The Future of Low Earth Orbit: From the ISS to Commercial Platforms

Good morning. This subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the subcommittee at any time. Welcome to today's hearing entitled, "The Future of Low Earth Orbit: From the ISS to Commercial Platforms." I'll now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. Good morning, and I want to welcome everyone to the hearing today. Of course, we're all excited about the Artemis launch, of course, just days away, and just so excited to work with our new administrator, Mr. Isaacman, who's done a bang-up job to move this country forward and make sure that NASA is moving forward in a positive direction. As we prepare to send astronauts further from Earth than ever before during the Artemis 2 mission, we are entering a new era of space exploration, one that will define America's leadership for decades to come. But leadership in space is not just how far we go, but also how strong we stay closer to home. That is why today's hearing focuses on America's future in low Earth orbit. If you were born after November 2, 2000, you have never known a world without NASA astronauts living and working aboard the International Space Station. For over 25 years, the space station's location in low Earth orbit provided access to a unique microgravity environment that enables research that is simply not possible on Earth. Research that is cutting edge, advancing our collective knowledge, and improving our life here on Earth. Every day, vital research is conducted on the ISS. It paves the way for the future exploration to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Over time, we learn more about the long-term effects of space on the human body and what we can test and improve the technologies that will enable deep space exploration. But the International Space Station is aging, and we must begin preparing for what comes next. That is why Congress directed NASA to extend ISS operations, ensuring that the station remains operational through 2030. NASA plans to take the space station down in 2031. By then, the goal is to move its research to a new space station built by American companies. NASA is currently helping these companies through its commercial low Earth orbit development program. The idea is simple. Instead of running its own space station, NASA will become a customer, paying for space and services on commercial stations. Keeps research going while lowering costs for all taxpayers. Today's hearing will focus on a few main questions. Is the station safe to operate until 2030 and beyond? How will NASA transition the ISS to commercial space stations? Once this change occurs, what we must demand outside of NASA is, do we keep these stations running? These are important questions as we approach the end of the International Space Station. Today we face challenges from China. In 2021, China launched its own space station. It's smaller and not built by international partners like the ISS. It is expected to stay in orbit longer. The takeaway is simple. America must lead now in low Earth orbit. Only Congress, the Trump administration, and American companies working together can ensure that the United States stays in the lead for years and decades to come. I want to thank each of our witnesses who are here with us today and sharing their expertise with our subcommittee. I look forward to a productive discussion today and the challenges ahead. I now want to recognize our ranking member, the representative from North Carolina, for her opening statement. Ms. Foushee, you are recognized.

Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, for holding today's hearing on the future of low Earth orbit, or LEO. I want to welcome our witnesses and thank you for being here. When John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962, we could not have imagined that the United States would one day build an orbiting laboratory or support continuous human presence there for 25 years, a milestone reached last November. Today, the International Space Station, or ISS, is one of NASA's greatest achievements. It remains the largest orbiting research laboratory in space, a shining example of international collaboration, advancing science, strengthening partnerships, and enabling the next era of exploration. It has deepened our understanding of living and working in space and served as a proving ground for technologies needed beyond LEO. But the ISS is aging. Technical risks are increasing, including cracks, leaks, and growing maintenance needs, and the long-term safety of its operations is not guaranteed. NASA plans to transition to commercial platforms by 2030. Yet we still lack a clear and credible plan to get there. This is not a new concept. We've known the ISS is a perishable asset that has long exceeded its 15-year design life. Despite multiple hearings on the transition as well as statutory direction, today key questions we have been asking about our future in low Earth orbit remain unanswered, including on how we will acquire commercial platforms, NASA's requirements for the platforms, the timeline for their availability, and what resources NASA will need to support them and the risk of a potential gap in U.S. presence in LEO. That uncertainty is not acceptable for a global leader in space. A gap in U.S. presence in LEO is not just a technical risk, it is a strategic failure. Leadership requires a clear strategy, sustained investment, and a realistic transition plan. We must also recognize that LEO is becoming an arena of strategic competition. If we fail to lead and shape this future, others, particularly our adversaries, will. At the same time, LEO offers real opportunity. LEO is also a testbed for AI-enabled science and advanced computing that will shape both our economy and national security. From leveraging microgravity to advance quantum technologies, such as the science, I'm sorry, space entanglement and annealing quantum experiment led by a university team on the ISS, to advancing pharmaceutical research and mitigating space radiation risks, LEO is a powerful platform for discovery and innovation. Realizing that opportunity requires investing in people. We need a strong workforce pipeline, expanded access for HBCUs and MSIs, and continued support for student research and training programs that connect education to equitable pathways to high-quality aerospace jobs. These opportunities help students and young professionals gain the skills to turn ideas into innovation, economic impact, and benefits that can serve all Americans. As ranking member, I remain focused on ensuring NASA has the resources, workforce, and direction it needs to lead the future of LEO while ensuring the benefits we derive from our efforts in LEO and beyond are equitably deployed to all Americans. We cannot afford to get this transition wrong. The future of U.S. leadership in space depends on it. I would be remiss if I did not mention that just yesterday, the NASA administrator publicly announced the potential for significant changes to NASA's approach to the ISS transition. I look forward to hearing the details of those potential changes from our NASA witness this morning. And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an opinion piece by Mary Gunther published in The Hill on March 4, 2026, on NASA firing its economic, its economist rather, last year and the need to bring them back.

Without objection, that is adopted.

Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Foushee. And we now have our chairman with us today. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Dr. Babin. You're recognized, sir.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Appreciate you holding this hearing today. And also want to thank our expert witnesses. I'm looking forward to hearing you guys' testimony, good friends of mine, and really appreciate your presence. The International Space Station, which most of us know as the ISS, is a remarkable accomplishment that demonstrates the ingenuity of the American space program. The ISS, managed at NASA's Johnson Space Center in my district, District 36 of Texas, has been a vital part of NASA's human exploration and scientific efforts for more than a quarter of a century. And since the turn of the century, nearly 200 Americans have visited the ISS. One of the best parts of my job is welcoming many of these astronauts home after their stay aboard the ISS and hearing about their important work that they carried out in orbit. And while the ISS stands today as a major NASA success, the path to its development and operation was not always smooth. NASA overcame many obstacles, including design changes, funding challenges, a nine-year gap in access to U.S. launch and re-entry capability. And despite all of that, construction was completed in 2011. And the NASA reports the ISS is in its most productive phase ever right now. The nation benefits from maximizing the return on this asset. Access to consistent crew and cargo missions is key to fully utilizing the station. Just this very morning, I met with individuals from private companies that are having pharmaceutical experiment and research and development on board the ISS. However, NASA has faced self-inflicted challenges in its operation of the ISS. For example, during the Biden administration, NASA failed to request funding for a vehicle needed to de-orbit the ISS through traditional means, such as the president's budget request, and instead pursued off-budget funding through a disaster supplemental. And when such supplemental funds were not provided, NASA was forced to draw funds from the ISS operations funds to pay for the development of the de-orbit vehicle. This resulted in fewer crew and cargo missions, limiting the amount and quality of operations that could be carried out aboard the ISS. Only when Congress, through one big beautiful bill that we passed, provided $1.2 billion for space operations was NASA able to once again achieve a normal level of operation. NASA was also able to resume its work on long-planned experiments, such as the upgrade to the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. And while it is important to continue productive ISS operations, we must also acknowledge that the station is aging and NASA should carefully plan for the next stage of LEO operations. This committee has long championed America's commercial space sector and will continue to be the case in the future. I'm excited to see what our innovative commercial providers will put in orbit in the coming year and look forward to hearing about their progress during today's hearing. However, I also want to be certain that we are managing the transition from the ISS to commercial providers in a very thoughtful, careful manner. We must have a clear picture of NASA's LEO needs in a post-ISS world. We must also be mindful of the current constrained fiscal environment and work to ensure that any transition does not strain the budget for NASA's space operations or to compromise other agency priorities. Moreover, after more than 25 years of an uninterrupted American presence in space, it would be unfortunate for that next phase to include a gap in U.S. human presence in low Earth orbit, particularly as China is continues to send their taikonauts to their Tiangong space station, which is orbiting above us as we speak. I hope to use today's hearing as an opportunity to examine what lessons that NASA has learned from the development and operation of the ISS as we move into the next phase of an American presence in low Earth orbit. I also hope to better understand how NASA can expedite its efforts, what Congress can expect in a future low Earth orbit economy, and the role that NASA will play and what this committee can do to facilitate the growth. I also want to thank again our witnesses for being here, for taking the time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize our ranking member of the full committee for a statement. Ms. Lofgren, you're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank also our expert witnesses for being here with us today. The International Space Station is a great feat of technical achievement and international cooperation. For over 25 years, humans have continuously occupied the station with NASA astronauts living and working in space alongside our international partner astronauts. The ISS has served and continues to serve as a platform for experiments in nearly every scientific discipline, from astronomy to atmospheric science, particle physics, microbiology, and much more. Research on the ISS helps NASA understand the risks of spaceflight and tests out ways to reduce that risk. I recall when I was a brand new member of this committee, there was disagreement on both sides of the aisle, should we proceed, should we continue with the ISS? And I was one of those who thought that this was a venture worth supporting and fortunately a majority of the committee on both sides of the aisle took that position. And I think we have seen that the ISS advances human discovery and spaceflight, the research has that has been leveraged is unique, sometimes the extreme environment on board the ISS will allow us to understand how to improve life here on the ground, and it's helped us understand the mechanisms of certain diseases and to find better treatments, for example. Now, operating such a complex facility well beyond its original design lifetime while maintaining a productive R&D portfolio has challenges, the last two years have seen many, some of them externally imposed and some of them self-inflicted as the chairman has mentioned. Of recent concern is the Boeing Starliner mishap, which thankfully ended with the astronauts and the station itself safe and healthy, and we have also had existential budgetary threats from the Trump administration, a cargo vehicle damaged in shipping even before it reached the launchpad, and the first ever medical evaluation of a NASA crew from the station to name just a few. Now, I commend NASA and the ISS program for its response to these challenges, even though they