▶ 0:07:36Good morning. The subcommittee on space and aeronautics will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's hearing. strategic trajectories, assessing China's space rise and the risks to the United States leadership. I'll recognize myself for five minutes for our opening statement.
▶ 0:08:02The topic today will address is nothing more than a critical issue and defining challenge for this committee. Understanding China's bold ambitions, addressing their unapologetic drive for dominance in space. We are at the start of the next age of exploration, one where humanity is not just observing the cosmos, but acting on its observations and beginning to inhabit it.
▶ 0:08:28For those who are new to this issue, the question we should be asking as we explore beyond the planet is, will humanity carry forward the American values of economic and political freedom or those of the Chinese Communist Party? For generations, the United States led humanity into space with unmatched ingenuity and without a true rival. However, that situation is changing as China moves methodically.
▶ 0:08:57relentlessly and ruthlessly to tighten its grip on space capabilities and seek the strategic advantage by any means History mindsets that that great power competition shapes the destiny of Just as the rivalry between Spain and Great Britain defined oceans in the 16th and 17th century, the competition between the United States and China will define the space domain today.
▶ 0:09:27Whoever leads beyond Earth will shape the future of Earth. Let's go back to 1957. China's ambitions goes back decades. Moments after Sputnik shook the world, Chairman Mao declared, "We too will make satellites." That declaration ignited a vision that has never faded.
▶ 0:09:54In 1992, China set into motion Project 921, its human space fight program, which continues today. In recent years, China's pace has surged in part due to the declaration of the space dream, which transformed aspirations into coordinated missions for dominance. China's space sector has since surged forward, aimed to compete with America's worldleading commercial space industry.
▶ 0:10:24This is not an accident. It is To be clear, the objective is not merely to keep up. Their objective is to outpace, outmaneuver, and ultimately defeat our nation, the United States of America. But America is not standing still. In my district, Kennedy Space Center, we surpassed 100 launchers just two weeks ago.
▶ 0:10:4895 launches came from one company, SpaceX, who first launched in China is not even close with around 73 launches. Still, Beijing is pressing ahead. Their plans include landing their astronauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and constructing research base on the moon's south pole by 2035. They are also launching historic firsts.
▶ 0:11:16China has already returned lunar samples from the far side of the moon, the first to do so. Next, they intend to launch a Mars sample return mission in 2028, a timeline that may beat the United States. In low Earth orbit, we plan to de-orbit our own space station.
▶ 0:11:37China has maintained a continuous human presence on its own space station since 2021, where their astronauts serve in six months rotations. In the coming years, China's intends to deploy its own space-based internet service and expand its global alternative to GPS. And while this committee's jurisdiction covers commercial and civil space programs, we cannot ignore their army's rapidly advancing space and counter space capabilities.
▶ 0:12:08Their systems are designed to threaten, disrupt, and if necessary, take out United States assets in space. So again I ask, will humanity co move forward with American values of economic and political freedom or those of the communist Chinese? The reality is stark. China possesses a real immediate and long-term threat to the United States leadership in space.
▶ 0:12:35And fortunately, today's witnesses will provide us with more detailed overview of China's trajectory in history, strategy, and intentions. They will also share recommendations about how this committee and Congress should respond to this true challenge. I thank our distinguished panel today for uh for being here today and sharing their expertise with us and I look forward to a serious productive conversation about the challenges we face today.
▶ 0:13:04Um but before I move forward, I'd like to ask for unanimous consent uh for a statement from the full committee uh by Dr. Babin to present that copy. And without objection, show that um ordered. And with that, I want to recognize our ranking member, Miss Fushi from North Carolina for her opening statement. Thank you so much.
▶ 0:13:23Thank you and good morning. And thank you, Chairman Heridopoulos, for holding today's hearing to review China's space activities and the implications for the United States space program. I want to also welcome our distinguished witnesses. Thank you for being here. It is no surprise that we are here today to assess China's space rise and the risks to US leadership.
▶ 0:13:48China's ascending space capabilities are fast approaching strategic comparability with the United States. This is intentional. Zi Jinping's space dream stresses the importance of China dominating the space domain.
▶ 0:14:05The recently released 2025 annual report to Congress of the US China Economic and Security Review Commission states that China has embarked on a whole of government strategy to become the world's preeminent space power. These are not mere projections or rhetoric. China is methodically carrying out increasingly sophisticated space capabilities in its efforts to dominate.
▶ 0:14:35China has joined the ranks of only the US and Russia in launching humans into space. To date, China has become only the second nation to land and operate a spacecraft on Mars.
▶ 0:14:48In addition, China operates a continuously crude space station in low Earth orbit and has racked up a number of firsts, including landing on and collecting and returning samples from the far side of the moon and placing communication satellites around the moon and more. That is not a halt.
▶ 0:15:10China has publicly announced its plans to land humans on the surface of the moon by 2030, establish a permanent international lunar research station by and acquire samples for Mars and return them to Earth in the early 2030s.
▶ 0:15:30In 2024, China released its first mid and long-term plan for space science in [clears throat] which it aims to achieve top tier international ranking in major space science areas by 2050. Further, China is aggressively investing in and enabling a quasi commercial space sector as well as growing its international Why does it matter?
▶ 0:15:56The People's Republic of China, for which there is no distinction between civil and military space, knows that leadership in space has brought the United States invaluable geopolitical soft power, significant and beneficial international alliances, economic growth fueled by innovation, bold and inspiring missions that drive and attract STEM talent, and national security advantages.
▶ 0:16:26How we navigate China's ascending space capabilities today has direct impacts on every American. Our banking, communications, weather prediction, agriculture, natural resource management, and national security, for example, all rely on space systems. Threats to the US's presence and leadership in space could put at risk a critical backbone of our social, security, and economic systems.
▶ 0:16:57And how are we navigating China's space rise? The Trump administration appears to believe that attacking research universities, gutting our federal STEM workforce, withdrawing from international engagement, and significantly underinvestigating investing rather in research and development is the answer.
▶ 0:17:19Just look at this stark comparison between China's space science plans and those of the Trump administration as prepared by the Planetary Society. Is this a winning strategy? While I'm pleased that the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope on which both Duke and North Carolina Central University in my district collaborate is maintained and making excellent progress.
▶ 0:17:47Seeding so many transformational space science missions to China alone would send a dangerous message. As ranking member of this subcommittee, I have expressed before I will not stand for handing the keys to lunar exploration or space leadership to China. This is a pivotal moment.
▶ 0:18:09We on this subcommittee and the science committee have a responsibility and an obligation to advance sound policies that ensure and sustain America's civil and global leadership in We must meet this challenge with bold policies, robust investments, and a unified vision to preserve our nation's leadership in space exploration and We also need to
▶ 0:18:40critically navigate our coexistence with China in space. For example, are there areas where limited engagement in China, such as on space flight safety, could serve US interests? At this time, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask for unanimous consent to permit Representative Don Baya to attend this hearing and ask questions of the
▶ 0:19:04Without cons uh objection, that is ordered. Uh next, we have I want to recognize our ranking member, the uh on the full committee, uh Mrs. Lran, for a comment as well.
▶ 0:19:15Well, [clears throat] thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for today's hearing. A topic is very important uh for our work here in the science committee and the federal science technology and innovation enterprise. As we know, China is making unprecedented investments in research and development across science and technology and space is a core component of their strategy.
▶ 0:19:39uh they represent a real uh threat to the United States long history as the undisputed global leader in space and it's critical that we understand the PRC's current capabilities, their plans as well as their strategic objectives.
▶ 0:19:57At the same time, it's also critical that we redouble our commitment to supporting and stewarding a strong, robust space program that continues to push the boundaries in Earth and space science in human space flight exploration and space technology development.
▶ 0:20:17You know, in the very first science committee hearing in this Congress, we heard from expert witnesses about the state of US science and technology and that China was actually leading in 37 of 44 critical In my remarks at that hearing, I said we couldn't ignore the reality outside the four walls of this hearing room.
▶ 0:20:42Uh the new administration was actively and with unprecedented speed and ferocity apparently seeking to tear down and undermine some of the very scientific foundations upon which our leadership has been so painstakingly built. Now we're here 10 months later and the administration has not relented in its destructive endeavors.
▶ 0:21:09The US science and technology enterprise continues to take blow after blow. NASA and the space enterprise has not been spared. This summer, the administration launched a pressure campaign of intimidation against the entire NASA civil servant workforce. And now the agency has lost nearly 4,000 people, over 20% of its civil servant workforce.
▶ 0:21:35And there doesn't seem to be a strategy in determining who should leave and who should stay. And just over the last couple of months, largely under the cover of a government shutdown, NASA has been rushing to shutter nearly half of the Gddard Space Flight Cent's main campus. I simply do not understand how anyone reconciles rhetoric about competing with China while pulling the rug out from under our own research enterprise.
▶ 0:22:06I don't want to speak for our witnesses, but I expect that we are about to hear that China is not callulling its talent and technical capabilities, that it's not undermining its universities and turning the world's brightest minds away. Yet that is what our federal government uh is being forced to do today by really an outofcrol White House and OM. Congress needs to step up to the bat.
▶ 0:22:34Uh the clock's ticking as this administration continues to our science and technology enterprise. China is deliberately and systematically implementing long-term plans. Now, I have no doubt that all of us on both sides of the aisle serving on this committee want to ensure US leadership in space, but words are cheap and actions are priceless.
