NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL USERS' ADVISORY GROUP NOVEMBER 1 5, 201 8 

NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL 

USERS' ADVISORY GROUP 

November 15, 2018 

NASA Headquarters 

Washington, DC 

MEETING MINUTES 

Adm. James Ellis (USN, Ret.), Chair 

Mr. Brandon Eden, Executive Secretary 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group 

NASA Headquarters 

300 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 

Minutes of the Second Meeting 

November 15, 2018 

Table of Contents 

Call to Order, Announcements 3 

Opening Remarks 3 

Welcome and NASA update 4 

Exploration & Discovery Subcommittee Report 6 

National Security Subcommittee Report 7 

Economic Development/Industrial Base Subcommittee Report 8 

Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Report 8 

Outreach & Education Subcommittee Report 9 

Space Policy & International Engagement Subcommittee Report 9 

National Space Exploration Campaign Brief 10 

Space Studies Board Brief: Science prioritization at the U.S. National 12 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

National Security Space: organization, technology, and policy 13 

Full UAG discussion 14 

Public Comment Period 15 

Adjournment 15 

Appendix A Agenda 16 

Appendix B Committee Membership 18 

Appendix C Meeting Attendees 20 

Appendix D List of Presentations 23 

Meeting Report prepared by 

Mary Beth Saffo 

Zantech 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Call to Order, Announcements 

Adm. James Ellis called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM, and welcomed UAG members, other 

attendees, and remote listeners to the second meeting of the UAG of the National Space 

Council. Mr. Brandon Eden noted that the UAG is a federal advisory committee chartered in 

December 2017, designed to advise the National Space Council. Members of the UAG are 

appointed by the NASA Administrator. Meetings are open to members of the public, who can 

dial into the meeting via Web-X; minutes are for the public record, and white papers created by 

UAG subcommittees will be posted online. Mr. Eden reminded public listeners that they cannot 

comment until the end of the meeting. 

UAG members undergo mandatory ethics training and must recuse themselves if they have any 

conflicts of interest with the issues at hand. UAG members with questions about ethics issues 

should consult Mr. Eden, who will put members in touch with the ethics attorney. 

Opening Remarks 

Adm. Ellis announced that members of the UAG presented a report of their first meeting to the 

National Space Council on October 23, 2018. The UAG was created to maximize the 

conversation between NASA and space stakeholders. This November 15 meeting is the 2nd 

public meeting of the UAG conducted under National Space Council guidelines. 

Adm. Ellis noted that he is looking forward to active interaction between the speakers and 

members of the UAG. 

He expressed his appreciation for the efforts of UAG members, especially for their 

contributions to the work of the subcommittees, whose goals are the main focus of this meeting. 

He reminded members that the chief aim of the meeting is to devise a prioritized list of goals 

for each subcommittee. In their respective presentations, each subcommittee chair will make a 

pitch for the importance of his or her subcommittee’s agenda, followed by commentary among 

the members about that proposed agenda. The expectation is not necessarily unanimous opinion 

about subcommittee goals and activities, but thoughtful contributions to and enrichment of the 

conversation about those goals. Adm. Ellis will forward the results of these conversations to Dr. 

Scott Pace (Executive Secretary of the National Space Council) for review; the group should 

expect further guidance from him. 

One of the mandated roles for the UAG is outreach. Since the June meeting, several members 

have elected to attend several space-related meetings: the American Institute of Aeronautics 

and Astronautics (AIAA) Space and Astronautics Forum in Orlando, Florida (September 

2018); the International Astronautical Congress (Bremen, October 2018); the Wernher von 

Braun Memorial Symposium of the American Astronautical Society (Huntsville, October 

2018); the Symposium on Space Innovation (Georgia Tech, Nov. 2018); and more. Adm. Ellis 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

encouraged members to speak at public meetings such as these, and to notify the chair of the 

education and outreach subcommittee, Col. Eileen Collins, about any invitations. The education 

and outreach subcommittee can provide UAG members with slides to use in their presentations. 

From the beginning of the space program, there has been a tradeoff between space exploration 

and terrestrial needs; and between science and security interests. The national security of the 

United States has always been inextricably linked to space; and in the last 6 decades, our 

reliance on space has increased. President John Kennedy was not the first to draw analogies 

between oceans and space: “astronaut” literally means “star sailor.” But a key difference 

between maritime and space exploration is time. Maritime law has evolved over centuries. In 

space, however, rapid technical progress has outpaced the evolution of policy regarding its use; 

and the construction of infrastructure has not been matched by supporting policy protections. 

Filling the policy gap is a crucial and urgent need. If done well, thoughtful policy can meet real 

needs and promote international stability; but poorly crafted policies can exacerbate tensions. 

National security and stability in space and on earth demand the development of a strong policy 

framework to guide international exploration and utilization of space. 

Welcome and NASA update 

The NASA administrator, Jim Bridenstine, solicited questions from UAG members. Answering 

Adm. Ellis’ question about the differences in the developmental timeline between the early 

space program and the present, Mr. Bridenstine noted the tradeoff between going back to the 

Moon as soon as possible and building a sustainable architecture that will allow astronauts to 

travel back and forth to the Moon in perpetuity. NASA is building an international partnership 

for its Moon program, and it is asking both the U.S. government and others to step up in a 

bigger way. 

Current plans include a target date of 2021 for launch of the power and propulsion element 

(PPE) of the lunar Gateway, a planned space station-like vehicle in high lunar orbit; 2023 for 

the habitation module; and continuing tests (2019 onward) of the Space Launch System (SLS) 

and Orion for human space travel to and beyond the Moon. The success of current programs is 

essential for surmounting the several challenges of this ambitious program. 