will mean some incredibly difficult self-reflection and potentially culture changes. As we look to the future, operating the ISS and sustaining a U.S. presence in low Earth orbit may not get easier. The demands of continuing to operate and fully utilize an aging station are already competing with the need to prepare to safely deorbit the station and develop and certify one or more commercially operated platforms. I'm concerned that we are heading down a path where we could squander the remaining years of the ISS only to end up footing the bill as the primary customer for privately owned space stations that may be less capable than the ISS. Despite many hearings before this committee and direction in statute, NASA quote, lacks a clearly defined and executable path to a transition to a CLD before or immediately after the ISS end of life, end quote, and that's according to the latest annual report of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, otherwise known as ASAP. Yesterday, Administrator Isaacman did announce that NASA is considering adding an additional potential strategy, that is a more phased approach to the transition than what we've been hearing about from NASA for the last decade, and I'm looking forward to working with them to hearing more about his fresh approach and from the witnesses today if they have a take on his proposal. I do think we are running out of time and many of the questions that we have here today have been asked before at hearings over the years, so I do think we need a stable, robust, executable plan, NASA needs to execute on it, and I'm hopeful that we will achieve that and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren. Let me now introduce our witnesses today. First, our witness is Mr. Joel Montalbano. He is serves as NASA's Acting Associate Administrator for Space Operations. Our second witness is Mr. Dave Cavossa, who serves as President of the Commercial Space Federation, and our third and final witness is Mr. Charlie Precourt, who serves as a member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. I'd like to thank each of our witnesses for being here today and I now recognize Mr. Montalbano for five minutes to present his testimony. You're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member Foushee, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and discuss NASA's human spaceflight activities in low Earth orbit. As stated, since 1998, NASA and the international interagency and commercial partners have used the International Space Station to expand scientific research, technology development, and economic activities in the unique microgravity environment beyond Earth. Last November, we celebrated this milestone of 25 years of continuous human presence on board the International Space Station. During that time, we have looked back at our home planet, increasing our knowledge of the atmosphere, ocean, and land, we have increased our knowledge on the effects of space on the human body, helping us to better understand disease and develop new treatment to lengthen and improve lives here on Earth. Through the ISS, we are learning critical lessons that will enable America's return to the moon through the Artemis program and humanity's next steps into deep space to Mars, deepening and broadening international partnerships as well as promoting the development of a sustainable commercial market in low Earth orbit. ISS has grown into an outpost housing up to seven crew for long duration missions, increasing research time significantly. ISS astronauts have worked with many highly skilled researchers on the ground to conduct scientific experiments in areas such as medicine, plant and animal biology, biotechnology, fundamental physics, crystal growth, combustion science, and fluid physics. NASA's Human Research Program has contributed to the reduction of both in-mission and long duration human spaceflight risk across multiple disciplinary areas. Instruments on the ISS gather Earth science and monitor cosmic rays to increase our understanding of the universe, including antimatter and dark matter. NASA has also been working to accelerate commercialization in low Earth orbit on the International Space Station through research and industries, including new startups working in space at the forefront of biomedicine and pharmaceuticals to improve health outcomes here on Earth. Beyond its importance as a research facility, ISS is the main destination for the U.S. commercial transportation of crews and cargo to Earth orbit, providing the foundation for services available to other customers. Development of domestic launch vehicles for these spacecraft has resulted in the reemergence of the United States as a global leader in space launch services. NASA will continue working with Boeing to fully understand the technical challenge of the Starliner mission alongside incorporating the investigative recommendations before flying that next mission. NASA is looking for every opportunity to prioritize the highest value of science on the International Space Station to streamline flight clearance of experiments and remove friction that delays progress. Our objective is to maximize every bit of life remaining on the space station and unlock an orbital economy that generates demand for multiple future commercial stations and ultimately enables more people living and working in space. NASA will continue its science research and technology work in low Earth orbit, supporting one or more commercial LEO destinations. Besides supporting the Artemis program, the future of human deep space exploration and NASA science objectives, NASA strategy will spur private sector initiative and a commercial pathway. It is NASA's goal to have a robust commercial marketplace in low Earth orbit where in-orbit destinations as well as cargo and crew transportation are available as services to the agency. At the same time, low Earth orbit human spaceflight is complex and a robust low Earth orbit economy does not yet exist, so NASA will need to work hard to ensure that the commercial LEO destination based future is successful. Working with our partners, NASA is at an inflection point, poised to continue groundbreaking research and development on the International Space Station and foster development of a commercial capabilities enabling continuity of United States human presence in low Earth orbit. As we encourage commercial space development that will transform low Earth orbit into an arena of vibrant economic activity. Thank you again for inviting me to appear before you today, I will be pleased to respond to any questions the member of subcommittee have.

