Given at a Full Committee Hearing:

Future of NASA

Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 9:30 AM - SR- 253

The Testimony of

Dr. Wesley Huntress

Director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today on my view of the future of this planet’s 

human space flight program. The public wants an adventurous space program, a Mission From 

Planet Earth to new exciting destinations in the solar system and beyond. The public wants to know 

where we are going, how we are going to get there and wants to go along for the ride even if only 

virtually. America has the right stuff, but today’s human space flight program isn’t giving the public 

what it wants.

Old Legacies

The challenge for NASA is to throw off the yoke of the Apollo program legacy and to move 

outward beyond Earth to exotic places in the solar system, those places where we have been given 

tantalizing glimpses from our robotic exploration program. The Shuttle and Space Station are the 

legacy of a long-past era in which the space program was a weapon in the Cold War. The Apollo 

program was not primarily the science or exploration program we are all fond of remembering, it 

was a demonstration of power and national will intended to win over hearts and minds around the 

world and to demoralize the Soviet Union. Exploration is not what motivated Kennedy to open the 

public purse. Beating the Russians did. It worked. Apollo accomplished what was intended and the 

nation moved on to other priorities, which did not include what space enthusiasts and much of the 

public thought would happen—lunar bases and on to Mars.

The Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) are the products of NASA attempting over 

the decades to preserve the Apollo era of human space flight already passed by. These are complex, 

expensive projects that produce enormous strain on NASA’s budget and corresponding stress on the 

heroic people who work so hard to preserve the enterprise. The current human space flight program 

is barely affordable with what NASA is appropriated. The Apollo era is gone, the imperatives for 

space exploration are very different now than they were in the 1960s, and three decades of wishful 

thinking and building space ambitions on an inadequate funding basis has led the nation into a blind 

alley. The ISS is not the expected transportation node for missions beyond Earth orbit that it was 

supposed to be; it has become an Earth-orbital end unto itself. And the Space Shuttle is not the lowcost, low-risk operational space transportation system that it was supposed to be.

The legacy of the Columbia accident should be to create a new pathway and sense of purpose for 

human spaceflight. We should provide a more robust transportation system for our astronauts and a 

more rewarding program of exploration for these heroes. They should be assured of a reliable, safe 

system for transporting them a distance no farther than the distance between New York and 

Washington. And if space explorers are to risk their lives it should be for extraordinarily 

challenging reasons—such as exploration of the Moon, Mars, and asteroids, and for construction 

and servicing space telescopes—not for making 90 minute trips around the Earth. The whole point 

of leaving home is to go somewhere, not to endlessly circle the block.
Just as for Apollo, the Shuttle and ISS were developed for political imperatives; not so much for 

space exploration but to keep humans flying and to serve a foreign policy agenda. The Shuttle and 

ISS have not proven to be the next steps to human deep space exploration as advertised, instead 

they have become an impediment—serving only to maintain a human presence in near-Earth space 

until society finally decides to undertake missions to destinations beyond Earth orbit. Immediately 

after the Columbia accident, Charles Krauthammer, a noted columnist put it far better than my 

scientist training allows:

“We slip the bonds of Earth not to spend 20 years in orbit studying zero-G nausea, but to set foot on 

new worlds, learn their mysteries, establish our presence...After millennia of dreaming of flight, the 

human race went from a standing start at Kitty Hawk [almost exactly 100 years ago] to the moon in 

66 years. And yet in the next 34 years, we’ve gone nowhere...For now, we need to keep the shuttle 

going because we have no other way to get into space. And we’ll need to support the space station 

for a few years, because we have no other program in place...If we are going to risk that first 150 

miles of terrible stress on body and machine to get into space, then let’s do it to get to the next 

million miles—to cruise the beauty and vacuum of interplanetary space to new worlds...the 

problem is not manned flight. The problem is this kind of manned flight, shuttling up and down at 

great risk and to little end.”

New Options

We have reached a point now where we reflect fondly on a time past when America shined 

brilliantly in human space exploration, but can only lament our retreat while others climb a path we 

pioneered and abandoned. We can shine again. We are a wealthy and capable nation. We have the 

resources. The required technology is at hand or just around the corner of development. These are 

not the issues. The issue is national will. Space exploration has become a part of our culture. The 

public believes that flying in space is part of who we are as a nation. “Space exploration is an 

element of our national being” [Harrison Schmidt, former astronaut and former Senator from New 

Mexico]. Our robotic explorers generate enormous interest when they fly and land on other planets. 

