U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–323PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

AMERICA’S HUMAN PRESENCE 

IN LOW–EARTH ORBIT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 17, 2018 

Serial No. 115–60 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

May 17, 2018 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

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

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Statement by Representative Ami Bera, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Witnesses: 

Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and 

Operations Directorate, NASA 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Dr. Bhavya Lal, Research Staff, Science and Technology Policy Institute 

for Defense Analysis 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Dr. Elizabeth R. Cantwell, CEO, Arizona State University Research Enterprise (ASURE); Professor of Practice, School for Engineering of Matter, 

Transport & Energy, Arizona State University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 49 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and 

Operations Directorate, NASA ............................................................................ 70 

Dr. Bhavya Lal, Research Staff, Science and Technology Policy Institute 

for Defense Analysis ............................................................................................ 75 

Dr. Elizabeth R. Cantwell, CEO, Arizona State University Research Enterprise (ASURE); Professor of Practice, School for Engineering of Matter, 

Transport & Energy, Arizona State University ................................................. 41 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Letters submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 84 

(1) 

AMERICA’S HUMAN PRESENCE 

IN LOW–EARTH ORBIT 

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

Good morning to you all, and welcome to today’s hearing titled, 

‘‘America’s Human Presence in Low-Earth Orbit.’’ I’ll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the Ranking Member. 

Our nation faces important questions about future space exploration. Will the International Space Station stop receiving federal 

support in 2025? If so, under what conditions? What is the future 

of America’s human presence in low-Earth orbit? Beyond that, 

what is the future of human presence on the Moon and Mars? 

The International Space Station has been authorized and funded 

to operate until 2024. Decisions about the long-term future of the 

ISS impact the future of America’s human space exploration program. Unless NASA’s budget is significantly increased, there are 

not enough funds both to maintain direct federal support for the 

ISS and return American astronauts to the surface of the Moon in 

the 2020s. And without a sharp increase in funding for NASA, we 

cannot ensure American leadership in human deep space exploration in the next decade and beyond. 

NASA announced an ISS transition plan at the end of March. According to the proposal, the United States should not continue direct federal support for ISS operation beyond 2024. The private sector—commercial space—may well pick up where NASA left off. 

In addition to the transition of the ISS, a related but important 

question is the future of America’s human presence in low-Earth 

orbit. After 2025, should Americans maintain some human presence in low-Earth orbit, even on a limited basis? But, having, 

quote, ‘‘American human presence in low-Earth orbit,’’ does not 

necessarily mean continuing to operate the ISS. Discussing continued human presence and continued operation of the ISS are related, but distinct subjects. 

Existing law can help guide this discussion. The 2017 NASA 

Transition Authorization Act reaffirms the principle of ‘‘continuity 

of purpose.’’ It also establishes that extending human presence 

throughout the solar system is a long-term goal for NASA. It directs NASA to follow a steppingstone approach to exploration. This 

involves expanding human presence from low-Earth orbit to the 

Moon, from the Moon to Mars, and then from Mars to other bodies 

throughout the solar system. 

The 2018 NASA Authorization Act was approved by the Science 

Committee on a bipartisan vote, and the act supports the Administration’s transition plan in fiscal year 2019. It’s my hope that this 

hearing will help us evaluate the transition of the ISS and continued American presence in low-Earth orbit. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
5 
6 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my statement, and the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

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

Good morning to all, and welcome to our distinguished witnesses. 

I’m pleased that you’re holding this hearing, America’s Human 

Presence in Low-Earth Orbit. 

In 1991, the House voted for the first time to reject an attempt 

to cancel the space station program. More attempts were made to 

cancel the space program in subsequent years, but each time, it 

was kept alive. Those votes to continue the space station weren’t 

easy ones given a series of redesigns, cost growth, and other challenges with the program during that development. 

I mention this history, Mr. Chairman, because, had Congress not 

made a commitment to support the space station and later to extend its operations, we could well have missed acquiring essential 

knowledge about how to live and safely work in the low-Earth orbit 

and beyond. We also would have missed an opportunity to inspire 

our young people to excel, something that the International Space 

Station continues to do in classrooms across the Nation. 

I might add that the six school districts in my district have had 

the opportunity to have visits with astronauts in the space station, 

and they were all very, very excited. And I believe that out of that 

experience many of them will think of the future to use a background in STEM education. 

Without the International Space Station, would we have a place, 

a durable, multination, international partnership that has 

strengthened this nation, its global leadership, and the vision of 

peaceful cooperation in outer space? Would we have laid the 

groundwork for developing a commercial resupply service and soon 

a commercial crew transportation capability that can help enable 

sustained commercial engagement in low-Earth orbit? 

Looking ahead, as we debate the future of the International 

Space Station, we find ourselves facing a decision of equal importance to the one we faced in 1991. The NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 established long-term goal of sending humans to 

Mars. We know that such a multi-decadal understanding will be 

challenging and expensive, and achieving it will be even more challenging if we are also continuing to support the estimated $3–3.3 

billion annual cost of keeping the International Space Station operating. 

At the same time, the space station supports important research 

and engineering activities, both public and private, and provides a 

steppingstone for exploration. For that reason, the Transition Act 

also calls for an International Space Station transition plan to establish an orderly process by which alternative orbital platforms 

may be considered and potentially brought on as replacements for 

the International Space Station. 

Although we only recently received the plan, the Administration 

decided in its fiscal year 2019 budget request to propose ending direct federal funding of the International Space Station in 2025. 

This is a bold proposal and one that raises a lot of questions. 

Mr. Chairman, the future of International Space Station is of 

great consequence to our continued leadership in space exploration 
7 

and utilization. Decisions—as it is—as to its funding should not be 

made lightly, not without sufficient information and debate. As 

members of the Science Committee, we need to roll up our sleeves, 

ask the right questions, and focus on the core issues needing our 

attention. 

In that regard, I hope this morning’s hearing will shed light on, 

one, the cost of conducting research on the space station versus alternative model platform; whether the commercial market will be 

ready to support a purely commercial space station in 2025 without 

direct U.S. Government funding or, if not, what level of government funding would be needed? Three, whether a national laboratory in low-Earth orbit should be continued following the end of the 

space station operations and for the conditions and resources that 

would be needed to transition basic and applied biological and 

physical sciences research to a commercial or nongovernmental 

platform. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, there’s a lot we need to examine as we 

contemplate the future of the International Space Station. I hope 

this morning’s discussion is just the first of a series of hearings so 

that committee members will have the chance to ask questions for 

the other International Space Station stakeholders who are not 

represented today. We will need that information if we are to move 

forward with a thoughtful and constructive NASA authorization 

bill. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
8 
9 
10 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

And the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee, the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The International Space Station, or the ISS, is the crown jewel 

of America’s human spaceflight program. As a representative of 

Johnson Space Center in Houston, I am proud of the leadership 

role that Johnson has with the ISS and American human space exploration in general. I’m keenly aware of the importance of the 

International Space Station to the hardworking professionals at 

JSC. For them, the ISS is more than just a program of record, it 

is part of their being. This is why I take with the utmost seriousness the questions our Committee must address on the future of 

the ISS and America’s human spaceflight flight program. 

The Trump Administration is a very strong advocate for human 

space exploration, and I support the Administration’s renewed 

focus. I agree in broad terms with the human exploration plans the 

Administration has outlined. I appreciate the Administration’s invitation to discuss and mature plans for our civil space exploration 

program, including the ISS. However, we, as a Congress, have a responsibility to think through the issues on our own and reach our 

own conclusions, which is why we are here today. 

I believe that doing exploration right means that anywhere we 

establish a human presence in space, we must fulfill two main objectives. First, we must make that presence sustainable. Second, 

we must use that presence as a jumping-off point to extend our 

reach even further. This discussion, along with maintaining continuity of purpose, are key themes in the 2018 NASA Authorization 

Act recently passed out of this Committee on a bipartisan vote. 

Section 202 of the Act on the ISS transition reflects a balance, 

and provides authority and guidance to the Administration to carry 

out the initial steps of its ISS transition plans but does so on a limited basis. It explicitly limits authorization to carry out the initial 

exploratory steps of the Administration’s plan to fiscal year 2019. 

Section 202 of the 2018 NASA Authorization Act is good policy that 

provides a strong foundation for Congress and the Nation as we 

take our very next steps with the ISS and America’s future human 

presence in LEO. 

Four criteria that we may consider for evaluating success of an 

ISS transition: First, the United States must preserve its global 

leadership in space, and this means preserving our international 

partnerships as we continue forward. Second, our presence in LEO 

should support our journey to the Moon and beyond. Third, staying 

in LEO should not preclude further human exploration for economic or other reasons. And fourth, as necessary to meet our national interests, we should maintain a regular American human 

presence—and whether public or private, whether permanent or 

periodic—in LEO. 

I can tell you that failure is not an option. I can also tell you that 

there are not a lot of scenarios in which a few billion dollars per 

year can magically be added to NASA’s human spaceflight program. Therefore, we have only one option. We must figure out how 

to lead and cooperate with our private and international partners 

to make human presence in LEO sustainable. With commitment, 
11 

we can successfully transition the ISS while maintaining American 

leadership in human spaceflight. 

