While many recent NASA hearings have featured Administrator Sean O'Keefe
extolling President Bush's new human space exploration initiative,
a March 10 House Science Committee hearing gave a panel of non-governmental
witnesses an opportunity to share their views on the initiative. Committee
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) opened the hearing by remarking that
he remains "undecided" about the President's vision for exploration,
and Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon (D-TN) announced that, until
he was convinced that the President's plan was credible and responsible,
he was "not prepared to give the plan my support." While
the panel of witnesses (which included former NASA officials) all supported
further human exploration of space, they had varying opinions on aspects
of the President's vision. There was disagreement over the value of
the space station and the use of the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars,
and no consensus on the cost of the initiative. Some felt NASA's prioritization
of science was arbitrary, and others argued that the planned retirement
of the shuttle was premature. One area on which they agreed was the
potential of space exploration to ignite American students' interest
in science.
Gordon highlighted some of the science programs that would be cut,
delayed, or flat-funded in order to fund the new initiative, including
the Sun-Earth Connections program and research into the structure and
evolution of the universe. Lennard Fisk, Chairman of the National Academy
of Sciences' Space Studies Board, said that the way NASA determined
which programs were essential for the exploration initiative and which
were not "does not make sense to me," and warned that NASA
was setting "science against science."
Both Boehlert and Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) expressed concerns about the fate
of the Earth Science program, which Boehlert said was facing "a rather
substantial cut," based on NASA's budget projections through FY 2009.
Fisk agreed, saying NASA "should not falter" on its responsibility
to provide data for policymakers and the public on "how to be good
stewards" of the Earth.
Larry Young, MIT Professor and Founding Director of the National Space
Biomedical Research Institute, described the human physiology challenges
that need to be overcome for long-duration spaceflight and the essential
role of the space station in this research. But In-Q-Tel President
Michael Griffin recommended reevaluating the station's usefulness if
funding for the exploration initiative is deemed insufficient. Rep.
Nick Lampson (D-TX) questioned planned cutbacks in other space station
research and the effect on researchers; Young agreed that the station
was needed to conduct fundamental microgravity research in many areas
of science. Some of the witnesses challenged NASA's plans to retire
the shuttle at the completion of space station assembly, wondering
how America would fulfill its obligations to its international partners
and continue to conduct research on the station until a Crew Exploration
Vehicle was ready.
Several members of the panel also questioned the value of using the
Moon as a stopping-point on the way to Mars. Science Fiction Museum
Director Donna Shirley called it a "diversion" and said it
did not have enough in common with Mars to justify the "vast expenditure." She
and Young agreed with Boehlert's statement that once NASA reached the
Moon, and "money gets tight, and it inevitably will," further
progress might be curtailed. On the other hand, Fisk, Griffin and former
Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Officer Norman Augustine advocated
returning to the Moon; Griffin said it would be valuable for learning
to live on another planet and testing technologies for Mars, and he
also advocated extracting lunar oxygen as propellant for further space
travel.
Rep. Nick Smith (R-MI) asked whether, if the initiative's overriding
goal was exploration, the potential for new discoveries could be maximized
by using robotic missions. The witnesses generally approved of NASA's
intent to combine both human and robotic missions. Young said that "choosing
missions that can be done robotically [was] like looking for your keys
under a streetlight," and Griffin argued that one astronaut could
accomplish the same amount in a single day as the Mars rovers could
accomplish in 90 days. Ehlers commented, however, that the cost ratio
was approximately 1,000 robotic missions to one manned mission. He
urged using robots to gather as much information as possible so the
use of humans could be optimized.
Questioned about the cost of the initiative, Griffin thought a human
trip to Mars could be achieved for approximately the same cost in current
dollars as the Apollo program; he estimated a cost of $130 billion
to reach Mars and $30 billion to get to the Moon. Asked his opinion,
Fisk answered, "I have not a clue; I don't think any of us should." The
cost will depend, he said, on the incremental steps chosen along the
way. "I'm convinced," Ehlers warned, that it will "cost
significantly more" than $130 billion. All witnesses supported
the incremental, "go-as-you-pay" approach, and said available
funding will dictate how quickly progress is made. The only way to
sustain such an initiative over the long term, Fisk said, is to have "in
each congressional cycle some visible signs of progress." Ehlers
thought that the development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle would be
a key early test for congressional support; if NASA was successful
within a reasonable cost and schedule, Congress would be more likely
to maintain support for continuation of the program.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl