U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–197 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 108–998 

LUNAR EXPLORATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 

AND SPACE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 6, 2003 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana, Ranking 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on November 6, 2003 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 1 

Testimony from the TransOrbital Group ....................................................... 35 

WITNESSES

Angel, Ph.D., J. Roger P., Director, Center for Astronomical Adaptive Optics, 

Steward Observatory, University of Arizona ..................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Criswell, Dr. David R., Director, Institute for Space Systems Operations, 

University of Houston and University of Houston-Clear Lake ........................ 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Schmitt, Hon. Harrison H., Chairman, Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. ..... 2 

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

Spudis, Dr. Paul D., Planetary Scientist, Lunar and Planetary Institute .......... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

(1) 

LUNAR EXPLORATION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2003 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. The hearing will come to order. Appreciate 

everybody being here today. 

These are the building blocks that we need to move Congress forward on what’s our vision and how we’re going to move forward in 

space exploration. We’ve been holding a series of hearings on this 

topic, one a week or two ago about the International Space Station. 

This hearing is on lunar space exploration. We will continue to 

hold hearings in the future about where the United States should 

be going in space. 

We are a space-faring nation, we will be in the future. We need 

to do it in both manned and unmanned missions. But right now 

we’re a bit lost in space and not sure of the vision, where we’re 

going, and we need to reestablish what that vision is and what it’s 

going to be. And through these hearings, I hope to educate myself, 

educate some people in Congress, as well. What are the options, 

what are the costs, what are the risks, and where would we go? I 

think it’s of vital importance that we do this for our future generations and for ourselves. 

There are young men and women in Pittsburg, Kansas, that are 

yearning to dream, and unless we put a grand vision in front of 

them, I fear for their destinies. It’s very, very important for us that 

we have a vision, that we move forward aggressively, help the 

young people in our country, and help us all. We need to move forward with a vision that’s exciting, that’s mobilizing, that stirs the 

soul. And I think we are on that task, to see where and how we 

can get that done. 

The country is at a critical juncture. We must decide, as a nation, what the vision for space exploration should be, which is why 

we’ve called this hearing today. I want to examine all options before us—missions to the Moon, missions to Mars, the International 

Space Station, and the Space Shuttle. All of these options are presVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\20197.TXT JACKIE
2 

ently before us. What we need to do now is evaluate our options 

and embrace a vision. 

I’ve made it known over the past several months that I want this 

Subcommittee to explore a new vision for our space agency. To that 

end, we’re here today to hear testimony from our distinguished 

panel on lunar exploration and what value it may serve our Nation 

to venture back for military, commercial, and discovery purposes. 

I hope our witnesses will share with us their ideas for a national 

vision. 

I don’t know for sure what our national vision should be, but the 

best way I’ve heard it stated so far is that we must dominate the 

Earth/Moon/Mars orbit for commercial, exploration, and military 

purposes. I hope that today’s hearing will help bring focus to that 

idea. 

But in the 1960s, we had the goal of getting a man on the Moon 

and returning him safely to Earth, and that served as an inspiration to so many across the Nation. Today, I’m afraid that America 

is lacking a similar vision. I’d like to see the U.S. embrace the idea 

of dominating the Earth, Moon, and Mars orbit. I think this is a 

goal that Americans can grasp onto. It gives industry a destination 

on which to focus, it gives government a goal to obtain, and it gives 

youth the hope of someday reaching Mars and beyond. 

I’m honored to have such a distinguished panel of experts here 

today, and I look forward to the testimony regarding their thoughts 

and visions for lunar exploration. 

I’d like to welcome back former Senator Jack Schmitt. Not only 

has Senator Schmitt served this Nation in Congress, he’s also 

served our Nation as one of the last astronauts to walk on the 

Moon, during Apollo 17. He’s Chairman of the InterlunarIntermars Initiative, Incorporated. 

Joining him at the table is Dr. David Criswell, Director of the Institute for Space System Operations, in Houston, Texas, along with 

Dr. Roger Angel, Director of the Center for Astronomical Adaptive 

Optics, at the University of Arizona, and Dr. Paul Spudis, visiting 

scientist, with the Lunar and Planetary Institute, in Houston, 

Texas. 

All these gentlemen are distinguished in their accomplishments 

in the space field, and I look forward to hear their testimony this 

afternoon. 

And, with that, Dr. Schmitt, Senator Schmitt, let’s start with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT HON. HARRISON H. SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN, 

INTERLUNE-INTERMARS INITIATIVE, INC. 

Dr. SCHMITT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for your 

remarks, but for the invitation to participate. It’s good to be back 

in these familiar surroundings. 

A return to Moon to stay, when it occurs, would be at least comparable to the first permanent settlement of America, if not to the 

movement of our species out of Africa, about 150,000 years ago. A 

return by Americans to the Moon at least 40 years after the end 

of the Apollo 17 mission—and I say 40 years, even though it ended 

only 30 years ago; it’s going to take us at least 10 years to get 

3 

started again, I’m afraid—would represent a sustainable commitment to this endeavor. And I mean and emphasize ‘‘sustainable.’’ 

I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be 

counted on to make such a sustained commitment, absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and the 

early 1960s. Because of this skepticism, I have spent much of the 

last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to 

make such a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will 

stick with a project if it’s presented to them with a credible business plan, credible execution, and a rate of return commensurate 

with the risk to invested capital. That, I can predict. I cannot predict what the government’s going to do. 

My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, 

Inc., believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar 

helium-3, helium-3 to be used as a fuel for fusion electric power 

plants on Earth. 

As background, global demand and need for energy will likely, in 

my estimation, increase by at least a factor of eight by the midpoint of the 21st century. This rapid rise from today will be due 

to a combination of population increase, roughly a factor of two, 

new energy-intensive technologies, aspirations for improved standards of living, and lower birth rates in less developed countries, 

and the need to mitigate the adverse consequences of climate 

warming or climate cooling, whichever way it may go. It is going 

to go one of those two directions. 

Helium has two stabilized isotopes, helium–4, familiar to all who 

have received helium-filled balloons, and the even lighter isotope, 

but rarer isotope, helium-3. Lunar helium-3, arriving at the Moon 

as part of a solar wind, is embedded as a trace non-radioactive isotope in lunar soils. It represents one potential energy source, one 

of many, to meet this country’s and this century’s, rapidly escalating demand. 

There is a resource base of helium-3 of about 10,000 metric tons 

just in the upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare 

Tranquillitatis. This, of course, was a region where Neil Armstrong 

landed in 1969. By the way, the current electrical energy use in the 

United States is about 40 tonnes of helium-3 equivalent energy. 

That’s the annual use. It’s about 40 tonnes equivalence. 

The energy-equivalent value of helium–3 delivered to an operating fusion plant on Earth, if that were possible today, would be 

about $4 billion per tonne, relative to today’s price of crude oil. 

These numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for helium-3 fusion power, and why an old economic geologist, like myself, might get interested in the project. 

Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a 

strong base for initiating this enterprise. Also over the last decade, 

there has been historic progress in the development of inertial electrostatic confinement—that is IEC fusion—at the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison. Progress there includes the production of approximately one milowatt of steady-state power from the fusion of 

helium-3 and the heavy isotope of hydrogen deuterium. 

Steady progress in IEC research, as well as basic physics, argue 

strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly 

4 

more commercial viability than other fusion technologies. It will 

have inherently lower capital costs, higher energy conversion efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred megawatts upward, 

and little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. 

It should be noted, however, that IEC research has received no 

significant support as an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from 

the Department of Energy. And, in fairness to DOE, that may be 

because they don’t think we’re ever going to go to our most abundant available supply, and that is the Moon. 

On the question of international law relative to outer space, specifically the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the only really operative 

treaty today, that treaty is permissive relative to property license 

and regulated commercial endeavors. Under the 1967 treaty, lunar 

resources can be extracted and owned, but national sovereignty 

cannot be asserted over the mining area or any other part of a celestial body. 

The cost of capital for launch and basic operations will be carried 

by the helium-3 business enterprise. Thus, technology and facilities 

required for success of a lunar commercial enterprise involving helium-3, particularly heavy-lift launch and fusion technologies, will 

enable the conduct and reduce the cost of many other space activities, in addition to science, on and from the Moon. These other activities include exploration and settlement of Mars, asteroid interception and diversion, and various national security initiatives. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the lowest cost way to get to your aim of 

the Mars/Moon orbit around the Sun is by way of the Moon. 

It is doubtful that the United States will initiate or sustain a return of humans to the Moon, absent a comparable set of circumstances as those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 1950s and through the 

1960s. 

If government were to lead a return to deep space, then NASA 

today is probably not the agency to undertake a significant new 

program to return humans to deep space. NASA today lacks the 

critical mass of the youthful energy and imagination required for 

work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too 

risk-averse. Either a new agency would need to be created to implement such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured, using the lessons of what has worked and what has not 

worked since it was created 45 years ago. 

First, of particular importance would be the need for, most of the 

agency to be made up of engineers and technicians in their 20s, 

and managers in their 30s. Second, the reinstitution of design/engineering activities, in parallel with those of contractors. Third, the 

streamlining of management responsibility. The existing NASA 

would also need to undergo a major restructuring of its program 

management, risk management, and financial management structures. Total restructuring would be necessary to recreate the competence and discipline necessary to operate successfully in the 

much higher-risk and more complex deep-space environment relative to that in near-Earth orbit. Most important for a new NASA 

or a new agency would be a guarantee of sustained political—that 

is, financial—commitment to see the job through and to not turn 

5 

back once a deep-space operational capability exists or accidents 

happen. 

A sustained commitment includes not underfunding the effort. 

Underfunding since the early 1970s, has really been at the base of 

many of the problems that I have described. That is why I’ve been 

looking to a more predictable commitment from business investors. 

Attaining a level of sustained operations for a core business in 

fusion power and lunar resources requires about 15 years and 

about $15 billion in private investment capital, as well as the successful interim marketing and profitable sales related to a variety 

of applied fusion technologies. 

The time required, from startup to the deliver of the first hundred kilograms—that is, a year’s supply—to the first operating 

thousand-megawatt fusion power plant on Earth, or its equivalent, 

will be a function of the rate at which capital is available, but probably no less than 10 years, due to the complexity of the endeavor. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, a business and investor-based approach to 

return to the Moon to stay represents a clear alternative, in my 

mind at least, to initiatives by the U.S. Government or a coalition 

of other countries. A business-investor approach supported by the 

potential of lunar helium–3 fusion power and derivative technologies and resources offers the greatest likelihood of a predictable 

and sustained commitment to a return to deep space. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d be happy to take any questions 

from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Schmitt follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRISON H. SCHMITT, CHAIRMAN, INTERLUNE-INTERMARS INITIATIVE, INC. 

Summary 

Return to the Moon 

A return to the Moon to stay would be at least comparable to the first permanent 

settlement of America if not to the movement of our species out of Africa. 

I am skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to make such a ‘‘sustained commitment’’ absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the 

late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such a commitment. At least 

it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible 

business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk to invested capital. 

My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of WisconsinMadison and the Interlune Intermars Initiative, Inc. believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power 

plants on Earth. 

Lunar helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as 

a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. There is a resource base of helium-3 about of 10,000 metric tonnes just in upper three meters of the titaniumrich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. The energy equivalent value ofHelium-3 delivered 

to operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today’s coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of the approximately $40 

billion domestic electrical power market. 

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or by a coalition 

of other countries. A business-investor approach, supported by the potential of lunar 

Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained commitment to a return to deep space. 

Oral Summary 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to participate in this hearing. It is 

good to be back in these familiar surroundings. 

6 

A return to the Moon to stay, when it occurs, will be a truly historic event. It 

would be at least comparable to the first permanent settlement of America if not 

to the movement of our species out of Africa. 

The Apollo 17 mission on which I was privileged to fly in December 1972 was the 

most recent visit by human beings to the Moon, indeed to deep space. A return by 

Americans to the Moon at least 40 years after the end of the Apollo 17 mission probably would represent a commitment to return to stay. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how a sustained commitment to return would develop in this country. 

I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to 

make such a ‘‘sustained commitment’’ absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much 

of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such 

a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate 

with the risk to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute 

of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. 

believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a 

fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth. 

Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a factor of 

eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. This rapid rise will be due to a combination of population increase, new energy intensive technologies, aspirations for improved standards of living and lower birth rates in the less-developed world, and 

the need to mitigate the adverse consequences of climate warming or cooling. 

Helium has two stable isotopes, helium 4, familiar to all who have received helium-filled balloons, and the even lighter helium 3. Lunar helium-3, arriving at the 

Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as a trace, non-radioactive isotope in 

the lunar soils. It represents one potential energy source to meet this century’s rapidly escalating demand. There is a resource base ofhelium-3 about of 10,000 metric 

tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. 

This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11 in 1969. The energy 

equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion power plants on Earth 

would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today’s coal. Coal, of course, supplies 

about half of the approximately $40 billion domestic electrical power market. These 

numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for helium-3 fusion 

power to compete for the creation of new electrical capacity and the replacement of 

old during the 21st Century. 

Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong base for initiating this enterprise. Also, over the last decade, there has been historic progress 

in the development of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Progress there includes the production of over a milliwatt of steady-state power from the fusion ofhelium-3 and deuterium. Steady 

progress in IEC research as well as basic physics argues strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly more commercial viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion community. It will have inherently lower capital 

costs, higher energy conversion efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred 

megawatts upward, and little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. It 

should be noted, however, that IEC research has received no significant support as 

an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the Department of Energy in spite of 

that Department’s large fusion technology budgets. The Office of Science and Technology Policy under several Administrations also has ignored this approach. 

On the question of international law relative to outer space, specifically the Outer 

Space Treaty of 1967, that law is permissive relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Under the 1967 Treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining 

area. If the Moon Agreement of 1979, however, is ever submitted to the Senate for 

ratification, it should be deep sixed. 

The creation of capabilities to support helium-3 mining operations also will provide the opportunity to support NASA’s human lunar and planetary research at 

much reduced cost, as the cost of capital for launch and basic operations will be carried by the business enterprise. Technology and facilities required for success of a 

lunar commercial enterprise, particularly heavy lift launch and fusion technologies, 

also will enable the conduct, and reduce the cost of many space activities in addition 

to science. These include exploration and settlement of Mars, asteroid interception 

and diversion, and various national security initiatives. 

It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or sustain 

a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of circumstances as those 

facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 

1950s and throughout 1960s. Huge unfunded ‘‘entitlement’’ liabilities and a lack of 

7 

sustained media and therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of resources and attention that such an effort requires. 

If Government were to lead a return to deep space, the NASA of today is probably 

not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return humans to deep 

space, particularly the Moon and then to Mars. NASA today lacks the critical mass 

of youthful energy and imagination required for work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too risk-adverse. Either a new agency would need to be 

created to implement such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured 

using the lessons of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45 

years ago. Of particular importance would be the need for most of the agency to be 

made up of engineers and technicians in their 20s and managers in their 30s, thereinstitution of design engineering activities in parallel with those of contractors, and 

the streamlining of management responsibility. The existing NASA also would need 

to undergo a major restructuring and streamlining of its program management, risk 

management, and financial management structures. Such total restructuring would 

be necessary to re-create the competence and discipline necessary to operate successfully in the much higher risk, and more complex deep space environment relative to that in near-earth orbit. 

Most important for a new NASA or a new agency would be the guarantee of a 

sustained political (financial) commitment to see the job through and to not turn 

back once a deep space operational capability exists once again or accidents happen. 