In closing, I am proud that America has led and will continue to 

lead the human exploration of the cosmos. I will do everything in 

my power as Chairman of the Subcommittee to support NASA and 

American leadership in human space exploration. 

I thank the witnesses for their attendance, and I look forward to 

your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Babin. 

And the gentleman from California, the Ranking Member of the 

Space Subcommittee, Mr. Bera is recognized. 

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

Ranking Member. 

You know, obviously this is an incredibly important conversation 

that we’re having in terms of what the transition plan is and I look 

forward to the testimony of the witnesses. 

There’s broad consensus and agreement both from the Administration and from Congress that as a stretch mission we’re looking 

at human exploration and travel to Mars, as my colleague from 

Colorado would say, by 2033. And I think that is a good goal to set 

because, again, you know, much as we did in the age of the Apollo 

missions, we didn’t know how we were going to go to the Moon, let 

alone how we were going to come back, but we set a goal. We put 

resources towards that goal. We worked towards it, and we accomplished it. And now, we’re setting a stretch goal to get to Mars 

again by 2033. 

As we set that goal, we don’t know exactly how we’re going to 

get there. We don’t know exactly how we’re going to return. We 

don’t know, as a physician, what the human consequences and 

physiological consequences of extended time in space is going to be 

extended exposure to radiation, et cetera. To address these issues, 

we have to have a lab—again, I’m going to approach this as an academic and as a physician to look at these issues. In addition, we 

don’t know the technologies, et cetera. And again, we have to have 

some venue by which we can do these experiments and learn those 

technologies that allow us to go deeper into space. 

And in that sense, the ISS, its completion in 2011, has given us 

a very unique asset by which to experiment not just for our desire 

to go deeper into space. We’ve also been able to use the ISS as a 

unique laboratory to help us improve life on Earth, whether it’s 

biomedical discoveries, whether it’s other discoveries, it is a very 

unique asset. And I think that’s why this is incredibly important 

for us to think about. 

Resources are always going to be tight, but how do we—not just 

if we have a workable asset in 2025. I think it would be unconscionable for us not to continue to say, okay, how do we continue 

to use this asset? Maybe it is what aspect can the commercial sector pick up? What aspect can the international community pick up? 

But clearly, there’s a role for NASA as well and unique capabilities 

that only NASA can provide. 

And again, I’m glad that we are taking up this conversation at 

this point in 2018 and we’re not having this conversation in 2023. 

I think it’s incredibly important for us to do this. 

You know, I’ll also just add one other component a company that 

I had a chance to visit when I was down at NASA, Ames, to talk 

about why this is important was a company called Made In Space. 

It is working on the NASA Ames facility looking at 3–D printing. 

I’m a pretty simple—I’m a doctor, not an engineer, but—so 3–D 

printing to me is 3–D printing. But what they’re actually doing is 

what is 3–D printing in a low-gravity situation? How does that impact things? 
15 

And some of the remarkable stuff that they’re doing is they’re 

also if we have a lunar mission and return to the Moon, you know, 

if they simulate the indigenous materials on the Moon to do 3–D 

printing to use that to build whatever habitats on the Moon, that’s 

pretty remarkable. What that allows us to do is travel with much 

lighter payloads if eventually we want to create something on 

Mars. Again, you can’t move all those payloads and move all the 

material, but if you can go to Mars taking the indigenous materials, use that as your building blocks for whatever you’re constructing, those are the technologies that, again, you can try to experiment on Earth, but it would be much better to be able to simulate that and build all of that in space. 

So I think the ISS, as someone who wants to figure out how we 

extend the life of the ISS and make this a workable asset until we 

have an adequate replacement at some time in the future, is something that Congress ought to support. And again, I look forward to 

hearing the testimony of the witnesses as we think about this transition plan. 

And, again, kudos to the Chairman and Ranking Member for 

having us engage in this conversation in 2018 and not 2033 or 

2023. Thank you. We’ll be on Mars in 2033. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bera follows:] 
16 
17 
18 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

Before I introduce our witnesses today, I’d like to welcome back 

a former Member of the Committee, and that is the gentleman 

from Alabama Gary Palmer to my—— 

[Applause.] 

Chairman SMITH. Oh, listen to the enthusiastic response. Gary 

was a Member of the Committee from 2015 to 2017, took a brief 

leave of absence, but he’s returned to the fold, and so we welcome 

him back to the Committee. 

I might also say—and I’ll introduce her at our next hearing, she 

wasn’t able to come today—but Debbie Lesko, the new Member 

from Arizona is also a member of the Science Committee, and we’ll 

introduce her at the proper time. 

But, Representative Palmer, welcome back to the Science Committee. 

Our first witness today is Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate 

Administrator of the Human Exploration and Operations Mission 

Directorate at NASA. He provides strategic direction for all aspects 

of NASA’s human exploration of space and programmatic direction 

for the continued operation and utilization of the ISS. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier began his NASA career in 1977, performing 

aeronautical research, and has managed NASA’s human 

spaceflight portfolio since 2011. He received a Bachelor of Science 

in aeronautical engineering from Purdue University, and a Master 

of Science in mechanical engineering from the University of Toledo. 

Our second witness today is Dr. Bhavya Lal, Research Scientist 

at the Science and Technology Policy Institute at the Institute for 

Defense Analysis. STPI was established by Congress to support the 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and other executive agencies. At STPI, Dr. Lal leads analysis of space technology strategy and policy for OSTP and the National Space Council, NASA, FAA, and other space-oriented federal agencies and departments. 

Dr. Lal holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in 

nuclear engineering from MIT, a second Master of Science from 

MIT’s Technology and Policy Program, and a Ph.D. in public policy 

and public administration from George Washington University. 

Our third witness is Dr. Elizabeth R. Cantwell, CEO of the Arizona State University Research Enterprise and Professor of Practice in the School for Engineering of Matter, Transport, and Energy. Dr. Cantwell is responsible for leading the creation, management, and capture of large-scale externally funded programs and 

projects that advance the university’s research enterprise. 

Dr. Cantwell earned a Bachelor of Arts in human behavior from 

the University of Chicago and a Master of Business Administration 

from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. She also 

earned her Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of 

California Berkeley. 

We welcome you all, and look forward to your testimony. And, 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, we’ll begin with you. 
19 

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM GERSTENMAIER, 

ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, 

HUMAN EXPLORATION 

AND OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, NASA 

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

participate in this important hearing on America’s human presence 

in low-Earth orbit. 

The ISS has accomplished amazing things and transformed the 

way that we see human spaceflight. Crews have lived continuously 

on the ISS for almost 18 years. The ISS has enabled 

groundbreaking research that has benefited all of us. The ISS has 

helped NASA prepare for deep space missions. The ISS has allowed 

us to maintain a leadership role in international spaceflight. 

The International Space Station partnership has developed voluntary standards such as the international docking standard that 

could transform spaceflight for decades to come. These standards 

will allow anyone to be part of spaceflight by simply designing to 

these standards. The cooperation of the ISS partners is absolutely 

amazing and serves as an example of a diverse community working 

together for common goals. 

Lastly, the ISS has enabled innovative U.S. companies to reinvent the launch industry. Further crew private sector development, crew transportation systems, with the aid of NASA, are 

about ready to go fly. With all these amazing accomplishments 

from the ISS, it is only fitting that we take time to seriously plan 

for the transition of ISS in low-Earth orbit. 

NASA is preparing to secure the Nation’s long-term presence in 

low-Earth orbit by partnering with industry to develop commercial 

orbital platforms and capabilities that the private sector and NASA 

can utilize after the cessation of direct U.S. federal funding for ISS 

by 2025. 

To be clear, NASA is not abandoning low-Earth orbit. We must 

ensure the right pieces are in place to maintain an operational 

human presence in low-Earth orbit whether through a modified 

ISS program, commercial crew—commercial platforms, or some 

combination of both government and commercial platforms. We are 

asking industry, academia, and others through a series of funded 

studies to provide ideas for utilizing the unique properties of space 

and creating commercial opportunities. We will work with the 

Space Council and the Department of Commerce to help with the 

transformation of low-Earth orbit. We have also proposed funds in 

the 2019 budget to support this transition. 

NASA looks forward to working with the Congressional stakeholders, other government agencies, researchers, private industry, 

and our international partners on the future of ISS in low-Earth 

orbit to ensure that the United States maintains our human presence—our human leadership in space. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gerstenmaier follows:] 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. 

And Dr. Lal? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BHAVYA LAL, 

RESEARCH STAFF, 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE 

FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS 

Dr. LAL. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Chairman 

Babin, Ranking Member Bera, and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

NASA’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposes to end direct financial 

support for the International Space Station by 2025 and transition 

to a commercially operated low-Earth orbit capability. This transition can occur in two primary ways. The ISS can be privatized, as 

in all or parts of it can be taken over by a private entity and operated on behalf of the government, much like most DOE labs are 

today. Alternatively, a private-sector entity could build, launch, 

and operate a commercial LEO-based platform for profit. 

