Ted Cruz Presses NASA Nom On Creating 'A Sustained Human Presence' In Cislunar Space Or On The Moon

Forbes Breaking News

During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned NASA nominee, Jared Isaacman, about his commitment to create 'sustained human presence' on the moon or in cislunar space.

Transcript

00:00In response to Senator Duckworth, you said multiple times, you will follow the law.

00:06Under every circumstance, you will follow the law. I appreciate that commitment.

00:10I want to go back and revisit the exchange you had with Senator Kim.

00:15Because one component of the law, you have said, and I'm glad to hear it,

00:20that under your leadership, America will beat China back to the moon. That's important.

00:27But the law is clear beyond simply going to the moon.

00:30That's part of it, that going to the moon shall be a stepping stone for further exploration of Mars.

00:36The ultimate objective is Mars, but going to the moon is critical.

00:40The law also specifies explicitly the administrator shall,

00:46and when legislation uses the word shall, it denotes a mandatory obligation.

00:50The administrator shall establish a program to develop a sustained human presence in cislunar space or on the moon.

01:00With respect to Senator Kim, you were reluctant to commit on a sustained human presence on the moon.

01:09Could you clarify your view on that to this committee?

01:12Well, Senator, as a space enthusiast, I'd like nothing more, as I've said before,

01:19to see a number of lunar outposts and Mars outposts than for us to even progress farther out into our solar system.

01:25If we are in an unlimited budgetary environment, we can maintain an ongoing presence on the lunar surface.

01:31I am more than supportive of it.

01:33I think it's imperative that we have to get back to the moon first as quickly as we possibly can,

01:38figure out, again, the scientific, economic, national security value to being there,

01:42which I am very hopeful that we are going to find in order to support the ongoing presence on the lunar surface, sir.

01:48So the statute is written in the disjunctive.

01:51It gives the choice of either the surface of the moon or cislunar orbit.

01:56What is your view on the Gateway Project?

01:59Senator, that's an area that if I'm confirmed, I would, again, would love to roll up my sleeves

02:03and get further understand what's working right, what are the opportunities the Gateway presents to us,

02:09and where are some of the challenges, because I think the Gateway is a component of many programs

02:13that are over budget and behind schedule, sir.

02:17So you're describing Gateway as over budget and behind schedule.

02:21I will say there's a long history in NASA of administrations coming in and canceling programs

02:26and causing massive delays.

02:29Barack Obama did that with Constellation, and NASA struggled for years as a consequence.

02:39As administrator, are you going to cancel the Gateway program?

02:45Senator, I have no intention as of now to say that I would cancel any program.

02:51I need to, if I'm confirmed, get in the job and understand where things are at.

02:56I want to assure you and this committee that I want to see America win and succeed and lead in space,

03:03whether that be the moon, Mars, low-Earth orbit, and beyond.

03:07I do not want to see us come in second place,

03:09and I certainly don't want to see the right-hand side of that poster you put up, sir.

03:13So I want to ask you again, because you've said you'll follow the law,

03:17are you committed to a sustained human presence in cislunar space or on the moon,

03:22and that is federal statute?

03:24Senator, if that is the law, then I'm committed to it.

03:27Okay.

03:29All right, let's talk Leo.

03:32The International Space Station is managed at a Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

03:37NASA is planning to retire the ISS by 2030,

03:40replacing it with one or more commercially developed space stations

03:44funded partially by NASA and partially by outside customers.

03:47Unfortunately, both NASA and commercial replacements are behind schedule.

03:53Do you agree that we cannot have a gap period between the ISS and its successor

04:00when there would be zero human U.S. presence in low-Earth orbit?

04:07I do agree, Senator.

04:08We cannot cede low-Earth orbit to the Chinese.

04:11Now, I would note in the first Trump administration,

04:14there were those in the administration pushing to de-orbit the International Space Station prematurely.

04:20Given that we've invested over $100 billion in the station,

04:23I think that would be profoundly foolish to give up on that investment

04:27as long as it is safe to continue using it.

04:30After the administration floated this idea multiple times,

04:34the United States Senate passed legislation that I authored,

04:38100 to nothing, every Republican and every senator came through

04:43committing that we would maintain the International Space Station

04:47at least until 2030 as long as it is safe and scientifically feasible.