Noting that the program and budget are well-defined, General Lester Lyles asked how the UAG 

could help NASA in resolving any difficulties that may arise. Mr. Bridenstine noted the 

usefulness of the fact that the UAG is not merely NASA-specific, but an interagency group, 

because almost every agency in the government has relevance to space. Space initiatives are a 

source of soft power, economic power, and international good will. One cannot underestimate 

the impact, for instance, of schoolchildren witnessing long-term cooperation between Russian 

and US astronauts. A sustainable presence on the Moon also requires a commercial presence. 

NASA is not a regulator; instead, it benefits from a commercial industry that does live under a 

regulatory environment. Expressions of concern by governmental officials that commercial 

enterprises might not have the authority to work on human habitation can put a chill on 

fundraising for this initiative. Space Policy Directive 2 is a promising fresh start in easing 

regulations for commercial use of space. But congressional laws and regulations are still needed 

to facilitate the integration of NASA with commercial companies. It is useful that Gen. Lyles is 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

also chair of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). But with its interagency reach, the UAG can 

also go beyond the aegis of the NAC. 

Dr. Harrison Schmitt asked whether NASA had funding reserves to be able to maintain the 

timeline independent of variations in congressional appropriations and to protect against 

unexpected future issues that might require additional funding. “Funding,” Mr. Bridenstine 

replied, "is always in question.” As chair of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on 

Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, Rep. John Culberson has been a strong 

champion of NASA, but he will not be returning to Congress in 2019. All governmental 

agencies have been asked to plan for the possibility of a 5 percent budget cut; a 5 percent cut at 

NASA would make it impossible to go to the Moon. Cutting other NASA programs to maintain 

funding for the Moon program will lose Congressional support. If NASA is allowed to become 

a partisan institution, it will lose in the long term. 

Dr. Buzz Aldrin noted that the space program has now become more international than it was in 

earlier decades. He suggested that NASA needs an independent, international space corporation 

in DC that would include commercial partners as well as aerospace entities from other countries 

such as China and Russia. The Aerospace Corporation, which is already advising the Johnson 

Space Center, could also be brought in to advise the UAG and/or the National Space Council. 

Adm. Ellis summarized Dr. Aldrin’s remarks with a question: How could we think about an 

organizational structure that might allow inputs of that sort? 

In reply, Mr. Bridenstine noted that NASA is already evaluating how to organize itself for 

Moon-to-Mars policy (Space Policy Directive #1). For a project of this scope, it is appropriate 

to have a mission directorate focused explicitly on the Moon with an eye to Mars. As NASA 

continues to seek funds for increased budgets in an uncertain congressional climate, it will 

emphasize in its budget proposals the difference between the costs of regular operations and 

new initiatives. Noting the need for sustained funding, Mr. Dennis Muilenburg (Boeing) 

suggested that NASA could build a congressional coalition of space support by dovetailing 

space initiatives with initiatives in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics) education (already broadly supported in Congress) as a way to gain new 

congressional advocates. The UAG could assist this effort by bringing together different 

segments of industry and government to emphasize the connections between STEM and space 

initiatives. 

Mr. Bridenstine agreed, affirming the impact of milestone achievements in space on young 

students, and stating the need for positive achievements to influence the next generation. Ms. 

Marilyn Hewson (Lockheed Martin) asked for thoughts on alternatives to the current Gateway 

plan. She noted the UAG recommendations for an early Gateway, using Orion and other 

existing programs with only minor modifications to the current NASA plan, to facilitate a return 

to the Moon by 2024-5. Mr. Bridenstine replied that he was in favor of any plan that would 

allow NASA to accelerate its schedule, especially if it can be done without budgetary impact. 

The first requirement is implementation of the PPE, since the program would require that 

NASA land more rovers and more landers than ever before. A program limited merely to a 

space station orbiting the Moon is not enough. Open architecture is a key to success, so that 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

other countries can be encouraged to use Gateway as a tool, and deployment of the PPE is a 

crucial first step. Dr. Aldrin recommended that parallel teams be enlisted to develop the PPE 

and habitation modules simultaneously. Solar electric propulsion (SEP) is highly efficient for 

transport of cargo, water, and everything else. 

Col Collins asked how the UAG could help in resolving the problem of space debris. Mr. 

Bridenstine agreed that space debris is a big problem, and NASA is only one of many agencies 

addressing the problem. Making space safe for generations to come should be a top priority of 

global space programs. At the current launch cadence, it is anticipated that trackable satellite 

collisions (such as the 2009 Iridium-Cosmos collision) are likely to be repeated every 5–9 years, 

in addition to many more that are not trackable. Each of these collisions not only disable 

satellite networks, but also generate physically and chemically dangerous debris; and the 

problem continues to increase as more and more countries launch satellites, each entity with 

differing degrees of attention to safety issues. Management of satellite traffic is urgently 

needed, but NASA cannot manage this alone. There needs to be a civilian space-traffic agency – 

a space equivalent of the FAA to provide information on satellite positions (“Space Situational 

Awareness” or SSA) and to manage satellite traffic (STM, Satellite/Space Traffic Management). 

Just as the FAA has set the international standard for international air traffic, the U.S. needs to 

lead the way in managing satellite traffic. The possibility for hundreds of people living and 

working in low-earth orbit (LEO) will be at risk if the U.S. does not move immediately to 

develop a strong system for satellite traffic management. There needs to be a civilian agency to 

carry out these tasks, and information should be available to the public. The Department of 

Commerce will be the department responsible for implementation of Space Directive 3: SSA 

and STM. Administrator Bridenstine suggested that Commerce need not replicate an FAA for 

space, but rather license the satellite traffic information to industry for its use. In order to obtain 

a license, a commercial operator will need to prove to Commerce that they have a system for 

SSA/STM, and that they comply with regulations. 