In a recent study conducted at the Institute for Defense Analysis 

Science and Technology Policy Institute, my colleagues, including 

Keith Crane, Benjamin Corbin, Reina Buenconsejo, and I addressed this second option. Could a privately owned and operated 

permanently crewed space station that will look nothing like the 

ISS generate sufficient revenues to cover its capital and operations 

costs without government subsidies? Our analysis identified 21 activities that could generate revenues from commercial or government customers on a LEO platform. We interviewed over 70 subject 

matter experts and built models to estimate the potential revenues 

that could be generated for each activity. We also estimated the 

cost of two possible configurations of a station that could house all 

of these activities. 

Our estimates of revenues and costs incorporated many assumptions, the most critical of which was a 50 to 75 percent reduction 

in the price of launch in the 2025-and-beyond time frame. Even 

with these aggressive assumptions, and three of the four scenarios 

we postulated, revenues did not cover costs. Venture capitalists we 

spoke to indicated that projected revenues streams are too far in 

the future and too uncertain to warrant making significant investments to date. Overall, our analysis showed that it is unlikely that 

a commercial space station would be economically viable by 2025. 

There are some caveats that go with the finding. Some markets 

for space station-based products and services could experience more 

rapid growth than we assumed, and revenues could be greater than 

estimated. There is also a risk that products or services that are 

projected to generate large revenues might fail to do so. The growing availability of suborbital and parabolic flight opportunities, as 

well as temporary un-crewed orbital capsules could both take away 

potential business away from a permanent station and at the same 

time provide an onramp to develop new markets. 

Last but not least, possible future Chinese or Russian space stations subsidized by their respective governments could also draw 

business opportunities away from a private space station. 

If a permanently crewed commercial space station in LEO is a 

critical element of United States leadership in space, without a 
30 

ready commercial case in place by 2025, there are at least three options that merit further exploration. The ISS could be extended 

through 2028. Continuing to operate, maintain, and resupply the 

station will cost about $3–4 billion a year, which would take resources away from deep space exploration and affect the timeline 

for a return of U.S. astronauts to the Moon. It may also take away 

opportunities from a rapidly burgeoning private sector that feels 

ready to lead activities in LEO. 

The ISS or modules within it could be privatized with a privatesector entity operating the station but paid for largely by the government. Depending on how the deal is structured, this could in 

principle yield cost savings, although that cannot be assumed. As 

interviewees in our study indicated, the station was not designed 

to be operated inexpensively, and maintenance costs are likely to 

increase as elements are operated past their design lifetimes. 

Third, NASA could select a private entity to operate a commercial platform and rent space or request services as a tenant. While 

this option is best suited to help LEO commercialization, it will 

likely require some level of a government subsidy for the commercial operator. In our analysis, an annualized payment of about $2 

billion could cover the cost of the platform even in the case of zero 

revenues. A deeper dive into the tradeoffs among these options may 

be crucial before any permanent decisions on America’s post-2024 

LEO plans can be made. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our analysis, and I look 

forward to any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lal follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Lal. 

And Dr. Cantwell? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, 

CEO, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

RESEARCH ENTERPRISE (ASURE); 

PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE, 

SCHOOL FOR ENGINEERING OF MATTER, 

TRANSPORT & ENERGY, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. CANTWELL. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson—— 

Chairman SMITH. Is your mic totally on there? 

Dr. CANTWELL. Good morning. 

Chairman SMITH. There it is. 

Dr. CANTWELL. Sorry, I always hear myself as very loud. 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, good morning. 

Members of the Committee, Mr. Babin, Mr. Bera, it’s a pleasure. 

Thank you for inviting science to the table. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony and participate in the discussion. 

This is timely as the science community has just seen the delivery of the National Academies’ report, a midterm assessment of implementation, and of the decadal survey of life and physical 

sciences research at NASA, which reviews the health and progress 

of the life and physical microgravity science portfolio in space. 

I was Chair of the original decadal science study, which was delivered in 2011, and I currently sit on the Oversight Committee for 

this science portfolio within the National Academies. And I’m also 

a Chair of the National Academies’ Science and Engineering Board. 

So I make the following comments. 

The United States is not conducted human operations on an extraterrestrial planetary body for close to 50 years. The opportunity 

to do this again and to have a meaningful life and physical sciences 

research program that enhances our ability to go back to the lunar 

surface and even further is frankly thrilling. The Committee has 

heard a lot over the years about how the NASA-funded portfolio of 

life and physical sciences and microgravity has enabled our exploration missions, brought value to our lives on Earth and brought 

entirely new discoveries that have yielded new thinking for space 

and terrestrial efforts. 

Today, I’ll discuss the implications of a potential shift to privatesector platform providers as part of an increasingly privatized LEO 

ecosystem and how this might be part of a continuing and successful microgravity sciences program if properly incentivized. 

The ISS is now a fully functioning science laboratory. It has a 

well-trained crew that understands the conduct of science. NASA 

has invested millions in building world-class research hardware assets. We should not waste these assets. 

It’s additionally true that some microgravity and human 

spaceflight-related studies may well be suited for platforms other 

than the International Space Station, particularly if other long-duration platforms are available. Understanding the full cost of research asset investment, especially in the context of potential new 

costing and pricing paradigms that could be created during a tran-
42 

sition from NASA-funded International Space Station to some of 

the options that Dr. Lal talked about should be developed for 

NASA-supported science and technology in LEO and should enable 

a range of space platforms, analogs, and even ground-based facilities. 

So far, it is almost always the case for discovery science and for 

unique mission-focused investigations, as NASA’s exploration mission needs are, there is no commercial poll for the microgravity research portfolio. If NASA intends to purchase ISS or long-term 

LEO capabilities, what is now important is that microgravity exploration research be part of a coherent transition plan, a plan that 

understands that business models for research are not the same as 

those driving commercial interests and a plan that recognizes the 

different perspectives on incentives for research. This could prevent 

unanticipated and frankly unrecoverable gaps in research capacity, 

and I particularly focus on the development of STEM workforce associated with those capacities. 

Finally, ISS research has not yet completely addressed the highest priorities of our decadal studies. The mid-decadal, which was 

published just recently, categorically finds that long-term microgravity studies are still lacking. Quoting from that study, ‘‘With the 

totality of human exploration experience beyond LEO restricted to 

the Apollo era and the limited number of long-duration experiments conducted to date on the International Space Station, the 

need for microgravity and radiation space science is a strong now 

as ever.’’ 

For exploration missions beyond LEO, we still need to better understand and better mitigate the long-term effects of spaceflight environments on both the biological and physical systems involved in 

extended missions in deep space and enabling operations in human 

performance without resupply on timescales measured in years. 

There is absolutely a need for integrated long-duration experimentation well beyond 2024. 

As stakeholder conversations are developed regarding this ISS 

transition process, we feel it’s critical to include our research community, especially as decisions about new commercial pricing structures are made. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cantwell follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Cantwell. 

Let me recognize myself for questions and start off by addressing 

one to all of you all. 

And the question is this, and I hope you’ll be very specific in your 

answer, and that is what should we do about the ISS after 2024? 

Let me set this up and frame the question in a larger way. You’ve 

got NASA’s budget at $20 billion, about one half of one percent of 

our federal budget. We spend about $3.5 billion a year on the International Space Station. We cannot have a lunar mission, we cannot 

continue our exploration into deep space, unless we significantly increase that budget, which we should not presume that we are able 

to do. Therefore, we have to make some tough decisions. We cannot 

have it all. Federal funding is not unlimited. 

I know the Administration is looking towards on the transition 

that the United States would be more of a customer than an operator, but if that is still going to cost us upwards of $2 billion, that’s 

not much of a saving. That’s not going to get us back to the Moon. 

It’s not going to get us elsewhere. So what do you think we should 

do about the International Space Station after 2024? And Mr. 

Gerstenmaier, let’s start with you. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Okay. I think as we’ve kind of discussed earlier and you can see in the transition report, we see the need for 

a continued activity in low-Earth orbit for an extended period of 

time. I think, as we heard from some of the other witnesses here, 

that there’s a need for a continuous presence to do research. We’re 

not done in low-Earth orbit. It enables what we need to do in deep 

space. Some of the systems that we’re going to be using to go beyond the Earth-Moon system or use in the vicinity of the Moon, 

those absolutely need to be tested on space station. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. What is our continuing presence in lowEarth orbit going to cost us? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think that’s what we need to start 

really working very hard now to go look at these models that were 

described earlier. We need to take serious steps forward. I mentioned earlier in my testimony that we’re going to do these as commercial companies for studies to come back, show us their business 

plan, show us their market analysis—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —show us what we think the cost would be 

for operations in low-Earth orbit—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —for NASA’s defined need to—— 

Chairman SMITH. In order to have sufficient funds to, say, go 

back to the Moon, have a lunar mission, what would be the most 

we could spend for human presence in low-Earth orbit? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think you could see what we’re able 

to do today with Deep Space Gateway and those activities, we believe we can support where we are today with space station, and 

those type of Gateway activities heading towards the Moon, and 

then as the SLS activities ramp down, the commercial crew activities ramp down, those development funds are reduced, we go into 

production and ops for SLS. That frees up funds that could be used 

for lunar surface activities and lunar landers. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 
50 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. So I believe roughly at the budget we have 

now, with some consideration for inflation and economic growth, we 

can support a low-Earth orbit program reduced somewhat and also 

a lunar activity program. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And, again, you’re not willing to put a 

cost on the low-Earth orbit human presence? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I can’t give you a specific value. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think what we need to do is see what 

comes from industry—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —see what’s reasonable, and then do the 

balance—the budget analysis—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes, it just—my frustration is it seems to me 

that we’re continuing to think we can do it all but we’re not willing 

to put a cost on anything. That’s just the frustration. 

