Thread by @jeff_foust

On Capitol Hill for this afternoon’s hearing on NASA’s Moon and Mars program, featuring Tom Stafford and Tom Young. Won’t start right at 2 pm EST since neither witness, nor members of the subcommittee, are in the room yet. bit.ly/33G0Ck1

And we’re underway.

Subcommittee chair Horn: it’s critical we move beyond LEO, and ensure it’s done sustainably, affordably, and safely.

Subcommittee ranking member Babin criticizes NASA for allowing companies to use commercial rockets for human lunar lander proposals; the most optimal architecture uses heavy-lift rockets like SLS.

Babin adds that with “dwindling” odds of getting sufficient funding this year to enable 2024 deadline, it’s an opportunity to revisit lunar landing architecture, one that makes greater use of SLS.

Full committee chair Eddie Bernice Johnson: the 2024 lunar landing directive from the administration appears neither to be executive nor provide a sustainable path to Mars.

Gen. Stafford starts his remarks by praising the 2010 NASA authorization bill, which directed NASA to develop the SLS.

Stafford recalls recommendation of his Synthesis Group report from ~1990, which called for a heavy-lift rocket of 150-250 tonnes capacity; hope we get there someday, although SLS is small compared to that.

Young: need full capability of NASA and industry to achieve Mars-Moon program. Management and contracting “experiments” should be excluded.

Young: inclusion of Mars-Moon program makes NASA’s overall human spaceflight portfolio unachievable. Termination of some activities will be required.

Rep. Horn: is Moon still a stepping-stone for Mars?
Stafford: Absolutely. So many things to do there, work out the unknowns. Wouldn’t launch to Mars from the Moon, though. [Sorry, Ad Astra]

Horn: is a heavy-lift rocket necessary?
Stafford: if you don’t have a big booster, you’re not going to make it [to the Moon.] Also need big rocket for large volume they provide for infrastructure needed for lunar missions.

Babin: is NASA’s lunar lander approach an example of management and contracting experiments to be avoided?
Young: don’t think we should buy seats to fly to the Moon; landers should be government-acquired assets.

Young says that a human Mars program is probably the most challenging thing we could do as a civilization.

Young: an objective like humans to Mars is an inspiration and beacon; way for us to tell future generations there’s a lot of opportunity.
[Waiting for the “OK, boomer” retorts in 3, 2, 1…]

Stafford is critical of approaches that require multiple launches to get to the moon, agrees with analysis by Doug Cooke of only a 50% success rate for NASA’s baseline architecture.
Rep. Lucas: oh my.

Young: if we extend ISS to 2030, and don’t get additional funding, “absolutely” will delay a human return to the Moon, and do so significantly.
[An ISS extension to 2030 is included in the Senate’s NASA authorization bill that cleared the Commerce Cmte today.]

Young: NASA administrator Bridenstine has gone above and beyond in interacting with public on this, but need NASA to function with a high sense of urgency.

Stafford: international partners can help, but they have to be on time and pay. [I wonder if partners think the same of the US.]

Young: applaud what commercial people are doing, but in an endeavor as challenging as this, should have the best compete, led by NASA.

Young: don’t see a role for the Gateway in Moon program, instead, role for testing tech for the Mars program. Not a compelling argument for it for the Moon.

Stafford: I’ve done more rendezvous than anyone. I have some serious questions about use of near-rectilinear halo orbit for lunar program.

Chairman Horn wraps up the hearing by expressing gratitude to the witnesses, who get a (rare) round of applause from the remaining members.