At this point in history, we cannot count on the Government for such a sustained 

commitment. This includes not under-funding the effort-a huge problem still plaguing the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, and other current and past 

programs. That is why I have been looking to a more predictable commitment from 

investors who have been given a credible business plan and a return on investment 

commensurable with the risk. 

Attaining a level of sustaining operations for a core business in fusion power and 

lunar resources requires about 10–15 years and $10 billion to $15 billion of private 

investment capital as well as the successful interim marketing and profitable sales 

related to a variety of applied fusion technologies. The time required from start-up 

to the delivery of the first 100 kg years supply to the first operating 1000 megawatt 

fusion power plant on Earth will be a function of the rate at which capital is available, but probably no less than 10 years. This schedule also depends to some degree 

on the U.S. Government being actively supportive in matters involving taxes, regulations, and international law but no more so than is expected for other commercial 

endeavors. If the U.S. Government also provided an internal environment for research and development of important technologies, investors would be encouraged 

as well. As you are aware, the precursor to NASA, the National Advisory Committee 

on Aeronautics (NACA), provided similar assistance and antitrust protection to aeronautics industry research during most of the 20th Century. 

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or by a coalition 

of other countries. Although not yet certain of success, a business-investor approach, 

supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained 

commitment to a return to deep space. 

Full Text 

The Apollo 17 mission on which I was privileged to fly in December 1972 was the 

most recent visit by human beings to the Moon, indeed to deep space. A return by 

Americans to the Moon at least 40 years after the end of the Apollo 17 mission probably would represent a commitment to return to stay. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how a sustained commitment to return would develop in this country. 

I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to 

make such a ‘‘sustained commitment’’ absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much 

of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such 

a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate 

with the risk to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute 

of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. 

believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a 

fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth. 

Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a factor of 

eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. This factor represents the total of a factor of two to stay even with population growth and a factor of four or more to meet 

the aspirations of people who wish to significantly improve their standards of living. 

8 

There is another unknown factor that will be necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, whether warming or cooling, and the demands of new, energy intensive technologies. 

Helium has two stable isotopes, helium 4, familiar to all who have received helium-filled balloons, and the even lighter helium 3. Lunar helium-3, arriving at the 

Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as a trace, non-radioactive isotope in 

the lunar soils. It represents one potential energy source to meet this century’s rapidly escalating demand. There is a resource base of helium-3 of about 10,000 metric 

tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. 

This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11 in 1969. The energy 

equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion power plants on Earth 

would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today’s coal. Coal, of course, supplies 

about half of the approximately $40 billion domestic electrical power market. These 

numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for helium-3 fusion 

power to compete for the creation of new electrical capacity and the replacement of 

old plant during the 21st Century. 

Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong base for initiating this enterprise. Such activities include access to and operations in deep space 

as well as the terrestrial mining and surface materials processing industries. Also, 

over the last decade, there has been historic progress in the development of inertial 

electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Progress there includes the production of over a milliwatt of steady-state power 

from the fusion of helium-3 and deuterium. Steady progress in IEC research as well 

as basic physics argues strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly more commercial viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion community. It will have inherently lower capital costs, higher energy conversion efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred megawatts upward, and little or no 

associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. It should be noted, however, that IEC 

research has received no significant support as an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the Department of Energy in spite of that Department’s large fusion technology budgets. The Office of Science and Technology Policy under several Administrations also has ignored this approach. 

On the question of international law relative to outer space, specifically the Outer 

Space Treaty of 1967, that law is permissive relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Under the 1967 Treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining 

area. If the Moon Agreement of 1979, however, is ever submitted to the Senate for 

ratification, it should be deep sixed. The uncertainty that this Agreement would create in terms of international management regimes would make it impossible to raise 

private capital for a return to the Moon for helium-3 and would seriously hamper 

if not prevent a successful initiative by the United States Government. 

The general technologies required for the success of this enterprise are known. 

Mining, extraction, processing, and transportation of helium-3 to Earth requires innovations in engineering, particularly in light-weight, robotic mining systems, but 

no known new engineering concepts. By-products of lunar helium-3 extraction, 

largely hydrogen, oxygen, and water, have large potential markets in space and ultimately will add to the economic attractiveness of this business opportunity. Inertial 

electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion technology appears be the most attractive and 

least capital intensive approach to terrestrial fusion power plants, although engineering challenges of scaling remain for this technology. Heavy lift launch costs 

comprise the largest cost uncertainty facing initial business planning, however, 

many factors, particularly long term production contracts, promise to lower these 

costs into the range of $1–2000 per kilogram versus about $70,000 per kilogram 

fully burdened for the Apollo Saturn V rocket. 

A business enterprise based on lunar resources will be driven by cost considerations to minimize the number of humans required for the extraction of each unit 

of resource. Humans will be required, on the other hand, to prevent costly breakdowns of semi-robotic mining, processing, and delivery systems, to provide manual 

back-up to robotic or tele-robotic operation, and to support human activities in general. On the Moon, humans will provide instantaneous observation, interpretation, 

and assimilation of the environment in which they work and in the creative reaction 

to that environment. Human eyes, experience, judgement, ingenuity, and manipulative capabilities are unique in and of themselves and highly additive in synergistic 

and spontaneous interaction with instruments and robotic systems (see Appendix 

A). 

Thus, the next return to the Moon will approach work on the lunar surface very 

pragmatically with humans in the roles of exploration geologist, mining geologist/ 

engineer, heavy equipment operator/engineer, heavy equipment/robotic maintenance 

9 

engineer, mine manager, and the like. During the early years of operations the 

number of personnel will be about six per mining/processing unit plus four support 

personnel per three mining/processing units. Cost considerations also will drive 

business to encourage or require personnel to settle, provide all medical care and 

recreation, and conduct most or all operations control on the Moon. 

The creation of capabilities to support helium-3 mining operations also will provide the opportunity to support NASA’s human lunar and planetary research at 

much reduced cost, as the cost of capital for launch and basic operations will be carried by the business enterprise. Science thus will be one of several ancillary profit 

centers for the business, but at a cost to scientists much below that of purely scientific effort to return to the Moon or explore Mars. Technology and facilities required for success of a lunar commercial enterprise, particularly heavy lift launch 

and fusion technologies, also will enable the conduct, and reduce the cost of many 

space activities in addition to science. These include exploration and settlement of 

Mars, asteroid interception and diversion, and various national security initiatives. 

It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or sustain 

a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of circumstances as those 

facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 

1950s and throughout 1960s. Huge unfunded ‘‘entitlement’’ liabilities and a lack of 

sustained media and therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of resources and attention that such an effort requires. Even if tax-based funding commitments could be guaranteed, it is not a foregone conclusion that the competent and disciplined management system necessary to work in deep space would 

be created and sustained. 

If Government were to lead a return to deep space, the NASA of today is probably 

not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return humans to deep 

space, particularly the Moon and then to Mars. NASA today lacks the critical mass 

of youthful energy and imagination required for work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too risk-adverse. Either a new agency would needed to 

implement such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured using the 

lessons of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45 years ago. 

Of particular importance would be for most of the agency to be made up of engineers 

and technicians in their 20s and managers in their 30s, the re-institution of design 

engineering activities in parallel with those of contractors, and the streamlining of 

management responsibility. The existing NASA also would need to undergo a major 

restructuring and streamlining of its program management, risk management, and 

financial management structures. Such total restructuring would be necessary to recreate the competence and discipline necessary to operate successfully in the much 

higher risk and more complex deep space environment relative to that in near-earth 

orbit. 

Most important for a new NASA or a new agency would be the guarantee of a 

sustained political (financial) commitment to see the job through and to not turn 

back once a deep space operational capability exists once again or accidents happen. 

At this point in history, we cannot count on the Government for such a sustained 

commitment. This includes not under-funding the effort-a huge problem still plaguing the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, and other current and past 

programs. That is why I have been looking to a more predictable commitment from 

investors who have been given a credible business plan and a return on investment 

commensurable with the risk. 

Attaining a level of sustaining operations for a core business in fusion power and 

lunar resources requires about 10–15 years and $10 billion to $15 billion of private 

investment capital as well as the successful interim marketing and profitable sales 

related to a variety of applied fusion technologies. The time required from start-up 

to the delivery of the first 100 kg years supply to the first operating 1000 megawatt 

fusion power plant on Earth will be a function of the rate at which capital is available, but probably no less than 10 years. This schedule also depends to some degree 

on the U.S. Government being actively supportive in matters involving taxes, regulations, and international law but no more so than is expected for other commercial 

endeavors. If the U.S. Government also provided an internal environment for research and development of important technologies, investors would be encouraged 

as well. As you are aware, the precursor to NASA, the National Advisory Committee 

on Aeronautics (NACA), provided similar assistance and antitrust protection to aeronautics industry research during most of the 20th Century. 

In spite of the large, long-term potential return on investment, access to capital 

markets for a lunar 3He and terrestrial fusion power business will require a nearterm return on investment, based on early applications of IEC fusion technology 

(10). Business plan development for commercial production and use of lunar Helium-3 requires a number of major steps all of which are necessary if long investor 

10 

interest is to be attracted and held to the venture. The basic lunar resource endeavor would require a sustained commitment of investor capital for 10 to 15 years before there would be an adequate return on investment, far too long to expect to be 

competitive in the world’s capital markets. Thus, ‘‘business bridges’’ with realistic 

and competitive returns on investment in three to five years will be necessary to 

reach the point where the lunar energy opportunity can attract the necessary investment capital. They include PET isotope production at point-of-use, therapeutic 

medical isotope production independent of fission reactors, nuclear waste transmutation, and mobile land mine and other explosive detection. Once fusion energy 

breakeven is exceeded, mobile, very long duration electrical power sources will be 

possible. These business bridges also should advance the development of the lunar 

energy technology base if at all possible. 

A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or by a coalition 

of other countries. Although not yet certain of success, a business-investor approach, 

supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained 

commitment to a return to deep space. 

Appendix A: Space Exploration and Development—Why Humans? 

The term ‘‘space exploration’’ implies the exploration of the Moon, planets and asteroids, that is, ‘‘deep space,’’ in contrast to continuing human activities in Earth 

orbit. Human activities in Earth orbit have less to do with exploration and more 

to do with international commitments, as in the case of the Space Station, and prestige and technological development, as in the case of China and Russia. There are 

also research opportunities, not fully recognized even after 40 years, that exploit the 

opportunities presented by being in Earth orbit. 

Deep space exploration has been and should always be conducted with the best 

combination of human and robotic techniques. Many here will argue the value of 

robotics. I will just say that any data collection that can be successfully automated 

at reasonable cost should be. In general, human being’s should not waste their time 

with activities such as surveying, systematic photography, and routine data collection. Robotic precursors into situations of undefined or uncertain risk also are clearly appropriate. 

Direct human exploration, however, offers exceptional benefits that robotic exploration currently cannot and probably will not duplicate in the foreseeable future, 

certainly not at competitive costs. What we are really talking about here is the 

value of field geology. Many of my scientific colleagues, including the late Carl 

Sagan, have made the argument that everything we learned scientifically from Apollo exploration could have been done roboticly. Not only do the facts not support this 

claim, but such individuals and groups have never been forced to cost out such a 

robotic exploration program. I submit that robotic duplication of the vast scientific 

return of human exploration of six sites on the Moon would cost far more that the 

approximately $7 billion spent on science and probably more than the $100 million 

total cost of Apollo. Those are estimates in today’s dollars. 

What do humans bring to the table? 

First, there is the human brain—a semi-quantitative super computer, with hundreds of millions years of research and development behind it and several million 

years of accelerated refinement based on the requirements for survival of our genus. 

This brain is both programmable and instantly re-programmable on the basis of 

training, experience, and preceding observations. 

Second, there are the human eyes—a high resolution, stereo optical system of extraordinary dynamic range that also have resulted from hundreds of millions of 

years of trial and error. Integrated with the human brain, this system continuously 

adjusts to the changing optical and intellectual environment encountered during exploration of new situations. In that sense, field geological and biological exploration 

is little different from many other types of scientific research where integration of 

the eyes and brain are essential parts of successful inquiries into the workings of 

Nature. 

Third, there are the human hands—a highly dexterous and sensitive bio mechanical system also integrated with the human brain as well as the human eyes and 

also particularly benefiting from several million years of recent development. We so 

far have grossly underutilized human hands during space exploration, but the potential is there to bring them fully to bear on future activities possibly through integration with robotic extensions or micro-mechanical device integration into gloves. 

Fourth, there are human emotions-the spontaneous reaction to the exploration environment that brings creativity to bear on any new circumstance, opportunity, or 

problem. Human emotions also are the basis for public interest in support of space 

11 

exploration, interest beyond that which can be engendered by robotic exploration. 

Human emotions further create the very special bond that space exploration has 

with young people, both those of all ages in school and those who wish to participate 

directly in such exploration. 

Fifth, there is the natural urge of the human species to expand its accessible habitats and thus enhance the probability of its long-term survival. Deep space exploration by humans provides the foundations for long-term survival through the settlement of the Moon and Mars in this century and the Galaxy in the next. 

Finally, there is a special benefit to deep space exploration by Americans—the 

continual transplantation of the institutions of freedom to those human settlements 

on the Moon and Mars. This is our special gift and our special obligation to the future. 

Selected References 

1. Schmitt, H. H., Journal of Aerospace Engineering, April1997, pp 60–67. 

2. Wittenberg, L. J., and co-workers, Fusion Technology, 1986, 10, pp 167–178. 

3. Johnson, J. R., Geophysical Research Letter, 26, 3, 1999, pp 385–388. 

4. Cameron, E. N., Helium Resources of MareTranquillitatis, Technical Report, 

WCSAR–TR–AR3–9207–1, 1992. 

5. Kulcinski, G. L., and Schmitt, H. H., 1992, Fusion Technology, 21, p. 2221. 

6. Feldman, W. C., and co-workers, Science, 281, 1998, pp 1496–1500. 

7. Schmitt, H. H., in Mark, H., Ed., Encyclopedia of Space, 2003, Wiley, New 

York. 

8. Kulcinski, G. L., 1993, Proceedings, 2nd Wisconsin Symposium on Helium-3 

and Fusion Power, WCSAR–TR–AR3–9307–3. 

9. Schmitt, H. H., 1998, Space 98, Proceedings of the Conference, p. 1–14. 

10. Kulcinski, G. L. 1996, Proceedings, 12th Topical Meeting on the Technology of 

Fusion Power, UWFDM–1025. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Schmitt, and thank you for 

those very provocative set of thoughts and ways we could go about 

it. I look forward to the discussion. 

Dr. Angel? 

STATEMENT OF J. ROGER P. ANGEL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR ASTRONOMICAL ADAPTIVE OPTICS, 

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, STEWARD OBSERVATORY 

Dr. ANGEL. Thank you, Senator, for having me here. 

I’m an astronomer at the University of Arizona, and quite a bit 

of my time has been spent—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Angel, please pull that mike closer to 

you. Our technology’s not that good here. 

Dr. ANGEL. My time has been spent learning how to make large 

mirrors for ground-based telescopes, and we’re about to put the 

largest ground telescope in Arizona. I think about the future of 

very big telescopes, both on the ground and in space, and I recently 

chaired a meeting supported by the Space Studies Board, looking 

at the uses for very large optics in space. That meeting involved 

astronomers, Earth scientists, various government agencies, Defense, and so on, and it was very exciting. A lot of these agencies, 

for different reasons, are interested in having much larger telescopes in space. If you focus these large telescopes down at the 

Earth, they give you higher resolution and you can see a bigger 

piece of the Earth from the geosynchronous orbit. Of course, these 

larger telescopes let us see further into space, which is very welcome for astronomers. 