Thank you, Mr. Montalbano. I now recognize Mr. Cavossa, sorry about that before, for five minutes, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member Foushee, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Commercial Space Federation or CSF. CSF members represent almost all aspects of the commercial space economy, from in-space research and manufacturing, launch and reentry, in-space transportation, space exploration, remote sensing and satcom, orbital data centers and space power, and of course, commercial LEO destinations providers. Yesterday, NASA announced it is considering yet another major change to the commercial LEO destination program, sowing concern and really sowing confusion among the commercial space companies I represent. Consistent with direction in multiple authorization and appropriations bills, NASA has long planned to shift its activities from the ISS to commercial space stations. I know some are fighting to keep it up there much longer, but multiple U.S. companies are developing commercial space stations, some of which are planning to launch as soon as next year. In the last six months alone, the industry has raised over a billion dollars in private capital and several billions of dollars over the last several years, and at NASA and congressional direction, have secured numerous commercial customers so that NASA would be one of many customers, not the only customer. My member companies have shared recent news that they are already quote, sold out of commercial rack space on their future stations. The commercial market is there. We've been building it. NASA is a key piece of that commercial market, but they're not the only customer. While industry is still trying to understand NASA's new plan as announced yesterday, NASA is considering another change, it's quite concerning to my members, it's something that reminds me of sort of Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football, it's an image I can't shake over the last 24 hours. NASA may now build its own core station module that would compete with industry and require already designed stations to now dock with the ISS to meet other unknown requirements. NASA's stated rationales for changes to the program are flawed and ultimately not addressed by their proposal yesterday, but we're looking forward to hearing more today and in the coming days. In short, NASA's shifting timeline and demand signals are having ripple effects across both industry and our investment community, each of which is essential to fielding commercial space stations that will enable NASA to continue its mission after the ISS. As the committee considers NASA's plans in LEO, CSF respectfully asks consideration of the following recommendations. First, NASA should proceed with the original CLD procurement and provide industry with certainty of its acquisition strategy, requirements, and procurement timeline. Given the delays and possible shifts in strategy, industry has been left to continue spending resources to develop private space stations without a full understanding of what NASA will require at the end of the day. Recommendation two, NASA must consider how to provide liability protection to its commercial partners in LEO, consistent with international treaty obligations. CSF recommends that NASA invoke Public Law 85-804 to provide some level of indemnification to providers delivering services under contracts with NASA. Recommendation three, a robust commitment from NASA to utilize commercial space stations and uncrewed platforms is critical to the success of commercial LEO operators and continued growth of the orbital economy. Recommendation four, Congress must provide funding for NASA to fully utilize the ISS through end of life, and as directed by this committee's NASA Authorization Act of 2026, NASA should maintain its regular U.S. crew contingent size and a cadence of not less than two crew rotation missions per year and five cargo missions per year while the ISS is operational. The next few years are critical to ensuring our efficient transition from government-led activities in LEO to one in which the government is one of many customers. Private sector developments in LEO infrastructure, in-space research facilities, crew access, and cargo services will ensure the U.S. is poised to lead the post-ISS era in LEO. However, a seamless transition is far from a guarantee at this point and requires the government to clearly articulate its needs backed up by resources on a stable timeline. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Cavossa. Next we have Mr. Precourt, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Cavossa. Next we have Mr. Precourt, you are recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Chairman Haridopolos, Ranking Member Foushee, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. Our panel was established by Congress to provide independent advice to NASA and to Congress on safety, risk, and mission assurance. Our focus on the panel is on NASA's decision-making and risk management processes. We aim to assist agency leaders in guiding complex programs, guiding complex programs, rather than to pass judgment on individual decisions. So today, I will highlight three key areas. One, the status of the International Space Station. Second, the transition to commercial low Earth orbit destinations, and finally, the role of acquisition strategy in shaping safety outcomes. First, the ISS in fact remains one of the most successful programs in NASA's history. However, it's now operating in the highest risk phase of its life cycle. Aging systems, structural wear, cumulative operational stress, all of these require increased vigilance so that we ensure continued safe operations through the end of the decade. Secondly, the transition to commercial platforms represents a major strategic shift. The panel supports the goal of a robust commercial presence in low Earth orbit. However, we remain concerned that a comprehensive, executable transition strategy is yet to be fully realized. As a result, there is a credible risk of a gap, a gap in human spaceflight capability in low Earth orbit following the retirement of the ISS. And such a gap would have implications for research, exploration readiness, and of course, U.S. leadership in space. Low Earth orbit is essential as a testbed for reducing risk in Artemis missions and for advancing our understanding of human health and the challenges associated with long-duration spaceflight. Third, and most importantly, the panel has identified acquisition strategy as an emerging determinant of safety outcomes. As NASA relies more heavily on commercial contracts, the structure of those contracts directly influences engineering rigor, oversight, transparency, and the accountability for risk. The panel's observations from the Commercial Crew Program, particularly the Boeing Starliner crew flight test, illustrate how contract structure and decision authority can affect safety governance. In that case, contract structure, organizational roles, and decision authority created some ambiguity in risk ownership and safety governance. The panel does not view these as isolated issues, but as indicators of broader challenges that NASA must address as it transitions to commercial models. So as NASA moves toward commercial LEO destinations, it's essential that contract and acquisition strategies preserve clear safety authority, ensure sufficient government insight, and maintain accountability for the human spaceflight risk. It's also important to emphasize that NASA retains ultimate responsibility for the safety of its personnel regardless of the contract models. In closing, the United States is entering a new phase of human spaceflight. These transitions offer great promise, but they also require sustained attention to governance, technical authority, and acquisition discipline. In short, innovation in acquisition must not outpace NASA's ability to manage risk. I've also provided you a written statement with references to our 2025 annual report, which outlines in greater detail some of the points I'm making here today. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Precourt, and to each of our presenters today. I now recognize myself five minutes for questions. And first, I'll ask Mr. Montalbano. The ISS serves as a critical testbed for NASA's human exploration efforts, including our Artemis mission. How much will the ISS reduce risk for the Artemis missions before it retires in 2030? And without the ISS, how will NASA handle new risks quickly and affordably?