Noting the inspiring science that has emerged from the unmanned Mars vehicles, including the 

scheduled November 26 Mars landing of the InSight, Admiral Ellis asked Administrator 

Bridenstine for his thoughts on future NASA priorities for science vs. human exploration. Mr. 

Bridenstine reiterated his earlier statement that his charge is to keep NASA apolitical and 

bipartisan and that he is committed to following NAS (National Academy of Sciences) 

guidance. He added that the NASA is constrained by its budget, can’t therefore always carry out 

every item of the NAS-recommended agenda. 

In response to a question from Ms. Mandy Vaughn (VOX Launch) about security concerns, Mr. 

Bridenstine replied that there will be more transparency in space, whether we want it or not. It is 

more and more difficult to keep things classified; there are now more sensors, more tracking 

capability, and more situational awareness than ever before, especially for low and medium 

orbits, which are also the most dangerous. Moreover, over-classification has been problematic, 

especially with respect to licensing for remote sensing. If a commercial satellite operator is 

denied a license from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) because of a 

last-minute problem, that operator will just take its business to another country. Several 

concerns need to be taken into account. It is not just a matter of military power; decisions need 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

to take into consideration all aspects of American power. 

Exploration & Discovery Subcommittee Report (Lester Lyles, Chair) 

Gen. Lyles, the subcommittee chair, reported that the subcommittee has focused on the 

alignment of the current U.S. program with the goals of Space Directives 1,2, and 3. Ideally, 

there should be a balance between science and space exploration, because science and human 

exploration enhance each other. The committee is also exploring alternatives to lunar lander 

development and architecture. The subcommittee met most recently on Nov. 9, by 

teleconference. 

To gather ideas on how the current program might be revised, the subcommittee has been 

collecting white papers from many sources; it has also conducted discussions with the NASA 

Advisory Council and the Space Science Board of the National Academies of Science and 

Engineering (NAS, NAE). 

Gen. Lyles offered several examples of the issues discussed by his subcommittee: 

1. There is a need for a resilient space “architecture” (used in the broadest sense of the term, to 

include all aspects of mission design) that is safe, fast, and sustainable for the entire Lunar to 

Mars exploration missions. The committee has considered alternatives to the current Gateway, 

such as an “early Gateway” that could be implemented incrementally and “grow as we get 

smarter.” Adm. Ellis asked how methods of risk assessment might change now that the 

presence of more players precludes a vertically integrated process. Dr. Eric Schmidt noted that 

risk is inherent to space travel; risk can be managed, but not eliminated. If safety is the primary 

focus, it will be difficult to make progress. 

2. The subcommittee has also discussed the balance between exploration and discovery in future 

space missions, including the ways which exploration can enable science. Gen. Lyles noted the 

great potential for science breakthroughs over the next decade 

3. Other discussion topics have included reform of the acquisition process; security clearance 

issues; policy and regulation barriers; and coordination with the technology and innovation 

subcommittee of the UAG. Adm. Ellis commented that, while duplication of effort and 

conflicting agendas should be minimized, some overlap between committees is useful, in that 

each subcommittee brings an independent perspective to larger issues at hand. 

National Security Subcommittee Report (James Ellis, chair) 

On Nov. 14, the subcommittee held an in-person classified session for review of national security 

space programs. A key challenge for incorporating resilience and interoperability into space 

programs is protection of national security while increasing cooperation, coordination, and 

information exchange. Ironically, interoperability actually has the potential to increase security. 

Adm. Ellis identified several priorities for this subcommittee: 

1. Readiness: the ability of the United States to deter or defeat threats and the use of force in 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

space. 

2. Strategy: assessment of governmental strategies to address national security challenges in the 

space environment. This assessment has to be a collective effort, since the question involves 

several governmental agencies, not just NASA. 

3. Planning: integration of space capabilities into the U.S. national security plans. 

4. Space protection: accelerating the capability to safeguard national security in space; 

assessment of tactics, techniques, and procedures, including decision-making procedures. 

In answer to Mr. Muilenburg’s question about the interaction of the Space Force with NASA, 

Adm. Ellis replied that that relationship needs to be explored as the subcommittee discusses 

space protection. Dr. Aldrin noted that, while the U.S. needs to defend its assets, the American 

people view the space force as aggressive; he also pointed out the potential for accidental as well 

as intentional conflict. 

Economic Development/Industrial Base Subcommittee Report 

(Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar and Mr. Eric Stallmer, Subcommittee Co-Chairs) 

The subcommittee has held two teleconferences to develop a preliminary plan. Members have 

identified three topics of special focus, for which the first two had unanimous support: 

1. Recommendations for accelerating economic development in projects involving low earth 

orbit and cis-lunar space, including the International Space Station. 

2. Development of a framework for applying contracting mechanisms to public-private 

partnerships and other transaction agreements in space. Members expressed a need for more 

industry input into the contract process, as well as more transparency, greater efficiency, and 

overall regulatory reform. 

3. Development of recommendations to strengthen and expand the overall U.S .industrial base 

and infrastructure. 

Broad challenges include implementation of mechanisms for handling overlap of economic 

interests and a number of spectrum-related issues, including especially the relation between 

satellite (space) and 5G (terrestrial) networks. Echoing the comments of several other UAG 

members on the broad importance of spectrum issues, both within and beyond the UAG, Adm. 