▶ 0:23:01It's [clears throat] up to us on this committee and in Congress to take the necessary actions that will sustain our global leadership in space and in science and technology more broadly. Anything less is an invitation to take uh let China take the mantle in space and in so much more. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
▶ 0:23:26Thank you. We're now going to introduce our witnesses. Um first our our first witness today is Dr. Dean Chang who serves as senior fellow at the PTOAC Institute for Policy Studies. Our second witness is Dr. Clayton Swopee who serves as a deputy director of this aerospace security project at the center for strategic and international studies. Our third witness is Dr. Patrick Bishu who is the founder of the Global Space Group. And our final witness is Dr.
▶ 0:23:56Michael Griffin who serves as the co-president of Logic Q Inc. I'd like to thank each of our witnesses for joining us today. And our first uh speaker today will be Mr. Chang for five minutes to present his testimony. welcome to the
▶ 0:24:10Uh thank you very much, sir. Uh Chairman Herodopoulos, ranking member Fushi, uh ranking member Lofrren. Um thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Uh my comments are uh purely my own. Uh as the uh opening remarks noted, the Chinese Communist Party sees space as vital.
▶ 0:24:30Space from the CCP's perspective contributes to all aspects of comprehensive national power, military, economic, diplomatic, political, scientific, and technological, even cultural. One of the key benefits this PRC sees from engaging heavily in space is the experience gained in things like systems integration and systems engineering which then redowns throughout the Chinese economy and throughout in all of its various aspects.
▶ 0:25:01Space from the CCP's perspective is also vital because we live in the information age and space is central for establishing information dominance in a world where information is the new currency of power, economic power, military power, international power. To this end, the Chinese are using space to develop their domestic technoeconomic base. two key concepts in this regard.
▶ 0:25:27One is dual circulation, creating essentially a walled off domestic economy where foreign players are not part of the supply chain. Engaging intense internal competition to generate new technology and efficient production which they will then go out and compete globally against the rest of the world including American companies. And the other element here is military civil fusion which is ensuring that every dingp of investment serves both civil and military purposes.
▶ 0:25:58And we see in particular the Chinese shift from a stateowned enterprise centric approach to one that also embraces commercial enterprises as a key part of the overall Chinese effort to improve their overall space industrial complex. In this regard, then the Chinese have a plan and that plan is very much the core of the threat to the United States. In essence, the Chinese are striving to build out their space capabilities.
▶ 0:26:27Whether it is an array of satellite networks and constellations including mega constellations, a cis lunar capacity to support a sustained long-term presence both on the moon and in cis lunar space replete with lunar position navigation timing and communication support and of course building out a robust military space capability as reflected in the military aerospace force.
▶ 0:26:53second to build up their space industrial base which will include commercial as well as stateown enterprise elements but has also seen the creation of regional uh aerospace industrial complexes in places like Wuhan uh away from Beijing and Shanghai and finally building in dual use military civil fusion is about creating a melded fused national industrial base that can service both the military and civilian uh
▶ 0:27:23demands here. The Chinese have a huge advantage and much of the opening remarks by the respected members highlights this. China sticks to a plan. It creates a plan and it sticks to it for decades and the benefit there is programmatic stability, budgetary stability, staff stability. I know I will have a job on this project for years and decades and the people I work with will be the same ones.
▶ 0:27:51Very quickly specifically on the PLA aspect, the People's Liberation Army. The PLA poses a multiaceted threat in part because China views space holistically. Satellites, ground segment data links. The threat to American space systems therefore is not simply the very sexy image of anti-satellite systems, but also jamming and cyber attacks.
▶ 0:28:12And we have seen uh the uh the intelligence community accuse China of engaging things like vault typhoon uh implanting malware in critical infrastructure. But we should also uh note that the Chinese being very close observers of other people's wars have undoubtedly learned lessons such as operation spiderweb in Ukraine. the use of drones launched within an adversar's country to attack critical infrastructure which in this case should be considered to include space capabilities.
▶ 0:28:43The other aspect of the threat however is the industrial and standards aspect. The growth of Chinese commercial poses a very different but nonetheless threatening challenge. Why shouldn't other countries buy from PRC commercial companies? and Huawei leads the way in demonstrating how China has been very much able to use commercial capabilities to um achieve inroads where it does not therefore have to use the military.
▶ 0:29:12Thank you very much to the committee for the opportunity to be here today.
▶ 0:29:15Thank you Mr. Chang. Next we have Mr. Swope for five minutes. You are Thank you, Chairman Heridopoulos, Ranking Member Fushi, Ranking Member Lofrren, and distinguished members of the committee. I am honored to share my views with you on this important topic. CSIS does not take policy positions, so the views represented in this testimony are my own and not those of my employer.
▶ 0:29:41The People's Republic of China is methodically executing an ambitious space agenda that aims to prove that China is a world power in space without equal. Beijing is using space in ways that provide direct tangible benefits to its military and its economy while also fostering national pride and unity.
▶ 0:29:59Every new space technology, skill, and industrial capacity acquired by the PRC will be used to provide the People's Liberation Army, a battlefield advantage, as well as power civilian and commercial innovation and e economic So, what is China doing today? Space fits squarely into the PRC's economic development policies to increase its industrial might. The PRC has built satellite and rocket factories and associated supply chains, launch facilities, ground stations, and space object tracking systems.
▶ 0:30:29China is developing on-orbit technologies such as inspace refueling, highly maneuverable satellites, space-based nuclear and solar power, and satellite docking and capture technologies. To date, China has not shown that it can conduct space launch at the same scale or build satellites as fast as the United States. But China is working to close that gap and master reusable launch. It just tested a reusable launch vehicle within the last 24 hours.
▶ 0:30:56China is already launching satellite The PRC's civil space program has methodically checked off achievements in human space flight and uncrrewed exploration that will probably culminate in a human landing on the moon by 2030. China has already built three space stations and conducted six robotic lunar missions and a mission to Mars. China is on track to be the first country to return samples of Mars to Earth.
▶ 0:31:21China has deployed space capabilities that allow the PLA to monitor what is happening on Earth and in space, communicate with its forces throughout the Indoacific region, and navigate with a high level of precision. The PLA is fielding an increasingly sophisticated toolkit of counterpace weapons that can threaten US and allied satellites. To date, China has mostly copied the US playbook in space. But China is doing things that no one else has done. China was the first nation to land on and conduct a sample return from the far side of the moon.
▶ 0:31:52China conducted the world's first satellite refueling in geocynchronous orbit just within the last few months. China operates the first and only communication satellite in an orbit around an Earth moon lrange So what can the United States do? How should we think about this? If the United States is in a race with China, it is a race that has no end other than an end associated with the rise and fall of nations in a time frame measured over centuries.
▶ 0:32:18Chairman, to your point, like the contest between England and Spain, I also think the contest between Rome and Carthage. These races last centuries. China is running such a race. With its focus on military civil fusion, Beijing is marshalling its technical and manufacturing resources to enhance its overall national power with space playing a key role.
▶ 0:32:40The importance of space to national power is also recognized by the United States with President Trump noting in July that space systems power exploration, defense, and communication and that the nation will ensure the American flag remains the ultimate symbol of leadership across the final frontier. Though the PRC space power is growing, the United States can retain its lead and ensure it remains the world's most consequential space power. To do so, we must use our strongest advantages. We have a mature yet still growing space innovation ecosystem.
▶ 0:33:10We have a space economy built on free market principles. And we have a coalition of willing international partners who want and choose to work with the United States. These characteristics of our national space power are force multipliers and should be harnessed in the same way that Beijing uses military civil fusion to advance the defense, economic security, scientific objectives, and prestige of our nation.
▶ 0:33:32In 1963, Edward Teller, a scientist who played a critical role in the Manhattan Project, testified before Congress on strategic developments, saying that I believe that in a race for knowledge, we will win. But I believe that in a race in which we are not running are running half-heartedly. We have been losing and we will continue to lose. Today, we as a nation may face a similar situation in space. We have many advantages over the PRC, structural advantages that we can use to maintain our edge.
▶ 0:34:01But to do so, we need to start running.
▶ 0:34:07Thank you, Mr. Swope. Next, we have Dr. Basa. I could pronounce your name correctly. I want to make sure I
▶ 0:34:13Bisha. Thank you very much. You're recognized for five minutes.
▶ 0:34:16Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Herodopoulos, Ranking Member Fushi, and Ranking Member Lram. Distinguished members of the committee. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to provide my perspective on China's space strategy and its implications for the US. You know, when I started at NASA 20 years ago as a specialist on China, the country had just launched their first astronaut um into orbit and had not yet launched their first lunar mission. How times have changed.
▶ 0:34:39Today, the US and China are the two most powerful space fairing nations engaged in a long-term strategic competition that spans multiple elements. Geopolitics, national security, economic competitiveness, social and cultural influence, and science. I'll briefly discuss each major area. Geopolitics, national pride, and prestige have been central drivers of China's space program since its establishment.
▶ 0:35:02Today, human spaceflight missions are most close closely associated with these goals, including its current space station and planned human lunar landing and the international lunar research station. Human space flight is extraordinarily expensive and highly symbolic and so therefore it serves a very powerful signaling function. The geopolitical stakes were once summed up summed up by Lynden Johnson as in the eyes of the world first in space means first period. Second in space is second in everything.