Thank you for your question. Today, as you said, ISS has been a testbed for exploration. We have, for example, our life support systems. A lot of the life support work we do on the International Space Station plays forward to the Artemis program. Things we do on ISS, we run a life support system, we find out what works, what doesn't work, we bring it to the ground, we repair it, we refly it again. That gets transitioned and moved over to the Artemis program. Another example for the Artemis program and the Orion spacecraft, for example, are the crew rescue masks in case there's an emergency on board, a fire type. Those masks that they use on Orion are derivative of what we use on ISS. Spacesuits. We plan to do a test of the Artemis spacesuit on the International Space Station to buy down risk of the new suit such that as we move forward, we have bought down that risk and that suit is in a better posture to perform.

Thank you. And now Mr. Cavossa, please. Some argue that the transition from the ISS to a system of commercial providers may in the long term reduce NASA's cost for these services. How big do you think those costs might be? And how does it compare with what NASA is expected to spend?

Well, thank you for the question. Representing now, I think, seven different companies that are looking at commercial LEO destinations and doing providing services in low Earth orbit, it's clear to me that the costs of a commercial solution are dramatically lower than when the government tries to do things and build things on their own in cost-plus contract model. What those exact costs are, sir, what the exact savings are, sort of hard for me to predict as the association representing them. But we just sort of look to the corollaries with commercial crew and commercial cargo and looking at commercial launch today and how dramatically less expensive those commercial capabilities are compared to the cost-plus programs. I would assume that the savings are going to be dramatic, sir.

And that said, what will these stations be used for besides NASA priorities?

Listen, I mean, these companies have spent the last five to seven years building the marketplace for commercial LEO destinations. They've been out talking to pharmaceutical companies and manufacturing firms and, to some extent, I've called it sort of building a blue ocean where they've had to go out and take what NASA's been doing very well for 25 years on the ISS and finding new use cases, new commercial business opportunities, new investors. So I think it will be used for research, for engineering, for manufacturing, for pharmaceuticals, and there are things that they haven't even announced yet that they will be, I assume, announcing in the coming months and years.

And I'll ask this to Mr. Precourt if I could. China currently operates, of course, their own space station at this time and will allow other countries to participate. Some anticipate that this will compete with U.S. commercial space station providers. How does the China space station compare with U.S. commercial space stations? And do you think they will compete with them economically and or politically? And what happens to those intellectual properties when someone develops those on a Chinese space station versus an American one?

Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. On the ASAP panel, we're mostly concerned with the risk management of any arrangement that might come to our future, current and future space programs. Certainly, we can all agree that China is a valid competitor now since they are in space. They obviously also use different models to operate from, and that competitiveness is not to be shortchanged. We ought to be very focused on that, and I'm glad that it brings some motivation to all of us to continue to press forward.

And Mr. Cavossa, did you want to add to that as well?

No, I think he covered it well.

Okay, perfect. All right, with that, I now recognize our ranking member from North Carolina, Ms. Foushee, for five minutes for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is for Mr. Precourt. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has warned of growing technical risks on ISS while also calling for a more detailed transition plan. What are the safety implications of continuing ISS operations without a fully defined transition strategy?

Thank you, Ms. Foushee. The issues that we've identified come down to what's been said already here, a compromise between funding to maintain operations versus making the transition and also ensuring a deorbit vehicle is ready. The ISS has been an amazing program to watch and the challenges that they have handled. However, we see these aging issues as requiring more resources while they're also trying to optimize the remaining life of the station. And so these competing interests, if you will, on managing the station require more attention from all of us and certainly from the Congress as well as the agency. So we ought to double down on our focus for what the requirements are and make sure that they remain healthy. These risks are, the best thing about them is they've been identified, which means we know what we need to go do to address them. And the space station's doing a really nice job working with their partners to understand things like the PrK and the cracks. Really good progress with our Russian partners to make sure those are addressed in an appropriate way, taking good risk mitigations about closing that hatch when they don't need to have it open. When you know what the risk is, you can address it, but the resources have to follow. And just think about it in three buckets that all need to have some attention: the current capabilities and maintaining it as a viable outpost, second, how we make sure that we're ready to deorbit it, and third, how we transition it. All of those need simultaneous attention.

Thank you for that. Yesterday, the NASA administrator announced an additional potential pathway for the ISS transition. What specific questions should Congress be asking, including from a safety perspective, as we examine that proposal?

I think you need to again be focused on what the resources will be for this new option. And I think NASA's still in the process of formulating what that option would entail. I think in general, a phased approach lowers the risk. In flight test, we used to say take a build-up approach. That means take steps along the way to an ultimate goal, don't leap to the endpoint because you take on too many risks at once. So there is good sense in what they're talking about here, but the details need to be fleshed out.

Mr. Montalbano, as NASA considers a transition from the ISS to a commercial or other platform in LEO, it is incumbent upon us in Congress to understand the financial responsibility to the U.S. government and NASA. What do current market analyses show about sustained demand for commercial LEO services beyond NASA? And how has this information influenced NASA's approach to the ISS transition, or has NASA conducted its own market analysis?

Thank you for your question. When we envisioned the low Earth orbit economy eight years ago, 10 years ago, we expected the launch market that was going to take off. We expected tourism to take off. We expected the ability to do research and technology development on the International Space Station, bring it down to Earth, and mass produce it. We're not seeing any of those three things. And so in our opinion, we are at a risk right now that the current approach we have and the path that we're on results in a single provider being awarded the next commercial LEO destination. In our opinion, that's a very risky approach. That it's risky for the committee, it's risky for the agency, risky for the country. And what we introduced yesterday was an option. We didn't close down what we have today. We said, hey, we have this commercial option where NASA will go own but procure from the commercial industry a new module. We'll fly it to the International Space Station, attach it to the space station, have the opportunity for two commercial partners in addition to whoever built the module to come to that new core module attached to the International Space Station and develop the capabilities they need to become a commercial LEO destination. They will have the time. They don't have to have everything upfront because they'll have the safe haven of the International Space Station. They'll have the ability to use International Space Station resources and for utilization and research, we'll be able to transfer some of the science we have today to these commercial partners. And when they're ready, they separate. They go become their new International Space Station. And you'll have two of them. And then when they're done, we're going to get out of the way. We need to go from a space station to a submarine when these guys are up and running. Thank you for your question. You know, when...

