U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

46–559 CC 1998

DEFINING NASA’S MISSION AND AMERICA’S VISION

FOR THE FUTURE OF SPACE EXPLORATION

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT 

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 9 AND 19, 1997

Serial No. 105–84

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

STEPHEN HORN, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia 

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South 

Carolina 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

PETE SESSIONS, Texas 

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey 

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, 

DC 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

(Independent) 

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director 

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MOSCHELLA, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian 

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk 

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

BOB BARR, Georgia 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

TOM LANTOS, California 

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia 

GARY A. CONDIT, California 

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

ROBERT CHARLES, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

IANTHE SAYLOR, Clerk 

MARK STEPHENSON, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

May 9, 1997 ....................................................................................................... 1

May 19, 1997 ..................................................................................................... 151

Statement of: 

Aldrin, Buzz, astronaut, Apollo 11; Walter Cunningham, astronaut, Apollo 7; Ron Howard, director, ‘‘Apollo 13’’; and Story Musgrave, astronaut 

and scientist .................................................................................................. 11

Carpenter, Scott, Mercury 7 astronaut; Captain Eugene Cernan, Gemini 

9, Apollo 10, and Apollo 17 astronaut; and Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 

astronaut ....................................................................................................... 152

Glaser, Peter, vice president, Arthur D. Little, Inc.; Richard Berendzen, 

professor of physics, American University; David Criswell, director, 

Institute for Space Systems Operations, University of Houston; and 

David Webb, consultant, Space Science and Engineering ......................... 58

Ouellette, Joshua, student, Academy of Science and Technology; Seth 

Potter, professor of Applied Physics, New York University; Bob Zubrin, 

president, Pioneer Astonautics; Tom Rogers, Near-Term Commercial 

Space Transport Opportunities; and John Lewis, astrogeologist .............. 189

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: 

Aldrin, Buzz, astronaut, Apollo 11, prepared statements of ....................... 17, 165

Berendzen, Richard, professor of physics, American University, prepared 

statement of ................................................................................................... 70

Cunningham, Walter, astronaut, Apollo 7, prepared statement of .............. 27

Glaser, Peter, vice president, Arthur D. Little, Inc., prepared statement 

of ..................................................................................................................... 60

Hastert, Hon. J. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 4

Potter, Seth, professor of Applied Physics, New York University, ‘‘Applications of Thin-Film Technology in Space Power Systems,’’ and ‘‘Energy 

and Information from Orbit: Technologies for the Greenhouse Century’’ 206

Rogers, Tom, Near-Term Commercial Space Transport Opportunities, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 199

Webb, David, consultant, Space Science and Engineering, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 82

Weldon, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 9

(1)

DEFINING NASA’S MISSION AND AMERICA’S 

VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF SPACE EXPLORATION 

FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m., at the 

Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, Sixth and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, Hon. J. Dennis Hastert (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastert, Souder, and Portman. 

Also present: Representative Weldon. 

Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director and chief counsel; 

and Ianthe Saylor, clerk. 

Mr. HASTERT. The hour of 8:30 having arrived, the Subcommittee 

on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice 

will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome. We have a very exciting hearing before us today with some dedicated and thoughtful and generally extraordinary witnesses. Let me say on behalf of the entire subcommittee and all those assembled here, it’s a real privilege to 

have such a spectacular group of witnesses appearing before us 

today. So gentlemen, thank you very much for giving us your time. 

I want to thank everyone involved in making this hearing possible, 

especially the Smithsonian Institute of Air and Space Museum, 

NASA, and the special witnesses who sit before us this morning. 

I’m going to keep my opening statement brief this morning in 

deference to our distinguished panels. I do want to say a little bit 

about why we are having this hearing, why we are having it here 

in the space museum, and why the topic of space and exploration 

and NASA oversight is a matter of American importance. This national security subcommittee is part of the Government Reform and 

Oversight Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. As 

such, we share oversight responsibility over a number of national 

security issues and also over NASA. 

Let me say that the Science Committee in the U.S. House, under 

the chairmanship of Congressman Sensenbrenner, and the hardworking Space Subcommittee, chaired by Congressman Rohrabacher, have been and continue to be exceptional leaders in the 

oversight of NASA. Their work is critical in defining NASA’s misVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 W:\DISC\46559 46559
2

sion, keeping costs down, and keeping NASA on track—as a matter 

of fact, just passing out the authorization on NASA recently. 

We are trying to move forward through a series of hearings on 

NASA’s vision and America’s vision for the future. I believe we may 

be holding joint hearings on some of these topics, possibly with the 

Committee on Science. Let me talk about a vision for a moment. 

In a time of tight budgets, the American Congress and NASA must 

be ever-conscious of the costs and the benefits of investments 

made. We also must struggle to truly understand that there are 

benefits, short-term and long-term, direct and indirect, that come 

from affordable space science, human space exploration, space-related technologies, aeronautical engineering breakthroughs and, 

really, the basic education and inspiration of our kids. 

These issues, so often forgotten in the public dialog, are a part 

of what has made this Nation great in the 1960’s and 1970’s. I can 

remember as a kid growing up in the 1950’s—I date myself—I 

think of the classic, the 1957 Chevrolet. Everybody remembers 

that. But as that car came out I also thought—I remember a lot 

of times standing out in the dark in the corn fields of Illinois, so 

to speak, watching Sputnik go over. 

And the inspiration and the push that that gave us as a country 

to excel, to move forward, to plan and to achieve. And that is something that we can’t forget, we should not forget, and we should not 

let go of. I think certainly the cores of concerns surrounding the 

cold war was part of that. And as a Nation we didn’t flinch in the 

face of that mounting threat. We met the challenge. We got the job 

done. We set our eyes on the Moon, and getting Americans there 

safely and returning them back to Earth. 

And we recognized the importance of mastering space both to our 

national security and to our long-term future. Let me say that the 

Air and Space Museum has created a spell-binding display here. To 

our left—as I understand, this area will open shortly—the display 

which chronicles the United States-Soviet competition to get to the 

Moon and to master space also tells another story with long-term 

implications. It reveals the extraordinary level of cooperation that 

has characterized United States-Russian relations over the past 

decade, and the great hope for international cooperation in space 

that may lie ahead. 

And the ahead part of this is what I really want to focus on. In 

the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, as this Nation rushed to secure 

our future in the face of a looming national security threat, we also 

inspired the world. Not least, we inspired our young people. Young 

Americans swarmed to the study of math and science and engineering. I think the impact on our youth is important. I wasn’t always 

in Congress. For many years—for 16 years, as a matter of fact, almost two decades—I coached and I taught. And during that period 

of time I saw what American youth can do if we challenge it. 

During the 6 years that I spent in the Illinois legislature I helped 

to create a math and science academy, because I thought we had 

to challenge our very best children, our very best kids, and bring 

them in with our very best teachers so that they could excel. And 

we hope that some day those graduates of that math and science 

academy may be taking some of your places. Although those are big 

3

shoes to fill, we have to create those types of people to be able to 

fill those shoes. 

In reference, just let me say that the personal computers that we 

all tap on every day, the microwave ovens, the plastics that preserve our food, the printed circuits, hundreds of medical advances, 

image technologies from MRI to the CAT scan and thousands of 

smaller technological advances, including aeronautical design, and 

advances that make commercial aviation safer, all can be directed 

directly to the space program. 

Let me say that I personally have a commitment to the study of 

math and science and to the study of space. I hope that we can 

produce those gifted kids, and those kids have a vision and a 

dream that they can begin to achieve some of the things that you 

have worked for and dreamed for also. I, today, would ask that behind us the lunar module mock-up—that’s in front of us today—the 

one that Mr. Aldrin and Neil Armstrong took to the Moon, the command module mock-up, the same type that Mr. Aldrin and Walt 

flew, is over to our left. The Hubble space telescope, which Mr. 

Musgrave miraculously fixed on his historic space walk, one of his 

six space shuttle flights, is also over to our left. 

We are privileged to have these astronauts with us today here 

on our first panel. We are also privileged to have us with us the 

director of a movie that truly captured the Nation’s imagination 

and caused all of us to skip a few heartbeats from time to time. 

The film, which many of you have seen, is ‘‘Apollo 13,’’ which poignantly retells the triumphant story of the explosion in outer space 

aboard our Moon-bound Apollo 13 flight, the flight that carried astronauts Jim Lovell, John Swigert, and Fred Haise. 

The movie is a gripping tale of death at the doorstep and disaster 

at the doorstep of the Apollo program. In speaking of astronauts 

they’d also say it’s one of the most realistic pieces that have probably ever been produced for the American public. They brought 

those men home safely. And that’s what the story of Apollo 13 is 

all about. Ron Howard, we’re pleased to have you here with us 

today. This hearing is about the practical oversight of space development but also about the need for vision. As a Nation in Washington, the Speaker of the House has spoken about this, and I look 

forward today to hearing our outstanding witnesses give their 

views on this crucial topic. At this time I’d like to ask Mr. Souder 

if he has any opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. J. Dennis Hastert follows:] 

4


g:\graphics\46559.001
5


g:\graphics\46559.002
6


g:\graphics\46559.003
7

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Portman. 

Mr. PORTMAN. No. 

Mr. HASTERT. Also with us today—we welcome and are very 

pleased to have with us Dr. Weldon, who represents the Kennedy 

Space Center. And I know, Doctor, you have an opening statement. 

Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

I want to thank you for allowing me to appear with you today. And 

Chairman Hastert, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and 

applaud your efforts to give NASA a greater visibility on Capitol 

Hill and with the public. I also want to thank our very distinguished panelists for taking time from their very busy schedules to 

be here today. 

I know each of you in many ways are probably busier than Congressmen, so it’s especially a pleasure to have all of you here and 

take the time out to make the statement in your support of our Nation’s space program. The space coast, which makes up most of my 

Florida district, includes NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, home to 

our Nation’s space shuttle fleet, and the launch site for all U.S. 

manned missions. It adjoins Cape Canaveral Air Station, which 

hosts most of our Nation’s commercial and military space launches 

as well as adjoining Patrick Air Force Base, which is home to the 

U.S. Air Force’s 45th Space Wing. 

So a love and interest for all things related to space runs through 

my congressional district. And I have been an outspoken proponent 

for NASA and our Nation’s space efforts. The people of the space 

program, along with everyone else in our Nation, sit captivated 

every time we have a launch from Florida. Every year hundreds of 

thousands of people from across our country and around the world 

line central Florida’s highways and viewing areas to see the space 

shuttle lift off. The space program motivates our children and inspires scientists, engineers, and explorers who constantly probe the 

unknown secrets of our world and the universe. 

And despite some recent difficulties, NASA is still a symbol of 

our Nation’s preeminent position as a scientific leader in the world. 

NASA is making important investments in such programs as the 

international space station, the next generation reusable launch vehicle, which will help the U.S. regain market shares of commercial 

launches. And NASA is leading the way in search of planets outside our solar system and other scientific endeavors that probe the 

boundaries of our scientific, medical, and engineering knowledge. 

As vice chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I am committed to 

assuring NASA has the resources it needs to move forward with its 

mission. We must continue to invest in the space station despite 

some recent difficulties. And we must continue to safely and efficiently fly the space shuttle fleet. And we must foster the development of reusable launch vehicles which promise to dramatically 

lower the cost of getting into orbit. 

However, we must also balance our human space flight program 

with a robust and ambitious science and unmanned exploration 

program. I sat transfixed with the rest of the world in the summer 

of 1994 when Jupiter was bombarded by the Schumacher-Levi 

comet, bringing the tiny dimensions of our world into the universal 

perspective. I anxiously await the data and pictures that our recently launched probe to Mars will bring, as well as the fascinating 

8

story that should emerge from our mission to Saturn later this 

year. 

So we need to have a balanced program. Automated probes and 

robots can serve us well in the initial phases of exploration and to 

explore where humans may never be able to go. But in order to 

truly get a sense of the alien world, we have to be there to touch 

it and feel it. I support a return to the Moon, maybe to stay this 

time, and a mission to Mars. Technically, we can do these things 

now. But we must find the political and economic will to make it 

happen. We must also foster our commercial space sector. 

I firmly believe the future of space exploration will depend in a 

large part on the private sector’s role. And I want to give every 

business an opportunity to use space as an economic resource. We 

need to take a hard look at how the Federal Government interacts 

with our commercial space community, and make sure we are not 

hindering their growth potential. 

Finally, I would like to make a point that is very often overlooked in our annual debate on the space program. I support the 

space program for a variety of reasons, among them the scientific 

and medical benefits as well as economic growth, international 

competitiveness, and a stepping stone to future human exploration 

of the solar system. However, I also strongly believe that our civilization’s future lies in space. As you look through history, civilizations that cease to explore and expand their technological frontiers 

cease to exist. They may choose not to expand and explore for a variety of reasons, but the end result is the same: the civilization 

stagnates and becomes a part of history. Our Nation and in fact 

our world is at such a threshold. In space lies the future of the 

human race. And to turn away from that challenge now could set 

us back as much as a century or perhaps more. Of course, if we 

stopped exploring space tomorrow, we probably wouldn’t feel the 

immediate impact. It would come to our children and to our grandchildren, who would lose the drive to explore. And with that would 

be lost the historic opportunity of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you again for calling this hearing and allowing me to join you 

today. I hope this can begin a fruitful dialog of the future of our 

Nation’s space program. I look forward to the testimony of the panelists and I thank them for joining us today. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. David Weldon follows:] 

9


g:\graphics\46559.004
10


g:\graphics\46559.005
11

Mr. HASTERT. Dr. Weldon, we certainly appreciate you being here 

today and your opening statement. Let me add that Tom Barrett, 

our ranking member from Wisconsin, was very supportive of this 

hearing, and was not able to make it for personal reasons back in 

his district. If I may, I’d ask our first panel to stand to be sworn 

in before I formally introduce each of you in turn. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HASTERT. Let the record show that the witnesses responded 

in the affirmative. Please sit down. Now I’d like to formally welcome our first panel. Of course, Dr. Buzz Aldrin is a man who 

needs no introduction. All of you know that he piloted the lunar 

module on Apollo 11, the first manned mission to the Moon. And 

he is one of the first men to walk on the Moon. You may also know 

that Dr. Aldrin was already a war hero before he ever became an 

astronaut, having flown 66 combat missions in Korea. Also, Dr. 

Aldrin is a scholar who earned a Ph.D. from MIT for his scientific 

work on space flight. 

Mr. Walt Cunningham was a Marine fighter pilot before coming 

to the astronauts. He flew the Apollo 7, which was the first 

manned Apollo mission, in 1968. Since then he has built a career 

as an extremely successful businessman, engineer, and civic leader. 

We thank you for being with us here today. Mr. Ron Howard, of 

course, is a well-known actor and movie director who directed the 

award-winning film, ‘‘Apollo 13,’’ along with many other Hollywood 

blockbusters which I’m sure we’ve all seen. 

And last, but certainly not least, Dr. Story Musgrave is the astronaut who accomplished the daring and successful repair in space 

of the Hubble telescope. He has flown numerous missions on the 

space shuttle and has earned academic honors for his work in aerospace, medicine and physiology. We thank you all for coming. Dr. 

Aldrin, please proceed with you, and be followed by Mr. Cunningham and Mr. Howard and Mr. Musgrave. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENTS OF BUZZ ALDRIN, ASTRONAUT, APOLLO 11; WALTER CUNNINGHAM, ASTRONAUT, APOLLO 7; RON HOWARD, 

DIRECTOR, ‘‘APOLLO 13’’; AND STORY MUSGRAVE, ASTRONAUT AND SCIENTIST 

Mr. ALDRIN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Members of 

Congress, it’s a great pleasure for me to be here today. As you 

know, I have more than a passing interest in space. And I appreciate the chance to say a few words about the possibilities that 

await this Nation, especially if we make the right choices. I also 

want to the thank the Air and Space Museum, which has really 

outdone themselves by allowing this first ever hearing in this great 

hall. 

It’s been nearly 30 years since Neil and I walked on the Moon, 

yet that day is as vivid to me as I know it is to many of you. It 

was historic in its meaning for all mankind since it was an achievement that Americans and all mankind shared in and continues 

today. There were a few risks, of course. When we finally set the 

lunar module down, with Neil piloting and me calling out the number for him, on July 20, 1969, we had only an estimated 16 seconds 

of fuel left in the descent stage. 

12

On the surface if we had fallen and a suit ripped, there wasn’t 

much chance of surviving that. If the one ascent engine didn’t fire 

or the computers on board malfunctioned, we would never have left 

the Moon. If the rendezvous with Mike Collins in the command 

module hadn’t gone flawlessly there were other rather unsavory 

consequences. But the mission was built on the know-how and 

knowledge of thousands of dedicated Americans. 

It was also built on faith and a national commitment. I was fortunate and proud to have been chosen for Apollo 11. And I’m here 

to give back to a Nation that gave me an unparalleled opportunity: 

the chance to land and walk on the Moon, and to be the first mission ever to do so, and then to continue to carry a message of encouragement for an ever-better future in space. 

My message today is also a call for action, a call to all Americans, especially young Americans, to reach out for the stars, reach 

for greater knowledge, have faith in the future, and help re-inspire 

a renewed national commitment to human space exploration. First 

I want to talk a moment about space and about those three words: 

knowledge, faith and commitment. Then briefly I want to touch on 

five specific aspects of space flight that beckon us as a Nation. 

My chief message is this: America must dream, have the faith to 

achieve the dream, and develop the fullest possible knowledge of 

the possibilities that await us. Even the best trained and the 

brightest engineers, scientists, business people and political leaders, if they have no vision, are mere place holders in time. We must 

dare again to take risks as a Nation. And we must see again that 

this generation of Americans—those alive today—have at their fingertips the technology and the recent history necessary to trigger 

a cascade of vast new discoveries for this living generation and 

those that will follow. 

Some would say that we have an obligation to use the talents 

and insights that we’ve been given. Those of us who can remember 

the power and majesty of the Apollo program’s accomplishment, let 

me say as I sit here before you today, having walked on the Moon, 

that I am, myself, still awed by that miracle. And I can still remember the feeling of exhilaration as I look here at the lunar module behind me—I recall backing down that ladder to the lunar surface. But that awe in me and each of us were what this Nation and 

people can bring forth when we try, should be, must be the engine 

of future achievement, not the slow, dimming light from a time 

once bright. 

It’s not the obligation, however, that I wish most to talk about. 

It’s the vision, the faith in brilliant opportunities that await us. 

These are what bring me here today. In a book that Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I wrote in 1970 called ‘‘First on the Moon, 

‘‘Arthur Clarke offered a truly visionary epilogue. Clarke made a 

number of predictions. Some of those predictions, like the emergence of this space shuttle, reduced payload cost to space, and a 

satellite-driven communications network as well as other breakthrough technologies, have come true. Others, including routine 

commercial flight to and from space, space tourism, settlements on 

the Moon by the early 2000’s and human exploration of Mars in 

our lifetimes are yet to be realized. 

13

But each of these advances requires three things: knowledge, 

faith, and commitment. Knowledge that we can achieve these feats 

for all mankind, faith in ourselves, in things larger than ourselves, 

and in the importance to mankind, that we use the opportunities 

at our fingertips, and a new found national commitment to do what 

God has given us the power to do. In short, I’m here today to issue 

a call for national action. 

This is an incredible, uncontainable country: America. We have 

the power in our national consciousness to dream as few dare to 

dream, and the power in our national talent pool and convictions 

to make come true that which we dare to dream. I’m here to say, 

let the race begin. Let us reawaken America to the power of a compelling dream. And the ability with determination to achieve that 

dream. And what is the dream of which I am talking? It’s John F. 

Kennedy’s dream: to reach the Moon and beyond. 

Written in giant letters, giant new steps and leaps. As Kennedy 

so powerfully said, ‘‘We do not do these things because they are 

easy, but because they are hard.’’ Yes, this is the dream of Arthur 

Clarke, but also of America’s most forward-looking engineers, her 

proud and growing astronaut corps, and NASA’s gifted leadership 

of men and women. Lighting our way is the legacy left by past 

greats, names like Wernher Von Braun, Gerry O’Neill, Thomas 

Paine, and Carl Sagan. 

It’s the dream of those great and dedicated men and women who 

were a part of Apollo. But it’s also the dream of 1,000 budding 

American entrepreneurs, who are, at this very moment, laboring to 

make space flight safe, economical and no less routine than transcontinental air flight. These are men and women of America’s private sector. Expanding space flight was Robert Goddard’s dream, 

and the dream of those who made possible Mercury, Gemini, Apollo 

and the shuttle. And there is more. 

The inspiration I want us to willingly embrace today, again, is 

common to all Americans and all humanity. I know many of you 

felt it because I’ve spoken with you. I think those political leaders 

who feel this inspiration are in sync with America’s heartland and 

with our future. America and her fascination with space is again 

alive, and we’re on the verge of moving again, moving as a Nation, 

moving the tectonic plates of historic achievement. 

I would beckon you to let yourselves dream again. And you may 

yet hear what I hear ricocheting about the American public: excitement and a willingness to take risks again. Behind that excitement 

and willingness—a slow, growing call for renewed action. Last 

month Americans were thrilled to the appearance of the comet 

Hale-Bopp. They were riveted by a reliving of Apollo 13’s mission. 

And let me say here, Ron Howard did a magnificent job in producing that movie, keeping it faithful to the facts. And Americans 

were even thrilled by memories brought to the surface by when the 

Star Wars trilogy was re-released earlier this year. 

Last month, we also learned that one of Jupiter’s moons—Europa—also appears to have an ocean greater in volume than our 

own and a hot center. And the implications of that discovery are 

far from small. Yet most Americans don’t yet know the best of it. 

We have within our grasp the technology to get everyday citizens 

14

into space routinely and safely for the thrill of a once in a lifetime 

ride and adventure. 

We also have the technology to cost-effectively return to the 

Moon again. We’re even at the threshold of being able to affordably 

get to Mars with manned missions. And I’m helping NASA and 

Houston to chart an evolutionary strategy for Mars with very 

promising, long range sustainability. Let me say this: every American whose heart beats faster at the news of possible water on the 

Moon or possible life on Mars or when they hear of an affordable 

lottery ticket into space for the fun of it, or the chance to safely 

visit orbiting space resorts: a trip that will soon be no less safe 

than driving cross-country to see the Nation’s marvelous Air and 

Space Museum. 

These Americans know what I’m talking about. So I say let us 

join together as a Nation undivided, and reawaken these wonderful 

and achievable dreams. Let us dare to think about the future. Let’s 

talk again about a permanent presence on the Moon and sustained 

interplanetary travel with all it’s discoveries. Let’s draw up the 

plans and let’s begin the investment. These events are achievable. 

And perhaps, if you look closely at the largely unknown advances 

we’ve made since Apollo 11, even within our lifetime. 

Let’s think again as we did in the 1960’s as a great and ambitious Nation remembering cost efficiencies, but having faith and a 

renewed commitment to explore and experience space and its richness. Today we have the knowledge and technology to tap unlimited energy potential in near Earth space and unimaginable resource potential beyond. Indeed, last week was historic for 

Congress’s balanced budget success. And I congratulate Congress 

with the vision that it took to achieve that success. 

But imagine having space-based solar energy assets and spacebased resources that truly keep this planet pollution free and make 

budget deficits literally unthinkable by their shear richness. That’s 

what awaits us if we make the right investments. The future I allude to has yet to be built. But all this is not fiction. It’s very close 

to being fact. A clean, green, non-polluted Earth drawing on abundant space-tapped energy from our Sun, passenger travel to and 

from space for commercial and adventure activity, the step by step 

advance to Mars, even low-cost cycling missions to and from that 

planet and then beyond. 

All these goals are worth pursuing and well within our grasp. 

Once more, they will reenergize this Nation, and if Apollo is any 

example, spur rippling economic growth. You know the Apollo program’s miraculous achievements were built on a dream by this Nation’s leaders and our people. Let us take stock of ourselves and 

our place in history of mankind. And let us not be timid or content 

to rest on our laurels. Already a generation has passed since we 

walked on the Moon. I will say it again, and pray, as I did when 

we sat on the Moon, that we can start this engine. 

Greatness requires knowledge, faith and commitment. The investment in public determination to reawaken the dream will start 

here with Congress and today’s leaders. Before closing I want to 

touch on several specifics. And on questioning I’ll gladly go into 

more detail. 

15

First, refinding the inspiration that we had in Apollo and that 

the entire Nation had. Reawakening the dream is vital for America’s children; for your children and my children. I need only note 

that America’s children flocked to math and science in the era of 

Apollo, both during and after those historic missions. Since then 

there has been a clear erosion of our inspiration and fascination, 

the curiosity and the calling of science, and especially the countless 

sciences tied to space and space flight. 

We can and must re-inspire our children. We live through historic achievement based on well trained minds. They should have 

that experience. And their generation should have the reservoir of 

that training for their sake and the Nation’s. 

Second, I think we have to get serious about investing in the best 

next generation reusable space transportation options. There are 

several options. And they’re all worth study and investment. One 

I’ll briefly allude to, however, is the so-called Star Booster twostage deliverer. The common sense of this approach and the economical nature of the investment cannot be oversold. And I’ll gladly get into more of this on questioning or after. 

Third, I cannot stress the nearness and excitement that surrounds giving every American a real shot at getting into space safely and for the pleasure of that experience. I call it the drive for 

space tourism because that’s what it is. The investments are already being made. And we need chiefly to support them with complementary efforts at NASA and a general reduction in outdated 

regulations restricting private sector rocketry and space exploration. 

Fourth, we must again look seriously at and invest in technologies which support, both at NASA and in the private sector, 

manned missions and a permanent presence on the Moon. There 

are endless spinoff and commercial development arguments for this 

investment. But the one argument that I feel is most compelling 

is, the mission is larger than ourselves. We were called together as 

a Nation and as a species by the Apollo missions to the Moon. And 

there is simply no measure of the good that these explorations 

brought to us all, not least by bringing the global community closer 

together. 

Finally, the importance of now seriously looking at and investing 

in manned missions to Mars leading toward permanent sustainability there could not be greater. The time is upon us to move into 

the investment stage and to look at making practical the technologies that we know have, but could only have dreamed of in the 

1970’s. We can do this. And we must free the private sector from 

regulations that hamper the sort of experimentation that will make 

this a reality. Even as we support NASA’s research and development we must reach out and do what we’re able to do. And we can 

do this within our lifetimes. 

In closing, let me say that space is our final frontier. And that 

frontiers are essential for the advance of humanity and for advance 

of individuals within the community of man. Our children will 

thrill to the achievements we set forth to achieve, and we can 

achieve them if we are willing to dream, to embrace the knowledge, 

faith and commitment, and to relight that engine which will take 

us all first into space, then to the Moon and Mars, and, finally, to 

16

the stars. As I like to say with my feet firmly on the ground, on 

Earth today, as surely as they were on the Moon nearly 30 years 

ago, let’s join together and shoot for the stars, ad astra. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aldrin follows:] 

17


g:\graphics\46559.006
18


g:\graphics\46559.007
19


g:\graphics\46559.008
20


g:\graphics\46559.009
21


g:\graphics\46559.010
22


g:\graphics\46559.011
23

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Dr. Aldrin. At this time, Mr. 

Cunningham. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. You do me honor by inviting me to share my 

thoughts with you here this morning. And it’s a pleasure to be here 

with my associates. Buzz and I entered the space program the 

same day. Story Musgrave, who bridges the period between the 

golden age of manned space flight—Apollo—and the current shuttle 

era. As we sit here amongst the artifacts of the golden age of 

manned space flight, I would like to talk a little bit about a movement which has been away from the chance of dangerous adventure and toward a risk-free society. 

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy announced to the world: ‘‘We 

will land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth in this 

decade. We choose to do this not because it is easy but because it 

is hard.’’ What a truly audacious statement. At that time not a single American had yet been into orbit. It took vision, initiative, leadership. It took someone willing to stick their neck out, someone 

willing to risk failing. 

Economic problems and social progress were serious issues in 

1961, too, much as they are today. So was the budget. President 

Kennedy knew that even in hard times you cannot take your eyes 

off of the future. While responding to the needs of today we must 

also invest in tomorrow. Today man’s landing on the Moon is history. Against enormous odds, with the whole world watching, a 

group of engineers, scientists and managers accepted the challenge, 

took a risk, and changed the way that we perceive our world. And 

incidentally, they kept the spirit of adventure alive for one more 

generation. 

We went after Moon rocks. But the real payoff was probably a 

surprise to all of us. The real payoff was what happened to us back 

on Earth. Apollo changed all of us inside. For a brief period during 

the time of Apollo, our society felt good about itself again. We felt 

together. The Moon landings proudly proclaimed to others that we 

accepted no limits on what we could accomplish. Yes, we knew it 

was risky. But there was never any doubt that the potential gain 

greatly exceeded the risk. And success carried with it the promise 

that our children and our grandchildren would be exploring the 

frontiers of the universe. 

After Apollo 11 in 1969, Australian Prime Minister Jack Gordon 

put it very nicely, I thought, in his message which said, among 

other things—he ended up by saying, ‘‘May the high courage and 

technical genius which made this achievement possible be so used 

in the future that mankind will live in a universe in which peace, 

self-expression, and the chance of dangerous adventure are available to all.’’ What a wonderful dream. 

In the past 28 years, what has happened to that chance of dangerous adventure? Today the once rambunctious American spirit of 

innovation and adventure is being paralyzed by the desire for a 

risk-free society. Security and a risk-free existence have replaced 

opportunity and the chance of dangerous adventure as the goal of 

most Americans. What has happened to the sense of dedication, 

commitment, the stick-to-it-iveness; the spirit of adventure that 

made us great? Are we doomed to a future where our resources will 

24

be used only to feed our existence and never for dreaming and 

reaching? 

This country was established by risk takers. Without risk takers 

there would be no U.S. Constitution today. The 56 men who signed 

that amazing document knew they were risking death when they 

pledged their fortunes, their lives and their sacred honor to achieve 

independence. And this country was built by those who met a challenge and accepted the risk, not cautious nay-sayers, built by those 

who wanted to live, not simply exist. It’s the Christopher 

Columbuses and the Neil Armstrongs who move us forward, not 

the Ralph Naders. With a Ralph Nader at the head of a wagon 

train we would never have made it across the plains and over the 

Rockies. 

Today we hear incessant talk of limits, usually expressed as a 

shortage of funds. Any grand aspirations we might have are at the 

mercy of political institutions: some of the most risk-averse groups 

in our society. Our only real limits are those we place on ourselves. 

In a country which has survived many crises, none has been more 

important than the current crisis of will. Today we fail not because 

of our inability to do something, we fail because our unwillingness 

to tackle it in the first place. We are simply unwilling to take the 

risk. 

The Apollo program was a catalyst to education for a whole generation of students. The inspiration of another grand objective is as 

important to this generation as the successful implementation of 

Apollo was to America in the 1960’s. But we have ducked such a 

commitment. And education has been on a downhill slide for years. 

We do a further disservice to today’s students: our next generation 

of leaders. The relationship between challenge, risk and, responsibility and leadership is also being neglected. Leadership requires 

confidence in oneself before you can instill confidence in others. 

And how can you have self confidence if you have avoided risk 

all your life? I believe every generation has an obligation to take 

some risks, to raise society to some higher plateau, to free men’s 

minds for a look at new worlds. The society which does not utilize 

its knowledge and capabilities to push back boundaries begins to 

decline and is replaced by those societies which do utilize their capabilities. 