▶ 0:35:28Today, the importance of space has only grown with our national security and econ economy relying on it. Developing a major space program has also an exercise in compelling excellence. From propulsion and material science to industrial organization and supply chains, space missions pull and push the development of new technologies while adhering to the highest quality standards. In essence, such missions provide a tangible measure of a nation's economic strength and geopolitical power.
▶ 0:35:53Secondly, our ability to operate in space is integral to national security, including our utilization of position, navigation, and timing, reconnaissance, communications. The same holds true for all major space powers. Second, space has been always been intensely dual use. Um, from military-funded civilian startups to federally funded research centers that build both civil and military spacecraft. In China, a similar phenomenon is referred to as military civil fusion. It's part of a comprehensive effort to exploit the best innovation wherever it may exist.
▶ 0:36:21In 2019, images of Chonga four on the far side of the moon were celebrated in the great hall of the people. Xiinping hailed it as the the mission as a demonstration of a new type of whole nation system. Social and cultural influence also shapes the strategy of the space program. Space flight is a core part of the China dream of national rejuvenation, a return to the country's preeminent place at the center of the world and now the expansion of civilization deeper into the solar system.
▶ 0:36:47Tying together China's ancient and modern cultures is a hallmark of Xiinping thought and a push to promote the country's unique cultural identity while legitimizing party rule. One way this is symbolized is the use of traditional mythology in the naming of uh their space missions. Economic competitiveness is a measure of how well a nation's firms compete globally. It can provide insight into firm productivity or how efficiently inputs are turned into products and services.
▶ 0:37:13China's state-owned enterprises typically lag its private uh sector firms in productivity. For this reason, it expanded the commercial space sector, which is now the world's second largest after the US. However, under its state capitalist model, the commercial sector is still robustly controlled by the state. From capital markets to firm management, core to the nation's competitiveness is its manufacturing. China's ability to outproduce and outscale others is reflected in its roughly one-third share of all manufacturing in the world.
▶ 0:37:42With this comes process knowledge. Uh not simply the building instructions, but the hands-on knowledge of how to build, how to innovate, and how to become more efficient. China has hundreds of space companies competing to drive down costs through process and scale efficiencies. As space becomes commoditized, this approach will greatly improve its economic competitiveness just as it has in other sectors such as solar. The pursuit of science and the expansion of knowledge is evident in the country's recent achievements.
▶ 0:38:10As you mentioned, uh the first uh return of lunar samples since 1976, the first successful landing on Mars, a second uh country to land on Mars successfully. Its latest science strategy covering the next 25 years proposes ambitious missions to Jupiter and Saturn. uh Jupiter and Neptune, excuse me. Other key strategies such as made in China 2025 also prioritize space.
▶ 0:38:31Success in these goals um such as building infrastructure on the lunar south pole and returning samples from Mars would mark exceptional worldclass uh world first achievements with significant national prestige and soft power effects. We are engaged not so much in a space race but a long-term broad strategic competition.
▶ 0:38:51I recommend a few measures that could support an enduring American advantage, support earth and space science robustly, including strategic missions of national importance, establish a long-term Aremis mission manifest, and advance strategic international cooperation. Uh, I recently left NASA, but I have great optimism that the agency and its partners in industry can, if appropriately funded, continue to achieve the highest level of excellence. Thank you.
▶ 0:39:16Thank you, Dr. Bisha. Uh, finally, we'll have Dr. Griffin of his first five minutes. Welcome to the committee.
▶ 0:39:23Chairman Herendopoulos, ranking members Fucher and Lofrren, and members of the committee, I thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss what I believe to be a critically important topic. To the point of this hearing, the Chinese Communist Party's goals in space and its rising capability to implement them could not be more clear. China is going to the moon. No access to classified information or other special knowledge is required to realize this.
▶ 0:39:53In my statement for the record, I've noted well over a dozen open- source references from among among many more that could be offered describing their progress in developing the heavy lift launch vehicles, crude lunar lander, lunar surface suit rover, and earth return vehicle that went able that will enable the execution of an Apollo style mission to the lunar surface. Going to the moon is a very hard thing.
▶ 0:40:18They may or may not make it by the publicly referenced date of 2030, but that's not important. What is important is China is going to the moon. The problem facing us is not China's rise. We cannot control what China is doing. We can only control what we are doing.
▶ 0:40:39Of those efforts, I am forced to say that mediocrity would be an We have squandered a 60-year head start on pioneering the space frontier to a nation that without reason or provocation on our part has chosen to become our adversary. For a self-declared adversary to occupy a human frontier that we can no longer reach should be understood as an existential concern, if only because of their own words on the matter.
▶ 0:41:07from Yay Pen, China's former director of lunar exploration missions at the 2017 Beijing Space Congress. I quote, "The cosmos is an ocean. The moon is the Deu Islands. Mars is Hunga Yan Island, which we call Scarboro Shaw. If we can go but don't go, future generations would condemn us.
▶ 0:41:32Once others are there, once others have occupied, no matter how much you wanted to go, you couldn't. This is a stunning statement. The United States and its allies and partners would never think to say that if we reach the moon while others cannot, they cannot also go there. The fact that key figures in the Chinese Communist Party hold this view should be of the utmost concern. But what is our response?
▶ 0:42:00When I appeared before this committee on January 17th of 2024, I offered a rather blunt assessment of NASA's plan for human return to the moon. I said it will not work in any reasonable time frame.
▶ 0:42:14Additional misgivings have been more recently offered by former NASA administrator Jim Benstein in September 2025 Senate hearing and by the NASA aerospace safety advisory panel, both referenced in my statement for the To avoid offering criticism without a solution, in my 2024 statement, I submitted a system architecture for human lunar return that could be implemented with systems available today or near-term. I and my colleague Dr.
▶ 0:42:43Lisa Porter, who contributed significantly to both that testimony and today's, subsequently offered a more comprehensive paper on that architecture, available online and incorporated for reference in my statement for the record for this hearing. Others have also suggested alternative system architectures for human lunar return missions.
▶ 0:43:05However, NASA, two successive presidential administrations, and the Congress that oversees them have so far chosen to continue on a path that cannot work and which, even if it could, poses a level of crew risk that should be considered I will repeat my recommendation from 23 months ago. The Aremis 3 mission and those beyond should be cancelled and we should start again, proceeding with all deliberate speed. We have lost a lot of time.
▶ 0:43:35We may or may not be able to return to the moon before the Chinese execute their own first landing. Or we may. Space is hard and despite the progress that China is making, mission success is guaranteed to no one. But though we may not win at this first step, we cannot seed the pursuit and leave the playing field to others. The true risk the United States faces right now is not just in failing to return to the moon before China, but in failing to commit to what winning really means.
▶ 0:44:06In the long run, winning is about being first and then remaining to establish the protocols, the governance rules, and ultimately the culture and values, the primacy of the individual over the state, the rule of law, the right to own property, the bounty of the free market. that others who wish to join us on the human frontier must embrace. Establishing the foundations for that future cannot be accomplished without a sustained commitment. I am confident that China fully understands this.
▶ 0:44:36Thank you.
▶ 0:44:38Thank you, Dr. Griffin. Um I thank each of the witnesses for their testimony. I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. Um Mr. Chang if we would. Uh there's been a lot of discussion about schedules and the idea that the United States and China of course are in this race not only to the moon but beyond. Uh but there's also been this unique conversation.
▶ 0:44:58I think each one of you brought it up in the sense that China seems to stay on schedule a little better than the United States at this point despite as I think everyone in this room knows we put an additional 10 billion dollars into NASA during the the bill that we passed in July. Uh that said, what allows China to stay on schedule and what can we learn from their at this point success in staying on schedule?
▶ 0:45:24Uh Mr. Chair, um I think that uh one of the ironies here is that the very that uh is a hallmark of the Chinese system does grant certain benefits. uh one of which is the ability to coersse uh a workforce a uh overall government but two because the CCP has set a target uh whether it is to put a man in orbit uh or to put uh Chinese boots on
▶ 0:45:54the moon uh that is then translated to programmatic imperatives across the bureaucracy which is not to say that there aren't bureaucratic uh resistance centers within the system. But when it is high-profile uh when it is Xi Jinping or his predecessor Hu Jinga or his predecessor Jang Zamin who says you will make this happen uh woe bide the bureaucracy that chooses to fight it.
▶ 0:46:21Alongside that is a economic structure that allows five-year plans which allows again the budgetary stability. If it is in the five-year plan, it is bureaucratically approved. everyone is going to go along with this and conversely the budget and therefore the staffing is stable for at least 5 years that is an enormous benefit with regards to I've set a target we have are funding it there will not be you know cuts because of a new congress a
▶ 0:46:52new president a new legislature a new and do not get in the way not of these sorts of programs and
▶ 0:47:00Mr. spoke to building that idea. You'd mentioned it in your your comments. Uh there there are relationships within China between their their main space agency, as you put it, competitors within China. Uh what what are they doing differently in China with their quote private sector, whatever you can say about a communist uh system with a private sector uh that they're doing that we could maybe improve upon and learn from.
▶ 0:47:24Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um and I think the ranking member mentioned quasi commercial space. That is how I think we should view it. Uh it may be financed partly by private sector money but in addition to money from the central government it also has money from provinces and local municipalities. One thing that I think we should think about with regards to how China operates and I look at the quote on the wall here where there is no vision the people perish from proverbs. I think a lot of what Mr. Cheng said too is true here.
