Commission Chairman Pete Aldridge opened the hearing with
introductions of the Commission members, stated their purpose,
explained the hearing's proceedings, and emphasized they want people
to email them through their website. This is the most effective
means of communicating with them, and they want to hear from us.
The first panel was "Inspiring Youth and Improving Science/Math
Literacy". Witnesses were Dr Patricia Arnold, VP Education US Space
Foundation, Mrs. Peggy Finarelli, VP North American Operations
International Space University, Dr June Scobee Rodgers, Founding
Chairman Challenger Center for Space Science Education, and Mr Brett
Williams, Teacher Fredericksburg High School (Texas) Aeroscience
Program. The witnesses discussed their different programs
individually and answered questions from the Commission. Many
positive programs were discussed, current problems identified, and a
conclusion was proposed that the different programs should work
together and be centrally run from one office. (Lyle Kelly suggests
the Mars Society should also work with their education programs and
offer some of ours as well. I agree.)
The second panel was "Creating Prosperity and Fostering a Competitive
Environment". Witnesses were Dr Daniel Curran, President University
of Dayton, Mr Mike Cross, Project Manager Ball Aerospace, Mr Richard
Omlor, President & CEO YSI Incorporated, and Mr Vincent Russo,
Retired Sr Exec Air Force. Each discussed the status and products
produced by their individual company or program and contributions to
the space industry. These were technical presentations.
The last panel on Wednesday was "Human Sustainability for Long Term
Spaceflight". The Witnesses were Dr Stanley Mohler, Professor of
Aerospace Medicine and Dr Mary Anne Frey, Professor Emeritus in
Aerospace Medicine, both of Wright State University, Dayton Ohio. No
surprises here. They discussed the usual factors for consideration
from various body and health perspectives, air and pressure
containment, mission durations, radiation factors and so on. We were
very disappointed toward the end when it became obvious Dr Frey was
unaware or had forgotten about our Mars Society simulations in the
habitats where we had answers she said no one had. Other issues that
arose at the end had Lyle and myself squirming in our seats to
correct.
Immediately after dismissal, I talked to Pete Aldridge briefly to
explain that the Mars Society did have those answers and discussed
our hab simulations. He initially told me to have us email them at
their website; I stated we had, but I wanted to talk to them about
it. He directed me to their scheduler, Ms Susan Flowers, to arrange
(a) witness(es) for a future hearing. In the meantime, Lyle Kelly
talked to Dr.s Frey and Mohler to correct their knowledge.
Conversations were continued to day two.
The first panel Thursday was "Science and Technology". Witnesses
were Gen. Lance Lord, Commander, Air Force Space Command; Gen.
Gregory Martin, Commander, Air Force Materiel Command; MGen. Paul
Neilson, Commander, Air Force Research Laboratory. They each
discussed their roles in space and the technology the use that
depends on space use. A quote afterward by Chairman Aldridge is that
he wants "the exploration of space to be a national vision, not a
NASA vision". The question period following discussed further
military roles with space and the technology involved. If I may, a
personal observation from this group is that they either don't know
about commercial, non-government based space companies (such as for
space tourism) or they don't want space opened to non-governmental
companies. Just my observation.
The next panel was the civilian "Science and Technology" with Dr
Roger Angel, Professor of Astronomy & Optical Sciences University of
Arizona; Dr Michael Duke, Director of Space Combustion Center,
Colorado School of Mines; and Dr Andy Cheng Sr. (who was held up at
the Chicago airport), Planetary Exploration Group, John Hopkins
Applied Physics Laboratory. This panel was of most interest to the
Mars Society. Dr Angel recommended and discussed setting up a
telescope on one of the poles of the Moon which would contain a 6-
meter refractor. His opinion is that the Moon is "a lousy place to
go" but is good for telescopes. He proposed a very elaborate and
involved plan for mining and converting Moon ice for solar-electric
power for both the proposed telescope and maintenance missions.
Although extremely detailed, his plan was not cost-efficient and the
Commission did not find it financially feasible for the resources
needed. (That doesn't mean the original idea is bad; a telescope on
the Moon might be a good idea. -Monica) Dr Duke also discussed Moon
mining, but in great detail. He used the In-Situ Resource
Utilization idea applied to the Moon. My general impression is that
his desire is to go to the Moon and stay there, with no ambition to
go farther. Dr Cheng made it in with 10 minutes to spare. He
discussed asteroids and the role of humans exploring them. He
mentioned a possible threat to Earth of getting hit, and in answering
a Commission question, said astronauts should be sent to asteroids
before being sent to Mars.
After a break, John Glenn spoke. He stated the United States needs
to finish the ISS first and fulfill our obligations to other
countries. He does not support the idea of "building another Cape
Canaveral on the Moon" and says we should go to Mars from Earth. He
doesn't want us distracted by the Moon and stated if we were to
follow the extensive Moon work previously outlined, we would have
nothing left on which to go to Mars. "If we're going to go to Mars,
let's go to Mars." His idea for propultion was orbiting Earth to
build up speed, then using the force as a slingshot. He is a strong
supporter of research of all kinds, and supports the ISS for that
purpose. He'd like to see the space station and shuttle continued
and expanded.