Although there are many different configurations of telescopes, 

sometimes more than one mirror, different wavelengths, there was 

a common interest, across the agencies, in learning how to make 

very precise optics for large mirrors and in having the infrastrucVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20197.TXT JACKIE
12 

ture in space to put these telescopes in different places. And to 

view the Earth, you need to be in geosynchronous orbit. For astronomy, we’re kind of torn, because being in low-Earth orbit, where we 

can do easy servicing, like the Hubble, has been enormously advantageous. We believe we won’t be able to make these large telescopes 

unless we have some of the lessons learned from the Hubble and 

Space Station, about building big structures in space. 

On the other hand, it’s a very strong impetus to have these telescopes far from the Earth, because the Earth radiates heat, telescopes near the Earth are warm. But the farther you can get these 

telescopes from Earth, the telescopes become very cold, and then 

there are just wonderful things to do with cold telescopes. And 

we’ve seen that already with the Wilkinson MAP Telescope, which 

looked at the microwave background with SIRTF—that’s just gone 

up the Webb Telescope. All these telescopes are taking advantage 

of the enormous low temperature, cryogenic temperatures, in space, 

to look for infrared waves. And some of the things we could look 

at in the future with a bigger telescope, that can see in the infrared, that’s cold. For instance, I think—we hope to find planets like 

Earth around other stars, perhaps with smaller telescopes, but we 

have no idea whether these have life on them. If we had a big telescope, looking in the infrared, in space, we could actually analyze 

the light from these planets and see if they had life. Our own planet, you know, completely changed its composition because of life 

two billion years ago, and if that same composition happened in another planet, we could see it with one of these big telescopes. 

And another great use, if we can get into the infrared, is that— 

the present understanding of our universe is that after the Big 

Bang, the universe went completely dark for hundreds of millions 

of years; and then, during that time, gravity gradually got this 

whole matter together into lumps; and then, finally, after a few 

hundred million years, this material exploded into the very first 

stars. And up to that time, there was only hydrogen and helium 

in the universe; but after this dark age, the first stars created the 

matter of which we’re made, carbon and nitrogen and so on. And 

none of the telescopes today can see these first stars. This is, we 

think, all that happened. But with a big telescope, a cold one, we 

could actually see those stars, see when this happened, and see 

what was going on. So that would be another great goal. 

So we have this division. In order to build these things, we need 

people, robots, some mixture, which we’ll have to work out, but in 

order to operate them, we need to be far from the Earth. 

So the other cold telescopes have gone to orbits—there’s an orbit 

a million miles from the Earth, in the opposite direction to the Sun, 

where the spacecraft won’t float away and where it can run cold, 

and that’s where the Webb Telescope and the MAP Telescope are 

operating, or will operate. So I thought—these are hard to get people to. You can bring telescopes back to about the distance of the 

Moon without too much energy, but you would still have to get 

your servicing operation out to that distance. 

So then is the question—and I’m sorry it’s taken so long—but 

what about the Moon, itself, as a place to put telescopes? And in 

the place where Senator Schmitt went, there probably isn’t a good 

place for the telescope, because it’s very hot in the day and very 

13 

cold at night. But there is an interesting place on the Moon, and 

that’s the very South Pole of the Moon, here. 

So I haven’t been to the Moon, but I can go there in imagination. 

Let’s go to the south pole and stand there, and what do we see? 

The Moon spins around an axis, which isn’t tilted, like the Earth’s, 

so—and it faces the Earth—so we see the Earth on the horizon, always there in one place. And during the month, we see the Sun go 

around the horizon. And so we can put up a very simple screen and 

make the telescope completely cold, because we can screen from the 

Earth’s radiation and from the Sun. So we can get a cryogenic temperature. In fact, if we look around, we see that there’s a crater 

right at the south pole, and down in the crater, it is cryogenic temperature already, so we could put our telescope there. 

And then we notice that on the wall of the crater, the Sun always shines, because it’s always going around the horizon. So our 

solar power can run continuously. 

And then we notice another great thing. Senator Schmitt has 

pointed to helium as an asset, helium–3, but there’s a very simple 

thing at the South Pole which is a huge asset, and that’s water. 

There’s water ice in these pole craters. And if you want to set up 

a base on the Moon, having water available and having electric 

power continuously available is terrific. So I think, independent of 

any telescopes, this would be a good place to have a base. 

And then if we look up in the sky, it’s perfect, like the clarity 

of vision that we have at any of the other places in space. There’s 

no atmosphere. And then one thing we see is that if you look 

straight up, it’s always the same stars up there. So we have a problem which I think we haven’t thought about, and NASA hasn’t 

thought about much yet. That is, there is gravity on the Moon. It’s 

a lot less than on the Earth, but maybe we could build telescopes 

that we could steer around in this place, in this cryogenic environment. There’s a very simple thing that we could do. That is, the 

job of looking for these first stars. We can look straight up, where 

the same stars are always there. So we could build a simple telescope—a big one, but dumb; it just sits there, looking straight up— 

that could do this job of finding the very first stars after the Big 

Bang. 

So it’s a very interesting place, as a base and for astronomy. I 

think my friends in astronomy would say, ‘‘Looking straight up is 

great, but we’’—and I’d say, because the stars that have planets 

aren’t straight up, they’re wherever they want to be. So if we want 

to do a full job of astronomy, we would have to eventually learn 

how to make a telescope there that could at least see around the 

vertical axis to follow stars. But it is, I think, a very interesting 

place for really good astronomy. 

I just want to finish. I hope that NASA planning, up to this 

point, has been, I think, more focused on going to the free orbiting 

sites, like where MAP and Webb are, but I hope they will consider 

telescopes on the Moon. And I think it should be an input where 

we think where we’re going after Space Station and after Shuttle. 

What do we need to go? What do we need to do? I hope this will 

be one of the options that gets looked at very seriously. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Angel follows:] 

14 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. ROGER P. ANGEL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

ASTRONOMICAL ADAPTIVE OPTICS, STEWARD OBSERVATORY, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

CONSTRUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF LUNAR OBSERVATORIES

I am an astronomer at the University of Arizona, where big ground-based telescopes and their mirrors are made. We are now completing construction of the Large 

Binocular Telescope, which will become the single largest in the world. 

In September this year I chaired a meeting sponsored by the National Academy 

of Science’s Space Studies Board to look at future needs and technologies for large 

optics in space. We found broad interest in sizes beyond the 2.4 m Hubble and 

planned 6 m James Webb Space Telescopes, for astronomical research, for environmental studies and for defense. The different uses lead to different telescope configurations, wavelengths of operation (from ultraviolet to millimeter), and different 

optimum locations. But we found strong common interest across the agencies in developing technologies to make and control very big optical systems to exquisite, diffraction-limited quality and in the infrastructure to construct, deploy and service 

very large optical systems in space. 

For Earth imaging and defense, the optical systems need to be near Earth, and 

geosynchronous orbits are especially valuable. For astronomy, operation in low 

Earth orbit, like Hubble Space Telescope, has the huge, proven advantage of astronaut access, but has limits because of the constant cycling in and out of sunlight. 

The major limit is that deep infrared observations are not possible, because they require a cryogenically cooled telescope, permanently shaded from solar light and far 

from the heat radiated by the warm Earth. The recently launched 0.9 m SIRTF telescope and the Webb telescope are in such locations. 

Let me mention two different astronomical goals that would need even larger telescopes. One is detection of warm, Earth-sized planets around nearby stars like the 

sun. We expect to find them with bigger telescopes, but have no idea if they will 

have life. But we could find out by analyzing their spectra. Another goal will be to 

see the light of the first stars that has been on its way towards us through most 

of time. Our understanding is that the big bang created a uniform gas of just hydrogen and helium, and that after this cooled off the universe was completely dark and 

without form for hundreds of millions of years. And then there was light. Gravity 

had slowly pulled the gas together into lumps and then into to massive, brilliant 

stars, whose nuclear burning started to produce the elements like carbon and oxygen and iron from which the Earth and life are made. 

We know a lot about the big bang, because it was so bright we can easily see and 

analyze its brilliant light, now cooled off to become radio waves. First seen from 

New Jersey, these were recently mapped out from Antarctica and by NASA’s cryogenic WMAP spacecraft. Today we can only speculate on the first stars, but their 

light will now be in the form of faint heat waves. Given a very big, very cold telescope in space that stares for a year or more at the same spot, we could likely detect 

them and analyze their spectra. 

15 

The circle shows the 6° diameter field accessible to the zenith pointing telescope 

at the lunar south pole. Ultraviolet image recorded on the Moon by John Young and 

Charles Duke5. 

What we need for a such a telescope is find a way to combine the capability for 

maintenance and improvement of HST with operation at a remote, permanently 

shaded operation. Most thinking so far at NASA has focused on operation at the 

WMAP and proposed Webb location, in an orbit of the sun a million miles beyond 

Earth’s (L2). Servicing would likely involve ferrying a telescope (or part of it) to a 

nearer orbit, but still ’l’4 million miles away, for more convenient access. 

An alternative location for a very large telescope would be the lunar south pole, 

in the Shackleton crater where the sun never shines and cryogenic temperatures 

prevail. This would be convenient for construction and maintenance if there were 

a Moon base at the pole. The Moon has no atmosphere, so light from the stars would 

have the same pristine quality as in free space. Only the southern hemisphere 

would be observable, but this is not a major astronomical limitation. 

The lunar south pole is a good choice for siting a lunar base, independent of any 

telescope. The craters are believed to contain water ice, most valuable than gold for 

the base1. Also, the crater rim has small areas of nearly eternal sunshine, simplifying problems of maintaining electric power and temperate living conditions2. Furthermore, the adjacent South-Pole-Aitken basin is the oldest and deepest impact 

crater on the Moon, and has been flagged for study in the recent NRC study3. 

Many technical, engineering and infrastructure issues remain to be explored. The 

Moon provides a platform on which to build big structures, but it also comes with 

gravity and weight, albeit at 1/61th of the Earth’s value. Freely-orbiting telescopes 

avoid the need for bearings and drives. Magnetic levitation on superconducting bearings might simplify the task of turning the telescope around during each month to 

track the stars. We would need to make sure the telescope optics are not compromised by vibrations or dust and condensed gas from the base. 

Gravity can be turned to an advantage for the kind of telescope we need to look 

back to the first stars. These will be all over the sky, and a good place to look is 

straight overhead. From the Moon’s pole the infrared sky is darkest overhead, and 


1106ANGE1.eps
16 

we can look at the same unchanging patch of sky for the years needed to study the 

extremely faint first stars. A specialized telescope for this work doesn’t have to 

move. Very high resolution images could be made with multiple such telescopes laid 

out as an interferometer, with no moving parts. We may even be able to use a trick 

to make a telescope mirror looking straight up by spinning a thin layer of reflecting 

liquid in a big dish. A 6-m diameter telescope of very high quality has been built 

like this very inexpensively in Canada4. Bigger ones won’t work on the Earth because the spinning makes a wind that ruffles the surface. But with no wind or air 

on the Moon, a 20 m or larger mirror might be made this way. A cryogenic liquid 

with evaporated gold coating would be used. A fixed telescope would not satisfy 

many astronomical goals, which need access over a good part of the sky. For example, the few nearby stars where we can hope to study Earth-like planets are randomly distributed all over the sky. But a liquid telescope at a manned base could 

undertake one of the challenging observations we have for big telescopes. Experience developed in this way at the base might then show that a fully-steerable big 

telescope would be practical on the Moon. 

More details of the liquid mirror telescope and its scientific potential are give in 

the attached white paper. 

References 

1. Vondrak, R. R. and Crider, D. H. Ice at the Lunar Poles. American Scientist 

(2003) 

2. Bussey, D. B. J., Robinson, M.S., Spudis, P. D. Illumination Conditions at the 

Lunar Poles 30th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Houston 

(1999) 

4. Cabanac, R. A., Hickson, P. and de Lapparent, V. The Large Zenith Telescope 

Survey: A Deep Survey Using a 6-m Liquid Mirror Telescope in A New Era 

in Cosmology, eds Metcalfe, N. and Shanks, T. ASP Conference Proceedings 

283. p 129 (2002) 

3. NRC New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy. 

Space Studies Board (2002) 

5. Page, T and Carruthers, G. R. Distribution of hot stars and hydrogen in the 

Large Magellanic Cloud. Ap. J. 248, 906–924 (1981) 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Dr. Angel. It was very thoughtful, very thought-provoking. 

Dr. Criswell? 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID R. CRISWELL, DIRECTOR, 

INSTITUTE FOR SPACE SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, UNIVERSITY 

OF HOUSTON AND UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-CLEAR LAKE 

Dr. CRISWELL. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I’m honored to have this opportunity to introduce a program for the 

economic and environmental security for Earth, and especially the 

United States of America, by meeting Earth’s real electric power 

needs. 

By 2050, approximately 10 billion people will live on Earth, demanding about five times the power now available. By then, solar 

power from the Moon could provide everyone clean, affordable, and 

sustainable electric power. No terrestrial options can provide the 

needed minimum of two kilowatts electric per person, or at least 

20 terawatts globally. 

Solar power bases will be built on the Moon that collect a small 

fraction of the Moon’s dependable solar power and convert it into 

power beams that will dependably deliver lunar solar power to receivers on Earth. On Earth, each power beam will be transformed 

into electricity and distributed on demand through local electric 

power grids. Each terrestrial receiver can accept power directly 

from the Moon or indirectly, via relay satellites, when the receiver 

cannot view the Moon. The intensity of each power beam is restricted to 20 percent or less of the intensity of noontime sunlight. 

17 

Each power beam can be safely received, for example, in an industrially zoned area. 

The Lunar Solar Power system does not require basic new technological developments. Adequate knowledge of the Moon and the 

essential technologies have been available since the late 1970s to 

design, build, and operate the LSP system. Automated machines 

and people would be sent to the Moon to build the lunar power 

bases. The machinery would build the power components from the 

common lunar dust and rocks, thereby avoiding the high cost of 

transporting materials from the Earth to the Moon. The LSP system is distributed and open. Thus, it can readily accommodate new 

manufacturing and operating technologies as they become available. 

Engineers, scientists, astronauts, and managers skilled in mining, manufacturing, electronics, industrial production of commodities, and aerospace will create new wealth on the Moon. Thousands of tele-robotic workers in American facilities, primarily on 

Earth, will oversee the lunar machinery and maintain the LSP system. 

Our national space program, in cooperation with advanced U.S. 

industries, can produce the LSP system for a small fraction of the 

cost of building equivalent power-generating capacity on Earth. 

Shuttle and Space-Station-derived systems and the LSP production 

machinery can be operational in space and on the Moon within a 

few years. A demonstration LSP system can quickly grow to 50 percent of average U.S. electric capacity, about two-tenths of a 

terawatt electric, within 15 years, and be profitable thereafter. 

When LSP provides 20 terawatts of electric power to Earth, it 

can sell the electricity at one-fifth of today’s costs, or about a tenth 

of a cent a kilowatt electric hour. At current electric prices in the 

U.S., LSP would generate approximately $9 trillion per year of net 

income. 