But the public expectation is that these robotic missions are a prelude to sending humans.

What the public wants is clarity of purpose. A Space Station advertised as “the next logical step” 

without filling in the blank “to what” doesn’t do it. There is a growing chorus of leaders inside and 

outside of government concerned that NASA’s post-Columbia-investigation posture is business as 

usual. The consensus of many is that a coherent vision for human spaceflight over the next several 

decades is required, one that has a clear sense of purpose and destination. According to Neil Lane, 

former NSF Director and Presidential Science Advisor, “Unless we can get a clear, stated mission, 

we should step back and not risk further lives.”

Sooner or later we must have a clear destination for human spaceflight or it will not survive, and 

America will be much the poorer for it. And a new option doesn’t have to be funded like Apollo, it 

can proceed at a steady pace. The country needs the challenge of grander exploration to justify the 

risk, lift our sights, fuel human dreams, and advance human discovery and knowledge. WE NEED 

TO GO SOMEWHERE!

There are organizations outside NASA and the U.S. Government that are addressing this issue. The 

International Academy of Astronautics is conducting a study entitled “The Next Steps in Exploring 

Deep Space”. Its purpose is to provide a logical and systematic roadmap for the long-term scientific 

exploration of the solar system beyond Earth orbit with a goal to land humans on Mars sometime in 

the next 50 years. The study will be completed this coming spring and envisions the establishment 
of a permanent human presence in space using an evolutionary approach to the development of 

space transportation infrastructure utilizing well-defined intermediate destinations as steppingstones to Mars.

In addition, a workshop this past spring run by three organizations—The Planetary Society (TPS), 

the American Astronautical Society (AAS) and the Association of Space Explorers (ASE)—has 

made recommendations for near-term actions to solve our post-Columbia problems in human 

transportation to Earth orbit. My testimony draws heavily on the results from this joint workshop 

and from the IAA study. The workshop statement and a short briefing on the interim results of the 

IAA study are attached.

The Exploration Imperative

Beginning in 1952, a series of symposiums on space travel were held at New York City’s Hayden 

Planetarium that attracted the greatest visionaries of the day, including Werner von Braun, Willey 

Ley, and the space artist Chesley Bonestel. That vision of our future was subsequently captured in a 

series of illustrated articles for Collier’s Magazine, launching a national dream of space exploration. 

As a nation of people who make dreams happen, and who explore to provide for a better life, we 

didn’t do too badly with making that mid-Century dream of space travel come true. But after the 

Apollo missions the dream to move on was put on hold. So why should we revive that dream to 

explore space in this new 21st Century? For the same reasons that we explored and developed air 

travel in the 20th Century. Because it challenges us! At the beginning of the 20th Century in 

America the great public adventures were exploration of the polar regions of Earth and powered 

flight through the air. A century later, millions of humans travel in comfort through the air to 

destinations around the planet. No one in 1900 could have dreamed it possible to fly in comfort 

from New York to Paris in just over six hours.

And so it will be in the 21st Century. At the beginning of this century we know how to travel in 

space, but are only just on its edge. We fly into space on dangerous, unwieldy, bolted-together 

hunks of thin metal and bulky propellant, spinning around our own planet in a fragile metal can 

strung together with cables and trusses. In one of history’s major anomalies, we even flew men to 

the Moon and back 30 years ago, but are unable to do it now. By the end of the 21st Century, space 

travel will be as commonplace as air travel is at the end of the 20th. We just can’t predict the details 

right now, just as the Wright Brothers could never have imagined a Boeing 747 in 1903.

Exploration and the drive to discover and understand are qualities that have allowed the humans to 

survive and become the dominant species on the planet. Human beings strive to know and 

understand what surrounds them. By exploring the unknown, humans gain security and dispel fear 

of the unknown, of what is beyond. This survival mechanism is encoded in our genes. Just as 

human civilization uses the challenge of exploration to hone scientific and technological skills for 

survival, and exploits the adventure to provide hope for the future, human populations also have a 

need for heroes to provide inspiration. This is particularly important for our youth, who need to be 

provided with a positive vision for their future. Every generation has had its heroes. Today, the 

astronaut is a hero figure because astronauts carry out adventurous work that achieves exciting 

goals, personifying the kind of life that our youth would like to lead. Space exploration presents a 

positive image of the future and inspires our youth towards achievement.

The Science Imperative
In the 1960s, the space program was popular in the U.S. because the public knew precisely what the 

goal was, how the game was played and followed every play. Today, the public’s innate acceptance 

of the abstract notion of exploration as a human imperative does not necessarily extend to their 

checkbook without clear articulation of goals and benefits. Today the public benefit can be 

expressed as a clear set of goals because science and technology has progressed to the point where 

it can dare attempt answer some of the most burning questions that human beings have been asking 

since they started gazing upward at the sky. Questions such as ‘Where do we come from?’ and 

‘What will happen to us in the future?’ and ‘Are we alone in the Universe?’ These very 

fundamental human questions can be recast as scientific challenges—goals to be achieved in the 

course of exploring space. And from these scientific goals, plans can be formulated for both robotic 

and human explorers including the destinations and the exploration objectives of each.

Where did we come from? This is a question that approaches the contemplation of existence. Even 

so, astronomers can address the question by determining how the Universe began and evolved, and 

learning how galaxies, stars and planets formed, and searching for Earth-like planets around other 

stars. The answers require large and complex space telescope systems made possible by human 

construction and servicing in space.

What will happen to us in the future? Every human wonders about the future. One form of this 

question asks if there is any threat to us from space, especially from earth-crossing asteroids. The 

answer will come from surveys of the earth-crossing asteroid population in space and space 

missions that determine their composition and structure. Another form of this question asks what 

future humans have in traveling to and living on other planets. Is our species destined to populate 

space? Ultimately I believe the answer is yes, and the information will come from exploring space 

and utilizing the resources we can find in the most promising places in space such as Mars.

Are we alone in the Universe? Every human being wants to know the answer to this question. We 

are compelled to find its answer. Some find comfort in the notion that we should be alone; others 

are fearful of the potential for other life “out there”. Most scientists see the possibilities and are 

overwhelmed by the notion that the universe might be teeming with life; at least microbial life and 

perhaps even intelligent forms. We will find the answer by searching for life in the most promising 

places in the solar system such as Mars, and by looking for signs of life on planets outside the solar 

system with space telescopes.

Destinations

The IAA study starts with these public questions and defines the scientific objectives required to 

answer them. The scientific objectives in turn determine what kind of exploration is required at 

which destinations in the solar system. Four destinations for human exploration result from this 

exercise: the Sun-Earth Lagrangian point L2, the Moon, Near-Earth Asteroids, and Mars.

Mars, the most distant and most challenging of these destinations, is also the most scientifically 

rewarding and the one place that can galvanize human interest like no other. It is the logical 

destination for humans in the next decades of our new century. Mars is the most Earth-like of all the 

other planets in our solar system. It may have had life in its early history, it might possibly harbor 

microbial life below its surface today, and one day in the distant future it may become a new home 

for human kind. It has fascinated humans for centuries and it is within our reach.
A brief description of the scientific and exploration utility of the four identified human destinations 

are described below, arranged in order of energetic difficulty for a systematic, progressive approach 

to exploration beyond Earth orbit.

Sun-Earth Lagrangian Point L2 (SEL2) is a point about 1 million miles from the dark side of the 

Earth opposite the Sun that is the site of choice for future space astronomical telescopes that will 

search for and image Earth-like planets around other stars. These telescopes will of necessity be 

large, complex systems requiring servicing by astronauts in a manner similar to the Hubble Space 

Telescope. SEL2 is easy to get to, with round trip times on the order of 2-3 weeks and could serve 

as the initial step in developing a deep space transportation capability.

The Moon is a scientifically rewarding destination where we can obtain information on the 

probability for impact of asteroids on the Earth, on the history of the Sun and its effect on the 

Earth’s environment, and perhaps on the earliest history of the Earth itself. The proximity of the 

Moon makes it attractive as a potential proving ground for surface systems, habitats and other 

technologies, possibly including the use of lunar resources, but it is not necessarily on the critical 

path to Mars exploration.