Pop-up guest after Mr Glenn was Mr Frank Samuels from the Office of
Ohio Governor Taft. He offered Ohio's help to reach the goals and
expectations of the space program.
After lunch, the new panel continued "Science & Technology": Col. Joe
Boyle, Associate Director of the Propulsion Director (that's what it
says); Dr Charlie Browning, Director, Materials & Manufacturing; Col.
Mike Leahy, Jr, Director, Air Vehicles; and Col. William McCasland,
Director, Space Vehicles. Witnesses discussed technology they have
for future use by the space program. I couldn't follow most of
this. The technologies in this panel had the most commercial
applications so far. I did notice the idea of "reusable space
vehicles/components" is getting more recognized, though I'm not sure
the idea is always welcome to various parties.
Next was "Management and Sustainability" Issues and Opportunities
Regarding the U.S. Space Program by Mr Lennard Fisk, Chairman, Space
Studies Board, National Research Council. Mr Fisk brought up some
very excellent points. He said "space policy" boils down to "space
flight" and that the goal of NASA should be exploration (as opposed
to education, inspiration, technology for the sake of technology,
etc.). He explained robotic and human exploration are both needed in
synergy, and space exploration should be done in incremental steps.
As for NASA, he directly pointed out problems such as how it is
organized to support its infrastructure, not vice versa; currently,
its processes are more important than its results; and how the goals
changed from the Apollo era. He also questioned the mentality of
NASA's cuts. In my opinion, he is right on the money here. He sees
the big picture very clearly and knows what needs to be done how.
Before the next panel, Pete Aldridge drew names from a basket to
decide who from the public would get to address the Commission. Of
10 names drawn, Lyle Kelly was number 9, and Monica Ice was number 10.
The last panel of witnesses was "Management Techniques for a "System
of Systems"". Representatives from The Boeing Company, Lockheed
Martin, and Northrop Grumman spoke. They each presented a slide show
which, in Lyle's and Monica's opinion, was far too cluttered with
information and pictures to illustrate any message. They spoke about
extremely complicated technological systems which presumably could be
used in the space program, with promises they could be made even more
complex. Not much was gleaned from this panel by any Mars Society
members. They didn't share our "keep it simple" idea.
The lottery winners from the public got to speak next in two-minute
time slots, and Lyle Kelly's name came up first. Lyle spoke about
three factors to help the Commission on the topic
of "sustainability": 1. Attention by the public, 2. Low Cost, and 3.
Private Enterprise. Key statements by Lyle included simple,
articulated goals such as "Mars By 2020" with visible progress
markers, staying below the cost-cutter's radar by using existing
technology and adopting a simple mission design archetecture, and
engaging the public in space through suborbital and space tourism.
Monica was last of the 10 and discussed the Mars Society habitation
units, Dr Zubrin's new book, "Mars On Earth", our Pressurized Rover
prototypes, greenhouse, Mars spacesuits, the Mars Gravity Bio-
Satillite, In-Situ Resource Utilization, the Mars Direct plan, our
Mars Society website, published papers, and Crew Rotation logs. She
told the Commission we can be obn Mars by 2020 and offered the Mars
Society's information to the Commission. (Pete Aldridge
replied, "Thank you, Monica; we will use it.") After the hearing was
adjourned, Lyle and Monica once again talked to Susan Flowers, giving
her names (with contacts Monica could remember) for future hearing
witnesses from the Mars Society and giving her a complimentary copy
of Dr Zubrin's "Mars On Earth" for the Commission.
A repeated point through the entire hearing was a space program
recommendation with sustainability. Also, the value of reusable
vehicles are becoming very apparent. A main goal of the Commission
is to propose a recommendation that would stand through many
Presidents and Congresses. Our impression from the Mars Society
members attending is that many witnesses gave reports about what they
are doing, but didn't offer answers that might help the Commission in
reaching their objectives. Our post-hearing impression is that we,
in the two-minute slots, gave them more answers to their charge than
did any other witnesses who spoke. (I'm not saying this out of
conceit; we really believe this.) Their reaction to us was very
positive.
Although we feel it is important to continue our pursuit and
cooperation with the Commission at future hearings, we also realize
that the Commission's recommendation isn't what will ultimately get
us to Mars. The Commission's recommendation will go to the
President, who in turn will present a package to the Congress for
approval. The final decision rests with the Congress as to whether
the President's recommendation is accepted or rejected and if it is
paid for. This is why we must continue to contact our Senators and
Representatives to both offer them information and express our
opinions in this matter. Speaking from experience, they find our
input very valuable, and they consider our input and information when
they face these issues.
![[Mars Blog]](/images/masthead.gif)