Like hydroelectric dams, every power receiver on Earth can be 

an engine of clean economic growth. Gross world product can increase a factor of ten. The average annual per capita income of developing nations can increase from today’s approximately $2,500 

per year per person to the order of $20,000. Economically driven 

immigrations, such as from Mexico and Central America to the 

United States, will gradually decrease. Increasingly wealthy developing nations can generate new and rapidly growing markets for 

American goods and services. Lunar power can generate hydrogen 

to fuel cars at low cost and with no release of greenhouse gases. 

United States payments to other nations for oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, and commodities such as fertilizers will decrease. LSP 

industries will establish new high-value American jobs. LSP will 

generate major investment opportunities for Americans. The average American income could increase from today’s approximately 

$35,000 a year per person to more than $150,000 per year per person. 

By 2050, the LSP system could allow all human societies to prosper while nurturing, rather than consuming, the biosphere. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Criswell follows:] 

18 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID R. CRISWELL, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR SPACE

SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON AND UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON- CLEAR LAKE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am honored to have this opportunity to introduce a program for the economic 

and environmental security for Earth, and especially for the United States of America, by meeting Earth’s real electrical power needs. 

By 2050, approximately 10 billion people will live on Earth demanding ∼5 times 

the power now available. By then, solar power from the Moon could provide everyone clean, affordable, and sustainable electric power. No terrestrial options can provide the needed minimum of 2 kWe/person or at least 20 terawatts globally. 

Solar power bases will be built on the Moon that collect a small fraction of the 

Moon’s dependable solar power and convert it into power beams that will dependably deliver lunar solar power to receivers on Earth. On Earth each power beam 

will be transformed into electricity and distributed, on-demand, through local electric power grids. Each terrestrial receiver can accept power directly from the Moon 

or indirectly, via relay satellites, when the receiver cannot view the Moon. The intensity of each power beam is restricted to 20 percent, or less, of the intensity of 

noontime sunlight. Each power beam can be safely received, for example, in an industrially zoned area. 

The Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System does not require basic new technological developments. Adequate knowledge of the Moon and the essential technologies have 

been available since the late 1970s to design, build, and operate the LSP System. 

Automated machines and people would be sent to the Moon to build the lunar power 

bases. The machines would build the power components from the common lunar 

dust and rocks, thereby avoiding the high cost of transporting materials from the 

Earth to the Moon. The LSP System is distributed and open. Thus, it can readily 

accommodate new manufacturing and operating technologies as they become available. 

Engineers, scientists, astronauts, and managers skilled in mining, manufacturing, 

electronics, aerospace, and industrial production of commodities will create new 

wealth on the Moon. Thousands of tele-robotic workers in American facilities, primarily on Earth, will oversee the lunar machinery and maintain the LSP System. 

Our national space program, in cooperation with advanced U.S. industries, can 

produce the LSP System for a small fraction of the cost of building equivalent power 

generating capabilities on Earth. Shuttle-and Space Station-derived systems and 

LSP production machinery can be in operation in space and on the Moon within a 

few years. A demonstration LSP System can grow quickly to 50 percent of averaged 

U.S. electric consumption, ∼0.2 TWe, within 15 years and be profitable thereafter. 

When LSP provides 20 terawatts of electric power to Earth it can sell the electricity 

at one-fifth of today’s cost or ∼1 ¢/kWe-h. At current electric prices LSP would generate ∼9 trillion dollars per year of net income. 

Like hydroelectric dams, every power receiver on Earth can be an engine of clean 

economic growth. Gross World Product can increase a factor of 10. The average annual per capita income of Developing Nations can increase from today’s $2,500 to 

∼$20,000. Economically driven emigrations, such as from Mexico and Central America to the United States, will gradually decrease. 

Increasingly wealthy Developing Nations will generate new and rapidly growing 

markets for American goods and services. Lunar power can generate hydrogen to 

fuel cars at low cost and with no release of greenhouse gases. United States payments to other nations for oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, and commodities such 

as fertilizer will decrease. LSP industries will establish new, high-value American 

jobs. LSP will generate major investment opportunities for Americans. The average 

American income could increase from today’s ∼$35,000/y-person to more than 

$150,000/y-person. 

By 2050, the LSP System would allow all human societies to prosper while nurturing rather than consuming the biosphere. 

The Lunar Solar Power System and its general benefits are described in the attached four-page document. 

Additional papers are available on these websites and via search engines (search on 

‘‘David R. Criswell’’ or ‘‘Lunar Solar Power’’): 

The Industrial Physicist 

http://www.tipmagazine.com 

The World Energy Congress (17th and 18th) 

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/ 

19 

ATTACHMENTS


1106LSPS1.eps
20 


1106LSPS2.eps
21 


1106LSPS3.eps
22 


1106LSPS4.eps
23 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Dr. Criswell, for 

those thoughts, and I look forward to questioning and discussing 

them with you. They’re quite provocative, as well. 

Dr. Spudis, thank you very much for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL D. SPUDIS, PLANETARY SCIENTIST, 

LUNAR AND PLANETARY INSTITUTE 

Dr. SPUDIS. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me here today to testify on the subject of lunar exploration and the U.S. Space Program. 

Although we conducted our initial visits to the Moon over 30 

years ago, several recent discoveries indicate that a return offers 

many benefits to the Nation. In addition to being a scientifically 

rich object for study, the Moon offers abundant material and energy resources, the feedstock of an industrial space infrastructure. 

Once established, this will give us continuous routine access to 

Earth-Moon space and beyond. 

The value of the Moon as a destination has not escaped the notice of other countries. At least four new robotic missions are currently being either flown or prepared by Europe, India, Japan, and 

China. Advance planning for human missions in many of these 

countries is already underway. 

With me today is Dr. Bill Stone, a leading explorer and expedition leader. The following points represent our joint thinking as to 

why the Nation needs to return to the Moon and why that return 

should take place now, rather than later. 

Point one. NASA needs a politically viable mission, and both 

Shuttle and ISS are losing appeal as space exploration. Since the 

loss of Columbia, we have seen much soul searching over the meaning of our space efforts. A sense has developed that missions to 

low-Earth orbit, while technically qualifying as spaceflight, leave 

much to be desired as exploration. Any new focus in space must 

have direct and clear benefits to the Nation. What the Nation 

needs is a Lewis-and-Clark-class mission, one that opens the space 

frontier to the expansion of commerce. 

Point two. Human missions to Mars are too technically challenging and too expensive to be feasible national space goals within 

the next decade. The current state of technology barely supports 

the idea that we can go there with people. A Mars mission would 

cost hundreds of billions of dollars and take more than a decade. 

The rationale for such a trip is ill-defined beyond the vague notion 

that Mars may have once harbored primitive cellular life. Such a 

speculation, while intriguing, cannot justify a massive expenditure 

of Federal money. 

Point three. Other possible destinations for people in space are 

perceived to be either too arcane or too uninteresting to garner 

broad national support. Missions to the Lagrangian Points are useful departure points to other destinations, but contain nothing 

there themselves, except what we put there. As a program, they 

are, thus, Space Station 2, in a different place. Asteroids, the leftover debris of planetary formation, take weeks or months to reach, 

and, once we get there, offer little diversity of process, scenery, or 

terrain. Asteroids will be useful in the future for resource utilization, but they have little appeal as an exciting human destination. 

24 

Point four. The Moon is close, accessible with existing systems, 

and has resources that we can use to create a true space-faring 

economy. The Moon is an ideal target for our next destination in 

space. It is only 3 days away, and accessible with existing launch 

and space assets. We can use the resources of the Moon to create 

access for people and machines to all points of Earth-Moon space. 

In going to the Moon, our new mission is to learn how to use offplanet resources. 

Point five. We can conduct a wide variety of important scientific 

research on the Moon, ranging from planetary science to astronomy 

and high-energy physics. The Moon is a natural laboratory for 

planetary and space science. In particular, it offers a detailed 

record of the impact history in the Earth-Moon system, including 

the major impact episodes responsible for the extinction of life on 

Earth. Further study can illuminate not only our early history, but 

possibly our fate. 

Point six. Hydrogen, probably in the form of water ice, exists at 

both poles of the Moon and can be extracted and processed into 

rocket propellent and life-support consumables. In 1994, the Department of Defense Clementine Mission, which I was fortunate 

enough to be involved in as a science team member, discovered 

water ice in the dark areas near the South Pole of the Moon, a discovery later confirmed by NASA’s Lunar Prospector. This water ice 

is stable because the floors of the polar craters never receive sunlight and are, hence, very cold. At least 10 billion tons of hydrogen 

are available at the lunar poles, a volume of water equivalent to 

the Great Salt Lake. This material can be collected and used to 

make hydrogen and oxygen, rocket propellent for transport, and be 

used as water and oxygen to support human life on the Moon and 

in space. 

Point seven. We can be back on the Moon with 5 to 7 years for 

only a modest increase in existing space budgets. We can return to 

the Moon using existing or Shuttle-derived launch systems and 

Station-derived hardware. Missions can be staged from and return 

to the International Space Station. A complete program includes 

robotic precursor missions and the initial human visits to the Moon 

within 5 years, and production of usable lunar resource commodities within 7 years. An alternative implementation that focuses on 

cost reduction and early return on investment is described in Dr. 

Stone’s ‘‘Shackelton Crater Expedition,’’ attached to my testimony. 

No matter which implementation is selected, lunar return is feasible from both a budgetary and technical perspective. 

Point eight. The establishment of a space economy based on the 

use of lunar resources will enable routine travel, with people, 

throughout the Earth-Moon system. By learning to characterize, 

extract, and use lunar resources, we free ourselves from the surly 

bonds of Earth. Operations in space become routine and inexpensive. This goal, while challenging, is within our current technical 

means, or modest extensions of them. For humanity to have a future in space, we must learn to live off the land. 

Point nine. The establishment of an Earth-Moon economy enhances national security and commerce. The availability of cheap 

lunar fuel in low-Earth orbit will change the way national security 

assets are designed and deployed. It will dramatically reduce the 

25 

cost of procurement of such assets, while extending their useful 

life, service life, by enabling routine access for maintenance and repair. 

Point ten. The infrastructure created by a return to the Moon 

will allow us to travel to the planets in the future more safely and 

cost effectively. Routine travel to the Moon also means routine access to the gravitationally stable Lagrangian points, from which economical missions to the planets, including Mars, can be staged 

using lunar propellent. Thus, a program to develop and use resources from the Moon is not a diversion from other goals, it is an 

enabling activity. 

America needs a challenging, vigorous space program, one with 

a mission that inspires and enriches. It must relate to important 

national needs, yet push the boundaries of the possible. It must 

serve larger national concerns, beyond scientific endeavors. A return to the Moon fulfills these goals. It is a technical challenge to 

the Nation. It creates security for America by assuring access to 

and control of our assets in Earth-Moon space. It creates wealth in 

new markets by producing commodities of high commercial value. 

It stimulates and inspires the next generation by giving them the 

chance to experience spaceflight for themselves. A return to the 

Moon is the right destination for America. 

Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Spudis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL D. SPUDIS, PLANETARY SCIENTIST, 

LUNAR AND PLANETARY INSTITUTE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to testify on the subject of lunar exploration and the U.S. space program. 

I want to discuss a new destination for America in space—the Moon. Although 

we conducted our initial visits to that body over 30 years ago, we have recently 

made several important discoveries that indicate a return to the Moon offers many 

advantages and benefits to the Nation. In addition to being a scientifically rich object for study, the Moon offers abundant material and energy resources, the feedstock of an industrial space infrastructure. Once established, such an infrastructure 

will revolutionize space travel, assuring us of continuous, routine access to cislunar 

space (i.e., the space between and around Earth and Moon) and beyond. The value 

of the Moon as a space destination has not escaped the notice of other countries— 

at least four new robotic missions are currently being flown or prepared by Europe, 

India, Japan, and China and advanced planning for human missions in many of 

these countries is already underway. 

With me here today is Dr. Bill Stone, a prominent explorer and expedition leader. 

The points which I will present represent our joint thinking as to WHY the Nation 

needs to return to the Moon and why that return should take place NOW rather 

than later. 

(1) NASA needs a politically viable mission and both Shuttle and ISS are losing 

appeal as ‘‘space exploration.’’ America needs a compelling space program! 

Forty years ago, America made a decision to go to the Moon, starting from a state 

of primitive technology and vast ignorance. We accomplished this great feat within 

8 years, giving us for the first time the ability to travel to another world. We now 

have a commercial launch industry that each year lifts a mass equivalent to an 

Apollo mission to geosynchronous orbit. Its mission accomplished, NASA looked to 

other programs to keep the dream of space flight alive. Shuttle was presented as 

an affordable means to low Earth orbit. Space Station was planned as both a laboratory in orbit and a way station to the rest of the Solar System. Meanwhile, the 

Moon largely was ignored as an object worthy of study in its own right, as a natural 

space station to provision and enable space flight farther a field, and as a center 

of commerce and national security. 

26 

NASA’s current problems are partly technical, but mostly related to the fact that 

it no longer has a mission, as in its early ‘‘Days of Glory.’’ Forty years ago, its mission was to beat the Soviets to the Moon, a clear goal articulated by the national 

leadership and presented with a deadline (by the end of the decade). Now, the agency looks for a mission, but has yet to find one, at least, one perceived by government 

and the American people as worthy of long-term commitment. In the absence of 

such a goal, we drift between projects and have some success, but nothing is cumulative, where each step builds upon and extends the capability of the step preceding 

it. 

A new national focus in space must have a direct and clear benefit to the American public. Pure science and the search for life are not defensible justifications. As 

Dr. Stone has put it recently, what the Nation needs is a Lewis and Clark-class mission—one that opens the frontier to the expansion of the external commerce of the 

United States (through the general participation of its people and industry) and to 

the enhancement of the security of the Nation. The recent loss of Shuttle Columbia 

has only heightened the perception that we are adrift in space, with no long-term 

goals or direction. Death and risk are part of life and not to be feared, especially 

in the field of exploration, but for death to have meaning, the objectives of such exploration must be significant. Great nations do great (and ambitious) things. The 

Apollo project was one such example; a return to the Moon to learn how to live offplanet can be another. 

(2) Human missions to Mars currently are too technically challenging and too expensive to be feasible national space goals within the next decade. 

Although much attention is given to the idea of human missions to Mars as the 

next big goal in space, such a journey is at present beyond our technical and economic capabilities. The large amount of discretionary money needed for such a journey is simply not available in the Federal budget nor would it be wisely spent on 

going to Mars in an Apollo-style ‘‘flags-and-footprints’’ program. The principal justification of a manned Mars mission is scientific and such a rationale cannot sustain 

a large investment in the eyes of the taxpaying public. Mars awaits exploration by 

people some time in the future, after we have learned how to live and work routinely in space and how to make use of the resources available on other worlds to 

break the costly ties to Earth-based rocket transport of materiel. 

American government has a history of supporting long-term, big engineering 

projects, provided that such efforts contribute to goals related to national and economic security (e.g., the Panama Canal, the Apollo program). The nation needs a 

mission whose purpose relates to these important, enduring objectives. A return to 

the Moon is such a goal. Indeed, it is a necessary goal and the only economicallyjustifiable goal at this time. 

(3) Other possible destinations for people in space are perceived to be either too 

uninteresting (asteroids) or too arcane (telescopes in deep space) to enjoy 

‘‘widespread’’ national support. 

