Strategic Trajectories: Assessing China’s Space Rise and the Risks to U.S. Leadership

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                        STRATEGIC TRAJECTORIES:5                      ASSESSING CHINA'S SPACE RISE6                    AND THE RISKS TO U.S. LEADERSHIP7=======================================================================89                                HEARING1011                               BEFORE THE1213                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS1415                                 OF THE1617                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,18                             AND TECHNOLOGY1920                                 OF THE2122                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2324                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2526                             FIRST SESSION2728                               __________2930                            DECEMBER 4, 20253132                               __________3334                           Serial No. 119-193536                               __________3738 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology3940 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4142       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov4344                               __________4546                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4762-279                        WASHINGTON : 202648=======================================================================4950              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY5152                   HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chairman53RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ZOE LOFGREN, California, Ranking54JIM BAIRD, Indiana                       Member55DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon56JAY OBERNOLTE, California            HALEY STEVENS, Michigan57CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee         DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina58DARRELL ISSA, California             ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon59CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York             VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina60SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida              EMILIA SYKES, Ohio61MAX MILLER, Ohio                     MAXWELL FROST, Florida62RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              GABE AMO, Rhode Island63MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM, Virginia64VINCE FONG, California               LUZ RIVAS, California65DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         SARAH McBRIDE, Delaware66KEITH SELF, Texas                    LAURA GILLEN, New York67PAT HARRIGAN, North Carolina         GEORGE WHITESIDES, California,68SHERI BIGGS, South Carolina               Vice-Ranking Member69JEFF HURD, Colorado                  LAURA FRIEDMAN, California70MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida            APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland71MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   JOSH RILEY, New York72NICK BEGICH, Alaska                  BILL FOSTER, Illinois73VACANT74                                 ------7576                 Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics7778                HON. MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, Florida, Chairman79DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              VALERIE FOUSHEE, North Carolina,80RICH McCORMICK, Georgia                  Ranking Member81MIKE COLLINS, Georgia                LAURA GILLEN, New York82VINCE FONG, California               GEORGE WHITESIDES, California83KEITH SELF, Texas                    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan84MIKE KENNEDY, Utah                   ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon8586                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S8788                            December 4, 20258990                                                                   Page9192Hearing Charter..................................................     29394                           Opening Statements9596Statement by Representative Mike Haridopolos, Chairman,97  Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,98  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    1899    Written Statement............................................    20100101Written statement by Representative Brian Babin, Chairman,102  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of103  Representatives................................................    19104105Statement by Representative Valerie Foushee, Ranking Member,106  Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,107  Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    21108    Written Statement............................................    22109110Statement by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Ranking Member,111  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of112  Representatives................................................    25113    Written Statement............................................    26114115                               Witnesses:116117Mr. Dean Cheng, Senior Fellow, The Potomac Institute for Policy118  Studies119    Oral Statement...............................................    27120    Written Statement............................................    30121122Mr. Clayton Swope, Deputy Director, Aerospace Security Project,123  Center for Strategic and International Studies124    Oral Statement...............................................    54125    Written Statement............................................    56126127Dr. Patrick Besha, Founder, Global Space Group128    Oral Statement...............................................    68129    Written Statement............................................    70130131Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Co-President, LogiQ, Inc.132    Oral Statement...............................................    73133    Written Statement............................................    75134135Discussion.......................................................   113136137              Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions138139Mr. Dean Cheng, Senior Fellow, The Potomac Institute for Policy140  Studies........................................................   134141142Mr. Clayton Swope, Deputy Director, Aerospace Security Project,143  Center for Strategic and International Studies.................   142144145Dr. Patrick Besha, Founder, Global Space Group...................   150146147Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Co-President, LogiQ, Inc.................   157148149                        STRATEGIC TRAJECTORIES:150                      ASSESSING CHINA'S SPACE RISE151                    AND THE RISKS TO U.S. LEADERSHIP152153                              ----------154155                       THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2025156157                  House of Representatives,158             Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,159               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,160                                                   Washington, D.C.161162    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in163room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Haridopolos164[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.165[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]166167    Chairman Haridopolos. Good morning. The Subcommittee on168Space and Aeronautics will come to order. Without objection,169the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Subcommittee170at any time.171    Welcome to today's hearing: Strategic Trajectories172Assessing China's Space Rise and the Risks to the United States173Leadership. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for our174opening statement.175    The topic today will address--is nothing more than a176critical issue and defining challenge for this Committee.177Understanding China's bold ambitions, addressing their178unapologetic drive for dominance in space. We are at the start179of the next age of exploration; one where humanity is not just180observing the cosmos but acting on its observations and181beginning to inhabit it.182    For those who are new to this issue, the question we should183be asking as we explore beyond the planet is, will humanity184carry forward the American values of economic and political185freedom or those of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?186    For generations, the United States led humanity into space187with unmatched ingenuity and without a true rival. However,188that situation is changing as China moves methodically,189relentlessly, and ruthlessly to tighten the script on space190capabilities and seek the strategic advantages by any means191possible.192    History reminds us that great power competition shapes the193destiny of civilizations. Just as the rivalry between Spain and194Great Britain define oceans in the 16th and 17th Century, the195competition between the United States and China will define the196space domain today. Whoever leads beyond Earth will shape the197future of Earth.198    Let's go back to 1957, China's ambitions goes back decades.199Moments after Sputnik shook the world, Chairman Mao declared we200too will make satellites. That declaration ignited a vision201that has never faded.202    In 1992, China set into motion Project 921, its human space203flight program which continues today. In recent years, China's204pace has surged in part due to the declaration of the space205stream, which transformed aspirations into coordinated missions206for dominance.207    China's space sector has then surged forward, aimed to208compete with America's world-leading commercial space industry.209This is not an accident; it is strategic. To be clear, the210objective is not merely to keep up, their objective is to211outpace, outmaneuver, and ultimately defeat our Nation, the212United States of America.213    But America is not standing still. In my district, Kennedy214Space Center, we surpassed 100 launches just 2 weeks ago, 95215launches came from one company, SpaceX who first launched in2162006. China is not even close with around 73 launches.217    Still, Beijing is pressing ahead. Their plans include218landing their astronauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and219constructing research space on the Moon South Pole by 2035.220They are also launching historic firsts. China has already221returned lunar samples from the far side of the Moon, the first222to do so.223    Next, they intend to launch a Mars-sample return mission in2242028. A timeline that may beat the United States. In low-Earth225orbit, we plan to de-orbit our own space station. China has226maintained a continuous human presence on its own space station227since 2021 where their astronauts serve in 6-month rotations.228    In the coming years, China intends to deploy its own space-229based internet service and expand its global alternative to GPS230(Global Positioning System). And while these Committees'231jurisdiction covers commercial and civil space programs, we232cannot ignore their army's rapidly advancing space and counter-233space capabilities. Their systems are designed to threaten,234disrupt, and if necessary, take out United States assets in235space.236    So, again, I ask: Will humanity move forward with American237values of economic and political freedom or those of the238communist Chinese? The reality is stark. China possesses a239real, immediate, and long-term threat to the United States240leadership in space. And, fortunately, today's witnesses will241provide us with more detailed overview of Chinese trajectory in242history, strategy, and intentions. They will also share243recommendations about how this Committee and Congress should244respond to this true challenge.245    I thank our distinguished panel today for being here today246and sharing their expertise with us. And I look forward to a247serious, productive, conversation about the challenges we face248today.249    But before I move forward, I would like to ask for250unanimous consent for a statement from the Full Committee by251Dr. Babin to present that copy.252    And without objection, so that is ordered.253    [The prepared statement of Chairman Babin follows:]254255    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on256this critical topic.257    A central priority of my service in Congress has been to258strengthen U.S. competitiveness in research and development,259science, and technology. As Chairman of this committee, I have260consistently emphasized the importance of this goal, focusing261not only on ensuring the United States maintains its position262as a global leader on Earth but also in space.263    To achieve this, we must acknowledge the growing challenges264posed by the Chinese Communist Party.265    The CCP has made no secret about its ambition to emerge as266the world's foremost leader in space exploration and267innovation. Since the election of President Xi in 2013, the CCP268has deepened the connection between its space program and its269broader national goals of domestic and military modernization.270    This increased focus has led to greater attention and271resources for its space program, resulting in several recent272accomplishments that cannot be overlooked.273    China has maintained a crewed presence in low-Earth orbit274since 2021, using its Tiangong [Tee-Yen-Gong] space station.275    In 2024, China became the first and only nation to return276samples from the far side of the Moon.277    This year, China conducted a series of tests to develop278major components and systems that will support its future lunar279missions, demonstrating that the CCP is both committed and280working expeditiously toward its goal of landing taikonauts on281the Moon by 2030.282    The U.S. cannot afford to fall behind. If China takes the283lead in space exploration, it will set the rules of the road.284Our values - not those of the Chinese Communist Party--must285shape those rules.286    To ensure that the United States retains its leading role287in space, Congress must understand China's capabilities, its288future plans, and the pace at which the CCP is completing its289objectives. That is the purpose of today's hearing.290    A clearer understanding of China's space program will guide291this committee's work on space policy for the remainder of this292Congress.293    I was in the Oval Office when President Trump signed the294last full NASA authorization bill into law in March 2017. It295was a crucial step in the right direction, but much has296happened in the years since.297    In the coming weeks, our committee will consider a new NASA298authorization bill that will provide urgently needed direction299to the agency. I look forward to working with my colleagues to300send this bill to the President's desk.301    However, China's achievements extend beyond its government302space activities. A report by the Commercial Space Federation,303released in September, highlights significant growth in China's304investment in its commercial space industry.305    America's commercial space sector is the envy of the world,306but maintaining that status is not guaranteed, and our307leadership is far from assured. Next year, our committee will308consider new commercial space legislation that builds on the309Commercial Space Act of 2023, which I was proud to lead.310    As I said during our commercial space hearing last311September, we can either be tethered to Earth by red tape while312the Chinese move ahead--or we can act decisively. This bill313will help ensure the continued growth of our commercial space314sector.315    We have a lot of work ahead of us, but with Congress,316stakeholders, and the administration working together, we