do, continuing the space station through 

2024, the capabilities of SLS and Orion being available. We know 

the international community longer term is interested in Mars, but 

we also know the international community in the near term has 

coalesced around cislunar space. The global exploration strategy, 

the technical discussions that the international space exploration 

coordination groups have done, they all see cislunar space as an 

area that is challenging but reachable for them to do. So those 

major pieces—space station, Mars, the cislunar space operations, 

where the international community is—those major pieces are actually all largely in place. So the analysis that needs to be done is 

more at the cost, schedule, and risk standpoint, which I think is 

within what NASA can do. And if you add—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. So when should we expect something like that 

back so that we can begin to act on it? 
69 

Dr. PACE. I think if you ask—if you tasked NASA to generate 

some architectural trades like that and they put some series of efforts into it, I think on the order of a few months would be perfectly reasonable. Tons of these architectural works have already 

been done. Doug Cooke has done and read most all of them. I 

would be hard-pressed to think of one he hasn’t read. And so the 

material and information is there. I think it is really the cost and 

the budget analysis and programmatic phasing of what is sustainable is really the most—biggest uncertainty. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So is it a matter of simply giving NASA a directive and a time frame so that we can then begin on the process—— 

Dr. PACE. With some clear constraints and that if certain requirements can’t be met or certain budget caps and whatever can’t 

be met, then a prioritization of what you relax, so a sense of priorities in order for programmatic management trades to take place. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. I appreciate so much your work and this important topic of 

really creating vision for our future. I especially want to thank my 

fellow Illinoisan, Dr. Magnus, for her amazing work and amazing 

story. I just love reading your biography and all that you have 

done. So I appreciate you being here and appreciate your great 

work. 

I want to address my first question to Mr. Cooke. In your written 

testimony you say that a long-term plan should be adaptable based 

on discoveries and budget realities. In order to provide consistency 

to long-term goals, the Committee has passed the NASA Authorization Act. It calls for the exploration roadmap to be updated every 

four years. I wonder should the plan change more often than that 

or do you think that risks and leads to instability? 

Mr. COOKE. Well, I think it depends on what level of change you 

are talking about of course, and I think it is valuable to ask for an 

update on a regular basis. I believe that if discoveries are made 

that are really profound, that we will all be talking about it when 

that happens. And those are the kind of things I am talking about. 

The Mars Science Program is an example where they have had 

roadmaps for years and they adapt almost after every mission because they make discoveries and it points new directions. It doesn’t 

mean that you want to throw away everything that you are doing 

in terms of an infrastructure. You want to understand this longterm plan such that it is adaptable. You want to have the heavy 

lift rocket on the front end. That is a critical first step, the capsule 

you need no matter what. But I think a long-term plan helps guide 

you in what your infrastructure is. You can, as you go along, foresee some changes. But I think it all can be done if you keep in 

mind that the flexibility should be there. 

Mr. HULTGREN. So just to clarify, for our responsibility, would 

you endorse flexibility to be written into its design that allows for 

updates on an as-needed basis? And I wonder if you could just talk 

quickly about how could a Mars flyby fit into that type of roadmap? 
70 

Mr. COOKE. Yes. And—so I do believe that there should be flexibility, as I said. And in my written testimony I went into a lot more 

detail than I was able to do in five minutes on all of this. And, in 

fact, back in May I testified and put together how you might go 

about putting together a long-term plan. 

I believe that the Mars flyby mission does fit. I mean I can view 

a series of steps I outlined very quickly here, but I can view a series of steps that builds capabilities as you go, and each step contributes to the next step and builds on what has already been done. 

The Mars flyby mission, in my view, brings the Space Launch System capability up to a level of performance that will be needed 

longer-term than the initial test flight capability. 

I believe that the life-support system in a small hab is usable. 