A good example: at the height of its glory the Chinese fleet sailed 

for India 60 years prior to Columbus’ search for India. The Emperor called the fleet back and burned it. China, to this day, has 

not returned to position as significant world power. America is at 

a crossroads. Are we to maintain our technological leadership and 

invest in our future or will mire ourselves solely in the problems 

of today and squander our future? The choice is ours. Let us acknowledge that the chance of dangerous adventure is a basic need 

of the human spirit, and commit this to a new grand challenge. 

In the next century no one will care how carefully and cautiously 

we survived the last third of the 20th Century. But they will celebrate our willingness to accept risk, to make a commitment to expand our universe and to change forever the way we looked at our 

world when we decided to land a man on the Moon. You and I cannot set foot on distant planets, but we can set our minds on the 

25

future, and, perhaps, return to a society where peace, self expression and the chance of dangerous adventure are available to all. 

I have taken the liberty of outlining a space policy that meets 

those needs. The full text is available to you, gentleman. But I 

summarize here just the principle points before I compete. America 

has lost the vision of its role in space. We have forgotten why we 

go into space and what benefits we derive from space exploration. 

For the past 35 years the space program has been a primary 

change engine for American technological advance. These advances 

have fed the private sector in their search for commercial applications and thereby added to our economic strength. 

What is desperately needed now is a clearly defined, easily understood and consistent policy for U.S. space activities. Point No. 

1: preeminence in space as a national policy. Preeminence among 

the space faring nations of the world requires but one thing—that 

we decide to do it. This can only occur if it a matter of national 

policy. No. 2: a long range goal for NASA. A national space policy 

should encompass NASA, the private sector, and to some degree 

the Department of Defense. It should promote not only the exploration of the heavens but also the defense of America. NASA’s long 

range goal should be no less then the exploration of our solar system. This goal bypasses the problem of repeatedly having to sell 

new starts. It embraces both manned and unmanned activities. 

No. 3: the space station is a good start. It’s value, however, as 

an inspirational agent has been compromised by wavering commitment, dragged out funding, and turning it into a foreign policy program. No. 4: space funding—excuse me, I didn’t finish with point 

No. 3. International partnerships should be based on substance, 

not appearance and not politics. And we shouldn’t have to subsidize 

our partners. 

No. 4: space funding must be both adequate and predictable. Predictable Federal funding is essential if the private sector is expected to make future commitments and long range plans. NASA 

should stop overselling programs at their inception and Congress 

should be realistic about accepting the true cost of achievement 

and leadership. No. 5: space research and development is an investment. Space research and development funding is not in direct 

competition with entitlement programs. It is an investment which 

keeps America prosperous, and is vital, and enables us to support 

entitlement programs. 

No. 6: assured access to space through a balanced launch fleet. 

America should balance the access to space provided by the space 

shuttle with programs to develop expendable launch vehicles and 

a new heavy lift vehicle. 

No. 7: space and national defense. A national space program has 

a legitimate and vital role to play in the future defense of this Nation just as railroads, shipping and aviation did once they came 

into being. The overall military space program, per se should not 

be treated not as space policy issue but as a military defense issue. 

No. 8: cooperative ventures. One characteristic of U.S. leadership 

in space has been its openness to international cooperation. In the 

future, such cooperation should be based on equitable contribution 

as well as equitable return. It should capitalize on the unique 

strengths of each partner with each partner carrying his own load. 

26

No loss leaders. No. 9: strong leadership and clear priorities are required. A personal commitment from the President, whomever that 

may be, is paramount, but requires Congress for approval and 

funding. 

NASA, the private sector, and the Pentagon must be challenged 

to accomplish it. The program must be clearly communicated to the 

American people who must subscribe to it. Everything possible 

should be done to prevent space disasters. But we must be willing 

to persevere in spite of disasters and risks. Those are my nine 

points. I’ll just finish by saying it is time for another leap forward 

for mankind. Commitment to any policy costs money. We are all 

aware of the current budget constraints. Congress, in meeting their 

obligation to the present should not forget their obligation to the 

future as well. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:] 

27


g:\graphics\46559.012
28


g:\graphics\46559.013
29


g:\graphics\46559.014
30


g:\graphics\46559.015
31


g:\graphics\46559.016
32


g:\graphics\46559.017
33


g:\graphics\46559.018
34


g:\graphics\46559.019
35


g:\graphics\46559.020
36


g:\graphics\46559.021
37

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Howard. 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here. There’s an 

old joke that many of you probably know which starts when a fellow arrives in heartland America and announces, ‘‘I’m from the 

government. I’m here to help you.’’ Not that funny of a joke, but 

you probably recognize it. I think it must be equally unsettling, 

though, here in Washington, when somebody arrives and says, ‘‘Hi. 

I’m from Hollywood. I’m here to tell you what to do.’’ So let me just 

start by saying that I really only come to offer my heartfelt opinions and a few reflections. I’m not a policymaker, certainly not an 

astronaut. And frankly, I’m humbled by the people that I share 

this panel with, and also exhilarated, I need to add, by the remarks 

and the wisdom already offered. 

So I’m not an expert. I just love this country. And I appreciate 

this opportunity to be able to throw in my 2 cents about our future, 

since it depends directly on the decisions that we made today and 

in the very near future. First, space has always fascinated me. And 

I will forever be awed by the unparalleled inspiration that went 

into the Apollo program and, for the record, also into the Mercury 

and Gemini programs. 

That inspiration moved me as a boy, and it still moves me today 

as a man. I grew up in an America that was ambitious, courageous, 

unafraid of the unknown, ready to take risks in the name of curiosity, discovery, knowledge, human progress, the thrill of victory, 

and the preservation of the Nation’s security. Two of the men who 

made that happen, Messieurs Aldrin and Cunningham, are here 

beside me today. They sat atop the Saturn 5—mightiest rocket ever 

created—and were launched into space on a pillar of fire, more 

than 7 million pounds of thrust. 

That took courage and conviction, years of training, and hard 

work. It also took believing—a believing, dedicated, unafraid Nation. As many of you would imagine, I admire that achievement as 

much now as I did then. And this is part of the reason that I directed ‘‘Apollo 13,’’ the movie. Before I get into a few forward-looking thoughts let me just pause and tell you why that movie, ‘‘Apollo 

13,’’ was produced by my partner, Brian Grazer, and myself. 

That movie, featuring the heroism of three astronauts, tireless 

and ingenious NASA personnel on the ground and thousands of determined Americans, represents the best that America as a Nation 

can bring forth. The seeming impossibility of landing a man safely 

on the Moon and returning him to Earth was fresh in the American mind when Apollo 13 was launched. Apollo 11 and man’s first 

steps on another celestial body—the Moon—had occurred just 9 

months earlier, in July 1969. 

Little did America know that Apollo 13, and the unforeseen explosion that rocked that little island in space, would call upon this 

great Nation to add impossibility to impossibility and bring human 

lives safely back against insurmountable odds. Every readout said 

that it couldn’t be done, particularly in those first few hours. Every 

gauge spelled disaster, except the gauge of our national character. 

And in that single gauge America, those who knew and worked, 

those who supported Apollo and just prayed, found out who they 

were, found out who we as a Nation are. 

38

We are a Nation that does not give up, not on a dream, not on 

a single human being. And in that incredible conviction, so poignantly aired by Gene Kranz’s prediction that this would be our finest hour, we again took stock of who we were as a people. 

Well, that was nearly 30 years ago now. And the reason I’m sitting here today before you is, I think, another crisis of sorts is upon 

us. Call it a slow motion Apollo 13. 

In 1997, we must again take stock of who we are as Americans. 

Apollo 11’s plaque left by Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong on that 

same Moon that you see up there every night says we, this Nation, 

reached out and touched that place for all mankind. All mankind 

means every nation. And it means the generations to come—my 

kids, your kids, their kids. And that’s the real point. 

Today, we must see that space exploration, space development, 

space science, space medicine in our future both here on Earth and 

out there depends on the courage of our current convictions. And 

just as Apollo 7, 11 and 13 defined us as a Nation, so do the decisions before Congress and this Nation today. Apollo was a magnet 

that in the 1960’s and 1970’s pulled our best and brightest kids 

into the study of math, the rainbow of sciences and engineering. Industry and educators, parents and policymakers were all exhilarated by the long-term goals that were set beginning with President Kennedy’s pledge to reach the Moon in a decade. 

And the benefits of that exhilaration are well beyond counting. 

The steep climb in education is why we all enjoy microwave ovens, 

personal computers, innumerable new medicines, electronic, avionic 

and basic mechanical advances. Our national security was preserved. Our commercial base and job opportunities widely expanded. Technologies which protect the environment and make for 

cleaner energy leaped ahead, and the sheer ripple effect propelled 

us forward. 

The real impact runs even deeper. Exploring space and the unknown is a human quest and an American dream. Without dreams 

we wither. The thrill of achievement is only a memory that you and 

I have as a generation which lived through Apollo, because we 

were well served by leaders who had the long-term in mind. Now 

we are the leaders, in a manner of speaking. 

Given the progress that we’ve made in space exploration since 

the Apollo era, historians, I believe, will hold that is was not simply curiosity, a pioneering spirit or a quest for scientific gain that 

carried us from the Earth to the Moon. But instead, in a political 

conflict, our country, motivated by patriotism and a dose of national fear, came from behind and prevailed in a space race. It’s a 

great triumph, to be sure, but hardly the primary we would like 

to assign that great leap forward. 

Somehow without the political threat hanging over our heads, 

our national appetite for exploration has been curbed. And that is 

a shame. Because I believe that the leaders who had the vision and 

the foresight to fuel our early space programs had it right. The future still belongs to those who will dare to succeed and continue 

succeeding in space. I’m of the mind that curiosity is not merely 

a human quality but is, in fact, an instinct which drives us. Human 

exploration of space has begun. People are going to explore the galaxies and make untold discoveries and gains in the process. 

39

And as a patriot I hope our legacy will be that the United States 

of America took that lead in space and never looked back, that we 

grew and learned and excelled not out of fear but for the betterment of humankind. Now, that legacy is ours. We’ve earned it. 

These astronauts and thousands of others working with them have 

dedicated their lives to putting us into that position. The legacy 

will be ours if we are willing to reach for it. 

To quietly take the position that given our stature at the moment 

we can always reassert ourselves in the area of space exploration 

if and when it becomes politically more pressing or necessary, that 

is an assumption perhaps bordering on arrogance that I hope we 

don’t indulge in. Wouldn’t it be tragic if our program somehow became an odd, ironic footnote when the story of mankind’s movement into space is written, when we could have been pivotal players. 

Now, you all are Members of Congress and hold the Nation’s future, our future in space and the opportunity for progress and 

greatness in this realm in your hands. I come from an industry 

that dreams for a living. Together, we must, for our kids and our 

Nation’s long-term future, think big. We have to embrace renewed 

discussion of a mission to Mars and a permanent human settlement on the Moon. We have to tell the Nation about the incredible 

discoveries that have already come out of the 83 shuttle missions. 

This year alone we’ll get four new inoculations from a 1988 shuttle 

experiment and we’ll save more than $1 billion in medical costs 

alone from a revolutionary breast cancer detection technology made 

possible by the shuttle program’s imaging research. 

There are hundreds of stories like that one. And they call on us 

not to give up, indeed to dig down, read that gauge again, that 

gauge of our national character. ‘‘Apollo 13’’ is just a movie. And 

of course, lest we forget, it’s a movie of an extraordinary real life 

mission. And that was just one mission. But the messages that 

James Lovell, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise sent to us should reverberate down through the ages. And it’s been almost an age since 

they sent it. 

The message is this: When you next look up into the night sky, 

don’t just see the past and sigh about the risk and the grandeur 

of what we did up there, instead, look again and see the future, see 

the importance of investing in, thinking and talking about, living 

and learning from the great place that we call space. My hope is 

that this hearing is the start of something really big, the start of 

an American reawakening about the magnificence and calling of 

space. 

My hope is that here in Washington and out there in homes of 

those who see or learn about this hearing, that there will be a new 

resolve to see in the night sky the faces of our children, the silent 

call of those who would have the benefit of prideful memories and 

discoveries from space just as we have. What I hope these thoughts 

trigger, if nothing more, is a serious rethinking about the terrible 

and wonderful significance of space. For all mankind, we as Americans have a destiny. It is a wonderful destiny, one that I know 

many of you believe in, one that the men on my right have risked 

all for, one that I tried to capture in ‘‘Apollo 13,’’ the movie. And 

40

now I hope that we may be able to reach together to reawaken 

America and to fulfill. Thank you for inviting me. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Mr. Howard. At this time, Dr. 

Musgrave. 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to this grand hearing in a really grand setting. I’ve had the 

privilege. And it’s an incredible privilege of having been an astronaut for 30 years—space is my calling, it’s what I am, it’s what I 

do. As most of you know, I’m an incredible romantic and idealist. 

And so I have some ideas which may be a little divergent from others’. I am considered—I see Walt smiling—I’m considered to be organizationally and politically naive. And maybe that’s to an advantage in a place like this. 

But I’ve had the privilege of living the things that space are: exploration, discovery, brand new kinds of science that increase the 

knowledge of the universe and ourselves, to see and to develop 

some of the grandest technologies, to look down upon Earth, to 

communicate the vision of our home from out there, to help to instill a spirit of stewardship of our home is space, of Earth, to help 

to stimulate ecological issues, to learn all the time, to be exposed 

to the heat of the kitchen where performance is the bottom line day 

after day, both on a personal basis but also as an example of life 

long learning and education, to go out and talk to people, to talk 

to kids, to show them what education is all about, show them what 

it can do, show them how what we do in space is an entry point 

for their learning principles in the classroom. 

I’ve had the extraordinary privilege of representing you all in 

space. There’s millions of people that could have done this. Every 

time the door opened I put my foot in it. And I lived this thing to 

the greatest extent. And I gave all I could to this. But it’s an incredible privilege to help humanity see what this incredible cosmos, 

this universe, this Earth, the planets, the stars and everything else 

is all about. Space flight is such a neat thing because it bridges all 

kinds of disciplines, the kinds of things that the telescope is showing us and all the other grand observatories, and the satellites that 

look at planets and the Earth. 

They’re not maybe quite powerful enough to yet, but if you look 

at Hubble images and others, we’re tending to ridge that gap now 

between astronomy and philosophy, between cosmology and theology. Those are incredibly important things because they touch 

even at the elementary school level. They help to show us our universe. They help to show us as human what our place is in the universe. They help to show us—which is extraordinary important—

what it means to be human. 

Thanks in part to what we do in space, we are becoming global 

creatures, not just people of a certain town, a certain State, a certain Nation. I think it has helped to globalize the culture and humanity. As we push on into space we become solar system creatures and eventually universal creatures. We will think about, we 

will have a feel, we will have a geometric sense of where we are 

in the universe. And I think that will better our value system if 

we think of ourselves as a universal culture. 

I think a space program, in the long-term distance, will help to 

guide us a as a species—a species ethic. I have a wish list, as naive 

41

as it may be, for what we ought to do—five things in the future 

of space, five actions which if you were to give me a wish list what 

would I like to see happen. No. 1 is low cost access to space. We’ve 

been into space for about 40 years now, and we have made no 

headway at all in terms of reducing the costs of space flight. I’ve 

got to put that as the No. 1 priority. All of the fantastic potential 

and the dreams which Buzz so eloquently set forth, they can only 

happen if we reduce the cost. 

We can’t launch a bunch of telescopes and we can’t get interprivatization, commercialization, studies of the Earth. Cost of space 

flight is the basic common denominator which is going to allow everything else to happen. It will allow space, in ways, to pay for 

itself. It will make all those things which Buzz set forth as potentials for future space flight. They can only happen if you reduce the 

cost of space flight. 

I’ve never worked in Washington. I’ve never, you know, been at 

that level. I have been in the trenches for 30 years. And so I’m not 

sure how to implement this. But if I was where you were I would 

establish the mandate for lowering the cost of space flight as the 

No. 1 priority of space. At some level I would force NASA and 

DOD, the contractors, the industry and the commercial and private 

sectors who want to use space and who are driven by the market, 

to get together—and I would give them a mandate. And there is 

only one bottom line. And that is: lower the cost of space flight. I 

would not specify to them that it has to be a single stage or a twostage or a multi-stage. 

I would leave the best thinkers in the business to come up with 

the right solution, the most simple and elegant technology to get 

that job done. Most of the conversation we’ve been talking about 

here today is from the 60’s, from what you call the golden era of 

space. There’s a reason for that—is that we had an extraordinary 

hard line task to do. And that is, go to the Moon. Going to the 

Moon defined the way we did business. 

We had to get there in 8 years. And we were told to do that. And 

we went and we did that. In 8 years we launched four programs—

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo—and we were well on our way to a hugely 

successful space station program, and we did that within a decade. 

Because we had a mandate to go do it. And we only had one line. 

We had one statement at the bottom line: to the Moon and back 

in this decade. 

That harnessed our energies. It focused our efforts. That bottom 

line built the entire structure. It built our organization and the 

way we did business. I think if we have a single hard line and you 

made us go do it in the near term, NASA does have some very, 

very high tech ideas, technological development, very futuristic 

ideas. But the technological challenge is absolutely immense. It is 

very, very speculative. And we may get into a very, very long-term 

technological development process and we may find out that we 

can’t get there that way. And then we will band-aid that and back 

off into something else. 

I would like to see a hard bottom line that says, everyone go out 

there: low cost to space in roughly about 5 years, not 15 and not 

20. And it’s totally reasonable. Kennedy says, go to the Moon. The 

same year we launched a Saturn. The programs back then were 2 

42

or 3 year programs. And I’ll get to that a little later. I think that 

is the highest priority we have—is reducing the cost of space flight. 

No. 2: I think we ought to examine the way we do business. I 

think we need to confess to ourselves what our victories are and 

what our failures are, what we’re good at and what we’re not so 

good at. I think we need to be extraordinary hard-nosed realists 

about how we are really doing. A space station should not take 20 

years. It took 10 years to launch four programs in the 1960’s. If we 

want to do a space station in 5 years we need to get the will and 

the courage, and we simply need a deadline; and put it on paper 

and go do it. 

I think to do all the things here that Buzz, that Walt and that 

Ron put forward, I think the bottom line says just simply get on 

with it. Get on with low cost to space. Get on with the station. And 

do it. When you all gave us the privilege such as, go to a space station, and you say you’re going to support it and you let us embark 

on that initiative, we need to go do it and we need to have hardware in orbit within 4 or 5 years. 

It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It’s only a matter of setting ourselves a hard standard and living with it. And I think the 

approach—even though I won’t spend that many details on it—the 

approach ought to be: come up with a simple, elegant, beautiful flying machine. Start there. Do not expect the design to evolve from 

20,000 users. Come up with the best possible beautiful machine 

within 1 year, as a concept. Spend 1 other year modifying that to 

meet the major users. 

Spend 1 other year to get to a critical design. And then next 

year, 4 years later, start budget hardware. Just like we marched 

in the old days, there’s no reason why you can’t flow the decisions. 

You start with critical decisions that cascade into other places. You 

attach names and dates and you start marching around that flow 

chart that’s around the room. We simply get on with it. That was 

No. 2. 

No. 3, I would like to see a start embarking on what the human 

program will be beyond the space shuttle. I think we need to start 

on that now. I would like to see us have simple, elegant human 

machines like a reusable capsule, which is totally forgiving. It is 

low-tech. We already have the technology to do that. It is totally 

capable. And it has high margins in terms of reserves and other 

kinds of capabilities. I’m not saying that is the way to go. But I’d 

say we should not forget some of that grand technology. 

We need to include that in our thinking about what we ought to 

be doing, because the technology is great. The capability is there. 

And it’s cheap. And we know how to do that today. We ought to 

include that kind of thing in our thinking. 

No. 4: I would like to see—evaluate our priorities in terms of how 

many resources we are spending to reach the quest—the far our 

things which Buzz and Walt alluded to—and how many resources 

are in Earth orbital programs. I would like to see human programs 

which do not devour our entire space effort. We need human programs that we fly humans to when we need humans in space. But 

we don’t have to fly humans when we don’t need to fly humans. 

And a reusable capsule is one way to approach that. A specific payVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46559 46559
43

load module could be another part of the thing. You fly a specific 

payload module. That’s more details than we need to get into here. 

But I would like to see us pursue—the way to guarantee human 

space flight is to have a human space program that does not devour all of our resources. Another point is our collaboration which 

Walt mentioned. Our collaboration with partners is essential. We 

do need to collaborate. I love the partners that we have. But we 

need to do intelligent, creative partnering. We need to look at our 

strengths and our weaknesses, and we need to optimize how we 

collaborate and how we do partnership. 

We do not want to go into massive programs and try to weld cultures—how to weld different cultures, weld different technologies 

and weld ourselves together—it does not serve either of us or serve 

space flight. Partnering needs to be very creative and very intelligent. And it needs to be very selective. 

My last point is, is that there is huge grass roots support out 

there. The Congress has supported space flight incredibly for the 

last 35 or 40 years. We thank you for all that support. It has been 

absolutely loads of support. With all I do out there with the media 

but also out there hands on with the kids—yesterday I met with 

500 high risk underprivileged kids. And I told them about space. 

I mixed it up with them. They do not consider themselves apart 

from the space program—or the support of them. The safety net 

from them is in competition with space because they want to do 

Buzz’s dreams. 

They want to be part of that. They don’t want that to go away. 

That is their hope. That is their future. It’s their science. It’s their 

technology. There is huge grass roots people support for space. But 

such as to not let them down, I think the key thing that we are 

doing in the space industry is we have got to get on with it. We’ve 

got to simply do it. It doesn’t mean it is any less in terms of its 

capabilities or its qualities. We’ve simply got to, when we get the 

initiative and the resource to do something, we’ve got to get on 

with it. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you very much. And thank all our panelists. 

Very enlightening. I think some great vision for us to focus on. 

First I would like to allow 5 minutes to Mr. Souder, from Indiana, 

to ask questions. 

Mr. SOUDER. First I just wanted to clarify for the record with Mr. 

Aldrin. You weren’t claiming to be the role model for Buzz 

Lightyear, were you? 

Mr. ALDRIN. I was told they surveyed names and they looked on 

a typical one, a catchy one. And I’m happy about the choice. 

Mr. SOUDER. They picked Buzz, right? And Dr. Musgrave, to 

start with yours because it related to some of the others, are you 

suggesting that currently we have too many missions regarding 

NASA and can’t do any of them with enough funds to back it up, 

given the limited budget? 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. I don’t work in Washington, sir, and I don’t work 

the budget. And you know, I’m coming from here looking up. I do 

not think it’s a matter of resources. We said this station is going 

to cost $8.4 million back in 1984. By next year—1998—we will 

have spent $20 billion in 14 years. And there is not a single nut 

or a screw in orbit. If we simply get on with things in a logical 

44

fashion in which we set hard decisions, dates on the decisions and 

attach names to those decisions and make it happen, that is the 

answer. 

Mr. SOUDER. One of the problems—and at least of those of you 

who have been in space—Mr. Aldrin started out by saying, had this 

happened or this happened or this happened you would still be on 

the Moon. One of the problems that we have when we get into defense contracting—for example ITT Aerospace is in my district with 

a number of plants. They have to make radios that actually outlast 

their operators. In other words, they put so much into making it 

perfect because of what Mr. Cunningham—and I hesitate to say 

Mr. Cunningham; by Mr. Cunningham, I mean this Mr. Cunningham—that you said we’re risk averse. And that’s the cost of a lot 

of these products. 

In other words, people look at it and say, well, we could do that 

for a lot less. We could build a hammer for less than $700. But you 

can’t custom make a hammer that survives in all sorts of temperatures and all sorts of things with no risk. What tradeoff, as people 

who have been out there in space, would you be willing to make 

in the safety versus the risk if that achieves some of your low cost 

objectives? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I believe that, as we look at space——

Mr. HASTERT. Would you please? It’s kind of noisy. If you’d pull 

that up closer I think it would be helpful. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. OK. As we look at space—and I’ll restrict my 

remarks to that—we need to, all of us, acknowledge that there are 

gains to be made through the utilization of space—No. 1. No. 2: 

there always will be risks in space flight. It’s the most—probably 

the most dangerous environment that man has ever gone into. So 

we know there is always going to be risks there. 

These risks—and we’re not going to be able to reduce them to 

zero—but at some level they can be acceptable relative to the potential gains from it. And we ought to reduce those inherent risks 

as much as we can, and then get on with the job, as Story says. 

Now, I don’t believe it can be zero. But the problem that I was addressing is that in our society today, everybody is being raised to 

think that no risk is acceptable. So how can you come to an intelligent assessment of what is acceptable. I mean, no risk seems to 

be the rule of the day. 

Now, we also have things to learn about risk. And we have 

learned over the years—I don’t think I’m the only one up here that 

would say—if we look at the Russian space program, they’ve accomplished a tremendous amount with equipment that I would certainly consider much less sophisticated than we have. I don’t endorse all of the things that they do. And I think there are some 

problems. But we have learned along the way that you don’t have 

to have so many belts and suspenders as we have. We’re seeing it 

right now in the Mir Space Station. And you can still get by and 

you can still have some safety. 

Mr. SOUDER. That’s especially meaningful given you were backup 

on Apollo 1. And certainly the Challenger and the other things that 

occurred have, in a sense, scared the American people. And it’s so 

visible when there is a failure that there is a fear that the budget 

45

will evaporate. It’s on national and international TV day after day 

when there’s an accident. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would like to say something about that. Because as I think back on it. The risks always seem to be bigger to 

those outside of the program. I don’t recall—I think it was about 

3 weeks after the Apollo 1 fire, that our backup crew was promoted 

to the prime crew for the next mission. And other than a reasonable engineering judgment about having to fix a lot of things—and 

we didn’t even know what they were—I don’t recall ever having 

concern that there was going to be some untoward risk. I knew 

that we were going to do the best job that we could. It was part 

of what went with the job. And I don’t remember ever spending 1 

60-second minute stopping and thinking about it. 

But today every time something happens there is that concern. 

And for example, after the Challenger accident, I personally was 

concerned that Congress would find that too discouraging even to 

keep funding some of these programs. And we shouldn’t. The very 

price of progress is risk. And I don’t want to seem callous about 

human life. But lives are given up for progress every day. 

Mr. HASTERT. Some of our members would like to ask another 

round of questions. And we’ll do that. Mr. Portman from Ohio. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for the inspirational message from all of you. It was great to hear from each 

of you as to your perspectives. And I’m getting a little pumped up 

about the space program here. I’ve traditionally been more of a deficit hawk on all programs including the space station as an example, Dr. Musgrave. And I’ve not been able to support that for some 

of the reasons that you’ve outlined. But I probably come here as a 

lot of Americans, having enjoyed Mr. Howard’s movie immensely, 

and having grown up watching Buzz Aldrin and my constituent, 

Neil Armstrong—and want to see it done in a way that’s cost effective and continues to be inspirational, particularly to our younger 

generation. 

Dr. Weldon has the Kennedy Space Center as his constituent. I 

have Neil Armstrong as my constituent. And I really appreciate it, 

Buzz, your talk with me earlier and your remarks today. My question to the whole panel—and I will direct it to everyone, but sort 

of building on what Dr. Musgrave was talking about—is how can 

we, in an era of balanced budgets—I remember in 1969, the space 

program really got underway after the 1961 inspiration with regard 

to Apollo 11, we had a balanced budget. I think we actually had 

a little surplus that year. And now we’re $3 trillion in debt at last 

count and running annual deficits. 

On the cost-effective side of it, I couldn’t agree with you more in 

terms of really saving the program. In other words, if it’s not cost 

effective I don’t think we will have the kind of grass roots support 

that you’re talking about. Do you have some specific priorities, Mr. 

Cunningham, Mr. Aldrin, Ron Howard, that you think are the top 

priorities that we ought to focus on? You talked about some about 

the various programs and gave us a nice laundry list. How would 

you prioritize those? 

Mr. ALDRIN. I think reusability in our launch systems is primary. 

And I think affordability and reasonableness. We designed, finally, 

a shuttle system after several compromises. And it didn’t quite live 

46

up to our expectations. The space station, as Story pointed out, was 

going to cost a lot less, going to be completed sooner, and it didn’t 

live quite up to our expectations. And the national aerospace plane 

is no longer really a project. I think we should have a little caution 

about how we chart the course and what we expect out of the next 

commitment that we make. We should make sure that it’s within 

our grasp. And most toward—I just don’t think the American people are going to want to see us not quite make our objective the 

next time. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Was one of the problems—and I know there are 

lots of issues. I don’t want to get into the space station too much. 

But in a general sense, in terms of cost effectiveness—Mr. 

Cunningham talked about international partners and the degree to 

which we should be subsidizing them. I think you said that we 

need to set up a deal that’s tough in advance, and not subsidize our 

international partners. 

And some of you have touched on the issue, I think, indirectly, 

of the politics here. In other words, with the space station here, you 

might have different constituencies out there in different Members’ 

districts—that Mr. Cunningham, in your comments you were saying that shouldn’t be a factor, we should do this on the basis of the 

merits. And Dr. Musgrave was saying let’s get on with it and do 

the right thing with our private sector partners. Is that part of the 

problem generally? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I think over the years—I can recall back 

in the days of Apollo, one of the things that they were looking for 

was to try to make that there was some contractor in every state 

of union, because it could grab the interest of the Congressman. I 

believe that that is—while that may be politically the right thing 

to do—I don’t believe that that is economically or even on principle 

the right thing to do. 

You asked a question about the budget and how do we do these 

things. If you look back over the budget—and in my proposed policy I make the comment that the Federal budget has gone up by 

165 percent in the last 30 years and the NASA budget has gone 

down by 50 percent in terms of real dollars. So you’re tying to get 

more and more for less and less, is one of the things. Second, if you 

take a look at the budget for the last 30 years spread out here broken down by national defense, general science, mandatory payments, interest and then other domestic programs, it’s pretty simple to see that the only monetonically increasing function is other 

domestic programs over the last 30 years, being paid for out of the 

hides of the rest of categories, and most notably national defense, 

which—I object to that, as well. And the general science in space 

category has gone down until you almost can’t see it on this particular chart. 

Another specific suggestion I might make is that when you find 

that through a recalculation that the tax revenues are going to go 

up over the next 5 years be $225 billion, that you contribute some 

of that, you find some ways of using that for something other than 

just additional entitlement programs. 

Mr. PORTMAN. I see my time is up. Let me just make one final 

comment. Maybe Dr. Musgrave or Mr. Howard could respond to. 

47

You started, Dr. Musgrave, saying that you are naive about politics 

and government. 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. Yes. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Let me suggest this morning that you may be 

least naive of all of us by focusing, again, on the cost effective issue 

here as your first priority. And then really down the list I think 

all of your priorities were on target in terms of the political reality 

that we face. Do you have any comments on my earlier question? 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. No, I don’t, sir. I think that will let space open 

up. That will let space get privatized. And that will let the commercial sector—that will let it become market driven. I don’t know exactly what the forces are. In terms of launch capability, the United 

States is only launching 25 percent of commercial satellites. We 

used to do 100 percent. And I don’t know exactly what is going on. 

Right know there are satellites waiting to be launched and there 

is no launch vehicle to get on this. 

It came out in the space Congress in Cocoa Beach last week. This 

satellite is waiting to go and there is no launch vehicle anywhere 

in the world to do that job. I do not know why the market has not 

driven the large aerospace companies to come up with on their 

own—with a launch vehicle. And since that has not happened, I 

think we, the government, needs to take the lead. Once we have 

those vehicles, we can hand it over to industry. 