Ellis suggested the creation of a “virtual” committee, made up of representatives from each 

subcommittee, to address the ramifications of spectrum issues for National Space Council 

concerns. Co-chair Stallmer mentioned that the subcommittee is gathering a set of white papers 

on the subject. 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Report (Col. Pamela Melroy, Chair) 

The two goals of this subcommittee are: 

1. To review new technologies, new applications of technology, and business innovation 

practices and models. 

2. To make recommendations relevant to new technology and business innovation on national 

policy, technology, and operations architectures, and to inter-department and agency 

coordination. 

The agenda of this subcommittee includes: 

1. Evaluating the relative merits of the U.S. government collecting its own data directly, 

compared to buying data commercially. A first focus will be Space Situational Awareness, 

because of its relevance to Space Policy Directive-3 and the National STM Policy. 

2. Assessing the balance between performance-based regulations that encourage innovation 

compared to standardization of technology. 

3. Developing a list of game-changing technologies. 

4. Conducting a review of the space technology roadmap: review the space technology roadmaps 

of various governmental agencies to reveal synergies, overlaps, and inconsistencies, for better 

alignment of national policy. 

In evaluating the merits of commercial vs. government-acquired data, Adm. Ellis asked whether 

the subcommittee had considered the possibility that all commercial databases are not necessarily 

comparable to each other with respect to accuracy or size. Col. Melroy acknowledged that this is 

an important question, and one that will be considered by the subcommittee; she also added that 

data quantity is a quality all its own. 

In a concern also echoed by Gen. Lyles (who pointed out the importance of working with the 

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board at the National Academies), Mr. Muilenburg stressed 

that the interface between the aeronautical and space sides of these questions is blurry, and that 

the relevant agencies and companies need to communicate effectively with each other on their 

many common concerns. Adm. Ellis once again noted the importance of not duplicating effort; 

the UAG need not take full ownership of this topic, given the myriad backup organizations 

within the US government. 

Outreach & Education Subcommittee Report (Col. Eileen Collins, Chair) 

Education is important to strengthen the technical expertise of the United States and to maintain 

U.S. prestige in space science and technology. Outreach to commercial and government and 

citizen stakeholders is also essential to ensure that the Space Council has access to information 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

on the conditions that contribute to strong US leadership in space. To that end, therefore, he 

committee plans to chronicle communication between subcommittee members and the 

stakeholder community. 

The subcommittee has two specific foci: 

1. To address the shortage of U.S. home-grown engineers, specifically to improve the high (40– 

60%) dropout rate of 1st year engineering students. To address this situation, the committee 

plans to reach out to university leaders and professors on innovative ways to attract and retain 

engineering students. The committee also plans to encourage the commercial sector to support 

innovative ways to support K-12 students and teachers in space-related educational subjects, 

with emphasis on rural schools that may have scant access to university and technology 

resources. A new initiative could be modeled after the 1958 National Defense Authorization Act, 

which boosted science education, and increased the numbers of engineers and mathematics and 

engineering teachers nationwide. 

Among the challenges to be addressed are financial support for students majoring in STEM, 

retention of science teachers, and outreach to rural and disadvantaged urban schools, as well as 

to high-achieving public and private schools. 

2. Space education contract incentives: NASA is currently doing a good job of involving related 

government agencies and public participation in their grand challenges program, which have 

included such themes as asteroids (2015) and urban-air mobility (2018). The subcommittee plans 

to work with the NASA Advisory Council to improve communication and outreach efforts. 

Space Policy & International Engagement Subcommittee Report (Dr. David Wolf, Chair) 

In space, Dr. Wolf said, there is a loss of a sense of borders and differences that provides an 

opportunity now to set the tone for constructive international engagement long into the future. 

International crews on space stations provide a model for international cooperation elsewhere: 

despite cultural differences, space-station crews manage to work together seamlessly, even when 

relationships between their respective countries are tense on earth. The space program can 

simultaneously achieve both U.S.-specific interests and U.S. leadership in international 

cooperation. 

The subcommittee has two main goals: 

1. To ensure that the interests of industry and other non-federal entities involved in aeronautical 

and space activities are adequately represented. 

2. To review and develop recommendations for the U.S. space enterprise and potential U.S. and 

international space treaties, laws, policies, and practices. 

Among its specific activities, the subcommittee is examining the existing laws and regulations on 

space policy for inconsistencies or obsolete content. It is also evaluating approaches to 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

advance U.S. space policy in appropriate international venues, such as the U.N. Committee on 

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. 

Should international partnerships be pursued primarily for direct space benefit or as opportunities 

to advance US foreign policy, strategy, or other objectives? Are there strategic relationships with 

particular international partners or practices that would benefit from focus on a specific problem 

such as space situational awareness, threat detection, or asset protection? Are there models for 

international collaboration and cooperation beyond traditional bilateral or multilateral treaties? 

An effective relationship has to benefit all sides and must acknowledge that space is necessarily 

a global enterprise. 

UAG members discussed possible models for creating international collaborations and the 

political and logistical challenges to such collaborations. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty is the 

sole operating space treaty to date. Mr. Fatih Ozmen (Sierra Nevada Corporation) and others 

offered maritime treaties, including the Law of the Sea convention, as possible models. 

Dr. Schmidt noted that the Moon treaty would be a disaster if it prevented all development. Adm. 

Ellis reminded the UAG that there are also treaty proposals from outside the United States and 

that the reaction of the United States to those proposals will have consequences. 