If there are to be asteroid missions, you can use it—you would 

want it in going to an asteroid. It would be valuable in cislunar 

space. That is a capability that has long-range benefits. Then 

bringing the Orion capsule to its full capabilities is beneficial for 

a series of missions and a roadmap—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Let me jump on that if that is okay and open 

this up to everybody else as well, whoever might have a response 

in my last minute or so here. Dr. Paul Spudis’ written testimony 

from last year’s hearing notes the shift to the flexible path for 

human exploration that focused on the development of technology 

rather than a destination. What would you say were the most important exploration technology achievements of the past three 

years and how do you think these achievements would have differed if our space program were guided by a specific destination? 

Any of you have any thoughts? 

Dr. PACE. I think—first of all, I don’t think there is any disagreement that NASA needs to develop new technology. There is a ton 

of new technology needs that should be put—made available to us 

and NASA is working a lot of them. The problem is, is how do they 

prioritize, you know, those technologies because you can’t do everything at once? So then the question is, is how do you prioritize? 

What is the policy objective? When people talk about destinations, 

they often do it in terms of a physical destination, you know, Moon, 

Mars, asteroid, as if it is either/or. 

And I think what you are hearing from this group is, well, we 

sort of want all of the above but the destination we are trying to 

get to is not just a physical destination in space. It is actually a 

capability for the country, the ability to operate anywhere we want 

in cislunar space, the ability to lead other countries in exploration 

missions beyond Earth orbit. And so in order to prioritize those 

technologies, we need to set costs and schedules and risks and 

tradeoffs and decide what is more important than something else. 

That is where the longer-term context and plan comes in. And 

I think that if we have a larger policy objective of where we want 

the United States to be, the physical destinations fit into a sequence. You can then say and these are when we need to hit various technology milestones. 

One of the great flaws of the current capability-driven approach 

and flexible path and all that sort of thing is that people then 

argue for whatever their favorite technology is and it is not against 

an external metric, an external customer that you are trying to 
71 

meet. It is people just working on really neat and important things. 

And in a fiscally constrained environment, that isn’t really terribly 

helpful. 

So having a policy context and then a series of destinations as 

policy destinations is probably the most efficient way to spend taxpayer dollars and prioritize those technology investments. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I appreciate that. Again, thank you all so much. 

Thanks, Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Lyles, you mentioned in your comments earlier that 

NASA—that Congress was due or owed a technology roadmap from 

NASA, and then you also said in your opinion there was four national needs: energy, climate, health, and environment. Where did 

you get that outline? 

General LYLES. Congressman, my first comment about old—the 

technology roadmaps sort of stem from the research and study done 

by the National Academies a couple years ago and provided to 

NASA. It laid out technologies that we thought were critical towards achieving the objective and the goals somewhat articulated 

by Dr. Pace and Dr. Magnus of space exploration and making sure 

we understand the kind of things that we need to address if this 

Nation is going to advance towards that broader goal of achieving 

and maintaining superiority in space exploration. 

So the—I think since we provided it—we the Academy have provided that to NASA and it really is the underpinning for the technology things that NASA is doing today. I think the Congress 

needs to better understand what it is they are doing and what was 

provided to them from the National Academy of Engineers. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, the reason I am asking is it seems to 

me that there is a fifth item that is probably missing. You don’t— 

and I don’t know if you all considered it or discussed it, but you 

didn’t mention national security and I would argue that some of 

the things we gain by having an understanding of space and space 

superiority, you know, as you know, in military the—whoever occupies the high ground has the upper hand and there is no higher 

ground in space. 

General LYLES. Well, Congressman, I agree with that 1,000 percent. In our report that I was quoting from about those other national needs, national security is the first one. I didn’t mention it 

in my notes but it is the first one. And, as an example, other things 

like health, environment, climate, et cetera, believe me, I resonate 

with the need to ensure that whatever we are doing in space underpins and supports our national security needs for the United 

States. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Well, I just wanted to ask that because I 

wrote those down when you said that and I thought it was conspicuous by its absence. And I agree with you that Congress needs 

to understand—there are a lot of things Congress needs to understand—better understanding of. 

And then you also said that Congress needs to look at NASA 

from an enterprise perspective, and you said the aeronautic needs 

for the Nation and the space exploration needs for the Nation, but 
72 

again, you didn’t say anything about national security. So I want 

to make sure in this context that we make that clear that it is important for our national security. 