Dr. Lal? 

Dr. LAL. Chairman Smith, as you said, a presence in low-Earth 

orbit is not the same as having an ISS, and we absolutely need to 

do everything we can to see if there’s a way for us to be in LEO 

without, you know, it costing $3–4 billion a year. And so I look— 

you know, as I said in my testimony, a better analysis of whether 

privatizing existing parts of the station would be most—more costeffective versus having free-flyers, commercial stations, and according to our study, the cost—annualized cost of a commercial station 

would be about $2.25 billion, so that’s something to be thinking 

about. 

Chairman SMITH. It’s something to be considered, but then that’s 

a saving of only about $1 billion, the difference between roughly 

$3.5 billion or $3.3 billion now and the $2.25 million or whatever 

it might be, that doesn’t seem to be to me—I mean $1 billion is a 

lot of money but it’s not necessarily going to pay for a lunar mission and a mission into deep space beyond that. So I see that as 

maybe a distinction without much of a difference where it’s still 

going to cost us over $2 billion. I think the savings have to be significant if you’re going to pay for significant other missions. But do 

you want to respond to that? 

Dr. LAL. So, I mean, I was talking about the cost. There’s also 

potential revenues, which could be between $450 million—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. LAL. —to $1.2 billion again. You know, we are talking ten 

years out and predictions are hard—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. LAL. —but, you know, the net revenue could be between, you 

know, negative—a few million to positive $700 million. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. I still wonder that we’re putting off the 

hard decisions, which isn’t helpful to us, but I understand your position, so thanks for that. 

Dr. Cantwell? 

Dr. CANTWELL. I will say that—two points first. The science portion of the budget is minuscule, and the science community is relatively agnostic as to what platform is used to conduct the science. 

So we have two real challenges. One is, right now, the Inter-
51 

national Space Station is the only platform to which the U.S. 

science community has access—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. CANTWELL. —for long-term studies. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. CANTWELL. So we would wish to see that there were other 

options. And the way that they are funded were relatively agnostic 

about—as long as the science community’s overall costs are included in consideration of how those new developments in terms of 

what I call business model, what’s the confluence of our federally 

funded access—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. CANTWELL. —as well as commercial support and other means 

for having U.S. presence in LEO. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. My time is expired. Without 

objection, I’d like to submit two letters for the record on America’s 

human presence in low-Earth orbit. One is from Dr. Gale Allen, 

Executive Director of the American Society for Gravitational and 

Space Research, and the other is from Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, a 

noted expert on spaceflight programs. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking 

Member, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, and thanks to all of you for 

your testimony. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, we now have an International Space Station transition plan that Congress mandated 

and NASA delivered. While the plan, as it is called, lays out several issues, it raises even more questions that need to be answered. 

To start with, the Administration is proposing to end direct U.S. 

financial support for the space station in 2025. I’d like you to comment on what that means, how much international input you’ve 

had, and if sufficient private funding is not forthcoming to compensate for the loss of that government support, does the Administration plan to deorbit the ISS? And will the Administration decide 

to keep the financial support going, and if so, how much longer? 

This is not just a U.S. decision or it shouldn’t be because it’s an 

international contract. 

So I’d like you to—each of you to comment on how far we’ve gone 

and including those stakeholders in these—in this design to—for 

the future of the ISS. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The International Space Station program 

has had numerous discussions with our international partners 

about the future of ISS and what our plans are beyond 2024 into 

2025. We’ve reached no firm decisions or discussions have not resulted in firm decisions moving forward. They understand what our 

thinking is and our plans. 

If you look in the transition report, in addition to the date and 

the discussion about ending direct funding in 2025, there’s a series 

of principles that are called out in that transition report, and we 

think those principles are very important. And the international 

partner community agrees with those general principles. 

So I think we’ve had a discussion about what we need in lowEarth orbit. I think our international partners agree with us we 
52 

need some presence in low-Earth orbit. They’re also working with 

us to go build standards and also to move out into deep space. So 

they see this tension between us needing to stay in low-Earth orbit 

and willing to move human presence in the solar system, and we 

are actively engage with them in working those—the items that 

you discussed. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Dr. LAL. I guess my only comment to your question would be the 

last time the space station was extended from—in 2014 from 2020 

to 2024, it wasn’t clear at all if all the partners were going to join 

us in extending the station, and it is certainly not clear now if they 

would be willing to extend, given that they all have plans to partner with us on deep space and lunar exploration plans. And that 

is something to—that is an important consideration given that, you 

know, some percent of the O&M budget of the station is paid for 

by the international partners. So their consideration is very important in this decision going forward. 

Dr. CANTWELL. Just one comment. The science community is relatively inherently international and shares science assets on the 

space station. So the biggest comment I would have, the concern 

of the community is that if a transition point was selected and held 

as a matter of course that we experience a gap in capacity to conduct the continuity—science continuity is not available both for 

funded science in—that trains people, as well as the conduct of experiments. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. What would a private company—what would make the private company interested in picking up a $3 billion annual cost of supplying, operating, and maintaining a part of 

the U.S. portion of the expense for the space station? Have you had 

any private companies express that interest? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think we’re starting to see onboard space 

station today interest in private companies in utilizing the unique 

properties of space for potential revenue-generating activities. 

There’s been—discussed the manufacturing things earlier, and 

those look like they may have promise. We’ve seen some pharmaceutical interest, et cetera, so there’s some beginning small interest 

in utilizing space for these companies to generate some revenue. 

I think we have to be careful when we think about what we continue in low-Earth orbit after the space station. We can’t probably 

continue a facility as large as the space station. It took us a tremendous amount of time to build the space station. I think we’ll 

end up with much smaller space stations. Transportation costs are 

critical, as has been discussed in these—by the other members 

here, so we need to reduce those costs. But I think we get the operating cost down, and there’s potential that we could get some costsharing in this time frame. Whether they could take the full cost 

burden, I don’t think so, but there could be some initial things that 

help lower the burden, and even the small savings help us advance 

what we want to do in deep space. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. My time is expired, but I want—if 

you’ll send me the answer to this question of the private commercial companies who’ve expressed an interest in taking up the 

United States’ responsibility, if you’ll just mail that to me, I’d appreciate it. 
53 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Okay. We can do that. And we’ve officially 

requested that through this NASA research announcement or will 

be requesting it through a NASA research announcement for studies. We’ll provide you a list of all the potential providers to that— 

or response to that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We’re spending $3 billion a year. How much 

are our partners spending? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Probably $1–2 billion collectively across all 

the partners. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And could you list those partners for us, 

please? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It would be Canada, Russia, Japan, and then 

the European Space Agency. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the total cost is more like $4.5–5 billion 

a year rather than $3 billion a year? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. So after a certain number of years, 

now we’re talking about, what, seven, eight years from now, we 

have this big chunk of metal up there and something has to be 

done with it. And there’s no way that we can just turn this over 

to anyone and say, well, that’s a $4.5 billion expenditure that you 

can assume the payments at this point because what’s being done 

can’t generate that kind of revenue. Is that correct? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, today’s studies and today’s analysis 

don’t show that that revenue can be generated. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Today’s analysis shows that that can’t be 

generated. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Maybe—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So we have other things we want to do in 

space. Are we just simply saying today that this has been—I mean, 

I was here, I remember, I don’t want to brag but I think it was 

my vote in this Committee that was the pivotal that moved the 

project forward all those years ago. So we just say, those of us who 

were here and involved in this project, ‘‘well, it was worthwhile, it’s 

run its course, time to leave it behind?’’ Is that what we’re talking 

about? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I mean, this is precisely why the Administration took the position that it did. We think now is the time to 

start looking at what options are available to us, see what we can 

get from the private sector, see what they can do, ask them for 

their ideas. Are there smaller instantiation of space station? Could 

they use of piece of space station to satisfy their needs and leverage and build an economy in low-Earth orbit? Now is the time to 

start that planning so in the next seven years we can have an approach and we can understand what the residual cost we still need 

to carry on our side and what can be carried by the private sector 

and how it can meet our needs. 

So I think the reason we took the position we did in the transition report and set the date of 2025 was essentially to begin a seri-
54 

ous discussion to make sure that we are ready to transition lowEarth orbit in some entity to a sustainable thing that meets all the 

objectives and gives us the benefit out of low-Earth orbit that we 

absolutely need for deep space, and now is the time to work that. 