National Space Exploration Campaign Brief (Tom Cremins, Acting NASA Chief of Staff & 

Associate Administrator for Strategy and Plans) 

The nature of space exploration, said Mr. Cremins, has changed over time. Unlike its beginnings 

six decades ago, today’s space program – “Space 2.0” –is now populated by hundreds of 

international and commercial actors. The goals of SPD-1 emerge directly from this climate, with 

the United States, expressly in concert with international and commercial partners, leading the 

return of humans to the Moon. This first visit of humans on the Moon since the 1970’s is an 

important opportunity to highlight US leadership and to create a positive future for our planet 

and for civilization. 

The campaign involves at least three of the four mission directorates of NASA, including 

Science, Space Technology, and Human Exploration and Operations. It also will demand 

reshaping of the NASA workforce and infrastructure and substantive partnerships with other 

government agencies. Balancing the goals of a sustained presence on the Moon with human 

exploration of Mars, NASA settled on the cis-lunar campaign as the overall strategy, with an 

initial focus on development of cis-lunar infrastructure and exploration, followed by Mars as the 

horizon goal. 

The National Exploration Campaign has five goals: 

1. Transition U.S. human spaceflight in LEO to commercial operations that support NASA and 

the needs of an emerging commercial economy. 

2. Lead the emplacement of capabilities that support lunar surface operations and facilitate 

missions beyond cis-lunar space. 

11 
 

 

 

 

. 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

3. Foster scientific discovery and characterization of lunar resources through a series of robotic 

missions. 

4. Return U.S. astronauts to the surface of the Moon for a sustained campaign of exploration and 

utilization. 

5. Demonstrate on the Moon the capabilities required for human missions to Mars and other 

destinations. 

Low-earth orbit and the International Space Station (ISS): Already, more than 103 nations and 

40 companies have participated in the ISS, and more than 30 commercial payload facilities have 

operated on the ISS through the National Lab. There will be two unique crew vehicle designs 

flying to the ISS in 2019. The launch of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule will be a gamechanger, both 

with the addition of a second space vehicle and with the advent of fee-paying customers. Unlike 

earlier Moon landings, NASA will operate more as an orchestra leader of multiple partners rather 

than the sole actor. 

Cis-lunar space is a resource in itself, and an ideal mission aggregation location. It is only 3-5 

days away from Earth, yet still farther than the distance traveled by Apollo. It provides access to 

local resources (volatiles, gravity, and sunlight), it has a benign orbital debris environment, and it 

is also accessible by NASA, commercial, and international launch systems. 

At the same time, it offers a true deep space radiation environment, to allow tests for later travel 

to Mars and beyond. 

The solar-electric propulsion (SEP)-powered Gateway module will serve as a hub and homeport 

for short-term human habitation, human transfer to and from the lunar surface, communications, 

cargo re-supply, and human and robotic travel to farther destinations. The lunar return will build 

on the recent explosion of scientific knowledge, which has transformed the Moon from a 

caricature of a dry, inert planet to one known to have water at the poles, platinum deposits, and 

other features of important scientific and commercial potential. 

Lunar vehicles will have a 3-stage architecture with potential for incorporation into multi-use 

systems and potential international and commercial partnering opportunities: 

1. An ascent element: a reusable, refuellable module, based at Gateway, designed to carry a crew 

of four. 

2. A descent element that provides descent propulsion and serves as a cargo lander. 

3. A transfer vehicle that transfers ascent and descent elements from Gateway orbit to lower orbit 

for landing, with the potential for reusability. 

Equipment will be introduced and tested in phases, with a target date of 2028 for human return to 

the lunar surface. 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

NASA is well-poised to reap the potential for long-term scientific investigation and human 

exploration not only of the Moon, but also of Mars, where scientific knowledge has been 

expanding in parallel with that of the Moon. The Mars 2020 rover, to be launched in July 2020, 

will be able to store soil and rock samples. NASA and the European Space Agency are working 

on ways to retrieve the samples and return them to Earth. 

Funding this ambitious program is challenging, both because of the amount of money involved, 

and because the needs are long-term: from the perspective of annual congressional funding 

cycles and short-term news cycles, a 2028 lunar landing date seems very far off. Industrial 

partnerships will be an essential supplement to NASA budget appropriations. 

In answer to a question about the possibility of an accelerated schedule, Mr. Cremins replied 

that, despite advances on the robotic side, there is still a long way to go. With few exceptions, 

developmental cycles run on 10-to-13-year scales, and NASA cannot expect the same level of 

funding that it received in the 1960’s. Dr. Schmidt commented that there needs to be a greater 

sense of urgency to this mission. Space Launch System (SLS) rockets should be launching every 

few months, as with the Apollo/Saturn program, he said, instead of the current rate of one launch 

every two years. He noted that NASA learned a lot from Apollo and hoped that NASA would 

evaluate all the options for expediting the development cycle. Otherwise, he said, a competitor 

might change that sense of urgency for us. Mr. Cremins emphasized that NASA does feel acute 

urgency about relying solely on Russian vehicles; it is for that reason that NASA’s commercial 

alliances are important. 

Dr. Cheng asked about plans for exploration of the dark side and the poles of the Moon; Mr. 

Cremins replied that NASA has a lot of interest in exploring those areas, and the Gateway 

module will provide a means for constant communication even from the dark side. 

Dr. Aldrin stated, for the record, that he was opposed to Gateway, and felt that a direct Earthlunar trip, without an intermediate orbit, made more sense. Dr. Schmidt expressed concern with 

the history of delays. The tech world, he said, is based on iteration and fast learning. Translated 

to space exploration, this approach should mean a launch a week, in order to learn. It’s not 

enough to enlist commercial partners; “open architecture” should mean specifications that don’t 

favor any one vendor and allow them to compete with each other. 

