Given at a Science, Technology, and Space Hearing:

NASA: Human Space Flight

Wednesday, April 2, 2003 - 2:30 PM - SR-253

The Testimony of

Mr. Brian Chase

Executive Director, The National Space Society

STATEMENT BY BRIAN E. CHASE Executive Director, National Space Society before the 

Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation

April 2, 2003

Chairman Brownback, Senator Breaux and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me here today.

I am pleased to present testimony to the Subcommittee on behalf of the National Space Society, a 

nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting space exploration. NSS has approximately 22,000 

members around the world, including space professionals, astronauts, business leaders, elected 

officials, and, most important, everyday citizens without ties to the space industry who support the 

exploration, development, and eventual settlement of space.

The Subcommittee has asked NSS to provide its perspective on NASA’s human space flight 

programs and how those initiatives relate to efforts to develop new space transportation systems. In 

our view, access to space is the most critical part of any future space exploration efforts, so I 

appreciate the opportunity to share our thoughts today.

NASA’s Integrated Space Transportation Plan

Robust, low cost access to space is the key to expanding opportunities in space, whether in Low 

Earth Orbit or beyond. In light of the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia, it is more important than 

ever for our nation to address the issue of how we transport people and cargo to and from space. 

Indeed, although the Columbia investigation and now the war in Iraq occupies the nation’s 

attention, NASA’s generally overlooked FY 2004 budget submission contains important elements 

of an Integrated Space Transportation Plan to begin addressing this critical issue.

The first element of the Integrated Space Transportation Plan is the Service Life Extension 

Program, which addresses the need to upgrade the Space Shuttle fleet and the infrastructure that 

supports it. The Space Shuttle is the only vehicle that can complete the International Space Station, 

so we need to return the fleet to service as quickly as is feasible to let it complete that mission.

Although the original estimates for the Shuttle’s cost and performance were very optimistic—which 

means today we have a system that is significantly more expensive and more challenging to operate 

than was ever envisioned—the Space Shuttle remains a very unique and important asset in our 

nation’s launch inventory. It combines the capabilities of a heavy lift launch vehicle, a small Space 

Station, an on-orbit repair depot, and a system that can return cargo to Earth, among other functions. 
Its capabilities, despite being conceived 30 years ago, remain unmatched today by any vehicle 

flying or by anything even on the drawing board. So any mention of a “replacement” of the Shuttle 

has to be viewed as only a partial replacement, since future vehicles will likely not be as versatile as 

the Space Shuttle is today.

But we cannot escape the realities of the need for a backup to the Shuttle, regardless of its 

impressive capabilities. The second element of the plan is to provide a complementary capability to 

transfer crews to and from the Space Station. The current proposal, called the Orbital Space Plane 

(OSP), would be launched aboard Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles developed jointly by the 

Department of Defense and industry, and which are now operated commercially by Boeing and 

Lockheed Martin as the Delta IV and the Atlas V, respectively. The requirements laid out by NASA 

call for the OSP to be able to launch at least four crew members to ISS, stay on orbit for long 

periods of time, and to serve as a “lifeboat” to evacuate the ISS crew in the case of emergencies, 

replacing the Russian Soyuz capsules that perform that function today.

While the OSP could serve as a component of a next generation system, it serves only as a 

complement to—not a replacement for—the Shuttle during this phase of the Integrated Space 

Transportation Plan. The OSP would relieve much of the Shuttle’s burden of launching crew to and 

from ISS and allow the Shuttle fleet to focus on the launch of heavy cargo and components, but 

both vehicles would be flown during this time period. The additional benefit of the development of 

the OSP or similar vehicle would be its utility in future human missions, all of which will require 

crew transfer capabilities.

The third element of NASA’s plan is the development of a next generation launch system that 

would ultimately replace the Space Shuttle, meaning it would launch both crew and cargo. The 

Next Generation Launch Technology program, which is being conducted jointly with the 

Department of Defense, is a restructured element of the Space Launch Initiative (SLI), and focuses 

on new technologies and new systems that can lead to launch systems with much greater reliability 

and much lower costs than systems today.

The Challenges

These three elements—upgrading the Space Shuttle, developing a backup system to launch crews to 

and from the Space Station, and investing in next generation launch technologies—are all critical 

components in a national plan to significantly improve our access to space, and I believe NASA’s 

initial outline is a prudent step in that direction. However, there are also several critical factors that 

can be major stumbling blocks to the success of this plan.

First, the loss of Columbia dramatically underscores the urgency to develop a secondary capability 

to launch crews to and from ISS, and it is not clear that this sense of urgency is shared by all of 

NASA’s managers at the program level. Additionally, the natural inclination for NASA’s talented 

engineers will be to develop the latest technology for use in the Orbital Space Plane—but that urge 

must be strongly resisted. The OSP can be built using today’s technology, and most of the designs 

under consideration have been studied in several variations for the last 20-30 years. NASA’s stated 

goal of a fully operational system by 2012 must be accelerated, and it must also be done as simply 

as possible by focusing on its core mission of launching and retrieving crews.