▶ 0:47:51when you have the ability to kind of march in the same direction for such an extended period of time, you're going to achieve things that you wouldn't if you had more uncertainty. But I think what they're missing out though is the free molecules that we have in our system where it does encourage innovation. You're not constraining the innovation to a certain goal. That is a benefit to the United States that the PRC just does not have structurally in their system. So I don't know if we should necessarily want to replicate how they approach that, how they they approach that top- down approach to the commercial the quasi commercial sector.
▶ 0:48:18I think our free market principles-based approach where you do have that chance for innovation and new ideas to percolate up through the ether that's the best way to do it. I don't think we should try to alter the way that we innovate
▶ 0:48:30and and question this ch again if I could there's a lot of conversation about the belt and road that the Chinese have used across the world to and I think manipulate countries with debt issues along the line. um what what what should we be fearful of as far as moving forward as as they try to do much the same with space?
▶ 0:48:51Ironically, one aspect that we should be very worried about is the application of space technology to Chinese [clears throat] belt and road initiative investments here on Earth. Uh when the Chinese um build a pipeline, a cell phone network, a telecommunication structure on Earth, timing signals are And if the Chinese are funding it, one should not expect that there those uh investments across the world in key areas in key countries and key regions for key resources are going to
▶ 0:49:22use GPS rather than BEO. And that means that these countries are in a sense potentially signing up without perhaps even realizing it. A structural vulnerability to create a structural dependence that will far outlast whoever is in the presidential palace or in the parliament leading their respective
▶ 0:49:42Thank you so much. I'll now recognize our ranking member from North Carolina, Miss Fushi, for five minutes. You're
▶ 0:49:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Bisha, can you tell us about your former role at NASA and why you are no longer with the
▶ 0:49:58Sure. Uh, thank you for [clears throat] your question, Ranking Member Pushi. So, I started at NASA as a China specialist back in 2007. Um, I advised every administrator, including as a junior staffer, uh, to administrator Griffin, uh, until 2020, early 2025. Um, including joining high level NASA delegations to China. Um, and I was I was the China expert in the administrator's office. Um uh earlier this year the technology policy and strategy office was eliminated and myself and about a dozen colleagues uh were rifted.
▶ 0:50:27So you were the top expert and advisor on China at NASA and you were rifted. That's beyond puzzling and I would say incredibly alarming. From reading your bio, I see that you are fluent in mandaring Chinese.
▶ 0:50:44Based on your observation of recent Chinese media, can you describe how China is perceiving and responding to the actions taken by this administration, such as eviscerating and driving out the federal STEM workforce, including a 20% hemorrhage at NASA, gutting NASA science, attacking research university, and drastically cutting US investment in research and development.
▶ 0:51:13Yeah, I I would say um there most of the discussion is about expanding their own science industrial uh science technology industrial base. Um you know expanding their funding for science programs for technology. Um and to the extent they compare it with cuts in the United States uh I've seen that as well. Um, I think the criticism is muted. I think uh they're probably content to watch what happens here happen as they uh greatly expand their own industrial base.
▶ 0:51:43As I said in my statement, this is a pivotal time for US leadership in space and we on this committee have a responsibility to act. Um, so to each of you on the panel, what should this committee prioritize as we look to reauthorize NASA and sustain US global leadership in space? Um, I'd like to start with you, Dr. Bisha, and then move to Dr. Griffin, Mr. Swopee, and Mr.
▶ 0:52:12Well, I think I think your authorization u is very important and that it helps set some guidance for how the agency should pursue uh its programs and plans. um emphasizing um space science, earth science is is critical. Um especially a balance between uh say let's call it uh uh generally you know NASA projects and and private sector. Um we still [clears throat] need strategic missions. We need very large missions. Mars sample return it's not going to be a cheap mission. It's not going to be inexpensive. It may it's going to cost money.
▶ 0:52:40Um but we also need to um understand what comes after Artemis 3. Right? So with some clarity on what is the intention? Is it a long-term stay on the lunar surface or are we going on to Mars? We need some clarity. Um and then uh to the extent we can kind of advance a more robust international relations policy um that would be helpful to com compete with a strategic competitor that is using international cooperation.
▶ 0:53:03Dr. Griffith.
▶ 0:53:06Thank you Miss Vich. Um I would make a couple of comments. The first in answer to the chairman's question a few moments ago about sticking to the plan um I would have commented that um sticking to a plan is important when the plan makes sense. China is sticking to a plan that makes sense. It looks a lot in fact like what the United States did for Apollo.
▶ 0:53:37Provably that worked. We have stuck to a plan that does not make sense. So this committee, an authorization committee should not authorize the agency to continue down a path that does not make sense. The plan matters.
▶ 0:53:54I will rem I I uh have enough history here to recall the authorization act by this committee in 2005 that required me as the then administrator of NASA to use to the maximum extent possible the existing assets from shuttle and those that remained from space station and Apollo. that is that the the administrator of that time was required to use the systems that we had.
▶ 0:54:24We seem to have lost track of that today. Um again, sticking to a plan that will not work for Artemis 3 and beyond makes no sense.
▶ 0:54:39Thank you. I think when NASA spends its money, it's good to think about two different things. If NASA can spend its money in a way that it can do its mission but then also enable private sector actors to try out business ideas or or new innovations like the commercial lunar payload services project with ride sharing opportunities. I think that's great for the US innovation ecosystem. The second thing is really I think when NASA spends money on things like basic research and development and science that also feeds into innovation. It's a very early part of it.
▶ 0:55:09Without science we would never have had something like the Manhattan project. we would never have had the radio. Uh James Maxwell's theories proven by uh Reinhardt Hertz led to Marone's radio. So I look at those investments that the government makes that NASA makes as critically important to that innovation ecosystem as well.
▶ 0:55:27So I think at both those cases when you're looking at at NASA NASA authorization look at it in a way where you are the genesis of that innovation ecosystem that flywheel that really powers uh the US national security and economic security in a way that the PRC just can't match.
▶ 0:55:45Can you indulge me 30 seconds for Mr. Chang to answer please?
▶ 0:55:49Sure ma'am. Frankly, I'm not sure it matters what this committee chooses to push as a priority. The con the problem is a failure to achieve whatever targets are set has no consequences. So if I were to give a recommendation to this committee, I would say that whatever it is that this committee feels should be the priorities for NASA and my colleagues frankly I think are far better qualified. I'm a China person, ma'am.
▶ 0:56:18I'm not really a space person. one, it needs to be bipartisan to make very clear throughout our system that this is something that everyone is pushing for. And two that there are consequences budgetary, legal and others to the agency to supplying companies if they fail to deliver on time and on budget that it will not be a well okay let's try again next year that there are
▶ 0:56:49Thank you for that. Now yield back.
▶ 0:56:51Uh thank you. I now recognize a representative from Florida, Mr. Webster for five minutes.
▶ 0:56:58Thank you Mr. Chairman. appreciate the opportunity. Thank you for you appearing as witnesses for this important subject. Dr. Griven, in your testimony, written testimony, you mentioned the fact that it's um important to be first and that history teaches us that those that show up first uh usually get to write the rules and standards and set the direction of what where we're going and what's what's going to happen.
▶ 0:57:28um that comes from just showing up. And in your opinion, are we staying at home or are we showing At present, sir, um in line with the comments I made in my oral statement, um we're staying home because the approach we are advocating um is not going to work.
▶ 0:57:56The train may have left the station, but the train is headed over the cliff. Uh, the importance of showing up, as you put it, is that um, in line with Mr. Cheng's comments, the people who are there are the ones who establish the GPS timing signals or the BEu timing signals, the people who are there establish the communications protocols. the people who are there establish the rules of the road for space traffic management and and other things.
▶ 0:58:27If we are watching from the sidelines, it will be China that is establishing those things. And and with respect to the future for for the rest of the humans on Earth, that will not go well.
▶ 0:58:39Well, that's I guess my second question then. So what would happen if China sets the standards and guides the development rules and norms of space? What what would be the result?
▶ 0:58:53Then other nations will look to China and will choose to align themselves with China because they are the ones who are in space. Uh the rest of the world will look to China as the technological leader of the world. Lyndon Johnson was not wrong 50 years ago when he said that first in space is first and second in space is second everywhere.
▶ 0:59:19Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Yield back.
▶ 0:59:25Uh thank you very much. I now recognize the representative from California, Mr. Whitesides for five minutes of
▶ 0:59:31Thank you. I uh want to thank the chair and and ranking member for organizing this substantive hearing. It's good to see you all. Good to see my old friend Dr. Griffin and uh others. Um let's start with uh Mr. Swope. You note in your prepared testimony that China is likely to achieve something no nation has done before. Returning Martian samples to Earth with a mission launching in 2028.
▶ 1:00:00NASA's scientific Mars exploration program has been methodically building towards the return of dozens of scientifically selected samples, the highest priority of multiple decadal surveys, but the agency has not settled on the plan to collect them, and the FY2026 president's budget request would eliminate the program entirely. The scientific significance of banning this effort would be enormous.
▶ 1:00:21What would in your view be the geopolitical significance if the US were to abandon its plan to retrieve scientifically selected samples from Mars while China moves forward on its own crash program to return uh Martian samples?