Tory Bruno (United Launch Alliance) asked about the place of science in the lunar campaign, 

especially in investigation of the polar region; he encouraged NASA to give science a prominent 

place in this campaign. 

Space Studies Board Brief: Science prioritization at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine (James Crocker, Space Studies Board Vice Chair, National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) 

Dr. Crocker opened by detailing the several similarities between the building of the 

transcontinental railroad and the Lunar to Mars campaign, both of which were conceived in 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

difficult social circumstances. Like the transcontinental railroad, The National Academy of 

Science got its start in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War. In 1958, the National Academy 

launched the Space Studies Board; its sister organization, the Aeronautics and Space Engineering 

Board, was founded in 1967. The current membership of the Space Science Board are not all 

scientists. Dr. Crocker himself is an engineer, and other members include science policy experts 

as well. 

There are five standing committees on the Space Sciences Board, including astrobiology and 

planetary science; astronomy and astrophysics; biological and physical sciences in space; earth 

sciences and applications from space; and solar and space physics. National Academy boards 

produce three different products: 

1. An in-depth study on a specific topic solicited by another institution or federal agency such as 

DOE (Department of Energy), NSF (National Science Foundation), or NOAA. 

2. Workshop proceedings: A workshop on Gateway science is tentatively planned for spring 

2019. These meetings do not produce recommendations, but instead collect facts that later can 

be used to identify scientific priorities. 

3. Decadal surveys of particular fields: These surveys, which take two years to produce, present 

a fact-based understanding of state of the art of a particular field to identify and prioritize the 

most important scientific questions in that field for the next decade. These reports have been 

hugely influential on funding and planning decisions for science. All of the recent stunning 

progress in planetary science was originally envisioned and recommended in decadal surveys. 

There are also midterm assessments to monitor progress compared to the decadal plan. 

Adm. Ellis asked about the role of international members in the decadal surveys and about 

mechanisms for incorporating minority opinions in those reports. Dr. Crocker replied that 

astronomy and astrophysics are international disciplines; thus, the decadal surveys in these fields 

are for the world. In terms of reflecting committee opinion, committee leaders are chosen from 

members who are known to be good at eliciting consensus opinions; those leaders also stay on 

the board for two years after their chair duties have ended, to ensure that he or she can provide 

answers to later questions that might arise. 

Dr. Crocker noted that financial resources for these studies can be limiting, both to carrying out 

the studies themselves, and to conducting the workshops that eventually lead to the decadal 

studies. 

National Security Space: Organization, Technology, and Policy 

(Dr. Mike Griffin, Undersecretary of Defense for Research & Engineering; Mr. John Rood, 

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy). 

Having served in DOD 15 years ago and only recently returned to government service, Mr. Rood 

has been struck by the re-emergence of great-power competition. This new development creates 

a different set of challenges, complexities, and opportunities. In the last two decades, 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

transnational terrorism was the biggest threat: now China and Russia are once again the major 

threats, along with North Korea and Iran. While the United States talked about protecting assets 

in space even 15 years ago, most of the discussion in that period focused on preserving peace in 

space. Now, however, China and Russia have destructive capabilities that have militarized space. 

The DOD goal now is to prevent terrestrial wars from extending into space. There is a need in 

space for both long-term strategic approaches and methods that can be deployed quickly. Mr. 

Rood briefly discussed the creation of a “space force” as a 6th branch of the military, built on the 

prediction that any conflict in space would likely reflect a conflict occurring on Earth as well. 

The space force would be more equipment sensitive than other branches; thus, rapid equipment 

development is paramount, as is a force that works in close partnership with allies. Special 

training of personnel would also be essential. 

Dr. Griffin added that the notion of space as a protected domain was never accurate. Since the 

introduction of reconnaissance satellites and intercontinental missiles, space has in fact been 

used for decades to deter and to wage war. Because of its superior technology, the United States 

was not vulnerable to attacks in space, but that situation is now changing; the urgency of the 

problem demands rapid planning and execution, and creative thinking unshackled by everyday 

bureaucratic concerns. Dr. Griffin argued that the main goals are to generate an effective 

outcome, and to support whatever approaches are helpful, independent of bureaucratic traditions 

or abstract organizational considerations. A particular challenge is summoning the different 

“silos of excellence” in the government to work together efficiently and creatively to meet these 

new challenges. 

In reply to a question by Dr. Schmidt about the role of the Moon and Mars initiative in DOD 

concerns, Dr. Griffin replied that NASA has always represented an element of national security 

policy. As Neil Armstrong once said, national security is enhanced whenever the United States 

can do things that no one else can do. Dr. Griffin stressed the security importance of speed in 

returning to the Moon; allowing another country such as China to precede us there risks the 

possibility of geopolitical re-alignment. 

Dr. Cheng asked about the effects of economic systems on space technology development, 

especially whether China’s state capitalism, which makes no distinction between military and 

commercial activities, might give China an advantage in rapid mobilization of resources. Mr. 

Rood replied that the United States has already successfully encountered the challenges of 

competition with state capitalism, accompanied by a different definition of world order, and he 

expressed his continuing confidence in the efficacy of the U.S. system. Nevertheless, DOD is 

working to improve supply chain security. 

Adm. Ellis concluded the discussion by noting that collective efforts are always a challenge, in 

both war and peace; and the structure that we build to facilitate that effort can be quite important. 