can317keep America at the helm as we enter the next era of space318exploration.319    I am pleased to welcome today's excellent panel of320witnesses. Several of you are no strangers to this committee. I321look forward to your testimony and the opportunity to engage322with you this morning.323    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.324325    [The prepared statement of Chairman Haridopolos follows:]326327    The topic we will address today is nothing less than a328critical issue and defining challenge for this committee:329understanding China's bold ambitions and addressing their330unapologetic drive for dominance in space.331    We are at the start of the next age of exploration. One332where humanity is not just observing the cosmos but acting on333its observations and beginning to inhabit it.334    For those new to this issue, the question we should be335asking as we explore beyond our planet is: Will humanity carry336forward the American values of economic and political freedom337or those of the Chinese Communist Party?338    For generations, the United States led humanity into space339with unmatched ingenuity and without a true rival.340    However, that situation is changing as China moves341methodically, relentlessly and ruthlessly to tighten its grip342on space capabilities and seek the strategic advantages it343confers by any means possible.344    History reminds us that great-power competition shapes the345destiny of civilizations. Just as the rivalry between Spain and346Great Britain defined the oceans in the 16th and 17th347centuries, the competition between the United States and China348will define the space domain today. Whoever leads beyond Earth349will shape the future of Earth.350    Now, let's go back to 1957. China's ambitions stretch back351decades. Moments after Sputnik shook the world, Chairman Mao352declared, ``We too will make satellites.'' That declaration353ignited a vision that has never faded.354    In 1992, the People's Republic of China set in motion355Project 921, its human spaceflight program, which continues on356to this day.357    In recent years under President Xi, China's pace has358surged, in part due to his declaration of a Chinese ``space359dream'', which transformed aspirations into a coordinated360national mission for dominance.361    China's commercial space sector has since surged forward,362aimed to compete with America's world-leading commercial space363industry. This is not accidental. It is strategic.364    And to be clear, the objective is not merely to keep up.365Their objective is to outpace, outmaneuver, and ultimately366defeat the United States.367    But America is not standing still. In my district, at the368Kennedy Space Center, we surpassed 100 launches just two weeks369ago. Roughly 95 percent of those launches came from a single370commercial company, SpaceX, who first launched in 2006. China371is not even close at around 73 launches.372    Still, Beijing is pressing ahead. Their plans include373landing taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030 and374constructing a research base at the Moon's South Pole by 2035.375    They are also achieving historic firsts. China has already376returned Lunar samples from the far side of the Moon--the first377to do so.378    Next, they intend to launch a Mars sample-return mission in3792028, a timeline that may beat the United States.380    In low-Earth orbit, while we plan to deorbit our own space381station, China has maintained a continuous human presence on382its own space station since 2021, with taikonauts serving six-383month crew rotations.384    In the coming years, China intends to deploy its own space-385based internet service and expand its global alternative to386GPS.387    And while this committee's jurisdiction covers commercial388and civil space programs, we cannot ignore the People's389Liberation Army's rapidly advancing space and counterspace390capabilities. Their systems are designed to threaten, disrupt,391and if necessary, take out U.S. assets in space.392    So again, I ask: Will humanity carry forward the American393values of economic and political freedom or those of the394Communist Chinese Party?395    The reality is stark. China poses a serious immediate and396long-term threat to U.S. leadership in space.397    Today's witnesses will provide us with a more detailed398overview of China's trajectory: its history, strategy, and399intentions.400    They will also share recommendations about how this401committee and Congress should respond to this mercurial402challenge.403    I thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for being here404today and sharing your expertise with the subcommittee.405    I look forward to a serious and productive discussion of406the challenges before us.407408    Chairman Haridopolos. And with that, I want to recognize409our Ranking Member, Mrs. Foushee, from North Carolina for her410opening statement. Thank you so much.411    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, and good morning. And thank you412Chairman Haridopolos for holding today's hearing to review413China's space activities and the implications for the United414States Space Program. I want to also welcome our distinguished415witnesses, thank you for being here.416    It is no surprise that we are here today to assess China's417space rise and the risks to U.S. leadership. China's ascending418space capabilities are fast approaching strategic comparability419with the United States. This is intentional. Xi Jinping's space420dream stresses the importance of China dominating the space421domain.422    The recently released 2025 annual report to Congress of the423U.S., China, economic, and security review commission states424that China has embarked on a whole of government strategy to425become the world's preeminent space power. These are not near426projections or rhetoric.427    China is methodically carrying out increasingly428sophisticated space capabilities in its efforts to dominate.429China has joined the ranks of only the U.S. and Russia in430launching humans into space.431    To date, China has become only the second Nation to land432and operate a spacecraft on Mars. In addition, China operates a433continuously crewed space station in low-Earth orbit and has434racked up a number of firsts, including landing on and435collecting and returning samples from the far side of the Moon436and placing communications satellites around the Moon and more.437That is not all. China has publicly announced its plans to land438humans on the surface of the Moon by 2030, establish a439permanent International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) by 2025,440and acquire samples from Mars and return them to Earth in the441early 2030s.442    In 2024, China released its first Mid-and Long-Term Plan443for Space Science in which it aims to achieve top-tier444international ranking in major space science areas by 2050.445    Further, China is aggressively investing in and enabling a446quasi-commercial space sector, as well as growing its447international partnerships.448    Why does it matter? The People's Republic of China (PRC)449for which there is no distinction between civil and military450space knows that leadership in space has brought the United451States invaluable geopolitical soft power, significant and452beneficial international alliances, economic growth fueled by453innovation, bold and inspiring missions that drive and attract454STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)455talent, and national security advantages.456    How we navigate China's ascending space capabilities today457has direct impacts on every American--our banking,458communications, weather prediction, agriculture, natural459resource management and national security, for example, all460rely on space systems.461    Threats to the U.S. presence and leadership in space could462put at risk a critical backbone of our social, security, and463economic systems.464    And how are we navigating China's space rise? The Trump465Administration appears to believe that attacking research466university, gutting our Federal STEM workforce, withdrawing467from international engagement, and significantly468underinvestigating--investing rather, in research and469development (R&D) is the answer.470    Just look at this stark comparison between China's space471science plans and those of the Trump Administration as prepared472by the Planetary Society. Is this a winning strategy?473    While I am pleased that the Nancy Grace Roman Space474Telescope on which both Duke and North Carolina Central475University in my district collaborate is maintained in making476excellent progress, ceding so many transformational space477science missions to China alone will send a dangerous message.478    As Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I have expressed479before, I will not stand for handing the keys to lunar480exploration or space leadership to China. This is a pivotal481moment. We on this Subcommittee and the Science Committee have482a responsibility and an obligation to advance sound policies483that ensure and sustain America's civil and global leadership484in space.485    We must meet this challenge with bold policies, robust486investments, and a unified vision to preserve our Nation's487leadership in space exploration and innovation.488    We also need to critically navigate our coexistence with489China in space. For example, are there areas where limited490engagement in China, such as on space flight safety could serve491U.S. interests?492    At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous493consent to permit Representative Don Beyer to attend this494hearing and ask questions of the witnesses.495    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Foushee follows:]496497    Good morning and thank you Chairman Haridopolos for holding498today's hearing to review China's space activities and the499implications for the United States space program. I want to500also welcome our distinguished witnesses. Thank you for being501here.502    It is no surprise that we are here today to assess China's503space rise and the risks to U.S. leadership. China's ascending504space capabilities are fast approaching strategic comparability505with the United States. This is intentional.506    Xi Jingping's ``Space Dream'' stresses the importance of507China dominating the space domain. The recently released 2025508annual report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and509Security Review Commission states that ``China has embarked on510a whole-of-government strategy to become the world's preeminent511space power.''512    These are not mere projections or rhetoric. China is513methodically carrying out increasingly sophisticated space514capabilities in its effort to dominate. China has joined the515ranks of only the U.S. and Russia in launching humans into516space. To date, China has become only the second nation to land517and operate a spacecraft on Mars. In addition, China operates a518continuously crewed space station in low-Earth orbit and has519racked up a number of ``firsts:''520    Including landing on--and collecting and returning samples521from--the far side of the Moon; emplacing communications522satellites around the Moon, and more.523    That is not all. China has publicly announced its plans to524land humans on the surface of the Moon by 2030, establish a525permanent international lunar research station by 2035, and526acquire samples from Mars and return them to Earth in the early5272030s.528    In 2024, China released is first Mid-and Long-Term Plan for529Space Science in which it aims to achieve ``top-tier530international ranking'' in major space science areas by 2050.531Further, China is aggressively investing in and enabling a532quasi-commercial space sector as well as growing its533international partnerships.534    Why does it matter? The People's Republic of China, for535which there is no distinction between civil and military space,536knows that leadership in space has brought the United States537invaluable geopolitical soft power, significant and beneficial538international alliances, economic growth fueled by innovation,539bold and inspiring missions that drive and attract STEM talent,540and national security advantages. How we navigate China's541ascending space capabilities today has direct impacts on every542American. Our banking, communications, weather prediction,543agriculture, natural resource management, and national544security, for example, all rely on space systems. Threats to545the U.S.'s presence and leadership in space could put at risk a546critical backbone of our social, security, and economic547systems.548    And how are we navigating China's space rise? The Trump549Administration appears to believe that attacking research550universities, gutting our Federal STEM workforce, withdrawing551from international engagement, and significantly underinvesting552in research and development is the answer. Just look at this553stark comparison between China's space science plans and those554of the Trump Administration, as prepared by the Planetary555Society. Is this a winning strategy?556[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2279.017557558    While I'm pleased that the Nancy Grace Roman Space559Telescope--on which both Duke and North Carolina Central560University in my district collaborate--is maintained and making561excellent progress, ceding so many transformational space562science missions to China alone would send a dangerous message.563    As Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, I have expressed564before: I will not stand for handing the keys to lunar565exploration--or space leadership--to China. This is a pivotal566moment. We, on this Subcommittee and in the Science Committee,567have a responsibility and an obligation to advance sound568policies that ensure and sustain America's civil and global569leadership in space.570    We must meet this challenge with bold policies, robust571investments, and a unified vision to preserve our nation's572leadership in space exploration and innovation. We also need to573critically navigate our co-existence with China in space. For574example, are there areas where limited engagement with China,575such as on spaceflight safety, could serve U.S. interests?576    By strengthening our strategic focus, funding, and global577partnerships, we can ensure that the United States remains the578leader in space for decades to come.579    I hope our witnesses will give us concrete recommendations580on how to ensure U.S. leadership in the strategic competition581with China, and what Congress should consider as we work to582reauthorize NASA, not only on highly visible programs such as583Artemis, low-Earth orbit, and science--But also on the584consequential roles of technical standards, regulatory585policies, and international partnerships and diplomacy that586have far-reaching influence for United States space activities587and much more.588    At this time, Mr. Chairman, I ask for Unanimous Consent to589permit Representative Don Beyer, to attend this hearing and ask590questions of the witnesses.591    Thank you, and I yield back.592593    Chairman Haridopolos. Without objection, that is ordered.594Next, we have--I want to recognize our Ranking Member, the595Ranking Member on the Full Committee, Ms. Lofgren for a comment596as well.597    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for today's598hearing. The topic is very important for our work here in the599Science Committee, and the Federal Science Technology and600Innovation Enterprise.601    As we know, China is making unprecedented investments in602research and development across science and technology, and603space is a core component of this strategy. They represent a604real threat to the United States' long history as the605undisputed global leader in space. And it is critical that we606understand the PRC's current capabilities, their plans, as well607as their strategic objectives.608    At the same time, it is also critical that we redouble our609commitment to supporting and stewarding