▶ 1:00:36Thank you for that question. It's the historic opportunity for humankind to maybe find evidence that there was life that originated on a planet that's not Earth. um that's uh not really measurable the significance of that discovery, what that could mean. I mentioned the impact on innovation from science. Uh what that could mean down the road, the the the country that's the first to do something like that, to control that. I don't know if I trust the PRC to do that in a way that benefits uh the planet, that benefits our nation.
▶ 1:01:07Um so I think the huge impact is beyond just geopolitics that you could pull off a mission like that. I think it has science and long-term implications of maybe what is conceivably the most important discovery in the history of humankind.
▶ 1:01:18Thank you. Uh for Mr. Swope or Mr. Bisha, uh you both state that one of our advantages over the Chinese is our allies international cooperation. Of course, the administration has proposed cutting a wide swath of international space missions in its budget. fundamentally how does this impact our ability to compete with China? Either of you can answer. [clears throat]
▶ 1:01:47So there is another competition going on that is international, right? And so uh we are very conscious at NASA of how we were at how we uh how we expand our cooperation because this is allows us to influence. So Artemis accords are a good example of we have a set of principles and values that we want to make shared. So we want other countries to to to to agree with us on our set of principles. China's doing the same thing with the IRS, the International Lunar Research Station.
▶ 1:02:15Um they have a set of principles and they're looking to get a a group of nations aligned with them to to move forward. Um the difference between the two artmus accords and IRS is that IRS actually offers programmatic cooperation as well. Um and so whereas the accords are non-binding, this is programmatic. Um and so countries can can join uh on them on on the surface of the moon. And now when they start taking those first steps towards norms, towards standards, they'll have a coalition of countries along with them.
▶ 1:02:44And this bleeds over into other areas say at the UN on other other topics and things like that. Um and so it's it's basically a competition of influence
▶ 1:02:54In the interest of time, I'm going to cut to my last question, which is for Dr. Griffin, who by the way I worked for about 25 years ago, I think. I can't remember. Anyway, um Dr. Griffin, you're probably the closest to the agency today uh of the of this panel. Um although Dr. Bishop, you were there recently, so either of you can answer this question. Um I think I think it's important that we expose what's the current state of NASA.
▶ 1:03:20So, we've lost 4,000 people, primarily senior staff, but also junior staff, new new employees, and recently recently promoted staff. Um, Goddard's getting taken apart. JPL's getting cut. You know, there's just turmoil. Morale has dropped. But I don't want to put words in your mouth. What What do you perceive as the current state of NASA? Um, you know, at the end of 2025,
▶ 1:03:51regrettably, I'm not that close to NASA anymore. It's been 16 years since I was there. Um, and more. But from outside I would offer the perspective that I as much as I regret the damage to individual people and the loss of the inevitable loss of technical competence that goes with massive cuts like that.
▶ 1:04:18Um an agency without a proper clearly defined high priority mission um is a rudderless agency. Um, it it almost doesn't matter. It it might it might just not matter what actually happens at the agency until and unless we have a mission to put the United States first among equals on the human frontier.
▶ 1:04:46If that's done properly, the right people will come to the agency. The the budget will be supported. All of those good things will come true. It starts with defining what you want to do and then backing it up.
▶ 1:04:59Thanks. I yield back. Thanks. I now recognize the representative from Texas, Mr. Self, for five minutes of
▶ 1:05:07Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, well, lots to unpack here. Um, first of all, Mr. uh, Mr. Chang, you said that you are more a China expert than a space expert. So, We talked a little bit about free markets. I think Mr. Swopee did. Uh talk to us about the challenges that China has and any results from the recent plennium.
▶ 1:05:34Uh because they have economic challenges, their economy and when I think back to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was 10 feet tall until they weren't. Uh so I need to know what you think as a China expert just in the economic and the results from the recent
▶ 1:05:55Sure. Um I am always very concerned when uh folks talk about the slowdown in the Chinese economy which we do seem to be seeing and promptly equate that with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mhm.
▶ 1:06:08I think it was Winston Churchill who made the observation that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation and one need only look at North Korea, a fraction of China's economy much worse off and yet has managed to survive
▶ 1:06:22to caution that whatever problems we are seeing in the Chinese economy and we are seeing some uh making that leap to that it is a collapse. What I would note is that Xi Jinping is continuing the policies of his predecessor Hu Jing Tao in frustrating efforts at expanding the role of the private sector of markets etc in China. Uh that Chinese economic reform pretty much came to an end in ' 04 and has not been renewed under Xi Jinping.
▶ 1:06:51But strikingly one of the exceptions to that is in the aerospace sector where private companies are in fact encouraged and welcome. quai private in some ways but nonetheless motivated by more classic market principles than state direction.
▶ 1:07:07Okay. Uh Dr. Griffin, you have been very clear that Artemis 3 on won't work. What tell us exactly why not? Is it the complexity? Is it the crew risk? Is it the fuel versus the man? Uh so what why exactly do you think it won't work? I' I've read your uh your paper, but what is the bottom line as to why you're recommending we cancel this and go a different direction?
▶ 1:07:36The quick bottom line is that an architecture which requires a high multiple number of refueling flights in low Earth orbit, no one really knows how many, um uses a technology that has not yet ever been demonstrated in space. um is very unlikely to work. Unlikely to the point where I will say and have said it cannot work.
▶ 1:08:01Secondarily um the length of time required for the Earth departure ship to remain in low Earth orbit almost guarantees that the propellant you have loaded will boil off before it can fully be used.
▶ 1:08:17Okay. And the requirement of the lander to occupy lunar orbit waiting for the crew for 60 to 90 days guarantees that the fuel will boil off. I do not see a current oh I do not see a way with the current technology we have to overcome those problems and therefore we should not pursue that line of approach. Okay. Probably uh and I'll ask who would like to answer this. The Lrange regions regions L1 and L2 are prime real estate.
▶ 1:08:48do we should we deploy them as a first strike uh to get something into the L1 L uh L1 through L5 perhaps uh to include relay positioning navigations, timing beacons, space domain, sensors, so forth and so on. Is that a critical mission?
▶ 1:09:12whom is the question directed, sir?
▶ 1:09:14Uh Mr. Chang.
▶ 1:09:17Sir, first off, the Chinese have already deployed, right, uh, equipment there. Um, I believe that this is one of those regions that will wind up becoming much more strategically centered. Um, it would be beneficial to us to establish a presence.
▶ 1:09:35um probably not military because that leads opens the door to propaganda by others but certainly scientific but most importantly application communications relay data relay things like that that have a economic as well as scientific
▶ 1:09:49Well let me ask you because GPS because I think the chairman mentioned a Chinese style GPS we know that GPS spoofing is now a real thing on the battlefields around the world. So why why would we not go with something other than GPS?
▶ 1:10:04Um I think that uh my understanding is that these orbits uh deploying items into those orbits can become extremely complex but yes if the issue here is GPS robustness that is absolutely a major concern from a security perspective
▶ 1:10:22and I think we've uh my time is done I think we have a magnetic uh field sort of uh alternative chairman I yield back
▶ 1:10:32uh the subcommittee stands in recess subject to call the chair.
▶ 1:49:04Welcome back. Uh for our next Miss Selenus, uh you were recognized uh for five minutes.
▶ 1:49:11Thank you, Mr. Chair, and uh thank you to our ranking members and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. In my district, NASA and its partners help to support a very robust economy of small manufacturers that supply components um to a lot of these missions. And these are really good local jobs um that help to build talent and expertise across the country. Several months ago, we held a hearing on the Artemis program and I asked how we can continue to support this workforce.
▶ 1:49:39I was told that we achieve that by building hardware and actually flying these missions. In other words, we need to signal consistency and predictability to workers in industry. And this question is to anyone who would like to answer. What can we learn from China about the value of long-term planning and predictability? And how has their approach benefited their economy and their workforce more broadly?
▶ 1:50:06So ma'am, the Chinese often describe their space program, not their space program, describe space as being quote unquote very dense in high technology. If you take a look at a satellite, it has advanced materials, it has computers, it has communications equipment, solar panels, but above all, it has systems integration and systems engineering. All of those systems have to be able to work together in orbit. and since the end of the space shuttle, you're not going to bring it back for repairs.
▶ 1:50:35Um, the Chinese have used their aerospace program as a training ground for systems integrators and systems engineers. And one prime example of this is COMAC, the commercial airline corporation of China, which is going to compete with Boeing.
▶ 1:50:50Um they took an entire cadre of folks from Cass, a China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, a stateowned enterprise, and said, "All of you, your systems engineers, systems integrators, you will now go to Comarmac, another stateowned enterprise, and jumpstarted their ability to do systems integration in the commercial airline industry, thanks to the education and training and on the job experience in the in aerospace. Dr. Bisha,
▶ 1:51:21thanks. Um, you know, I think there are some things we might want to learn from China, but China's actually learning quite a bit from the US. Um, when I was at NASA, I ran a a study, the civil space supply chain study where we looked at manufacturers across the US that were engaged in the Artemis program. Um, and what we found is that small businesses are the bedrock for the program. It's mostly small businesses. Um, and what I think China's learning actually from US is you can't only rely on a state-owned enterprise, a massive conglomerate.