Near-Earth Objects travel in orbits between the Earth and Mars and represent both a potential 

resource in space and a potential impact hazard to Earth. Robotic missions to these objects will be 

necessary to assess these potentials. The jury is out on whether human missions would be necessary 

for these purposes, but there is no doubt that a one-year human mission to a Near-Earth Object 

would serve as an excellent intermediate step before any mission to Mars. An NEO human mission 

would provide a lower-risk test flight of the systems necessary to reach Mars.

Mars is the ultimate destination for humans in the first half of this century. It is on this most Earthlike planet that humans can establish a permanent presence—utilizing resources the planet has to 

offer from its atmosphere, soil and subsurface ice and water. The scientific goals will be to 

understand the similarities and differences between Earth and Mars, particularly the history of water 

and its distribution on Mars, the geological and climatological histories of Mars and a search for 

evidence of past or present life. The question of possible life on another world is probably the 

largest driver for humans in space and particularly for Mars exploration.

Our ultimate ability to reach these destinations requires that architectures developed today for 

transportation from the Earth’s surface to orbit have a top-level requirement to consider the future 

needs for space transportation to deep space. Otherwise, it is likely that a solution will be derived 

that is useless for the next step beyond Earth orbit.

The Architecture

The IAA study proposes an architecture for enabling this vision. Mars is the goal, but intermediate 

destinations are identified that comprise a progressive approach to this long-term objective. The 

approach is science-based to address key questions of public interest. These science goals provide 

the context for destinations, capabilities and technology investments. It is a stepping-stone approach 

in which there is a logical progression to successively more difficult destinations. This approach 

requires incremental investments to maintain progress, rather than huge new budgets, and 

destinations can be adjusted to manage cost and risk. Major new technology developments early in 

the program are avoided to reduce cost. Solar electric and nuclear electric propulsion, which are 

already under development, along with improved chemical propulsion can meet early transportation 

needs. Cargo and crew are separated to minimize crew risk and flight time. Cargo, supplies, and 
exploration equipment travel slower on more efficient electric propulsion systems in advance of the 

crew, who use faster but less efficient chemical propulsion systems.

The IAA study proposes development first of a chemically propelled Deep Space Transportation 

Vehicle (DSTV) initially capable of carrying astronauts from low-Earth orbit to SEL2. The DSTV 

would be equally capable of carrying astronauts to lunar orbit if it is decided that lunar missions are 

an important step toward Mars. Later this vehicle could be upgraded for the much longer trips to 

NEOs and Mars. A separate electrically propelled Deep Space Cargo Vehicle (DSCV) would be 

developed to carry equipment and supplies to these same destinations.

The IAA study does not address Earth-to-orbit infrastructure requirements. This has been done by 

the TPS/AAS/ASE workshop that recommends the retirement of the Shuttle after the ISS has been 

completed. Both the IAA study and the TPS/AAS/ASE workshop recognize the potential of 

utilizing non-US launch systems to carry crew and cargo to low Earth orbit. In addition, new 

vehicles for Earth to orbit transportation, separating crew from cargo, would be developed that take 

into account crew and cargo Earth-to-orbit lift requirements for further exploration beyond Earth 

orbit.

The Space Station is not on the critical path in the IAA transportation architecture. Its high 

inclination orbit creates a severe penalty for Station-launched missions to the Moon and planets. 

However, the Space Station is required in order to study the effects of space travel on humans and 

to develop the technologies required for human support during long-term space flight.

Robots and Humans

So how do we implement such a plan, do we use human or robotic missions? The answer has 

always been: both. The robotic and human space exploration enterprises have co-existed and 

cooperated during the space program’s entire history. The relevant question is whether any potential 

investigation requires using human explorers, with their associated cost. The argument often used to 

dismiss humans is that technology will produce a machine with sufficient intelligence and dexterity 

to render a human unnecessary. The time to develop such a machine, however, may be either 

unpredictable or too long to meet a reasonable schedule. No matter how clever or useful the robots 

we make, they will always be tools for enhancing human capabilities.