I think we have enough time in front of us. We’ll ask the private 

sector to get creative and innovative and help us figure out what 

to go do. We know the major drivers and costs in the model and 

we can turn that over to the private sector and see if they can come 

up with ways to address some of those cost and reduce them and 

see where we end up in the next seven years or so. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Do either of you have a comment on that? 

Dr. LAL. I guess I would just like to say that when folks talk 

about commercial station, they’re not talking about something as 

big as ISS. You know, the commercial stations that we learned 

about in our study were 1/3 the size of the ISS, more like the 

Skylab. They were 1/20 the mass of the ISS. And with those kind 

of platforms, it is feasible to generate adequate revenues that with, 

you know, some amount of, you know, government payment that 

they could be commercially viable but not ISS-sized. 

Dr. CANTWELL. Very quick comment. In the science community 

what we’ve seen over the last six years is what I will characterize 

as the CASIS experiment, and it has absolutely yielded an increasing level of understanding and knowledge about how some components of the ISS capacity can be attractive to commercial entities. 

So I would point to two things. One is it takes a little time, and 

the other is that we do have the capacity to begin to look at these 

things from—I won’t call them experiments but we can query the 

commercial sector and get good answers. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note that this project has been 

an interesting project to follow all the way through, as I have. It 

indicates one thing, that we have learned how to construct big 

projects in space, which could well serve humankind in the future. 

And I believe that we have lots of challenges that we need—I’ve 

been trying to always remind people that we could see an asteroid 

heading toward the Earth, and we need to be able to deflect something like that threat. There are things that we will be capable of 

in the future that we’re not capable of now, and it might require 

us to have these skills that we’ve developed in a major construction 

project in space. 

So I’m watching and, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

your leadership over these years in this project. And I like the answer. The fact is we’re looking ahead now and we want to have as 

many creative ideas as we possibly can to meet this challenge so 

that this—what’s left of the space station’s mission is not a waste. 

But so far, we’ve learned a lot, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

And the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think there are a couple truths here that I think, Dr. Cantwell 

talked about one truth, which is from the scientific community 

they’re agnostic other than they need a platform under which to 

conduct these long-term experiments, whether it’s long-term microgravity exposure or radiation exposure. And there ought not to be 
55 

a gap in that. Again, if we we’re articulating longer-term multidecadal, you know, goals in mind. 

So as part of this conversation, ISS, no ISS, I think we have to 

say, okay, what is that replacement that allows us to continue from 

a scientific research and discovery perspective these longer-term 

studies. 

I also, just another truth, and I think as we’re having this conversation, I don’t disagree with the Chairman that resources are 

limited and we’re talking about federal funding versus commercial 

versus international support in an isolated conversation, ISS, but 

I think we ought to talk about it in terms of the entire conversation 

about space because today, when we talk about our return to a 

lunar mission, it’s different than it was in the days of Apollo where 

NASA was the launch vehicle, was the landing vehicle, was the 

science component. You know, today, you have multiple launch vehicles that potentially fill that piece of the lunar mission. 

You—you know, my—I suspect that we will have commercial 

landing vehicles as well, so, you know, in that context—and you 

will likely have international launch vehicles and landing vehicles 

as well, so how do we not just have the budget conversation in isolation around ISS but also look at, you know, are there ways to defray costs on the—you know, NASA by itself doesn’t just have to 

do the lunar mission. There will be commercial and international 

entities in that conversation as well. And I think those are incredibly important. 

And I also think another component that we should not lose sight of is, I’m told that, thus far we’ve spent $87 billion in assembly, in development and operations of the ISS. Those are sunk costs 

that the taxpayers have already invested. We should not be shortsighted to say those are not costs that you’re going to recover. If 

we’ve already spent those sunk costs, we ought to think about that 

in the context of our return on investment as well because, again, 

you don’t have to replicate that $87 million in assembly and that 

should be a component here. 

Am I thinking about this correctly, Mr. Gerstenmaier? And then 

I’d be curious about, you know—— 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, I think you bring up some very, very 

good points. And I think we also sometimes think of this as a lunar 

activity or a low-Earth orbit activity. I think we ought to think of 

it more as a combined activity. So when I talked about standards, 

if we can now build components that will operate on station that 

will be used in a lunar system, so the life-support systems that the 

crews—the next generation of life-support systems used on the 

International Space Station, those will be identical systems used in 

the lunar station. So there is not a one-for-one duplication in the 

costs associated with lunar and low-Earth orbit. There are effectively one system used in both places. 

So I think if we think about this in a broader sense, we can look 

for a sustainable plan that allows us to operate and look at the 

total budget that we have for NASA and look at it as an activity 

that we have to do both the lunar program and a low-Earth orbit 

program, don’t look at them as separate activities, and see if we 

can figure out a creative way to utilize those together to achieve 

our end goal. 
56 

Mr. BERA. Great. Dr. Cantwell, do you want to add? 

Dr. CANTWELL. I would only add one really general comment and 

back it up with a little bit of fact, which is that we are, as a country, absolutely capable of innovating our way through this. We’ve 

seen it happen in the past. It is an incredibly challenging problem, 

but I do think that we can do that. 

Now, I would back that up with a little bit of a geeky discussion 

about 3–D printing in space, which we are seeing a manufacturing 

revolution, and that revolution is associated, quite honestly, with 

the full digitization of manufacturing. The implications of that for 

planetary missions are quite astounding, and we have only really 

intellectually touched that. While we’ve done a little bit of manufacturing in space, intellectually, the implications of that are really 

amazing. We have many examples of that kind of thing. 

Mr. BERA. Well, so let’s—as we in Congress have those conversation in concert with NASA and others, let’s make sure we’re open 

to our imagination and we’re looking at the full scope of this and 

that it’s not just $3 billion a year of funding until 2024 and then 

we shut the lights off but it could even be a transition where, you 

know, in 2020 it’s $2 billion and there’s other sources of revenue 

coming in. So we shouldn’t see it as either/or we should look at it 

in the entire context as technology improves. 

So I’ll yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bera. 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Brooks, is recognized. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NASA’s first commercial resupply services contract, or CRS–1, 

awarded International Space Station cargo resupply contracts to 

SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, now Orbital ATK. At the time of the 

award, both were using expendable or one-time use launch vehicles. 

Commercial Resupply Services contract number two (CRS–2) 

awards were announced in 2016, with Orbital ATK, SpaceX, and 

Sierra Nevada receiving contracts. A recent audit by the NASA Office of Inspector General found that, quote, ‘‘Overall, CRS–2 costs 

are still projected to be roughly $350 million higher than CRS–1,’’ 

end quote. 

With regards to each contractor, the audit notes, quote, ‘‘When 

compared to the cost of each contractor’s final CRS–1 mission, 

SpaceX’s average pricing per kilogram will increase approximately 

50 percent under CRS–2, while Orbital ATK’s average cost per kilogram pricing will decrease by roughly 15 percent,’’ end quote. 

SpaceX appears to be using reusable launch vehicles for CRS–2. 

In your opinions, why have expected costs for SpaceX’s reusable 

launch vehicles gone up so much when reusability was supposed to 

save the government money? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think what you’re seeing here is 

kind of market forces at work. When the original CRS–1 contracts 

were bid, I’m not sure the contractors really knew what it cost to 

launch cargo to space. In fact, there were no rockets available to 

do that task. So they gave us a proposal. We accepted that proposal, and they delivered on that proposal. Then, in the second 

round they have a better understanding of what those costs are, 

and we see some of those costs are coming back. 
57 

From a government standpoint, we look at that, we look at price 

reasonableness. We got good value and good reasonableness. I 

think what it shows us is there’s a strong tool on the government 

side, and that’s competition. If we can set ourselves up in the future for future contracts and other activities where there’s good 

competition, then that allows us to put some pressure on the commercial sector and the private sector to lower costs and still give 

us the services we need moving forward. 

So I think we’re learning through this process of how to interact 

and how to contract and get our activities in place. I don’t see these 

changes as a big deal. These are just natural progressions and 

changes that will occur through contracting, but we on the government side can use that to our advantage as we think about how 

we’re going to get next generation of modules, next generation of 

systems used in space. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Gerstenmaier, if I understood you correctly 

then, it’s your belief that the price increases for SpaceX were more 

market force-driven as opposed to the use of reusable launch vehicles versus one-time use launch vehicles? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. That’s my opinion, yes. 

Mr. BROOKS. Dr. Cantwell, based on your interactions with industry, how do you foresee the odds of a commercially viable 

human presence in low-Earth orbit absent any government support 

doing? 

Dr. CANTWELL. Caveat, the science community would be the 

place where you would not seek expert opinion on the commercial 

approach. We have, on the committees that I’ve served, queried 

mostly new space companies over the last three or four years, seeing this transition coming. And what we find—I will just say that 

what we find is a unique willingness to work with the science community to find ways as we progress and innovate these new business models to accommodate science. That has certainly not come 

to any clear conclusions at this point, but we do find that particularly American companies are more than interested in supporting 

American science. 

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Gerstenmaier, as I understand it, the inclination of the International Space Station limits its use for staging, 

assembly, or logistics for further human deep space exploration. 