Mr. HOWARD. If I could add, just to kind of again—being kind of 

a simplistic point—but, you know, coming from a business that is 

always trying to sell sort of simple ideas that people can grasp and 

decide to embrace—a movie idea, a television show and so forth—

one of the things that we talked about a lot when we were making 

‘‘Apollo 13’’ and talking about the space program and our love of 

it and its hope for the future and so forth, one of the things that 

was discussed was that in sort of a public relations tactic and strategy it might be valuable to actually come up with two lists: one, 

as I mentioned in my comments, sort of a list of things that we 

really have gained. And actually try to put a number on that, try 

to come up with some calculation that says, this has generated Xnumber of dollars for our economy. This is what we estimate. 

Here’s probably what it cost to generate the technology. And 

then, second would be to say, here are our projects—and whether 

it’s the station, whether it’s going to Mars, whatever that objective—as you’re saying, the objective that wants to be set and established—to actually come up with a list of three or four key objectives, knowing that sort of broad science is a part of it, and there 

are going to be discoveries that nobody can quite calculate. But 

come up with a handful of objectives and project the same kind of 

numbers to them, so you’re actually saying to the people, here’s 

what it has cost, but look. If it’s actually like what we were able 

to generate out of the Apollo era with the technologies and the 

shuttle era and so forth, look how much we stand to gain on a military level, on a security level, on a business level, in terms of living, lifestyle. 

Mr. PORTMAN. Sounds like the boys in Washington, doesn’t he? 

It’s got a pretty good——

Mr. MUSGRAVE. We’ve got to continue to touch people too. Not 

just their intellect and the numbers, but you’re got to touch them 

48

right down here. And not just in the visual. And space flight does 

that. Images and the kind of stuff. And shedding light on people’s 

place in the universe. 

Mr. PORTMAN. And you all have done that this morning very effectively. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank the gentleman from Ohio. And I know you 

have another engagement and you have to leave us. But thanks for 

being with us this morning. At this time I’d like to turn to Dr. 

Weldon, from Florida. 

Mr. WELDON. I thank the chairman. And I, too, also want to 

thank all of the panelists. This has really been very enjoyable for 

me. And I could really sit here all day and talk space with you. Let 

me begin, though, by asking Mr. Howard—you know, I saw ‘‘Apollo 

13.’’ It was a great movie. I took my daughter. And needless to say 

it was a big hit on the space coast of Florida, where I hail from. 

But I don’t follow the trade press when it comes to Hollywood movies. Was that movie a big hit or a medium hit? What would you 

say it was overall? You don’t have to give me numbers or anything 

like that. 

Mr. HOWARD. It was a huge hit. 

Mr. WELDON. A huge hit. 

Mr. HOWARD. World-wide. 

Mr. WELDON. World-wide? Is that right? 

Mr. HOWARD. My most successful film to date by double—double 

any film in terms of just ticket sales and revenues. 

Mr. WELDON. Well, that’s fascinating to hear that. So it was very 

popular in Asia and Europe and other places? 

Mr. HOWARD. Very. 

Mr. WELDON. Because I remember during that crisis of Apollo 13 

how they were actually praying for the astronauts in the Vatican. 

And I think the Pope had the Italian people praying. So I could 

readily see how it could have a huge worldwide appeal. 

Mr. HOWARD. There’s also—you know, we did a lot of international publicity for it. And you know, while there might be a degree of cynicism always expressed about America from journalists 

abroad, when it came to the subject of the space program, they 

were absolutely fascinated and continued to be—the vast majority 

of journalists that I spoke to—inspired by it. And you know, I think 

their sense is that it’s one of the great accomplishments that America has offered. And you know, they’re fairly dubious about America in other areas and other ways. But here’s one that pretty much 

everybody seems to agree was a great, great accomplishment. 

Mr. WELDON. Did you get any feedback in terms of the impact 

it had on children? You know, if we’re going to talk about man’s 

future in space, we have to talk about kids and education. Because 

if we are going to go to Mars and we are going to go onto other 

solar systems, it’s going to be the children. And I know my daughter very much enjoyed the movie. And she’s still in grade school. 

Mr. HOWARD. Well, you know, I was very pleasantly surprised by 

the way children responded to the movie. And I didn’t necessarily 

expect that. I initially went in to the film thinking it was more or 

less a historic drama, a kind of a techno-thriller. And I’d always 

been a great proponent of the space program and followed it. But 

I didn’t really understand and still don’t pretend to, honestly—but 

49

I didn’t really understand that monumental endeavor that the 

space program represents, the years and years of diligent, focused 

work. 

And if I could add one thing about the astronauts that I met and 

actually worked with in trying to understand the mission and research the mission, all men well into their 60’s as I was working 

with them. And the comment that we all had was that they shared 

one thing: an unbelievable passion and intellectual endurance. I 

mean, when you sat down and started talking about these missions, we could go on until 2 or 3 a.m., and the 30-year old guys 

were burned out and the 65-year old guys were ready to talk some 

more and understand and explain. 

And there’s something very stimulating about that. And I think 

that I tried to get that feeling into the movie. And to answer your 

question, I was very pleasantly surprised by the way younger audience members responded to it, not just in terms of box office, but 

in terms of the letters, the way the film has been used to teach not 

only the history of the space program but also physics and basic 

science in schools. So I think, for that moment, I think the film 

helped stimulate people’s imaginations. 

Mr. WELDON. Well, I’m glad to hear you talk about that passion 

issue. Because I know I see a lot of that in my district. A lot of 

those men and women who worked in the space program, they’re 

still excited, they still want to go back to Mars. In closing, I’d just 

like to open it up to the other panelists. Can we really put a dollar 

value on these kinds of things? You know, when we start talking 

about going back to the Moon and going to Mars, I’m very well 

versed as a physician with the medical spinoffs and the impact that 

that’s had on improving people’s health and the material science 

breakthroughs that have occurred. But just in the impact that it 

has had in the hearts and the minds and the passions of people, 

and particularly our young people, is it right for men and women 

in Congress to always be putting a dollar value on this program? 

I think not. I think it’s our future. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think you can put a dollar value on many 

of things such as the statistic that Ron has already mentioned. But 

whatever you come up with in a dollar value it’s going to be greatly 

undervalued because you’re not going to be able to appraise what 

it does for the indomitable human spirit, what it does for education. 

I’m involved with the organization called Space America Foundation. And we are preparing lesson plans and trying to get a series 

of—for science and chemistry and a variety of courses in the texts 

of schools that uses about 30 video tapes from the space program. 

The lesson ties in physics, mathematics and you name it. And 

there’s great enthusiasm from both the students and the teachers 

from being able to use examples from the space program in their 

lesson plans for their teaching. So, it’s a tremendous motivation. 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. If we just look beyond that curtain there you’ll 

see what’s going on. It’s right there. 

Mr. ALDRIN. You talk about trying to get a monetary value. People can estimate what the Apollo program cost us. But what I’ve 

learned in the last 27 years is that when I speak to people sooner 

or later there’s almost a compulsion for them to tell me where they 

50

were when Neil and I walked on the Moon. And I’m trying to understand what that means. To me it means that they value not the 

rocks that they brought back or what they said, but what happened 

in their lives. Something happened that caused them to remember 

in a very positive, a very satisfying way, a particular moment. And 

I just stimulate the recalling of that. And that’s valuable to them. 

How do you put a dollar sign on that when you multiply it by millions of people around the world. I look forward to the year——

Mr. WELDON. Do you want me to tell you where I was? 

Mr. ALDRIN. I’m trying to remember where everyone was, Congressman. When I look at the year 2030 I think there are going to 

be people alive that are going to cherish the moment and the sense 

of value that they experienced in their lives by seeing a nation step 

up and make a commitment shortly after the turn of the century 

to establish a foot-hold on Mars and see that grow. 

In 2030 they’re going to say, this started out with five people, 

seven, and it’s now grown. We have 25 people thriving on the surface of Mars. And this is being supported internationally. Think of 

all the things that will come from the nations of the world dedicating themselves to the survival and the improvement of that 

small growing community. If the asteroid comes and blows us all 

up, that may be the future of humanity. And don’t think that’s—

sooner or later a responsible society needs to guarantee their own 

survival. And survival, I think, takes an advanced, stimulating 

spirit of humanity. And that’s what the space program is all about. 

It’s not the balance sheet, what we get out of it in terms of dollars. 

Mr. WELDON. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Florida. We’ll come 

back to some more questions from this panel. First of all, Dr. 

Aldrin, a couple of things. You talked about the—and let me just 

say that this is an interesting hearing we’re having. Usually we’re 

looking into the problems in government and somebody breaking 

the laws and where dollars are misspent and all these types of 

things. In a sense, you bring us today some vision that we don’t 

usually get to look at and luxuriate. And really, for a backdrop for 

where we go in the future as politicians and Members of Congress 

and just the nature of our work, we don’t do the vision thing 

enough to use as a backdrop of where we’ve been, and what steps 

we need to take to get there. 

So, I think this is a very, very good exercise for us. And I really 

appreciate your time in helping us do this. Dr. Aldrin, you talked 

about the Star Booster approach based on the use of existing hardware. Please tell us about that briefly. 

Mr. ALDRIN. I believe we need a rugged, resilient approach to access to space, to bringing down the cost of that. And I think that’s 

best done by a multi-stage vehicle and using something that exists 

and then making it reusable. The Boeing Co. has recently embarked on a sea launch program. And they’ve chosen for their rocket not an American rocket, not a French rocket, but a Russian rocket—Ukrainian rocket, really. 

It’s in, I think, the first stage, with an airplane wrapped around 

it called a Star Booster—has multiple applications—first stage with 

a reusable upper stage or a capsule on top of engines and tanks. 

As Story mentioned, we can put payloads on top of that. Then that 

51

can be strapped three or four of them around a core stage, like the 

external tank on the shuttle, and now we’ve got the hotel in space 

for the tourists to go to. And that hotel in space needs the same 

booster that it takes to go to the Moon and Mars. I think the public 

support will be behind the reusable spacecraft and rocket systems 

that will help them get access to space. 

Mr. HASTERT. You peaked my interest when you were talking 

about solar energy. I happen to sit on another committee on energy 

and commerce issues. One of the things that we’re talking about—

again, in the 60’s and 70’s we were talking about nuclear energy 

and it was going to be for the future and electricity was going to 

be too cheap to meter. And today, we’ll probably not build another 

nuclear reactor in this country. You talk about solar energy. How 

does that work and how do we bring it to Earth? 

Mr. ALDRIN. I think in later panels—I know for a fact that we 

have experts who can tell you how to harness the energy of the Sun 

and solar in a better way than on the surface of the Earth. And 

then solar panels in space direct energy to where it’s needed on the 

Earth. Some of the economies of beaming this energy from the distance of the Moon using lunar resources to do this prove to be a 

superior economic approach to doing this. 

Mr. HASTERT. Dr. Musgrave, you talk about why we haven’t been 

able to step up to the plate, so to speak, and take the risk and why 

the private sector hasn’t done that. And certainly somebody from 

government—I’ve come out of the private sector originally—

shouldn’t be pointing fingers at the private sector, but I would suggest that probably as long as the Federal Government was going 

to take the economic risk and build the equipment and do the research and be involved—unfortunately we get bogged down in the 

bureaucracy of the system where the private sector doesn’t. Also, 

it costs us much more to do it. But as long as we’re willing to do 

it, the private sector is not going to take that risk. You want to talk 

about that a little bit just in your viewpoint? 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. You’re probably right, sir. But since, in 35 or 40 

years it hasn’t happened and our entire space program and infrastructure depends upon that I think that we ought to do it. 

Mr. HASTERT. That the government ought to do it? 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If I may answer that a little bit? 

Mr. HASTERT. Sure. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I’m a venture capitalist. It’s what I do for a 

living. Invest in early stage companies getting started. I can assure 

you that when there is a profit to be made in space that private 

enterprise will certainly by willing to come in and make a profit. 

It can’t be forced. It can’t be able to look like it’s a phony deal and 

there really is no profit in it. So, I take a slightly different perspective that maybe the only way that it’s ever going to be able to get 

private enterprise involved in it is to have the infrastructure established by governmental bodies in one place or another. 

Whether that’s the cost of transportation, which is the key to 

making a profit in space, or whether it’s establishing power systems in orbit that you then can plug into if you send your own satellites up and the like. But I don’t believe that private enterprise—

52

and I see all these deals that come down the pike—are not going 

to do it in space until there is a profit to be made in space. 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Howard, I just want to say I also enjoyed your 

movie. I happened to watch it at 40,000 feet halfway across the Pacific. It gave me a little bit of consternation from time to time. I 

wondered how do you get down from there? But let me ask you—

and, again, from somebody who is out of the government sector—

but when you make a movie you have a goal and you have so much 

money to make it, and you have a time line. And the longer that 

time line stretches out, most of our people here who have been very 

much involved in space say, just do it. Is that the attitude that you 

kind of take with a movie that if you stretched it out too long you 

can’t afford to do it? 

Mr. HOWARD. Well, yes. You know, it’s a much different situation 

because the film distributor is making an investment in a specific 

project. But that film distributor has a need. And that need is movies or television shows. 

Mr. HASTERT. To have a product. 

Mr. HOWARD. And so the real question is going to be not so much 

will they have the movie. Certainly they’re going to decide on movies. How much do they want to spend on each individual one? And 

will that film return? And for that reason there is always—that’s 

why it’s such an impossible business to predict. And it’s so maddening for people who get into it as a business, even though companies grown and make profits. 

Movie making—everybody sort of imagines that it’s completely 

out of control—egomaniacs running around in this totally undisciplined fashion. But the fact of the matter is, that if any movie 

project goes more than about 10 percent over its budget, everybody 

is in trouble—the director, the producer—everybody is humiliated. 

It’s a bad mark. And so, they’ve somehow—movie people have been 

able to learn how to work toward a number. And that’s often what 

it boils down to. 

They make an estimate, they agree, and then there’s a kind of 

a fluidity. There’s a kind of a give and take as they go, working 

toward the objective, keeping the number in mind. And I think 

that’s how filmmakers are expected to try to live up to the targeted 

number. Sometimes it doesn’t work at all. But generally, as I said, 

there’s usually about a 5 to 10 percent differential. 

Mr. HASTERT. Well, my time has expired. But the three gentleman previous who have spoken basically said, as I understand 

it, that one of our problems is that we are risk averse in our country. And part of that is a political problem that we have, as well. 

But as Mr. Aldrin said, that we never have probably explored this 

country or done the things that we need to do if we were going to 

worry about risk all the time. And there is a certain aspect of doing 

it, saying that this is the job to do, here is our task, move forward 

and get it done, and to do it within a certain limit on dollars or 

expenditures. I hope that we can take that philosophy and start to 

move that forward. I think that’s a very positive thing to come out 

of this hearing. Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. One of the things that all of you are really addressing and that we face is how to motivate people. Part of our job as 

leaders is to lead and part is to be representative of where the peoVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46559 46559
53

ple are. And if we get too far ahead of the people we’re no longer 

here. And this is a mixed bag in the general public. It’s fine to say, 

oh, we like the shuttle, but don’t take my Medicare check, I want 

my road, don’t raise my taxes. And so we have to also catch their 

imagination. And I wanted to start with Mr. Howard but then ripple this through, because each of you touched on this. 

You’re in a very unique position, because the baby boomers grew 

up watching you grow up as Opie, Richie Cunningham. Then you 

made the transition into making movies that impact and reflect a 

lot of our lives. You’re in a very unique position to influence the 

biggest groups of people in the society. And I commend you for having done so in a way that motivates. 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you. 

Mr. SOUDER. But as you go into that, you touched on something 

that Mr. Cunningham alluded to. And I wanted to mix these two 

points. One is, as clearly science can motivate to a point, but it’s 

doubtful—my dad left me a Buck Rogers gun and we had the 

Jetsons, but the truth is that in spite of all the rhetoric we 

wouldn’t have had a space program without the Sputnik and without concern for the military questions, that while movies like 

‘‘Apollo 13’’ were moving and had a big audience, Steven Spielberg 

has tapped into another thing, and with the adventure movies, 

‘‘Star Wars,’’ when you look at the sales of ‘‘Independence Day,’’ 

those were really militaristic versions of how outer space works. 

And that captures the people’s minds. And looking at what motivates people, well known consultant, Dick Morris, says it’s love/

hate or love/anger and hope and fear. Part of this is hope, part of 

it’s fear and how to capture this. And you said in your statement 

the importance of the hope and the vision. But there also has to 

be, this is important for us as a Nation. And clearly, when you 

make movies, you had adventure in your movie, the suspense of 

whether somebody was going to die. I mean, it was a human story 

in addition to capturing the vision of space. 

Mr. HOWARD. Right. 

Mr. SOUDER. We also—and one fundamental thing here is that 

while science is important we do some things that may or may not 

be politically important because of the future of the country, but 

Mr. Aldrin was saying and the others—Dr. Musgrave, and Mr. 

Cunningham said to a degree too is—the core question is, is it 

space that catches people’s imagination or is it humans in space? 

Is it the human aspect that when they think of a colony on Mars, 

a battle in space, what does this mean to us? Are we going to travel out there? Is it very—are we so oriented ourselves that that has 

to be—those two things have to be the key parts with science being 

something we do because it’s important and we see the benefits? 

Could you address that some as somebody who is especially motivating people—because if you don’t motivate them you don’t get 

them there——

Mr. HOWARD. Right. 

Mr. SOUDER. And then each of you kind of touch on that. Because 

you’ve all been addressing this. How do we capture the human 

imagination, not just in kind of theory of what people should want 

to do. But how do you actually move them to say, yes, we’ll spend 

more money on this and we’ll sacrifice a little to do it? 

54

Mr. HOWARD. Well, you know, there are probably a few things 

that leap to mind. One is, since we’re not involved in a sort of a 

veiled military conflict or the fear of one at the moment, there is 

a kind of, sort of like the spirit of accomplishment. And I think we 

can apply a sort of a nationalism to that, although I agree with Dr. 

Musgrave that one of the things that I love about the exploration 

of space is this idea that it pulls us all together. But at the moment, I think, in the way that we love to see Americans win gold 

medals. I think that we’re, as a Nation, very proud of what we’ve 

accomplished and that there is a very legitimate reason to fear that 

somehow we will not sustain this lead in this area. 

This would be tragic. I don’t think that is anything that very 

many American want to think about or face. I’ve had conversations 

with astronauts talking about how they’ve had more inquiries from 

other governments about ideas that they’ve put forth than the 

American government. However, I’m not an expert and I don’t 

know whether these individuals’ ideas really had merit or not. 

But the fact of the matter is that we are not the only ones looking into the possibilities of space exploration. Yes, we’re still in the 

lead. And I think that is a reason to fear, to have some fear. And 

while there’s not a direct opponent, that the idea of just sort of 

kicking back and saying, we’ve done that, is poor thinking. And I 

think that can be dramatized. And that was also why I was making 

the point earlier about everything that’s been achieved and the possibilities for achievement. 

If there is a superior energy resource that can be achieved, then 

as a Nation wouldn’t we like to be the ones that present that to 

the rest of the world? Wouldn’t we like to be in the lead? I think 

that there are ways of presenting it as very important to our lives 

in the future. Of course, there is always this spirit of adventure 

and the pioneerism. We’re a Nation of pioneers; everybody relates 

to that. 

Mr. SOUDER. I would like to hear the other three panelists address this too. If you could expand in addition to national pride, is 

there a reason to fear that if somebody got there first they could 

control us or other nations if they had the wrong motives or control 

energy sources and not be necessarily as willing to share with mankind? 

Mr. MUSGRAVE. I might go back to the question that went to 

Ron. The kinds of science that people can really appreciate are the 

data that comes to them in a direct, perceptual sense. It’s hard for 

them to understand maybe an equation when they’re not experts 

in that discipline. But when you can present something which is 

directly perceptual such as an aesthetic visual image of astronomical data or of looking at Earth or other things, that really does 

work. I have found the human experience, they do vicariously want 

to go into space. 

We are just representative of them and have that privilege. But 

if we penetrate the head and the heart they are far more appreciative in terms of what you give them as opposed to a list of what 

you did and a chronological history of events that occurred if you 

give them what is going on in your head, your experience of the 

work that you are doing, your perception of how your body is doing 

in this environment that it was not designed to be in, then that 

55

touches. If you present it and let them live space through a character the same way Ron’s movie does or the Spielberg ones, it is 

always through some characters that the drama takes place. So to 

let the public lie that through a personality, I think, is important. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I’ve always—I think almost always found that 

when I’m abroad there seems to be more grass roots enthusiasm 

about space and about what we’re doing. Some of it you might put 

in the—probably the nature of envy in the sense that they don’t 

have the same level. Maybe they would get more blase ́ if they did; 

but I doubt it. I think that’s kind of a characteristic of the Americans. We tend to get this tremendous accomplishment. Then we 

start taking it for granted and we just get blase ́ about it saying, 

‘‘I already did that.’’

I’ve also always been confused by the fact that for the last 20 

years at least I’ve listened to the debate when they start talking 

about the space budget—usually it’s a fight every year—and Congressman say, well, I don’t see the support in my district, or it 

doesn’t seem to be a gut level issue. And yet in my involvement 

with that same public out there, I always feel—it’s at least a 90 

percent positive response even when I discount it for the fact that 

they’re talking to an astronaut and would like to encourage me. 

There always seems to be a gap between what you gentleman may 

be getting from your district and what I would see if I was out 

there in that district. 

And I sometimes wonder when we look at these priorities—because we have those tradeoffs. I’m at the age when I’m concerned 

about Medicare now, too, myself. But there has to be some sacrifices someplace. But is it the public’s priorities or sometimes 

could it not be the politicians defining the public’s priorities by 

making appeals to the electorate in certain areas. There is no question that when it comes to pocket book issues it’s a more effective 

appeal to somebody if you’re going to give him something than it 

is if he sees that you’re spending something for it. 

Going back to John F. Kennedy’s statement. He wasn’t reflecting 

any grass roots push to announce a program like this. I mean, he 

was stepping out in front. And I don’t think it’s ever going to be 

the grass that’s going to demand one of these kinds of programs. 

Mr. SOUDER. Can I interrupt you just a second? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. The fact is, though, I remember a bomb shelter in 

our basement when we were putting things away and we were 

fearful of the Russians getting up there. I think there was more 

grass roots to do something that you’re—I understand, maybe not 

in the way he was. But there was a grass roots support that was 

driving from a defense standpoint. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Also there’s also no question that there really 

was a space race. And that was essentially a battle in the cold 

war—is what it really boiled down to. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But when I’m talking about going to putting 

a man on the Moon, that went beyond just defending against rockets in space. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

56

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think it takes somebody to verbalize this vision. It gets accepted by the public if it appeals to their heart. 

Something in here has to grab you that makes you excited about 

it. 

Mr. ALDRIN. I think if I understand you, the public participation 

and identification and association with what we’re doing in space 

is essential. Look at the popularity—the world’s most popular museum is where we are right now. The popularity of space camps, 

of Challenger centers—the young people and adults want to see a 

hands-on participation, when it’s, in the next several years, someone having an experience for a limited time to control the movement of a robot on the surface of Mars—sure, it’s a robot, it’s a machine—but there is a person and he’s looking forward to his involvement in doing that. Vicariously, through virtual reality, I 

think people want to get involved and be a participant in this. 

That’s why they come to all these museums. I think that that’s why 

they want to participate—maybe it’s vicariously—in cheering the 

winner of a random drawing of shares for a ride to go into space 

or they’re taking a chance of some sort and then getting a little bit 

of a surprise. I think it’s that kind of participation and involvement 

which is absolutely essential to broaden and give concreteness to 

this thin veneer of support for adventure that has often weighed 

against the press of the immediate demand. I think we need that 

continued involvement. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks for your efforts here today and also just 

across the country in helping boost interest. 

Mr. HASTERT. Dr. Weldon, do you have any questions? 

Mr. WELDON. I just had a quick one for Mr. Cunningham. How 

did we get to where we are, assuming your analysis here is correct—and I believe there is some validity in what you’re saying—

going from a society that’s willing to take chances to—a risk free 

society. You know, was it Vietnam? Was it Hollywood playing a 

role? Or is it the trial attorneys? I mean, how did we transition to 

where we are now, assuming your analysis is correct? Is it all of 

the above? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. I think I could be a little bit more specific 

than that. It’s quite a political statement. I believe that for 30 or 

40 years in this country we have been moving toward what’s been 

characterized as a liberal philosophy that wants to do things for 

people, not hold people responsible, not challenge them. You know, 

every time you turn around there’s talk about safety nets instead 

of meeting obligations, taking a challenge, being responsible for 

yourself and your own results. 

It takes a lot longer discussion than I have here to say how that 

slippery slope got started. And each time it moves slowly and inexorably along we almost forget where it started at one time. But I 

believe that is a part of it. It’s a difference in the kind of philosophy that has been projected in this country for many years. I 

think I see a swinging of the pendulum back to some degree. But 

as long as we don’t hold people accountable for their actions so that 

when they do take a risk they see that there’s both a possibility 

for reward and failure. 

I’m one of those that believe that it’s a tremendous luxury that 

we have in this country—is the right to fail. Because without the 

57

right to fail there can be no real wins, no real victories. It’s the opposite side of the same equation and we have to have that opportunity. You have to be able to see the failure in order to know that 

you want to succeed next time. How many people do you know; 

how many stories have you heard in this country of those who have 

tried and tried again and eventually they succeed tremendously? 

We have the greatest society in the history of the world to allow 

that to happen. If we don’t kill it, it will go right on happening. 

But it’s our responsibility to see that it doesn’t stop. 

Mr. WELDON. So if I understand you correctly, it wasn’t Hollywood, the trial attorneys, it was Washington, DC that has led us 

down this path? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Of those—the characters that you named, I 

would say yes, Washington is probably more responsible than the 

others. 

Mr. WELDON. Well, I’ve only been doing this 3 years, sir, don’t 

hold me accountable. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t hold you responsible. 

Mr. WELDON. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HASTERT. Well, I thank this panel. You’ve been incredibly 

candid. You’ve given your time and I know it’s a precious commodity. We’ve had you before us almost 21⁄2 hours, which is more 

than we should ask anybody to have to do. Thank you very much. 

I just have to be remiss. We’ve talked about Mr. Howard’s film. 

Dr. Aldrin, I understand that you’re writing a book, ‘‘Encounter 

With the Tiger.’’ It’s a space analogy and taken from a lot of your 

own experiences. And I’m sure you’re going to get a lot more people 

involved in what space is all about through this endeavor. So, 

thank you very much. And thanks for being with us today. We really appreciate your candidness and contribution. 

If I may, I would ask our second panel to come forward. If I may 

ask, I would ask our second panel to stand and be sworn in before 

I formally introduce each of you. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. HASTERT. Let the record show that the witnesses responded 

in the affirmative. Please be seated, gentleman. I’d like to formally 

welcome our second panel: Dr. Peter Glaser, who served as a 

project manager for Apollo 11, Dr. Richard Berendzen, a professor 

of physics at the American University, Dr. David Webb, who serves 

as a consultant to developing university and research programs in 

space science, and Dr. David Criswell, who serves as director of the 

Institute of Space Systems Operations in the University of Houston. 

And gentlemen, I’m going to ask you if you could kind of summarize your statements. We’ll try to keep them in 5 to 7 minutes, in 

that area. Your written testimony will be entered into the record. 

So gentlemen, thank you very much and please be seated. Dr. 

Glaser. 

58

STATEMENTS OF PETER GLASER, VICE PRESIDENT, ARTHUR 

D. LITTLE, INC.; RICHARD BERENDZEN, PROFESSOR OF 

PHYSICS, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY; DAVID CRISWELL, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR SPACE SYSTEMS OPERATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON; AND DAVID WEBB, CONSULTANT, 

SPACE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING 

Mr. GLASER. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be able to——

Mr. HASTERT. If you’d all pull those mics up. It’s noisy in here. 

You almost have to talk right in them to get a good coverage. So 

I’m sorry. Dr. Glaser. 

Mr. GLASER. I’m delighted to be invited to speak on a subject 

which has been of interest and my major effort over the past 40 

years. And that is to look at the Sun and see the best way that 

we can get solar energy converted in a way which we can then 

beam back to Earth to serve the major needs we see in a global 

sense. 

When I first came up with this concept in 1968, officially, when 

I talked about it, it looked like science-fiction. President Kennedy’s 

plan to land a man on the Moon within 10 years was considered 

a great gamble. I believe that this subject from power from space 

for use on Earth is a logical outgrowth of all the work that we have 

done in the country in space because it is not just something that 

people will admire as a result of prowess. But people will require, 

because of the necessity to continue to live a better life and to ensure that we not destroy the ecology of the Earth by going the 

wrong way. 

Therefore, I am an enthusiast for solar energy in space and on 

the ground. I have had the privilege of testifying before both Senate and House committees, and I would refer much of the basic and 

a lot of the information that I have presented there for you to examine. I also will present you more updated information. Now, it’s 

important that NASA and the Department of Energy studied this 

whole solar power satellite aspect from 1970 to 1980, and the conclusion was that no single constraint was identified which would 

preclude the development of solar power satellites—just a name 

I’ve given it—for either technical, economic, environmental or societal reasons. That was the conclusion. 

Now, in the year 1995–1996 NASA performed a study. And that 

study concluded—I just got the final report—new technologies and 

system approaches developed in the past 15 years have the potential to make solar power satellites far more feasible than was traditionally believed. That was the latest information from NASA. I believe that power from space should be an integral part of global development goals. It is an acceptable approach to decrease the 

unsustainable rate of population growth by meeting the insistent 

demands for higher living standards. 

Currently we the population reaching some 10 billion people by 

mid 21st century, and one half will live in cities by 2000. And the 

current migration of 150,000 people per day into cities will increase 

to about 250,000 with some major effects. Today we hope to reach 

the goal of 3 kilowatts per person, which is about 30 billion kilowatts. Now, that’s thousands of modern nuclear power plants with 

problems we have not solved yet. 

59

Therefore, increasing energy supplies and generation methods 

compatible with the ecology at affordable costs will be required on 

a global scale. There is a widening recognition that power from 

space is relevant and beneficial to life on Earth. And the growing 

international interest is approved there of. Because today people 

are working on the subject in Canada, in China, in Europe, India, 

Japan, Russia, Ukraine, and certainly the United States. And these 

are things that are in the literature for everyone to see. This is not 

just some hearsay. 

Space power systems have been demonstrated of increasing scope 

with wireless power transmission across limited distances on 

Earth, maintain high altitude long endurance aircraft forever, if 

you want, up in air, and beaming power from a rocket from a 

spacecraft, which was done by the Japanese. We know that we can 

do this kind of technology because it is based on 100-year old 

science and technology developed by Hertz, developed by Nikola 

Tesla. 

I have proposed a SPS—solar power satellite—development program to permit near, mid and long-term benefits of this application. We need to have an appropriate framework for these operations. Because this eventually will be international, just as communication satellites are international. And this international technological community has shown that the objective of solar power 

from space for Earth can be realized, and that well-planned future 

efforts can achieve the promise of space endeavors which you have 

just heard from the previous panels. 

All of these things can be the basis for doing the applications I’m 

talking about. I know the first development steps are always the 

hardest to take, to demonstrate that the promise of power from 

space is real, by placing increased reliance on the inexhaustible energy of the Sun will ensure that all forms of life can continue to 

flourish on Earth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glaser follows:] 

60


g:\graphics\46559.022
61


g:\graphics\46559.023
62


g:\graphics\46559.024
63


g:\graphics\46559.025
64


g:\graphics\46559.026
65


g:\graphics\46559.027
66


g:\graphics\46559.028
67

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Dr. Glaser. Dr. Berendzen. 