Among other possible space destinations for people are the Lagranian (L-) points 

(imaginary spots in space that move in sync with Earth, Moon, Sun or other objects) 

and the minor planets, better known as asteroids. The Lagranian points have many 

advantages for the staging of missions that go elsewhere, but the only thing they 

contain is what we put there. In that sense, they are similar to low Earth orbit and 

significant activity at the L-points, without travel beyond them to more interesting 

destinations, would resemble another International Space Station put in a different 

location. Asteroids have great potential for exploration and exploitation of resources 

and may eventually become an important destination as a class of objects. However, 

the times required to reach asteroids can equal the months-long transit times for 

Mars missions, without the variety of activities that could be undertaken at the end 

of such a trip. Thus, although specialized missions to these destinations can be 

imagined, they do not present a compelling return on investment nor the scientific 

or operational variety that other missions possess. 

(4) The Moon is close, accessible with existing systems, and has resources that 

we can use to create a true, economical space-faring infrastructure 

The Moon is a scientific and economic treasure trove, easily reachable with existing systems and infrastructure that can revolutionize our national strategic and economic posture in space. The dark areas near the poles of the Moon contain significant amounts (at least 10 billion tons) of hydrogen, most probably in the form of 

water ice. This ice can be mined to support human life on the Moon and in space 

and to make rocket propellant (liquid hydrogen and oxygen). Moreover, we can return to the Moon using the existing infrastructure of Shuttle and Shuttle-derived 

27 

launch systems and the ISS for only a modest increase in the space budget within 

the next five years. 

The ‘‘mission’’ of this program is to go to the Moon to learn how to use off-planet 

resources to make space flight easier and cheaper in the future. Rocket propellant 

made on the Moon will permit routine access to cislunar space by both people and 

machines, which is vital to the servicing and protection of national strategic assets 

and for the repair and refurbishing of commercial satellites. The availability of 

cheap propellant in low Earth orbit would completely change the way engineers design spacecraft and the way companies and the government think of investing in 

space assets. It would serve to dramatically reduce the cost of space infrastructure 

to both the government and to the private sector, thus spurring economic investment (and profit). 

(5) The Moon is a scientific treasure house and a unique resource, on which important research, ranging from planetary science to astronomy and high-energy physics, can be conducted. 

Generally considered a simple, primitive body, the Moon is actually a small planet 

of surprising complexity. Moreover, the period of its most active geological evolution, 

between 4 and 3 billion years ago, corresponds to a ‘‘missing chapter’’ of Earth history. The processes that work on the Moon—impact, volcanism, and tectonism (deformation of the crust)—are the same ones that affect all of the rocky bodies of the 

inner solar system, including the Earth. Because the Moon has no atmosphere or 

running water, its ancient surface is preserved in nearly pristine form and its geological story can be read with clarity and understanding. Because the Moon is 

Earth’s companion in space, it retains a record of the history of this corner of the 

Solar System, vital knowledge unavailable on any other planetary object. 

Of all the scientific benefits of Apollo, appreciation of the importance of impact, 

or the collision of solid bodies, in planetary evolution must rank highest. Before we 

went to the Moon, we had to understand the physical and chemical effects of these 

collisions, events completely beyond the scale of human experience. Of limited application at first, this new knowledge turned out to have profound consequences. We 

now believe that large-body collisions periodically wipe out species and families on 

Earth, most notably, the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The telltale 

residue of such large body impacts in Earth’s past is recognized because of knowledge we acquired about impact from the Moon. Additional knowledge still resides 

there; while the Earth’s surface record has been largely erased by the dynamic processes of erosion and crustal recycling, the ancient lunar surface retains this impact 

history. When we return to the Moon, we will examine this record in detail and 

learn about its evolution as well as our own. 

Because the Moon has no atmosphere and is a quiet, stable body, it is the premier 

place in space to observe the universe. Telescopes erected on the lunar surface will 

possess many advantages. The Moon’s level of seismic activity is orders of magnitude lower than that of Earth. The lack of an atmosphere permits clear viewing, 

with no spectrally opaque windows to contend with; the entire electromagnetic spectrum is visible from the Moon’s surface. Its slow rotation (one lunar day is 708 

hours long, about 28 terrestrial days) means that there are long times of darkness 

for observation. Even during the lunar day, brighter sky objects are visible through 

the reflected surface glare. The far side of the Moon is permanently shielded from 

the din of electromagnetic noise produced by our industrial civilization. There are 

areas of perpetual darkness and sunlight near the poles of the Moon. The dark regions are very cold, only a few tens of degrees above absolute zero and these natural 

‘‘cold traps’’ can be used to passively cool infrared detectors. Thus, telescopes installed near the lunar poles can both see entire celestial hemispheres all at once 

and with infrared detectors, cooled for ‘‘free,’’ courtesy of the cold traps. 

(6) Hydrogen, probably in the form of water ice, exists at the poles of the Moon 

that can be extracted and processed into rocket propellant and life-support 

consumables 

The joint DOD–NASA Clementine mission was flown in 1994. Designed to test 

sensors developed for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), Clementine was an 

amazing success story. This small spacecraft was designed, built, and flown within 

the short time span of 24 months for a total cost of about $150 M (FY 2003 dollars), 

including the launch vehicle. Clementine made global maps of the mineral and elemental content of the Moon, mapped the shape and topography of its surface with 

laser altimetry, and gave us our first good look at the intriguing and unique polar 

regions of the Moon. Clementine did not carry instruments specifically designed to 

look for water at the poles, but an ingenious improvisation used the spacecraft communications antenna to beam radio waves into the polar regions; radio echoes were 

28 

observed using the Deep Space Network dishes. Results indicated that material with 

reflection characteristics similar to ice are found in the permanently dark areas 

near the south pole. This major discovery was subsequently confirmed by a different 

experiment flown on NASA’s Lunar Prospector spacecraft four years later in 1998. 

The Moon contains no internal water; all water is added to it over geological time 

by the impact of comets and water-bearing asteroids. The dark areas near the poles 

are very cold, only a few degrees above absolute zero. Thus, any water that gets 

into these polar ‘‘cold traps’’ cannot get out so over time, significant quantities accumulate. Our current best estimate is that over 10 billion cubic meters of water exist 

at the lunar poles, an amount equal to the volume of Utah’s Great Salt Lake—without the salt! Although hydrogen and oxygen can be extracted directly from the lunar 

soil (solar wind hydrogen is implanted on the dust grains of the surface, allowing 

the production of propellant and water directly from the bone-dry dust), such processing is difficult and energy-expensive. Polar water has the advantage of already 

being in a concentrated useful form, greatly simplifying scenarios for lunar return 

and habitation. Broken down into hydrogen and oxygen, water is a vital substance 

both for human life support and rocket propellant. Water from the lunar cold traps 

advances our space-faring infrastructure by creating our first space ‘‘filling station.’’ 

The poles of the Moon are useful from yet another resource perspective—the areas 

of permanent darkness are in proximity to areas of near-permanent sunlight. Because the Moon’s axis of rotation is nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, 

the sun always appears on or near the horizon at the poles. If you’re in a hole, you 

never see the Sun; if you’re on a peak, you always see it. We have identified several 

areas near both the north and south poles of the Moon that offer near-constant sun 

illumination. Moreover, such areas are in darkness for short periods, interrupting 

longer periods of illumination. Thus, an outpost or establishment in these areas will 

have the advantage of being in sunlight for the generation of electrical power (via 

solar cells) and in a benign thermal environment (because the sun is always at grazing incidence); such a location never experiences the temperature extremes found 

on the lunar equator (from 100° to –150° C). The poles of the Moon are inviting 

‘‘oases’’ in near-Earth space. 

(7) Current launch systems, infrastructure, and space hardware can be adapted 

to this mission and we can be back on the Moon within five to seven years 

for only a modest increase in existing space budgets. 

America built the mighty Saturn V forty years ago to launch men and machines 

to the Moon in one fell swoop. Indeed, this technical approach was so successful, 

it has dominated the thinking on lunar return for decades. One feature of nearly 

all lunar return architectures of the past twenty years is the initial requirement to 

build or re-build the heavy lift launch capability of the Saturn V or its equivalent. 

Parts of the Saturn V were literally hand-made, making it a very expensive spacecraft. Development of any new launch vehicle is an enormously expensive proposition. What is needed is an architecture that accomplishes the goal of lunar return 

with the least amount of new vehicle development possible. Such a plan will allow 

us to concentrate our efforts and energies on the most important aspects of the mission—learning how to use the Moon’s resources to support space flight. 

One possible architecture for lunar return devised by the Office of Exploration at 

the Johnson Space Center has several advantages. First, and most importantly, it 

uses the Space Shuttle (or an unmanned derivative of it), augmented by existing 

expendable boosters, to deliver the pieces of the lunar spacecraft to orbit. Thus, from 

the start, we eliminate one of the biggest sources of cost from the equation, the requirement to develop a new heavy-lift launch vehicle. This plan uses existing expendable launch vehicle (ELV) technology to deliver the cargo elements of the lunar 

return to low Earth orbit—lander, habitat, and transfer stage. Assembled into a 

package in Earth orbit, these items are then transferred to a point about 4/5 of the 

way to the Moon, the Moon-Earth Lagranian point 1 (L1). The L1 point orbits the 

Earth with the Moon such that it appears ‘‘motionless’’ to both bodies. Its non-motion relative to Earth and Moon has the advantage of allowing us to wait for favorable alignments of these bodies and the Space Station in various phases of the mission. Because there is no requirement for quick transit, cargo elements can take advantage of innovative technologies such as solar electric propulsion and weak stability boundaries between Earth, Sun, and Moon to make long, spiraling trips out 

to L1, thus requiring less propellant mass. These unmanned cargo spacecraft can 

take several months to get to their destinations. The habitat module can be landed 

on the Moon by remote control, activated, and await the arrival of its occupants 

from Earth. 

The crew is launched separately on a Shuttle launch and uses a chemical stage 

and a quick transfer trajectory to reach the L1 depot in a few days. The crew then 

29 

transfers to the lunar lander/habitat, descends to the surface and conducts the surface mission. As mentioned above, the preferred landing site is an area near one 

of the Moon’s poles; the south pole is most attractive from the perspective of science 

and operations (see the attached ‘‘Shackleton Crater Expedition’’ proposal submitted 

to the Committee by Dr. Stone). The goal of our mission is to learn how to mine 

the resources of the Moon as we build up surface infrastructure to permit an everlarger scale of operations. Thus, each mission brings new components to the surface 

and the size and capability of the lunar outpost grows over time. Most importantly, 

the use of lunar-derived propellants means that more than 80 percent of the spacecraft weight on return to Earth orbit need not be brought from Earth. A properly 

designed mission will return to Earth not only with sufficient fuel to take the craft 

back to the Moon for another run, but also to provide a surplus for sale in low Earth 

orbit. It is this act that creates the Earth-Moon economy and demonstrates a positive return on investment. 

On return, the L1 depot provides a safe haven for the crew while they wait several days for the orbital plane of ISS to align itself with the return path of the crew 

vehicle. Rather than directly entering the atmosphere as Apollo did, the crew return 

vehicle uses aerocapture to brake into Earth orbit, rendezvous with the ISS, and 

thus, it becomes available for use in the next lunar mission. 

In addition to its technical advantages, this architecture offers important programmatic benefits. It does not require the development of a new heavy lift launcher. We conduct our lunar mission from the ISS and return to it afterwards, making 

the Station an essential component of humanity’s movement into the Solar System. 

The use of the L1 point as a staging depot allows us to wait for proper alignments 

of the Earth and Moon; the energy requirements to go nearly anywhere beyond this 

point are very low. The use of newly developed, low-thrust propulsion (i.e., solarelectric) for cargo elements drives new technology development. We will acquire new 

technical innovation as a by-product of the program, not as a critical requirement 

of the architecture. 

The importance of using the Shuttle or Shuttle-derived launch vehicles and commercial launch assets in this architecture should not be underestimated. Costs in 

space launch are almost completely dominated by the costs of people and infrastructure. To create a new launch system requires new infrastructure, new people, new 

training. Such costs can make up significant fractions of the total program. By using 

existing systems, we can concentrate our resources on new equipment and technology, focused on the goal of finding, characterizing, processing, and using lunar 

resources as soon as possible. 

(8) A return to the Moon gives the Nation a challenging mission and creates capability for the future, by allowing us to routinely travel at will, with people, 

throughout the Earth-Moon system. 

Implementation of this objective for our national space program would have the 

result of establishing a robust transportation infrastructure, capable of delivering 

people and machines throughout cislunar space. Make no mistake—learning to use 

the resources of the Moon or any other planetary object will be a challenging technical task. We must learn to use machines in remote, hostile environments, working 

under difficult conditions with ore bodies of small concentration. The unique polar 

environment of the Moon, with its zones of near-permanent illumination and permanent darkness, provides its own challenges. But for humanity to have a future, we 

must learn to use the materials available off-planet. We are fortunate that the Moon 

offers us a nearby, ‘‘safe’’ laboratory to take our first steps in using space resources. 

Initial blunders in mining tactics or feedstock processing are better practiced at a 

location three days from Earth than from one many months away. 

A mission learning to use these lunar resources is scalable in both level of effort 

and the types of commodities to be produced. We begin by using the resources that 

are the easiest to extract. Thus, a logical first product is water derived from the 

lunar polar deposits. Water is producible here regardless of the nature of the polar 

volatiles—ice of cometary origin is easily collected and purified, but even if the polar 

materials are composed of molecular hydrogen, this substance can be combined with 

oxygen extracted from rocks and soil (through a variety of processes) to make water. 

Water is easily stored and used as a life-sustaining substance for people or broken 

down into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen for use of rocket propellant. 

Although we currently possess enough information to plan a lunar return now, 

investment in a few robotic precursors would be greatly beneficial. We should map 

the polar deposits of the Moon from orbit using imaging radar to ‘‘see’’ the ice in 

the dark regions. Such mapping could establish the details of the ice location and 

its thickness, purity, and physical state. The next step should be to land small 

robotic probes to conduct in place chemical analyses of the material. Although we 

30 

expect water ice to dominate the deposit, cometary cores are made up of many different substances, including methane, ammonia, and organic molecules, all of which 

are potentially useful resources. We need to inventory these species, determine their 

chemical and isotopic properties, and their physical nature and environment. Just 

as the way for Apollo was paved by such missions as Ranger and Surveyor, a set 

of robotic precursor missions, conducted in parallel with the planning of the manned 

expeditions, can make subsequent human missions safer and more productive. 

After the first robotic missions have documented the nature of the deposits, focused research efforts would be undertaken to develop the machinery needed to be 

transported to the lunar base as part of the manned expedition. There, human-tended processes and principles will be established and validated, thus paving the way 

to commercialization of the mining, extraction and production of lunar hydrogen and 

oxygen. 

(9) This new mission will create routine access to cislunar space for people and 

machines, which directly relates to important national economic and strategic 

goals. 

By learning space survival skills close to home, we create new opportunities for 

exploration, utilization, and wealth creation. Space will no longer be a hostile place 

that we tentatively visit for short periods; it becomes instead a permanent part of 

our world. Achieving routine freedom of cislunar space makes America more secure 

(by enabling larger, cheaper, and routinely maintainable assets on orbit) and more 

prosperous (by opening an essentially limitless new frontier.) 