There is a role for both robots and humans. The strategy is to use robotic means for reconnaissance 

and scientific exploration to the full extent that robots can accomplish the desired goals. At the 

point when human explorers are sent, robotic missions can be used to establish local infrastructure 

before the arrival of humans. This is implemented using robotic outposts, which are later occupied 

and utilized by the human explorers. During human occupation, robots provide required support 

services and become sensory extensions and tools for human explorers.

In any case, science cost effectiveness is not a good exclusive metric for assessing human vs. 

robotic modes for scientific exploration because the decision to proceed with human exploration 

will not be made on scientific grounds alone. Human exploration of space is motivated by societal 

factors other than science. Nonetheless, when a decision is made to continue human exploration 

beyond Earth orbit, it will provide a tremendous opportunity for scientist-explorers and science 

should be a motivating force in defining human space exploration goals.

A space exploration enterprise that satisfies the public requires humans in space. In the minds of the 

public, robotic exploration is an extension of the human experience and a prelude to human 
exploration itself. Robotic exploration is the method of choice for reconnaissance and scientific 

investigation to the extent that robots can accomplish the desired goals. However, only human 

explorers will ultimately to fulfill the public’s sense of destiny in space.

The Bottom Line

The human spaceflight program needs to be set on a new path that leads to a future that the public 

has been expecting for decades—a path that takes humans beyond Earth orbit to new, important 

destinations in the solar system.

WE NEED A NATIONAL VISION THAT SETS A DESTINATION FOR HUMAN 

EXPLORATION AND SYSTEMATICALLY PURSUES ITS FULFILLMENT WITH BOTH 

ROBOTIC AND HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT.

Drawing heavily on the IAA study, I believe this vision should involve:

1. The goal of establishing a permanent human presence in the solar system with the stated 

objective to establish human presence on Mars by the middle of this Century.

2. Recognition that exploration beyond Earth orbit is intrinsically global, and should involve 

cooperation with other space-faring nations.

3. A progressive, step-by-step approach for human exploration beyond Earth orbit that does not 

require an Apollo-like spending curve. Any requirements for increased spending can then be 

made incrementally on an annual basis.

4. A set of exciting and rewarding destinations in this step-by-step approach to Mars including the 

Sun-Earth Lagrangian Point L2, the Moon and Near-Earth Asteroids.

5. Re-invention of our Earth-to-orbit transportation and on-orbit infrastructure to support the goals 

for exploration beyond Earth orbit. The current Space Shuttle and International Space Station 

are not on that critical path other than research on human physiology in space.

6. Development of new in-space systems for transporting humans and cargo from low Earth orbit 

to deep space destinations. No large technological breakthroughs are necessary.

7. Continued use of robotic missions for scientific research and preparation for future human 

flights. Robotic precursor missions will be required to reduce the risk for human explorers and 

to provide on-site support for humans. Human explorers will be required for intensive field 

exploration and for in-space servicing of complex systems.

Drawing heavily from the TPS/AAS/ASE workshop, some near-term actions to enable this policy 

(specifically number 5 above) are:

1. The Shuttle should be retired after flying only those missions necessary to complete the 

International Space Station in favor of a simpler, safer and less costly system for transporting 

humans to and from Earth orbit.

2. Human transport to and from space, and within space, should be separated from related cargo 

transport. New Earth-to-orbit transportation systems for humans and cargo should be designed 
and built, but not until the requirements for human exploration beyond Earth orbit are 

understood and can be accommodated.

3. The U.S. should carry out its obligations to its international partners to complete the 

International Space Station. The goals of the ISS should be refocused to those specific purposes 

required to enable human exploration beyond Earth orbit.

None of this will happen if we go on as we are. The national will to carry out a new option for space 

exploration already exists in the people of the United States. The nation has the necessary wealth. It 

is only a matter of leadership by the Administration and Congress. The architecture advocated here 

does not require an immediate large increase in the NASA budget. It does require a commitment to 

the resources required as the space program gradually and systematically increases in scale and 

scope, but not so much in any one year as would be required for an Apollo-like initiative.

WE NEED A COMMITMENT FROM THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS TO A 

MANIFEST DESTINY FOR AMERICA IN SPACE.

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Jr. Director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington 

President, The Planetary Society Study Leader, International Academy of Astronautics Cosmic 

Study “The Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space”