Thank you for that. That's my time. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much. And I now recognize our chairman, Dr. Babin, for his questions. You're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several questions if y'all would answer as briefly as possible, but make sure we get a good answer if you don't mind. Mr. Montalbano, I strongly support the president's space policy goal, including those set forth in the executive order on ensuring American space superiority, which was issued last December. One such priority is to grow a vibrant commercial space economy through the power of American free enterprise by spurring private sector initiative and a commercial pathway to replace the International Space Station by 2030. How does NASA intend to comply with the president's executive order, and how much does NASA estimate that it will spend each year on LEO activities following the deorbiting of the International Space Station?

Thank you for your question. At first, what we're doing, so we rolled out a new option yesterday. Today, we're going to submit to our RFIs for both the transportation and the destination. The initial RFI, our plan is to do a final RFI at the end of April and then request for proposals in the June timeframe. Once we get that information, we'll have an opportunity to better understand costs of what's going in the future. In addition, we haven't closed the door on the current plan. If there's a commercial company out there and says that NASA, your market analysis is incomplete or we have additional data that you don't have, we want to hear that. We have the opportunities and they will have the opportunities through these RFIs to give us that information and then as we prepare for the request for proposal in early June, we'll have additional opportunities to gather that information.

Okay. Thank you. And then Dave Cavossa, in a NASA white paper titled Staying in Low Earth Orbit, NASA states that after more than 25 years of commercial use, no breakthrough products or scalable in-space manufacturing markets have emerged, and tourism has not materialized as a meaningful market in LEO, and that there is still no independently verifiable evidence that a commercial station funded partially by NASA would be economically viable. Do you agree with these statements?

No, I don't agree, sir. I mean, what we're seeing from our commercial providers, the members of CSF, they're raising billions of dollars. They're signing memorandums of understanding and commitments with foreign governments, with commercial entities. They tell me stories about obviously things that many of us have talked about around manufacturing human meniscus and retinas in space and pharmaceuticals in space. And they're telling me that once NASA decides what the strategy is going to be, the amount of interest that's going to come out of the rest of the market that's been sort of waiting in the background will explode. I mean, that there will be tremendous announcements that can be made, but they've all been sort of waiting for NASA to say this is where we're going, this is our strategy, and that keeps changing, so it's slowing things down.

This very morning, I met with a company that's interested in pharmaceutical manufacturing in microgravity. So thank you for that answer. And Charlie Precourt, the same white paper finds that NASA's existing plan to purchase commercial station services relies heavily on an unverifiable market and carries a high execution and operational risk of losing U.S. presence in low Earth orbit. In carrying out the Artemis program, NASA has procured commercial services for human landing capabilities and use of lunar surface spacesuits. Is there a verifiable market for human landing capabilities or spacesuits, and if not, does the procurement of these capabilities as commercial services create a risk for the Artemis program?

Thank you, Chairman Babin. I think there's a couple of pieces in there worth thinking about. First, the use of commercial services by itself is not precluded in any of these approaches. We often compare the traditional versus the new. What is important to the panel is that we have robust support in resources, the finances that you offer to the agency, and that there is accountability for the risk in those developments. I think what you see with the example of the Starliner was uncertainty in who owned and carried the accountability for the risk. And when that happens, you have misses in the program verification and validation. With going forward, these things have to be human rated. That's a big challenge, but it's not unsurmountable. We've done that many times in the past. But we have to realize that when you make these strategic decisions about how you're going to acquire the systems, along with it has to come incentives in these contracts to make sure that the performance is there.

Got you. I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman. I've got several more questions, but I'll yield back. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now recognize from California, Mr. Whitesides, for questions. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by thanking the chair and ranking member for holding today's hearing. I attended the beginning of the NASA Day yesterday along with Senator Kelly. Overall, my impression is that it was a great day for NASA and the United States. The energy and enthusiasm was infectious, and I continue to believe that Administrator Isaacman is doing a great job. While I have not had the chance to fully digest all of yesterday's announcements, the major questions I had coming were primarily around this subject, which I hope you can shed some light on today. I recognize that not everything has been finalized, and in fact, the administrator basically set out two paths as Mr. Montalbano's been saying. One in which the agency continues on its current path towards free-flying commercial stations and another which moves to a strategy of one or more new modules, kind of unclear if those are commercial or not, attached to the ISS which might someday undock from the ISS. Mr. Montalbano, it was not clear to me when NASA now intends to stop operating ISS in the second option. The plan had been 2030. What's the current plan under that option?

In today, today's plan is we are preparing for the deorbit in 2030. Nothing's changed on that. We have a deorbit vehicle we're working with SpaceX and we are moving down that path. Yesterday, we identified that the current plan for the transition for the ISS to the LEO destinations is very risky. We heard from senior leadership, you heard from senior leadership, that we're at a point where we have the continuous U.S. presence in low Earth orbit while China has a space station, but the U.S. presence is at risk. And so we're trying to identify opportunities to drive down that risk.

Okay. I got a bunch of other questions, so thank you. I did hear a lot of those concerns when we were talking about commercial transportation to ISS, and I think that the commercial industry basically did a great job responding to those things. The fundamental rationale for retiring ISS is that it becomes unsafe to operate at some point, but the other important rationale is that the agency only has so much money and in order for it to accomplish the human exploration goals it aspires to achieve, it needs to save money within the ISS budget line. Right now, I think the rough cost of ISS is about $3 billion a year between O&M and transportation, but some estimates place it higher. By moving to commercial space stations, the hope was that the agency could spend less on human presence in LEO, potentially saving between $1 to $2 billion per year. My summary understanding of yesterday's new option seemed to imply that NASA would continue to operate ISS beyond 2030. This seems like it would be both challenging for safety, but it also would reduce the amount of total money available for the human spaceflight line. What am I missing? In every budget scenario I've seen for the last 20 years, NASA felt it needed to retire ISS and free up the majority of that budget line for exploration. Is that still the case?

So let me talk a little bit about costs. Today, we spend approximately $2 billion a year on transportation alone. Any space station is going to have those same costs. Could it be...

Well, I mean, you could choose to send up less supply. Like, that's totally an option if it's like a one-module thing.

Based on number of crew members, you need a cargo vehicle per year per crew member. So if you want to have continuous presence, four crew members, you need four...

Yeah, but I mean, you could have a smaller number of crew members. Like, you could have... Yeah, so I don't think the transportation point is...

Decreased, well, you would decrease your science and your utilization, which is one of the major goals of having...

But I mean, there is no intention for the commercial stations to have like the same complement as on ISS, is there?

A lot of the space stations want to go with the four crew members. And you have continuous four crew members, you want to fly a crew vehicle.

Anyway, okay. I disagree on transportation, but go for operations.

Okay. And so again, $2 billion a year on transportation regardless of where you're going. From an operations standpoint, you're right, our budget is the Space Station budget is just a bit over $3 billion a year. That includes your supplies, your transportation, your supplies, operations, your control centers, when you do spacewalks, all the international work that we do. I think your question was, are you going to still have those costs? You are going to have those costs, you're going to have to operate. Your transportation just gets you up and down. You have to still want to do activities on board the Space Station, whether it's a commercial Space Station or the government Space Station, so you'll continue to have those a lot of those costs.

I fundamentally disagree with you. I think what we proved during the Crew Dragon is that the private sector can do these things cheaper. Like, we have concrete data on this. And so my deeper point is that in every budget run-out, we've had to take money from ISS in order to accomplish our exploration goals. And it feels like there's a fundamental disconnect under this scenario now, which I don't think I'm going to resolve in three seconds that I have left. So thanks, and I have a second round if there's time.

Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Webster from Florida for his five minutes. You're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cavossa, for a multi-state platform like the Space Station, International Space Station, should it be treated as one object or individual modules when assigning liability damage for damage?

Thank you for the question, sir. I'm not sure I'm the right person to answer that question. Perhaps Mr. Montalbano could answer that one. I'm not sure I fully understand.

I'm sorry, sir. Can you repeat that question?

Yeah. For a multi-state platform like the International Space Station, should it be treated as one object or by individual modules when assigning liability for damages?

Today when we do liability, we treat the International Space Station as one object.

What approach would provide the most clarity and stability for commercial operators?

That would be a question I would refer to some of the commercial providers to answer. We have over the time of the International Space Station have worked the liability challenges that we've had and we've worked with commercial industry to find out something that works for them and works for the U.S. government. And so my take is going forward we'll continue to do the same.

How should the U.S. approach the liability convention and Outer Space Treaty to prevent foreign governments from imposing excessive liability on U.S. operators?

Microphone. Okay. So I think there's two ways I would come at that question, sir. Number one is that the Trump administration right now as we speak and just last night released the latest draft of their mission authorization regime, which is very much tied to how we're going to license novel space activities going forward, including things like commercial LEO destinations. And a core piece of that is where the United States will handle indemnification and liability in the future. We've talked about in our testimony about 85-804 being one place where insurance and indemnification for commercial assets in space can and should be handled. And now at least the administration is moving in the right direction of coming up with a way to not quite license, but take responsibility for these actions going forward in these new missions.

If the current system exposes the U.S. entities politically motivated or disproportionate claims, should we limit the role of the United Nations or the international courts in resolving space liability disputes? And if so, how would we do that?

I'm not really sure that the Commercial Space Federation, CSF, has really talked about that, sir. So we're a consensus-based organization. I don't think I have a great answer for you on that one. Apologies, but we can get back to you.

Okay. Yield back.

I now recognize the representative from Oregon, Ms. Salinas, for her five minutes. You're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Haridopolos and Ranking Member Foushee for today's hearing and thank you to our witnesses for being here. Since President Trump was elected, NASA spent almost a year without a permanent administrator as the president changed his mind multiple times about whether he wanted to appoint Administrator Isaacman. How has that leadership gap affected NASA's ability to provide clear expectations and reliable timelines to industry partners on the ISS to CLD transition? And has this delay caused long-term consequences for that transition? And let's start with Mr. Precourt and then we can go down the panel.

Thank you for the question. As I mentioned representing the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, we're concerned with any approach to these programs ensuring it is resourced for accountability on safety. So whether the contracts that are delivered are of a new commercial nature or a traditional nature, we're primarily interested in how the accountabilities for safety flow from those contracts. So I'm not really in a position from the panel standpoint to comment on those policy matters.

Thank you. Mr. Cavossa.

Yeah, I mean I think I should first start off by saying, Congresswoman, that we're huge fans of Jared Isaacman and the direction that he's trying to move NASA. The energy, the creativity, the changes that he's brought to the organization, he's shaking things up. Several of the announcements that he made yesterday, my members are cheering. There's a few things we have questions about like the things we're talking about today around commercial LEO. And then in the gap in the period where there was no administrator, there was a directive that was made at one point on where the commercial LEO destination program was going to go and now there seems to be a change again. So there has been a little bit of uncertainty introduced at least into the commercial LEO programs over the last year.

Thank you.

Our number one priority over the last year has been the safe operation of the International Space Station and the crews on board and what we do. As we studied the commercial LEO destinations and came up with options, you saw the outcome of that yesterday with a new option, again without deleting the current option, but a new option that we think puts the United States in a less risky position for a transition in order to continue human LEO presence.

