Charter: House Science Committee Hearing: “Perspectives on the President’s Vision for Space Exploration”

Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
Hearing Charter

Perspectives on the President’s Vision
for Space Exploration
Wednesday, March 10, 2004 10:00 a.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building

I. Purpose

The House Committee on Science will hold a hearing
entitled Perspectives on the President’s Vision for
Space Exploration on March 10, 2004, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The
Committee will receive testimony from non-governmental
witnesses regarding the President’s recently announced
space exploration initiative. Charters from two previous,
relevant Science Committee hearings are attached.

II. Brief Overview

The witnesses have been asked to give their views on
the purpose, structure, costs and technical challenges
of the President’s initiative and on how it would affect
other NASA programs. The goal of the hearing is to get
guidance from outside experts on some of the most difficult
questions the Congress must consider in evaluating the
initiative.

For example, the most difficult obstacle to staying
on the Moon for an extended period or to sending a human
to Mars may be the impact of spending long periods in
space on the human body. Both the radiation and reduced
gravity have marked impacts on human physiology. Some
scientists (but none on our panel) go so far as to describe
these challenges as "insurmountable." The
Committee needs to know (among other things) how difficult
a hurdle human physiology is, whether NASA’s plans to
deal with these issues are sufficient, and how research
on human physiology in space will influence the development
of spacecraft and other technical aspects of the initiative.
Several of the witnesses at the hearing will be able
to address such matters.

II. Witnesses

Mr. Norman Augustine was the Chief Executive
Officer of Lockheed Martin and chair of the Advisory
Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, a
review of NASA’s programs and priorities in 1990 that
is still relevant today. Mr. Augustine was asked to
testify on:

• Would the initiative achieve an appropriate balance
  among NASA’s activities? In particular, the Augustine
  Commission viewed space science and earth science
  as the top priorities at NASA. Is that still your
  view and is it reflected in the President’s initiative?
• Does the estimated spending through 2020 seem adequate
  to carry out the President’s initiative? Which elements
  of the President’s initiative seem most likely to
  cost more money or take more time than is currently
  allotted to them?
• What questions is it most important for Congress
  to ask as it evaluates the proposed initiative?

Dr. Donna Shirley is the director of the Science
Fiction Museum and a former manager of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory’s Mars Program and former Assistant Dean
of the University of Oklahoma Aerospace Mechanical Engineering
Department. Dr. Shirley was asked to testify on:

• What are compelling justifications for sending humans
  into space? Does the President’s initiative provide
  adequate justification for sending humans to the moon
  and Mars?
• To what extent would scientific research concerning
  Mars be aided by a human presence on, or in orbit
  around that planet?
• Are the International Space Station and the moon
  the most appropriate stepping-stones for human space
  exploration if the ultimate objective is a human landing
  on Mars? What would be the advantages and disadvantages
  of a program that was targeted instead on sending
  a human directly to Mars? To what extent is research
  on the International Space Station likely to help
  remove the hurdles to long-duration space flight?
• Does the proposed initiative achieve the proper
  balance among NASA’s activities? Particularly, is
  the balance between exploration, space science and
  earth science, and between human and robotic missions
  appropriate?

Dr. Michael Griffin is the President of In-Q-Tel.
He has nearly 30 years of experience managing space
and information technology organizations. He served
as NASA’s Chief Engineer and Associate Administrator
for NASA in the early 1990s. Dr. Griffin was asked to
testify on:

• oes the estimated spending through 2020 seem adequate
  to carry out the President’s initiative? Which elements
  of the President’s initiative seem most likely to
  cost more money or take more time than is currently
  allotted to them?
• What are the greatest technological hurdles the
  President’s initiative must clear to be successful?
  To what extent must resolving some technological issues
  await further fundamental research? For example, how
  much work on a spacecraft for a Mars mission can be
  done before more is known about the effect on humans
  of spending long periods of time in space? How much
  work can be done before new propulsion technologies
  are developed?
• Are the International Space Station and the Moon
  the most appropriate stepping stones for human space
  exploration if the ultimate objective is a human landing
  on Mars? What would be the advantages and disadvantages
  of a program that was targeted instead directly on
  sending a human to Mars?
• What questions is it most important for Congress
  to ask as it evaluates the proposed initiative?

Dr. Lennard Fisk is chair of the Space Studies
Board (SSB), National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Fisk
led an SSB space policy workshop of experts in the fall
2003 that attempted to define the principal purposes,
goals, and priorities of U.S. civil space program. The
report from this workshop, "Issues and Opportunities
Regarding the U.S. Space Program", was released
in January 2004. Fisk is chair of the University of
Michigan Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space
Sciences and former associate administrator of NASA’s
space science and applications department. Dr. Fisk
was asked to testify on:

• What are compelling justifications for sending humans
  into space? Does the President’s initiative provide
  adequate justification for sending humans to the moon
  and Mars?
• Are the International Space Station and the moon
  the most appropriate stepping-stones for human space
  exploration if the ultimate objective is a human landing
  on Mars? What would be the advantages and disadvantages
  of a program that was targeted instead directly on
  sending a human to Mars?
• To what extent is research on the International
  Space Station likely to help remove the hurdles to
  long-term human presence in space? Does the proposed
  initiative achieve the proper balance among NASA’s
  activities? Particularly, does the initiative strike
  the right balance between exploration, space science
  and earth science?
• Does the estimated spending through 2020 seem adequate
  to carry out the President’s initiative? Which elements
  of the President’s initiative seem most likely to
  cost more money or take more time than is currently
  allotted to them? What questions is it most important
  for Congress to ask as it evaluates the proposed initiative?

Dr. Larry Young is the Apollo Program Professor
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and
Founding Director of the National Space Biomedical Research
Institute (NSBRI) in Houston, TX. He is an expert on
the physiological challenges for humans in space. Dr.
Young was asked to testify on:

• What are the most significant human physiology challenges
  that must be understood and overcome before humans
  embark on a mission to Mars or an extended presence
  on the moon? How daunting are those challenges and
  how quickly might they be resolved? How much significant
  research has been conducted on these issues already
  and where was that research conducted?
• To what extent could research aboard the International
  Space Station contribute to resolving critical questions
  related to human physiology in space? What kinds of
  experiments would have to be conducted and how long
  would it likely take before they produced meaningful
  results? Would additional equipment be needed aboard
  the Station for the experiments? To what extent could
  the requisite research be conducted on Earth?
• To what extent would the research budget for the
  Space Station have to change to accomodate a successful
  research in human physiology? How many astronauts
  would be needed aboard the Station to conduct such
  an agenda?
• How long after experiments began would the International
  Space Station have to remain in operation to produce
  meaningful information about human physiology?

Attachments
1. Charter from the February 12, 2004 House Science
Committee hearing on The President’s Vision for Space
Exploration
2. Charter from the October16, 2003 House Science Committee
hearing on The Future of Human Space Flight