Would a future human presence in low-Earth orbit, in a different 

orbit create new useful options for an American human presence in 

low-Earth orbit or is there no relationship regardless of the inclination? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. The inclination directly affects the amount of 

mass you can take to orbit, but once you overcome that, the ability 

to go from a 51.6 degree inclination to the Moon and other activities or 28.5 is not that radically different going from those orbits 

outward, but there is a small impact of the launch mass impact 

going to the higher inclination orbit. So I don’t see inclination as 

a big driver. It takes away some of your performance for the initial 

launch, but in the big scheme of things, either inclination can be 

workable. We’ve been able to work very well in the 51.6 degree inclination. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Gerstenmaier and Dr. Cantwell. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
58 

Mr. BABIN. [Presiding] Thank you for those questions. 

Now, I recognize the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Cantwell, in reading your testimony, I was struck by certain 

things, and let me explain. You seem to have a concern about how 

we’re going to start the transition. You even used references to research and how we go from where we are now, basically LEO-type 

of situation, into deep space. In particular, what I was struck by 

is it looked like the whole space station issue started like in the 

mid-1980s, and it—there’s negotiations going on and you finally 

have human inhabitants by the year 2000. And you seem to say in 

your testimony that, right now, we are finally now—I think are the 

exact words that you used—in a fully functioning laboratory with 

a well-trained crew that understands the conduct of science. 

So my concern is, as we transition from what we have now to a 

deep space kind of exploration, how long do you think we’re going 

to get—to get them? How long will take for us to get there from 

what you seem to have a great concern about if I’m reading you 

correctly? 

Dr. CANTWELL. So I always characterize my remarks not so much 

as concern but as pointing to those capacities that are necessary 

for science to be conducted and the general flag-waving that says 

please don’t forget that the science community needs certain 

things. It is a small piece of the budget but needs certain things 

in order to do the work that would allow us to, for instance, successfully go back to the Moon and on to Mars. 

So I will perhaps restate something I said a little bit earlier, 

which is that the major concern or pointer is that the International 

Space Station today—which in my remarks meant a fully functioning—that it is meeting all of the science requirements it was 

established to do at this point, and that is a relatively recent fact. 

All of the science assets have been brought up and in place, and 

the science that was—has been thought about for many years can 

be conducted. Now—and this is true in—just really in the last—the 

last asset was probably—Mr. Gerstenmaier can help better than 

I—but in the last couple of years. 

So we have an asset that can now do the long-duration studies. 

Those are the studies that will underpin and support our capacity 

to spend more than the amounts of time that we have had astronauts on the station, as well as to have equipment, engineered systems that can function for long periods of time without resupply, 

and that is as relevant to lunar surface operations over long durations, and then the studies that we will need to do to go further 

out. 

Just as a point of reference, we could imagine doing long-term 

studies in a lunar Gateway type of platform, but it would cost us 

a lot more to get those studies out there and bring them back for 

reinvestigation. 

Ms. HANABUSA. One of these statements you made—I think this 

was in response to Congressman Bera’s questioning—you said that 

basically you have faith, as a country, we can innovate our way 

through all of this. I think it was—those were your exact words. 

And I guess what I’m reading in all the testimonies, especially in 

yours, is that, you know, it’s—as a country, we no longer seem to 
59 

be talking about space in terms of the United States or Russia or 

any one country. We seem to have gone past that, and we are talking about science in a global or international way, whichever you 

want to talk about it. And this whole space exploration is also taking on that kind of, I guess, cooperation in order for us to succeed. 

It seems to be inherent in how we have evolved. 

Now, in light of that—and you may not be—I’m pretty sure 

you’re going to respond to me that scientists are not the ones to 

respond to this, but given that, how is it that, given the temperature of our relationships—because this is based on how countries 

are getting along—how do you see that affecting the conclusion 

that you seem to arrive at, which is that we can innovate our way 

through all of this? 

Dr. CANTWELL. So let me start with the conclusion because I 

have been party over my career—now a pretty long career—to innovation through difficult federal pricing challenges all the way 

to—I now work at a—what by any stretch would be characterized 

as an incredibly innovative university with regard to the conduct 

of higher education, another grand challenge for the United States. 

But the fact is that innovation is a mindset as much as anything 

else. We have the intellectual capacity in the United States, and 

we have—frankly, we have the dollars in the United States. It is 

a mindset. So I will say what you expected me to say. But I think 

the reason that the science community is so international and global is that the science community is driven by the marketplace of 

ideas. We—you know, by curiosity, by discovery, and by the delivery of that curiosity and those discovery principles into things that 

matter. Typically, those really aren’t defined by national boundaries. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you. My time is up, so thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. And I’ll recognize the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Lal—well, let me do it this way first—Mr. Gerstenmaier, am 

I saying that right? In your discussion with Congressman Rohrabacher, you made the statement we absolutely need the benefit of 

low-Earth orbit for deep space. Why is that? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, you’ve kind of heard it from some of 

the other panel members, but it’s very difficult to do research and 

new development around the Moon. Just the transportation costs 

of getting there are much, much higher than they are in low-Earth 

orbit. The cost of doing that activity is much more difficult. Doing 

that development activity in low-Earth orbit is exactly the right 

place to do that, and then you can take that, and after it’s developed, then extend it to the lunar—— 

Mr. WEBER. Right. Okay. So you’re at—I got that. Do you know 

the ISS, what its footprint or its cubic feet is or how big it is? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. It’s roughly the size of a five-bedroom house, 

internal dimensions of—lengthwise, it’s about the size of a football 

field. 

Mr. WEBER. Weight? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Nine hundred thousand pounds. 

Mr. WEBER. Longevity? How long does it last in space? 
60 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. We have studies that shows that it can last 

structurally till 2028 and probably be extended beyond 2028. 

Mr. WEBER. Will it fall to Earth eventually? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. If we don’t re-boost it. Our plan is to either 

deconstruct it, bring it apart in pieces, use those pieces for some 

other application, or deorbit it essentially as a large piece safely 

into the ocean. 

Mr. WEBER. Well, if you deorbit it into the ocean, does most of 

it burn up? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, the majority of it would burn up. Some 

small pieces would probably make the surface. 

Mr. WEBER. Majority—you can keep your mic on for a minute. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. All right, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Majority being—when you say majority would burn 

up—60, 70, 80 percent? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Probably 90 percent or so, maybe even 95 

percent. There are several large structural components. There are 

some large structural titanium pieces and some large aluminum 

structure that probably would make the surface of the Earth based 

on our models. 

Mr. WEBER. But we would still maintain the capability of steering that for lack of a better term into where we wanted it to go? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, we would steer that such that the footprint would be over the Pacific Ocean, and it actually stretches 

multiple miles. We actually look at a descent profile that would 

stretch a couple hundred miles across the ocean of where the debris 

potentially could land. We’ve actually investigated that with some 

of our cargo vehicles. When they return, they also are destructively 

burned up. We have purposely lowered the angle of attack of which 

those vehicles come into the atmosphere to make them shallower, 

similar to what the station would be so we’ll actually know what 

that quantified footprint is so we can enssure that when station is 

destructively reentered, it can not impact any human inhabitants 

on the Earth. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. And Dr.—you can turn your mic off now. 

Dr. Lal, would you say your report essentially ruled out the idea 

of a commercial space station and that we should definitely pursue 

privatization? 

Dr. LAL. Our report ruled out a fully commercially viable station 

as in without any government subsidies, the commercial sector will 

not make any money. 

Mr. WEBER. Is it based on the space station he just described? 

Dr. LAL. Absolutely not. The station that we—that was part of 

our model is about 1/3 the size, 330 cubic meters rather than 930 

cubic meters. 

Mr. WEBER. It’s smaller? 

Dr. LAL. A third the size, and it’s also 1/20 the mass. As I said 

earlier, commercial stations—I mean, you know, space station’s, 

Battlestar Galactica. We—commercial parties may not need that. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Okay. Let me go to Dr. Cantwell. Do you 

think that the difference in operations among different low-Earth 

orbit use cases suggests that a few smaller purposed-built private 

facilities may—a few, more than one—may succeed where a larger 
61 

general-purpose platform is not viable on a purely commercial 

basis? 

Dr. CANTWELL. I’ll attempt to answer that more as an engineer 

if you will go with that. 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Dr. CANTWELL. There are operational requirements which could 

be met by a small number or even a large number of alternative 

platforms. The challenge is the cost of the people who are conducting those experiments on orbit, the launch cost, cost to get the 

scientific material up there and back, so we’ve recommended sort 

of a full-cost assessment of the needed science for this very reason. 

You can then look at can it be conducted in what are established 

as a series of platforms. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. I’m getting really low on time, but let me 

just—so if you had one in a certain orbit—I don’t know how many 

miles that would be—if you expanded the next one above it to 10 

miles, 20 miles further out, would there be benefits obviously in 

having three different layers, for example, of orbits? 

Dr. CANTWELL. There could be for certain science. I would say 

that, again, the massive driver for all of this from a science perspective for human exploration missions is the duration of time in 

microgravity that studies can be conducted and the radiation environment so there would be a difference if you went high enough in 

the radiation environment. 

