WASHINGTON \u2014 A House hearing on the rise of China\u2019s space program turned into a broader critique of U.S. space policy, including NASA\u2019s current approach to returning astronauts to the moon.<\/p>\n
The Dec. 4 hearing<\/a> by the House Science Committee\u2019s space subcommittee was billed as an examination of China\u2019s growing space capabilities and the emerging race with the United States to land the next crew on the lunar surface. Lawmakers framed that competition as part of a wider geopolitical struggle in space.<\/p>\n \u201cThe question we should be asking as we explore beyond the planet is, will humanity carry forward the American values of economic and political freedom, or those of the Chinese Communist Party?\u201d said Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., chairman of the subcommittee, in his opening remarks.<\/p>\n \u201cI will not stand for handing the keys to lunar exploration or space leadership to China,\u201d added Rep. Valerie Foushee, D-N.C., the subcommittee\u2019s ranking member. \u201cThis is a pivotal moment.\u201d<\/p>\n She and other Democrats used the hearing to criticize actions by the Trump administration, including layoffs and proposed budget cuts at NASA, which they argued weakened U.S. competitiveness with China.<\/p>\n Foushee cited \u201cgutting\u201d of the federal science and engineering workforce and \u201csignificantly underinvesting in research and development\u201d as key concerns. \u201cIs this a winning strategy?\u201d<\/p>\n China represents \u201ca real threat to the United States\u2019 long history as the undisputed global leader in space,\u201d said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., ranking member of the full committee. \u201cIt\u2019s also critical that we redouble our commitment to supporting and stewarding a strong, robust space program.\u201d<\/p>\n She contrasted China\u2019s steady progress with budget cuts and ongoing work to close facilities at NASA\u2019s Goddard Space Flight Center<\/a>. \u201cI simply do not understand how anyone reconciles rhetoric about competing with China while pulling the rug out from under our own research enterprise,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Those upheavals directly affected one of the hearing\u2019s witnesses. Patrick Besha, founder of Global Space Group, testified about China\u2019s space capabilities, noting he joined NASA nearly 20 years ago as a specialist on China. Asked by Foushee why he was no longer at the agency, he said he had been part of NASA\u2019s Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy, which was shut down in March. \u201cMyself and about a dozen colleagues were RIF\u2019ed,\u201d he said, using the acronym for \u201creduction in force.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s beyond puzzling and, I would say, incredibly alarming,\u201d Foushee replied.<\/p>\n Artemis doubts<\/p>\n While some members focused on recent turmoil at NASA, another witness sharply criticized the agency\u2019s long-term approach to its Artemis lunar exploration campaign.<\/p>\n \u201cThe problem facing us is not China\u2019s rise. We cannot control what China is doing,\u201d said Mike Griffin, a former NASA administrator. \u201cWe can control only what we are doing. Of those efforts, I am forced to say that mediocrity would be an improvement.\u201d<\/p>\n He argued that NASA\u2019s current architecture, which relies on SpaceX\u2019s Starship for the Artemis 3 landing, is not feasible, citing the potentially large number of Starship refueling flights required in low Earth orbit. \u201cThe Artemis 3 mission and those beyond should be canceled, and we should start again,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Griffin\u2019s criticism is not new. In January, testifying before the same subcommittee<\/a>, he called the current approach \u201cexcessively complex\u201d and \u201chighly unlikely to be completed in a timely manner.\u201d<\/p>\n He referenced that earlier testimony and said opposition to NASA\u2019s architecture is growing, pointing to Senate testimony in September by former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine<\/a> and more recent assessments by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel that Artemis 3 could face years of delays<\/a>.<\/p>\n Other witnesses did not directly address the Artemis 3 architecture but did not challenge the likelihood that China is on track to land its first astronauts on the moon by 2030. Asked if NASA could return humans to the lunar surface before China, responses ranged from \u201cmaybe\u201d by Besha and \u201cworried\u201d by Clayton Swope of the Center for Strategic and International Studies to \u201cvery pessimistic\u201d by Dean Cheng of the Potomac Institute and \u201cno possible way\u201d by Griffin.<\/p>\n Witnesses contrasted that uncertainty with China\u2019s steady progress. \u201cOne of the ironies here is that the very authoritarianism that is a hallmark of the Chinese system does grant certain benefits,\u201d Cheng said, such as long-term program stability. \u201cThat is an enormous benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSticking to a plan is important when the plan makes sense. China is sticking to a plan that makes sense,\u201d Griffin said. \u201cWe have stuck to a plan that does not make sense.\u201d<\/p>\n \n\tRelated<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WASHINGTON \u2014 A House hearing on the rise of China\u2019s space program turned into a broader critique of…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":431673,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[24],"tags":[3295,74,200495,200496,916,159,16988,783,67,132,68],"class_list":["post-431672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-space","tag-artemis","tag-china","tag-house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology","tag-michael-griffin","tag-nasa","tag-science","tag-sn","tag-space","tag-united-states","tag-unitedstates","tag-us"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115680069931050611","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=431672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431672\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/431673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=431672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=431672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=431672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}