Full UAG Discussion 

The UAG briefly revisited several questions that emerged from subcommittee reports. 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

In a discussion of topics related to exploration and discovery, Dr. Schmidt suggested the need to 

examine the ISS and its longevity. Could the ISS be refurbished, and could its use be extended 

past 2024? If it is not continued, what sort of vehicle would replace it? He also noted that the ISS 

has never been fully utilized for its original purpose: that is, to study physiology in space. The 

major environmental difference between the ISS and other space venues is that it encounters 

lower radiation than Mars-bound astronauts would face. Noting that the ISS is expensive to 

maintain, Dr. Aldrin suggested that NASA consider privatizing ISS laboratories that specialize in 

the subjects that ISS is supposed to be investigating. 

With regard to economic questions, UAG members suggested the need for unique contracting 

models that are tailored to the unique situation of public-private partnerships in space. While 

there were differing views on the meaning of “space technology roadmap,” there was consensus 

that it is nevertheless very important to ascertain where technology needs to go and how to get 

there. In considerations of the benefits and limitations of government-collected data compared 

with data bought from other providers, UAG members pointed out the importance of 

distinguishing between essential requirements for data quantity and quality and those that need 

only to be “good enough” for the task at hand. 

Members identified the main question for outreach and education as: “Why the attrition?” Just as 

the first action of an EMT at the scene of an accident is to stop the bleeding, STEM education 

initiatives should have the same priority: to stem the loss of students from scientific career 

tracks. Because all UAG members are affiliated with organizations that have outreach and 

education, members were urged to take advantage of those affiliations and to coordinate with 

NASA on ways to maximize the effectiveness of outreach efforts. Dr. Aldrin reminded people 

that the achievements of Apollo and subsequent missions still inspire people. He also added that 

it would be helpful for someone to lead the outreach effort. 

Dr. Wolf, along with Dr. Aldrin, reminded group members that the goal of international 

partnerships is not merely to boost space tourism, but instead to build international relationships. 

In choosing working partners, and devising cooperative and collaborative models, one needs to 

consider not just what the United States can provide, but also what commercial and international 

partners can offer to the United States. There are risks to technology transfer; but there are also 

benefits for us as well. 

In the concluding discussion, UAG members and attendees once again expressed their concern 

about the pace of progress in the Lunar to Mars initiative. Several members expressed concern 

that vehicle design and program design were insufficiently innovative. Others noted that very 

smart people are involved, but that they are trapped in a system that does not facilitate efficient 

progress. Additional criticisms included an excessive number of overly large goals, which 

needed to be subdivided and prioritized, and the need to persuade the administration and NASA 

to consider alternate approaches. Adm. Ellis reminded the UAG that their opinions should and 

would be transmitted to the National Space Council. He also suggested to Gen. Lyles that he use 

his position on the NASA Advisory Council to transmit the concerns of the UAG to the NAC. 

16 
 

 

 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Public Comment (telephone) 

Dr. George Nield (Commercial Space Technologies, LLC) thanked the UAG for an excellent 

meeting, and asked for information on whom to contact regarding concerns about space force 

infrastructure, economic development and industrial base issues. Adm. Ellis referred Dr. Nield to 

the UAG email address: hq-uag@mail.nasa.gov. 

Keith Cowing asked how many of the UAG members were truly expert users of space 

technology. Adm. Ellis noted that “users” are defined in the broad sense, as members of the 

community deeply involved in the issues and activities in question. 

Adjournment 

The meeting adjourned at 3:45 PM. 

17 
National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

APPENDIX A 

Agenda 

National Space Council 

Users’ Advisory Group 

Public Meeting Agenda 

November 15, 2018 

NASA HQ – Washington, DC 

9:00 – 9:15 Opening Remarks 

Jim Ellis, Jr. – UAG Chair 

9:30 – 10:00 Welcome and NASA Update 

Jim Bridenstine – NASA Administrator 

 

10:00 – 10:15 Exploration & Discovery Subcommittee Report 

Les Lyles – Subcommittee Chair 

 

10:15 – 10:30 National Security Subcommittee Report 

Jim Ellis, Jr. – Subcommittee Chair 

10:30 – 10:45 Economic Development/Industrial Base Subcommittee Report 

Mary Lynne Dittmar and Eric Stallmer – Subcommittee Co-Chairs 

10:45 - 11:00 Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Report 

Pam Melroy – Subcommittee Chair 

11:00 – 11:15 Outreach & Education Subcommittee Report 

Eileen Collins – Subcommittee Chair 

11:15 – 11:30 Space Policy & International Engagement Subcommittee Report 

David Wolf – Subcommittee Chair 

18 
National Space Council 

Users’ Advisory Group 

Public Meeting Agenda 

November 15, 2018 

NASA HQ – Washington, DC 

11:30 – 12:15 Lunch Break 

12:15 – 12:30 Reconvene at NASA HQ 

12:30 - 1:30 NASA Exploration Campaign Brief 

 Tom Cremins – Acting NASA Chief of Staff & 

Associate Administrator for Strategy & Plans 

1:30 – 2:00 Prioritizing Space Science 

Jim Crocker – Space Studies Board Vice Chair 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

2:00 – 3:00 National Security Space: Organization, Technology, and Policy 

Mike Griffin – Undersecretary of Defense for Research & Engineering 

 John Rood – Undersecretary of Defense for Policy 

3:00 – 3:30 Full UAG Discussion 

3:30 – 3:45 Public Comment 

3:45 Closing Remarks and Adjournment 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

19 
National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Appendix B 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group Membership 