04:53Will you commit to follow the law and not de-orbit the space station before 2030?

04:57Senator, I will absolutely commit to follow the law,

05:00and I think we need to maximize the return that taxpayers have invested in that orbital laboratory,

05:06use every bit of time we have to crack the code on the space economy,

05:10and give commercial LEO destinations a fighting chance when they inevitably take over, sir.

05:15Mr. Trustee, it's been two years since the FCC lost General Auction Authority

05:21and three years since the last meaningful auction of Spectrum.

05:24The Spectrum Pipeline Act, which I introduced with Leader Thune

05:29and with Senator Blackburn last year,

05:31would restore the FCC's auction authority

05:33and would establish a clear pipeline of mid-band spectrum for commercial use.

05:38Ms. Trustee, should Congress restore the FCC's general auction authority

05:43with a clear pipeline of mid-band spectrum?

05:46Yes, Senator, and to the extent it accommodates both our economic and national security interests,

05:54and I believe it can.

05:55So what would be the benefits of restoring the auction authority

06:00with a clear pipeline of mid-band spectrum?

06:02Thank you, Senator.

06:03I think there would be tremendous economic benefits, job creation, workforce productivity,

06:09the expansion of broadband services across the country.

06:12I also think it's foundational to our leadership internationally on global technologies.

06:19As you know, the Department of Defense has been highly resistant to giving up any spectrum.

06:27And for a long time, they have given a parade of horribles

06:31as to what would occur if any spectrum moved to the commercial sector.

06:36I find that parade of horribles highly incredible

06:42and the result of bureaucratic intransigence.

06:47It's an intransigence that began when General Milley was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs

06:53and DOD chose a strategy of absolutely resisting

06:59and refusing to work on freeing up spectrum.

07:02I recently had a classified briefing, of which you're aware,

07:09where I asked two questions to the senior leadership at DOD

07:14and also senior leadership of the Intelligence Committee.

07:16The first question I asked was,

07:20over 50 countries across the planet

07:23have moved substantial portions of the spectrum in question

07:27to the commercial sector,

07:28and they're being used presently for commercial purposes.

07:31Is it DOD's position that our Navy does not operate in the Pacific,

07:36that we can only defend Topeka, Kansas,

07:38and the rest of the world,

07:39our military is unable to defend the United States?

07:44You have unique expertise,

07:46having worked both on the Commerce Committee

07:48and the Senate Armed Services Committee.

07:51In your opinion,

07:52are we able to defend ourselves across the globe,

07:55even in areas where other countries

07:57have moved significant portions of spectrum

07:59to be available for the commercial sector?

08:04Senator, I appreciate this question.

08:06So I'll say,

08:06I'm not privy to all of DOD's spectrum assets and capabilities,

08:10but I do think there's an opportunity

08:12to move forward on spectrum policy

08:14that protects both our national security

08:17and advances our economic interests.

08:19And I think what that really requires is,

08:21like you said,

08:22having classified briefings or briefings in the public

08:24where multiple stakeholder perspectives are represented

08:28to challenge positions on various matters.

08:31I think it promotes transparency

08:33and ensures, I think,

08:34there's more cohesion on spectrum matters going forward.

08:38The second question that I asked DOD

08:40that they had a totally insufficient answer to

08:43was what would be the national security consequences,

08:47and I would add the economic security consequences,

08:49if America loses the race for 6G

08:53and the global telecom architecture

08:55is built by Huawei

08:57and controlled by the Chinese communists

09:00and every active duty serviceman and woman

09:02who has their own cell phone

09:03is now communicating over Chinese telecom infrastructure.

09:09In your judgment,

09:10what would be the economic interest

09:11and the national security interest

09:13if that occurred,

09:14if we lose the race to 6G?

09:15Senator, I think,

09:16I hope we could all agree

09:17that it would be devastating

09:19to our economic and national security interests

09:21if we had to be reliant on Chinese technologies.

09:25Senator Cantwell.

09:26Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

09:27I'm glad I made it back.

09:29Ms. Trustee, you look...

Category

Transcript

Recommended