General LYLES. Congressman, I agree with you 1,000 percent. As 

I mentioned earlier, most of my career in the Air Force dealt with 

developing space programs, and believe me, they were all focused 

on national security needs. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And then, Dr. Pace, you said earlier that what 

is needed is an analysis of a cost schedule and a risk analysis. Define risk. 

Dr. PACE. Well, there are a number of different aspects of risk. 

I mean the first and probably the most important one is what do 

we know about the risks to human life? That is can we provide informed consent for the people who are going to be volunteering to 

go out there? We have some missions upcoming, one year long expeditions aboard the space station that I think will give us some 

more information about long-term human spaceflight that will be 

helpful. So human life I think is number one. 

The next one is sort of really cost and schedule risk. That is what 

is the probabilities of hitting certain cost and schedule targets? 

Cost estimates are always probabilities. They are never just point 

estimates. There are certain confidences that you have and you can 

trade cost and schedule and risk with each other. That is if you 

want to put more money into something, you can buy schedule. If 

you don’t have that money and you need to stretch schedule, you 

can do that, so those kind of tradeoffs. 

What is interesting about the 2021 flyby is the orbital mechanics 

pretty much set that schedule. And so within an affordable profile, 

can we hit that schedule with some confidence? Now, the time between 1961 and 1968 when we flew Apollo 8 around the Moon was 

seven years, but that was in a very different budget environment. 

On the other hand, we know a lot more today than we did back 

then—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, and that—— 

Dr. PACE. —so that is the trade. 

Mr. WEBER. That is getting to the heart of my question, too, 

when you are talking about budget analysis and risk analysis, of 

course Congress working on two year terms per session, has there 

been discussion or thought about what is the optimal—pardon 

me—budget? In other words, we would love for NASA to have a 

clear, concise goal and without the politics of having the budget go 

up and down all the time, which I understand we are constrained 

by the money that we have as well. Is it feasible to say that we 

ought to be able to set a policy area of four years, six years. I 

mean, certainly, we don’t want—the longer, the better. What do 

you foresee? Can we set a plan in motion and maintain it for four 

to six years budgetarily speaking or is that just—pardon the pun— 

pie in the sky? 

Dr. PACE. Well, I think it is actually perfectly possible to set relatively stable, long-term budget plans if they are tied to long-term 

national interests. We have been able to support science programs 

over fairly long-term. We support military space programs over 

very—fairly long-term. So it is really only in the area, I think, of 

human spaceflight where we have seen a large and I think exces-
73 

sive amount of volatility because it hasn’t been tied to enduring national interest, whether national security, international diplomatic 

outreach, scientific ties, or even promotion of private sector sets of 

interests, economic interests. I think there are these interests out 

there. I think we can make a more explicit linkage. And if we did 

that, we would find it easier—not easy but easier—to sustain stable budgets, as we have in many other areas of space. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And I am past my time. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, who represents Kennedy 

Space Center. 

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

One of the fears that I have is that we even regress further. You 

all are familiar, I am sure, as this Committee is, with over two 

dozen multibillion-dollar programs to nowhere that were started by 

one administration and stopped by another or started by one Congress and stopped by another. And so, you know, the first thing I 

think we all try and—tried to do is do no harm, first of all, and 

stop us from regressing. 

Someone mentioned earlier that our share of the budget for space 

now is about 1/2 of one percent, which is correct. The public perception on survey after survey is it is around 20 percent of the total 

budget. So, you know, if we could get just half as much as the public thinks we are getting, we could really make some big strides in 

space. 

One other thing I think we need to note when we try and compare Apollo with missions of today is, you know, they used a slide 

rule during Apollo. They didn’t have the computer capabilities that 

we have now. The IBM computer mainframe is maybe 1/3 as big 

as this room and, you know, you can buy a little credit card-sized 

calculator at Wal-Mart for five bucks. It will do more than that 

would back in the day. So we have advanced greatly in the technological ways, and I think it is only a matter of money that will determine how far and how fast we can go in our manned space program. 