▶ 1:51:49You actually need to go and find smaller companies that can can produce uh bespoke parts and things like that that can then feed up into the uh into the larger um enterprise. Um, and we do that very well. Um, and our supply chain integration is actually very good. Um, the second thing I think China and is learning from us is the ability for space to upgrade technology. So, uh, you may have valves that work well in automobiles, but when you have to make them space qualified, it's another pro quality control process.
▶ 1:52:17So, it upgrades a lot of the technology and the process along the way. Um, they're running that and it's a process that they can extend to other industries as well.
▶ 1:52:25Thank you.
▶ 1:52:25I'd like to take a turn at that. Um, I don't want to surpass China. I don't think the United States can or should try to surpass China by behaving like I want us to rely on our free market uh that encourage and allow and reward successful innovators um to compete.
▶ 1:52:49Uh the role of the government in this particular enterprise since going to the moon is not remotely a commercially successful activity in anything like the near future. The role of government is to establish the point that we are creating a program. We are going to sustain it. We the United States with our allies and partners are going to be on the moon for the foreseeable future.
▶ 1:53:14And we by doing that we establish a demand signal which will allow the best and the brightest in industry to come forward to produce those those capabilities. If the US government does not set that kind of a consistent demand signal, then we should not expect industry to invest
▶ 1:53:38Thank you, Mr. Swope. Would you like to
▶ 1:53:41Yeah, I just thought about when I was in high school, I had friends that their family owned a factory that built machines that built mattresses.
▶ 1:53:48So, I thought about the time that it takes to really ramp up to do something like the Artemis program. And to me, that's where that commitment, that stability is needed from a government standpoint to to the demand signal, but also put the money on the table to say, "This is what we want to buy." So then that trickles down through all those other suppliers. And I also worked for Derek Hillmer years ago, and I remember going out on the Olympic Peninsula, and I found a company that was building something for Blue Origin. I'm like, "This is super cool." And all the time it took for that to ramp up, it just can't turn on a dime.
▶ 1:54:16So I think that's the biggest lesson there for companies like that at the very, very back end of that. It takes time to get to the point where we are building a rocket that's going to go to the moon.
▶ 1:54:25That's right. And I think um to your point that I think many of you are making, if President Trump's proposed 24% cut to NASA's budget were to actually go into effect, what could we see in terms of the long-term implications for our workforce and thus our ability to compete with China?
▶ 1:54:43Dr. Bisha,
▶ 1:54:46so the supply chains around a lot of these projects,
▶ 1:54:49please keep your comments to me. priority over time.
▶ 1:54:51Oh, I'm so sorry. I did not realize that
▶ 1:54:54the supply chains are very extensive. Um they affect a lot of suppliers and some of these suppliers are single source suppliers. So they have very few they have one customer in some cases and that customer is NASA.
▶ 1:55:04Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:55:05Thank you. Next we have the congressman from Georgia, Mr. McCormack for his five minutes. You're recognized.
▶ 1:55:11Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh it's interesting just in the last line of questioning I heard each one of you point back to supply chains single sourcing comp competitive markets. One of the problems with competition which I'm all for I'm all for capitalism and comp competition but when you have a monopoly of several critical minerals that a foreign adversary or at least a pure competitor controls what are we doing to solution for a solution for that?
▶ 1:55:40I I don't see it because right now we basically don't have a competitive market. We don't have a market. All we have is one country that controls all the resources for something that in the military probably supplies thousands of part no hundreds of thousands of parts that are literally the bottleneck and it's probably one of the reasons that our our fleet readiness for all aircraft is around 50%. Which is atrocious. If we get into a war we're done.
▶ 1:56:04and in space which is something that obviously is the final frontier if you will uh what do we do to prevent that from being a choke point for us they literally have us by the neck what are we doing what is a good solution and I don't want to hear generalities of open market because we don't have an open market we have a monopolistic system what can we do and I I have my own idea so hopefully we get somebody that gives me a good answer so I don't have to to interject my own opinion but I'll start with you Mr.
▶ 1:56:34Uh to break your question into several smaller buckets. First off, while China has an advantageous position, it is not the sole producer of rare earths. Rare earth actually is a terrible misnomer. I think other more scientifically oriented folks prefer platinum group metals. There are other places that do produce them.
▶ 1:56:52There is unfortunately only one facility in the United States and one of the reasons for this has been uh additional regulatory considerations including environmental that basically say well if you're going to mine that you have to do X Y and Z suffice to say the Chinese are not as enthusiastic about environmental regulations. Uh the other aspect here is that whatever the rare earths are that you mind, you have to process them and that is enormously polluting and the Chinese have been more than happy to be the primary rare earth processor.
▶ 1:57:23So you may mine it in India, you may mine it in Canada, it still gets shipped to China for processing. I believe back around 2018, the United States broke ground for a domestic rare earth processing facility. To be honest, I don't track that very closely. I don't know what the status of that is, but if you want to break the Chinese monopoly, it is not enough to open up more mines, it is absolutely essential to open additional non-China processing facilities for rare earth
▶ 1:57:52So, Mr. Chair, with and I'll just I'll go with that because I I'm already halfway through my time and that's how it works here. Uh, I will accentuate your point. We have 10 rare earth metals we have no access to except for Earth through China right now. another 10 that we have limited access at best. Our regulatory burden and our inability to mine and process these rare earth minerals have put us not only a strategic disadvantage but actually in a a worrisome position for any future conflict.
▶ 1:58:22Uh we're not ready simply not in a military sense or especially in a space sense. Um, we think, and this is this is something I challenge both both sides of the aisle to look at realistically, just because we don't pollute when we get these minerals we're going to use anyways, doesn't mean that they aren't polluting 10 times worse than we would with the same minerals we're going to buy anyways and use anyways. So, it's not conservationism.
▶ 1:58:49It's not a smaller blueprint of carbon emissions when you buy from China. It is just pretending like we're not polluting when we're actually polluting more. I just want to be very realistic about this. The future is America using the resources we have without the regulatory burden that makes it too expensive to do because we're going to have access regardless or the alternative is don't be competitive. That's not going to happen. We're America.
▶ 1:59:17So, I challenge both sides of the aisle to take a realistic look at we have to have access to these things and we'll do it cleaner, better, and cheaper if we're not overly regulatory, uh, putting over regulatory burdens on the American businesses. Uh, and so let's just take a really honest look at this scientifically, domestically, uh, so we have a chance into the next century. And with that, I yield.
▶ 1:59:43Thank you. I now recognize representative from Illinois, Mr. Foster. Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Um and this but on the subject of rare earths and and permanent magnets specifically there's a model that the government has is in the process of succeeding at that I'm really a fan of is a company called Nyron which has spun up through decades of federally funded research in Minnesota that has got a way and they're building a significant scale factory uh to make uh permanent magnets with
▶ 2:00:13a BH product an energy density comparable to the best neodyenium iron born on magnets and the input materials there are basically rust and ammonia nothing else and it's really an impressive thing and it has to do with decades of of research uh government funded research led interestingly by an immigrant born in China so there are a bunch of lessons I think that we should learn from that one of which is to not uh push away uh foreign talent from our shores because of unfounded uh
▶ 2:00:43worries uh now let's say I I'm I've been worried for a long time about the u the fragility and the dual use of nature of all of the systems we're putting into low earth orbit right there we're now talking about you know we're having at least two major US companies put big satellite arrays in low earth orbit the Chinese have at least two companies the Europeans are doing it you know everyone's first worry is about the Kesler syndrome where you just have a big cascade of collisions which I think
▶ 2:01:13is unlikely uh because of the altitude and the the rapidity of the orbit decay uh but is still something to worry about because some of these systems are not really in low earth orbit but somewhat higher and so this is something that I think we're going to have to need international understandings on because this is a big problem the the fragility is also a real issue you know one thing that's worried me for a while is that um you know the the refueling that was mentioned I guess Dr.
▶ 2:01:40Griffin is not shares my skepticism of how easy it will be to make it work. Uh but uh you know these you know the scenario for Starships for example and other similar missions is to go put these in low earth orbit refuel them with 10 refueling missions. Okay. Now it you I don't know if you've noticed but these these starships have a tendency to like detonate themselves from time to time and the issue comes up. What happens if one of those explodes fully fueled in low Earth orbit? and the debris field from that um is potentially frightening.
▶ 2:02:10I was just wondering has anyone looked at this particular problem when when you know SpaceX is talking about running hundreds of Starship missions a year in some scenarios, you know, do we actually are we going to need understandings on on the accidental destruction of everything in low Earth orbit in addition to big worries about how um that could happen deliberately by even a not very talented adversary? Is there anyone? Yeah, can speak to
▶ 2:02:38A few comments on that. So, I think in terms of space debris, it's a huge issue and it's not an issue that any one country can solve, right? Um, and I think China was recently in the news because one of the Shinjjo uh human um capsules was was hit by debris. Um, our space station um is also occasionally hit by debris. Um, we have shielding that can withstand about 3 millimeters of of of size particle size of a debris.
▶ 2:03:02Uh China had has continued to do EVA missions outside their um their own space station to add additional armor, additional shielding to their space station. They recognize this as a major issue um and it's affecting their crown jewel, their human space flight program. So we're both um in some senses on the same page that this is a problem that we need to solve. Um and it's only going to get worse. Um as you mentioned with these uh with um very large uh vehicles that um potentially could not reenter
▶ 2:03:33Do has anyone looked specifically at the issue of these very large vehicles? What happens if one detonates in low Earth orbit? because I I actually had Claude code write me a simulation of it which I'm not willing to quote the results from but it was you know people have been studying Kesler syndrome for decades and their computer codes that do that pretty well and I guess we must have a pretty good idea of how many fragments of what sizes are liberated when something blows up on the launchpad at least.