Mr. BERENDZEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. And congratulations on holding this hearing 

and where you decided to hold it and when. You know, we’re surrounded by the icons by this Nation of this century. They’re precious to us. A moment ago, I went on the outside and looked at the 

people. There are thousands of them: men and women and children 

and grandchildren and grandparents of every race, creed, color national origin, male, female. Do you have any doubt of the interest 

of space across this Nation? 

Those are not astronauts. Those are not scientists. Those are not 

engineers. But it’s the most popular museum in the history of the 

world. And think of what is here today. Behind us we have lunar 

landers. Think of the museum a century from now if we have the 

proper verve. Mars landers. Not just lunar rocks, but Mars rocks, 

asteroid rocks, water from the moon of Titan, even hydrocarbons 

from the distant Titan itself. And then consider what all we might 

do. Even communicate with human beings and habitats elsewhere. 

I happened to be at the opening night of Mr. Howard’s spectacular film. I saw in northern Virginia in a crowded theater. At the 

end of the film for the first time in my entire life, I saw everyone 

in that theater—that jaded audience of Washingtonians—rise to 

their feet as one, cheering, applauding, screaming in adulation, in 

part because it was such an expiring movie, but also because it was 

sheer Americana. It was we, we did and we will again. Well, if I 

may turn to my comments. 

Those who came before us expanded their compass and went beyond. History shows that the peoples who pursued their quests 

maintained a national vitality and reaped rewards beyond their 

initial hopes. Our forbearers also looked at the night sky in awe. 

Many people today want to reach the next frontier, to venture from 

cradle Earth and to voyage to other worlds. Humans crave exploration. They want to do more than survive. Today we are poised 

to explore the greatest frontier of all with humans and machines 

working together. 

As this millennium ends this Nation can leave an inspiring and 

challenging legacy for the 21st century. It can set long-term plans 

to explore the solar system, place humans on Mars and build outposts off of our planet. For such long-term, far-reaching efforts the 

final rewards will differ from what we forecast today. Moreover, the 

most important things in life, those we cherish the most, do not 

permit a cost-benefit analysis. Try computing the cost-benefit of patriotism or courage or love. But with limited resources and pressing 

needs, the Nation should consider its desire for and commitment to 

exploration. 

How much do we really want to visit other worlds? Are we willing to pursue work that will bring immediate benefits, but whose 

major rewards will come in the future. We shall find no hospitable 

world trivially ready for colonization, and the effort to get there 

will be substantial. But consider the potential benefits. From a 

major stimulus of technology, research and development and 

science education to epochal findings in planetary sciences and 

many other fields. Such endeavors will boost diverse industries, 

stimulate much of our national economy, and create jobs at all levVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46559 46559
68

els and many disciplines, and present a unique, even historic opportunity for American leadership and the world community by focusing efforts of many nations on this greatest of all human adventure. 

Of this we can be sure. Humans will explore Mars and go to the 

furthest reaches of our solar system and beyond. The insightful 

question is not if humans will do so, the right questions are who 

will do it and when. With proper planning, the United States can 

offer the answer: Americans early in the next century. T.S. Eliot 

stated, ‘‘We shall cease from exploration and the end of our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the 

first time.’’ Was he right? 

Also, will our voyages of discovery return us to where we started: 

to our planet, our Nation, ourselves? Through long-term space exploration we can establish our niche in time. Centuries from now, 

even voluminous history books will truncate much of what 

engrosses us today: recessions, political races, even mini wars. In 

time all these will become brief entries in the sweep of human 

achievement. 

But a few extraordinary accomplishments will tower forever. 

Apollo 11 landing surely will be one of these. Human landing on 

Mars will be another. And proof of the existence of life, present or 

past, on another world would stand as a benchmark in all of time. 

We wish to explore for tangible reasons too. Such efforts will increase our understanding not only in scientific fields, but also in 

management, business and even the arts and humanities. Yet another drive compels us to explore. For we are Americans. No other 

people in modern history have benefited so much from exploration 

or contributed so much to it as the people of this Nation. 

It is our tradition and our culture. It was from the experiment 

of our democratic society to the reaches of our scientific quest. We 

are explorers. Without exploration we could not be. For the next 

generation, for the Nation’s third century, space exploration will 

constitute a natural continuum of the American adventure. 

What, then, should this exploration be? Superficially it would be 

a plan to take robots and then humans to Mars and eventually 

elsewhere in the solar system. But saying only that would no more 

encapsulate it than saying that Yosemite is just real estate or the 

Star Spangled Banner is just a song. Space exploration constitutes 

many things, tangible and intangible. Among them, science and 

technology. That to enable the exploration and that that the exploration will enable. Economic benefits prompted by significant stimulus of the Nation’s most advanced technologies. Quality of life. All 

those space exploration deals with other worlds, it’s applications 

are actually down to Earth. 

Space exploration could make our lives more comfortable and 

even more secure. Education, both for future scientists and engineers and for scientifically literate citizens generally. International 

cooperation, both with our traditional allies and our traditional adversaries; national pride and international respect. Apollo brought 

pride and respect. Twenty-first century space exploration, even 

bolder and even more ambitious than Apollo, will do so as nothing 

before in history. 

69

Young people need to know that their Nation chooses rigorous 

goals, applies itself resolutely and achieves its objectives. And 

space exploration will create a new generation of heroes. As historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has argued, ‘‘If our society has lost its 

wish for heroes and its ability to produce them, it may have turned 

out to have lost everything.’’

To undertake such exploration will require courage. It entails 

risk, even danger. But we should remember Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum: ‘‘Every wall is a door.’’ Can we find the door? If we 

do, will we open it? Shall the Nation continue its bold and daring 

heritage. Adults ponder these matters, yet they actually belong to 

the children. This is the stuff of their dreams, and will shape their 

world. Children gaze at the night sky in awe. Adults, caught up in 

the day to day concerns can forget the wonder and lose the mystery. 

What a loss when that happens. For child-like curiosity has inspired American achievement. Beyond the benefits for space, technology, the economy, quality of life, education and even pride, such 

exploration is about providing a vision. This undertaking will span 

decades. Many of its principle beneficiaries are now infants or not 

yet even born. Our foresight and determination will become their 

lodestar. More than a major NASA program, a scientific quest or 

a technological challenge, space exploration is a reaffirmation of 

American leadership at large and left indelibly on the pages of history. 

It is America at its best, doing what only America can do on such 

a scale: dream, plan, invest, achieve and lead our people and people 

everywhere to old aspirations, continuing hopes and new accomplishments, lead them to other worlds and to the future. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berendzen follows:] 

70


g:\graphics\46559.029
71


g:\graphics\46559.030
72


g:\graphics\46559.031
73


g:\graphics\46559.032
74


g:\graphics\46559.033
75


g:\graphics\46559.034
76


g:\graphics\46559.035
77


g:\graphics\46559.036
78

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Criswell. 

Mr. CRISWELL. Thank you, committee chairman and subcommittee members. I hope you have a copy of this presentation. 

I’ll be making reference to pages four and six. I’d like to talk with 

you about the lunar solar power system to supply Earth with commercial electric power. It’s generally not recognized——

Mr. HASTERT. Doctor, would you pull the mic closer? 

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes. Is this better? 

Mr. HASTERT. That’s great. 

Mr. CRISWELL. It’s generally not recognized, but the essential assumption on most energy projections is that the world will stay 

poor, most people will stay impoverished. Worldwide prosperity in 

the 21st century requires more energy than can be supplied by conventional, non-renewable sources such as coal and shale and nonbreeder uranium systems, or even terrestrial solar power. And this 

includes biomass and photovoltaic. 

Present power systems are limited by their fuel resources, the increasing costs of non-renewable fuels, and by the very high cost of 

a terrestrial solar renewable systems and the backup power supplies that they need and long distance transmission lines. In addition, they all impact the environment. I think a goal for the U.S. 

space program and even the world space program is that by 2050 

we should supply all 10 billion people in the world then with at 

least 2 KW each of electric power. That’s a goal of 20,000 gigowatts 

of electric power. 

That’s about six times more power than the world produces now. 

It’s equivalent to what is required by Western Europe to provide 

the high standard of living that they have there. I think a solar energy system based on the Moon can provide this electricity and provide it at a cost that’s a about 3 to possibility about 30 times less 

than the wholesale cost of electricity now. You’ll be delivering the 

power by engineered photons—microwaves—in such a way that the 

system is intrinsically environmentally clean, and rather than depleting Earth’s resources can actually increase the resources of 

Earth. 

There is enormous growth capacity in this system. I believe that 

it can grow to somewhere between 100,000 and 1 million gigowatts 

of delivery power, far more than we need now and enough for several centuries of growth. I’d like to refer you, if I could, to the 

fourth page of that presentation set, which gives a schematic of 

this power system seen from outside of a city on Earth. The Sun 

is the source of the power. It’s an operating fusion reactor. The 

Moon is the recipient of the solar power. 

It exists, it’s in the light orbit, the same face always faces Earth. 

And you build power bases on the two limbs of the Moon as seen 

from Earth so that one or the other is Sun-lit and can deliver the 

power. The power is handled by changing sunlight to electricity to 

microwaves and then to controlled, low intensity beams that deliver the power down to very lightweight microwave receivers on 

Earth. 

All of the key technologies and operations surprisingly enough 

are already demonstrated. There’s no fuels. There’s no furnace. 

There’s no ash or long distance transmission lines in this system 

or even massive equipment. It can be a very long life system that 

79

dependably delivers power, but very importantly is independent of 

the biosphere. The beams are unaffected by rain, fog, dust and the 

things that normally could interfere with ground-based power. 

If you could refer to videograph No. 6, or slide 6 there. That’s a 

picture of a prototype power base, a demonstration power base on 

the edge of the Moon. In that place the Earth always stays fixed 

in the sky, eternally and each base is huge. But it’s composed of 

small units called power plots. There would be tens of thousands 

of these. And this is simply a representative view of one type. The 

power plot consists of local solar arrays, small microwave transmitters and reflectors, all primarily fixed on the lunar surface. 

And they would be made out of the local materials. I think the 

talks that you heard by Buzz Aldrin by other astronauts and the 

evidence that you see around here of our visits to the Moon are examples of one of the best investments this Nation could have conceivably made in its future. We know what’s there. We know the 

common resources. And we know that we can convert into these 

fairly simple power components that I’ve just described. 

They would be generated by mobile factories that are on the 

Moon and put out hundreds to thousands of times their own mass 

in components. What that means is the cost of transportation does 

not affect the cost of power in a strong way. All of these steps can 

be clearly demonstrated on Earth before you ever go back to the 

Moon. And the industrial size demonstration can be done for a fraction of the present U.S. investments in space. 

In summary, this lunar power system, I think, can provide Earth 

a second source for its critical energy needs on a worldwide basis. 

This will be net new energy that can be used to underpin clean environmental growth and new prosperity that’s not possible in a way 

when you use depletable resources. From the standpoint of the vision spoken about by our previous speakers, this will enable the 

economic establishment of a two-planet economy—the Earth and 

the Moon are the two planets—which can grow self-sustained. 

A future space program could literally grow off the taxes generated by the new economic growth of this two-planet economy and 

fundamentally will provide humanity a way to grow into its lunar 

space and prosper. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Webb. 

Mr. WEBB. Chairman Hastert and members of the committee. 

Mr. HASTERT. I would ask you to speak into the mic. It’s a little 

loud in here and a lot of background noise. 

Mr. WEBB. All right. Can you hear me now? 

Mr. HASTERT. Yes. 

Mr. WEBB. Chairman and members of the committee, it’s my 

honor and pleasure to be here today. I must admit to a certain degree of de ́ja` vu when listening to the excellent presentations you 

have had, particularly by the members of the astronauts—Buzz 

Aldrin, Walter Cunningham and Story Musgrave—and also the excellent presentation by Ron Howard. 

I had the honor of being a member appointed by President 

Reagan to the National Commission on Space, which you may remember was a congressionally mandated study of the future of the 

American space program through the year 2030 that took place in 

1984 and took a year. We reported in 1985, in a 215-page document 

80

that outlined all the possibilities and many of the problems that we 

have discussed today. For the record, ‘‘Pioneering the Space Frontier’’ was the name of the commission report. 

This is the first section—and I think that you have it in your 

briefing papers. I would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, 

to have this first section read into the record. 

Mr. HASTERT. Without objection. 

Mr. WEBB. Thank you. The whole concept of what we have heard 

today and the whole concept of what we heard in the commission 

was the necessity for the United States to maintain its lead in 

space. And at the present time we have dropped the ball in a very 

large way. The problem that we see right today—when we announced in this commission report, we should by the year 2000 

have developed a low-cost cargo transfer vehicle, a low-cost manned 

space vehicle, we would not just have a space station, which we 

were told would be in operation by 1994, but we would have a 

space port by the year 2000. 

By the year 2005 we were suggesting we should be back on the 

lunar surface, we should develop mining operations on the Moon, 

we should learn how to live off-Earth. And by the year 2010, we 

would have a full-scale manufacturing and replenishment facility 

on the Moon. And we would then build the Mars space crafts, including Buzz Aldrin’s cycling space ships, and we would leave for 

Mars, and we would be on Mars by the year 2019. 

That was 11 years ago, Mr. Chairman. In that 11 years, if you 

look today at what has happened, not one single element that we 

were suggesting that should be in place by the turn of the century 

has even been begun except the space station, which is 8 years late 

and $25 billion over budget. And all the other elements that we’re 

talking about—a reusable space vehicle, now—it will be 8 years to 

10 years before those space vehicles can possibility come on stream. 

We need—your committee, if I may say, needs to ask what has 

happened that causes the United States, the preeminent technological power in the world, to be unable to produce a space station 

in the time that the President challenged the Nation to do it: 10 

years, one decade. We have not yet, as I think it was Walt 

Cunningham said, ‘‘got one nut or bolt in space at this time.’’

There is something that is the matter. If I may make a suggestion—and I do so in my testimony. The manner in which we develop technology, the way we regulate technology in this program, 

is unique to the United States. We are the only industrial Nation 

in the world that demands an annual review of every technology 

program that we have underway. In doing that, we invite a growing opposition as the program moves along and becomes more expensive. And we invite every year—it will be reexamined and either cut back or apportioned or reapportioned. And we’re back to 

square one. 

We cannot ask our engineers and scientists to keep this Nation 

in the forefront of technology if we are second-guessing them every 

single year. This, I understand, is a congressional prerogative. I 

understand that the monetary power of the budget is a prime thing 

for Congress, as it should be. 

However, there may be other ways. I am suggesting in my testimony the creation of a technology development fund which would 

81

operate very similar to the great foundations of the world in which 

the Congress would apportion a certain amount of funds every year 

to cover the new technology programs that were going and would 

give the money for a set period of time, which I would like to see 

in 5 years. But you probably could not do that. But maybe even 4 

years: two congressional terms. If that were done, there would be 

a steady funding of technology. If there was steady funding of technology we would have a space station in space now. We would have 

single stage to orbits, reusable space vehicles, and we would not 

have this desperate cancellation of programs. 

The National Air and Space Program was to give us a single stage to orbit airplane. We spent $2.4 billion. We worked for 5 

years. We made enormous advances. And then the program was 

canceled. No question. Gone. This is damaging our leadership in 

space. All the other nations in the world once upon a time believed 

that we had such a lead in the development of space that they 

would never be able to catch up. And yet look at it today. Because 

of the fact that we have not created a new launch vehicle in the 

last 20 years, we are falling behind. We have lost 70 percent of the 

world space launch market in the same period of time. 

It is a tragedy of enormous proportions. We don’t see it until it 

comes and bites us. We are the only industrial space Nation that 

has not built a rocket engine in 25 years. The Russians have built 

seven. The Chinese have built three. The Japanese and Europeans 

have built two each. India has built two. We have built none. And 

then, we wonder why we’re losing the space market. 

If we do not understand and if we do not unleash our programs 

to be able to be fulfilled the way we try and develop them in the 

beginning, we will always be doing that. And in doing that, this 

country will lose its leadership as sure as we are here today. It is 

a given where there are very powerful entities, not the least of 

which is China, which is just starting, Japan, Russia. Russia right 

now is in plenty of trouble. But they will get together. And they 

are a powerful competitor. 

We honestly need to review how it is that we handle our space 

technologies and how we handle technologies generally, and try 

and develop new ways. This is a real challenge to the Congress and 

it’s a real challenge to the entire community to be able to adjust 

to something new. But that is what I would like to see happen, because this is the greatest country in the world. And we must, lead 

the space race, if that is what it is—or our venturing out onto the 

next frontier. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webb follows:] 

82


g:\graphics\46559.037
83


g:\graphics\46559.038
84


g:\graphics\46559.039
85


g:\graphics\46559.040
86


g:\graphics\46559.041
87


g:\graphics\46559.042
88


g:\graphics\46559.043
89


g:\graphics\46559.044
90


g:\graphics\46559.045
91


g:\graphics\46559.046
92


g:\graphics\46559.047
93


g:\graphics\46559.048
94


g:\graphics\46559.049
95


g:\graphics\46559.050
96


g:\graphics\46559.051
97


g:\graphics\46559.052
98


g:\graphics\46559.053
99


g:\graphics\46559.054
100


g:\graphics\46559.055
101


g:\graphics\46559.056
102


g:\graphics\46559.057
103


g:\graphics\46559.058
104


g:\graphics\46559.059
105


g:\graphics\46559.060
106


g:\graphics\46559.061
107


g:\graphics\46559.062
108


g:\graphics\46559.063
109


g:\graphics\46559.064
110


g:\graphics\46559.065
111


g:\graphics\46559.066
112


g:\graphics\46559.067
113


g:\graphics\46559.068
114


g:\graphics\46559.069
115


g:\graphics\46559.070
116


g:\graphics\46559.071
117


g:\graphics\46559.072
118


g:\graphics\46559.073
119


g:\graphics\46559.074
120


g:\graphics\46559.075
121


g:\graphics\46559.076
122


g:\graphics\46559.077
123


g:\graphics\46559.078
124


g:\graphics\46559.079
125


g:\graphics\46559.080
126


g:\graphics\46559.081
127


g:\graphics\46559.082
128


g:\graphics\46559.083
129


g:\graphics\46559.084
130


g:\graphics\46559.085
131


g:\graphics\46559.086
132


g:\graphics\46559.087
133


g:\graphics\46559.088
134


g:\graphics\46559.089
135


g:\graphics\46559.090
136


g:\graphics\46559.091
137


g:\graphics\46559.092
138


g:\graphics\46559.093
139


g:\graphics\46559.094
140


g:\graphics\46559.095
141


g:\graphics\46559.096
142


g:\graphics\46559.097
143


g:\graphics\46559.098
144

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Dr. Webb, I wanted to followup briefly on your technology fund question. 

Mr. WEBB. Yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Are you viewing that as a space technology fund? 

Mr. WEBB. No. I think it should be a technology fund generally. 

But I, of course, would naturally, if it came to it, say a space one 

first. 

Mr. SOUDER. And how would you see this different, say, from the 

National Science Foundation, which gives grants? 

Mr. WEBB. Well, the National Science Foundation does not give 

grants to particular programs over a long period of time. They 

make suggestions and study the programs and give funding when 

required, but not in what I’m talking about. I’m saying that Congress, when it decides to give funds to a program, should give the 

funds in total. That’s what the Europeans do. That’s what the Japanese do. Five year program: they get the funding guaranteed for 

5 years. 

Mr. SOUDER. Constitutionally, we don’t have the right to bind the 

next Congress. 

Mr. WEBB. I understand. If I may suggest that this be taken offbudget. 

Mr. SOUDER. Right. That’s why, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts, you can forward fund some grant type programs. The problem is that if a given Congress forward funds it, 

it means the whole budget item has to be hit that year, as opposed 

to being calculated over the 5 years. 

Mr. WEBB. Unfortunately. 

Mr. SOUDER. And that’s also the danger. If it goes into a technology fund that isn’t specified for space, it could—political pressures for high definition television or something could easily overwhelm. But it’s an intriguing idea. Would you see this fund having 

any private sector matches? 

Mr. WEBB. Yes. I think it would be very important that it have 

private sector matches. And of course, that will have a competitive 

issue involved in it, because we don’t know what—a company will 

not match it if they don’t think that they’re going to get a contract. 

That just makes things very difficult. 

Mr. SOUDER. In addition to contracts, would you have some sort 

of early rights to certain patents or access? 

Mr. WEBB. Absolutely. It would have to. I think the StevensonWydler Act—very nearly passed—and I think it was 1981—went 

into a lot of this in great detail. And I think it might be useful to 

review that act as a possible model. 

Mr. SOUDER. Could you see that getting into solar energy questions, too? 

Mr. WEBB. Indeed. I think that everything we’ve heard today in 

Dr. Glaser’s and Dr. Criswell’s proposals are very necessary things. 

And they were reviewed. Dr. Glaser’s was reviewed particularly by 

the National Academy of Sciences, back in 1978. But since then 

we’ve done nothing with it. It is a great tragedy, because what is 

going to happen is the Japanese—in fact, Dr. Glaser would probably tell you he’s been spending most of his time in the past 10 

145

years in Japan, because they’re the only ones that are saying to 

him, ‘‘Come on, Dr. Glaser. Tell us how to do this and we will control the electricity throughout the world.’’ An important thing. 

Mr. SOUDER. That segues into my next question. There’s really 

two parts to this. Dr. Berendzen mentioned this at least in his 

written testimony. The question of what you just said of the Japanese dominating the energy question. But you alluded to the Chinese. In the international agreements on peaceful uses of space for 

non-dominance of certain categories. Is China a signatory to any of 

this? 

Mr. WEBB. No. The People’s Republic was not, that I know of. 

Mr. SOUDER. What about North Korea, Iran or Iraq? 

Mr. WEBB. I don’t think so. We have an expert in international 

law right in the audience. Maybe they would know. 

Mr. BERENDZEN. To the best of my knowledge they are not. 

Mr. SOUDER. Because one of the problems here is that——

Mr. WEBB. They are not. 

Mr. SOUDER. One of the problems here is that if only nations 

that are friends sign the treaty, it’s not quite as far-reaching as if 

we had those who may, in fact, be competitors. Do you see—could 

you followup, Dr. Glaser, with the Japanese question just a bit, and 

do you see any willingness out of them to do joint efforts if it was 

pursued? Or is some of this just so competitive that certain streams 

are going to be trying to dominate? In fact, that desire to dominate 

may, in fact, advance science. 

Mr. GLASER. Let me just also talk about the Chinese. Because at 

the International Astronautical Federation Congress, which took 

place last year in Beijing, Chinese scientists from the Shanghai 

Space Power Institute gave a plenary lecture which was a laser lecture, and their conclusion was very simply stated: we want to work 

with others internationally, in making this come about. So I believe 

that it is a possibility for this country to enter into discussions with 

China. Because he did not say that as an individual. 

He was saying this as Chinese policy. As far as the Japanese are 

concerned, my first contact with the Japanese was shortly after the 

oil shock of 1973. They have the greatest incentive as a nation to 

develop solar power satellites or lunar power satellites. I think that 

they have understood it. And if you look at what they have done, 

they have systematically done all the right steps on a small scale: 

very inexpensive. It’s all published. You can get it from them. 

There’s no secrecy about it. Also, it’s organized by meeting. 

They have developed a way of enveloping the industry people. 

This is an industrial project, not a space project. Space is part of 

it. And they have done some exceedingly important experiments. 

I’ll just mention one or two. For example, they’ve flown an airplane 

which was held up by wireless power transmission. That was done 

as part of the international space year effort. They have done a 

rocket experiment which beamed 800 watts from a rocket to a satellite. 

At minimal cost, this was done by the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science. Now, we have not even attempted to duplicate 

something like that. Can you imagine what it takes to do that? It’s 

a very challenging thing they’ve done. And by the way, they’re not 

the only ones who have done it. The Russians beamed from Space 

146

Station Mir—somehow nobody followed that up—to a Swedish satellite. They had wireless power transmission from Mir to a Swedish 

satellite. 

So if I can say that this is an internationally very top grade 

project. And whether it’s at the beginning stages now, that’s where 

we have to be. Because once they decide to do it in orbit, or eventually—and I fully agree it will have to be done eventually on the 

Moon—we will be behind the eight ball. Because these other nations take this very seriously. The conferences—I would invite you 

to attend the next conference in Montreal: SPS 1997, August 23—

28. There are all the representatives of these nations that have 

been working on it. And I think the interest for people from Congress to at least listen to what they are saying. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. Dr. Weldon. 

Dr. WELDON. I thank the chairman. I just want to followup with 

a couple of technical questions to Dr. Glaser and Dr. Criswell. The 

Earth is turning. And if you have a power base on the Moon transmitting power, do you have the ability to move the antennae on the 

Moon and keep that receiver on Earth always on track, or is that 

the function of the satellites. I’m just a little confused how this 

would all work with everything moving: the Moon orbiting the 

Earth, the Earth spinning underneath it constantly. You said the 

technology is all there? Is that correct? 

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes. The basic approach with a lunar system, the 

simplest system is you have the bases on the Moon, and they send 

power to a receiver on Earth when the receiver can see the Moon, 

which is half of the day. You could actually only use about 40 percent of the day. Then you could store excess power. Underground 

storage, hydro—many options. 

That’s an expensive way, even though it is cheaper than the way 

we do power now. The cheapest way, and I think the most elegant 

way is, that you would have in orbit around the Earth relay satellites. They would accept power from the Moon and then send out 

multiple beams down to receivers on Earth. These would be in high 

orbits, such as are associated with the Russian communication satellites, called high inclination orbits. 

So it’s a dynamic system in which beams will shift back and 

forth from the Moon to a satellite to the receiver where the power 

is needed. 

Mr. WELDON. These are all microwave beams? 

Mr. CRISWELL. These would be microwave. It’s proposed for the 

industrial microwave band around 2.4 gigahertz, about 10 centimeter long waves. 

Mr. WELDON. Is there any danger associated with those beams 

if they were to hit——

Mr. CRISWELL. The beams have to be kept at low intensity, so 

they would be safe. The way that these are normally modeled is, 

the beams will have an intensity of about 20 percent of sunlight. 

Now, those would go into industrially zoned areas. You would not 

want to walk around in them. You certainly could for periods of 

time, but that would not be good. Outside of that area, though, it 

would be a much lower intensity than beneath the safety guidelines. 

147

Now, I think with the things that have happened since the 

1980’s, that it looks like the receivers on Earth can be much cheaper to build than were looked at in the early 1980’s. What that 

means is, you can bring down the intensity of the beams below the 

levels that are now set or observed by IEEE and other standard organizations for continuous exposure of the general population. I 

don’t think that’s necessary to do. You’re talking an industrial operation. And you would zone it. 

Mr. GLASER. Could I, with your permission, just answer the safety question? 

Mr. WELDON. Sure. 

Mr. GLASER. This has been uppermost in the minds of all people 

who have worked on this concept. And there is a lot of domestic 

microwave use, like 300 million ovens. And we have—NASA, for 

example, has taken the sort of standard that, at the maximum—

one quarter of sunlight—and at the edge of the receiving antennae 

would be about the same as if you stand 4 feet away from a microwave oven with a door closed. 

We have done experiments on birds flying through the beam. 

This was done for the Environmental Protection Agency. So there’s 

13,000 papers dealing with microwave safety because it is widely 

used in industry and domestic uses. And there is a tremendous 

amount of information on all aspects. And we are committed in this 

kinds of a scheme to use all of the international standards which 

have been developed, which all countries adhere to, or at least, 

that’s what they should do, to make sure that this is the safest energy production method. 

Mr. WELDON. Thank the chairman. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you. I have a couple questions. First of all, 

Dr. Criswell, the average American’s consumption of energy is 

what, about? 

Mr. CRISWELL. The average for the United States is about 11 

kilowatts of thermal energy per person. 

Mr. HASTERT. Of thermal energy. 

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes. 

Mr. HASTERT. So if you measured that in electricity, how much 

electricity would they use on the average? 

Mr. CRISWELL. It depends on how you apply it. But as a rule of 

thumb, divide by a factor of three. You’d get 3 to 4 kilowatts. 

Mr. HASTERT. So, the recommendation that we bring the rest of 

the world up to 2 or 3, you’d be coming close to the American average? I’ve been in China, an emerging nation, and they don’t have 

enough electricity to do the things that they need to do as an industrial nation. 

Mr. CRISWELL. That’s right. 

Mr. HASTERT. And of course, you get into Third World countries, 

and it’s just not there. The average nuclear plant is perhaps—2,000 

kilowatt-hours? 

Mr. CRISWELL. Well, I tend to think of these things in gigowatts. 

Because—a billion watts. 

Mr. HASTERT. Gigowatts. 

Mr. CRISWELL. And a big nuclear installation—a collection of 

plants—will be about a gigowatt. I think the typical plant is half 

a gigowatt. 

148

Mr. HASTERT. All right. Maybe 500——

Mr. CRISWELL. 500 megawatt. 

Mr. HASTERT. Right. In my State, we have 12 nuclear plants. 

Two of them—in my area, two of them are going to be out of commission within a year, it looks like. As we start to cycle down 

those, you can actually deliver electricity in these low intensity 

beams? Can you deliver electricity in that type of numbers, quantity? 

Mr. CRISWELL. Yes. You could supply the U.S. electric needs by 

using about 5 percent of the land area now associated with the generation and transmission of electric power. Including coal mines 

and railroads that are dedicated to it. 

Mr. HASTERT. Dams and hydro. 

Mr. CRISWELL. Now, I had the pleasure, over the last 5 years, to 

work with an economist at the University of Houston, Russell 

Thompson. Unfortunately, he died of cancer in January. One of the 

things I asked him to do was look at the proposition. Suppose the 

United States had stayed on the Moon with a small, permanent 

manned base after we finished Apollo. By 1980, that was the time 

that the studies of the solar power satellite systems were coming 

to a head, it was clear the technology was there to do that, but the 

costs were high. 

And so, using the models that we’ve developed since then, we 

said, what would be the effect on the U.S. economy if we had instituted the lunar power program at that point in 1980 and built up 

to about 300 or 400 gigowatts of delivered power by the year 2000, 

and what would it have added—in his models, then, we could take 

the real economy and then we could look at how the economy was 

affected by this change in energy basis where the wholesale cost of 

electricity came out to about 3 cents a kilowatt-hour. 

What we found was that you would have added by the year 2000 about $60 billion a year in direct economic benefit by this new 

source of energy. You would have had a multiplier of about a factor 

of three. So you would have been adding about four. You would 

have been adding a quarter of a trillion a year to the U.S. economy, 

not counting any add-on for export or sale of technology or export 

of energy. 

Mr. HASTERT. I don’t want to get a Buck Rogers-type scenario 

here. But if a country was able to develop this low intensity, high 

energy beam from the Moon and then by satellite, could that be 

used as a danger to other countries? I mean, if you had a hostile 

country that did that, could they use that in a negative way, Dr. 

Glaser? 

Mr. GLASER. I’m delighted to tell you that this has been looked 

at already by NASA and the Department of Energy. Eventually, 

this will have to be under some international legal and regulatory 

framework just as we have communication satellites under international legal regulatory framework. I believe that there’s enough 

evidence that would show that if anybody would try and do something different, first of all, I believe that eventually, just like in 

Intel South, there will be some international ownership. I believe 

Intel South is owned by 128 countries. 

Eventually, I could visualize it some time in the next century, we 

would actually have an international energy supply system from 

149

the Moon or from orbit or whatever the best approach would be. 

I think that this is, perhaps, the best way that we can make sure 

that nobody can misuse the power. 

Mr. HASTERT. Well, I know our focus has kind of switched here 

to solar electricity, something that I’ve worked on in my career in 

the legislature and also here. It’s something that we need to find. 

Society demands that we find clean energy. This society and a future society will demand more and more energy. How we get it 

without burning fossil fuel or—how to find new places to store 

spent nuclear high level energy. It’s just an enigma around this 

place, how we get those things done. So it’s interesting. I’m going 

to ask Dr. Berendzen, you’re an educator—American University—

as well as an astronomer. What trigger do you need, because you 

work with young people all the time, to get them excited, involved 

and committed to this type of endeavor for their future? 

Mr. BERENDZEN. I think they’re ready to go. I think what they 

need is to know that the Nation is ready. It strikes me that during 

the Apollo era, we had a focus. We had a purpose. We had a dream. 

We had a goal. We had a date certain. And then we did it. And 

then we lost it. At the end of Apollo, how curious the history books 

of the future will be written. 

Can you imagine someone writing a history book 500 years from 

now. Back in that time, in the United States, they decided to leave 

the Earth. They went to the Moon. They took those first steps. And 

then they came back again, sort of like a child putting their foot 

in the cold water of the ocean and retreating; they didn’t return. 

Our space program began to lose it’s focus. The Challenger disaster 

hit hard. The flaw in the Hubble certainly hurt. The end of the cold 

war removed the competitiveness that we once had. 

What I urgently plead, if I might summarize much of what I’ve 

heard in the last few hours, is that this committee continue on 

with your series of hearings, that, perhaps, you collaborate with 

some of the other committees and subcommittees that are interested in these matters, as well. That there is a need, I believe, for 

a general education, dialog, discussion involving Members of Congress, NASA and the American public generally. What is needed 

ultimately are long-term plans: realistic, visionary, bold plans. 

I happen to have had the honor of serving on the Exploration Advisory Task Force to NASA headquarters. We were in place at the 

time that President Bush came to this very building to announce 

that we would return to the Moon, this time to stay, and then go 

on to Mars. We gave a date certain: by the 50th anniversary of 

Apollo. It didn’t come with funding, however. But it gave me an opportunity, at the request of NASA, to come in and go through all 

of their files on everything that had been done about this. 

You know how many studies have been done, how many hearings 

have been held? The report of Dr. Webb. The Sally Ride report. The 

Synthesis report. The files are filled with it. How many of them 

have been implemented? Virtually none at all. The fact is that 

while we take enormous pride in the things around us, much of 

this is history. 

My concern is the history of the future. In my testimony I said 

it’s not a question of if, but it’s a question of when and who. And 

the fact is, our competitors are moving now. And I hope the United 

150

States can restate itself with young people as the leader in the 

world. 

Mr. HASTERT. Thank you, Doctor. I think that brings us to a fine 

conclusion. I appreciate your contribution today. It certainly has 

sparked our imagination a different way, different from the first 

panel. Certainly, that is the future. We have to start to focus and 

you’ve made a great contribution. 

This concludes our hearing for today. The meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(151)

DEFINING NASA’S MISSION AND AMERICA’S 

VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF SPACE EXPLORATION—PART II 

MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dave Weldon presiding. 

Present: Representatives Weldon, Morella, Davis of Virginia, and 

Turner. 

Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director; Ianthe Saylor, clerk; 

Mark Stephenson, minority professional staff member; and Ellen 

Rayner, minority chief clerk. 

Mr. Weldon. Good morning. Due to unforeseen weather and some 

other circumstances, specifically, the death of a friend; Chairman 

Hastert and Vice Chairman Souder are unable to be here. Accordingly, I will act as the Chair this morning until one of the Members 

arrives. 

This is the second in a series that this subcommittee will conduct 

on the topic of NASA oversight and the future of space exploration. 

The first of these hearings was held last week at the Air and Space 

Museum and was highly educational. 

Our purpose today, is to focus on defining NASA’s and the Nation’s long-term mission in space. Beyond this day, we begin to examine narrower and perhaps more short-term issues. But today we 

are discussing vision, direction, and long-term oversight. 

Since we have two remarkable and historic panels today, I will 

keep this opening brief. In my view, there are great untapped opportunities in the development of space, including space-based resources and well planned, well managed space exploration missions. 

Historically, we know that this Nation has derived enormous 

benefits, both direct and indirect, commercial and national security 

related, from seeking and achieving great goals in space. I think 

we also know that there has been noticeable slippage since the 

glory days of Mercury, Gemini, and the Apollo programs. 

Today, we bring before us a range of extraordinary witnesses to 

ask the pivotal questions: Where should America, both NASA and 

we as a Nation, be headed? What are the top competing ideas, and 

how do we get the Federal Government back on track? How do we 

152

regain the tight focus that, as a Nation, we once had in the realm 

we call space, and how do we pass on to our children the inspiration and legacy, mission orientation, and sorts of advances in engineering and science that Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo made possible for us 30 years ago? In short, what should this Nation’s vision 

be, and how do we achieve it? 

Let me just make a final note. In Washington, much of what we 

do and what I do as a Congressman relates to our kids, and the 

future. How do we make the future that we pass on to them as 

bright and promising, as daring and rewarding, as the one that 

was passed on to us. 

So with that, let me say that I am eager to hear the words of 

our two distinguished panels. I would like to add that the ranking 

minority member, Tom Barrett, though very supportive of this 

hearing, was unable to be here this morning. 

Now at this point, if I could, I would like the first panel to rise 

to be sworn in. 

Please stand and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. Weldon. Let the record show that the witnesses responded 

in the affirmative. 

Now I would like to formally welcome our first panel. Scott Carpenter is the former Mercury 7 astronaut. It is also worth noting 

that he flew the second American manned orbital mission. He piloted his Aurora 7 spacecraft through 3 revolutions of the Earth, 

reaching a maximum altitude of 164 miles. He has also written two 

novels. 

Gene Cernan flew on three separate space missions. He was the 

second American to walk in space as the pilot of the Gemini 9, one 

of a crew of three to venture to the Moon on Apollo 10, and, as 

commander of Apollo 17, he holds the distinction of being the last 

man to leave his footprints on the surface of the Moon. He is currently president and CEO of the Cernan Corp. and the Cernan 

Group, which are space-related technology and marketing consulting firms. 

Dr. Buzz Aldrin is a man who needs no introduction. All of you 

know that he piloted the lunar module on Apollo 11, the first 

manned mission to the Moon, and he was one of the first men to 

walk on the Moon. You may also know that Buzz was already a 

war hero before he ever became an astronaut, having flown 66 combat missions in Korea. Buzz is also a scholar, who earned his Ph.D. 

from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his scientific 

work on space flight. 

We welcome all of you and look forward to your testimony. Mr. 

Carpenter, if you could proceed now. 

STATEMENTS OF SCOTT CARPENTER, MERCURY 7 ASTRONAUT; CAPTAIN EUGENE CERNAN, GEMINI 9, APOLLO 10, 

AND APOLLO 17 ASTRONAUT; AND BUZZ ALDRIN, APOLLO 11 

ASTRONAUT 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for this opportunity to speak my mind about our space 

program. 

153

I believe that if we as a Nation are to properly direct our space 

flight efforts in the next five decades, we should first examine our 

decisions and our triumphs and our failures in space flight during 

the last five decades. In the mid to late forties, we had the bomb, 

we had won the war, and we were king of the mountain, our Nation was secure, and we were complacent. We did then completely 

overlook the sleeping giant that was the Soviet Union. National security was looking at a very real threat, and we played catchup for 

the next 15 to 20 years in science and engineering, aeronautics, 

and space flight. International prestige and national security were 

at a low ebb. 

But the cold war had a surrogate, and that was the constructive 

Soviet and American competition in space flight. It replaced in our 

struggle for world dominance the destructive competition that 

would have been war, and I honestly believe that that fight for preeminence in space kept us out of war. Also, I honestly believe that 

all of the close calls that world peace had in those years came from 

our own complacency. 

Could that happen again? We have now won the race to the 

Moon. The Soviet Union has crumbled, and we, for the most part, 

are king of the mountain again. But beware complacency. China 

lurks. 

During the early days of the space program, we had two precious 

gifts. One was the vision of Jack Kennedy, which inspired us. The 

other was the genius of von Braun, which enabled us. We don’t 

have them with us today to show us the way, but maybe if we can 

all band together to express our faith in and share our vision of the 

future, we can avoid repetition of past mistakes. 

I could give you, but to no avail, and you have seen probably to 

no avail, endless lists of specific advances in technology and spinoffs in science that are expected to accrue to us from continued 

space exploration and habitation. But those specifics are all trees. 

We should be looking at the forest. 

Likewise, we should be looking as best we can at what we might 

expect to come to us from a vigorous space program 50 years from 

now, not 5 years from now. Helpful in this regard might be a look 

at how our present lives have been changed and enriched by the 

birth of space flight 50 years ago. 

If we do that, we see the forest and not the trees, and that forest 

justifies every penny we spend in space. The forest is simply new 

knowledge in every discipline you can name. That is my abiding 

faith. My own private evaluation of where we once were and where 

we are now proves to me the truth underlying my faith. I believe 

any thinking man who looks carefully at the progress of science 

over the ages must share my faith. 

Some look at the past and still ask the question, why? I say to 

them, if you must ask the question, you will never understand the 

answer. Space flight is not without risk. All of us who do it know 

it. But the benefits derived far outweigh the risks involved, and all 

of us who do it know that too. 

Nothing of value is gained without some risk. If we are to keep 

our Nation prosperous and secure and keep the spirit of our people 

alive, then we must take some risks, we must tackle the unknowns 

154

with boldness, and rise from the ashes of our failures with new resolve and define and seek our future with vision. 

As stewards of the Nation’s future, I ask you, and in light of the 

last 20 years I may even implore you, for the sake of my grandchildren and theirs and yours, and indeed for the generation represented by a young man who will speak to you soon, Josh 

Ouellette, who wishes to be a space man and who, I remind you, 

will live for 50 years of his active scientific contributions with what 

we decide to do today, I ask you, for all of those, to keep us actively 

involved in space station construction and in vigorous exploration 

of space. 

And as a justification and as a target for now for all we plan to 

do in space, let’s use Mars and all the new truths that lie hidden 

there. 

I thank you again for this opportunity and your attention. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter. 

Mr. Weldon. Now Mr. Cernan. Let the record show that Mr. 

Cernan’s dedication to the space program is so strong that he did 

not allow an adverse encounter with a bull yesterday—or was it 

the day before yesterday? I am not sure—to interfere with his decision to come out here. 

So we appreciate you being here. 

Captain CERNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we can call my close encounter with a 2,000-pound longhorn bull not necessarily an act of God, probably somewhat induced 

by me. I apologize for appearing with this barroom-brawl-looking 

complexion I have. I find a lot of inquisitive people here who are 

too curious to ask me what happened. But suffice to say, it was a 

close encounter with somewhat of a natural disaster. 

I, too, am very honored to be here. I appreciate the opportunity 

to express my views on something that has become very near and 

dear to me, and that is the future of this country, the slant toward 

my experience of course in space, and what I believe space has contributed not just to the past but potentially to the future of the 

country that, as Scott says, our children and grandchildren are 

going to grow up into. 

At exactly 12:40 a.m., Eastern Standard Time on December 14th, 

1972, I left mankind’s final footsteps of Apollo on the surface of the 

Moon. As my partner, Jack Schmitt, and I departed, we echoed the 

words that, ‘‘Some day we shall return,’’ that Apollo 17 was not the 

end, but rather it was the beginning, the beginning of a whole new 

era in the history of mankind. And a few days later, when I returned to Earth from my second journey to the Moon, I boldly and 

confidently predicted that we would be on our way to Mars by the 

turn of the century. 

We had 28 years to prepare for the next giant leap. What I did 

not anticipate, however, was that the beginning of which we spoke 

would be far more than a generation in coming and that the future 

might well be challenged by other than Americans. 

But if Apollo was the beginning, what became of that future? 

Where are the dreams and the visions today? And where is the resolve and the commitment that challenged us to learn to live and 

to work in space and ultimately to venture a quarter of a million 

miles into the endlessness of time and call, if only for a short while, 

155

places like Tranquility Base and the Valley of Taurus-Littrow, our 

home. 

Is it still possible for an American President to take as bold a 

step as John F. Kennedy did in 1961 when he answered the world’s 

call to challenge Sputnik and set this country’s sights on the Moon? 

That was the day America dared to become a space-faring Nation. 

Or, has our no-risk, ‘‘what is in it for me’’ culture of the past quarter of a century taken control of our destiny? 

I happen to believe it is possible, but only when our leaders in 

both government and industry accept the reality that space is not 

now nor ever has been a luxury but a necessary ingredient to our 

position of world leadership and to the economic future well-being 

of each and every American. 

My hopes soared when President Bush announced back on July 

20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11, that we would return 

to the Moon, and this time to stay. Could it be that we once again 

had a President who not only reflected upon the past but understood the significance and importance of a national commitment to 

the future? President Bush then expanded his spacial exploration 

initiative by setting the year 2019 for a manned mission to Mars. 

I believe it doesn’t really matter what the date is, whether it be 

2012, 2019, 2020, or whatever. What I do believe is of far greater 

significance is that this Nation have an ambitious yet attainable 

goal that reaches out a generation, a generation into the future, a 

goal the entire country, both young and old, government and industry, can get our arms around, a continuing national goal that transcends political boundaries, one that is not challenged, one that is 

not changed, one that is not canceled only to be reborn every 4 

years. The infrastructure to support such a goal could well be the 

model for our future industrial and technological evolution. 

But some in Congress at that time had their sights set on stopping our renewed space effort before it even had a chance to be debated. The congressional subcommittee that appropriated money 

for NASA somehow saw reasons to delete all funds for President 

Bush’s space exploration initiative. They said that space exploration could wait until next year, as, unfortunately, it has waited 

for each of the last 25 years. 

But can America wait forever to renew our exploration of space? 

Is Congress right when they postpone the challenge to better understand our own planet and this universe in which we live? Let’s 

take a look at what is now at stake. 

Three decades ago, the United States and the Soviet Union were 

the only countries in the world who even dared to dream of going 

to the Moon and together we owned space. Not so any more. In recent years, Japan has had plans to launch a probe to the Moon, the 

first Earthly object directed there since the early 1970’s, and in 

1989 the Japanese established a scholarly journal to publish ideas 

on how to go to the Moon, live on the Moon, and, most importantly, 

use the Moon for economic benefit. 

In the near future, Japan plans a series of probes aimed at exploring lunar resources for their own industrial and economic potential. Clearly, clearly, many nations, particularly those known for 

long-term investment and economic success, have targeted space as 

a growth industry of the 21st century. In addition to Japan, we 

156

have only to look at the European industrial community today and, 

as Scott said earlier, to China as well. 

But why space? What is in it for us? If we take a moment to reflect upon history, upon the accomplishments of more than a quarter of a century, upon the impact of space on medicine, communications, computer technology, as well as those things that are now an 

integral part of our everyday lives, it is then that we must acknowledge the importance of the foundation of technology from 

which this Nation has flourished. 

This foundation of technology has been nurtured and continued 

to grow for over 100 years, allowing the United States to reach for 

and achieve greatness as a world leader of civilized mankind today. 

This technological base has not only allowed us to gain a technical 

and scientific understanding of the universe in which we live but 

to achieve international stature, political leadership, and economic 

affluence and well-being second to none other anywhere in the 

world. 

Today, the brightest spot in the U.S. balance of trade continues 

to be the aerospace industry. Tens of billions of dollars per year 

pour into this country from our overseas commercial and military 

aircraft sales. This unique situation did not come about by chance 

but, rather, as a result of over 80 years of U.S. investment in research and development. 

This technological legacy so important to the past is equally important to the future, and I believe space can be its cornerstone. 

Today there is even more at risk than there was in 1961. There are 

challenges to our technological leadership on all fronts from all corners of the globe by countries once perceived as our own private 

international marketplace. Never were these countries perceived as 

a competitor, much less as our technological equal. 

Now, in this decade of peace, unless we find a vehicle for carrying forward the research and development upon which our economic influence and world leadership depend, the foundation of 

which I speak might well crack and crumble, and I believe that vehicle is space. 

But true space exploration can have an even greater impact on 

our lives than that of technological progress alone. Education is the 

most far-reaching and crucial problem this Nation faces today. 

Americans everywhere decry our second-rate educational standing 

in the world. The problems are particularly acute in the critical 

science and engineering disciplines. It is bad enough if our youngsters don’t know where Europe is, but if they are unable to read 

or write, our situation quickly becomes intolerable. 

It is a well known fact that the U.S. Space Program provided an 

enormous impetus and incentive for technical education during the 

Apollo days of the 1960’s. Our production of scientists and engineers tracked the increases and, unfortunately, the decreases in 

our space exploration effort. During the 1960’s, we not only produced outstanding technical people, but the lure of space attracted 

the best and brightest young minds from overseas as well. 

Now, as we approach the challenge of the 21st century, it is a 

sad commentary that we produce only half as many scientists and 

engineers and over half of those are foreigners who return home to 

enrich their own countries’ economic competitiveness and not ours. 

157

But good education requires more than better facilities, committed teachers, and modern equipment. It takes inspiration for our 

students to excel, and there is no greater inspiration for our children than the challenge and opportunity to explore the unknown, 

and no greater unknown than the universe in which we live. 

It has now been 25 years, a quarter of a century, since I left 

those final footsteps on the Moon. Today we have a college-age generation of young men and young women who were born into this 

world after those last steps were taken, a generation of youth in 

a world today who never knew when man didn’t walk in space or 

called the Moon his home. That, gentleman, is in itself an incredible thought. 

Perhaps even more startling is the fact that it may well be a generation or more before we undertake a journey of such magnitude 

again. 

I would like to reflect for just another moment or two because 

Apollo has been called by many the greatest technological endeavor 

in the history of mankind, and perhaps it may well have been. I 

believe, however, Apollo was much more. I believe it was a human 

endeavor unmatched in modern history. It was an endeavor not of 

a few chosen individuals who had the opportunity to step on the 

surface of the Moon but, rather, a team of thousands of Americans 

who were dedicated and committed to a goal deemed by many unattainable. 

Apollo required this Nation to reach further than man has ever 

reached before. This team of Americans left an indelible mark on 

each of us here today and on all of those to follow in our footsteps 

tomorrow. Apollo encompassed the vision of a President and the effort, dedication, courage, self-sacrifice, and steadfast determination 

of an entire Nation of people, just as JFK said it would, a Nation 

of people who overcame the tragedy of the Apollo 1 fire, an event 

that would have deterred a lesser people, and who would just not 

quit during Apollo 13, when we came closer than most of us even 

knew then of condemning three human beings to the endlessness 

of space. 

Apollo 13 was an example of teamwork and commitment unequaled and now recognized as perhaps the finest moment of Apollo. We earned the right to celebrate our triumphs, and God knows 

we have paid dearly for our mistakes. Yet this team of Americans, 

together with common commitment and purpose, transformed what 

was once but a monumental dream into the reality of a generation. 

Together, they accepted the challenge and made each of those steps 

taken on the Moon possible. 

It was a human endeavor of immense proportions by those who 

dared to dream, by those who dared to reach beyond our grasp, and 

by those who were not deterred by failure. Together, they just did 

not know it could not be done, and therein, I believe, lies the essence, lies the legacy of Apollo. 

But as we reflect upon the past, it is essential that we look toward the future as well. Will the time come when we are once 

again a space-faring Nation and truly explore the wonders of the 

universe in which we live? Will we ever again voyage to the stars, 

or will we confine ourselves to circling a few miles above our home 

planet? Will we ever in our lifetime again be able to look back from 

158

a quarter of a million miles away at the majestic beauty of our own 

star in heavens, across the entirety of oceans and continents, at the 

Earth revolving on a unseen axis at that earthrise, first seen on 

Apollo 8, which changed the way we look at ourselves forever and 

at those sunrises back here on Earth and sunsets that we found 

just happening? 

Will our children and our grandchildren, born after those final 

steps of Apollo, ever have the opportunity to see our stars as we 

once did and perhaps conclude as well that there must be a creator 

of the universe in which we live? 

Although this Nation appears destined to remain home for the 

foreseeable future, I believe without reservation that some day we 

will once again satisfy our insatiable desire to explore and to discover the unknown, a dream of our forefathers thousands and thousands of years ago. 

The opportunity to know and understand is now within the reach 

of our children, and I submit to you that they will not be denied. 

I find that youngsters, like this young man Joshua, whom you will 

hear from in a moment, no longer look at going to the Moon or on 

to Mars as an impossible dream as we once did but, rather, something that they can do simply by deciding to do it once given the 

opportunity. 

The implications on education and the use of space as a motivational tool for learning are indeed far-reaching. I know. I have a 

daughter who teaches fourth grade right here in Fairfax County. 

That next giant leap in space not need be solo. The first voyage 

to Mars might well be an international effort involving many countries. Still, there is great risk to our economic security if the United 

States does not have a stable and ambitious space program of our 

own. If we back off and say we have done it all, we have gone to 

the Moon, we have developed a space shuttle, and let others 

buildupon our technological competence, we will find ourselves in 

an unacceptable position both politically and economically. We cannot afford not to be in a position to influence the course of the next 

giant leap in space and ultimately to determine our own destiny. 

As President Bush reminded us, ‘‘History tells us what happens 

to nations that forget how to dream.’’

Gentleman, there is too much at stake to turn back now. We 

must not allow our once proud resolve to turn into indifference, for 

what we as a Nation leave undone today will certainly be done by 

others tomorrow. 

We have challenged the future. Those that follow have only to 

understand the significance of that challenge so as to ultimately 

determine their own destiny. Williams Jennings Bryant perhaps 

put it together and put it all in perspective at the turn of the last 

century when he said, ‘‘Destiny is not a matter of chance; rather, 

it is a matter of choice.’’

Thank you. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you for those eloquent words. I can obviously 

see a shot in the head from a longhorn bull didn’t do you too much 

harm. 

We are very pleased to be joined for this hearing by the distinguished Members from Texas and Virginia. If I could, I would like 

159

to recognize Mr. Davis from Virginia and ask him if he has any 

opening comments. 

Mr. DAVIS. I am honored to be here before such a distinguished 

panel. 

Captain Cernan, I have three kids in the Fairfax County public 

schools. That is my congressional district. It is the home of the 

Buzz Aldrin Elementary School. I was happy to be there with Dr. 

Aldrin when we opened it. I was out there with you and was there 

a couple weeks ago, and they read a note from Dr. Aldrin at that 

time and for Scott Carpenter. 

Captain CERNAN. I might add, my daughter was selected the 

Outstanding Teacher in northern Virginia, and, without saying 

more, she truly does utilize space as a launching platform from 

which to teach everything, from poetry and English to math and 

leadership and science. It is a phenomenal experience to watch it 

happen. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology is one of the premier science schools in the country. I think 

it has had more merit scholars for the last 3 years than any other 

high school in the country. It is by selection basis. 

Which school is she at? 

Captain CERNAN. I think it is Greenbriar West. 

Mr. DAVIS. Greenbriar West is here on the Hill today. We have 

got some people coming from there for the Lunchbox Derby. I was 

going to try to get over to that as well. 

Captain CERNAN. She is out with her students now, camping out 

for a week to teach them a few other things. She still motivates 

them through the use, as I say, of the desire to learn of space and 

the unknown. It is just a phenomenal experience to watch it. 

Mr. DAVIS. You ought to go to Buzz Aldrin Elementary School. 

It is completely science and tech, and they are doing new things 

every time I go there. 

As I say, Mr. Carpenter, I was a kid when you started. It is a 

great honor to be here today to hear you and get a chance to ask 

you questions later. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Weldon. Mr. Turner, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. TURNER. I, too, am honored to be here on this panel before 

you three distinguished gentlemen, and I want you to know that, 

being from Texas, we are still very enthusiastic about the space 

program in Texas. I really think if we can do a little better job 

about defining our goals and establishing our goals in the minds 

of the American people, that we will return to those days of excitement and enthusiasm about the space program. 

I think we are at a point where it is just much more difficult 

than ever before to clearly define that mission in the minds of the 

American people. But I think the spark of enthusiasm is still there 

waiting to be lit. I appreciate the three of you being here and the 

continuing work you do on the space program which, in my judgment, is so critical to the history of our country and of the world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Weldon. Now we will proceed with Dr. Aldrin’s testimony. 

Mr. ALDRIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me back to 

continue where I left off last week. 

160

Today I would like to introduce a statement and then expand on 

some of the concepts I feel are significant to the future of our space 

program. 

This summer, the planet Mars receives the first visitors from 

Earth in over two decades, and the space program will once again 

capture the world’s attention and headlines for a brief few days. 

But let me suggest the time has come to expand our vision and 

begin developing a strategy to best capitalize on the 40-year investment we have made in our space endeavors. The time has come to 

focus our efforts and to build a program that brings space benefits 

down to Earth that address and solve the problems of our home 

planet and at the same time expand freedom and commercial opportunity to the far reaches of our solar system. 

I believe that early in the 21st century, men and women will call 

Mars a second home for humanity. But my vision evolved from a 

can-do spirit and resolve, a projection of American prowess, as well 

as foresight to establish a visionary plan that incorporates and 

maximizes reusability in our space program. 

By resuming our investigations of Mars, we are adding new 

brush strokes to picture what will ultimately become our future in 

the cosmos. The picture I now see is of an undeveloped frontier 

that must be opened to human enterprise and settlement. To do so 

means pursuing an evolutionary, step-by-step, building block agenda that leads to a sustained space program that guarantees we tap 

the wealth of our solar neighborhood and, in so doing, transforms 

our space-faring civilization into a multiplanetary civilization. 

It is becoming clear to me as we approach the new millenium 

how to do this best. However, it is also clear that the steps being 

taken by our Government’s space planners do not have this longerrange vision in mind. For instance, the Department of Defense is 

pursuing a strategy using all-expendable throwaway rocketry. 

Meanwhile, NASA has set its future on a high-technology solution 

embodied in a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. While each has merit, 

neither satisfies the need of the private sector for near-term lower 

launch costs to access and exploit the frontier. 

Within a few decades, space can be an open frontier for all people. I see a near-term future where economical two-stage space 

launchers place passengers and cargo into Earth orbit with the efficiency and routine-like nature of today’s airline traffic. A booming 

tourism industry will be cultivated as space hotels become a point 

of arrival and departure above our planet. This burgeoning business enterprise will bring about heavy-lift rockets, enabling 

grander steps of exploration back to the Moon, to the distant dunes 

of Mars and beyond. 

I envision long-haul transportation systems, deep-space cruisers 

that not only continuously cycle tourists between the Earth and 

Moon but constantly transfer explorers and settlers between Mars 

and the Earth. A fully reusable lunar and interplanetary system is 

the ultimate way of transporting people and cargo across the vast 

vacuum void of space. 

My own personal involvement as an Apollo 11 astronaut on the 

first lunar landing mission taught me an important lesson. Everything that went with us on Apollo was thrown away, such as all 

161

the stages of our giant Saturn 5 booster, save for the return capsule that brought us safely back to Earth. 

Now, there is nothing wrong with Apollo. Its characteristics were 

born of the time. It was a cold war, one-upsmanship approach to 

out-distance the former Soviet Union. The Moon was the finish 

line. Apollo was founded on the straightforward space-race strategy, get there in a hurry and don’t waste time developing reusability. 

Today, I can’t conceive of another global race, or cooperative effort, for that matter, that would prompt an effort to get to Mars, 

accomplish the goal, and then abandon the program. Yet the mind 

set of toss-away space hardware still dominates our thinking. We 

have gotten used to a throwaway space program perpetuated by a 

low volume of traffic from Earth into space. 

Long ago we tamed the sound barrier. Now we must penetrate 

the reusability and recycling barriers to shape our 21st century 

space endeavors. But how can we rekindle the spirit of Apollo and 

match it with a sustainable evolutionary space program for the 

21st century? I see an action plan for the future—you can call it 

20–20 vision—based on years of training and experience this country so graciously invested in me. 

As our next step, lowering the cost of space access with a reusable two-stage-to-orbit launcher is critical. Incorporating a fly back 

reusable first stage, this type of launcher would hurl another rocket-powered vehicle that can reach space with greater economy than 

a purely self-propelled. 

By lowering the expense of attaining Earth orbit, many new industries are waiting to develop, one of which will be space tourism. 

Soon, tens of thousands of citizens will have the opportunity to 

travel into space, gaining a sense of participation in opening the 

frontier of space to enterprise, exploration, and eventual settlement. 

From this step, an add-on to the reusable space program philosophy is building a bridge between worlds. Through a system of reusable spacecraft that I call cyclers, traffic routes, first between 

Earth and the Moon, then Mars and Earth, should be put in motion. Very much like ocean liners, the cycler system would perpetually glide along predictable pathways, moving people, equipment, 

and other materials to and from the Earth over inner solar system 

mileage. 

A sequential buildup to a full cycling network could be in place 

within two decades of a go-ahead geared to the maturation of lunar 

and Mars activities. The Earth, the Moon, and Mars will form a celestial triad of worlds, busy hubs for the ebb and flow of passengers, cargo, and commerce traversing the inner solar system. 

My schedule for accomplishing these objectives is practical, 

achievable, and affordable, drawing from decades of space expertise 

already honed by our early exploits, including the space shuttle 

and space station projects. I call for a strong and vibrant space 

tourism business and a return to the Moon by 2010, and then 

reaching Mars before 2020. 

Frankly, I think we can beat that schedule. The common link between steps in this timetable is a progressive set of reusable boosters, reusable access to space, and then reusable interplanetary 

162

cyclers. This vision spans two decades of enterprise, exploration, 

and settlement. It should be wisely enunciated by a new U.S. President in the year 2001. 

By the year 2030, I see people looking back and cherishing the 

moment that a leader of our country committed us to a gradual but 

progressive plan of permanent settlement of space, not just occasional visits that leave little more than flags and footprints. 

The surface of Mars is equivalent to the land area of Earth. Once 

a human presence on this planet is established, a second home for 

humankind is possible. A growing settlement on Mars is, in essence, an assurance policy not only for the survival of the human 

race, not only is the survival of the human race then assured, but 

the ability of it to reach from Mars into the research-rich bounty 

of the Martian satellites and nearby astroids is also possible. 

These invaluable resources can be tapped to sustain increasing 

numbers of Martian settlers as well as foster expanded interplanetary commerce and large-scale industrial activities to benefit the 

home planet, Earth. 

Of course, some will insist on building outer-solar-system cyclers 

as humanity continues outbound into the universe at large. 

My 2020 vision is a call for a sustained space program with longrange acuity. We can now chart a course that returns us to the 

Moon, then allows humanity to strike out for the new world of our 

future, the planet Mars. 

But our near-term space efforts, both manned and robotic missions, must be tailored to support the longer-range purpose of opening the frontier. Step by step, program by program, we can construct a future of limitless potential. I must ask you gentleman, if 

not for these bold endeavors, then what is our space program for? 

Please allow me to address four significant points that Congress, 

as a governing oversight body, can do to help guarantee that the 

vision I have described here today can come to fruition for future 

generations. 

First, the highest priority of NASA and congressional oversight 

into NASA’s activities must be to develop lower-cost-to-orbit systems. Congress should continue its leadership role in this direction 

by expanding the spectrum of development options beyond singlestage-to-orbit systems to include the gamut of reusable launch vehicle options, including two-stage-to-orbit systems. 

Second, continue to identify and eliminate those stifling regulations that inhibit the private sector from competing in the commercial launch vehicle market to facilitate the development of low-cost 

transportation system options. 