a strong, robust space610program that continues to push the boundaries in Earth and611space science in human space flight exploration and space612technology development.613    You know, in the very first Science Committee hearing in614this Congress, we heard from expert witnesses about the state615of U.S. science and technology, and that China was actually616leading in 37 of 44 critical technologies. In my remarks at617that hearing, I said we couldn't ignore the reality outside the618four walls of this hearing room.619    The new Administration was actively and with unprecedented620speed and ferocity, apparently seeking to tear down and621undermine some of the very scientific foundations upon which622our leadership has been so painstakingly built.623    Now, we are here 10 months later and the Administration has624not relented in its destructive endeavors. The U.S. Science and625Technology Enterprise continues to take blow after blow. NASA626(National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the Space627Enterprise has not been spared.628    This summer, the Administration launched a pressure629campaign of intimidation against the entire NASA civil servant630workforce. And now the agency has lost nearly 4,000 people over63120 percent of the civil servant workforce. And there doesn't632seem to be a strategy in determining who should leave and who633should stay.634    And just over the last couple of months, largely under the635cover of a government shutdown, NASA has been rushing to636shutter nearly half of the Goddard Space Flight Center's main637campus.638    I simply do not understand how anyone reconciles rhetoric639about competing with China while pulling the rug out from under640our own research enterprise. I don't want to speak for our641witnesses, but I expect we are about to hear that China is not642culling its talent and technical capabilities, that is not643undermining its universities, and turning the world's brightest644minds away. Yet, that is what our Federal Government is being645forced to do today by really an out-of-control White House and646OMB (Office of Management and Budget).647    Congress needs to step up to the bat. The clock's ticking.648As this Administration continues to cripple our science and649technology enterprise, China is deliberately and systematically650implementing long-term plans.651    Now, I have no doubt that all of us on both sides of the652aisle serving on this Committee want to ensure U.S. leadership653in space. But words are cheap, and actions are priceless. It is654up to us on this Committee and in Congress to take the655necessary actions that will sustain our global leadership in656space and in science and technology more broadly.657    Anything less is an invitation to take--let China take the658mantle in space and in so much more.659    So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back.660    [The prepared statement of Ms. Lofgren follows:]661662    Good morning, and thank you Mr. Chairman, for holding663today's hearing. I also want to thank our expert witnesses for664being here.665    This topic is incredibly important for our work here on the666Science Committee and the federal science, technology, and667innovation enterprise. China is making unprecedented668investments in research and development across science and669technology, and space is a core component of their strategy.670They represent a very real, constant threat to the United671States' long history as the undisputed global leader in space.672It is critical that we understand the PRC's current673capabilities, plans, and strategic objectives. At the same674time, it is also critical that we redouble our commitment to675supporting and stewarding a strong, robust space program that676continues to push the boundaries in Earth and space science,677human spaceflight exploration, and space technology678development.679    In the first Science Committee hearing of this Congress, we680heard from expert witnesses about the state of U.S. science and681technology, and that China is actually leading in 37 of 44682critical technologies. In my opening remarks, I said that I683could not ignore the reality outside of the four walls of this684hearing room:685    The new Administration was actively, and with unprecedented686speed and ferocity, apparently seeking to tear down and687undermine some of the very scientific foundations upon which688our leadership has been so painstakingly built.689    Unfortunately, here we are, ten months later, and the690Administration has not relented in its destructive endeavors.691The U.S. science and technology enterprise continues to take692blow after blow, to this very day. NASA and the space693enterprise has not been spared. This summer, the Administration694launched a pressure campaign of intimidation against the entire695NASA civil servant workforce, and now the agency has lost696nearly 4,000 people--over 20% of its civil servant workforce,697with no apparent strategy in determining who should leave and698who should stay. And, just over the last couple of months--699largely under the cover of a government shutdown--NASA has been700rushing to shutter nearly half of the Goddard Space Flight701Center's main campus.702    I could go on with the insults and injuries this703Administration sees fit to impose upon this nation's space704program, but I will spare us. I'll simply repeat something else705I said in February: I simply do not understand how anyone706reconciles rhetoric about competing with China with pulling the707rug out from under our own research enterprise.708    I do not want to speak for our witnesses, but I anticipate709that we are about to hear that China is not culling its talent710and technical capabilities, nor is it undermining its711universities and turning the world's brightest minds away. Yet,712that is what our federal government is being forced to do today713by an out-of-control White House and OMB. Congress needs to714step up.715    The clock is ticking. As this Administration continues to716cripple our science and technology enterprise, China is717deliberately and systematically implementing its long-term718plans.719    I have no doubt that all of us serving on this Committee720want to ensure U.S. leadership in space. Words are cheap, but721actions are priceless. It is up to us on this Committee and in722Congress to take the necessary actions that will sustain our723global leadership in space, and science and technology more724broadly. Anything less is an invitation for China to take the725mantle in space and more.726    Thank you, and I yield back.727728    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. We are now going to729introduce our witnesses.730    First, our first witness today is Dr. Dean Cheng who serves731as senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.732    Our second witness is Dr. Clayton Swope who serves as the733deputy director of this aerospace security project at the734Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).735    Our third witness is Dr. Patrick Besha who is the founder736of the Global Space Group.737    And our final witness is Dr. Michael Griffin who serves as738the co-president of LogiQ, Inc.739    I would like to thank each of our witnesses for joining us740today. And our first speaker today will be Mr. Cheng for 5741minutes to present his testimony. Welcome to the Committee.742743          TESTIMONY OF MR. DEAN CHENG, SENIOR FELLOW,744745            THE POTOMAC INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES746747    Mr. Cheng. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman Haridopolos,748Ranking Member Foushee, Ranking Member Lofgren, thank you for749the opportunity to be here today. My comments are purely my750own.751    As the opening remarks noted, the Chinese Communist Party752sees space as vital. Space from the CCP's perspective753contributes to all aspects of comprehensive national power--754military, economic, diplomatic, political, scientific, and755technological, even cultural. One of the key benefits this PRC756sees from engaging heavily in space is the experience gained in757things like systems integration and systems engineering, which758then redounds throughout the Chinese economy in all of its759various aspects.760    Space from the CCP's perspective is also vital because we761live in the information age. And space is central for762establishing information dominance in a world where information763is the new currency of power, economic power, military power,764international power.765    To this end, the Chinese are using space to develop their766domestic techno-economic base. Two key concepts in this regard:767One is dual circulation, creating essentially a walled-off768domestic economy where foreign players are not part of the769supply chain, engaging in intense, internal competition to770generate new technology and efficient production, which they771will then go out and compete globally against the rest of the772world, including American companies. And the other element here773is military-civil fusion, which is ensuring that every renminbi774serves both civil and military purposes.775    And we see in particular the Chinese shift from a state-776owned enterprise-centric approach to one that also embraces777commercial enterprises as a key part of the overall Chinese778effort to improve their overall space industrial complex.779    In this regard, then, the Chinese have a plan, and that780plan is very much the core of the threat to the United States.781In essence, the Chinese are striving to build out their space782capabilities, whether it is an array of satellite networks and783constellations, including mega constellations, a cis-lunar784capacity to support a sustained long-term presence both on the785Moon and in cis-lunar space, replete with lunar Position,786Navigation, Timing (PNT), and communication support and, of787course, building out a robust military space capability as788reflected in the Military Aerospace Force.789    Second, to buildup their space industrial base, which will790include commercial as well as state-owned enterprise elements,791but has also seen the creation of regional aerospace industrial792complexes in places like Wuhan, away from Beijing and Shanghai,793and finally building in dual use. Military civil fusion is794about creating a melded, fused national industrial base that795can serve as both the military and civilian demands.796    Here the Chinese have a huge advantage and much of the797opening remarks by the respected Members highlights this. China798sticks to a plan. It creates a plan, and it sticks to it for799decades. And the benefit there is programmatic stability,800budgetary stability, staff stability. I know I will have a job801on this project for years and decades, and the people I work802with will be the same ones.803    Very quickly, specifically, on the PLA aspect, the People's804Liberation Army, the PLA poses a multifaceted threat in part805because China views space holistically: satellites, ground806segment, data links. The threat to American space systems,807therefore, is not simply the very sexy image of anti-satellite808systems, but also jamming and cyber attacks. And we have seen809the intelligence community accuse China of engaging in things810like Volt Typhoon, implanting malware in critical811infrastructure. But we should also note that the Chinese being812very close observers of other people's wars have undoubtedly813learned lessons, such as operation Spider Web in Ukraine, the814use of drones launched within an adversary's country to attack815critical infrastructure, which in this case should be816considered to include to space capability.817    The other aspect of the threat, however, is the industrial818and standards aspect. The growth of Chinese commercial space819poses a very different, but nonetheless threatening, challenge.820Why shouldn't other countries buy from PRC commercial821companies? And Huawei leads the way in demonstrating how China822has been very much able to use commercial capabilities to823achieve inroads where it does not therefore have to use the824military.825    Thank you very much to the Committee for the opportunity to826be here today.827    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cheng follows:]828    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]829830    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Cheng.831    Next, we have Mr. Swope for 5 minutes. You are recognized.832833                TESTIMONY OF MR. CLAYTON SWOPE,834835          DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AEROSPACE SECURITY PROJECT,836837         CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES838839    Mr. Swope. Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member840Foushee, Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished Members of841the Committee. I am honored to share my views with you on this842important topic. CSIS does not take policy positions, so the843views represented in this testimony are my own and not those of844my employer.845    The People's Republic of China is methodically executing an846ambitious space agenda that aims to prove that China is a world847power in space without equal. Beijing is using space in ways848that provide direct, tangible benefits to its military and its849economy, while also fostering national pride and unity. Every850new space technology, skill, and industrial capacity acquired851by the PRC will be used to provide the People's Liberation852Army, a battlefield advantage, as well as power civilian and853commercial innovation and economic growth.854    So what is China doing today? Space fits squarely into the855PRC's economic development policies to increase its industrial856might. The PRC has built satellite and rocket factories and857associated supply chains, launch facilities, ground stations,858and space object tracking systems. China is developing on-orbit859technologies, such as in-space refueling, highly maneuverable860satellites, space station nuclear and solar power, and861satellite docking and captured technology.862    To date, China has not shown that it can conduct space863launch at the same scale or build satellites as fast as the864United States. But China is working to close that gap and865master reusable launch. It just tested a reusable launch866vehicle within the last 24 hours.867    China is already launching satellite constellations. The868PRC Civil Space Program has methodically checked off869achievements in human space flight and uncrewed exploration870that will probably culminate in a human landing on the Moon by8712030.872    China has already built three space stations and conducted873six robotic lunar missions, and a mission is Mars. China is on874track to be the first country to return samples of Mars to875Earth.876    China has deployed space capabilities that allow the PLA to877monitor what is happening on Earth and in space, communicate878with its forces throughout the Indo-Pacific region, and879navigate with a high level of precision. The PLA is fielding an880increasingly sophisticated toolkit of counter-space weapons881that can threaten U.S. and allied satellites.882    To date, China has mostly copied the U.S. playbook in883space. But China is doing things that no one else has done.884China was the first Nation to land on and conduct a sample of885return from the far side of the Moon. China conducted the886world's first satellite refueling in geosynchronous orbit887within the last few months.888    China operates the first and only communication satellite889in an orbit around an Earth-Moon Lagrange point. So what can890the United States do? How should we think about this? If the891United States is in a race with China, it is a race that has no892end. Other than an end associated with the rise and fall of893nations in a timeframe measured over centuries.894    Chairman, to your point, like the contest between England895and Spain, I also think the contest between Rome and Carthage.896These races last centuries.897    China is running such a race. With its focus on military898civil fusion, Beijing is marshalling its technical and899manufacturing resources to enhance its overall national power900with space playing a key role.901    The importance of space and national power is also902recognized by the United States. With President Trump noting in903July that space systems power exploration, defense, and904communication, and that the Nation will ensure the American905flag remains the ultimate symbol of leadership across the final906frontier.907    Though the PRC space power is growing, the United States908can retain its lead and ensure it remains the world's most909consequential space power. To do so, we must use our strongest910advantages. We have a maturity of still growing space911innovation ecosystem; we have a space economy built on free-912market principles; and we have a coalition of willing and913international partners who want and choose to work with the914United States.915    These characteristics of our national space power are force916multipliers and should be harnessed in the same way that917Beijing uses military civil fusion to advance the defense,918economic security, scientific objectives, and prestige of our919Nation.920    In 1963, Edward Teller, a scientist who played a critical921role in the Manhattan project testified before Congress on922strategic developments, saying that I believe that in a race923for knowledge, we will win. But I believe that in a race in924which we are not running, or running halfheartedly, we have925been losing, and we will continue to lose.926    Today, we as a nation may face a similar situation in927space. We have many advantages over the PRC, structural928advantages that we can use to maintain our edge, but to do so929we need to start running.930    [The prepared statement of Mr. Swope follows:]931    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]932933    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Mr. Swope. Next, we have934Dr. Besha. I keep pronouncing your incorrectly, I want to make935sure I----936    Dr. Besha. Besha.937    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you. You are recognized for 5938minutes.939940                TESTIMONY OF DR. PATRICK BESHA,941942                  FOUNDER, GLOBAL SPACE GROUP943944    Dr. Besha. Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member945Foushee, and Ranking Member Lofgren, and distinguished Members946of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my947perspective on China's space strategy and its implications for948the U.S. You know, when I started at NASA 20 years ago as a949specialist on China, the country had just launched their first950astronaut into orbit and had not yet launched their first lunar951mission. How times have changed?952    Today, the U.S. and China are the two most powerful953spacefaring Nations, engaged in a long-term strategic954competition that spans multiple elements.955    Geopolitics, national security, economic competitiveness,956social and cultural influence, and science. I will briefly957discuss each major area. Geopolitics, national pride, and958prestige have been central drivers of China's space program959since its establishment. Today, human space flight missions are960most closely associated with these goals, including its current961space station and planned human lunar landing and the962International Lunar Research Station. Human spaceflight is963extraordinarily expensive and highly symbolic.964    And so, therefore, serving very powerful signalling965function. The geopolitical stakes were once summed up by Lyndon966Johnson as: In the eyes of the world, first in space means967first period; second in space is second in everything.968    Today, the importance of space has only grown with our969national security and economy relying on it. Developing a major970space program has also exercised in compelling excellence from971propulsion and material science to industrial organization and972the supply chains, space missions pull and push the development973of new technologies while adhering to the highest quality974standards. In essence, such missions provide a tangible measure975of a nation's economic strength in geopolitical power.976    Second, our ability to operate in space is integral to977national security, including our utilization of Position,978Navigation, and Timing, reconnaissance communications. The same979holds true for all major space powers. Second, space has always980been intensely dual use. From military-funded civilian startups981to federally funded research centers that build both civil and982military spacecraft.983    In China, a similar phenomenon is referred to as military-984civil fusion. It is part of a comprehensive effort to exploit985the best innovation wherever it may exist. In 2019, images of986Chang'e 4 on the far side of the Moon were celebrated in the987Great Hall of the People. Xi Jinping held it as--the mission as988a demonstration of a new type of whole nation system.989    Social and cultural influence also shapes the strategy of990the space program. Spaceflight is the core part of the China991Dream of national rejuvenation--a return to the country's992preeminent place at the center of the world and now the993expansion of civilization deeper into the solar system.994    Tying together China's ancient and modern cultures is a995hallmark of Xi Jinping thought and a push to promote the996country's unique cultural identity while legitimizing party997rule. One way this is symbolized is the use of traditional998mythology in the naming of the space missions.999    Economic competitiveness is a measure of how well a1000nation's firms compete globally. It can provide insight into1001firm productivity, or how officially inputs are turned into1002profits and services. China's state-owned enterprises typically1003lag its private sector firms in productivity. For this reason,1004it expanded the commercial space sector, which is now the1005world's second largest after the U.S. However, under a state1006capitalist model, the commercial sector is still robustly1007controlled by the state from capital markets to firm1008management.1009    Core to the Nation's competitiveness is its manufacturing;1010China's ability to outproduce and outscale others is reflected1011in its roughly one-third share of all manufacturing in the1012world. With this comes process knowledge, not simply the1013building instructions, but the hands-on knowledge of how to1014build, how to innovate, and how to become more efficient. China1015has hundreds of space companies competing to drive down costs1016through process and scale efficiencies. As space becomes1017commoditized, this approach will greatly improve its economic1018competitiveness, just as it has in other sectors such as solar.1019    The pursuit of science and the expansion of knowledge is1020evident. And the country's recent achievements as you have1021mentioned, the first return of lunar samples since 1976, the1022first successful landing on Mars--a second country to land on1023Mars successfully.1024    Its latest science strategy covering the next 25 years1025proposes ambitious missions to Jupiter and Saturn--Jupiter and1026Neptune, excuse me. Other key strategies such as ``Made in1027China 2025'' also prioritizes space. Success in these goals1028such as building infrastructure on the lunar South Pole and1029returning samples from Mars would mark exceptional world-1030class--world first achievements with significant national1031prestige and soft-power effects.1032    We are engaged not so much in a space race, but a long-term1033broad, strategic competition. I recommend a few measures that1034could support an enduring American advantage. Support Earth and1035space science robustly, including strategic missions of1036national importance, establishing a long-term Artemis mission1037manifest; and advance a strategic international cooperation.1038    I recently left NASA, but I had great optimism that the1039agency and its partners in industry can, if appropriately1040funded, continue to achieve the highest level of excellence.1041Thank you.1042    [The prepared statement of Dr. Besha follows:]1043   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]10441045    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Besha. Finally, we1046have Dr. Griffin of his first 5 minutes. Welcome to the1047Committee.10481049              TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN,10501051                   CO-PRESIDENT, LOGIQ, INC.10521053    Dr. Griffin. Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Members Foushee1054and Lofgren, and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the1055invitation to appear before you to discuss what I believe to be1056a critically important topic. To the point of this hearing, the1057Chinese Communist Party's goals in space and its rising1058capability to implement them could not be more clear. China is1059going to the Moon. No access to classified information or other1060special knowledge is required to realize this.1061    In my statement for the record, I have noted well over a1062dozen open source references from among many more that could be1063offered, describing their progress in developing the heavy-lift1064launch vehicles, crewed lunar lander, lunar surface suit and1065rover, and Earth return vehicle that will enable the execution1066of an Apollo-style mission to the lunar surface.1067    Going to the Moon is a very hard thing. They may or may not1068make it by the publicly referenced date of 2030, but that is1069not important. What is important is China is going to the Moon.1070The problem facing us is not China's rise. We cannot control1071what China is doing. We can only control what we are doing. Of1072those efforts, I am forced to say that mediocrity would be an1073improvement. We have squandered a 60-year head start on1074pioneering the space frontier to a nation that, without reason1075or provocation on our part, has chosen to become our adversary.1076    For a self-declared adversary to occupy a human frontier1077that we can no longer reach, should be understood as an1078existential concern, if only because of their own words on the1079matter.1080    From Ye Peijian, China's former director of lunar1081exploration missions at the 2017 Beijing Space Congress, I1082quote: ``The Cosmos is an ocean. The Moon is the Diaoyu1083Islands. Mars is Huanyan Island,'' which we call Scarborough1084Shoal. ``If we can go, but don't go, future generations would1085condemn us. Once others are there, once others have occupied,1086no matter how much you wanted to go, you couldn't.''1087    This is a stunning statement. The United States and its1088allies and partners would never think to say that if we reach1089the Moon while others cannot, they cannot also go there. The1090fact that key figures in the Chinese Communist Party hold this1091view should be of the utmost concern. But what is our response?1092    When I appeared before this Committee on January 17 of10932024, I had offered a rather blunt assessment of NASA's plan1094for human return to the Moon. I said it will not work in any1095reasonable timeframe. Additional misgivings have been more1096recently offered by former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine1097in September 2025 Senate hearing and by the NASA Aerospace1098Safety Advisory Panel, both referenced in my statement for the1099record.1100    To avoid offering criticism without a solution in the 20241101statement, I submitted a system architecture for human lunar1102return that could be implemented with systems available today1103or near term. I and my colleague, Dr. Lisa Porter, who1104contributed significantly to both that testimony and today's,1105subsequently offered a more comprehensive paper on that1106architecture available online and incorporated for reference in1107my statement for the record for this hearing. Others have also1108suggested alternative system architectures for human and lunar1109return missions.1110    However, NASA, two successive Presidential Administrations,1111and the Congress that oversees them have so far chosen to1112continue on a path that cannot work, and which even if it could1113poses a level of crew risk that should be considered1114unacceptable.1115    I will repeat my recommendation from 23 months ago. The1116Artemis III mission and those beyond should be canceled, and we1117should start again, proceeding with all deliberate speed. We1118have lost a lot of time, we may or may not be able to return to1119the Moon before the Chinese execute their own first landing, or1120we may.1121    Space is hard, and despite the progress that China is1122making, mission success is guaranteed to no one. But though we1123may not win at this first step, we cannot cede the pursuit and1124leave the playing field to others.1125    The true risk the United States faces right now is not just1126in failing to return to the Moon before China, but in failing1127to commit to what winning really means. In the long run,1128winning is about being first, and then remaining to establish1129the protocols, the governance rules, and ultimately the culture1130and the values--the primacy of the individual over the State,1131the rule of law, the right to own property, the bounty of the1132free market--that others who wish to join us on the human1133frontier must embrace.1134    Establishing the foundations for that future cannot be1135accomplished without a sustained commitment. I am confident1136that China fully understands this. Thank you.1137    [The prepared statement of Dr. Griffin follows:]1138    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]11391140    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. I thank each1141of the witnesses for their testimony. I will now recognize1142myself for 5 minutes for questions.1143    Mr. Cheng, if you would, there has been a lot of discussion1144about schedules and the idea that the United States and China,1145of course, are in this race not only to the Moon but beyond.1146But there has also been this unique conversation that each one1147of you brought it up in the sense that China seems to stay on1148schedule a little better than the United States at this point,1149despite, as I think everyone in this room knows, we put an1150additional $10 billion into NASA during the bill that we passed1151in July. That said, what allows China to stay on schedule? And1152what can we learn from their, at this point, success in staying1153on schedule?1154    Mr. Cheng. Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the ironies1155here is that the very authoritarianism that is a hallmark of1156the Chinese system does grant certain benefits. One of which is1157the ability to coerce a workforce, an overall government. But,1158two, because the CCP has set a target, whether it is to put a1159man in orbit or to put Chinese boots on the Moon, that is then1160translated to programmatic imperatives across the bureaucracy,1161which is not to say that there aren't bureaucratic resistance1162centers within the system.1163    But when it is high profile, when it is Xi Jinping or his1164predecessor, Hu Jintao, or his predecessor Jiang Zemin, who1165says, ``You will make this happen,'' woe betide the bureaucracy1166that chooses to fight it.1167    Alongside that is an economic structure that allows 5-year1168plans, which allows again the budgetary stability. If it is in1169the 5-year plan, it is bureaucratically approved, everyone is1170going to go along with this, and conversely the budget and1171therefore the staffing is stable for at least 5 years.1172    This is an enormous benefit with regards to ``I have set a1173target. We are funding it. There will not be cuts because of a1174new Congress, a new President, a new legislature, a new1175director, and do not get in the way, not of these sorts of1176programs.''1177    Chairman Haridopolos. Mr. Swope, to build on that idea, you1178had mentioned in your comments there are relationships within1179China between their main space agency as you put competitors1180within China. What are they doing differently in China with1181their quote, ``private sector,'' wherever you can say it about1182a communist system with a private sector, that they are doing1183that we can maybe improve upon and learn from?1184    Mr. Swope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think the Ranking1185Member mentioned quasi commercial space. That is how I think we1186should view it. It may be financed partly by private sector1187money, but in addition to money from the central government, it1188also has money from provinces and local and municipalities.1189    But one thing that I think we should think about with1190regards to how China operates then, I look at the quote on the1191wall here, ``Where there is no vision, the people perish,''1192from Proverbs. I think a lot of what Mr. Cheng said, too, is1193true here. When you have the ability to kind of march in the1194same direction for such and extended period of time, you are1195going to achieve things that you wouldn't if you had more1196uncertainty.1197    But I think they are missing out, though, is the free1198molecules that we have in our system where it does encourage1199innovation. You are not constraining innovation into a certain1200goal. That is a benefit to the United States that the PRC just1201does not have structurally in their system.1202    So I don't know if we should necessarily want to replicate1203how they approach that top-down approach to the commercial, the1204quasi commercial sector. I think our free-market principles1205based approach where you do have that chance for innovation and1206new ideas to percolate up through the ether, that is the best1207way to do it. I don't think we should try to alter the way that1208we innovate.1209    Chairman Haridopolos. And, Mr. Cheng, again, if I could.1210There is a lot of conversation about the Belt and Road that the1211Chinese have used across the world, and I think manipulate1212countries with dead issues along the line. What should we be1213fearful of as far as moving forward as they try to do much the1214same with space?1215    Mr. Cheng. Ironically, one aspect that we should be very1216worried about is the application of space technology to Chinese1217Belt and Road Initiative investments here on Earth. When the1218Chinese build a pipeline, a cell phone network, a1219telecommunications structure on Earth, timing signals are1220essential. And if the Chinese are funding it, one should not1221expect that those investments across the world in key areas, in1222key countries, in key regions, for key resources are going to1223use GPS rather than BeiDou.1224    And that means that these countries are in a sense1225potentially signing up without perhaps even realizing it. A1226structural vulnerability to create a structural dependence that1227will far outlast whoever is in the Presidential Palace or in1228the parliament leading their respective governments.1229    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you so much. I will now1230recognize our Ranking Member from North Carolina, Mrs. Foushee,1231for 5 minutes. You are recognized.1232    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Besha, can you1233tell us about your former role at NASA and why you are no1234longer with the agency?1235    Dr. Besha. Sure. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member1236Foushee. I started at NASA as a China specialist back in 2007.1237I advised every administrator, including as a junior staffer to1238Administrator Griffin until early 2025, including joining high-1239level NASA delegations to China, and I was a China expert in1240the administrator's office. Earlier this year, the Technology,1241Policy, and Strategy Office was eliminated, and myself and1242about a dozen colleagues were riffed.1243    Mrs. Foushee. So you were the top expert and advisor on1244China at NASA and you were riffed? That is beyond puzzling, and1245I would say incredibly alarming.1246    From reading your bio, I see that you are fluent in1247Mandarin Chinese. Based on your observation of recent Chinese1248media, can you describe how China is perceiving and responding1249to the actions taken by this Administration such as1250eviscerating and driving out the Federal STEM workforce,1251including a 20 percent hemorrhage at NASA, gutting NASA1252science, attacking research university, and drastically cutting1253U.S. investment and research and development?1254    Dr. Besha. Yes, I would say that most of the discussion is1255about expanding their own science industrial science technology1256industrial base. You know, expanding their funding for science1257programs, for technology. And to the extent they compare it1258with cuts in the United States, I have seen that as well. I1259think the criticism is muted, and I think they are probably1260content to watch what happens here happen as they greatly1261expand their own industrial base.1262    Mrs. Foushee. As I said in my statement, this is a pivotal1263time for U.S. leadership in space. And we on this Committee1264have a responsibility to act. So to each of you on the panel,1265what should this Committee prioritize as we look to reauthorize1266NASA and sustain U.S. global leadership in space? I would like1267to start with you, Dr. Besha, and then move to Dr. Griffin, Mr.1268Swope, and Mr. Cheng.1269    Dr. Besha. Well, I think your authorization is very1270important in that it helps set some guidance for how the agency1271should pursue its programs and plans. Emphasizing space1272science, Earth science is critical, especially a balance1273between, say, let's call it, generally, you know, NASA-led1274projects and private sector. We still need strategic missions.1275We need very large missions. Mars sample return, it is not1276going to be a cheap mission. It is not going to be inexpensive.1277It is going to cost money.1278    We also need to understand what comes after Artemis III,1279right? With some clarity on what is the intention? Is it a1280long-term stand on lunar surface, or are going onto Mars? We1281need some clarity. And then to the extent we can kind of1282advance some more robust international relations policy, that1283would be helpful to compete with a strategic competitor that is1284using international cooperation.1285    Mrs. Foushee. Dr. Griffin.1286    Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Ms. Foushee. I would make a couple1287of comments. In answer to the chairman's question a few moments1288ago about sticking to the plan, I would have commented that1289sticking to a plan is important when the plan makes sense.1290    China is sticking to a plan that makes sense. It looks a1291lot, in fact, like what the United States did for Apollo.1292Provably, that worked. We have stuck to a plan that does not1293make sense. So this Committee, an authorization Committee,1294should not authorize the agency to continue down a path that1295does not make sense.1296    The plan matters. I have enough history here to recall the1297Authorization Act by this Committee in 2005 that required me as1298the then administrator of NASA to use to the maximum extent1299possible the existing assets from shuttle and those that1300remained from space station and Apollo.1301    That is that the administrator of that time was required to1302use the system that we had. We seem to have lost track of that1303today. Again, sticking to a plan that will not work for Artemis1304III and beyond makes no sense.1305    Mrs. Foushee. Mr. Swope.1306    Mr. Swope. Thank you. I think when NASA spends its money,1307it is good to think about two different things. If NASA can1308spend its money in a way that it can do its mission, but then1309also enable private sector actors to try out business ideas or1310new innovations, like the Commercial Lunar Payload Services1311Project with ride-sharing opportunities, I think that is great1312for the U.S. innovation ecosystem.1313    The second thing is really I think when NASA spends money1314on things like basic research and development and science, that1315also feeds into innovation at the very early part of it.1316Without science, we would never have something like the1317Manhattan Project. We would never have had the radio. James1318Maxwell's theories proven by Reinhardt's Hertz led to Marconi's1319radio.1320    I look at those investments that the government makes, that1321NASA makes that is critically important to that innovation1322ecosystem as well. So, I think in both those cases, when you1323are looking at NASA authorization, look at it in a way where1324you are the genesis of that innovation ecosystem, that flywheel1325that really powers the U.S. national security and economic1326security in a way that the PRC just can't match.1327    Mrs. Foushee. Can you indulge me 30 seconds for Mr. Cheng1328to answer, please? Thank you.1329    Mr. Fong [presiding]. Sure.1330    Mr. Cheng. Ma'am, absolutely. Sure. It matters what this1331Committee chooses to push as a priority. The problem is, a1332failure to achieve whatever targets are set has no1333consequences. So if I were to give a recommendation to this1334Committee, I would say that whatever it is that this committee1335feels should be the priorities for NASA--and my colleagues,1336frankly, I think are far better qualified--I am focused1337primarily as a China analyst, ma'am, not really a space person.1338    One, it needs to be bipartisan to make very clear1339throughout our system that this is something that everyone is1340pushing for; and, two, that there are consequences, budgetary,1341legal, and others, to the agency, to supplying companies. If1342they fail to deliver on time and on budget that it will not be1343a, ``Well, OK, let's try again next year'' attitude. That there1344are consequences.1345    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you for that, and I yield back.1346    Mr. Fong. Thank you. I now recognize the representative1347from Florida, Mr. Webster, for 5 minutes.1348    Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the1349opportunity. Thank you for appearing as witnesses for this very1350important subject.1351    Dr. Griffin, in your testimony, written testimony, you1352mentioned the fact that it is important to be first, and that1353history teaches us that those that show up first usually get to1354write the rules and standards and set the direction of what,1355where we are going and what is going to happen. That comes from1356just showing up. And, in your opinion, are we staying at home,1357or are we showing up?1358    Dr. Griffin. Well, at present, sir, in line with the1359comments I made in my oral statement, we are staying home1360because the approach we are advocating is not going to work.1361The train may have left the station, but the train is headed1362over the cliff. The importance of showing up, as you put it, is1363that--in line with Mr. Cheng's comments--the people who are1364there are the ones who established the GPS timing signals or1365the BeiDou timing signals. The people who are there establish1366the communications protocols. The people who are there1367establish the rules of the road for space traffic management1368and other things.1369    If we are watching from the sidelines it will be China that1370is establishing those things. And with respect to the future1371for the rest of the humans on Earth, that will not go well.1372    Mr. Webster. Well, that is, I guess, my second question1373then. What will happen if China sets a standard and guides the1374development, rules, and norms of space? What would be the1375result?1376    Dr. Griffin. Then other nations will look to China and will1377choose to align themselves with China because they are the ones1378who are in space. The rest of the world will look to China as1379the technological leader of the world. Lyndon Johnson was not1380wrong, 50 years ago, when he said that first in space is first1381and second in space is second everywhere.1382    Mr. Webster. OK. Thank you, very much. I appreciate it. I1383yield back.1384    Mr. Fong. Thank you very much. I now recognize the1385Representative from California, Mr. Whitesides, for 5 minutes1386of questions.1387    Mr. Whitesides. Thank you. I want to thank the chair and1388Ranking Member for organizing this substantive hearing. It is1389good to see you all. It is good to see my old friend Dr.1390Griffin and others.1391    Let's start with Mr. Swope. You note in your prepared1392testimony that China is likely to achieve something no nation1393has done before, returning martian samples to Earth. With the1394mission launching in 2028, NASA's scientific Mars exploration1395program has been methodically building toward the return of1396dozens of scientifically selected samples; the highest priority1397of multiple decadal surveys that the agency is not settled on1398the plan to collect them.1399    And the Fiscal Year 2026 President's budget request would1400eliminate the program entirely, the scientific significance of1401abandoning this effort will be enormous. What would, in your1402view, be the geopolitical significance if the U.S. were to1403abandon its plan to retrieve scientifically selected samples1404from Mars while China moves forward on its own crash program to1405return martian samples?1406    Mr. Swope. Thank you for that question. It is the historic1407opportunity for humankind to maybe find evidence that there was1408life that originated on a planet that is not Earth. That is not1409really measurable, the significance of that discovery. What1410that could mean, I mentioned the impact on innovation from1411science. What that could mean down the road, the country that1412is the first to do something like that, to control that.1413    I don't know if I trust the PRC to do that in a way that1414benefits the planet, that benefits our Nation. So I think the1415huge impact is beyond just geopolitics that you could pull off1416a mission like that. I think it has science and long-term1417implications that maybe what is conceivably the most important1418discovery in the history of humankind.1419    Mr. Whitesides. Thank you. For Mr. Swope or Mr. Besha, you1420all state that one of our advantages over the Chinese is our1421allies, international cooperation. Of course, the1422Administration has proposed cutting a wide swath of1423international space missions in its budget. Fundamentally, how1424does this impact our ability to compete with China? Either of1425you can answer.1426    Dr. Besha. So, there is another competition going on that1427is international, right? And so, we are very conscious at NASA1428of how we were and how we expand our cooperation, because this1429allows us to influence. So Artemis Accords are a good example.1430We have a set of principles and values that we want to make1431shared. So we want other countries to agree with us on our set1432of principles. China is doing the same thing with the ILRS, the1433International Lunar Research Station.1434    They have a set of principles, and they are looking to get1435a group of nations aligned with them to move forward. The1436difference between the two are Artemis accords and ILRS is that1437ILRA actually offers programmatic cooperation, as well. And so1438whereas the accords are nonbinding, this is programmatic. And1439so countries can join them on the surface of the Moon.1440    And now when they start making those first steps toward1441norms, toward standards, they will have a coalition of1442countries along with them. And this bleeds over into other1443areas say at the United Nations, other topics and things like1444that. And so it is basically a competition of influence1445internationally.1446    Mr. Whitesides. In the interest of time, I am going to cut1447to my last question, which is for Dr. Griffin, who, by the way,1448I worked for about 25 years ago. I think. I can't remember.1449    Anyway, Dr. Griffin, you are probably the closest to the1450agency today of this panel. Although, Dr. Besha, you were there1451recently. So either of you can answer this question. I think it1452is important that we expose what is the current state of NASA?1453So we have lost 4,000 people, primarily senior staff, but also1454junior staff, new employees, and recently promoted staff.1455Goddard's getting taken apart, JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)1456is getting cut. You know, there is just turmoil. Morale has1457dropped, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. What do1458you perceive as the current state of NASA, you know, at the end1459of 2025?1460    Dr. Griffin. Regrettably, I am not that close to NASA1461anymore. It has been 16 years since I was there, and more. But1462from outside, I would offer the perspective that as much as I1463regret the damage to individual people and the loss of--notable1464loss of technical competence that goes with massive cuts like1465that, an agency without a proper, clearly defined, high-1466priority mission is a rudderless agency.1467    It almost doesn't matter. It might just not matter what1468actually happens at the agency until and unless we have a1469mission to put the United States first among equals on the1470human frontier.1471    If that is done properly, the right people will come to the1472agency, the budget will be supported, all of those good things1473will come true. It starts with defining what you want to do and1474then backing it up.1475    Mr. Whitesides. Thanks. I yield back. Thanks.1476    Mr. Fong. I now recognize the Representative from Texas,1477Mr. Self, for 5 minutes for questions.1478    Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wow. Lots to unpack1479here. First of all, Mr. Cheng, you said that you were more a1480China expert than a space expert. So we talked a little bit1481about free markets. I think Mr. Swope did. Talk to us about the1482challenges that China has and any results from the recent1483plenum. Because they have economic challenges, their economy--1484and when I think back to the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union was148510 feet tall until they weren't.1486    So I need to know what you think as a China expert just in1487the economic and the results from the recent plenum?1488    Mr. Cheng. Sir, I am always very concerned when folks talk1489about the slowdown of the Chinese economy, which we do seem to1490be seeing, and promptly equate that with the collapse of the1491Soviet Union. I think it was Winston Churchill who made the1492observation that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.1493    And when you would only look at North Korea, a fraction of1494China's economy, much worse off, and yet has managed to survive1495to caution that whatever problems we are seeing in the Chinese1496economy--and we are seeing some--making that leap to that it is1497a collapse.1498    What I would note is that Xi Jinping is continuing the1499policies of his predecessor Hu Jintao and frustrating efforts1500at expanding the role of the private sector of markets, et1501cetera, in China, that Chinese economic reform pretty much came1502to an end in 2004, and has not been renewed under Xi Jinping.1503    But, strikingly, one of the exceptions to that is in the1504aerospace sector, where private companies are, in fact,1505encouraged and welcome. Quasi private in some ways, but1506nonetheless motivated by more classic market principles than1507State direction.1508    Mr. Self. Dr. Griffin, you have been very clear that1509Artemis III on won't work. Tell us exactly why not. Is it the1510complexity? Is it the crew risk? Is it the fuel versus demand?1511So why exactly do you think it won't work? I have read your1512paper, but what is the bottom line as to why you are1513recommending we cancel this and go a different direction?1514    Dr. Griffin. The quick bottom line is that an architecture1515which requires a high multiple number of refueling flights in1516low-Earth orbit, no one really knows how many, uses a1517technology that has not yet ever been demonstrated in space is1518very unlikely to work, unlikely to the point where I will say1519and have said it cannot work.1520    Secondarily, the length of time required for the Earth1521departure ship to remain in low-Earth orbit almost guarantees1522that the propellant you have loaded will boil off before it can1523fully be used, and the requirement of the lander to occupy1524lunar orbit waiting for the crew for 60 to 90 days guarantees1525that the fuel will boil off.1526    I do not see a way with the current technology we have to1527overcome those problems, and, therefore, we should not pursue1528that line of approach.1529    Mr. Self. OK. Probably, and I will ask who would like to1530answer this. The Lagrange regions, L1 and L2, are prime real1531estate. Do we, should we deploy them as a first strike to get1532something into the L1 through L5, perhaps, to include relay1533positioning, navigations, timing beacons, space-domain,1534sensors, so forth and so on? Is that a critical mission?1535    Dr. Griffin. To whom is the question directed, sir?1536    Mr. Self. Mr. Cheng.1537    Mr. Cheng. Sir, first off, the Chinese have already1538deployed equipment there. I believe that this is one of those1539regions that will wind up becoming much more strategically1540centered. It would be beneficial to us to establish a presence,1541probably not military because that opens the door to propaganda1542by others but certainly scientific, but, most importantly,1543application, communications relay, data relay, things like that1544that have an economic as well as scientific benefit.1545    Mr. Self. Well, let me ask you because GPS--because I think1546the Chairman mentioned a Chinese-style GPS. We know that GPS1547spoofing is now a real thing on the battlefields around the1548world. So why would we not go with something other than GPS?1549    Mr. Cheng. I think that my understanding is that these1550orbits--deploying items into those orbits can become extremely1551complex, but, yes, if the issue here is GPS robustness, that is1552absolutely a major concern from a security perspective.1553    Mr. Self. And I think we--my time is done. I think we have1554a magnetic field sort of alternative.1555    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.1556    Mr. Fong [presiding]. The Subcommittee stands in recess1557subject to the call of the Chair.1558    [Recess.]1559    Chairman Haridopolos [presiding]. Welcome back.1560    For our next, Ms. Salinas, you are recognized for 51561minutes.1562    Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our1563Ranking Member, and thank you to our witnesses for being here1564today.1565    In my district, NASA and its partners helped to support a1566very robust economy of small manufacturers that supply1567components to a lot of these missions, and these are really1568good local jobs that help to build talent and expertise across1569the country.1570    Several months ago, we held a hearing on the Artemis1571program, and I asked how we can continue to support this1572workforce. I was told that we achieve that by building hardware1573and actually flying these missions. In other words, we need to1574signal consistency and predictability to workers in industry.1575    And this question is to anyone who would like to answer.1576What can we learn from China about the value of long-term1577planning and predictability, and how has their approach1578benefited their economy and their workforce more broadly?1579    Mr. Cheng. So, ma'am, the Chinese often describe their1580space program--not their space program, describe space as1581being, quote, unquote, very dense in high technology. If you1582take a look at a satellite, it has advanced materials; it has1583computers; it has communications equipment, solar panels. But1584above all, it has systems integration and systems engineering.1585All of those systems have to be able to work together in orbit1586and, since the end of the Space Shuttle, you are not going to1587bring it back for repairs.1588    The Chinese have used their aerospace program as a training1589ground for systems integrators and systems engineers, and one1590prime example of this is COMAC, the Commercial Airline1591Corporation of China, which is going to compete with Boeing.1592They took an entire cadre of folks from CASC, the China1593Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, a state-owned1594enterprise, and said, all of you, your systems engineers,1595systems integrators, you will now go to COMAC, another state-1596owned enterprise. And it jump-started their ability to do1597systems integration in the commercial airline industry thanks1598to the education and training and on-the-job experience in1599aerospace.1600    Ms. Salinas. Dr. Besha?1601    Dr. Besha. Thanks. You know, I think there are some things1602we might want to learn from China, but China is actually1603learning quite a bit from the United States.1604    When I was at NASA, I ran a study, the civil space supply1605chain study where we looked at manufacturers across the U.S.1606that were engaged in the Artemis program, and what we found is1607that small businesses are the bedrock for the program. It is1608mostly small businesses.1609    And what I think China is learning, actually, from us is1610you can't only rely on a state-owned enterprise, a massive1611conglomerate. You actually need to go and find smaller1612companies that can produce bespoke parts and things like that1613that can then feed up into the larger enterprise, and we do1614that very well. And our supply chain integration is actually1615very good.1616    The second thing I think China is learning from us is the1617ability for space to upgrade technology. So you may have valves1618that work well on automobiles, but when you have to make them1619space qualified, it is another quality control process. So it1620upgrades a lot of the technology in the process along the way.1621They are learning that, and it is a process that they can1622extend to other industries as well.1623    Ms. Salinas. Thank you.1624    Dr. Griffin. I would like to take a turn at that. I don't1625want to surpass China. I don't think the United States can or1626should try to surpass China by behaving like China. I want us1627to rely on our free market principles that encourage and allow1628and reward successful innovators to compete.1629    The role of the government in this particular enterprise,1630since going to the Moon is not remotely a commercially1631successful activity in anything like the near future, the role1632of government is to establish the point that we are creating a1633program. We are going to sustain it. We, the United States with1634our allies and partners, are going to be on the Moon for the1635foreseeable future, and we, by doing that, we establish a1636demand signal which will allow the best and brightest in1637industry to come forward to produce those capabilities.1638    If the U.S. Government does not set that kind of a1639consistent demand signal, then we should not expect industry to1640invest alongside.1641    Ms. Salinas. Thank you.1642    Mr. Swope, would you like to answer?1643    Mr. Swope. Yes. I just thought about when I was in high1644school, I had friends that their family owned a factory that1645built--machines that built mattresses. So I thought about the1646time that it takes to really ramp up to do something like the1647Artemis program, and to me that is where that commitment, that1648stability is needed from a government standpoint, the demand1649signal, but also put the money on the table to say this is what1650we want to buy. So then that trickles down through all those1651other suppliers.1652    And I also worked for Derrick Hilmer years ago, and I1653remember going out on the Olympic Peninsula, and I found a1654company that was building something for Blue Origin. I am like1655this is super cool. And all the time it took for that to ramp1656up, it just can't turn on a dime. So I think that is the1657biggest lesson there for companies like that at the very, very1658back end of that. It takes time to get to the point where we1659are building a rocket that is going to go to the Moon.1660    Ms. Salinas. That is right.1661    And I think to your point that I think many of you are1662making, if President Trump's proposed 24 percent cut to NASA's1663budget, which will actually go into effect, what could we see1664in terms of the long-term implications for our workforce and,1665thus, our ability to compete with China?1666    Dr. Besha?1667    Dr. Besha. So the supply chains around a lot of these1668projects----1669    Chairman Haridopolos. Please keep your comments to a1670minimum. We are already over time.1671    Ms. Salinas. Oh, I am sorry. I did not realize that.1672    Dr. Besha. Supply chains are very extensive. They affect a1673lot of suppliers, and some of these suppliers are single-source1674suppliers. So they have one customer in some cases, and that1675customer is NASA.1676    Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.1677    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.1678    Next we have the Congressman from Georgia, Mr. McCormick,1679for his 5 minutes. You are recognized.1680    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1681    It is interesting just in the last line of questioning, I1682heard each one of you point back to the supply chains, single-1683source in competitive markets. One of the problems with1684competition, which I am all for. I am all for capitalism1685competition, but when you have a monopoly of several critical1686minerals that a foreign adversary or at least a peer competitor1687controls, what are we doing for a solution for that? I mean, I1688don't see it.1689    Because right now we basically don't have a competitive1690market. We don't have a market. All we have is one country that1691controls all the resources for something that in the military1692it probably supplies thousands--no, hundreds of thousands of1693parts. They are literally the bottleneck, and it is probably1694one of the reasons that our fleet readiness for all aircraft is1695around 50 percent, which is atrocious. If we get into a war, we1696are done.1697    And in space, which is something that is, obviously, the1698final frontier, if you will, what do we do to prevent that from1699being a choke point for us? They literally have us by the neck.1700What are we doing? What is a good solution? And I don't want to1701hear generalities of open market because we don't have an open1702market. We have a monopolistic system.1703    What can we do--and I have my own ideas so I hope we get1704somebody that gives me a good answer so I don't have to1705interject my own opinion. But I will start with you, Mr. Cheng.1706    Mr. Cheng. To break your question into several smaller1707buckets, first off, while China has an advantageous position,1708it is not the sole producer of rare earth--rare earth actually1709is a terrible misnomer. I think other more scientifically1710learned folks prefer platinum group metals.1711    There are other places that do produce them. There is,1712unfortunately, only one facility in the United States, and one1713of the reasons for this has been additional regulatory1714considerations, including environmental, that basically say,1715well, if you are going to mine that, you have to do X, Y, and1716Z. Suffice to say the Chinese are not as enthusiastic about1717environmental regulations.1718    The other aspect here is that whatever the rare earths are1719that you mine you have to process them, and that is enormously1720polluting. And the Chinese have been more than happy to be the1721primary rare earth processor. So you may mine it in India. You1722may mine it in Canada. It still gets shipped to China for1723processing.1724    I believe back around 2018, the United States broke ground1725for a domestic rare earth processing facility. To be honest,1726sir, I don't track that very closely. I don't know what the1727status of that is. But if you want to break the Chinese1728monopoly, it is not enough to open up more mines. It is1729absolutely essential to open additional non-China located1730processing facilities for rare earth minerals.1731    Mr. McCormick. So Mr. Chair, I will just go to that because1732I am already halfway through my time, and that is how it works1733here.1734    