▶ 2:04:01So it seems like we have the information to understand, you know, the size of the debris field and the damage it will do to, you know, very militarily important assets. Um, you know, including, you know, the Golden Dome, which is now talking about, you know, many tens of thousands of of additional assets in lower Earth orbit with many countries having an incentive to accidentally on purpose destroy them all. So I was just wondering if that if that's something that really we need some more study on.
▶ 2:04:32all right. So, I guess I'm now down to 15 seconds. So, I'll just if any of you have thoughts on that and could respond for the record, I'd be really interested. That is something we have to keep our eye on. And I think ultimately we're going to have to negotiate with China and the other countries, space fairing countries to come up with some understanding. We can't just go off doing what we're currently doing. Thank you. Yield back.
▶ 2:04:55With that, I recognize a representative from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for five minutes. Chairman Herodopoulos, thank you for holding this important hearing on the space race with China, and I want to be very clear where I stand. The Chinese Communist Party is a major threat to our national security. For years, I've been calling attention to the Chinese Communist Party being a dangerous and aggressive adversary. We must expose their every underhanded and subversive action. Passivity on our part will only be rewarded with more aggression.
▶ 2:05:23There are some voices that would question why going back to the moon should be a priority given we have already achieved it. I would counter that this isn't just about national pride. It is a national security imperative to beat China to the moon because the Chinese Communist Party intends to establish a lasting presence with exclusionary zones for their own economic and national security benefits. It's important that we understand where China's space program is at and how we can do everything in our power to win this race because the stakes are too high. And thanks to the witnesses for their testimonies. Dr. Griffin, I have a question for you.
▶ 2:05:53I'm a co-sponsor of Chairman Hill's Taiwan and American Space Assistance Act to establish a partnership between TASA and NASA. And of course, we have the Artemis Accords with 60 countries. Can you describe, Dr. Griffin, the importance of these international partnerships to maintaining US preeminence in space?
▶ 2:06:14I would offer the view that if the United States is not willing to partner with other nations in the world uh to be on the space frontier, then they will have no alternative but to partner with China or they can choose to stay home. Uh it's my observation that every nation that reaches a technological level where they can do something in space wants to.
▶ 2:06:43in in some ways it's like owning the only swimming pool in your neighborhood. You become an attractive nuisance. Um so since that is observably true, nations that can do space want to do so, but the barriers to entry are very high. The United States can lower those barriers or we can watch while China lowers those barriers. I think the latter course of action is not what I would recommend.
▶ 2:07:08Thank you for that response. China's also used radioisotope power systems to survive the lunar night since 2019, giving it the only continuous presence on the moon and it plans to launch more missions using this technology in 2028. US landers by contrast are limited to 14 days because they can't operate through the lunar night and NASA has not incentivized commercial providers to adopt radioisotope power systems at this point. Dr. Bisha, thank you for your testimony earlier.
▶ 2:07:36How can the United States leverage commercially developed radioisotope power systems as China has to has to ensure our lunar landers can survive the night and operate continuously on the surface?
▶ 2:07:48Thank you. Well, the US actually does have um commercial companies that are exploring uh radioisotope power systems. Um some of them are are here today. Um so, and I think the advantage there is they're looking at a couple different um ways to do it, a couple different approaches. They're using different fuels. They're using amaresium. They're using things like that, you know, fuels that we haven't traditionally used in the past. Um so, that's going to be an advantage. Um I don't think China is is using commercial companies to do their radio isotope power systems.
▶ 2:08:15they're very much uh part of the China nuclear energy agency and um the associated industries below that. Um but uh you know I think our approach of of multiple different approaches seeing what works doing some demonstrations and then start flying them uh demos on clips missions on uh you know the next opportunity next flight opportunity um to prove them out uh is is the right approach.
▶ 2:08:39Thank you for that answer. Mr. Swope, I have a question for you as well. is um acting NASA administrator Duffy announced plans for efficient nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030 and I'm very supportive of that effort. Can you tell us where China stands technologically on establishing nuclear power systems on the moon?
▶ 2:08:57Uh thanks for that question. I can speak to what China has said. Um they have said they want to work with Russia to build a nuclear power station for their international lunar research station. So they're thinking the same way and it makes a lot of sense to your point about the length of the lunar night. It has to have power in order to keep those electronics warm so they don't break. So I'm not surprised that China is moving in that direction. I think the approach of the acting administrator to look at industry in the United States to see if they can come up with good ideas, novel ways to do that, innovation like Dr. Bisha said as well is the best approach.
▶ 2:09:27I think we're going to come out ahead on
▶ 2:09:29Thank you very much, Chairman Herdopoulos. I yield back.
▶ 2:09:33Thank you, Congressman Kennedy. Next we have I recognize the representative from Virginia, Mr. Byer for five minutes. Welcome to the committee,
▶ 2:09:41Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much and thank you for letting me wave on. U thank you all of you for your testimony today. Dr. Basha, um and I particularly grateful to have you here. You mentioned in your testimony the importance of supporting earth and space science robustly and you made great point about the downstream national security consequences of doing that or not doing that. I care about this a lot.
▶ 2:10:04The National Science Foundation headquarters is a few blocks from my home and we've been very upset about this administration's attacks on federal science funding this year. Um NASA's science mission cut by 47% 56% at the National Science Foundation. Uh lots of other federal science agencies have just been gutted. Could you discuss how these cuts to our core science programs are going to affect our national science programs and our national security downstream?
▶ 2:10:35Well, I think there's a couple ways to look at funding for basic R&D. Um, number one, it is a very much a very a public good. Um, you know, it's it's it's a national good that we don't I can't identify a profit immediately, but we we we we should do it, right? Basic science, the fundamentals of science. Um, these trickle down eventually into applications. Um, but initially, you know, basic R&D funding that um provides many benefits and that is the strength of the US system versus China to be honest.
▶ 2:11:00Um we we've ex we've invested in basic R&D for the last 50 years um as part of our the system we set up. China's not hasn't invested that much. They've taken a lot of the uh our our hard work. The second thing is world first. Um so if you you're not going to be a world first by uh simply seeing what everyone else is doing and then copying it, right?
▶ 2:11:22And so you do have to do that initial hard work uh uh to be to develop world first um successes like Mars first sample return um you know uh capital worlds observatories exoplanets research things like that that we've never really done before.
▶ 2:11:35The final thing is um you know it's not just basic R&D when we create these missions um these astrophysics missions things like James Web Space Telescope um we're at the cutting edge we're developing mirrors of such high refinement that these also have other applications not just in science but in you know military applications industrial applications um and things like that. So there there is very much a cross-pollination between these. They're not simply only for science. Um
▶ 2:12:03let me let me follow up on the two because you have the basic research but then I'm really concerned too about the science workforce uh once again we heard national science foundation right down the street that virtually all of their postocs their graduate students the people that were getting ready for their long careers were washed out um and that many of them were not able to figure out how they're going to fit finish their PhD programs and the the real concern is that they're looking for opportunities in Germany and England and France there's reverse brain drain
▶ 2:12:33of our best young science people. I don't know, hopefully they're not going back to China, although I'm sure some of them are doing that, too. You know, for decades, we've been the country attracting top tier candidates from around the world to come here to study and and to make their whole careers in science. We look at the fact that um it's a plurality, if not a majority, of our US Nobel Prize winners were born in a different country.
▶ 2:12:58Um, how concerned are you about losing our investment in in our next generation of science
▶ 2:13:08Uh, very concerned, right? Um, science is is often multigenerational. Um, and so we have very accomplished scientists um that are later in their careers. They teach the middle uh middle tier scientists and those military scientists teach the postocs. The postocs teach the graduate students and the graduate students on and on and on. Um if you wipe out one of those uh uh cohorts, the postocs for example, you're you're in a lot of ways you're wiping out a generation for that science and it's not easy to jump right down.
▶ 2:13:37You you're losing that mentorship, you're losing a lot of that talent. Um so it's it's very concerning. Um I think if they were to go uh overseas, for example, um you know, they perhaps could come back. Um you know, nothing is necessarily permanent. We've had waves, things go in waves. Um, I'd be more concerned if uh this persisted u for for a longer time.
▶ 2:13:56Agreed. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chairman, the morning's getting on and I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 2:14:04Congressman, I appreciate it. We're going to go for round two for questions. I'm going to take the next five minutes and turn it over Miss Fushi and uh we'll go from there. Um, Dr. Griffin, you'd mentioned a few times now about Artemis 3 and your concerns and I I think those concerns have been heard today, of course, but we I also I want to address specifically on the China issue on the potential of their uh moon opportunity and and what uh part what loss of mission might they face as they move forward with their plans in on the moon and and
▶ 2:14:34beyond.
▶ 2:14:41Thank you. That's an interesting question. The loss of mission probability of course involves not not lives but wasted money and wasted time. When we speak of loss of crew that's a different thing. So for loss of mission uh I'll point out that during Apollo we estimated that to be about 10%. And we lost one of the seven missions which we sent to the moon. And for a statistically small sample that that it turns out we had it about right.