Third, focus near-term activity, both in NASA and the private 

sector, by adopting the long-range national goal to expand human 

presence throughout the solar system and to tap the unlimited 

power and resource potential of solar space. 

Finally, charge NASA to study in depth these recommendations 

and the reusable cycling transportation system I have described for 

the economical exploration and development of the Moon and Mars. 

Now, I would like to elaborate on some of these concepts by using 

some visual aids. This viewgraph shows the use of an existing very 

powerful, competent rocket, the Zenit rocket. It is a two-stage rocket that the Boeing Co. is going to use called Sea Launch on floating 

163

platforms to hopefully bring back the commercial launch business, 

back from the French, back to the United States. This Zenit rocket 

was part of the Energia heavy lift rocket launch, today the world’s 

most impressive rocket. 

What we propose to do is wrap an airplane around the first 

stage, run it through test programs, horizontal and vertical, mate 

it with itself for suborbital tourism, with upper stages. Two- and 

three-star boosters can be attached to this. This booster could lift 

the X–33 into orbit with several thousand pounds of payload, or, 

with the RLV, if it is ever financed and built, it could double its 

payload. 

However, a better second stage reusable is probably preferred 

based on more ruggedness and perhaps external hydrogen tanks. 

This booster could be used as three replacement boosters for the 

solid rockets on the shuttle or as two replacements, one on each 

side, if the tanks are stretched on it appropriately. It forms the 

basis for a reusable, strap-on, heavy lift rocket system that puts up 

the hotels for tourists for the American people, and with that enthusiasm, we use that booster then to go back to the Moon, and 

second generations of that get us on to Mars. 

I have a timetable for accomplishing these, and I will leave that 

up there for a while. But note that it involves the first tourist in 

Earth orbit that might use a commercial version of the return vehicle that is being prepared for the space station. That, with an 

upper stage and boosted into orbit by the star booster, would be a 

very competent first tourist opportunity. We are going to need the 

hotels in space. 

Three or four-star boosters could give us the heavy lift. Then we 

could return to the Moon in 2008, phase 1 direct to the south pole 

of the Moon, variable gravity research, leading to expanded lunar 

operations and reusable lunar landers in phase 2 with sort of a 

rendezvous at L–1, the liberation point. It is more like the Apollo 

instead of direct to the surface. 

This eventually grows to lunar cyclers for tourism that are the 

predecessors of the Earth-Mars cycling system that enables us an 

efficient system of getting to Mars, the moons of Mars first. 

What I would like to show you over here is two examples of 

Earth, Moon cycler systems, where we take the figure 8 and then 

we go out on an ellipse several times before we go and encounter 

the Moon again. There is another version of this that goes out past 

the Moon, comes back, swings around the Moon, the front side, and 

then back out again. That is more than a 30-day mission. It is 

probably not too usable as a transportation system for explorers, 

but it is ideal for tourism. 

Looking at Mars, the Sun, the Earth and Mars line up at a date 

here in 2016. The next time they line up is after the Earth gets 

ahead of Mars and goes around once. Mars is over here. When the 

Earth goes around twice, Mars is still ahead of it. The two line up 

again 26 months later. 

The significance of this is that in order to travel from Earth to 

Mars, you should be about halfway between Earth and Mars when 

this opposition time occurs. And if you wanted to leave Mars here 

for this opposition, you leave at this point and reach Earth back 

over here. 

164

Now, a schematic of a cycler system that keeps the energy of the 

interplanetary vehicle when it reaches Mars so that it doesn’t have 

to slow down and stop and then use fuel to depart Mars again is 

in this diagram here. When you swing by Mars, we would go at a 

plane from Mars, swing by half a revolution later. One revolution 

later, we convert that velocity back to bring us back toward the 

Earth. 

At the Earth, between the opportune times to go from Earth to 

Mars and Mars to Earth, we have to wait about 18 months. That 

allows us to go out of plane from the Earth’s orbit around the Sun 

for 6 months, 6 months and another 6 months, before we convert 

by gravity assist in swinging back to Mars. 

It is a fascinating system, and in more detail you can see it on 

this inertial plot where we show transfer down here from Earth to 

Mars. We would wait for one revolution at Mars and then return 

back to Earth over here. We would make an orbit and a half of the 

Sun and then go back to Earth. 

It has been a really great challenge for me to take the knowledge 

that I have accrued in my educational system and my experience 

of being an astronaut and to project this into the future to learn 

as much as possible about how to make economical systems, challenging systems. 

I think that tourism is within the next 10 to 15 years. It will enable the Moon to be returned to and open up Mars. The space frontier is ours for the use, for the grasping. The decision is ours, and 

let’s go for it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[NOTE.—‘‘Ad Astra,’’ the magazine of the National Space Society, 

May/June 1997, can be found in subcommmittee files.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aldrin follows:] 

165


g:\graphics\46559.099
166


g:\graphics\46559.100
167


g:\graphics\46559.101
168


g:\graphics\46559.102
169


g:\graphics\46559.103
170


g:\graphics\46559.104
171


g:\graphics\46559.105
172


g:\graphics\46559.106
173


g:\graphics\46559.107
174


g:\graphics\46559.108
175

Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Dr. Aldrin, for that fascinating presentation. 

Before we move on to the question and answer period, I would 

like to recognize a member of the committee, the distinguished lady 

from Maryland, Mrs. Morella, for an opening statement. 

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am really not going to make an opening statement, but I did 

want you to know that I am on the Science Committee, which has 

space under its jurisdiction also, and I showed up this morning at 

the Air and Space Museum. Since you all weren’t there, I did a 

tour of it. So it really prepared me for the hearing this morning. 

I appreciate you being here. 

It is interesting, because this is cleanup time, isn’t it, the spring 

cleaning happening on Mir and Atlantis, and this is something you 

all know full well, so I think it is pretty significant that at this 

time when we continue with the partnership with the Russians on 

the space station that we also have our shuttle that is changing 

things around and somebody who will be up there also for 4 

months on Mir. A lot of exciting things are happening. 

But I would agree with what I understand that you have said in 

terms of the fact that we need something that is long-range. We 

need to also excite our young people. I had the opportunity just last 

week to help to rededicate a school in Montgomery County, MD, 

called the S. Christa McAuliffe School. Her mother was there. And 

their whole theme is reach for the stars, touch the future. 

I think that is also part of the theme that you have been generating in terms of motivating young people, in terms of space exploration, all of the scientific endeavors that go along with it, the leadership, taking risks, long-term policy, the spin-offs. As a woman, I 

can see plenty of medical spin-offs that help, for instance, with 

breast cancer and a number of the other diseases where it would 

be helpful. 

Mr. Carpenter, you were my neighbor once upon a time in Bethesda, MD, so it is good to see you again and also to kind of celebrate your achievements. 

Dr. Aldrin, I read your testimony from last week where you appeared, and I mentioned some of your themes at that time which 

were like education, faith, and commitment; pretty much that was 

it; and I thought your explanation of it was also very good. 

So I look forward to the line of questioning. I thank the chairman 

for the opportunity to thank you for being here and what you represent. I hope the whole world can see what you have done and 

what you see as our vision and mission for the future. 

Thank you. 

Mr. Weldon. I would like to begin the question and answer period, recognizing the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask—I guess our next panel will get into this 

in some more detail—do we presently have the life support systems 

that would be required to send somebody to Mars? If not, do you 

think this is easily achievable? I will start, Mr. Carpenter, with 

you, if you know, or Captain Cernan. Do any of you have a feel for 

that? 

Mr. ALDRIN. That is what the space station is for. The space station is to prove out the scientific needs that we have for continued 

176

use of space, and life science is one of the major ones, and longduration space flight on the space station, longer than the shuttle 

itself can stay up. That is why the Russian experience is so valuable to us, that they have been able to stay up for 6 months at a 

time and several of them for over a year. The life support systems 

that they have developed are going to be very useful for us to learn 

from and then develop our own systems. 

Mr. DAVIS. I guess you would say, in summary, we may not be 

there but we are on our way, we are getting good data and need 

to expand on that. 

Captain CERNAN. Can I give you a historical analogy? When JFK 

challenged this country to send a man to the Moon back in 1961, 

he did so within 3 weeks after Alan Shepherd flew, the first American in space. Alan flew for 16 minutes and had not yet even 

achieved orbit, and JFK said we are going to go to the Moon. 

We didn’t have boosters, we didn’t have environmental control 

systems, we had never gotten out of a spacecraft, we had not even 

been in orbit, we didn’t have anything it took, but it was a challenge. It was the fact that he challenged people to do something, 

as I said earlier, that most people thought couldn’t be done, that 

evolutionized that technology necessary to get us to the Moon; computer technology. 

When I think about where we ended up in Apollo and where we 

started when JFK said we are going, none of that existed. So, I 

don’t look at that as a problem; I think it is a commitment. 

If we decide we are going to go to Mars, if we put together a 

long-term national commitment that looks at a generation in the 

future, the infrastructure resulting from that equipment that is 

going to evolve from it, there is going to be a whole industrial base. 

As I said earlier, to me, although there may be other reasons because of the location of the Moon, Mars, and so forth, as to what 

year we could, that is less important than the fact that we commit 

ourselves to go at some point in the future. And if we want to detour on the way and go to Mars, if we want to detour and continue 

with the space station, if there are other things, if we find helium 

3 on the Moon that is mineable, if we want to do other things, we 

have the option to do that if the infrastructure is in place. The 

technological requirements to get there, I think, are going to be 

fallouts of the commitments itself. 

Mr. CARPENTER. I think it is also important to recognize that 

when Kennedy said we should go to the Moon, we didn’t have the 

technology; we built it. But if someone were to tell us now we 

should go to Mars, we have the technology and we are in a much 

better position to do that than we were in 1961 to go to the Moon. 

Mr. DAVIS. It looks like many of the benefits that we would get 

from such an expedition, the planning and the moving ahead on 

this, we can just begin to understand some of the benefits that we 

would get as a population for people who don’t go there, but we 

have seen a lot of technological innovation as a result of the whole 

space program. 

I wonder if we could just think 50 years ahead of what this could 

mean to the average person who may not get to Mars but some of 

the benefits that could possibly occur. Does anybody want to speculate on what that might be? You have been very visionary today. 

177

Captain CERNAN. We can talk about the technology from the 

Apollo. We can talk about the timing of Apollo. It came in the turbulent sixties, when we were involved in a very unpopular war, 

campus crime, civil strife. It gave this country something to hold 

our head high about. We were being blown out of the water by 

Sputnik and by everything the Soviets were doing at that point in 

time. Those are all benefits from Apollo. 

But I think, personally, we may not know for another 50 or 100 

years the true significance of having first left this planet during 

Apollo and called, as I said earlier, even for a short time, valleys 

on the Moon our home. I think it is going to take that long to look 

back. 

I am not sure that it wasn’t 100 or more years before the people 

on this continent and around the world looked back at the significance of what Columbus did back in 1492. Certainly they didn’t 

know 25 years later the importance of his commitment. I don’t 

know that we yet know the importance of what we have done. I 

don’t know that we yet know the challenge that JFK gave us and 

whether he was a dreamer, visionary, or just politically astute. 

Maybe he was all three. I would like to ask him, if I could, today. 

Mr. DAVIS. Dr. Aldrin, do you want to add anything? You have 

been very good about talking about how possible this can be, laying 

out a plan for Mars, which I think is great. But we get asked the 

question, given competing priorities, what does this mean? And so 

maybe we have no idea what it means. 

Mr. ALDRIN. Let’s look briefly at maybe what was the value of 

going to the Moon. In the last 27 years, one thing has stood out 

that, as I meet people, they want me to know where they were 

when we were on the Moon, and they remember vividly that particular day. 

And they are almost obsessed to come up and tell me where they 

were. And I am trying to understand what that means, and what 

it means is that there was value added to a human’s life on that 

day, and I multiply that by the millions of people that experienced 

that, and I think we are getting closing to understanding the value 

of human society challenging itself and carrying out a commitment 

successfully. 

It’s not the value of the rocks that were brought back or the 

great poetic statements that we all uttered. Those things aren’t remembered. It’s that people witnessed that event. And we are not 

going to justify going to Mars by what we bring back. Whether 

there was life or was not life shouldn’t be a determining factor 

whether we go to Mars. We are going to make a commitment and 

carry that out. 

And what is that commitment going to do to this world today 

that is so focused on the immediate payoff, what’s in it for me right 

now. Everything around us, fed by the communication industry, focuses on fixing today, today, and it doesn’t focus on where are we 

going to be in the next 20, 50 years. We need something that draws 

away from today, and internationally supporting a striving settlement on Mars and all the benefits that is going to bring back here 

on Earth, and the feel-good attitude that people are going to have, 

that’s going to be the value of going to Mars. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

178

Mr. Weldon. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. It is exciting just to listen to you speak. I guess as 

I listen to you lay out your vision, Dr. Aldrin, it seems to me that 

one of the biggest challenges we face is trying to figure out a way 

to get that common commitment, and I would be interested in any 

of your suggestions. 

It seems to me that space exploration is much more complex, 

with many more options than there were back in the 1960’s, and 

perhaps it is a little bit more difficult to frame the goal, the mission that we need to be pursuing. Obviously, it takes leadership 

from the top, and I think that your suggestion that you hope that 

a President, after the turn of the century, would be leading and 

enunciating the mission, is important. 

But it seems to me, and I am certainly not one who is enamored 

with blue ribbon commissions, but it seems to me that there has 

to be a collection of the scientific, the commercial community gathered around a table somewhere with a charge delivered by a President or a Congress to say, lay out for us what you think the mission ought to be, what the objective ought to be, what the pathway 

is that we should follow, and to do it in a way that the net result 

has credibility with the American people, with the Congress, and 

that we could use that to put this issue at a high enough profile 

level that people would begin to understand that this is where we 

need to go, this is where we should go, and we could once again 

begin to be excited about the fact that we are exploring the outer 

limits of the universe. 

Am I off track here? Have you all done this? Have you seen this 

happen? Has it not given us the momentum we need, or would it 

be helpful to urge the President and Congress to say we need to 

gather around a table, a blue ribbon group, to define the mission, 

to reach an agreement? 

For example, Dr. Aldrin, as I heard you make a presentation, I 

wondered if Captain Cernan and Mr. Carpenter agreed with you, 

would this be the mission they would lay out, as you have laid it 

out in so much detail? Is there a need for some consensus building 

here and some need to elevate the profile of what that consensus 

is? 

Mr. ALDRIN. Each year as we approach New Year’s Eve, people 

make resolutions. We are coming up on millennia. I think we 

should consider resolutions for the next century: Where would we 

like this Nation to be as we move through the next century. 

I think as you look at the dates, even going from 1999 to 2000 

is a big change. I think we could use the year 2000 as a national 

discussion time period along with the political discussions that are 

going to be going on the same year, and look at the alternatives, 

look at what our resolutions maybe ought to be and bring in the 

public. 

I think that space, the people want to journey into space; they 

want to share that participation. Just ask them. I go around and 

they want to know when they can get into space. And it is do-able. 

The tourism industry worldwide is a multibillion-dollar industry. 

Let’s just unleash that into space, and not just for the affluent, but 

wisely worked out lottery principles. You can form a corporation 

and issue shares and distribute the dividends by random selection 

179

for thousands of space-related prizes, including a ride into orbit. 

And that could develop the rocket and the spacecraft systems needed to go to the Moon. Not the other way around. We are not going 

to make a commitment to go to the Moon and then use those vehicles for tourism; it should be the other way. 

Mr. TURNER. Do you view, Captain Cernan, the future of the 

space program the same as Dr. Aldrin or do you have different 

views? 

Captain CERNAN. Well, we have different views along the way, 

and Buzz is certainly an expert on techniques and approaches and 

boosters, and I am more of a dreamer, a philosopher. 

I think you have to have the desire to want to go, to do something that hasn’t been done, something unique. Probably a lot of 

people in this room and up there with you are not going to like this 

comment. I am not sure I do, either. In the space program that we 

are involved in today, I call it space exploitation. The shuttle, perhaps one of the most sophisticated flying machines ever built and 

flown, the space station because of its international nature is going 

to be significantly important to the future. The space program 

today is not exciting to people. It’s not exciting to kids. We have 

been to the Moon 25 years ago; we went to another planet. You 

have got to define what it is to voyage or journey in space. 

I’ve been in orbit on Gemini, it’s spectacular, my first flight. Do 

I want to go back to orbit, no. I have been to the Moon twice. If 

I am going to go somewhere, I am going to go to Mars. That’s me. 

Perhaps that is selfish. But until Apollo 13 came around and exposed people who were around to remember, and young children, 

to what space journey was really all about, there was little or no 

excitement about it. 

Now when you talk to kids—their window was opened. Why don’t 

we go back? Why didn’t we continue on? When are we going to go 

to Mars? When you talk to young kids today, and that’s really the 

grass-root support, they are not satisfied to just go around in circles anymore. 

What we are doing today is significantly important, economically 

and otherwise, in the exploitation of space. But we are exploiting 

space through the shuttle and space station at the 100 percent cost 

of exploring space. We ceased to explore space when I left the surface of the Moon and we haven’t explored space in 25 years, at 

least under my definition. That’s what excites kids. Star Trek, 

Spaceship Enterprise. The concept is if it’s a space station, it ought 

to go through a black hole. I don’t want to get too far out, but that’s 

what gets kids’ imagination. That’s what gets them to ask questions and want to know more. 

Perhaps I didn’t refer to it, and I know most of you are interested 

in education, perhaps one of the greatest and most untapped resources of Apollo itself was the stimulus to education. The motivation that you can see resulting in the hearts and minds of young 

kids who want to talk about the Moon, what is it like on the Moon. 

So, I think we have two different space programs. One is a program we are involved in now, shuttle, station; and the other one 

is the space program of exploration which we only talk about, 

which doesn’t exist today. 

180

One of the unique differences about Mercury, Buzz and I both 

flew in Gemini and Apollo, each of those flights were interdependent on the other. The three programs were a program. Without Mercury, there wouldn’t have been Gemini. Without Gemini, 

there wouldn’t have been Apollo. Without any one flight in those 

programs, the next flight wouldn’t have existed. If I hadn’t gone to 

the Moon on Apollo 10, Apollo 11 would have been a totally different story. 

Today our program, it’s the nature of the program, not necessarily a criticism, it’s the nature of the program, every flight 

today with the exception of those that will be put together to assemble the station is an individual event. You can cancel it, 

change, slip it, move it around, refly it, and the doesn’t affect the 

follow-on flight to any extent. So we are in the mode of exploiting 

space. 

We have a highly sophisticated research vehicle in a shuttle, and 

what I think we are doing now is correct. I think we are headed 

down the right path. I think we need to develop that international 

space station. I think it’s ultimately important, scientifically, technologically and perhaps more importantly from an international 

point of view. But again I say we are doing it at the 100 percent 

total cost of ignoring exploration. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. Turner, I think the answer to your original 

question is difficult to come to because the most important problem 

we have is arriving at a consensus in forming the answer to your 

question. That’s the most, the difficult and most important. 

Mr. ALDRIN. There was a wonderful study done by a wonderful 

person who led NASA when we first landed on the Moon, Tom 

Payne. It was called the National Commission on the Space. I 

think if you look at all the studies done before and after, that will 

stand out. 

So as we approach this millennia change, I would encourage people to dust off that pioneering, the space frontier study that was 

done. The timing was atrocious. It was just about to be submitted 

when the Challenger accident occurred. 

Captain CERNAN. Buzz hit it a moment ago, what’s in it for me 

now, what am I going to get back, why should I go to Mars, what 

am I going to get out of it, what’s in it for me. It’s a lack of our 

futuristic instincts to look into the future. What’s in it for our kids? 

I am not sure I can tell you that, and we seem unwilling—I hate 

to be one of those guys that says you should have been here last 

week, the fishing was great, but if you look at how Mercury, Gemini and Apollo evolved, we took risks, we think we managed our 

risk pretty well, that I am not sure we have the gumption to take 

today. 

If JFK stood on the steps of Congress here today and said we are 

going to go to the Moon, I don’t believe we could get there in a decade. I don’t believe our mentality would allow us to do what we did 

a generation ago. I think that is one the major problems. We just 

seem to be unwilling to commit without a guarantee, and there are 

no guarantees in this life. For you or for me or for space or for anybody. And that’s a culture that has slowly evolved over the last 25 

years, at least having raised a few kids in this generation who adVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46559 46559
181

mittedly could tell me the same things, it’s something I have observed. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Weldon. I would like to recognize the distinguished lady from 

Maryland, Mrs. Morella. 

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. 

I note that President Clinton used that concept of we want to go 

on the Moon, we want to find a vaccine for AIDS. It has become 

legendary because it shows the can-do spirit of America. 

I think it is a shame that you say that practically we may not 

be able to achieve it going to the Moon or now going to Mars, and 

I wanted to point out a few things. For instance, when we are legislating and coming up with appropriations, as well as authorizations, we always have trouble with space and the space station for 

the very reason that you mention, Captain Cernan, it is what are 

we going to get from it; are we going to be able to have a reliable 

partnership or are the Russians going to back out because they 

don’t have the money and we are going to be stuck handling it; 

what are the benefits going to be. 

I am interested in the papers you have submitted. The whole 

concept of space tourism, the fact that you envision within 20 or 

50 years, and we better do it in 20 because I don’t think I will be 

here in 50, that we could have colonies on the Moon or Mars, and 

we could have shuttles going back and forth, I wonder if you might 

elaborate on that a bit. 

I do, as a backdrop, remember a number of years ago I was one 

of the people that submitted a bill against Mylar billboards in 

space. Do you remember that? You could be up there in space and 

you see this big billboard ‘‘Drink Coke’’ or ‘‘Buy Nike Shoes’’ or 

whatever, and there was a company that actually had considered 

doing that and we introduced legislation. That may have been one 

of the deterrents for something like that. But how do you see this 

space tourism? Also, something, I hate to use that word with you, 

with the three of you, that is affordable. 

I will address each one of you, if you want to make any comments on that. Do you really think we will be able to afford to do 

it and would it be a practical kind of thing to do, as well as visionary? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I think it’s a definite possibility and something 

we should pursue, but after the fact. I am more interested in the 

search for new truths, and if space tourism falls out of that search, 

that is fine, but that in my mind is not the end of the project. It 

is an artifact. 

Mrs. MORELLA. You are interested in, what did you say? 

Space——

Mr. CARPENTER. I am dedicated to learning how to fly to Mars 

and return safely, and much will fall out from that, from the conduct of that exploration. 

Mrs. MORELLA. Many, many other benefits, obviously true. 

Thank you. Captain Cernan. 

Captain CERNAN. I have a comment on two things. I also heard 

about President Clinton’s commitment to find a prevention for 

AIDS in the next 10 years and I think it’s an admirable commitment. Whether it be AIDS or heart disease or cancer, we would like 

182

to find preventions and cures for all of those things. But the facts 

of life are finding cures for those things does not excite people, 

young and old, like watching the Star Trek movie, like finding a 

potential of life on Mars in a piece of meteorite or like going to the 

Moon like we did on Apollo. So I think it’s difficult to compare 

JFK’s commitment of going to the Moon in a decade in terms of the 

response it got from people, even the disbelief, compared to solving 

some of the ills that need to be solved in this world. There’s a lot 

of them and they are admirable. 

I am out there talking to kids. I know what gets them excited 

and gets them involved. People young and old, they ask what does 

it look like, what did it feel like, were you scared. We get this all 

the time. And you don’t get the same kind of questions if you talk 

about finding a cure for AIDS. I am sorry, it just doesn’t——

Mrs. MORELLA. I think you mentioned it just to show the cando spirit. We did it for that because we had a mission. And I must 

say, as someone who has been on that space commitment for many 

years, I really think after that we lost that real mission, the sense 

of working together. 

Captain CERNAN. Absolutely. Let me be a dreamer for about another 30 seconds and go beyond what Buzz said. I don’t care what 

motivates us to Mars, I don’t care—if we saw a little green man 

sticking his head up several years ago when we sent Viking to 

Mars, we would be there by now. I don’t care why we go. If it’s 

tourism, that’s fine. Science has never been a motivator. It always 

runs piggyback. It was not the reason we went to the Moon; it will 

run piggyback when we go to Mars. So whatever it is, if it is tourism, which seems relatively exciting to me, Buzz, I don’t care what 

it is. 

But my dreaming mentality, and none of us will be around in 

100 or 200, some day—I am second generation American. I can remember my grandparents talking about coming over to the new 

world from the old country. I can remember them talking about always wanting to go back to the old world, to Europe, to their birthplace. At some point in time, Mars and Earth are going to have 

that relationship. In 100 or 200 or 300 years, those who follow us 

will come back to Earth to see where their ancestors came from, 

and there will be space transportation and there will be tourists 

who go to Mars and come back to Earth. And it’s an easy prediction 

because, no one is ever going to call me on it, but I believe in the 

next couple hundred years you are going to see that kind of relationship. 

Mr. ALDRIN. Let me take us back a few years, like the mid1920’s, people were traveling across the Atlantic in a ship, until 

someone said, maybe if we had a prize, people would compete, be 

motivated to compete for that prize. Charles Lindbergh won that 

against a number of other competitors. 

We are trying to do the same thing today with an X prize for 

suborbital flight. But that exercise of Charles Lindbergh arriving 

in Paris, electrifying the world, opened up transatlantic air travel 

and brought about the need to do that better and faster and jet 

travel and now let’s people take vacations doing that. 

The reason that we want to do tourism is to reduce the cost of 

access to space by having volume traffic. We want to develop the 

183

kinds of spacecraft and rockets that are going to get to space and 

then produce lots of them. And people aren’t getting any smaller. 

Satellites are getting smaller and smaller but people aren’t, and 

people want to get into space. If it is $100,000, thousands of people 

want to do it. Should we turn our backs on them? Well, there is 

probably going to be a little bit of government money in that rocket 

and spacecraft system. Let’s open it up to the people. 

I can’t understand why people invest in the lottery but they do, 

and they get excited about it. They put up a little bit of their savings in hopes of a windfall, and that’s exciting and it opens the 

door. 

You are going to hear from a wonderful gentleman in the next 

panel and I think he will excite you about privatizing, unleashing 

the private sector into the space frontier, and tourism is going to 

be what opens it up. 

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Weldon. Captain Cernan, you were the last man to leave 

footprints on the Moon, I understand. Do you have any special feelings about the significance of that that you want to share with us? 

Captain CERNAN. I get asked a lot, how do you feel, how do you 

feel about being the last man to have walked on the Moon, how do 

you feel about having left the final footprints from Apollo. And, of 

course, just to have had the opportunity, it’s very unique and I am 

very proud to have done that. But there is always going to have 

been one human being who was the first to step on the surface of 

the Moon, and we all know who that is. But there is going to be 

many, many last human beings to walk on the surface of the Moon. 

I just have held that distinction for far longer than I ever thought 

I would. And I can say on top of everything else, it’s somewhat disappointing that I can sit here today, this December will be 25 

years, and I still carry the distinction with pride but with disappointment at having been the last man to step on the surface of 

the Moon. Certainly at least through the end of this century. 

Mr. CARPENTER. May I add that we are all proud to know Gene 

Cernan, the last man to walk on the Moon, but we would be even 

prouder to meet the next man on the Moon, and soon. 

Mr. ALDRIN. Let me make an observation. If we are discussing 

a commitment of whether we are going to go to Mars and not commit to settlement, to increasing settlements, let’s not even bother 

going. You can’t go there once, twice, three times and then say I 

am going to call this off, we have done that. It has got to be a commitment to a growing expansion outward and settlement, and if 

the Congress isn’t willing to do that, then we will get the American 

people to maybe get us a new Congress. 

Captain CERNAN. Dismissed. 

Mr. Weldon. Let me move on to another line of questioning. I 

represent the area of Florida called the Space Coast, Brevard 

County. I know all three of you, gentlemen, are familiar with that 

area. You may not have lived there but you have blasted off from 

there. Every time a shuttle goes off, I say a little prayer knowing 

that the area was very badly devastated by the loss of the Challenger and grounding the shuttle fleet for 2 years and the economic 

impacts that had. 

184

One of the things that I have gotten into discussions with some 

of the leadership within NASA and on the Space Subcommittee and 

the Science Committee is what would happen to our manned space 

flight program if that were to happen again. Do we have the will 

and resolve to hang in there and continue in manned space flight? 

Now, I don’t think it will happen again. I think we have gotten the 

bugs out of the system and we will continue to fly the shuttle safely, but can we continue to have a manned space flight program in 

the setting of another disaster like another Apollo 1 setback? We 

got through Apollo 1, we got through the Challenger, but do we 

have the national resolve to move on ahead and continue our 

manned space flight program? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, that deals I think with what was said earlier. We are in this business and we are in it because we know that 

the benefits are worth the risk. The answer to your question is to 

be found in whether you and the rest of the Nation are aware of 

that simple fact as well. 

Captain CERNAN. Apollo 1 was every bit as devastating, maybe 

not in total loss of life, but to the potential of the space program 

as Challenger. We hadn’t even gotten an Apollo spacecraft off the 

ground and there was a fire. Three human beings lost their lives 

on the pad. We were in a race with the Russians, JFK’s challenge 

to get there by the end of the decade. We recovered from that accident. We recovered. The accident occurred in January 1967 and we 

recovered and were airborne on that first Apollo flight in October 

1968. And within 7 months Buzz walked on the Moon. 

Apollo 13 occurred in March. The following January—Apollo 13, 

truly, truly—I was backup commander on Apollo 14. I was working 

very close on that flight to bring these guys back. We truly came 

closer than we knew then to losing those guys in space. 

We sent three more men and four more flights into the same 

realm of outer space to complete, to finish the job that we called 

Apollo. We recovered in, what, 8 months, 9 months. 

The Challenger accident was devastating and of course the whole 

world saw it, that made it even worse. And we lost seven people. 

But there isn’t a person on that flight that got into that spacecraft 

that didn’t volunteer, that didn’t know the risk. I was close to that 

one, too, because I was on the selection committee to pick those 

school teachers. It took somewhere between 21⁄2 and 3 years to recover from the Challenger accident, and I think we have not yet totally recovered from that accident today. 

Quite simply, the answer to your question is as devastating as 

Apollo 1 was because there were people at that time that said quit, 

we don’t need to go to the Moon, as devastating as it was, I think 

if we had another accident today, our entire Nation’s space program, again because of something that is lacking, maybe it is commitment, maybe it is willingness to take a risk, whatever it is, 

would probably come to a screeching halt for some indefinite time 

in the future, and it would have to probably, probably gear up 

again and start all over again a decade or two down the line. I honestly believe that that could be the result of another accident like 

Challenger. 

Mr. Weldon. Dr. Aldrin, do you have anything you wanted to add 

to that? 

185

Mr. ALDRIN. We probably had with the Saturn 5, first and second 

stage: a two stage, fully reusable launch system. Instead of doing 

that, we started with a clean sheet of paper and defined a twostage airplane, an orbiter and a booster, and we put a cockpit in 

the booster that was not needed. We overpriced the system, had to 

redesign it, and then the funds were cut back and that resulted in 

what Werner Van Braun said we should never do and that is 

launch human beings on solid rocket boosters. 

After the Challenger, we decided to improve the solid rocket 

booster. If that booster is so good, why isn’t it being used on something else? Why isn’t it being used to replace a Titan? 

A solid rocket blew up on the Delta recently. There are problems. 

We may not have a next generation that we are reaching for because we may be reaching too far with a single stage. We may have 

to live with the shuttle for a long time. I am really worried that 

we don’t have the resiliency in our system. We don’t have a backup 

to the laboratory, we don’t have a backup to the HAB module on 

the space station. We had a problem designing the node and now 

the nodes are being built in Italy. Why is that? That is not the way 

our space program was back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. There is not 

much resilience in what we are doing. We need more volume; we 

need a bigger fleet. Tourism will bring you that bigger fleet, and 

the people aren’t going to fly on solid rocket boosters. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you. I would like to see if we have desire for 

a second round of questions. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me just ask a couple. I don’t know if my questions 

are any good but the answers are outstanding. 

I think sometimes we try to design an inexpensive space program 

up here with so many competing activities it doesn’t get—because 

you can’t realize the immediate benefit, as you put it. 

People, Members sometimes, and the public like things quantifiable, and I think, Dr. Aldrin, you put it very well when you talked 

about society challenging itself and succeeding and how we need 

that. Some of the most important things in life are unquantifiable. 

The commitment we can get from NASA would do. America needs 

that right now. 

The program right now has in some way turned into a foreign 

aid program, the way it is constructed. So I think what you are 

saying—I would also add whatever you end up doing, when we define a mission and go after it again, we are not going to come up 

with a dry hole from a scientific point of view. The inventions that 

come out of this that have applications every day are significant 

and they are helping us treat diseases, they have made the computer, you know, everybody can own a hand-held computer and calculator, and these things would not have been possible without the 

space program. So it is very inspiring to hear what you are saying. 

I think we need to involve the private sector more and I think we 

will hear more in the next panel about ways of doing that, and also 

on the Space Subcommittee, which I am a member of. 

I just wanted to know if you would like to amplify on that, and 

recognizing that all endeavors that government is involved with, 

we are finding that government alone can’t do it; we can reply on 

the market system to produce things more efficiently and better 

186

and whereas government by itself, not by intention, just ends up 

being a very inefficient vehicle. 

Any comments on that or thoughts? 

Captain CERNAN. I think the programs that interact in terms of 

privatization, if that’s what you are referring to, I don’t think 

there’s any question. I don’t think there’s any stopping it. I think 

it’s going to continue to happen, but, you know, the government 

has always been the high-risk element of research and development. There is no—the entire aerospace put together could not 

have afforded the risk of going to the Moon on Apollo. It has to be 

the government, so the government has to take the lead and be out 

front and be willing to be the tip of the arrow, but bring in the private sector wherever and whenever possible. And I think you are 

going to see more commercial value come out of space. 

NASA, over the last several years has done a terrible job of developing a people awareness. People talk about the money and you 

fighting for bits and pieces of money here. First of all, it is ludicrous that something as objective as exploring space should compete with HUD and VA, that is ludicrous, but that’s in your ballpark, not mine. 

But you talk about billions and billions of dollars, and the aver- age person on the street doesn’t have the vaguest idea of what $1 

million is much less $1 billion or $10 billion. But if you start telling 

them about the space program, but why does it have to cost so 

much? How much does it? If you tell them the space program costs 

1 penny out of each tax dollar, people can’t believe that. My God, 

I have more fun watching it on television, it costs me 1 penny out 

of every Federal tax dollar to send you guys to the Moon? Yeah, 

and it cost 1 penny out of each to watch the space shuttle going 

on. They can identify with reality like that. 

We have done a terrible job, we NASA. We are as much at fault 

as anybody. Nobody can understand and relate to the technology 

and all that fancy, wonderful stuff that’s important and we get benefits from, but they can relate to things they can identify with, and 

how we spend their dollars is something they are very, very appropriately concerned with. We need to develop a broader, grass-roots 

space awareness program, quite frankly, and maybe that’s NASA’s 

responsibility. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is interesting you say that. Then you tell them almost 20 cents of every dollar is going to pay interest on the national debt, they get really mad. 

But Dr. Aldrin, you wrote a Ph.D. thesis back in the 1950’s about 

what might have then been a wild idea of spacecraft rendezvousing and going round and round. It is very intriguing what you 

talk about, sending people to Mars and who knows where that will 

lead. I think it is timely since we are not having a mission to Mars 

now with robots and sending them up and it’s a good time to rekindle this debate and discussion. 

Mr. ALDRIN. I think we should not be afraid to learn the lessons 

of the past. We had within the Saturn 5 rocket the next generation 

shuttle system, but we didn’t do that. We started all over again 

with the clean sheet of paper and have the aerospace companies recompete to see who wins this time. We have got a space station 

that is going to go up and it’s going to take about 50 launches, inVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46559 46559
187

cluding the supply flights in 5 years. We launched a space station 

with the Saturn called Sky Lab. It took one launch. If we launch 

another space station in the future, it better not take more than 

three launches or it’s not going to survive. 

You have seen the trouble we have had justifying this type of a 

space station that is assembled by the capacity of the space shuttle. 

We need bigger capacity to put up hotels. Call them what you 

want, but people are going to go there. This is the NASA budget. 

I think everybody has to understand——

Mr. DAVIS. What’s left of it. 

Mr. ALDRIN. That that’s what is happening today. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Weldon. Mrs. Morella, do you have any other questions? 

Mrs. MORELLA. No, thank you. 

Mr. Weldon. I guess the only other question I would like to ask 

the panel, we have talked a little bit about how times were different in the 1960’s. We had the Russian challenge, one of the 

issues that I think plays a role in this lack of willingness or commitment perhaps or a level of commitment perhaps today is just 

the basic economic problems we are having here in Washington, 

DC, and I don’t know if any of you would care to comment on that 

issue, but we do have a $5 trillion debt, we are making headway 

to balancing the budget, and it is projected that the deficit for fiscal 

year 1997 will be at about a 15 or 18 year low, getting down to perhaps less than $100 billion. 

I believe at the time when you were enrolled in the Astronaut 

Corps, the national debt was a fraction of what it is today and the 

range of about a tenth. I believe that the expenditures on entitlements were in the range of about 10 percent of Federal expenditures or 15 percent of Federal expenditures. 

Do you see any correlation between getting our economics in 

order and having the willingness to explore, to make the investments necessary to explore? Is this a factor in your vision or do you 

feel that this is just a lack of will that is not related to the basic 

economic problems our Nation faces? 

Mr. CARPENTER. I think it’s a lack of will and it might be also 

a lack of clearly defined and clearly appreciated acceptable goal. 

Captain CERNAN. You gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, and pardon me, Mrs. Morella, I tend to use the word ‘‘mankind’’ very generically so I don’t mean to exclude, but I have been called on a 

couple of times, and you might have caught me today, but I do use 

it generically. You ladies and gentlemen are practitioners. We can 

sit here and dream and philosophize, but we still have to pay for 

it. 

I go back to what I said about space awareness, what the real 

costs are. But, you know, I think back in the Apollo days, we probably had, the deficit may have been lower and so forth, but I think 

basically we still had the same problems. We had people saying, 

why do you want to waste all that money going to the Moon, we 

have all these poor people here to be fed and there is always—

money didn’t get us to the Moon and money is not going to find 

a cure for AIDS and cancer and money is not going to solve poverty. People are going to solve it. Ideas, commitments, obviously 

with this practical use of money. 

188

The money that was spent was and has being spent in space 

comes back to us tenfold, even to the extent that we don’t appreciate it. When you look at the technology and the industries that 

have grown and the computers, if you could take any one of those 

dollars spent in 1960 to send us to the Moon and could possibly 

have tracked to this date 25 years later, the phenomenal return on 

that dollar investment would probably blow all of our minds. I 

don’t know what it would be, but I do know the investment is minimal. As I say, 1 penny out of each tax dollar comes back at least 

tenfold. 

And I go back to people’s awareness and interest and excitement. 

I think if people really understood how little, not how much, how 

little it costs to continue building and growing this foundation of 

technology and the return from that investment that people, that 

we all take for granted today, in our hospitals, in our schools, classrooms and our homes and our factories, if we really understood all 

that, you would get so much grass-root support you ladies and gentlemen up here in Congress could not afford not to put a program 

together to further that effort, to take us to Mars, quite frankly. 

We just, the average person on the street has got so many other 

problems. They have got to send their kid to college, the grandchild 

just skinned their knee or whatever it is, their job is a little insecure, and so those are the things that are important to them. But 

if you could bring what the space program does for them down to, 

quote, their level of understanding, economically, I think you would 

see a grass-roots support that could not be stopped. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you. 

Well, I want to really thank all three of you for coming and being 

here today. If I could quote or paraphrase Mr. Davis, I am not sure 

our questions were great, but your answers were wonderful, and I 

want to thank you very much for your testimony. I know that we 

are looking and searching for a new direction and a new level of 

commitment, and your coming here and being here is really a tremendous help to us. 

I would like to now dismiss you and invite our second panel to 

come forward. 

Mr. Weldon. If you would all please rise, we need to swear you 

in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. Weldon. Let the record show that the witnesses responded 

in the affirmative. 

Now I would like to formally welcome our second panel. Our first 

witness to my left is Mr. Joshua Ouellette. He is a 15-year-old student at the Academy of Science and Technology in the Woodlands, 

TX. He is studying superconductivity and has already sold an invention to a manufacturing company. It is also worth noting that 

he aspires to be an astronaut. 

The next witness is Dr. Robert Zubrin. He is president of Pioneer 

Astronautics, an aerospace research and development company. He 

is the inventor of several unique concepts for space propulsion and 

exploration, the author of over 90 published technical and nontechnical papers in the field, and was a member of Lockheed Martin 

scenario development team charged with developing broad new 

strategies for space exploration. He is also the author of the book, 

189

‘‘The Case for Mars: How We Shall Settle the Red Planet and Why 

We Must.’’

The next witness is Mr. Tom Rogers, an expert in Near-Term 

Commercial Space Transportation Opportunities and Technologies 

and a familiar witness to the Space Subcommittee on Science. 

Next, we have Dr. Seth Potter. He is a scientist, visionary in 

solar energy from space and professor of Applied Physics at New 

York University. And Dr. John Lewis is a scientist, author, and expert in astrology, astrogeology and the study of off-earth resources. 

We thank you all for being here today, and we would like to 

begin with Joshua. Please try to summarize your comments to keep 

them to the 5-minute time limit. Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF JOSHUA OUELLETTE, STUDENT, ACADEMY 

OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SETH POTTER, PROFESSOR 

OF APPLIED PHYSICS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY; BOB ZUBRIN, 

PRESIDENT, PIONEER ASTONAUTICS; TOM ROGERS, NEARTERM COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORT OPPORTUNITIES; 

AND JOHN LEWIS, ASTROGEOLOGIST 

Mr. OUELLETTE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and distinguished scientists and astronauts. My name is 

Joshua Ouellette. I have been asked to speak today as a representative of all the young people in this country who are aspiring to 

one day participate in the American space program. 

First, my thanks go to Mr. Robert Charles, Mr. Mobly, Mrs. 

Christover, Mr. Scott Carpenter for their work in allowing me to 

speak to the subcommittee on the work I feel so passionately about. 

At present, I am attending the Academy of Science and Technology in Oakridge High School, in Conroe, TX, where I am enrolled as a ninth grader. The Academy is a magnet school for those 

students who show particular interest and ability in math, science 

and technology. 

I am also currently a cadet in the TX–951 Air Force Junior 

ROTC Cadet Corps at Oakridge High School. I currently hold the 

rank of cadet staff sergeant with the positions of Information Management NCOIC and Kitty Hawk Air Society War Eagle chapter 

president. The KJS is usually described as the ROTC version of the 

National Honor Society. 

I am also a life scout of the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1772, 

with the position of assistant senior patrol leader. 

I have been asked to speak mainly on my own thoughts of the 

past, present, and future of our Nation’s space program. Hence my 

statement is far more opinion than fact, such as those that will be 

covered by the other people testifying here today. 

My views of space are deeply rooted in every fiber of my consciousness. When I was only 4 years old, my parents had to make 

a deliberate effort to keep me away from the television set so I 

wouldn’t be upset by the Challenger explosion. Even at that early 

age, such events affected me on the deepest levels. 

My interest in space exploration has been inspired by both space 

history and science fiction. The first steps as to traveling between 

the stars have been taken through Earth’s immediate neighborhood. Those travels have produced beautiful images from the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions, clear up to the shuttle missions 

190

and Hubble telescope. The incredible pictures have inspired a desire within me to see these magnificent sights with my own eyes, 

the lunar sky with the Earth looming in the background, the great 

nebulas of swirling and glowing gas, and the Milky Way looking 

solid white befitting its name. 

The goals I have set for myself are exceptionally high, indeed, 

aiming for the stars. It would be the highlight of my existence to 

be remembered as one of the first to step foot on Mars. Even riding 

the space shuttle of one of its future counterparts would be fantastic. If I apply myself at school and in Scouts and ROTC, I hope 

to increase the odds of making these dreams come true. 

However, my chances of reaching these goals are in no way completely under my control. An individual working by themselves cannot make it into space. It requires a nation backing that individual. 

Space exploration is probably the greatest investment of all-time, 

and at present there is only one nation that can make that investment, the United States of America. If our Nation can put a colony 

on Mars, a base on the Moon, or even a space station in orbit, the 

benefits would be great. In time, not only on scientific values but 

also the economic values would present themselves. There may be 

a limited amount of raw materials on Earth, but the supplies of 

space are nearly infinite and have never been tapped. 

Many people feel the reason we have not walked on the Moon in 

decades nor gone to Mars is best explained by the reason we ever 

built the space program in the first place: Our Nation responded 

to a perceived threat from the Soviet Union. It wasn’t just the fear 

that made us make the effort to land on the Moon, but it was that 

something suddenly appeared for the entire Nation to rally behind. 

No nation has ever accomplished any great feat without rallying 

behind a cause nor have ununified nations ever lasted for any great 

span of time. 

Right now our Nation has no great rallying call such as President Kennedy’s call to place a man on the Moon or even the revolutionary call for freedom that built our Nation. The result is a loss 

of national camaraderie and unity. ‘‘Ask not what your country can 

do for you but what you can do for your country’’ is in danger of 

regressing. In other words, we have become a slightly un-unified 

society. The solution may lie in the space program and the solution 

to the space program’s dilemmas may likewise lie here. We must 

all rally behind something, and the space program needs someone 

to rally behind it. This is obviously easier said than done. 

From here the next step would be to continue on the present 

path, developing the technologies necessary to move our space program along with the completion of the X–33 new generation space 

shuttle. The sooner this is done, the better. This major accomplishment will be of interest to the Nation. 

The completion of the international space station could also 

spark this interest. A series of such accomplishments in quick succession will buildup a large amount of support. The greatest rally 

would be a mission to Mars. If done quickly and with deserved fanfare, this act would bring the Nation together in a way equalled 

only by the Apollo missions. 

The United States of America is the greatest Nation of all times 

and is more than capable of the greatest feats of all time. It will 

191

take that one spark to set us in motion and so many other problems will be solved. 

Every one has heard of the scientific and even economic benefits 

of going into space. We have all heard of such successes as Velcro, 

Teflon, Tang, communications satellite networks, and advanced 

computer technologies. More will come, but perhaps something far 

greater may be a benefit, a deeper understanding of ourselves and 

our humanity. 

I thank you for the consideration of my testimony. 

Mr. Weldon. Dr. Zubrin. 

Mr. ZUBRIN. Thank you. Is it possible I could have the lights 

down about halfway. I am going to talk from over here, if it’s OK 

with you. 

Mr. Weldon. If you can talk loud. 

Mr. ZUBRIN. I can talk real loud. 

We have had a lot of speakers this morning who generally are 

discussing why it’s important to us to launch a major new initiative 

in space, and I feel, especially in accordance with comments made 

by Mr. Cernan, I am going to direct most of my comments to not 

why we need to do it, but to make clear the fact that we can do 

it, we can have humans on Mars within 10 years if this country 

can muster the will today. 

There’s a lot people saying it can’t be done, it’s a task for two 

generations from now. That’s not true. One reason why people believe it can’t be done is they have been shown ways to do it that 

are impossible, and, for example, this is what happened when 

George Bush made the call for a Space Exploration Initiative in 

1989, NASA came back with a 90-day report, they said we can do 

it in 30 years if you give us $450 billion, which you know how well 

that went over, end of story. 

Well, the reason why it was so expensive and such a long-term 

proposal was what they came up with was concepts like this. Build 

giant spaceships in space, constructed in orbit in a set of orbiting 

hangers and spaceports and so forth, an assembly of capabilities 

that would take a couple of generations to create and whose primary benefit would be that it would employ a lot of people developing all this hardware and technology. But it would not get you 

to Mars any time soon and for any kind of cost that anyone was 

willing to contemplate. 

The fact is going to Mars is not that hard. You don’t need to 

build giant Battlestar Galactica spaceships to do it. You do need a 

heavy lift vehicle. You could use a Saturn 5, or we could create an 

equivalent to a Saturn 5 very easily out of shuttle technology. It’s 

not that hard a thing to create, built in the 1960’s. We can have 

another one based on shuttle components based on 4 years from 

today if anybody turned on the switch. 

Now, you have got a heavy lift booster with roughly Saturn 5 capabilities. How do you use it? OK, you use a two-launch scenario. 

This is known as the Mars Direct Plan, which I developed when 

I was working for the Martin Co. doing planetary mission design. 

The idea is the following: In a given year, I call it year 1, call 

it 2005, you launch one of these boosters off the Cape and you use 

it to throw to Mars an unmanned payload weighing about 40 tons. 

It takes 8 months to get to Mars, it lands on Mars. What is it you 

192

have landed on Mars? OK, it’s your Earth return vehicle. What’s 

the Earth return vehicle? It’s a little rocket ship that has a small 

cabin with Spartan quarters for a crew of four people for a 6-month 

voyage back to Earth. 

The thing has two unfueled chemical propulsion stages below 

that, and below that, not shown in this picture, you’ve got a nuclear reactor mounted in the back of a light truck. You land this 

thing on Mars, you tell the robots to drive the truck a couple yards 

away, put the reactor on the ground, switch it on, now you have 

power to the ship. And what you do is run a pump and you suck 

in the martian air. Because you send this thing out to Mars 

unfueled, and this is the trick. When you go to Mars, you don’t 

bring the fuel with you, because Mars has got an atmosphere 

which is the ideal feedstock for making rocket fuel. Bringing rocket 

fuel to Mars is like bringing oil to Saudi Arabia, it makes no sense 

at all. In fact, it’s a lot dumber because it’s more expensive to bring 

rocket fuel to Mars. 

You run a pump, you suck in the martian air, which is carbon 

dioxide, you react that with a little bit of hydrogen you bring with 

you from Earth, and you turn it to methane and oxygen. Methane 

is not the greatest rocket fuel. You store it in your tank. The water 

you take is split into hydrogen and oxygen. We store the oxygen, 

recycle the hydrogen, round and round we go, it’s 19th century 

chemical engineering. It’s not just something you can write down 

on equations. Actually, the technology has been around for 100 

years, but when I was at Martin we built the machine. This is a full-scale unit you are seeing here. It cost us $47,000. You know what $47,000 is in a major aerospace company, that’s 

how easy this is. That’s nothing. 

So now you have got a fully fueled Earth return vehicle sitting 

and waiting for you on Mars. Once that is done, then at the next 

launch window to Mars, and your launch windows to Mars occur 

every 2 years, so if this launch occurs in 2005, here we are in 2007, 

you launch two more boosters off the cape. 

One sends out another Earth return vehicle with nobody in it 

and the other sends out the crew. They don’t have to fly to Mars 

in the Battle Star Galactica, they just fly to Mars in a simple adaptation module, like an oversized tuna can fitted out with space station life support type equipment. It has a crew of four. It’s got two 

decks, each with 8 feet of head room. 

The upper deck is where the two could live, the lower deck would 

probably be more of a cargo hold. Here is the upper deck with a 

stateroom for each of the astronauts, an exercise area, a lab and 

a solar flare storm shelter. A lot of people make a big deal out of 

solar flares. You can map out solar flares with 5 inches of water 

or provisions which you have on board the ship in any base. 

Now you can also create artificial gravity on your way out to 

Mars by just tethering off the HAB off the upper stage of the booster that threw you to Mars, that is coasting off of Mars, too. You 

spin this up, you can create gravity and avoid effects of long-term 

zero gravity exposure and that is my preferred way to fly to Mars. 

However, you should know that, look, we have gotten a lot of 

false data from the Russians on the idea that 0–G countermeasures 

don’t work. For the past 15 years we have been seeing cosmonauts 

193

come down from MIRE and we had to take them off on stretchers. 

But here, Shannon Lucid walked off the shuttle after 6 months in 

orbit. Six months is how long it takes to fly from Earth to Mars. 

Shannon spent that long in space. She walked off the shuttle. Here 

she is walking around Johnson Space Center the day after she 

landed, shaking hands with Bill Clinton and so on. 

What is going on here, she actually did the exercises. The cosmonauts, in fact, were undisciplined and did not do theirs. These do 

work if they are implemented in a rigorous fashion. However, I still 

prefer having the artificial part of it so you don’t have to do that. 

But, anyway, this thing flies out to Mars, it takes 6 months to get 

to Mars, which is within our existing space experience, and you 

land it at Mars at site No. 1, where there are fully fueled Earth 

return vehicles waiting for you. 

The other Earth return vehicle is your backup so that if you 

don’t need it, you can land it at a new site, site No. 2 to prepare 

the next human mission, which would fly there 2 years later, along 

with another Earth return vehicle, which is there for backup, 

which otherwise opens up site No. 3. So the idea here is you can 

do this, launching two boosters every 2 years, one to open up a new 

site, one to be at the previous site. 

Two boosters every 2 years is an average of one per year to support a continuous program of human exploration of Mars. If we can 

launch them at the same rate as we launch the shuttles, which we 

probably could because it’s basically just a shuttle with another 

stage. You are talking about using maybe 16 percent of your existing heavy lift launch capability to support this kind of initiative. 

This is an actual photograph of the Mars space plant. Here is 

your Earth return vehicle sitting on the ground. There is your reactor in the background. There is the upper deck habitation, lower 

deck is the garage and the pressurized ground rover that can tap 

off some of the fuel you made on Mars to travel around Mars with 

a vehicle powered by a conbustion engine. This is another important thing. 

If you can make fuel on Mars, you cannot only use it to get home, 

you can use it to get around on Mars. A combustion engine powered vehicle is going to have a lot more mobility than one powered 

by batteries like a little golf cart or something and we are not going 

to Mars just to say we went there. We are going to Mars to explore 

a planet and if we have capability on the planet, we’ve got to be 

able to do things on the planet, particularly with mobility. 

So to adopt this travel light and live off the land approach, it is 

not only the cheap way to go to Mars, it’s the potent way. So now 

you are on Mars, you are going to be there a year and a half, because that is how long you have to be there until the launch window opens up to go back to Earth. You do lots of field exploration, 

dwarfing the sort of field exploration that could never be done by 

robotic vehicles. 

At the end of that time, you get in the Earth return vehicle, you 

take off and you go home directly to Earth. You leave the HAB behind on Mars. So that after a string of these missions have occurred, you basically have a string of warming huts scattered 

across the Martian surface that basically are within long-distance 

driving range of each other. 

194

You are opening up a broad area of Mars to human cognizance. 

We are not actually going to relocate Texas to Mars, this is just 

your district, if you are concerned about that. However, after a certain number of the missions have occurred—the initial missions 

you do want to spread out because you want to explore both for scientific reasons and for prospecting reasons, as it were. But after a 

certain period of time, the key questions that are going to relate 

to Mars is not going to be this question of was there ever life on 

Mars. However, that is a very important question, and it’s a question of great and philosophical importance, but the real question 

about Mars is will there be life on Mars, because, you see, Mars, 

unlike the Moon, unlike certain of the Earth orbit, Mars is the 

place that has on it all the resources that are needed to support 

not just life, but some day a new branch of civilization. 

It’s got water, it’s got carbon dioxide, it’s got nitrogen, which are 

the elements of life, and it’s got the elements of industry; sulfur, 

phosphorus, silicone, iron, plutonium, alluminum, copper. It’s got 

all this stuff and if we can go to Mars and develop the craft on how 

to use these materials, we can turn them into resources because 

what is and is not a resource depends upon the craft you bring to 

the problem. 

If we go there and we learn not just how to make fuel and oxygen on Mars, which is what we need to do to do our very first mission feed, but how to grow crops on Mars, how to extract water 

from the soil, how to make bricks, surroundings, glasses, plastics, 

metals, tubes, wires. If we develop that craft, by developing what 

is in your mind, you turn back an inhospitable environment to one 

that can sustain people, and we can plant the first branch—the 

first seeds of the new branch of human civilization on a new world, 

and, frankly, it’s within our capability and it’s a privilege. 

A lot of people are interested in the Moon. I think the Moon is 

a goal with less order than Mars. However, if you do this right 

with the same hardware that you use to build a base on Mars, that 

can also be used to build a lunar base, and I really think that 

should be our approach. That is in the same way we created a 

space station in the afternoon by doing Apollo. 

We created the Saturn 5, we can launch a space station like that. 

If we do Mars with this sort of approach, we can also establish 

lunar bases for astronomy or whatever purpose. So to be brief, this 

is the entire set of tools you actually need to establish the first 

human settlements on the Moon and Mars if you go at it in this 

way. You need a heavy lift booster with a good throw stage. We 

know how to develop that. 

You do not need giant explanatory space ships, you do not need 

giant explanatory space ports, you do not need fusion power drives 

or any of this other stuff, just a good booster with a good throw 

stage. You can throw payload to either the Moon or Mars. And then 

you need two fundamental types of payloads, an HAB module that 

you can send to the Moon or Mars, although you have to insullate 

it differently, in a different temperature environment, and an 

Earth return vehicle to come back from either the Moon or Mars. 

It is virtually the same vehicle, it has got two stages to come 

back from Mars, one stage to come back from the Moon and arrow 

195

shell modules used on the Moon. This is not a $450 billion program 

here. It does not remotely resemble any such thing. 

When I first proposed this plan back in 1990, it was considered 

out in left field by NASA, who are committed to the older mode. 

However, by around 1992, the number of people there finally came 

around and they subjected this to an examination, and decided to 

go with it, but they decided to design their own version of the mission, scaled up by a factor of two compared to how I designed it, 

so I called their mission to Mars semi-direct. 

But even so, it was the same basic approach, direct flow to Mars, 

use of Martian air starting on the very first mission. They costed 

it out, the same people, by the way, who costed out the report at 

$450 billion. They costed out their bloated Mars records at $50 billion. I think if you slip it down, you can cut that in half. 

So we are talking about the Humans to Mars Program can really 

be done within a decade, not for hundreds of billions of dollars, but 

for tens of billions of dollars, which admittedly is not cheap. It is 

not pocket change, but it is a sum that this country can easily afford if we are talking about opening up a new planet to humanity 

and inspiring an entire generation to excellence and scientific education. So what needs to be done right now? Start phase A. 

NASA programs are all phase A, B, C, D. A is the preliminary 

design, B is the detailed design to decide where the rivers go, C, 

you build it, D, you fly it. Phase A is usually less than 1 percent 

of the program cost, but takes up about 25 percent of the program 

time. We can, with negligible impact on the NASA budget, do the 

phase A of the Humans to Mars Program right now, and the idea 

is to have that report ready to throw on the desk of the Presidentelect in November 2000. 

Why? To do the home work now so that NASA can say to the 

man elected or the woman elected in 2000, look, here is our plan. 

The whole agency is willing to sign off on this level of risk. These 

are our detailed cost estimates. These are our designs. We can have 

people on Mars by 2008, by the end of your second term, the choice 

is yours. 

John F. Kennedy was willing to send people to the Moon or committed the Nation around it to send people to the Moon just on the 

feeling that we are Americans and we can do anything, OK. But 

today people like to see the numbers before they make the commitment. If we are going to have a commitment from the administration to launch something as large as the Humans to Mars Program, 

in my opinion it almost certainly has to come in the first year of 

their turn, when they have the most wind in their sails, and such 

a program would best be carried out by a single two-term administration, so you can have a degree in political continuity requiring 

it. Therefore, the ideal time to hit the beach is November 2000. 

We have to commission NASA now to do the phase A, to throw 

on the desk of that person, and then you can have a break down 

of the space in the first decade of the 21st century. So I am going 

to conclude with a quote. OK. This is a quote I lifted from a book 

called ‘‘A Plymouth Plantation,’’ written by William Bradford, the 

leader of the pilgrams. 

He wrote this book in 1621, 1 year after the Mayflower landing. 

And what he is talking about here is the debate that erupted 

196

among the pilgrims when they were in Holland, and they didn’t 

like the way things were going there, and they didn’t know where 

people got them, and what some guy came up with was the totally 

bizarre suggestion that what they ought to do was relocate the entire population of the civilized Netherlands into the wilds of North 

America because however hard it might be, there they would be 

able to cut their own path, there they would be able to make their 

own world. And he says the following. 

He says,

This proposition, being made public and coming to the scanning of all, it raised 

many variable opinions amongst men and caused many fears and doubts amongst 

themselves. Some, from their reasons and hopes conceived labored the stir-up and 

duress to undertake and prosecute the same. Others, again, out of their fears, objected against it and sought to divert from it, alleging many things and those neither unreasonable nor unprobable and that it was a great design and subject to 

many unconceivable perils and dangers. It was answered that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties and must be both enterprised 

and overcome with answerable courages.

I put that up there because, look, I have just shown you in a very 

brief way this Humans to Mars plan. If you want to see it in more 

detail, read my book, it’s all there. But despite the fact it is by far 

the cheapest way anybody has ever proposed to get to Mars, I believe it is the safest because the relatively small vessels can be 

completely checked out on the ground, where you can check things 

out, as opposed to in orbit, and there is back-up and artificial gravity and all the rest of this. 

But the fact of the matter is, it’s got to be a commitment. In fact, 

if we commit to going to Mars, we are undertaking a lot of risk and 

it is going to be very risky to go to Mars the first time, and that 

is going to be true whether we do it my way in 2007 or we advocate 

and start with responsibility and leave it to a far future generation 

or some other nation to do it in 3007. But if you look at human 

history, and I don’t care where you look, whether you look at 376 

years ago or what people were doing 52 years ago, one thing is very 

clear, and that is that nothing great has ever been accomplished 

without courage. Thank you for your attention. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you very much, Dr. Zurbin. 

I would like to next turn to Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being invited here this 

morning. We are speaking today about spending very large public 

sums. Therefore, I have a politically pragmatic 5-minute statement. 

Half a dozen years ago, our civil space leaders envisioned a 10 

percent per year program real growth through the decade of the 

nineties. Purchasing power actually made available has been steadily decreasing. This trend is expected to continue, resulting in a difference of $100 billion over a decade. 

Why this extraordinary reduction in public support, in view of 

the clear, widespread and continuing public interest in space? Our 

Civil Space Program was created at a time of great apprehension 

about the technological capability of the Soviet Union. The extraordinarily successful Apollo Program helped ease our national security concerns. So, when civil space leaders then asked to be allowed 

to conduct a space exploration activity, a grateful American public 

quickly agreed. But that was a quarter of a century ago. And our 

general public has not seen enough produced by the program that 

197

is of great and continuing interest to it, relative to other publicly 

supported activities. 

Our civil space leaders seemingly find it difficult to differentiate 

between a general public interest in space, which continues to be 

high, and a general public constituency for the space program, 

which continues to erode. That is our challenge, to differentiate. 

Therefore, in cooperation with our private sector, the ensemble of 

space activities conducted by the program should be refashioned to 

give it a greater emphasis on those things which many, many more 

of us personally, and which would be pleasing to us, and which 

have a much greater interest in and value to many, many more of 

us than today. 