But what I would like to ask for you—from each of you briefly, 

if you would feel comfortable with it is, is to share with us what 

you think the order of milestones, missions, targets should be in 

the next 5 to 10 years. Like if you think we should go back to the 

Moon, if you think we should go to the Lagrange point, you think 

we should have colonization of the Moon and then another Space 

Station halfway to Mars, a Mars flyby in ’21 or ’31, landing and 

colonization—you know, what order of targets would you establish 

if you were able to make those decisions? We will start with Dr. 

Pace and go down. 

Dr. PACE. Thank you, sir. I have been an advocate of returning 

to the Moon, international human landing on the Moon with international partners and also with private sector partners. We have 

a whole separate discussion about cargo delivery to the lunar surface that can be done in a commercial-like manner. But the reason—and I think Mars is a longer-term objective with asteroids in 

between. The reason for that sequence is that the Moon provides 
74 

the greatest number of opportunities for public and private sector 

partnership with the United States. 

The reason why I think the Mars flyby deserves a look is because 

it demonstrates a lot of technologies that are useful across the 

board. It would put the United States in a position of leadership, 

and it would—the timing of it would fit, I believe, within the budget profiles that we see going forward. We don’t have enough money 

in the near term to support development of a major lunar lander. 

We are still developing SLS. We still have the ISS program. So I 

think from a programmatic and a technical development standpoint, the flyby fits if it is placed in a context of a larger mission. 

But I am a fan of returning to the Moon first and then moving outward. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. General? 

General LYLES. Congressman, I am a sort of guided by the Augustine Committee report because I was one of the signatories on 

that and a member of that activity. We looked at options for our 

space exploration, human exploration program, whether it should 

be Mars first, Moon first then Mars, or a flexible path. And all of 

us sort of decided that the flexible path, we thought, was the best 

option for the United States given our technological presence today 

and what we need for the future. It gave us an opportunity to visit 

sites that we have never visited before, to extend our knowledge of 

how to operate in space, and whether you consider Lagrange 

points, asteroids, or orbiting Mars, which is one of the options that 

we laid out in our report, we think having a flexible strategy allows 

you to be able as you gain knowledge, gain technological knowledge 

and understanding, gives you the option to do any one of those we 

think is really the right answer. 

Mr. POSEY. Yes. Well, I just hope we don’t study our navel for 

the next two decades, that we set some targets and some goals and 

we attack it. 

Mr. Cooke? 

Mr. COOKE. I personally believe that we should have a path, and 

I was one who started the flexible path idea because we needed to 

start the SLS and Orion when I was still at NASA. However, once 

those are underway because those are two critical steps that you 

lead off with. Once you have that, you do need a plan because it 

helps you make decisions on those designs and even in terms of 

where you go and what you do. It influences how you design things. 

And so I have always thought that the next logical step is the 

Moon. 

Now, in this case, we are talking about a Mars flyby. I don’t 

think that that is contradictory. It does feed forward and the capabilities feed forward to the next steps. This just happens to be a 

unique planet alignment that allows this mission in the near term, 

but certainly, lunar exploration—— 

Mr. POSEY. That is good. 

Mr. COOKE. —is important. 

Mr. POSEY. Dr. Magnus? 

Dr. MAGNUS. So, again, I would go to the first question, what is 

the overall goal? If the overall goal is to go to Mars and we are 

going to define what we are going to do on Mars, whether we are 

going to establish an outpost there to do specific kinds of science 
75 

and kinds of exploration, then you backup from that, what is the 

logical set of progressions, steps you need to take to get there and 

what are the capabilities and the operational parameters you need 

to develop and demonstrate to build up that capability to go to 

Mars and do whatever it is you are going to do there? 

So we have got this great orbiting platform called the International Space Station. We can do a lot of technology demonstration and development there. There are probably things that we 

cannot do on the space station. We have the Moon in our backyard 

three days away. If you are going to test out technology that you 

want to demonstrate to reduce the risk of going further away, you 

are going to test it in your backyard first. 