Second, NASA has to reexamine a backup capability to launch cargo to the International Space 

Station. A program to do just that—NASA’s Alternate Access to Station initiative—was examining 

several potential options to launch unmanned cargo to ISS using expendable launch vehicles, but 
that program is slated to be terminated this summer without moving into the test or development 

phase. The AAS program should get a fresh look from NASA so that, when combined with the 

Orbital Space Plane program, we will have both assured crew and cargo access to the International 

Space Station. The European Space Agency is working on the Automated Transfer Vehicle, which 

is designed to be a robotic cargo vessel for ISS. That system may offer the capabilities to fulfill this 

need, but it is an option which may or may not be viable depending on the state of international 

affairs. But both the crew and cargo launch capabilities are needed regardless of what long-term 

choices we make about human space exploration, so it is advisable to fund and begin these 

programs as soon as possible.

Third, once the Orbital Space Plane and some form of backup cargo capability are activated, the 

United States will possess a significant launch capability that can meet multiple needs. With these 

complementary capabilities available, we should not rush to an artificial deadline to develop and 

field a new launch system. The Shuttle and existing fleet of expendable launch vehicles, coupled 

with the OSP and a cargo delivery system, can meet many of our nation’s needs for the near term, 

and the Shuttle still possesses capabilities that should be carefully reviewed before we decide to 

retire the entire fleet. While it is important for us to continue making investments in new launch 

technology, it is equally important that we develop a strategic plan for our space exploration efforts 

and not waste time just jumping from program to program.

Fourth, the nascent partnership between NASA and the Department of Defense in developing next 

generation launch technology should be encouraged and fostered. For years, an adversarial 

relationship existed between the two agencies, yet the skills and experience each brings to the space 

arena have been recognized as critical to both civil and national security needs.

Finally, I believe a key yet overlooked element in our nation’s space launch capabilities is the 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle mentioned earlier. Although designed for unmanned missions, 

the two vehicles represent significant improvements in safety, reliability, and efficiency over their 

predecessors. Indeed, both the Delta IV and Atlas V represent, in many ways, revolutionary 

improvements in access to space. These systems are already in production and operation, and they 

are capable today of meeting the launch requirements for unmanned scientific, national security, 

and commercial missions. Once modified for human launch requirements, the EELVs will represent 

a formidable and versatile fleet of vehicles that can fulfill an even wider range of missions. 

Importantly, by developing a crew and perhaps cargo capability that can be launched aboard 

EELVs, that improves our nation’s competitiveness in the commercial space arena by strengthening 

the market for those vehicles.

The reason it is important to highlight the potential role of EELVs is because expendable launch 

systems are usually ignored in the discussion of next generation launch systems—most people 

assume that only reusable launch vehicles can fulfill that role. But the economics of reusable versus 

expendable systems is not as simple as it first appears. The key to low cost reusable vehicles is 

routine use that allows expenses to be amortized over a large number of flights. For an expendable 

vehicle, the key is low cost production, which can be achieved in part through launch rates that are 

high enough to maximize the efficiency of the production and assembly operation. Generally 

speaking, the launch rate for a reusable system has to be very high before it effectively competes 

with the cost of an expendable launcher. The best option for a next generation system may indeed 

turn out to be a reusable launch system, but it could also be a further evolution of the EELV or a 

derivative of the Space Shuttle.
The Future of Human Space Exploration

The choices made today in space transportation investments will obviously impact our capabilities 

for future space exploration missions, but there are decisions that can and should be made even as 

we work to develop a long term vision for our future in space. We know that completing the 

International Space Station requires the Space Shuttle, and that in order to successfully operate the 

Space Station we need a robust yet simple backup capability for crew and cargo. So those are two 

elements of space transportation planning that should proceed as quickly as possible and accelerated 

where feasible.

Beyond those elements, we should carefully consider our next steps. Focusing exclusively on 

reusable launch vehicles may be the right choice if we seek routine access for crew and low-tomedium weight cargo. But if we opt to launch heavy cargo (such as components for a mission to 

Mars), then expendable launch vehicles may better fill that role. So the nation needs to develop a 

long-term space exploration architecture to provide a clear direction for the future to help direct 

these efforts. NASA has begun an initiative to accomplish this important task, but it needs public 

and political support to remain a key part of the NASA agenda. Without that underlying vision for 

tomorrow, it makes it more difficult to make the right decisions today.

So the choice before our nation is complex, but, importantly, it is not an “either-or” proposition. In 

order to fund future launch systems, we do not have to cannibalize the Shuttle program, and in order 

to fund the Shuttle we do not have to forgo future investments in next generation launch 

technology. I also know you have to wrestle with difficult budget choices in a wide range of areas 

and, as stewards of the public’s money, I know you consider it important to make investments that 

are worthwhile and have a benefit to the taxpayers.

Space exploration is worthwhile endeavor and a sound investment in the future, and it is an 

investment that can be made even while meeting other needs in our nation. It is important to invest 

in the future, and it is important, as a society, to continue opening frontiers. History teaches us that 

societies that have pushed their frontiers outward have prospered; those that have not have withered 

and faded into the history books. No society has ever gone wrong opening up the frontier, and we 

shouldn’t stop now.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.