First Cruz Space Hearing Inquisitive, Not Confrontational

Sen. Ted Cruz’s first hearing as chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees NASA and commercial space activities was politely inquisitive and not confrontational as some expected.  Cruz (R-TX), a leading Tea Party activist, is a relative unknown quantity on space issues.  The hearing exhibited that he is an advocate of U.S. leadership in space, ending U.S. reliance on Russia, and supporter of commercial space.

As is typical, few Senators attended yesterday’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.  Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), the top Democrat (Ranking Member) on the subcommittee, and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), were there only briefly because they also serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where Secretary of State John Kerry was testifying at the same time.  (Ironically, Gardner unseated Udall’s cousin, Mark Udall, for that Colorado Senate seat in last year’s election.)

Cruz chaired the hearing for the full duration and was joined for most of it by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who was the chairman of this subcommittee in the last Congress when Democrats controlled the Senate.  Nelson is now Ranking Member of the full committee.  Cruz was the Ranking Member on the subcommittee in the last Congress, so the two have worked together on these topics in the past as well as on other committees and rarely see eye to eye.   In this case, however, Cruz’s opening statement was a pep talk about the space program full of familiar themes about the need for U.S. leadership in space and ending U.S. dependence on Russia.  Nelson noted the similarities in their views on those subjects, at least, and the two bantered about how the fact that they agreed on something could be used against them in future political campaigns.

The hearing broke little new ground, but sparked interesting dialogue.  One panel of former astronauts offered the usual hopes of human trips to Mars coupled with familiar warnings that NASA’s budget needs to grow to accomplish such a goal.  A second panel of industry and academic experts offered perspectives on commercial space, U.S. leadership, future human spaceflight destinations, and preferences in reauthorizing the Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA).

The first panel was comprised of three former astronauts:  Apollo 7’s Walter Cunningham, Apollo 11’s Buzz Aldrin (the second man to walk on the Moon), and space shuttle astronaut Mike Massimino.   The second panel was Boeing’s John Elbon, George Washington University’s Scott Pace, and the Commercial Spaceflight Federation’s Eric Stallmer.

Cruz is a vocal climate change skeptic and concerns were widely expressed in the space community when he became chairman of this subcommittee that he would use his position to try to restrict funding for NASA’s earth science research.  Cunningham is also a climate change skeptic and his inclusion on the panel fueled expectations that the hearing would focus on that topic.  In fact, however, climate change barely arose and only in response to a question from Udall to Massimino about whether he agreed that NASA should remain a multi-mission agency including funding programs for earth observation.   Massimino discoursed about how the International Space Station is a great “perch” for viewing Earth and his belief that if NASA can help with any of the problems facing the country and the world, it should.

Except for his opening statement, Cruz kept his own views to himself and asked thought provoking questions that allowed the witnesses an opportunity to share their perspectives.

Cruz’s key messages in that statement were:  NASA needs to get back to its “core priorities” of exploring space; the United States should be the leader in space; SLS and Orion are critical to exploring space “whether it is Moon, Mars or beyond” (omitting mention of asteroids); U.S. dependence on Russia for access to ISS is “unacceptable” and it is “imperative” that we be able to get to the ISS without the Russians; the commercial crew program is “critical” to ending U.S. dependence on Russia; and the United States should be able to launch national security satellites without Russian engines.  He said he is encouraged by progress on commercial cargo and crew, but “maximum efficiency and expedition” are needed, and he will be an “enthusiastic advocate of competition and the enabling of the private sector to compete and innovate.”   He ended by saying “There is no limit to human imagination or desire for exploration …. America has always led the way in space exploration and we need to reclaim that leadership.”

Interesting tidbits from the hearing include the following:

• Gardner, the freshman Senator from Colorado, wrote to NASA when he was 9 (in 1983) because he wanted to be an astronaut.  He brought along with him to the hearing the letter that NASA wrote in response encouraging him to study hard and so forth.  He noted that since then he has lived through the space shuttle program and, seeing it end, wondered if NASA is still capturing the imagination of today’s youth. 
• The first panel was asked for their thoughts about the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM).  Massimino said that an incremental approach to future human spaceflight is needed and, whatever it is, the key is to be consistent, keep options open, and keep momentum going.   Cunningham said that whatever we do will be expensive and unless Congress decides to increase NASA’s budget “this is just talk.”  Aldrin said “you can fly it the way it is, you can cancel it, or you can do something smart in between” and offered an alternative where a robotic probe as well as a crew would travel to an asteroid in its native orbit.  The crew, including scientists and asteroid mining and robotic experts, would spend 60 days there (as part of a one-year trip). 
• Aldrin explained in great detail his plan for human exploration of Mars using “cyclers” (described in his written statement).  He and students at Purdue are studying some of the details and he expects the report to be completed in April.  He proposes that “most” crews remain on Mars building a permanent settlement, with only some returning to Earth.
• Aldrin offered his view that the United States and China should cooperate in space and noted that this summer is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) and just as the United States and Soviet Union found a way to cooperate on that mission during the Cold War, we should be able to find a way to work with China today.
• There was disagreement on whether the United States should send astronauts back to the lunar surface.  Aldrin thinks other countries should do that, not the United States because we already have and we should not get “bogged down” there.  Instead the United States should focus on Mars.  Cunningham said he used to believe there was no need to return to the lunar surface, but has changed his mind and now thinks lunar surface missions are needed as an intermediate step to Mars.  When the second panel had its turn, Pace made it clear that he still believes a return to the lunar surface is needed (he was a top NASA official during the George W. Bush Administration when the Constellation program was underway).  Pace wants Congress to direct NASA to develop concepts for returning to the lunar surface with commercial partners.  He also stressed the need to align U.S. plans with international interests, and potential international partners want to land on the Moon.  However, he emphasized, international cooperation “is a means, not an end.” His overall argument is that “rules on a frontier are made by the people who show up, not the ones who stay behind” so the United States needs to be there.
• Stallmer argued for extension of third party liability indemnification and of the “learning period” for commercial human spaceflight (where the FAA cannot impose new regulations for a certain period of time) when reauthorizing CSLA. 
• Cruz asked about impediments to expansion of commercial space.   Stallmer cited regulatory uncertainty and that any disruption of the commercial crew schedule would be a significant setback.  Elbon and Pace both said that extending the life of ISS is important for the commercial cargo and commercial crew markets.  Pace stressed the need for a predictable environment for investment and the need to plan for what will come after ISS – “if you’re not planning today what you’re going to do next, you’re planning to go out of business.”  He foresees commercial cargo and crew expanding to serve lunar surface missions.
• Cruz asked how quickly we could end our reliance on Russia for crew access to the ISS and the RD-180 rocket engine used on the Atlas V.  Elbon said that Boeing’s CST-100 commercial crew spacecraft is on schedule to be ready by 2017 and is paced by internal work, not dollars – “we need to apply the level of money we proposed in our contract.”   The implication is that more money would not accelerate the program.  Elbon praised the RD-180 and argued for a “thoughtful” process in shifting to a new U.S.-built engine to replace it.  Pressed by Cruz to define a thoughtful approach, Elbon said the “pipeline” of RD-180s should be kept open as long as possible rather than setting a hard date for ending the contract (as is done in the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act).  Boeing and Lockheed Martin jointly own the United Launch Alliance, which builds and launches Atlas V, and Boeing plans to use Atlas V to launch CST-100.

The written statements of the witnesses and an archived webcast are available on the committee’s website.