Whether you stay on the Moon and establish a settlement there, 

it depends upon how that fits into your long-term goals, but I could 

argue if we establish a beachhead on the Moon to do technology 

demonstration, why would we not encourage our private enterprise 

partners to come and establish work there as we continue to move 

that boundary out? I mean think of it as an expanding bubble with 

the government leading the edge of that bubble with private enterprise and industry filling in behind us. That is what we are supposed to do as the government is all of these hard things and break 

down these barriers. So you go to the Moon, you test what you 

need to do on the Moon, but as the government, you keep pushing 

that boundary. Our planet should keep pushing that boundary. 

Do you go to cislunar space? Perhaps if there are capabilities you 

need to develop there. Do you do a flyby of Mars? Perhaps if that 

demonstrates the buildup of that risk reduction and the technology 

demonstration you need to do in order to put people on the surface. 

So it builds out very logically and it is in a higher strategy of how 

you bring everybody on with you internationally and in the private 

enterprise. That is how I would approach it. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you. All good answers. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman, is recognized. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have two questions. I know I don’t have a lot of time so I am 

going to put them together and they are disjointed somewhat. I 

was interested in the solar electric propulsion and I think, Mr. 

Cooke, you could probably address this in terms of how it could 

change the dynamics of space. And the other question I have is the 

abdication of the United States it—an apparent abdication to allow 

the Chinese to go forward with this space program. If we continue 

on the path where we are not in the forefront of space, how could 

that lack of leadership set the dynamics for our country and our 

economy? 

Mr. COOKE. I can address the—actually both questions in my— 

from my own view. I believe that solar electric propulsion is one 

of the technologies that can have a big impact. When we go to 

Mars, the masses are pretty big for sending a crew there. And 

studies that we have done in the past, solar electric propulsion, 

plasma engines, nuclear thermal, nuclear electric are propulsion 

techniques and capabilities, technologies that reduce the amount of 

fuel that you have to put in low-Earth orbit in order to go. It actu-
76 

ally can reduce the mission mass for the human mission to the 

Mars surface and back by a factor of two, in terms of 1/2 of the 

mass it would take with current chemical engine technologies 

would be needed if you used one of these advanced technology approaches. So electric propulsion or one of those is actually an enabling capability for a Mars mission. 

Now, I believe that—personally believe that our Nation needs to 

remain a leader in space—in human spaceflight. I believe that in 

history the nations that have retreated from leadership in exploration have retreated from the world forefront, and you can name 

countries like Spain and Portugal. Great Britain ruled the seas one 

point. It no longer does. They were explorers. Exploration goes with 

a national drive and incentive and motivation that is sometimes 

maybe looked at a little disconnected from exact needs on Earth or 

in society, but it is something that great nations do. So I think if 

we retreat from these kind of aspirations, we will retreat in the 

world. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. General Lyles? 

General LYLES. I certainly agree with, I think, everything that 

Doug just articulated, particularly about the specific solar electric 

propulsion. That has been one of the key areas that the Department of Defense has worked on in its space technology programs 

because of the obvious benefits to not just human spaceflight, 

which is not our regime in DOD, but even to unmanned activities 

and space station—keeping—a bunch of other things that we need 

for national security space. So I agree with that. 

On the second comment, I am a 100 percent believer in making 

sure that we the United States maintain our leadership in space, 

maintain our leadership in aviation and aeronautics, which is why 

I mentioned the other A in NASA in my earlier comment. To me, 

if we don’t, we literally run the jeopardy of becoming a second-rate 

power, too, which is something we do not want at all. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I have—I am going to add my own two cents in 

there. There are some projections that China is going to exceed us 

in the next 15 years militarily where NASA and the military seem 

to be separated. There is a wall there—somewhat of a wall there. 

There is some crossover, but the PLA and their space program is 

very closely tied. As you know, they shot down a satellite. And I 

am alarmed at the rate at which the Chinese are accelerating their 

expenditures and their technology. 

And I agree; historically, throughout world history, the people 

that abdicate the science of a venture advocate their responsibility 

as a world leader, and I really dread the day that we see that 

China supplants the United States, which is not a democratic country. 

General LYLES. But, Congressman, let me just add, I agree with 

you 1,000 percent there. I think as the other witnesses can attest 

and certainly some of the Members of the Committee, there is probably greater cooperation between the military and NASA, civil 

space and NASA security space than people know. But I am a big 

advocate of the—that there needs to be more, particularly in the 

area of technology and technology development in space. I constantly remind people that the missions may be different but the 

physics are the same and there is a lot more that could be done 
77 

between the two agencies to, in some respects, leverage their combined budget. 

Mr. COOKE. May I add one comment? There is a strong connection in terms of our aerospace industrial base. Both military and 

NASA use the industrial base that supports both, and it is somewhat underutilized at times and they are downsizing. It is—all of 

this—it is important to have that capability as a country. It is one 

of our strengths. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Stockman. 

Does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, want to be recognized again? 

Mr. WEBER. Please. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman is recognized for a minute. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. I am fascinated by the electric—solar 

propulsion. Are there private industries doing it? You said half— 

50 percent of the fuel would be less if you went solar propulsion, 

Mr. Cooke? Are there private industries doing this as well? 

Mr. COOKE. Industry is definitely involved in development of this 

technology, and the technology in electric propulsion is being flown. 

It has flown on science missions. Deep Space 1 and Dawn were 

science missions that it has flown on. It is being evolved to higher 

levels of power. 

Mr. WEBER. Would you consider this a game-changing technology? 

Mr. COOKE. I would consider it a game-changing technology 

when it may make the difference between human missions to Mars 

and not going to Mars. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And should this be a priority for NASA? 

Mr. COOKE. It should be one of the key technologies that is pursued. I agree. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

Oh, I am sorry, Mr.—Dr. Pace, do you want to be recognized? 

Dr. PACE. Please, sir. 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. PACE. I just wanted to add on to Mr. Cooke’s comments. 

When we had the government shutdown last year in October, there 

was a conference happening at my university on electric propulsion. And so without—with no government attendees there, we still 

had 400 people from around the world all from industry, academia 

because electric propulsion is generally—solar electric propulsion is 

a bit more advanced but electric repulsion is something that the 

communications satellite industry is very, very interested in. It is 

something that will be changing the future of the market. It will 

be affecting launch services. And so there is certainly a lot of excitement in private interests, certainly in academia and industry 

right now on that technology and applying it. 

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Pace. 

And the gentlewoman from Maryland wants to be recognized and 

is recognized. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
78 

And just really briefly, I just want to express to the panel that 

I think that this has been an excellent panel of witnesses, and I 

always like it when I can come to a hearing and actually learn 

some things and I really did today. And so I really appreciate your 

testimony. 

I appreciate the Chairman and the Ranking Member calling this 

hearing because I would like us to be more invested as a committee 

and a Congress and really to help do what Dr. Magnus described, 

which is set of vision, a strategy, something that all of us as Americans can really embrace about our space program, and I think that 

you all have done an excellent job today of helping to crystallize 

our thoughts around that. So thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

And we have no more Members to ask questions, so that does 

conclude our hearing, but I too want to thank the witnesses for 

being here today and you have contributed significantly to our understanding of the pros and some of the risks involved with the 

Mars flyby and everybody seems to consider it to be a viable option. 

That is encouraging. And, of course, we need to have that overall 

strategic plan, Dr. Magnus, as you mentioned, as well. And we 

hope NASA can produce that. Dr. Pace, you mentioned we might 

be able to get that in just a matter of months, and of course that 

would be helpful as well. 

More than anything, we just need for NASA to come—to pick 

missions that—and fund missions that are going to contribute to 

our knowledge, that are going to inspire the Nation, and we hope 

to get to that point. 

So thank you all again for being here, much appreciated. We 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(79) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
80 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Scott Pace 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Responses by General Lester Lyles (ret.) 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

Responses by Mr. Douglas R. Cooke 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 

Responses by Dr. Sandra Magnus 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
(127) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
128 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE DONNA F. EDWARDS
129 
130 

LETTER FROM EXPLORE MARS EXPRESSING THEIR SUPPORT FOR A SHORT-TERM FLYBY

MISSION TO MARS, SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
131 
132 
133 

Æ