All five witnesses at the hearing on "The Future of Human Space Flight" agreed with that statement, when asked by Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY). The witnesses were Dr. Michael Griffin, President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel and a former NASA official; Dr. Wesley Huntress, Director of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and a former NASA official; Dr. Matthew Koss, Assistant Professor of Physics, College of the Holy Cross; Dr. Alex Roland, professor of history, Duke University; and Dr. Bruce Murray, Professor Emeritus of Planetary Science and Geology at the California Institute of Technology and a former director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

In response to further questioning from Boehlert, all five witnesses also agreed that "the primary reason for human exploration is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal - although there can be collateral benefits; that we can take on ambitious goals without massive increases in the NASA budget; and that we should avoid sacrificing other NASA programs to achieve our human space flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that, "the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be getting to Mars, and preferably starting colonies or outposts in space."

Boehlert asked the questions to summarize the testimony given at the three-hour hearing.

In opening the hearing, Boehlert said, "Today's hearing is just the beginning of our efforts to build a national consensus" on this issue. He added, "We need to be thoughtful and deliberate and coldly analytical in putting together a vision for the future of human space flight. It has to be a long-term vision; we're not about to embark on any crash program - the technical challenges alone are enough to prevent that." Boehlert's complete opening statement is attached.

Ranking Democrat Ralph Hall (D-TX) added, "The human exploration of space is a fundamental expectation of the American people -- indeed of people all over the world. However, we remain unwilling as a nation to commit to a clear set of goals for the human space flight program and to the resources required over the long haul to achieve them.

"We can and should do better. Rep. Nick Lampson on our Committee has reintroduced the 'Space Exploration Act of 2003' (H.R. 3057), which would establish a phased set of goals for America's human space flight program, whereby the achievement of each goal helps provide the capabilities needed to attain successive goals. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of Mr. Lampson's bill; its adoption would go a long way towards providing a rational framework for our human space exploration investment decisions."

Witnesses called for a renewed sense of purpose and a more focused vision for NASA's programs. Huntress testified that the Space Station and Space Shuttle do not merit the risks that they entail. He said, "[I]f 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."

Similarly, Murray said the current NASA programs have us "bogged down" in low-Earth orbit.

"It is hard to explain the human space flight mission to the public unless we talk about destinations," Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Ranking Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) said. "The reality is that technology programs that are not tied to specific - and agreed-upon - mission goals become very vulnerable to budget cuts or even cancellation over time."

Koss, a scientist who has had several experiments on Shuttle missions, stated that the science currently being conducted in space is not worth the risk. "The vast majority of physical science experiments conducted in orbit simply do not require on-board human intervention or assistance," said Koss. Koss argued that unless a researcher could prove that the experiment needed human interaction, it should not put human lives at risk.

Griffin said a far more ambitious NASA program could be run for $20 billion a year -- about $5 billion more than NASA is currently receiving. Huntress agreed with that figure, and Roland and Murray said a worthwhile program could probably be run with no additional funds at all. In response to a question posed by Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Griffin said he would be willing to fund NASA at that level, even if such an increase forced cuts in university research programs. Huntress said he would not be willing to make such a tradeoff. All the witnesses emphasized that an Apollo-style crash program was neither necessary nor wise.

Roland went the furthest of the witnesses in his suggestions for the current NASA program. "The United States may have a long-term future in human space flight," he said, but "[f]or the near term�human space flight should be suspended, or at least drastically curtailed. If the shuttle flies at all, it should fly unmanned, or at worst with a minimal crew. The space station should be mothballed or converted to a space platform, a research facility to be visited periodically for refueling, maintenance, and changing experiments." Roland added, "The problem, of course, is the shuttle�While it is a technological marvel, it is also the world's most expensive, least robust, and most deadly launch vehicle."

Murray agreed that such a hiatus might be necessary to put human space flight on a path for future success. He said, "[T]he political leadership of this country must also insist on NASA developing and presenting a range of realistic alternatives to its current Shuttle/ Space Station plans that can enable a credible national commitment to a paced Mars human flight program.

"These alternatives necessarily should include multi-year suspensions of U.S. human flight as NASA elected to do in 1975 -1981, when NASA suspended U.S. human flight entirely after the Apollo-Soyuz mission until the first shuttle test flight in order to create the budget wedge enabling the Shuttle to be developed. Only by considering such painful alternatives can the relentless decline into mediocrity and irrelevance of U.S. human space flight be reversed within realistic budget considerations."

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only