▶ 2:15:12China's approach to return to to exercise their first missions to the moon is quite a lot like Apollo. So I would estimate that they have a pretty similar loss of mission probability um as Apollo did. So I would say 10% or maybe a little bit lower because there's been a lot more experience over the last several decades. So my answer is less than 10% and I tried to explain why.
▶ 2:15:39Thank you Dr. I appreciate it. Mr. Chang, if we could, I wanted to get in the idea of that if we lose this race uh to China and this is why we're all here today to make sure we we do not lose that race. um what position will the uh communists have an advantage on as we talk about the standards of of the future? Uh we talked a little bit about GPS and other technology. What are our other concerns should we somehow lose this space race?
▶ 2:16:06So let me first emphasize that in this context we are in a sense in a relay of marathons that you may win this you may be fastest on the second leg or the third leg but that doesn't mean that you've won. So in this context here it's a matter of who will make it back to the moon first but much more important will be who will be able to sustain a presence on the moon. The Aremis program is talking about uh a man station for one month out of the year.
▶ 2:16:34I suspect that the Chinese are much more thinking 12 months out of the year. If that is the case then we are talking about who is setting the standards for not just communications and pnt but everything from keepout zones for health and safety reasons to scheduling uh for insertion in essence what will be the language of cis lunar space travel will it be English or will it be Chinese and from the moon we potentially then go further outbound the Chinese
▶ 2:17:04already talk about going to Mars um certainly with a sample retrieval mission probably with human space flight in the out years. Again, being first matters, being there persistently matters and that too is about setting the rules, setting the industrial standards, the business, literally the the dollars and reming B as well as the law and order aspects.
▶ 2:17:28Thank you. And Mr. scope on the question of the the International Space Station. We know about the potential of the United States bringing it back down to Earth and and what kind of impact might that have in this space race.
▶ 2:17:40Thanks for the question. I think we have to think about what we're trying to achieve in low Earth orbit. There's science there, there prestige there. Look at that transition to a commercial approach to space stations and and really is NASA putting enough money on the table to make that work? I think that's the big question I'm asking in my head when I think about what happens after the ISS. I do think there are impacts to the prestige and to the science. I think determining what the level of those impacts are, it really determines what that gap is in the capabilities that we want and that we don't have.
▶ 2:18:08We'll still have a lot of international partners that want to work with the United States. But I don't think that looks great. If we do have a gap, we can't have people in low Earth orbit. I think that hurts our ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with human space flight, too. And that's something that I think we need to quantify as well. What does that hurt us for Artemis if we don't have the International Space Station or something like that that we can do experiments with people how they live in space? There's impacts there too that I think we need to consider.
▶ 2:18:32Thank you. And I'll yield back now. Uh Miss Fushi, you are recognized for five
▶ 2:18:36Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um so to each of you on the panel, we've heard about the importance um to US leadership of returning our astronauts to the surface of the moon and doing so before China lands tyonauts there. What are the likely impacts should the US not return humans to the moon before China? Excuse me. So please answer with a quick yes or no.
▶ 2:19:03Number one, is NASA on track to return humans to the moon before Tyonaut set foot there? We'll start with Mr. Chain.
▶ 2:19:13Um, I am very pessimistic about our ability. Uh, so no. [laughter]
▶ 2:19:25Okay, Dr. Basher,
▶ 2:19:29you're not going to like it. Maybe. Maybe. Okay, Dr. Griffith,
▶ 2:19:36no possible way is NASA on a track to return astronauts to the moon with the present plan.
▶ 2:19:44And lastly, if trying to beat China to the moon with humans means committing massive resources that jeopardizes and sets back US space science, aeronautics, low Earth orbit activities, and space technology. Where does that leave the United States, NASA, and the health of our civil space program? I'll start.
▶ 2:20:11Um NASA was created in the late 1950s to pioneer space flight. Um other activities become space science uh space applications become possible when your goal is to pioneer a new frontier many follow-on activities are possible but if you don't have the central mission goal that the United States will be preeminent on the space frontier then the other things don't follow and they don't matter.
▶ 2:20:42Thank you. Um, I think one [clears throat] way to think about the space agency is not so much uh just as a monolith, but as um as a uh 80% of NASA's funding goes to things like small businesses, uh it goes to universities, scientists, engineers. And so when you cut that budget, you you you may be cutting that, you know, that agency, but what you really cutting is this broad industrial base. You're trimming um some of the American uh industry and some of our competitiveness.
▶ 2:21:10um that money is going to uh to researchers and things like
▶ 2:21:16I think I'd add just that I have confidence that NASA can execute on the Aremis mission which is a long-term sustained presence on the moon as a stepping stone beyond two for Mars. I think Mr. Chang mentioned this. So to me I do have confidence in that and I don't think we should take our focus on that. So if it takes more resources just to beat China uh before Artemis 3, I don't know if it's worth it. But I do have confidence in the long run we're going to execute on that Artemis mission
▶ 2:21:43because China confronts us with a whole of society uh challenge. I would really hope to see that NASA integrates itself more broadly into our terrestrial efforts. Why hasn't NASA sent a team of astronauts on a goodwill tour of Africa of South America to bring home the achievements of American space capabilities? NASA has one of the best brand recognitions out there.
▶ 2:22:10Coca-Cola would kill to have uh NASA's reputation, but they don't seem to have integrated themselves into that broader competent, which the Chinese absolutely do.
▶ 2:22:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you mi representative from Georgia, Miss McCormack, your rest eyes for five minutes.
▶ 2:22:30Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, first of all, I love that idea, Mr. Chang, on uh the way na NASA goes out there and markets itself. Uh, I too would love as a pilot and a physician. I'd like to get out into outer space myself. They market it quite well to me. Um, Mr. Swope, you in your writings have talked about the fractured regulatory burden on our companies and how it kind of makes us non-competitive. Meanwhile, China has been basically getting rid of all the burdens. They could do that because they kind of top down driven. They don't have any balance in our government.
▶ 2:23:00What could we do that would put us in a more advantageous position so that we can actually be competitive in this future market? Uh rather than for example, we have regulations on every single launch. If you change something even for safety to make it more safe, you have to go back and reapply. I'm just going to give one example uh for that right to launch the next time. Ridiculous. because you did something safe and now you're getting punished for that by saying you're not safe enough to launch again. That's one example.
▶ 2:23:28But give me some examples of we could do here in Congress to make sure that we become we continue to be the most competitive market uh encourage people to stay here, launch here, uh and excel here in the greatest nation in the world rather than become an afterthought in the space race.
▶ 2:23:44Yeah, thanks for the question. I really think you nailed it there. One thing about the the US space space ecosystem that's based on free market principles to thrive less regulation, less red tape, less bureaucracy is probably what we need to inject in that system to get the outcome that we want. Three areas just to think about and in some cases folks um in the administration and past administrations have looked to try to optimize this. So I'm not saying we're not doing it now, but definitely spectrum. How are spectrum rules aligned so that they encourage innovation and they don't encourage the status quo?
▶ 2:24:13Uh, when it comes to launch and re-entry, I think I'd put a little focus on re-entry. I look at one US company that tried to do re-entry the first time to a US federal range. They had a lot of trouble and since then they've been going to Australia. So, I think right there, where is that? Is that a regulatory burden? Is that a coordination burden? Is that a priorit prioritization burden that's not happening? I don't know, but we should look at that because there's a lot of growth probably for re-entry. And then the third area I would just highlight is export controls.
▶ 2:24:36ITAR issues where companies want to sell technology to other countries, allied governments, specifically thinking things on synthetic aperture radar. If you can't get it from a US company, I'm going to go to a French company. And that's what happens because those rules are a barrier and a paperwork barrier. So, I think in all those areas, we could improve the regulations that we have now. I don't think it's time for more red tape, more paperwork for space companies. So, if I hear anything about adding a regulatory burden or rules, even if it's a light touch approach, that's still paperwork. I don't think the industry needs that.
▶ 2:25:08Such a great point you just made. And first of all, I want to point out that every company that's trying to put our spaceships out there and and retrieve them has a reputation that they they exist on. If you if you fail, if you're unsafe, their business is done. There's nobody who wants to be more safe than those companies. They can regulate themselves probably better than we ever could and be competitive only when we get out of their way.
▶ 2:25:32And to your point, uh, our our ability to get in the way of selling our products to other co countries only encourages us to be supplanted by China as the industry standard. And that's not just in space, by the way. That's in computer chips or anything else. Uh, we have to be very careful not to limit our ability. By the way, we just had a dissemination bill last year that was uh overseen by the secretary that we withdrew that that boundary that the Biden administration put on us before and has made us competitive again in the market. But we lost shares during that minute that that time.
▶ 2:26:02We lost our industry standard. And so I just want to encourage people and thank you so much for putting a very succinct uh outline of that uh to not limit our ability to produce and disseminate and and actually flourish in our nation as competitors. And uh the government's not the solution. We are the problem. Thank you for outlining that. Thank you. And with that, I yield.
▶ 2:26:24Thank you. And I want to thank each of the witnesses coming in today. This has been very insightful and and thoughtprovoking and uh we appreciate that very much. I also appreciate the the thoughtful questions from the members as well. This is a race we must win and I think you've all given us a nice road map in which to work from especially as the latest line of questioning trying to reduce some of those barriers to entry. Uh and with that um the record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. This hearing is now adjourned.
▶ 2:26:55Thanks for good work.
▶ 2:26:56A good hearing.