As a nation, we rely on a variety of government assets in cislunar space, ranging 

from weather satellites to GPS systems to a wide variety of reconnaissance satellites. In addition, commercial spacecraft continue to make up a multi-billion dollar 

market, providing telephone, Internet, radio and video services. America has invested billions in this infrastructure. Yet at the moment, we have no way to service, 

repair, refurbish or protect any of these spacecraft. They are vulnerable to severe 

damage or permanent loss. If we lose a satellite, it must be replaced. From redesign 

though fabrication and launch, such replacement takes years and involves extraordinary investment in the design and fabrication so as to make them as reliable as 

possible. 

We cannot now access these spacecraft because it is not feasible to maintain a 

man-tended servicing capability in Earth orbit—the costs of launching orbital transfer vehicles and propellant would be excessive (it costs around $10,000 to launch one 

pound to low Earth orbit). Creating the ability to refuel in orbit, using propellant 

derived from the Moon, would revolutionize the way we view and use our national 

space infrastructure. Satellites could be repaired, rather than abandoned. Assets can 

be protected rather than written off. Very large satellite complexes could be built 

and serviced over long periods, creating new capabilities and expanding bandwidth 

(the new commodity of the information society) for a wide variety of purposes. And 

along the way, we will create opportunities and make discoveries. 

A return to the Moon, with the purpose of learning to mine and use its resources, 

thus creates a new paradigm for space operations. Space becomes a part of America’s industrial world, not an exotic environment for arcane studies. Such a mission 

ties our space program to its original roots in making us more secure and more 

prosperous. But it also enables a broader series of scientific and exploratory opportunities. If we can create a spacefaring infrastructure that can routinely access 

cislunar space, we have a system that can take us to the planets. 

(10) The infrastructure created by a return to the Moon will allow us to travel 

to the planets in the future more safely and cost effectively. 

This benefit comes in two forms. First, developing and using lunar resources can 

enable flight throughout the Solar System by permitting the fueling the interplanetary craft with materiel already in orbit, saving the enormous costs of launch from 

Earth’s surface. Second, the processes and procedures that we learn on the Moon 

are lessons that will be applied to all future space operations. To successfully mine 

the Moon, we must learn how to use machines and people in tandem, each taking 

advantage of the other’s strengths. The issue isn’t ‘‘people or robots?’’ in space; it’s 

‘‘how can we best use people and robots in space?’’ People bring the unique abilities 

of cognition and experience to exploration and discovery; robots possess extraordinary stamina, strength, and sensory abilities. We can learn on the Moon how to 

best combine these two complementary skill mixes to maximize our exploratory and 

exploitation abilities. 

Return to the Moon will allow us to regain operational experience on another 

world. The activities on the Moon make future planetary missions less risky because 

we gain this valuable experience in an environment close to Earth, yet on a distinct 

31 

and unique alien world. Systems and procedures can be tested, vetted, revised and 

re-checked. Exploring a planet is a difficult task to tackle green; learning to live and 

work on the Moon gives us a chance to crawl before we have to walk in planetary 

exploration and surface operations. 

The establishment of the Earth-Moon economy may be best accomplished through 

an independently organized Federal expedition along the lines of the Lewis and 

Clark expedition. Dr. Stone, who is eminently qualified to lead such an expedition, 

has prepared the Shackleton Crater Expedition proposal (attached to this testimony) 

to elaborate upon this alternative organizational strategy. One of the fundamental 

tenets of this approach is to take a business stance on cost control with the objective 

of demonstrating a positive return on investment. Such an approach would take advantage of the best that NASA and other Federal agencies have to offer, while 

streamlining the costs through a series of hard-nosed business approaches. 

A lunar program has many benefits to society in general. America needs a challenging, vigorous space program. Such a program has served as an inspiration to 

the young for the last 50 years and it can still serve that function. It must present 

a mission that inspires and enriches. It must relate to important national needs yet 

push the boundaries of the possible. It must serve larger national concerns beyond 

scientific endeavors. A return to the Moon fulfills these goals. It is a technical challenge to the Nation. It creates security for America by assuring access and control 

of our assets in cislunar space. It creates wealth and new markets by producing 

commodities of great commercial value. It stimulates and inspires the next generation by giving them the chance to travel and experience space flight for themselves. 

A return to the Moon is the right destination for America. 

Thank you for your attention. 

ATTACHMENT

Invited Presentation to: International Lunar Conference, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 

November 16–21, 2003 

RETURN TO THE MOON: A NEW DESTINATION FOR THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM

Paul D. Spudis—Applied Physics Laboratory—Laurel, MD 

NASA has no future plans for human exploration of space beyond completion of 

the International Space Station (ISS). Yet human space flight makes up the bulk 

of the agency’s budget and is also the source of most of the public support the space 

program retains. Without a new follow-on goal, human space flight will stagnate 

and the entire civil space program may be in jeopardy. 

Although many claim that only a manned Mars mission will draw the necessary 

public support, the initiation of such a program is unlikely for two reasons: it’s too 

technically challenging for at least another decade and will cost more money than 

Congress can be reasonably expected to provide. Although alternative destinations 

beyond LEO are imaginable (e.g., Lagranian points), in the public mind, they differ 

little from being simply ISS at a different location. 

In contrast, the Moon is a small, nearby planet of immense intellectual and economic value. The Moon is a natural laboratory for planetary science, displaying 

many of the geological processes that operate on all the terrestrial planets. Moreover, the lunar surface preserves the early history of the Earth-Moon system, a 

record erased from the dynamic, active surface of the Earth. The Moon is a superb 

platform for observing the universe, with an airless, stable surface, long night-times, 

and a far side permanently shielded from the radio static of Earth. By understanding the specifics of the human-machine partnership, a new technique of exploration that maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of using people 

and robots to explore space, we can learn to live and work in space on the Moon. 

The Moon contains abundant resources of material and energy for use in space and 

on the lunar surface. The recent discovery of large amounts of hydrogen in the polar 

regions show that extraction and use of lunar resources may be easier than we had 

originally thought. 

Our return to the Moon can be accomplished using the existing infrastructure 

that supports Shuttle and ISS. Launch of components can be done with Shuttle or 

STS-derived cargo vehicles and Delta-IV–H vehicles. Cargo flights can emplace a 

staging node at Earth-Moon L1, from which lunar surface missions would be staged. 

Human crews can depart and return from ISS or another LEO location. Lunar 

landers would descend from the L1 node, delivering both robotic cargo and human 

crews, land, and conduct the surface mission. After return to L1, the crew could 

await re-alignment of the orbital plane of ISS, upon which they would return to 

Earth orbit, using aerocapture. This architecture allows us to return to the Moon 

32 

with minimal development of new hardware and technology and use the ISS as a 

staging platform, making that program more directly relevant to future human exploration of space. 

The mission of a lunar return should be to learn how to use off-planet resources. 

Such a mission is technically challenging, but within relatively easy reach. It gives 

NASA a task that is directly relevant to future American national and commercial 

interests in space, thus making it politically palatable. Learning how to identify, 

characterize, extract and use off-planet resources is a task that we must learn if 

humanity is to have a future in space. By providing the ability to refuel spacecraft 

in orbit, this mission will establish routine access to cislunar space for both people 

and machines. Freeing us from the cumbersome logistical bonds of Earth, a return 

to the Moon will be the first step towards both true space independence and to the 

planets beyond. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That’s excellent. I look forward to the discussion. 

Senator Nelson can’t stay with us very much longer, so, Senator 

Nelson, questions or comments? They’d be welcome at this time. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to say my personal thanks to you for having these kind 

of hearings that will stimulate us. I agree with Senator Schmitt’s 

statement about the need for sustained political and financial commitment to see the job through and not turn back, and that’s something that he’s had an experience with in the Apollo Program when 

it got cutoff. Continuing on with your comments, not underfunding 

the effort, a huge problem facing the Space Shuttle and the Space 

Station. 

So your argument here is, you’d be able to attract investors to 

go to the Moon for this effort to mine helium-3. Now, it’s hard to 

believe, but you made a presentation 10 years ago, at my invitation, to the Space Business Roundtable. What has changed, in a 

decade, in your thinking and your refinement of us being able to 

go and help our energy crisis? 

Dr. SCHMITT. Two things, Senator. One is, we’ve made tremendous progress in the research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where we do have sustained fusion going on in these small reactors—and they are small; they’re about this size [indicating]—at 

what may seem like a very low level, but it’s more than anybody 

else has ever done, now at about a milliwatt. But the other thing, 

the second thing, that’s changed is that we now know that, beginning at about a watt of sustained fusion power, there are near-term 

commercial applications, what I started to call ‘‘bridging businesses,’’ that can help bootstrap your way to the point of where investors could ultimately be asked to invest in the lunar enterprise. 

I’m not naive enough to think that you can ask—that some investor’s going to—well, it would be nice if they would—but would let 

me play with their capital for 10 or 15 years before they got a return on investment. 

So we’ve been looking at these interim businesses, these bridging 

businesses. And the first one, at about a watt of fusion power, taking several thousand kilowatts to produce, but still about a watt of 

fusion power, is the production of positron radio isotypes for PET 

diagnostic-use, positron-emitting tomography. 

The second application, as power levels go up, will probably be 

in the detection—using a neutron-producing mix in the detection of 

explosives, and particularly portable landmine detection, robotic 

33 

landmine detection. That would be, of course—the customer there 

would be primarily the government. 

Another potential use, at higher power levels, is the transmutation of existing fission waste. The helium-3/helium-3 reaction or the 

helium-3/deuterium reaction both produce protons as their primary 

reaction product. And protons have a very interesting property, in 

that if you engineer the exposure of isotopes to them, and particularly the radioactive isotypes, you can change them to either stable 

isotopes or to very short-lived isotopes, so that that problem starts 

to go away much, much faster than it will under any other scenario 

that’s been discussed. When you reach a point of breakeven—that 

is, where your power in is equal to or less than the power out, fusion power out—then, of course, you have a number of different applications for these relatively small portable devices. 

The nice thing about the IEC, the inertial electrostatic confinement fusion technology, is that it lends itself to modular power 

sources. In fact, you can even begin to think in terms of having a 

helium-3 powered aircraft at about the size of the old KC–135. It 

looks as if—back of the envelope, now, calculations—looks as if, for 

the fuel load of that size airplane, you could have a fusion power 

plant onboard for basically continuous flight. 

Now, I talk to my Air Force friends, and they say, ‘‘Well, we don’t 

quite know what we would do with that,’’ and I don’t know if you 

would use that. But the point is, we’re creating a technology base 

that is going to have an increasing number of applications. As Dr. 

Criswell has said, when you start to get into these kinds of arenas 

where you’re really stretching yourself to do new things, then you 

just can’t anticipate the applications that these technologies will 

have, both direct and indirect. 

Senator NELSON. The basic thrust, in addition to these refinements that you have just indicated for the record, but the basic 

thrust of your proposal, is as you had presented it a decade ago, 

which is to go to the Moon, mine helium-3, bring that back, and 

let that be the major source of our energy as we start to deplete 

our other sources of energy. 

Dr. SCHMITT. That’s correct. At least one of the options. There 

are going to be other options. And, in fact, one of the things that 

we’ve been doing at Wisconsin, also, is trying to develop a method—a paradigm, if you will—by which we can compare different 

sources of energy, future sources as well as current sources, on an 

apples-to-apples basis. And that’s why it’s important that what Dr. 

Criswell has talked about be developed, as what we’ve talked about 

be developed, to the point of where you have enough information 

and data that you can actually make comparisons to see what, in 

the final analysis, your bus bar cost is going to be of the electricity 

coming out at the end. And that is a very important part of developing future energy policy, is to see what those bus bar costs are 

actually going to be for various options. 

There are a lot of options for future energy supplies. Fission— 

clearly, advanced fission power systems are a very important potential part of that mix. We just have politically tied our hands, in 

this country at least, in using those. Other countries haven’t been 

quite so squeamish about the use of fission power. 

34 

We have ace-in-the-hole of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not going 

to run out for a long time. It’s just a question of price. Again, putting on my economic-geology hat, you raise the price, and I know 

a lot people who’ll go out there and find you a lot more fossil fuels. 

And that’s what’s going to happen for awhile, until we have these 

alternatives. Because a lot of us, geologists included, do not think 

that it is exactly prudent to depend on getting to this factor of five, 

factor of eight—whatever number you pick, but it’s going to be 

large—increase in energy supply and demand using fossil fuels. It’s 

just, for the long-term, probably not a prudent choice, whatever you 

may think about global climate change. 

Senator NELSON. And not only global climate change, but the 

question of the defense interests of the United States—— 

Dr. SCHMITT. Exactly. 

Senator NELSON.—if we’re dependent on a part of the world 

where we’re having so much difficulty right now—— 

Dr. SCHMITT. Exactly. It would—— 

Senator NELSON.—because they happen to have the oil reserves. 

Dr. SCHMITT. Having alternatives to fossil fuels, at least to crude 

oil, and, indeed, to natural gas, increasingly to natural gas, would 

change our foreign-policy picture significantly, to put it mildly. 

Senator NELSON. Just to conclude—and thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman, so that I can get to this caucus meeting— 

but I remember distinctly, 10 years ago you said that approximately 45,000 pounds of helium-3 would provide the energy sources 

for the United States for one entire year. Is that still an up-to-date 

calculation? 

Dr. SCHMITT. Yes, well, I think probably—I hope what I said was 

about 40 metric tons, which would be about 80-—significantly over 

80-—do I have that right, Dave?—80,000 pounds. 

Senator NELSON. So it’s cargo bay of two Space Shuttles, 

then—— 

Dr. SCHMITT. Yes. 

Senator NELSON.—instead of one. I had—— 

Dr. SCHMITT. Our energy—you’re right—ten years ago, the numbers were less than what they are today. Our energy consumption 

is going up fairly fast. 

Senator NELSON. That’s right, it’s been 10 years, hasn’t it? 

Dr. SCHMITT. Yes, I think we were using a figure closer to 45— 

you’re absolutely right now that I think about it—-closer to 45,000 

pounds in those days. It’s increased. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s just another reason for us to be concerned. It’s almost like a time warp 

for me here. The energy demand in America is twice, almost twice, 

as much as what it was 10 years ago, based on the theory that you 

need 80,000 pounds now instead of 45,000 pounds. 

Dr. SCHMITT. Yes, it’s going up quite fast. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

Dr. SCHMITT. We’ve been at this too long, Senator. 

Senator NELSON. By the way, I was on FOX News Sunday with 

Tony Snow, and I laid out this theory, and he was quite intrigued 

with it. Senator Schmitt, you might want to follow up with that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much—— 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

35 

Senator BROWNBACK.—Astronaut Nelson, along with the Senator. 

It brings a lot of expertise to this that’s deeply appreciated. 

There’s testimony I have from the TransOrbital Group. They 

weren’t able to have a witness here today, but I would asked unanimous consent that it be placed in the record, and there’s no objection to doing that. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

TRANSORBITAL, INC. 

Alexandria, VA, November 2003 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMERCIAL EXPLORATION & UTILIZATION OF THE MOON

Introduction 

TransOrbital, Inc. is the first and only commercial company to be issued permits 

by the U.S. State Department and NOAA for a commercial mission to the moon. In 

December of 2002 TransOrbital launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the 

Ukraine a lunar orbiter test article which is currently in orbit around the earth. In 

mid to late 2004 TransOrbital will launch the full scale Trailblazer lunar orbiter, 

which will be the first commercial venture to the moon. It is the intention of 

TransOrbital to show that technology has advanced to the point where deep space 

capabilities that once were only within the grasp of governments can now be cost 

effectively used by commercial businesses and that a commercial business case can 

be made for a permanent commercial presence on the moon and beyond. Although 

not specifically dependent on government funding, TransOrbital believes that public/ 

private partnerships directed towards the creation of a deep space commercial infrastructure can mitigate the costs for U.S. Government space programs and the commercialization of deep space. For example: if the U.S. Government continued and 

expanded the recently introduced practice of purchasing space related data and 

services from the private sector the U.S. space program could be more cost-effective 

and at the same time assist in the development of the commercial space industries 

to the Moon and beyond. 