Mr. WEBER. Are you able to quantify that, the difference in radiation and the different—— 

Dr. CANTWELL. I don’t know that we’ve actually looked at it specifically from that perspective, but the mid-decadal study does 

characterize the radiation studies that are needed. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

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

Mr. CRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BABIN. Certainly. 

Mr. CRIST. And thanks to our witnesses for being here today. 

I was Governor of Florida in the years leading up to the retirement of the Space Shuttle. I remember the apprehension with 

which many throughout our State viewed the end of that program. 

As it turns out, that apprehension was in fact warranted. Not only 

did the loss of the shuttle depress Florida’s economy but it hurt the 

families who worked on the shuttle, as well as those who worked 

in industries supported by the program like tourism. 

Thankfully, Florida’s blessed with the talent to innovate in challenging circumstances, and now, we have a thriving commercial 

space industry to fill that void. However, much like the shuttle, I’m 

sure there will be job losses or realignments as a result of the decommissioning of the space station. 

Mr. Gerstenmaier, what is NASA’s plan for those workers and 

their families who will be affected by the transition? Will there be 

a workforce transition plan for them? And if so, when can we expect to see one? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think as we’ve discussed in our 

transition report, we have some principles laid out for what the 

physical facility would be in space. Then I think after we under-
62 

stand kind of what the concept is we want in space, then we need 

to start working on the terrestrial plans to provide for what you 

describe, to make sure we’ve got a good transition where they may 

be government jobs today, they may be private sector jobs today, 

much as you’ve seen in Florida, that transition occurred. I think we 

could do a better and smoother job of that on the ground. And so 

we can plan for that. 

Same thing as we move into deep space. Some of the detailed engineering, some of the hard sciences, there’s going to be a new demand for new students and new engineers in those areas, and we 

can start bringing those online. So we need to do a phased-in transition and don’t do just a stop and then wait and then figure out 

what the plan is moving forward. So we will do that next step of 

transition planning after we lay out—after I believe we lay out 

kind of our general concept of how we want to do exploration. 

Mr. CRIST. Thank you, sir. My next question is directed to all the 

witnesses. Do you think there will be enough demand to support 

commercial activity in low-Earth orbit following the end of space 

station operations? What are the barriers to generating that demand? And what do you envision will be the primary driver of such 

a market? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I can answer a piece of it. From the NASA 

perspective, I think we have an understanding of what activities 

we’d like to continue to do in low-Earth orbit even beyond the station. So we need a place to train crews, to give them experience of 

operating in space. As Dr. Cantwell talked about, I think we need 

a station to do some research that’s done close to Earth that can 

get there with low transportation costs. That augments what research we could be doing in a Gateway-type of activity around the 

Moon. 

So I think we understand the NASA demand. What we need to 

do is see if the private sector can, on their own, determine some 

demand that they want to have for research activities in space or 

from operations in space that they could get benefit from. Then 

that total combined demand, both government and private sector, 

makes up the plans moving forward. Now, we’re going to ask in 

some studies for exactly that market analysis from companies. 

Dr. LAL. So in our study, the 21 activities we looked at, there 

were three that stood out as having, you know, solid demand behind them. One is optical fiber, exotic fiber, a second one is satellite assembly, and a third one is sovereign astronauts and private 

astronauts, so three that stood out in terms of demand. And with 

respect to the barriers, launch cost is the biggest barrier to a commercially viable space station. 

Dr. CANTWELL. The only thing I would add is that if we have, 

as I believe we should, a continuing research presence in LEO, 

then we will—this is not probably within the next decade, but research tends to pull out new applications that commercial companies are very interested in. And the place that I would really point 

to for the likelihood of that is in materials science. 

Mr. CRIST. Mr. Gerstenmaier, the transition report speaks to the 

importance of the space station and low-Earth orbit to both research entities and the commercial space launch industry. Would 

you please describe NASA’s commitment to ensuring there will not 
63 

be any gap or reduction in continuous crew and cargo access to the 

low-Earth orbit, regardless of platform? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, what we’re looking at is we described—there’s a budget laid out, a commercialization budget that 

starts at $150 million in 2019. That’s laid out to try to see what 

is needed from the private sector in terms of another facility other 

than station or do they want to use space station or do they would 

use some combination of space station and another facility. To service those entities, we’re going to need a commercial launch capability. 

As we talked about activities around the Moon, we don’t need to 

go look at cargo again from a government-only program. We can go 

immediately to cargo for lunar activities at Gateway using commercial providers, so there’s a natural meshing between what we’ve 

done in low-Earth orbit and what can be done around the Moon. 

They can take dramatically less cargo to the Moon, but it still— 

with the rockets they have today, they can get cargo that can be 

substantial for us and needed around the Moon. So I think we will 

take that transportation market we’ve established and figure out 

creative ways to use it both from low-Earth orbit and also for our 

deep space activities. 

Mr. CRIST. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you very much. 

And I’m going to yield myself here five minutes for questions. 

The first one is to you, Mr. Gerstenmaier. There are approximately 1,370 civil servants and 4,725 reportable contractors supporting the ISS program in fiscal year 2018. Many are located in 

my district, at Johnson Space Center in Houston. Yesterday, you 

were asked in the Senate testimony how mission control at Johnson Space Center would be impacted by an ISS transition. You 

stated that NASA’s intent is for mission control being conducted at 

Johnson Space Center for all future HEO programs and that there 

would be no major impact. I would like to ask you to elaborate on 

that for us as well in this hearing. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. What I was alluding to as we talk about the 

Gateway activity around the Moon, that vehicle that will be around 

the Moon that can be in multiple different orbits around the Moon, 

it’s not like a space station. It can be in different orbits. That will 

be commanded and operated from the Johnson Space Center 

through the mission control teams. 

Just as the Johnson Space Center played a critical role in understanding how we do rendezvous and proximity operations in lowEarth orbit, they set all the operating procedures for how that 

would be developed, how we routinely keep crews healthy in lowEarth orbit and those activities. All those things will carry into 

deep space so that fundamental research and analysis that needs 

to be done on how you use the gravity of the Earth and the Moon 

and the sun to maneuver and manipulate around to save propellant, all that will be done by the scientists and researchers at the 

Johnson Space Center. So that first—that pioneering of how we get 

comfortable with keeping humans in deep space, how we learn to 

essentially maneuver and manipulate across the gravity rivers in 

space to other deep space locations, all that will be done by the 

teams at the Johnson Space Center. 
64 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you very much. 

I think, Dr. Lal, first for you, NASA benefits from commercial 

partnerships and can help with a lot of early technical development, but are the medium- to late-stage economic development of 

space the responsibility of NASA, another part of the government, 

or not a government responsibility at all? 

Dr. LAL. That’s a good question. It depends on the particular 

area. In the context of the space station, I think there’s enough experience that this is a transition that can begin to happen. There 

are, you know, companies that have—you know, whose leadership 

has been part of NASA. NASA has learned lessons from the station. NASA is willing to offer expertise through space act agreements and other ways, so this would be an area where there’s potentially less—little enough R&D that it could be outside of the 

government. 

And of course we’re talking about operating a platform. There’s 

also the launch service where we’ve seen that commercial sector 

can do a pretty good job. And on the user base, again, NASA is 

working on developing R&D—users of R&D in commercial areas or 

even universities where things can move forward without government support. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. And then should the—and this is 

for all of you. Should the United States commit to maintaining a 

human presence—commit to it, whether public, private, whether 

permanent or periodic—in low-Earth orbit? Mr. Gerstenmaier, you 

first. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think there is— 

Mr. BABIN. Yes or no? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. I think there’s a need for us to stay in lowEarth orbit as we go beyond low-Earth orbit. So, again, I think as 

you described fairly clearly at the beginning, it’s not an either/or 

situation. I think we need to do both and we need to figure out a 

way to accomplish both. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, let me follow up with you while you’ve 

got the mic. If the United States doesn’t maintain a presence in 

light of Chinese plans for a LEO space station as early as 2022, 

are we ceding U.S. leadership? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think we can still maintain leadership into deep space activities. There would be some potential damage if we relied on another entity for operations in low-Earth orbit. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then, I’ll tell you what, I’ll go to Dr. Cantwell next and then if I have time, Dr. Lal. Should the United 

States commit to maintaining a human presence, whether public, 

private, permanent, or periodic in low-Earth orbit? Dr. Cantwell 

very quickly? 

Dr. CANTWELL. I think the opinion of my community and my personal opinion is yes, and the reason is that it is the most accessible 

location with which to do research of interest, and it is the least 

expensive. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. 

Dr. CANTWELL. So we can do—we can get answers to our questions and discover new things faster— 

Mr. BABIN. All right. Thank you. 

Dr. CANTWELL. —if we have LEO presence. 
65 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. Dr. Lal? 

Dr. LAL. Robert Heinlein said, ‘‘low-Earth orbit is halfway to anywhere.’’ I agree with him. We absolutely need to have low-Earth 

orbit presence. It doesn’t have to be government-led. We need it for 

R&D on Earth, we need it for R&D for the future, and we need it 

to be as the Gateway to the rest of the solar system. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that 

exhausts my time, so the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, and I want to thank the Committee for holding this important hearing. 