Adm. James Ellis, Chair 

Retired 4-star Admiral, former head of STRATCOM 

Buzz Aldrin 

Apollo 11 Astronaut 

Salvatore Bruno 

President and CEO of United Launch Alliance 

Wesley Bush 

CEO of Northrop Grumman 

Dean Cheng 

Scholar at the Heritage Foundation 

Col. Eileen Collins 

Retired U.S. Air Force; Four-time Shuttle Astronaut 

Steve Crisafulli 

Former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives 

Mary Lynne Dittmar 

President and CEO of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration 

Tim Ellis 

CEO of Relativity Space 

Marillyn Hewson 

CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation 

Homer Hickam 

Author of “Rocket Boys” and former NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center engineer 

 

The Honorable Kay Ivey 

Governor of Alabama 

Fred Klipsch 

Founder and Chairman of Hoosiers for Quality Education 

20 
National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Gen. Lester Lyles 

Retired 4-star Air Force General and Chair of the NASA Advisory Council 

Col. Pamela Melroy 

Retired U.S. Air Force; Three-time Shuttle Astronaut; and former Deputy Director of the 

Tactical Technology Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

Dennis Muilenburg 

CEO of the Boeing Company 

Fatih Ozmen 

CEO of the Sierra Nevada Corporation 

G.P. “Bud” Peterson 

President of the Georgia Institute of Technology 

Eric Schmidt 

Google and MIT Media Lab 

The Honorable Harrison “Jack” Schmitt 

Former U.S. Senator and Apollo 17 Astronaut 

Gwynne Shotwell 

President and COO of SpaceX 

Bob Smith 

CEO of Blue Origin 

Eric Stallmer 

President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation 

David Thompson 

Founder and CEO of Orbital ATK 

Pamela Vaughan 

Board Certified Science Teacher 

 

Mandy Vaughn 

President of VOX Launch Company 

Stuart Witt 

Founder of Mojave Air and Spaceport, former Navy pilot, former Chairman of the Commercial 

Spaceflight Federation 

David Wolf 

Four-time Shuttle Astronaut and Physician 

21 
Appendix C 

Meeting Attendees 

UAG Membership 

James Ellis, UAG Chair 

Buzz Aldrin 

Salvatore Bruno 

Dean Cheng 

Eileen Collins 

Steve Crisafulli 

Mary Lynne Dittmar 

Tim Ellis 

Marillyn Hewson 

Fred Klipsch 

Lester Lyles 

Pamela Melroy 

Dennis Muilenburg 

Fatih Ozmen 

Harrison Schmitt 

Gwynne Shotwell 

Bob Smith 

Eric Stallmer 

David Thompson 

Pamela Vaughan 

Mandy Vaughn 

Stuart Witt 

David Wolf 

Brandon T. Eden, UAG Executive Secretary 

Non-UAG Attendees 

Meghan Allen 

Bill Beckman 

James Bridenstine 

Tom Cremins 

James Crocker 

Tom Culligan 

Jessica Deihl 

Jamie Favors 

Tim Frazier 

Martin Frederick 

John Gaine 

Adam Goodwin 

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

22 
National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Dana A. Goward 

Mike Griffin 

Heidi B. Hammel 

Colleen Hartman 

Richard Humphrey 

Garth Illingworth 

Nate McIntyre 

Jolene Meidinger 

Mark Mozena 

Neal Newman 

Scott Pace 

Tom Risen 

John Rood 

Andy Rowe 

Robbie Sabathier 

Eric Thoemmes 

Jeffrey Trauberman 

Gary F. Vaughn 

John Wagner 

Taylor Weeks 

Teleconference attendees 

Gail Allen 

AV Tech 

Eric Berger 

Bridgette Bishon 

Mark Bitterman 

Mia Brown 

Hugh Cate 

Robert Chambers 

Timothy Cichan 

Steve Clarke 

Keith Cowing 

James Dean 

Jennifer Duer 

Hussein El-Gaafary 

Heather Eloemhard 

Brian Face 

Martin Faga 

Ryan Faith 

Jeff Foust 

Brian Flewelling 

Rand Griffin 

Brian Harvey 

Nicole Herrmann 

23 
National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Mary Hovater 

Tobey Jackson 

Chris Johnson 

Ryan Joyce 

John Karcz 

Marla King 

Cody Knipfer 

Jean Kranz 

Theodore Kronmiller 

Karen Mahoney 

Meredith McCay 

Megan Mitchell 

James Muncy 

Gary Napier 

George Nield 

Colin Nugen 

Nithya Pathalam 

Carlos Perez 

Catlin Pennington 

Craig Reiber 

Martin Ruzek 

Hugo Sanchez 

Steve Sidorek 

John Smith 

Marcia Smith 

Amanda Sterling 

David Teek 

Will Thomas 

Patrick Troutman 

Shelley Volkwein 

Charity Weeden 

Banta York 

Trae York 

24 
National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group November 15, 2018 

Appendix D 

List of Presentations 

Opening Remarks – Adm. James Ellis 

 

NASA update – Mr. James Bridenstine 

 

Exploration & Discovery Subcommittee Report – Gen. Lester Lyles 

 

National Security Subcommittee Report – Adm. James Ellis 

 

Economic Development/Industrial Base Subcommittee Report – 

Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar & Mr. Eric Stallmer 

 

Technology & Innovation Subcommittee Report – Col. Pamela Melroy 

 

Outreach & Education Subcommittee Report – Col. Eileen Collins 

 

Space Policy & International Engagement Subcommittee Report – Dr. David Wolf 

National Space Exploration Campaign Brief – Mr. Tom Cremins 

 

Space Studies Board Brief: Science Prioritization at the U.S. National 

 Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine – Dr. James Crocker 

National Security Space: Organization, Technology, and Policy – Dr. Mike Griffin & Mr. John 

Rood 

25