TransOrbital, Inc. 

TransOrbital, Inc. was incorporated in 1998 to develop the infrastructure for exploration and commercial utilization of the Moon and, eventually, deep space. The 

company is based in Alexandria, Virginia and is privately held. TransOrbital is currently the leading candidate for the first commercial venture to the moon. 


1106TOGR1.eps
36 

TransOrbital has already launched a test satellite into Earth orbit on December 20, 

2002 and expects to launch a full-scale mission to the moon in mid to late 2004. 

TransOrbital is the only company currently licensed by the U.S. State Department 

and NOAA for a commercial venture to the moon. TransOrbital is the only company 

that has been able to demonstrate a business case for going to the moon and for 

maintaining a permanent commercial infrastructure on the moon. TransOrbital is 

a primary example of how small companies can utilize today’s technology in establishing commercial ventures in deep space. With tax incentives, public/private partnerships, legislative support on commercial issues and technology transfers/assistance from governmental agencies there is ample opportunity for the creation of a 

innovative new space program based upon small-business dynamics, deep space 

commercialization and the associated job creations that can come from such a dynamic and forward thinking synergy between the current space programs and future commercial space opportunities. 

Trailblazer 

In mid- to late-2004, TransOrbital expects to launch the first commercial lunar 

mission: TrailBlazer®. The primary purpose of TrailBlazer is to acquire high definition imagery of the Moon and other objects of interest. Although there is certainly 

a scientific object to this, the primary market for this imagery is commercial: movies, advertising, and sponsorship, education, maps and literature. In addition to the 

images taken by the spacecraft itself, we will be taking video of the assembly of the 

spacecraft and of the launch so that interested individuals around the world can be 

involved in a space program with web participation. The images will also be of value 

to others planning lunar missions, particularly lunar landers. Additional revenues 

will come from the carriage of private cargo to the lunar surface, and two scientific 

packages/experiments. 

Trailblazer will launch onboard the ISC Kosmotras Dnepr, a Russian SS–18 

ICBM converted for commercial use. The Dnepr will launch the TrailBlazer into a 

circular Earth orbit at approximately 650 km altitude. Almost immediately following separation from the upper stage, the solid TLI (Trans-Lunar Injection) kickmotor will fire and propel the spacecraft into a 4-day Apollo-style trajectory to the 

Moon. The kick motor and the attached interstage (see Figure 1) will separate from 

the spacecraft and impact the Moon. During the trans-Lunar cruise flight, the 

spacecraft will gather a great deal of imagery of the flight, including the ejected 

booster, the receding Earth, and the approaching Moon, in both video and panoramic still views. 


1106TOGR2.eps
37 

Once the spacecraft has reached the moon, it will fire its on-board thruster and 

enter an elliptical, polar orbit around the Moon. Over the course of up to ninety 

days Trailblazer will be able to image the entire surface of the Moon and deliver 

a high-definition atlas of the lunar surface. Images are taken over a 1-hour pass 

while the spacecraft is nearest the Moon. While the NASA/BMDO (Ballistic Missile 

Defense Organization) INRL (Naval Research Lab) probe Clementine returned a 

very good set of images of the lunar surface, these were all taken with the sun almost directly overhead, while the lunar science community would prefer the lighting 

to be from the side, which shows better surface details. TrailBlazer will orbit so that 

the Sun is about 15 degrees above the horizon, which should give excellent shadowing of the surface features. 

Immediately after entering lunar orbit, TrailBlazer will revisit one of the most famous of all of the Apollo scenes: the Earth rising majestically over the limb of the 

Moon—Earthrise (see Figure 2). In high-definition video lasting over 10 minutes, 

this will be nothing short of magnificent. 

When the lunar surface atlas images are complete, TrailBlazer’s orbit will be lowered so that the point of closest approach is less than 10 miles Figure 2—Apollo 

Earth rise above the surface. This will allow us to view, with a high degree of detail, 

specific small targets such as the U.S. Surveyor and Apollo and the Russian 

Lunakhod landing sites, as well as other areas that are of special interest. In particular, we wish to image several areas that may serve as sites for future space 

landings, including ‘‘Angus Bay’’ (Mare Anguis, just off of Mare Crisium), and the 

polar regions. Because of the irregular gravity of the Moon-due to its small size and 

the ‘‘mascons’’ (mass concentrations) caused by the upwelling of lava into large impact craters, any orbit this low requires constant maintenance and TrailBlazer’s fuel 

will be exhausted after a few days. Before the fuel is totally gone, and the spacecraft 

goes out of control, it will be aimed at an area well away from any site of historical 

or particular geologic value and impacted into the surface. As much as possible, 

video will be returned during the final descent, which should be quite spectacular. 

In addition to the cameras, a selection of inert payloads will be placed onto TrailBlazer and carried to the lunar surface in its final descent. One of these will be a 

time capsule, consisting of a metal disk with micro-etched images on its surface. At 

our website, given below, you can enter one or more pages of words and text to be 

inscribed on this disk for future lunar explorers to find. Although the spacecraft will 

be destroyed by the impact, the disk will be carried inside of an especially hardened 

time capsule that will survive the impact of Trailblazer on the Moons surface. 

Three scientific and technical projects round out the Trailblazer mission. The 

spacecraft will be carrying a radiometer constructed by a group in Italy in order to 

study the radio interference levels at a proposed site on the lunar far side for a 

radio-astronomy observatory. Also, TransOrbital has been funded by the Foundation 

for the International Non-government Development of Space (FINDS) to study the 

use of Global Positioning Satellite signals for location in near-Earth space. Finally, 

the spacecraft will be testing algorithms associated with the Interplanetary Internet 


1106TOGR3.eps
38 

protocols developed by NASA and private researchers for extending Internet communications into space. 

In an important first step, TransOrbital, Inc. launched an inert TrailBlazer test 

article in December of 2002. This launch allowed the company to test and verify the 

integration and communications procedures required for using the Dnepr launch vehicle. The test article is currently in Earth orbit at an altitude of 650 km. Figure 

3 shows the test article during launch vehicle integration, at the Yuzhnoye Design 

Office in the Ukraine. 

Future Missions 

Following TrailBlazer, TransOrbital, Inc. plans a series of lunar landers. Like 

TrailBlazer the Electra landers—depicted in Figure 4—will perform a variety of 

functions, including support of scientific exploration, gathering imagery for entertainment and artistic purposes, and most significantly the establishment of secure 

data servers on the Moon. 

Commercial Space Exploration 

None of the work that TransOrbital, or any of the other private space concerns, 

has accomplished would be possible without the technological development that 

NASA has accomplished over the past 30-some years. We believe that the techVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\20197.TXT JACKIE

1106TOGR4.eps 1106TOGR5.eps
39 

nology and the market place have now developed to the point where some of the 

work that is currently performed exclusively by government space programs can be 

transitioned to the private sector, encouraging efficiency and the creation of new 

jobs and markets. This is similar to the way that the communications satellite industry has succeeded in creating a profitable commercial enterprise by transitioning 

NASA technologies and innovations. For instance, TransOrbital believes that many 

activities that currently performed by communications satellites could be performed 

more efficiently by relays and data servers located on the moon. 

TransOrbital would like to encourage the U.S. Government to continue and expand the recently introduced practice of purchasing science data and services from 

the private sector. Such projects as the $50M Earth imaging Scientific Data Purchasing Project recently concluded at NASA Stennis Space Center show the value 

of such purchases. Both NOAA (the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) and the Department of Defense have a successful history of similar 

agreements under the Brooks Act and the A–76 processes. This practice should be 

expanded to include space science data, in particular lunar data. It would fit well 

within the recently published NASA Announcement of Opportunity (AO 030SS–03) 

for New Frontier missions, including missions leading to the proposed Lunar 

Aitken-basin sample return. 

Although these data purchases are most helpful, opportunities should be expanded to give private industry an even greater role in space exploration and commercial development of space. Some suggestions include: 

• Encouraging NASA, NOAA, and the DOD to serve as ‘‘private/public partners’’ 

for multi-purpose commercial space missions, specifically allowing them to co 

exist with commercial operations. AO 030SS–03 specifies that NASA can participate in ‘‘missions of opportunity’’, but doesn’t encourage private/public partnerships. Private/public partnerships would assist private companies in the acquisition of funding for multi-purpose commercial space missions. 

• Providing tax incentives for commercial space operations. If successful, commercial space (beyond the Comsat and Earth-imaging industries) would provide significant levels of employment and encourage private sector investment. Ultimately the creation of jobs and investment capital would generate significant 

business and individual tax revenues while at the same time reducing the cost 

of U.S. government expenditures on space related programs. Historically tax incentives have been extremely effective in the creation of new industry. 

• Having NASA provide data and technical support services, either under CRDA 

(Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) or through open forum 

commercial exchanges. NASA has unparalleled analysis capabilities, and much 

is available commercially through technology transfer. Most small businesses 

would not have the capital to create the kind of infrastructure and database 

support available through NASA. However if NASA could provide support services, information, technology, ground station support etc. along with preferential 

contract pricing, There is an opportunity for public/private commercial agreements that can assist both NASA and small commercial enterprises in the development of a deep space commercial infrastructure. 

• Recognition that, especially for small commercial companies, international cooperation is essential for providing a cost-competitive product. For instance, 

presently the only economically feasible launch provider for TrailBlazer is the 

Russian Dnepr. TransOrbital has put significant time and effort into ensuring 

that our use of the Dnepr satisfies all State Department ITAR control requirements. Unfortunately despite this effort regulatory and institutional barriers 

make it almost impossible to launch any NASA or other U.S. Government payload on the Dnepr, or any other non-U.S. launch vehicle. While there is a history of NASA and U.S. Government agency launches from Russian launch vehicles there is currently no defined protocol for the use of foreign based launch 

vehicles that could be used for public/private partnership commercial space 

launches. While it is appropriate to consider all ITAR concerns the commercial 

space industry is very much a worldwide business. Expediting the ability of 

American small space related companies to participate in the acquisition of 

services on a worldwide basis would enhance the growth potential of American 

small commercial deep space companies. 

• Opening up the International Space Station as soon as possible to true commercial operations on a rental basis. Currently, there are significant regulatory and 

reporting blocks to use of ISS for commercial purposes which, technically, are 

not required. Lunar exploration would be greatly enhanced by being able to use 

ISS as a staging area for assembly and retrieval of spacecraft. 

40 

• Passing legislation to encourage the commercial exploration and utilization of 

space-based resources. Right now, there is very little legislative backing for 

commercial operations beyond communications and remote-sensing spacecraft. 

While TrailBlazer will demonstrate that commercial lunar operations are viable, 

companies may be reluctant to take chances that their base of operations may 

be declared ‘‘a common heritage of mankind’’ and taken from them. Territorial 

imperatives is an issue which will become more and more requisite of definition 

in deep space as commercial and governmental entities establish positions on 

the moon and elsewhere. The issue of property rights, land-use, right of access, 

right of-way, and commercial exploitation are all issues that will need definition 

and structural protocols in the very near future. 

• Recognize the necessity for low-cost launch opportunities within the Continental 

United States. TransOrbital has contracted for low-cost Russian launch vehicles 

which are converted ICBM missiles that would otherwise be destroyed under 

the START treaties. The United States has similar missiles which can be converted for commercial use as well but they have not been made available to the 

general commercial marketplace. There are currently severe restrictions as to 

how U.S. ICBMs can be utilized in commercial space programs. Removing these 

restrictions and converting existing U.S. missiles would provide an inventory of 

low-cost launch vehicles for small commercial companies similar to what is currently being done by the Russian commercial launch companies. Utilizing the 

U.S. missiles for the creation of new American industries and to help mitigate 

the cost of U.S. space programs would be an excellent opportunity for commercial growth in the United States and the commercialization of space. 

Conclusion 

Advances in technology and the availability of a wide variety of goods and services—many originating in NASA and DOD programs mean that space exploration 

and the utilization of space-based resources are now within the reach of commercial 

companies. Communications and remote-sensing spacecraft have proven that the 

utilization of near Earth space is commercially viable. TransOrbital, Inc.’s TrailBlazer spacecraft will demonstrate the viability of lunar exploration. As has been 

demonstrated in initial efforts by NOAA and the DOD, the purchase of scientific 

data and services from commercial suppliers is a cost-effective practice. Continuing 

and expanding this practice to include lunar exploration and other deep-space commercial development/research will be an efficient way to gather good scientific data 

and to create a permanent commercial infrastructure in space to support both private and public enterprises. Cost-sharing between the public and private sectors offers an opportunity for the commercialization of a deep space infrastructure while 

at the same time offering cost efficiencies for government based space programs. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Tutor me, gentlemen. I’ve got some questions, and I want to understand some items. I want to start with 

Dr. Spudis, if I could. 

You say we can go back to the Moon, with current technology, 

using even the Space Shuttle or its technology to get back, and can 

do it within a period of five to 7 years. Is that right? 

Dr. SPUDIS. That’s my belief, yes, sir. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Now, what do you base that upon? 

Dr. SPUDIS. Well, fundamentally there’s no magic involved here. 

We know what’s involved in going back to the Moon. It involves 

building vehicles that can transfer between orbits, from low-Earth 

orbit to lunar-transfer orbit and then down to the lunar surface. It 

involves rocket technology that’s fairly much off the shelf. It’s 

merely a matter of getting the mass and the engines and the propellent in the right place at the right time. 

The reason I emphasize using existing facilities is because they 

are adequate. We have a lot of money invested in Shuttle and 

Shuttle infrastructure, and there’s no reason why that infrastructure cannot be used to build the launch systems that we want. 

Senator BROWNBACK. On a specific point, can we use the Space 

Shuttle craft to go back to the Moon? 

41 

Dr. SPUDIS. In part, yes, sir. You can use the Shuttle to launch 

components, but also you can use the existing expendable launch 

vehicles to do it. But, more than that, you can take Shuttle parts 

and build an unmanned heavy-lift vehicle with them. There was a 

concept NASA had a few years ago called Shuttle C, which basically took used Shuttle main engines and the external tank and the 

solid-rocket stack, and basically attach it to a big cargo carrier, and 

that can put between 60 and 70 metric tons into low-Earth orbit. 

So, in fact, we have a heavy-lift vehicle right now. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Can you use the Shuttle spacecraft itself to 

take humans back to the Moon? 

Dr. SPUDIS. You couldn’t take the whole—it wouldn’t be cost-effective or smart to fly the whole Shuttle to the Moon, because a lot 

of the mass, the airframe, of the Shuttle is specifically related to 

the reentry—the wings and the thermal protection system. What 

you would do is, you would use the Shuttle to ferry the crews back 

and forth to low-Earth orbit, just as they do now with Space Station. You would build a separate vehicle, based on Shuttle and Station-derived hardware, to go to the Moon. 

Senator BROWNBACK. From low-Earth orbit. 

Dr. SPUDIS. From low-Earth orbit, yes. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you think that’s a better route to go 

than just go back to the Apollo type of design where you’re launching from the Earth and heading to the Moon? 