I will accentuate your point. We have 10 rare earth mills1735we have no access to, except for through China right now.1736Another 10 that we have limited access at best. Our regulatory1737burden and our inability to mine and process these rare earth1738minerals have put us not only at a strategic disadvantage but,1739actually, in a worrisome position for any future conflict. We1740are not ready, simply not in the military sense or especially1741in the space sense.1742    We think--and this is something I challenge both sides of1743the aisle to look at realistically--just because we don't1744pollute when we get these minerals we are going to use anyway1745doesn't mean that they are not polluting 10 times worst than we1746would with the same minerals that we are going to buy anyway1747and use anyway.1748    So it is not conservationism. It is not a smaller blueprint1749of carbon emissions when you buy it from China. It is just1750pretending like we are not polluting when we are actually1751polluting more. I just want to be very realistic about this.1752    The future is America using resources we have without the1753regulatory burden that makes it too expensive to do because we1754are going to have access regardless, or the alternative is1755don't be competitive. That is not going to happen. We are1756America.1757    So I challenge both sides of the aisle to take a realistic1758look at we have to have access to these things, and we will do1759it cleaner, better, and cheaper if we are not putting1760overregulatory burdens on the American businesses. And so let's1761just take a really honest look at this scientifically,1762domestically, so we have a chance into the next century.1763    And with that, I yield.1764    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.1765    I now recognize the representative from Illinois, Mr.1766Foster.1767    Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.1768    On the subject of rare earths and permanent magnets1769specifically, there is a model that the government is in the1770process of succeeding at that I am really a fan of, and it is a1771company called Nira, which has spun up through decades of1772federally funded research in Minnesota that has got a way--and1773they are building a significant skill factory to make permanent1774magnets with a BH product and energy density comparable to the1775best neodymium iron-boron magnets, and the input materials1776there are basically rust and ammonia, nothing else.1777    And it is really an impressive thing, and it has to do with1778decades of research, government-funded research led,1779interestingly, by an immigrant born in China. So there are a1780bunch of lessons I think that we should learn from that, one of1781which is to not push away foreign talent from our shores1782because of unfounded worries.1783    Now, I have been worried for a long time about the1784fragility and the dual use of nature of all of the systems we1785are putting into low-Earth orbit. Now, we are talking about,1786you know, we are having at least two major U.S. companies put1787big satellite arrays in low-Earth orbit. The Chinese have at1788least two companies. The Europeans are doing it.1789    You know, everyone's first worry is about the Kessler1790Syndrome where you just have a big cascade of collisions, which1791I think is unlikely because of the altitude and the rapidity of1792the orbit decay, but it is still something to worry about1793because some of these systems are not really in low-Earth orbit1794but somewhat higher. And so this is something that I think we1795are going to have to need international understanding on1796because this is a big problem.1797    The fragility is also a real issue. You know, one thing1798that has worried me for a while is the refueling that was1799mentioned. I guess Dr. Griffin shares my skepticism of how easy1800it will be to make it work. But, you know, the scenario for1801starships, for example, and other similar missions is to go put1802these in low-Earth orbit, refuel them with 10 refueling1803missions, OK.1804    Now, I don't know if you have noticed, but these starships1805have a tendency to like detonate themselves from time to time.1806And the issue comes up, what happens if one of those explodes1807fully fueled in low-Earth orbit, and the debris field from that1808is potentially frightening.1809    I was just wondering has anyone looked at this particular1810problem when, you know, SpaceX is talking about running1811hundreds of starship missions a year in some scenarios? You1812know, do we actually--are we going to need understandings on1813the accidental destruction of everything in low-Earth orbit in1814addition to big worries about how that could happen1815deliberately by even a not very talented adversary?1816    Is there anyone that can speak to this?1817    Dr. Besha. A few comments on that. So I think in terms of1818space debris, it is a huge issue, and it is not an issue that1819any one company can solve, right. And I think China was1820recently in the news because one of their Shenzhou human1821capsules was hit by debris. Our Space Station is also1822occasionally hit by debris. We have shielding that can1823withstand about 3 millimeters particle size of debris.1824    China has continued to do EVA (extravehicular activity)1825missions outside their own space station. They had additional1826armor, additional shielding to their space station. They1827recognized this as a major issue, and it is affecting their1828crown jewel, their human spaceflight program.1829    So we are both in some senses on the same page that this is1830a problem that we need to solve, and it is only going to get1831worse, as you mentioned, with these very large vehicles that1832potentially could not reenter appropriately.1833    Mr. Foster. Has anyone looked specifically at the issue of1834these very large vehicles and what happens when one detonates1835in low-Earth orbit? Because I actually had Claude Code write me1836a simulation of it, which I am not willing to quote the results1837from, but it was, you know, people then studying Kessler1838Syndrome for decades. And there are computer codes that do that1839pretty well, and I guess we must have a pretty good idea of how1840many fragments of what sizes are liberated when something blows1841up on the launchpad at least.1842    So it seems like we have the information to understand, you1843know, the size of the debris field and the damage it will do1844to, you know, very militarily important assets, you know,1845including the Golden Dome, which is now talking about many tens1846of thousands of additional assets in low-Earth orbit with many1847countries having an incentive to accidentally on purpose1848destroy them all.1849    So I was just wondering if that is something that really we1850need some more study on. All right. So I guess I am now down to185115 seconds, so I will just--if any of you have thoughts on that1852and could respond for the record, I would be really interested.1853That is something we have to keep our eye on.1854    And I think, ultimately, we are going to have to negotiate1855with China and the other countries, space-faring countries to1856come up with some understanding. We can't just go off doing1857what we are currently doing.1858    Thank you. I yield back.1859    Chairman Haridopolos. With that, I recognize the1860representative from Utah, Mr. Kennedy, for 5 minutes.1861    Mr. Kennedy. Chairman Haridopolos, thank you for holding1862this important hearing on the space race with China, and I want1863to be very clear where I stand. The Chinese Communist Party is1864a major threat to our national security. For years, I have been1865calling attention to the Chinese Communist Party being a1866dangerous and aggressive adversary. We must expose their every1867underhanded and subversive action. Passivity on our part will1868only be rewarded with more aggression.1869    There are some voices that would question why going back to1870the Moon should be a priority given we have already achieved1871it. I would counter that this isn't just about national pride.1872It is a national security imperative to beat China to the Moon1873because the Chinese Communist Party intends to establish a1874lasting presence with exclusionary zones for their own economic1875and national security benefits.1876    It is important that we understand where China's space1877program is at and how we can do everything in our power to win1878this race because the stakes are too high.1879    And thanks to the witnesses for their testimonies.1880    Dr. Griffin, I have a question for you. I am a cosponsor of1881Chairman Hill's Taiwan and American Space Assistance Act to1882establish a partnership between TASA (Taiwan Space Agency) and1883NASA. And, of course, we have the Artemis accords with 601884countries. Can you describe, Dr. Griffin, the importance of1885these international partnerships to maintaining U.S.1886preeminence in space?1887    Dr. Griffin. I would offer the view that if the United1888States is not willing to partner with other nations in the1889world to be on the space frontier, then they will have no1890alternative but to partner with China or they can choose to1891stay home. It is my observation that every nation that reaches1892a technological level where they can do something in space1893wants to. In some ways, it is like owning the only swimming1894pool in your neighborhood. You become an attractive nuisance.1895    So since that is observably true, nations that can do space1896want to do so but the barriers to entry are very high, the1897United States can lower those barriers or we can watch while1898China lowers those barriers. I think the latter course of1899action is not what I would recommend.1900    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for that response.1901    China has also used radioisotope power systems to survive1902the lunar nights since 2019, giving it the only continuous1903presence on the Moon, and it plans to launch more missions1904using this technology in 2028.1905    The use of landers, by contrast, are limited to 14 days1906because they can't operate through the lunar night, and NASA1907has not incentivized commercial providers to adopt radioisotope1908power systems at this point.1909    Dr. Besha, thank you for your testimony earlier. How can1910the United States leverage commercially developed radioisotope1911power systems that China has to ensure our lunar landers can1912survive the night and operate continuously on the surface?1913    Dr. Besha. Thank you.1914    Well, the U.S. actually does have commercial companies that1915are exploring radioisotope power systems. Some of them are here1916today. I think the advantage here is they are looking at a1917couple of different ways to do it, a couple of different1918approaches. They are using different fuels. They are using in1919there amboresium. They are using things like that, fuels that1920we haven't traditionally used in the past. So that is going to1921be an advantage.1922    I don't think China is using commercial companies to do1923their radioisotope power systems. They are very much part of1924the China nuclear energy agency and the associated industries1925below that. But, you know, I think our approach of multiple1926different approaches, seeing what works, doing some1927demonstrations and then start flying them, demos on clips1928missions, on, you know, the next flight opportunity to prove1929them out is the right approach.1930    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for that answer.1931    Mr. Swope, I have a question for you as well. As Acting1932NASA Administrator Duffy announced plans for fission nuclear1933reactor on the Moon by 2030, and I am very supportive of that1934effort, can you tell us where China stands technologically on1935establishing nuclear power systems on the Moon?1936    Mr. Swope. Thanks for that question. I can speak to what1937China has said. They have said they want to work with Russia to1938build a nuclear power station for their International Lunar1939Research Station. So they are thinking the same way, and it1940makes a lot of sense.1941    To your point about the length of the lunar night, it has1942to have power in order to keep those electronics warm so they1943don't break. So I am not surprised that China is moving in that1944direction. I think the approach of the acting administrator to1945look at industry in the United States to see if they can come1946up with good ideas, novel ways to do that innovation, like Dr.1947Besha said as well, is the best approach. I think we are going1948to come out ahead on that.1949    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much.1950    Chairman Haridopolos, I yield back.1951    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Congressman Kennedy.1952    Next we have--I recognize the Representative from Virginia.1953Mr. Beyer, 5 minutes. Welcome to the Committee.1954    Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thank you1955for letting me wave on. And thank you, all of you, for your1956testimony today.1957    Dr. Besha, I am particularly grateful to have you here. You1958mentioned in your testimony the importance of supporting Earth1959and space science robustly, and you made a great point about1960the downstream, national security consequences, of doing that1961or not doing that. I care about this a lot.1962    The National Science Foundation headquarters is a few1963blocks from my home, and we have been very upset about this1964Administration's attacks on Federal science funding this year.1965The NASA science mission cut by 47 percent, 56 percent at the1966National Science Foundation. Lots of other Federal science1967agencies have just been gutted.1968    Could you discuss how these cuts to our core science1969programs are going to affect our national science programs and1970our national security downstream?1971    Dr. Besha. Well, I think there are a couple of ways to look1972at funding for basic R&D. No. 1, it is very much a public good.1973You know, it is a national good that we can't identify a profit1974immediately but we should do it, right, basic science, the1975fundamentals of science. These trickle down eventually into1976applications, but initially, you know, basic R&D funding that1977provides funding benefits.1978    And that is the strength of the U.S. system versus China,1979to be honest. We have invested in basic R&D for the last 501980years as part of the system we set up. China hasn't invested1981that much. They have taken a lot of our hard work.1982    The second thing is world first. So you are not going to be1983a world first by simply seeing what everyone else is doing and1984then copying it, right. And so you do have to do that initial1985hard work to develop world-first successes like Mars first1986sample return, you know, habitable worlds, observatories,1987exoplanets, research, things like that that we have never1988really done before.1989    And the final thing is, you know, it is not just basic R&D.1990We create these missions, these astrophysics missions, things1991like James Webb Space Telescope. We are at the cutting edge. We1992are developing mirrors of such high refinement that these also1993have other applications, not just in science but in, you know,1994military applications, industrial applications, and things like1995that.1996    So there is very much a cross-pollination between these.1997They are not simply only for science.1998    Mr. Beyer. Let me follow up on the two because you have the1999basic research, but then I am really concerned, too, about the2000science workforce. Once again, we heard the National Science2001Foundation right down the street, that virtually all of their2002postdocs, their graduate students, the people that were getting2003ready for their long careers were washed out and that many of2004them were not able to figure out how they are going to finish2005their Ph.D. programs.2006    And the real concern is that they are looking for2007opportunities in Germany, in England, in France. There is this2008reverse brain drain of our best young science people. I don't2009know. Hopefully they are not going back to China. Although, I2010am sure some of them are doing that, too.2011    You know, for decades we have been the country of tracking2012top-tier candidates from around the world to come here and2013study and make their whole careers in science. We looked at the2014fact that it is a plurality, if not a majority of our U.S.2015Nobel Prize winners were born in a different country.2016    How concerned are you about losing our investment in our2017next generation of science leaders?2018    Dr. Besha. Very concerned, right. Science is often2019multigenerational, and so we have very accomplished scientists2020that are later in their careers. They teach the middle-tier2021scientists, and those middle-tier scientists teach the2022postdocs. The postdocs teach the graduate students, and the2023graduate students--you know, on and on and on.2024    If you wipe out one of those cohorts, the postdocs, for2025example, in a lot of ways you are wiping out a generation for2026that science, and it is not easy to jump right down. You are2027losing that mentorship. You are losing a lot of that talent, so2028it is very concerning.2029    I think if they were to go overseas, for example, you know,2030they, perhaps, could come back. You know, nothing is2031necessarily permanent. We have had waves. Things go in waves. I2032would be more concerned if this persisted for a longer time.2033    Mr. Beyer. Thank you.2034    Mr. Chairman, the morning is getting on, and I yield back2035the balance of my time.2036    Chairman Haridopolos. Congressman Beyer, I appreciate it.2037    We are going to go for round two with questions. I am going2038to take the next 5 minutes and turn it over to Mrs. Foushee and2039we will go from there.2040    Dr. Griffin, you mentioned a few times now about Artemis2041III and your concerns, and I think those concerns have been2042heard today, of course. But I want to address specifically on2043the China issue and the potential of their Moon opportunity and2044what loss of mission might they face as they move forward with2045their plans on the Moon and beyond.2046    Dr. Griffin. Thank you. That is an interesting question.2047The loss of mission probability, of course, involves not lives2048but wasted money and wasted time. When we speak of loss of2049crew, that is a different thing. So for loss of mission, I will2050point out that during Apollo, we estimated that to be about 102051percent, and we lost one of the seven missions, which we sent2052to the Moon. And for a statistically small sample, it turns out2053we had it about right.2054    China's approach to exercise their first missions to the2055Moon is quite a lot like Apollo. So I would estimate that they2056have a pretty similar loss of mission probability as Apollo2057did. So I would say 10 percent or maybe a little bit lower2058because there has been a lot more experience over the last2059several decades.2060    So my answer is less than 10 percent, and I tried to2061explain why.2062    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you, Dr. Griffin. I appreciate2063it.2064    Mr. Cheng, if we could, I want to get in the idea of if we2065lose this race to China, and this is why we are all here today,2066to make sure we do not lose that race, what position will the2067Communists have an advantage on as we talk about the standards2068of the future? We talked a little bit about GPS and other2069technologies. What are other concerns should we somehow lose2070this space race?2071    Mr. Cheng. So let me first emphasize that in this context,2072we are, in a sense, in a relay of marathons. That you may win2073this--you may be fastest in the second leg or the third leg,2074but that doesn't mean that you have won.2075    So in this context here, it is a matter of who will make it2076back to the Moon first, but much more important will be who2077will be able to sustain a presence on the Moon. The Artemis2078programmers talk about a manned station for 1 month out of the2079year. I suspect that the Chinese are much more thinking 122080months out of the year.2081    If that is the case and we are talking about who is setting2082the standards for not just communications and PNT, but2083everything from keep-out zones for health and safety reasons to2084scheduling for insertion, in essence, what will be the language2085of cislunar space travel? Will it be English or will it be2086Chinese?2087    And from the Moon, we potentially then go further outbound.2088The Chinese already talk about going to Mars. Certainly with a2089sample retrieval mission. Probably with human space flight in2090the out years. Again, being first matters. Being there2091persistently matters, and that, too, is about setting the2092rules, setting the industrial standards, the business,2093literally the dollars and renminbi, as well as the law and2094order aspects.2095    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.2096    Mr. Swope, on the question of the International Space2097Station (ISS), we know about the potential of the United States2098bringing it back down to Earth. What kind of impact might that2099have in this space race?2100    Mr. Swope. Thanks for the question.2101    I think we have to think about what we are trying to2102achieve in low-Earth orbit, their science there, their prestige2103there, look at that transition to a commercial approach to2104space stations, and really is NASA putting enough money on the2105table to make that work. I think that is the big question I am2106asking in my head when I think about what happens after the2107ISS.2108    I do think there are impacts to the prestige and science. I2109think determining what the level of those impacts are really2110determines what that gap is and the capabilities that we want2111and that we don't have. We will still have a lot of2112international partners that will want to work with the United2113States, but I don't think that looks great.2114    If we do have a gap, we can't have people in low-Earth2115orbit. I think that hurts our ability to go beyond low-Earth2116orbit with human spaceflight, too, and that is something that I2117think we need to quantify as well. What does that hurt us for2118Artemis if we don't have the International Space Station or2119something like that that we can do experiments with people of2120how they live in space. There are impacts there, too, that I2121think we need to consider.2122    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.2123    I will yield back now.2124    Mrs. Foushee, you are recognized for 5 minutes.2125    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.2126    So to each of you on the panel, we have heard about the2127importance to U.S. leadership of returning our astronauts to2128the surface of the Moon and doing so before China lands2129taikonauts there. What are the likely impacts should the U.S.2130not return humans to the Moon before China?2131    So please answer with a quick yes or no. No. 1, is NASA on2132track to return humans to the Moon before taikonauts set foot2133there? We will start with Mr. Cheng.2134    Mr. Cheng. I am very pessimistic about our ability, so, no.2135    Mrs. Foushee. OK.2136    Mr. Swope?2137    Mr. Swope. Worried.2138    Mrs. Foushee. OK.2139    Mr. Besha?2140    Dr. Besha. You are not going to like it. Maybe. Maybe.2141    Mrs. Foushee. Dr. Griffin?2142    Dr. Griffin. No possible way is NASA on track to return2143astronauts to the Moon with the present plan.2144    Mrs. Foushee. And lastly, if trying to beat China to the2145Moon with humans means committing massive resources that2146jeopardizes and sets back U.S. space science, aeronautics, low-2147Earth orbit activities, and space technology, where does that2148leave the United States, NASA, and the health of our civil2149space program?2150    Dr. Griffin. I will start. NASA was created in the late21511950s to pioneer spaceflight. Many other activities become--2152space science, space applications become possible when your2153goal is to pioneer a new frontier. Many follow on activities2154are possible, but if you don't have the central mission goal2155that the United States will be preeminent on the space2156frontier, then the other things don't follow and they don't2157matter.2158    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you.2159    Dr. Besha. I think one way to think about the space agency2160is not so much just as a monolith but as--80 percent of NASA's2161funding goes to things like small businesses. It goes to2162universities, scientists, engineers. And so when you cut that2163budget, you may be cutting that agency, but you are really2164cutting this broad industrial base. You are trimming some of2165the American industry and some of our competitiveness. That2166money is going to researchers and things like that.2167    Mr. Swope. I think I would add just that I have confidence2168that NASA can execute on the Artemis mission, which is a long-2169term sustained presence on the Moon as a steppingstone beyond2170to for Mars. I think Mr. Cheng mentioned that. So to me I do2171have confidence in that, and I don't think we should take our2172focus on that.2173    So if it takes more resources just to beat China before2174Artemis III, I don't know if it is worth it, but I do have2175confidence in the long run we are going to execute on that2176Artemis mission.2177    Mr. Cheng. Because China confronts us with a whole-of-2178society challenge, I would really hope to see that NASA2179integrates itself more broadly into our terrestrial efforts.2180Why hasn't NASA sent a team of astronauts on a good-will tour2181of Africa, of South America, to bring home the achievements of2182American space capabilities?2183    NASA has one of the best brand recognitions out there.2184Coca-Cola would kill to have NASA's reputation. But they don't2185seem to have integrated themselves into that broader component,2186which the Chinese absolutely do.2187    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.2188    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.2189    The Representative from Georgia, Mr. McCormick, you are2190recognized for 5 minutes.2191    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.2192    First of all, I love that idea, Mr. Cheng, on the way NASA2193goes out there and markets itself. I, too, would love, as a2194pilot and a physician, I would like to get out into outer space2195myself. They market it quite well to me.2196    Mr. Swope, you in your writings have talked about the2197fractured regulatory burden on our companies and how it kind of2198makes us noncompetitive. Meanwhile, China has been basically2199getting rid of all the burdens. They can do that because they2200are kind of top-down driven. They don't have any balance in2201their government.2202    What could we do that would put us in a more advantageous2203position so that we can actually be competitive in this future2204market rather than--for example, we have regulations on every2205single launch. If you change something, even for safety, to2206make it more safe, you have to go back and reapply--I am just2207going to give you one example--for that right to launch the2208next time. Ridiculous because you did something safe and now2209you are getting punished for that by saying you are not safe2210enough to launch again. That is one example.2211    But give me some examples of what we could do here in2212Congress to make sure that we become--we continue to be the2213most competitive market, encourage people to stay here, launch2214here, and excel here in the greatest Nation of the world rather2215than become an afterthought in the space race.2216    Mr. Swope. Thanks for the question. I really think you2217nailed it there. One thing about the U.S. space ecosystem that2218is based on free market principles to thrive, less regulation,2219less red tape, less bureaucracy is probably what we need to2220inject in that system to get the outcome that we want.2221    Three areas to think about--and in some cases folks in the2222Administration and past Administrations have looked to try to2223optimize this. So I am not saying we are not doing it now. But2224definitely spectrum. How are spectrum rules aligned so that2225they encourage innovation and they don't encourage the status2226quo?2227    When it comes to launch and reentry, I think I would put a2228little focus on reentry. I looked at one U.S. company that2229tried to do reentry the first time to a U.S. Federal range.2230They had a lot of trouble and since then they have been going2231to Australia. So I think right there, where is that? Is that a2232regulatory burden? Is that a coordination burden? Is that a2233prioritization burden that is not happening? I don't know, but2234we should look at that because there is a lot of growth2235probably for reentry.2236    And then the third area we should highlight is export2237controls, ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations),2238issues where companies want to sell technology to other2239countries, allied governments. Specifically, thinking of things2240on synthetic aperture radar. If you can't get it from a U.S.2241company, I am going to go to a French company. And that is what2242happens because those rules are a barrier and a paperwork2243barrier.2244    So I think in all those areas we can improve the2245regulations that we have now. I don't think it is time for more2246red tape, more paperwork for space companies. So if I hear2247anything about adding a regulatory burden or rules, even if it2248is a light touch approach, that is still paperwork. I don't2249think the industry needs that.2250    Mr. McCormick. That is such a great point you just made,2251and, first of all, I want to point out that every company that2252is trying to put spaceships out there and retrieve them has a2253reputation that they exist on. If you fail, if you are unsafe,2254their business is done. There is nobody who wants to be more2255safe than those companies. They can regulate themselves2256probably better than we ever could and be competitive only when2257we get out of their way.2258    And to your point, our ability to get in the way of selling2259our products to other countries only encourages us to be2260supplanted by China as the industry standard. And that is not2261just in space, by the way. That is in computer chips or2262anything else. We have to be very careful not to limit our2263ability.2264    And by the way, we just had a dissemination bill last year2265that was overseen by the Secretary that we withdrew that2266boundary that the Biden Administration put on us before and has2267made us competitive again in the market. But we lost shares2268during that time. We lost our industry standard.2269    So I just want to encourage people--and thank you so much2270for putting a very succinct outline of that--to not limit our2271ability to produce and disseminate and actually flourish in our2272Nation as competitors. The government is not the solution. We2273are the problem. Thank you for outlining that. Thank you.2274    And with that, I yield.2275    Chairman Haridopolos. Thank you.2276    I want to thank each of the witnesses for coming in today.2277This has been very insightful and thought-provoking, and we2278appreciate that very much. I also appreciate the thoughtful2279questions of the Members as well. This is a race we must win,2280and I think you've all given us a nice roadmap to which to work2281from, especially, as the latest line of questioning, trying to2282reduce some of those barriers to entry.2283    And with that, the record will remain open for 10 days for2284additional comments and written questions from Members.2285    This hearing is now adjourned.2286    [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]22872288                                Appendix22892290                              ----------22912292                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions22932294[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]22952296                                 [all]