I hail from Connecticut, and we actually do in my State provide 

life support services for ISS. We have a long-time commitment 

around space. 

Research aboard the International Space Station is critical to our 

journey to Mars, and an important aspect of that research will help 

us develop countermeasures, the harsh environments astronauts 

will be facing during long periods of spaceflight. 

And earlier last year, I met with Captain Mark Kelly and discussed with him the important research with his twin brother and 

the effects that we’re beginning to understand about even a relatively short—compared to what we’re talking about for a Mars 

mission—experience and exposure to microgravity. 

In Connecticut, the NASA Connecticut Space Grant Consortium 

has a awarded a grant to undergraduate students in our State to 

carry out a project called the Effect of Microgravity on Nanoparticle-Cellular Interaction, which aims to research the effects of 

microgravity on human health. And this project will use an imaging procedure to look at nanoparticles and their interaction with 

proteins in human cells and freeze them for—in time to then capture images and assess them later. 

Now, a lot of us are concerned about what’s happening about the 

wind down of ISS, and really, Mr. Gerstenmaier, for you first, will 

the essential ISS research and development needed to enable deep 

space human space exploration have been accomplished by 2025? 

And is NASA equipped to stay on track to complete a checklist of 

countermeasures on microgravity in that time period? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Our current timelines show that we can 

complete the majority of activities by 2025. There’s not much margin in activities. And then also I think there could—potentially is 

a need for some continued research for long-duration periods even 

beyond the 2025 time frame. 

Ms. ESTY. Do you have thoughts of how we’re going to achieve 

that? Because once we don’t have ISS, we don’t have any good 

mechanism for studying that. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, as I think we’ve discussed at this 

hearing, we look for commercial platforms that can be an avenue 

to go take a look in those investigations. And we also have a need 

to understand some things needed to go beyond the Earth-Moon 

system, so the Gateway that we talk about, another facility around 

the Moon, we think that also has application now to look at some 

animal models for the radiation environment around the Moon, et 

cetera, that will help us understand what the environment is and 

countermeasures for that period. So I think we have a continued 

need for research activities in space. 
66 

Ms. ESTY. Well, I think it’s going to be very important for Congress and this Committee to be kept apprised of that timetable, 

and that’s part of our concern frankly when we had the NASA reauthorization without having even reviewed the report about how 

that transition is going to go from the end of ISS. 

A number of us are part of the newly formed Planetary Caucus 

in Congress, and we met last week and interacted with stakeholders and experienced groups. And one of the issues they raised 

was the important and often under-attended-to aspect of cooperation between nations that’s occurred because of ISS, something that 

there is absolutely no—as far as I can tell—any indication that 

that is likely to happen as part of commercial endeavors. Would 

any of you care to talk about that as we are one sole planet—as 

somebody mentioned last week, we have no planet B. 

So part of the value of ISS it seems to me has been the importance of having scientists working across countries, which are not 

always friendly on all other terms, but maintaining that level of 

human space exploration, human exploration. And if any of you 

would care to comment on that because that’s one of those pieces, 

again, not clearly in the jurisdiction of this committee but clearly 

in the importance and interest of the American people and this 

government and part of the planning frankly. 

If we’re winding down ISS, how are we going to be dealing with 

intercountry cooperation on this incredibly important human endeavor? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think the space station has shown 

us that we can work together as an international community despite government challenges between us. And I think the challenge 

of human spaceflight, the challenge of putting humans in space 

and keeping them alive and keeping them safe draws us together 

and allows us to work together as a community that probably can’t 

be accomplished in any other way. 

And the ISS partnership is tremendously strong. It has built 

international standards for new hardware and new equipment, 

which will allow any country, no matter how small they are, to 

build new hardware for deep space activities. 

We’ve also worked with the international community for the 

Orion service module. That’s the system that propels the Orion in 

deep space that’s being built by the European Space Agency. So we 

put them in a critical path for our human activities. So you’re already seeing a start to carry forward on the ISS experience into 

deep space. 

And I think, as was discussed earlier here in this hearing, that 

any future activities in deep space will be an international activity, 

and that’s only because station has shown that that’s a viable way 

of cooperating and working together. 

Ms. ESTY. I do think the concern, though, is if we don’t have 

something in the interim, ISS drops out, we don’t yet have the 

longer-term projects, and then we’re left in the interim with commercial space, individual countries moving forward, and I think 

that’s an under-attended-to issue. 

I know my time is expired, but that’s something we haven’t really been talking about and was really present with longtime partners last week saying this doesn’t get discussed enough about the 
67 

importance for the standards but frankly for this being a human 

endeavor that we engage in together. 

Thank you very much, and I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you. I now call on the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, panel members, 

thank you for appearing before us today. 

The human presence in low-Earth orbit is crucial as we advance 

exploration to the Moon and beyond. And I’m concerned about the 

way monies are invested in low-Earth orbit research. My research 

indicates that roughly 60 percent of the total operating cost for the 

International Space Station is transportation to and from the station. Dr. Cantwell, is that true? 

Dr. CANTWELL. I think I might—I am probably not the best person to ask about transportation costs, but I believe Dr. Lal has actually looked at this in her study. 

Dr. LAL. So, I mean, today, NASA—the ISS budget, I think $1 billion is operations and management and $1.7 billion is transportation, crew and cargo, so, yes, sounds about right. 

Mr. HIGGINS. All right. So the need for research is crucial as we 

look to the future for human presence in space, lunar orbit, lunar 

surface, Mars exploration, et cetera. And a great deal of this research can be conducted for those missions to be successful in lowEarth orbit, and our goal as this body and this Committee is to encourage the dollars to be invested in actual research. What can we 

do to decrease the expense of transportation to and from the research which absorbs so much of these dollars? 

NASA is not currently confident that private-sector capabilities 

have matured enough to satisfy NASA’s needs and requirements 

for low-Earth orbit operations. Is that true, Dr. Cantwell? 

Dr. CANTWELL. Again, this is what we heard from Mr. 

Gerstenmaier a little bit earlier today. I would say this is the concern of the science community, and it is not a concern in the sense 

that our hair is on fire. It is a concern that, as we look at the multiplicity of options for reducing the costs to the U.S. Government 

of launch and carrying things to and from whatever LEO objects 

we have, that the science community is part and parcel of those 

considerations. 

Mr. HIGGINS. So what steps should NASA and private industry 

take to reduce these costs to ensure the efficient commercial use of 

the ISS or whatever next-generation low-Earth orbit governmentfunded program in the post-ISS era? What steps can we take that 

we’re not doing right now? Anyone? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, I think we’re pursuing these steps as 

fast as we can. We’re working right now with commercial crew, 

right? Probably within one year we’ll have two providers being able 

to carry crew to low-Earth orbit. As we think to the future beyond 

low-Earth orbit, we think transportation is clearly a key driver, so 

we want to make sure there’s not unique systems, that the systems 

used for low-Earth orbit can be basically the same systems used for 

deep space. 

We also think that the past model where we have lots of disposable hardware that we use, for example, in the Apollo program if 
68 

we can use the Gateway where it now enables—t here’s a piece of 

infrastructure that allows reusability in space. We might be able 

to actually even use some upper stages from the rockets as part of 

the components used to build facilities in space. If we start looking 

for creative ways where we— 

Mr. HIGGINS. Excellent. That’s creative thought. 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —utilize pieces— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That’s what the Committee—— 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. —we can lower some costs. 

Mr. HIGGINS. —was hoping to hear. 

Dr. Gerstenmaier, by 2024, regarding the ISS, several components of the ISS will be nearly 26 years old, twice as long as its 

expected lifespan. Should NASA and other U.S. commercial entities 

remain on the current ISS under a modified program? What safety 

concerns do you have regarding the aging components of the ISS, 

and what measures should be taken by either NASA or private industry to ensure continued safe operation? 

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Yes, we continually monitor all these systems on board space station, and we routinely change them out as 

time is needed. We’ve upgraded all the computer systems on board 

space station. As recently as yesterday, we did a spacewalk, and 

what we did with that spacewalk is we located some pump packages in a region where they can now be changed by robotic activities on station. So if one of these pump systems goes down or 

breaks, we don’t have to do an emergency spacewalk with crews. 

These are now positioned in a location where we can replace that 

pump that failed robotically from the ground and restore full 

functionality of the station. 

So the teams are continually looking forward to figure out ways 

that they can lower the risk, understanding the components may 

break and they may fail. We’ll have replacement components on 

board. We’ll have staffing or spares available to go replace those 

components as needed and upgrade as needed. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you for your very thorough answer. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you. And this concludes our hearing 

today. I want to thank each and every one of you excellent witnesses. We really appreciate it, and the great questions from our 

Members up here. 

The record will remain open for two weeks for additional written 

comments and written questions from Members. 

So with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. William Gerstenmaier 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

Responses by Dr. Bhavya Lal 
76 
77 

Responses by Dr. Elizabeth R. Cantwell 
78 
79 
80 
81 

(83) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
84 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

LAMAR S. SMITH
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

Æ