Dr. SPUDIS. I do, because the Apollo design was a magnificent 

machine, but it was specifically designed as a one-off. Each mission 

was a set of equipment that was designed to transport one crew to 

the surface and back, and then that equipment was thrown away. 

If you go look in the Air and Space Museum down the street, 

there’s the Apollo 11 command module. That’s the only thing that 

came back from the 360-foot-high Apollo 5 stack, Saturn 5 stack. 

And, what’s more, Saturn 5 lifted 100 metric tons to low-Earth 

orbit. The problem was, it’s a very expensive vehicle, on a recurring 

basis, because parts of it were literally handmade. And what we 

need to do is to use equipment that we can reuse. That’s where 

we’re really going to make spaceflight more routine and more common, is to reuse equipment and not throw it away after one use. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But the Shuttle is enormously expensive. 

Dr. SPUDIS. It is. And we’re spending that money, whether the 

Shuttle is flying or not. The Shuttle is expensive right now, even 

though it’s sitting on the ground down at the Cape. And what I’m 

trying to look at is a way to use the existing infrastructure in 

which there’s a very large capital investment down at Cape Kennedy, to basically build rockets and a transport system that will 

allow us to do this. 

Now, there are other ways to approach this. You can imagine an 

architecture—in the attachment you have, Dr. Stone’s ‘‘Shackelton 

Expedition,’’ he looks at using commercial launch vehicles, and concludes that you can do this all with expendable launch vehicles. 

So the reason you use heavy lift is to get big chunks in orbit at 

once. There’s no reason why you can’t assemble it in smaller pieces 

brought up by existing smaller launch vehicles. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You mentioned about a Lewis and Clark 

type of mission, and several of you mentioned getting the private 

42 

sector involved. And I note some people in the audience that have 

talked about getting the private sector much more involved. How 

do we do that? Should we be contracting with people in the private 

sector, saying, ‘‘We want you to do the Moon trip. What do you bid 

it at?’’ And doing this on a private sector bidding-it-out basis and 

run by the private sector? 

Dr. SPUDIS. Well, there are a lot of possibilities. I’ve always 

thought that the purpose of Federal involvement in space exploration is to do the risky—high-risk development things that private 

industry won’t invest in. But once that’s done, once the technology 

is demonstrated, you should turn it over to the private-sector activity. 

To give you an example, the commercial launch industry in this 

country puts into geosynchronous orbit a mass equivalent to an 

Apollo launch every year. Now, that industry did not exist 40 years 

ago, and largely it was created on the technology base that came 

from Apollo. So, in that sense, you always have the private sector 

following governmental activity. 

But there are other more innovative ways you can look at it. One 

thing you might consider is to establish a joint program office that 

would have direct authority from the executive to implement a specific plan to return to the Moon. That would involve various Federal agencies, such as NASA, Defense Department, Department of 

Energy, and then that could also partner with private-sector entities, as well. So there are a lot of innovative ways to look at managing this, more than just making this a NASA program. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Yes, that’s an interesting point. 

Dr. Spudis, you mentioned that Europe, India, Japan, and China 

all have robotic missions to the Moon in some stage right now? 

Dr. SPUDIS. That’s correct. Right now, the Europeans are actually 

en route to the Moon with a mission called SMART–1 that was 

launched about a month ago, and it’s using solar-electric propulsion, so it’s going to take about 18 months to get to the Moon. It 

uses a very low-thrust, high-ISP engine that loops around the 

Earth multiple times and gradually reaches the Moon. 

Japan has two lunar missions in the works that I am aware of. 

One is actually a set of two penetrators that will hard land into 

the Moon and search for seismic evidence for a lunar core. The 

other one is a very large spacecraft, a two-ton spacecraft, that will 

do remote sensing from orbit. 

The Indians have announced that they are planning to send a 

lunar obiter in 2008. And I have read reports that the Chinese are 

not only planning to send orbiters and landers, but they are also 

looking at architectures designed to send people to the Moon, as 

well. 

Senator BROWNBACK. In what timeframe, on the Chinese? 

Dr. SPUDIS. It’s very vague, but my understanding, they talk 

about robotic missions within the next few years, and they certainly talk about human missions within a decade. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Angel, the telescopes on the Moon that 

you talked about, where does this rank in the astronomy community as far as their depth of support and interest in putting telescopes on the Moon? Is this their top priority item? Is this one of 

those, ‘‘Well, if you’ve got the money, it would be nice to do’’? 

43 

Where does this rank in their interest for exploration and research 

purposes? 

Dr. ANGEL. I think there’s a lot of enthusiasm for building telescopes and looking beyond what we’re now engaged in, which is the 

James Webb Telescope. I would say that the idea of going to the 

Moon is a new one, and I think the thinking up to now has been 

more to go to the same remote places that we put telescopes that 

don’t need servicing. 

So I think the astronomy community—I’m a bit ahead of them 

right—is looking hard at what the Moon would do—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Meaning they haven’t been looking at it, 

because they just didn’t see this as a feasible thing that we would 

even consider doing? 

Dr. ANGEL. I think there’s always a second-guessing about what 

you think NASA is going to be interested in supporting. And it’s 

certainly true, for the last decade, that NASA has not encouraged 

thinking about the Moon as a site for astronomy or that kind of development. 

Dr. SCHMITT. Put very kindly. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. ANGEL. But, I’ve tried to take a problem, have an issue and 

say, well, what’s it really like there? And I think that the hurdle 

has been that telescopes on the Moon do have to work in the presence of gravity, and if you’re fighting that, that makes it harder. 

So, other things being equal, if you can figure out how to get the 

manned support for a big telescope somewhere else, maybe you 

would prefer that. If there’s a strong interest in a base on the 

Moon—and I subscribe to a lot of the views here—then if that were 

there and it were at the south pole, then I think the astronomical 

potential there is very high. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And the support from the community 

would be very high at that point in time if this is seen as a real 

possibility? 

Dr. ANGEL. I think the nervousness in the community is to be 

the tail on a very big dog. So if you put all your hopes into placing 

a big telescope on the Moon, you join an enormous enterprise over 

which you have very little influence. 

Again, it’s back to this issue of there being a commitment to sustain this kind of effort? Because there are less ambitious ways that 

you could get at least some of your astronomy done and feel that 

it was more in your control. 

So I think if one felt that this was really going to happen, there 

was really going to be a base, then I think there would be enormous enthusiasm to do things there. But if you feel you’re going 

to go down a few years down this road and then it’s abandoned, 

and you’ve basically set back your effort that you might have gone 

in another direction. 

Senator BROWNBACK. By what sort of factor would the view of 

the Hubble Space Telescope improve, if we were to place telescopes 

on the Moon? Would we be able to get 20 percent better reach, and 

be able to get 30 percent better definition, are we talking in multiples here, if we have telescopes properly placed on the Moon? 

Dr. ANGEL. Well, I had looked at the sensitivity of the James 

Webb Telescope, which is a six meter telescope that we’re now enVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:15 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\20197.TXT JACKIE
44 

gaged in. If we put a 20 meter telescope on the south pole of the 

Moon, and there are two things that let you see deeper and further 

and fainter. One is a bigger aperture, and that makes a sharper 

image, collects more light, and the other is just to wait for an enormously long time, which is what—the Hubble, in looking at its very 

deep views of the universe, collected light for a couple of weeks on 

the same patch of sky. If you’re at the south pole of the Moon, you 

can look 24 hours a day for years at the same patch, and if you 

do that, you can see even a hundred times fainter than the Webb 

Telescope. So it’s a very specialized job, right, with just drilling into 

the universe in one patch, go as deep as you can. That’s what it 

would take to see these first stars. 

So this is not just a small increment on what—all the plans at 

the moment, which go as far as the Webb Telescope. We could go 

a lot deeper if we made this observatory and used it for a long 

time. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Whoever wants to take this question, I 

would appreciate you jumping in, or maybe a couple of you would. 

There’s a lot of discussion about going to Mars. Dr. Spudis, you addressed a portion of that in your testimony. And I think there are 

some thinking that you go to the Moon to get to Mars. Address this 

issue for me. Are these exclusive matters—I mean, given likely 

budgetary constraints—that you pick either the Moon or Mars? Or 

is the Moon essential to making it to Mars and learning? Give me 

your thoughts about how this ties in with a Mars mission. 

Dr. SPUDIS. Well, the way I see it is that what you want to do 

on the Moon is to learn how to use off-planet resources. And if you 

can do that, you’ve not only opened up the way to Mars, you’ve 

opened up the way to anywhere else you want to go. Effectively, 

by making propellent on the Moon and making the commodities 

you need to support human life, you’ve basically created the ability 

to move throughout the Earth-Moon system, throughout cislunar 

space. And if you can do that, certainly you can—that propellent 

can be used to send future missions to Mars. So it’s not really a 

diversion, it’s more—I consider it more of an enabling technology. 

Right now, to go to Mars would require an amazing amount of 

money, probably an amount of investment that this country is not 

willing to put up. But, more than that, I think that you need to 

gather more experience in space. You need to gather experience in 

planetary surface operations, in using resources, and in actually 

building an infrastructure. So that’s the value of going to the Moon, 

relative to a Mars mission. If you go to the Moon and do this, you 

will automatically make it easier to go to Mars in the future. 

Dr. SCHMITT. Mr. Chairman—— 

Senator BROWNBACK. Senator? 

Dr. SCHMITT.—it’s not an accident that our umbrella little corporate entity is called Interlune-Intermars, because we think that 

the cheapest and probably the fastest way to get human beings to 

Mars and begin the exploration and settlement of that planet is by 

way of the Moon, through commercial development of the technology base that’s necessary to go to the Moon and to extract its 

resources. And the reason I say that is that if you can get investors 

to bear the capital burden of that development, then the price to 

the government or other entity that decides that it wants to fund 

45 

a mission to Mars is significantly less. In addition, the development 

of this particular type of fusion technology has a very, very clear 

application to interplanetary propulsion systems through which 

you can accelerate and decelerate continuously and change the dynamics of actually performing Mars exploration. 

But in contrast to what Dr. Spudis has said, we feel if you’re 

going to depend primarily on a commercial endeavor, then you’re 

going to have to have a rocket system that, through mass production—or through long-term production contracts, better put— 

reaches a cost, a payload cost, to lunar injection of about $2,000 a 

kilogram or less. We’ve done some business modeling studies at the 

University of Wisconsin, the business school there, and right now 

it looks like you’ve got to get down into that range. We don’t think 

Shuttle-derived hardware can do that. We don’t think the government can do that. It’s going to take, I think, the initiative and the 

constraints of a commercial enterprise to drive those costs to that 

level. 

We would look at an up-rated Saturn 5, call it a Saturn 6, as sort 

of a baseline system to evaluate and then to compare other systems 

to, because it was a very successful technology, and it’s a technology that would benefit from long-term production contracts, as 

well as from modernized manufacturing and design systems. 

With respect to the role the government could play in all of this 

to facilitate it and to make investors more comfortable, we have 

more recently been looking at—encouraging the government, NASA 

maybe in particular, to take on, in this field, an NACA-like responsibility. That’s the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics 

that was the precursor to NASA and, during the last century, had 

so much to do with enabling the development of the technologies, 

it ultimately became the foundations of the commercial aircraft industry. 

That model is a very good model for certain things, and we think 

it could be utilized as a way to attack and accelerate technology development that would be necessary for commercial enterprises in 

space across the board, not just those enterprises going to the 

Moon. 

But as a partnership with government, we think that would be 

a very, very difficult managerial nut to crack, frankly. And either 

you need NASA or a new agency to take this on, or you need to 

be primarily looking at investors to take it on. I don’t think there’s 

a good middle ground. We’ve looked at that, evaluated it, and it 

looks like a very, very tough row to hoe. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Spudis suggested that one of the routes 

might be an interagency operation. I think, if I get your testimony 

correct, that it might be done by a group, because you have military objectives, exploration objectives, research, commercial objectives, and you would be going across a number of different agencies 

to do this project. 

Dr. SCHMITT. I think there’s a lot of history, Mr. Chairman, to 

say that those kind of endeavors don’t work very well. They’re very, 

very hard to manage. And it’s probably better to see that there is 

a central focus, either within the private sector or within the government, for the development of the capability, and then that capability is utilized independently by other entities. 

46 

As a matter of fact, if you go back in history, President Eisenhower debated with himself whether or not there would be a NASA 

or whether missile development would be spread—concentrated 

missile development within one agency, or it would be spread out 

between several agencies. And he decided on the latter. And I think 

it has been to the benefit—although not without its problems, but 

to the gross benefit, the general benefit—of the development of 

rocket technologies for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army were 

left with separate responsibilities in the development of rocket systems, because they had very special applications of those rocket 

systems. If it had all been concentrated in one agency in the Department of Defense, then I think there probably never would have 

been a NASA, for one thing. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Criswell, did you have anything else 

that you would like to add to any of your testimony or any of these 

questions? 

Dr. CRISWELL. Yes. The statement is often made in the literature 

that we have major sources of fossil fuel that can last for centuries. 

And that is true, but what you usually don’t hear is the statement, 

the flip side of that statement, that the majority of people in the 

world will stay dirt-poor. Right now, a billion people are rich with 

energy; the other five are not. In 2050, a billion people will be rich 

with energy—probably not as many in this country as there are 

now, or in OECD—but nine billion people will be poor. 

I’ve identified 33 options that could bring the world up to a minimum level of energy use, about two kilowatts electric per person 

by 2050, that can get the cost low enough that the five to nine billion people could afford it, that would be clean, that would be independent of the biosphere, that used technologies that you can understand now. And I’ve only identified one, and that’s this lunar 

option. 

It was an unusual career path that I took out of Rice, where I 

did my Ph.D., back when Apollo was just starting. And for the first 

7 years at the Lunar Science Institute, I managed the first 3,500 

proposals submitted to NASA for lunar science. That was full peerreview activity, and a lot of scientists there depended on the data 

and the samples brought back by Dr. Schmitt. We don’t usually realize that the U.S. and the world has invested over a billion dollars 

already in understanding what we did on the Moon, the samples, 

and the environment since then. 

We, as a Nation, have expended almost $650 billion on our civilian space program. World technology relevant to the Lunar Solar 

Power system is basically electronics, an that’s been the source, 

major source, of wealth for this nation, if not for the world, for the 

past 30 years. 

We have all the pieces to do this. We could get through the R&D 

phase for about .08 percent per year, for the next 6 years, of our 

gross product. We could get through the full implementation phase 

in 35 years for a quarter of a percent of our present gross national 

product. That could lead to a factor-of-ten increase in gross world 

product. It could remove from Earth the need to fight wars over 

scarce energy resources, and to have independent control of those 

energy sources so that they do not pollute the biosphere. 

47 

Essentially, by establishing the production of new wealth on the 

Moon through commodities, making of commodities to do the things 

I’m talking about, you change the future of the human race. 

Senator BROWNBACK. A powerful statement, and very interesting. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining me here today and 

building this case up for returning to the Moon. I think we’re at 

an exciting point. We’re at a key moment where things are being 

reviewed for real possibility and sustainability. I’m very aware of 

the stop-and-start nature that we’ve been going over the past two 

decades in space programs, and we can’t afford to do that again. 

And this has to be a vision that’s sustainable, that’s real, that has 

buy-in from the American public, that is sufficient to lift the soul. 

And so that’s why we’re spending this time. Let’s chew through 

this a step at a time and get to what really is something that can 

work. 

Appreciate very much your expertise and your sharing of it. The 

hearing’s adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