Here are three examples of such things in the human space 

flight area. One, you have already heard of this morning. Buzz 

Aldrin and I have recently noted that over 10 million of us visit 

space-related museums and installations throughout the country 

each year. This is a business already, a space tourism business of 

$1 billion a year. Poll after poll suggests that some 40 percent of 

our population wish to take a trip to space. Some 80 million people 

in the United States alone think of that in the context of the term 

‘‘constituency.’’ Such a new space business could grow to tens of billions of dollars a year, and if it came about, today’s view of space 

would be fundamentally changed. 

Second, aging-related life sciences research, in orbit, physiological difficulties observed in the human cardiovascular system, 

reduced lung capacity, loss of bone calcium, mimic what happens 

to all of us as we grow older. This reversible phenomenon can be 

thought of as accelerated aging. Large scale research studies, conducted under microgravity conditions, could be helpful in dealing 

with the diseases and disabilities of our large and rapidly growing 

elderly population. 

Third, space sports. With the local influence of gravity on human 

movement in low Earth orbit, without it, wholly new sports could 

be created there and new sports records established. Communications business interests would see them launched throughout the 

world and widespread interest and excitement would be created in 

space that is dominated today by scientists and technologists. God 

help us, I am one. 

But two problems must be dealt with in order for such kinds of 

economically and socially desirable changes to come about. First, 

we must understand that the unit cost of basic space infrastructure 

and activities remains enormous. They are 1,000 times to 100,000 

times as great as at the surface. 

Two, many civil space people are apprehensive about their personal futures, if a large part of today’s Federal program is taken 

up by private business interests. Therefore, in this context, I would 

make three suggestions to you. First, our Federal Government has 

a vital role to play in reducing unit space costs. It decided to do 

so for transportation. Now, the highest priority of our multibilliondollar per year Space Station Support Program should be that of 

bringing about privatization of the Space Stations operations. 

Thereby, laying a basis for commercialization. 

198

Second, the Secretaries of Commerce, Energy, and Transportation should now be asked to take a greater interest in civil space 

matters. 

Third, and last, today’s negative reward structure for civil space 

workers must be changed, so as to encourage space commercialization efforts to succeed. Therefore, we should take a fundamentally 

new step forward. We should establish a human Moon, Mars exploration and settlement budget line item for NASA. We should do it 

now and then we should fund it in proportion to the business revenues generated in the human space flight area. 

The new tax revenues generated thereby would pay for it, and 

both our space and public economic interests would benefit. 

Mr. Chairman, I provided the staff with papers that deal with 

these observations and details. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:] 

199


g:\graphics\46559.109
200


g:\graphics\46559.110
201


g:\graphics\46559.111
202


g:\graphics\46559.112
203


g:\graphics\46559.113
204

Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. 

Dr. Potter. 

Mr. POTTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by thanking you 

for inviting me to speak with you this morning. I feel that it is especially a privilege to address this committee because given its 

wide jurisdiction, you will be able to put what I say into relevant 

environmental, social and economic issues, not just technical 

issues. The specific issue I want to discuss is one of the more innovative energy technologies to be proposed during the oil crises of 

the 1970’s. That is the solar power satellite. 

I believe Peter Glaser, who first originated this idea in 1968, described it to you a week ago in the hearing. And as you recall, it 

was intensively studied by NASA and the Department of Energy 

during the 1970’s. The result of the study was a reference, strawman solar power satellite concept, which would orbit the Earth at 

an altitude of 22,000 miles, the traditional geostationery orbit of 

communication satellites, so they would always stay over one spot 

on the Earth. 

The problem was that given this—the way the energy is transmitted back to the Earth, that is low density radio waves at microwave frequency, the beam will spread out to several miles at the 

surface of the Earth. This is true whether you put one watt into 

the beam or billions, so you are going to have to put 5,000 

megawatts of electricity into this beam in order to make economical 

use of the land that is going to be needed to soak up the energy. 

At the Earth’s surface, you have a large field of small antennas 

known as a rectifying antenna or rectenna, which converts the 

microwaves back to electricity. Now, two things happened, which 

kind of put a damper on this concept. No. 1 was the sheer size of 

it, coupled with the high cost of launch to space, which we thought 

was going to go way down from the 1970’s levels and didn’t. 

The other issue was the relatively low cost of oil. When the oil 

crisis ended, space solar power did not look competitive. Nevertheless, the idea is receiving increasing attention in recent days due 

to concerns about the environmental effect of burning fossil fuels. 

We are still left with large size and hence the large first cost of the 

idea. 

The idea itself, in my opinion, is very elegant. If you had a ring 

of solar power satellites in geostationary orbit and some amount of 

space infrastructure and space travel capability to maintain them 

and perhaps replace them, you can power civilization indefinitely 

with no cost in fuel, and what I believe to be minimal impact on 

the environment. However, it is hard enough to get a 5,000-megawatt power plant financed on Earth, let alone at an attitude of 

22,000 miles. This is four to five times the size of the typical power 

plant, so if I may borrow a phrase Dr. Aldrin used earlier this 

morning, what we need to do figuratively and literally is bring the 

idea down to Earth. 

We have studied this idea for a number of years at New York 

University and we have identified a few major issues as crucial to 

the development of space solar power, and I am going to briefly run 

through them. One I have already alluded to is the cost of access 

to space, since there are usable launch vehicles such as the X–33 

205

currently being researched. It is hoped this will be less of an issue 

over the next few years than it is now. 

Coupled with this, it is the development of new materials that 

did not exist during the study of the 1970’s. You can lower the cost 

of launching a pound of mass to orbit. What you can also do is 

lower the mass of the thing you want to supply to power. In recent 

years, a number of companies have developed thin film solar cells, 

deposited on light weight flexible substrates. It is not just the theoretical possibility, it looks approximately like this. In fact, it looks 

exactly like this. 

This is an actual production piece of a thin film solar cell made 

by a company in Ames, IA, and you can imagine something like 

this being fashioned into a light weight, possibly inflatable structure, and erecting itself into space. 

Our next major issue I have also alluded to briefly is the environmental cost of fossil fuel burning implied by the U.N. Climate Convention. If, for example, the nations of the Earth decide that they 

want to tax carbon emissions, then the cost of power from space becomes somewhat more attractive compared to conventional power. 

Our fourth major issue is the demographic facts of life in developing nations. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, by the year 2025, something like 95 percent of the 

population growth, and 75 percent of the expected carbon emissions 

growth will come from developing nations. Many of these people 

may be able to leapfrog directly over the era of conventional fossil 

fuel burning power plants, directly into space solar power. 

Our fifth major issue is the relationship between space solar 

power and communications. A number of companies have proposed 

building large arrays of satellites in low to middle Earth orbit. We 

proposed that you may be able to combine the capabilities of power 

beaming and communications, over the same beam. The frequencies and the technologies are similar, you just need a lot more 

power. We were inspired by this rather lowly device, which is the 

telephone cord, which supplies both power and the voice signal to 

your phone. 

For students under 30, I call it a computer modem cord, but the 

idea is the same. So to summarize my remarks, I believe that space 

solar power has the advantage over conventional renewables in 

that you get more power per unit land area and also has the advantage over other power sources in that it is pollution free and no 

new physics needs to be studied. The technology is right in front 

of us. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for inviting me and I 

would like to request that two papers for me and my colleague at 

New York University be entered into the record. 

Mr. Weldon. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

206


g:\graphics\46559.114
207


g:\graphics\46559.115
208


g:\graphics\46559.116
209


g:\graphics\46559.117
210


g:\graphics\46559.118
211


g:\graphics\46559.119
212


g:\graphics\46559.120
213


g:\graphics\46559.121
214


g:\graphics\46559.122
215


g:\graphics\46559.123
216


g:\graphics\46559.124
217


g:\graphics\46559.125
218


g:\graphics\46559.126
219


g:\graphics\46559.127
220


g:\graphics\46559.128
221


g:\graphics\46559.129
222


g:\graphics\46559.130
223


g:\graphics\46559.131
224


g:\graphics\46559.132
225


g:\graphics\46559.133
226


g:\graphics\46559.134
227


g:\graphics\46559.135
228


g:\graphics\46559.136
229


g:\graphics\46559.137
230


g:\graphics\46559.138
231


g:\graphics\46559.139
232


g:\graphics\46559.140
233


g:\graphics\46559.141
234


g:\graphics\46559.142
235


g:\graphics\46559.143
236


g:\graphics\46559.144
237


g:\graphics\46559.145
238


g:\graphics\46559.146
239


g:\graphics\46559.147
240


g:\graphics\46559.148
241


g:\graphics\46559.149
242


g:\graphics\46559.150
243


g:\graphics\46559.151
244


g:\graphics\46559.152
245

Next, Dr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are at the threshold 

of a new century that is beginning with space travel, hypersonic 

aviation, nuclear power, electric automobiles, genetic engineering, 

global cellular phone service and personal computers. This coming 

century will be a time of unprecedented change. 

It is harder to foresee the events of this next century than it was 

for our grandparents in 1900 to foresee the world as it is today, 

and I don’t think I need to remind you, they did a terrible job of 

that. Where will we be at the end of the next century? Linear extrapolations of what we are doing now don’t work. Things can’t go 

on like this and they never have. Everything is going to be different and I will give a few brief examples. 

I will try not to use the accepted redefinition of 5 minutes that 

some others have used and try to keep it within the real 5 minutes. 

Let me first remind you that American planetary exploration missions to Mars and Venus have already taught us about the devastating effects of chlorine and water vapor on the ozone layer. Because of this knowledge, we chose not to build a high altitude supersonic transport and we drastically curtailed our production of 

chlorofluorocarbons. 

As a result, the ozone layer will repair itself over the next few 

decades and there will not be a global plague of skin cancer and 

not be global killing of seedling wheat and rice by ultraviolet sunlight. We solved these problems, which we did not know existed as 

problems, by doing basic solar system research and bringing it 

home to Earth. Critical discoveries were made by the American 

Mariner spacecraft to Mars and Venus. 

Trying to look ahead to decide what we need to develop in the 

next century places us in the same position we would have been 

in in the 1950’s if we had tried to anticipate the threat to the ozone 

layer. We can identify three areas of enormous importance that are 

now emerging, with even more profound implications for the future 

than the example that I gave you from our past. 

First, these, as you have heard, is the lowering of launch costs, 

using new technology boosters, airline style operations and free and 

open competition between companies offering launch services. The 

second, which you have not heard about, is the discovery and characterization of Earth threatening comets and asteroids to predict 

the potential collisions with Earth and to give us a central knowledge of their physical and chemical properties. 

The third is the proliferation of micro and nanoelectronics to permit automated manufacture of vast numbers of tiny machines to 

serve mankind, and also to permit safe automated exploration and 

exploitation of very hostile alien environments. The synergism of 

these newly emerging capabilities will permit astonishing increases 

in human ability to manipulate matter and energy and thereby 

shape our future and change our visions of the possible launch cost 

decreases, give us the ability to build solar power satellites economically, offering us, as Potter has told us, cheap, clean abundant, 

electrical power, combined with the knowledge of and access to 

near Earth asteroids, and with autonomous and tele-operated processing equipment, we could capture metals from Earth threatening 

asteroids into the Earth’s orbit. 

246

With a leverage of 100 to 1, mission studies that have been done 

show that for each ton of equipment devoted to retrieval of material from near-Earth asteroids, you can return 100 tons of structural metals or propellants to the vicinity of Earth. By so doing, we 

can build solar power satellites at a greatly reduced cost, even 

below those that have been considered in NASA-funded studies to 

date by further minimizing the mass of equipment that must be 

launched out of the Earth’s deep gravity well at enormous launch 

costs. 

Cheap, abundant, clean electrical power, as Dr. Potter told you, 

offers us a number of features that I will not do more than mention 

in passing. First, energy independence from foreign sources of supply, a strategic issue of the first importance for the next century. 

Enormously diminished environmental impact of our energy supply, compared to, for example, supertanker fleets, radioactive 

waste, strip mining for coal, these will no longer be needed in what 

have always been continually increasing numbers. 

And as a further environmental benefit, we will see a way out 

of the global warming problem caused by fossil fuel combustion. In 

addition, electrical power delivered by these solar-powered satellites, without the intervention of fossil fuel-burning makes electrical power available for surface vehicles with very small environmental impact. It also makes hydrogen available by electrolysis of 

water which empowers high performance aircraft of the future and 

we don’t even need hydrocarbons to fly our aircraft fleets in the future. 

It permits a phase down of hydrocarbon production, extending 

our supply a few decades, or at the current use rates, indefinitely 

for use as a valuable industrial feed start. The high technology contributions of nanotechnology and tailored microorganisms will permit us to do processing, biological and physical processing and 

chemical processing in vast areas of industry here, Earthside, as 

well as in space, anything that involves the need for searching, recycling, sorting, processing or fabricating enormous masses of material. 

Machines that are at least partially self-replicating, based on 

computer technology that has grown out of the space program, will 

permit these tiny robots to produce themselves in profusion, greatly 

increasing the amount of productivity per human worker. They 

could gather manganese modules from the ocean floor, sort our garbage for recycling, extract rocket propellants from the atmosphere 

of Mars or the surface of the Moon. They could mine construction 

metals from nearby asteroids, bodies which, if not used up, would 

eventually collide with Earth. 

These international and interplanetary endeavors demand an 

educated work force, competent, of course, in math and science and 

in engineering, but also in languages and law and economics and 

management and so on. These are essential ingredients of our future and any nation which fails to understand the underlying importance of exploration, research and education will remain firmly 

stuck in the 20th century. 

We are not trying to plan the futures of our descendents, but we 

are trying to open their options. Resource limitations, as usually 

247

discussed, reflect merely the technologies we have available to us. 

Space technology makes vast new resources accessible to us. 

Let me give you one example. There is a near-Earth asteroid 

called Amun, A-M-U-N, that crosses the Earth’s orbit twice in each 

trip around the Sun. It is about 1,000 yards in diameter. It contains more iron and steel than the total production of every nation 

on Earth for all of history. The market value of the metals in 

Amun, about $5 trillion, and it is the smallest known metallic asteroid out of many dozens known. It is more accessible to us or approximately as accessible as the surface of the Moon. It is about as 

easy to get to in terms of rocket power and rocket compulsion requirements as the surface of the Moon and easier to get back from. 

In the asteroid belt, we have countless dozens of asteroids much 

larger than Amun also made of metals. If we ask how many people 

could be supported by the known resources of the Asteroid Belt, in 

a recycling regime in which material is kept in circulation, the answer is an astonishing 10 quadrillion people. The known resources 

of the Belt are sufficient to support indefinitely a population 1 million times the ultimate carrying capacity of Earth. 

When we think about, for example, using the resources of the 

Belt to help make Mars habitable, as Buzz Aldrin commented, let 

me tell you what would happen if you brought the metals of the 

Belt to Mars. You would be able to build a steel frame building 

80,000 feet tall covering every square inch of the surface of Mars. 

In other words, the resources necessary for terraforming planets 

are a trivial, minuscule fraction of the wealth of resources available 

to us in the Belt. Any processing plant in place upon Earth-crossing asteroids gets a ride out of the Belt on every single trip around 

the Sun. It automatically goes out to the Asteroid Belt. These space 

resources, both the energy resources that Dr. Potter talked about 

and the material resources, are available to us if we use space 

science and technology to access them. It is up to us, and I would 

like to close with a quotation that goes back almost exactly 100 

years to H.G. Wells, looking at this century, he said, ‘‘The choice 

is the universe or nothing.’’

Mr. Weldon. I want to thank you, Dr. Lewis. That was a very intriguing and enlightening and global presentation to wrap up this 

panel. 

I guess to kick off the questioning, let me start with Joshua. We 

began with you, I guess, almost an hour ago, and what did you 

think of this presentation that came after you? A lot of us here in 

this room are going to be looking to your generation to implement 

some of these things, so what are your thoughts on going to the 

Moon, going back to the Moon, going to Mars, space-based energy 

resources, what did you think of the panel? 

Mr. OUELLETTE. Well, I have always been very interested in the 

sciences, so from that standpoint, it was fascinating. The way that 

I am viewing this is they are building it. I am going to fly it, I, 

referring to kids my age and younger. But this is actually some of 

the first real encouraging things I have heard on the space program in a long time, especially with Dr. Zurbin’s ideas on how to 

make it far less expensive in colonizing the Mars martian planet 

within a relatively short span of time. From that standpoint it excites me a lot. 

248

Mr. Weldon. Let me just ask you, I am not sure if you mentioned 

this in your presentation. What is the first thing you remember 

about the space program as a young man growing up? Do you have 

a first recollection of something that intrigued you or excited you 

about NASA or the shuttle or Apollo or anything that you can 

think of? 

Mr. OUELLETTE. I mean, of course, it is mainly the shuttle because the shuttle was the only thing I have ever seen launched. I 

mean, the Apollo missions all took place a long time before me. I 

mean, I was born in 1981 and the last Apollo mission ended 9 

years earlier. But it is definitely the space shuttle. It is obviously 

a very powerful tool. It has a lot of uses, but I do also, on that note, 

think that we need to move beyond the space shuttle. 

The space shuttle has kept our space program going for several 

decades, but its uses are, as some people have mentioned before 

me, limited to going around in circles and it is less the space shuttle itself and more of what happens when you stop going around 

in circles that has interested me all my life. 

Mr. Weldon. Do you think we should go back to Mars—have 

never been there. Do you think we should send a manned mission 

to Mars, I guess is the question. 

Mr. OUELLETTE. Definitely. In some ways, I like the idea of 

thinking of it as an insurance policy, especially now that we have 

all seen the Shoemaker-Levy comet plummet into Jupiter that 

would have annihilated the Earth like nothing, and from that 

standpoint, it is incredibly important, just to the survival of us as 

a species. But I think it is also incredibly important to our survival 

as a Nation. 

I mean, what probably got us through the cold war without the 

cold war becoming a hot war, world war III, was probably the space 

program. That was a constructive, rather than destructive aspect 

of it. And even from an economic standpoint, I mean, we have 

heard mentioned that one near-Earth asteroid could basically pay 

off our national debt, imagine what going to Mars can do. With 

commerce between the planets, sending back raw materials, even 

moving some of our heavy industry to Mars, in ways, basically, 

there isn’t—the way I think about it is there isn’t anything to destroy on Mars with our heavy industry. It is probably the most important event in human history as far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Weldon. Dr. Potter, I was very interested in your presentation on generating electricity in space. We had, in the panel last 

week, two scientists who talked about generating the power on the 

Moon, and then beaming it to satellites in the Earth’s orbit that 

then transmit it down to the surface of the planet. How is that different from what you are talking about, and what are the pros and 

cons of the two different concepts as you see it? 

Mr. POTTER. You are probably talking about Dr. Criswell’s idea. 

Mr. Weldon. Yes. 

Mr. POTTER. And I know him reasonably well and I think the 

main difference is one of time. The idea that I am suggesting, that 

is satellites in low to middle Earth orbit, is something we can do 

right now. Because of the sheer amount of power that the world is 

going to need during the next 50 to 100 years, eventually I feel we 

249

will need to go to higher orbits. We may need to go to the Moon, 

so it is a question of how much versus how long. 

Mr. WELDON. And do you think that we could develop today a 

system like you are talking about and a low-Earth orbit, providing 

electricity to a city or a Nation or a community. 

Mr. POTTER. I feel we could start this afternoon, if we had to, 

and we could probably have something ready within, say, 5 years. 

Mr. Weldon. Do you think there is a role for NASA to be involved 

in the initial phases of such a program or would you recommend 

that be handled by the private sector, like a consortium of power 

companies handling it. 

Mr. POTTER. I feel there is definitely a role for NASA in doing 

what government has always done best and it was alluded to by 

one of the other panelists, taking the risk out. I think once this 

idea is proven, there is going to be a feeding frenzy and communications companies, utilities, companies whose existence that we 

can’t even predict will emerge. 

Nobody predicted Internet service providers 10 years ago. But 

the role of NASA should be perhaps to use some of its existing capability. Something like a long duration exposure facility, right on 

the international space station that could be tended to by astronauts as needed. I should say a prominent Russian aerospace engineer, who I can’t mention at this point, did express interests in 

such an idea, so there is definitely a role for NASA. 

Mr. Weldon. OK. I would like to now recognize the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Turner, for questioning. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. I want to commend Joshua for his presentation today. Joshua, I had the good fortune of representing the 

Woodlands in the State Senate a few years ago and my congressional district now comes within about 10 or 15 miles of your home, 

and so I can’t take the credit for you being here today. Your Congressman, Kevin Brady, is a good friend of mine and I know he is 

proud that you are here today testifying on behalf of the young people, because you truly are an outstanding representative of the 

young people in this country, and in many ways, it is inspirational 

to us to see you here because the things we are talking about and 

doing are really things that will be greatly meaningful to you in 

your generation, and I think it is our responsibility to be sure that 

we do the right things, to be sure that your generation is able to 

benefit from our decisions. 

You know, I listened this morning with great interest, and it continues to, I guess, cross my mind as one of the panelists suggested, 

that we ask NASA to lay out a definition of a mission, so that we 

can place it on the President’s desk in 2001 and begin to mobilize 

the Nation in a specific direction. I guess I would welcome any of 

the panelists comments on this because I think it is critical, even 

though, as I said to the earlier panel, none of us are great fans of 

blue ribbon commissions, many reports are done and prepared and 

bound up neatly and find they are not paid a whole lot of attention 

to. Obviously we wouldn’t want to repeat that kind of process in 

something as important as our future in space exploration. But it 

does seem to me that it is important, not just to have NASA lay 

on the table the direction of the space exploration program for this 

250

country, but to bring all sectors, public and private, together, in a 

way that we really can develop a national consensus. 

After all, one of the problems I think we face today is that our 

space program has matured somewhat and many people looked at 

NASA as just another government agency, and it wasn’t looked 

upon that way in the sixties, when we had the excitement of the 

early days of the space program and so it may take more consensus 

building to put us on the road to exploring Mars, and I would welcome any comments and suggestions that any of you may have 

about how we might develop that consensus that will put us on the 

right track. 

Mr. ROGERS. You won’t be able to, is my view, my judgment. I 

tried for 15 years. President Bush tried very hard. There has been 

study after study, commission after commission. It doesn’t work. 

There was one day when I was asked to meet with Salley Ride 

after the SEI study. She had been asked by the NASA Administrator to see if she could think of a way to move ahead. And she 

asked me would I review her report and I said let me ask you a 

few questions first. Who have you been talking to. She said Professor Jones, Dean Smith, and some of them I know. 

I said is the problem one of finding smart, highly educated, highly motivated people to spend the money to go to the Moon and 

Mars or is the problem to get authorization and appropriations? 

She said the latter, of course. Well, I said, tell me again, who have 

you been talking to? That is the question. You will have a broad 

enough group of people willing to say, yes, let’s go to the Moon and 

Mars, providing they don’t have to pay for it, and that is why I 

made the suggestion that I did this morning. 

I don’t know that Bob Zubrin is ready to break out in tears, but 

we discussed how to get to the Moon and Mars on a number of occasions and this is the first time I have been able to say, in all honesty, that I think there is a way to get there. The way to get there 

is to say, let us put a line item in the NASA budget. Let’s start, 

and now let’s fund it in proportion to what the life space flight area 

generates in private sector revenues and taxes. That immediately 

tells you that the public doesn’t have to pay anything for it because 

there are those taxes and revenues being generated today, and it 

says NASA is now challenged to go out and create, create the sustenance for meeting its own desires. 

One of the great difficulties, going back to what I said at the beginning of the Federal Civil Space Program today, is it doesn’t capture nearly well enough the national interest in civil space. People 

think they are the same thing and they are not. If we can bring 

together the very, very smart scientists, technology developers, engineers, within NASA, the aerospace industry and related universities, marching toward the Moon, Mars, at the same time that we 

say you will get there as fast, as fast as you can help our private 

sector to generate the revenues and generate the tax base for so 

doing. That is my view. 

Mr. ZUBRIN. I have to agree in part with Mr. Rogers that the national commission, blue ribbon commission, is of limited value. Although, as Buzz pointed out earlier today, the Payne report was an 

exception to that, in that it was sort of a remarkable document 

that could have kicked something off had it not landed in the midVerDate jul 14 2003 13:41 Jan 14, 2004 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\46559 46559
251

dle of the Challenger disaster. But there is no shortage of support 

in this country for a Humans-to-Mars program. I can speak to that 

directly. 

I have had the experience of going around and giving talks on 

Humans-to-Mars program, not just to space societies and engineering groups, but to rotary clubs, plumbers conventions and you 

name it. And the main question I get at a conclusion of a talk 

about Humans to Mars and how and why we can do it is how come 

we are not doing it? People come up to me and say I remember 

Apollo. That was great. Weren’t we supposed to go to Mars after 

that? How come there was no follow through? 

This is the sort of thing this country ought to be doing. In fact, 

there is immense ground swell. There is, in fact, a feeling of betrayal among people in this country, that it seems as if the government has accepted this notion that this country has entered the 

age of limits in which we are no longer capable of doing stuff like 

this. 

Well, we are capable of doing stuff like this, OK. We are richer 

than we were in the 1960’s, a lot richer. We have a lot larger GNP 

and we are not facing an adversary of incredible strength, and 

there has never been a country as rich as we are today and the 

challenge to us to undertake sending humans to Mars today of all 

its risks is actually of a lower order than the challenge was to send 

humans to the Moon in the 1960’s when we had to start from 

scratch. So we can do it. The popular will is there. 

What we need is some political leadership. And what I was saying, when I said tell NASA to do phase A, I meant that. I did not 

mean tell NASA to come up with their vision statement for the 

first decade in the 21st century because they will tell people whatever they think someone wants to hear or whatever. I mean for 

Congress to tell NASA, I want you to come up with a plan, a low 

cost plan to have humans on Mars within 10 years, and I want you 

to be able to submit that to the President-elect in November 2000, 

and do it. 

In other words, the marching orders really have to come from the 

politicians. The Apollo Program did not come from NASA. It came 

from Kennedy, and, similarly, getting humans to Mars is not going 

to come from NASA. It has to come from you, and so it is necessary, and obviously there are people higher ranking than individual Congressmen or Committee chairman or so forth that have 

to be brought in, and in the executive branch as well, but this is 

what needs to be put together. 

A piece of political engineering has to be put together and I believe that since nobody knows who is going to be President in November 2000, that—whether it is going to be a Democrat or Republican or which particular individual it is going to be, I think an 

agreement now, to put that in motion, to give that person, whoever 

he is and whichever party he is, the option to undertake that step 

could conceivably have bipartisan support, in a way it could not, 

after that has been decided, so that is what I think we need to do. 

Mr. Weldon. Well, I just have a few followup questions I would 

like to direct, and, actually, they are specifically to you, Dr. Zurbin. 

One of the big questions that is always asked is why don’t we send 

robots to Mars instead of people to Mars? Can you just tell us how 

252

you answer that question? I am sure you get asked that question 

as well. 

Mr. ZUBRIN. Sure. There are two answers to that. Of course, this 

came up a great deal after the discovery of the Mars rocks with evidence of life in them last summer, OK. And don’t get me wrong, 

I do not oppose sending robots to Mars. In fact, I think the current 

sending of robots to Mars is the most productive thing NASA is 

doing at the moment. However, it is not enough. 

First of all, obviously the robots are not settling Mars, they are 

just there to do scientific work, and if we are looking for evidence 

of life on Mars, if we are fossil hunting on Mars, which is what the 

mission is, look at what you have to do to do fossil hunting on 

Earth. You have to hike long distances through unimproved terrain, you have to be able to climb up steep hillsides. You have to 

be able to do heavy work like pick-ax work and digging. You have 

to be able to do delicate work, pealing open fossil shells, which are 

like books made of rock which have to be carefully split open to see 

the evidence that has been pasted inside. 

You have to exercise very subtle forms of perception and intuition. This is all far beyond the capability of robotic rovers. You cannot hunt for fossils with toy cars. If you took a rover, like the one 

they are landing on Mars this summer, the Sojourner rover, which 

is like a toy car with wheels 6 inches in diameter, it cannot climb 

over a rock 1 foot high. It cannot get out of sight of the lander and 

it has no manipulative abilities. 

If you landed one of them in the Rockies—if you landed 100 of 

them in the Rockies, you would never find a dinosaur fossil, despite 

the fact that the Rockies are bound in dinosaur fossils. If we are 

going to get the answer to whether there was life on Mars and also 

to determine to any realistic effect as to how far it evolved, we are 

going to have to send real life human explorers, real live rock 

hounds. But what is more to the point is, if we understand that 

Mars is not just an object of scientific inquiry, it is a world, a world 

with all the resources required to create a new branch of human 

civilization, that can only be tackled by humans. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Mr. Chairman, may I overstep my limits as a 

member of the defunct committee to get a defunct panel to give an 

answer to your question? It came from Tom Stafford a long time 

ago, Tom Stafford of Apollo. He made note of the fact that in order 

to have a meaningful and vigorous space program, we must enlist 

the support of the people of this Nation, and he said who gives a 

parade for a robot? 

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

Let me ask Dr. Lewis a question regarding Dr. Zurbin’s proposal 

to put a nuclear reactor on Mars? Occasionally, on the Space Coast, 

we launch probes and satellites that have nuclear reactors on them 

and there is always a pretty high degree of concern. I would think 

the type of reactor Dr. Zurbin would be talking about launching 

would be something a little bit larger. You express some real concerns about the environment and protecting the environment. Do 

you have a problem with putting nuclear reactors in space, launching them from the Cape, sending them to Mars? 

Mr. LEWIS. Launching a live, fully fueled nuclear reactor is folly, 

but there is no necessity to do that. A nuclear reactor can be 

253

launched without its fuel rods inserted. In fact, it can be launched 

in a completely inert configuration, and protected in such a way 

that even if the booster would fail, when it reentered the atmosphere, it would do so intact. 

I should point out, however, that if environmental considerations 

prevented from launching a reactor, you could still achieve the 

goals of this mission with a rather different design using solar 

power. 

Solar power can be used on Mars. You need to be cognizant of 

the existence of dust storms, and you need to allow for cleaning off 

the solar cells, but you could do that if it were necessary. It seems 

unlikely to me that the people who design Mars missions are going 

to have the final word on whether it is nuclear powered or not. 

Mr. Weldon. Do you have any rebuttal to some of those comments he made? 

Mr. ZUBRIN. Well, first of all, if you take a nuclear reactor that 

has never been used, it has a much lower radioactive inventory 

than the RTG’s that we have launched from the Cape already, such 

as the one on Galileo or Voyager. So, if you have the control rods 

in there and locked into place, it cannot go critical. In fact, while 

I am sure that there will be various activist groups that will demonstrate and go to court and whatever to oppose the launching of 

a nuclear reactor from Florida, the rational grounds behind their 

complaint are actually of a lower order than the very limited basis 

for their objections to the launching of the RTG. 

The use of solar power on Mars is possible, I don’t dispute that. 

It does add weight to the mission. It is true, as John says, that you 

could do a mission of the type that I described with solar power. 

However, it would increase the mass and the cost. 

Captain CERNAN. Mr. Chairman, there is a precedence already 

set. Twenty-five years ago on Apollo 17 we carried a nuclear reactor. I personally fueled it on the surface of the Moon. It operated 

flawlessly and harmlessly for over 10 years, sending back information. It finally had to be shut down because of a cut in funding. 

Mr. Weldon. Thank you for sharing that. I want to thank each 

and every one of the panel members this morning for your very fascinating testimony. I realize that many of you had much, much 

more to share than you were capable of doing within the time constraints, but we really do appreciate you coming, and the meeting 

now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