And building on that, and let's start with you Mr. Cavossa, NASA has faced budgetary whiplash from massive cuts proposed by the Trump administration to supplementary funding in the reconciliation package and an immensely disruptive shutdown. In your testimony, you emphasized the importance of that certainty and reliable expectations for successful commercial development. How does this funding uncertainty impact private companies' ability to raise capital, meet development goals, and plan for future commercial LEO operations?

That's a great question. Thank you. I mentioned it a bit in my opening statement around sort of the uncertainty and the risk. Despite all of the uncertainty and the changes and the directives, the industry has still been able to do quite well raising money and bringing in outside investment for these visions and for these missions that my member companies see. So despite those challenges, the industry has still been doing their best to raise money. Again, over a billion in the last six months alone has been raised, but more certainty would be welcome.

Thank you. And this one goes back to the full panel. Once we transition to commercial stations, I wonder how this new paradigm might actually shift the way agencies and agencies other than NASA support R&D in LEO. How should we be thinking about preparing federal agencies to engage with the commercial LEO ecosystem? Are there new authorities or even just simple education that's needed? And how can we leverage those agencies to help develop the market once commercial providers are up and running?

I think many of our member companies are working across government. It's a whole of government approach that there's going to be lots of interest we think from several agencies within the federal government as we bring on board these new manufacturing and pharmaceutical and energy projects and things of that nature. I think the orbital economy that we are building right now and that Jared Isaacman talks about regularly unleashing the orbital economy is going to bring all agencies of government much more focused on space in the coming years.

Mr. Precourt. I think that pretty well covers it. I also applaud the efforts that Administrator Isaacman is undertaking and I think it's a very promising time for the agency. And when those capabilities emerge, there'll be a lot of other government agencies that can exploit them.

Great. Thank you. My time's expired. I yield back.

Thank you, Representative Salinas. Next I want to recognize the representative from California, Mr. Fong, for five minutes. You are recognized, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this hearing, certainly very important as we discuss the future of space. Mr. Cavossa, I wanted to ask a big picture question, which is what are the biggest challenges do you see to a successful transition from a government-led to a private sector-led low orbit operation?

Yeah, thank you for the question and let me give you a big picture answer to your question, which is the easiest way is certainty. The back and forth, back and forth, different strategies, different directives. We really want to see the RFP put out as soon as possible for the commercial LEO destinations following the original strategy. That's what my member companies have been raising money and building and bending metal toward for the last five to seven years. So certainty is what we're missing right now.

I was struck by in your testimony in just the challenge that China faces. Can you kind of go into more detail in terms of what their Space Station, what capabilities they have right now and what they're trying to do near term and long term?

Yeah, I'm unfortunately I'm not a China expert or a Tiangong expert on their Space Station. CSF did release a report last year called Red Shift, which goes into a substantial amount of detail about how quickly the Chinese are accelerating their in-space capabilities. Tiangong station is quite formidable. And I think they're waiting for the U.S. to misstep when it comes to ISS, when it comes to the transition to CLDs. They are out marketing Tiangong to our friends and allies and competitors around the globe and they're bringing on foreign astronauts much like we have done on the International Space Station for quite some time. So again, I think that they are ready to jump in if the U.S. falters in low Earth orbit.

Then on to follow up on that then, then what should America do to ensure that we outpace the Chinese?

Simply we need to move forward on the CLD procurement as soon as possible. And we need to fund the CLD program at the level that's needed to have more than one provider. We have seen through commercial crew and commercial cargo and other commercial procurements from multiple agencies that multiple vendors being funded appropriately is the right way to get this done.

Then you mentioned some additional recommendations and I just kind of to follow up on that point you made, then what are the regulatory barriers that currently exist that are slowing down commercial development? Is it launch licensing? Is it spectrum? Is it liability? Can you go into kind of the actionable items that we should take as Congress?

Yeah, we actually testified before this committee a year ago on the issue of launch licensing. So thank you for bringing that up. That is still a concern. We need to make sure that we are making it as easy as possible for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in launch throughout the globe. You mentioned spectrum as well. I will tell you that the FCC, sir, is taking dramatic and outstanding steps to make it much easier for U.S. space companies to operate going forward. And with the upcoming WRC in '27, World Radio Conference, the U.S. delegation is putting together a very strong position that's very pro-space, so I'm very optimistic there. The only challenge I see right now on the regulatory front is this idea of indemnification, which needs to be solved. We've solved indemnification for commercial launch years ago and we're going to need to do the same for commercial station.

So you see kind of we need to mirror the Space Act that indemnified the commercial space industry kind of allow it to mature. You think that needs to be done again for this particular projects?

Either a new act that would bring in commercial space stations or using this 85-804 capability the Department of Defense uses, either of those paths. Either or.

Okay. And then my last question, this has come up in other hearings, but just the challenge of supply chain and the vulnerabilities there. Do you see any supply chain vulnerabilities, especially in critical components that could slow LEO development?

I don't have any, sir, I don't have any case studies right now that I can point to. I do not have any, sir, I do not have any case studies right now that I can point to. I am just watching the same news that you are probably seeing, which is there are numerous DOD, Department of War, satellite and space programs that are being delayed right now because of critical components in the supply chain. We are watching that closely on the civil space side with these commercial space stations and launch. A lot of companies, sir, are vertically integrating so that they are managing their entire supply chain themselves, but a lot of them are also reliant on the U.S. supply chain. So I do not have any case studies, but I know it is a concern.

My time is run out, but I think this is an area that we may need to focus on just because there has been a challenge on supply chain when it comes to quantum, when it comes to AI technology, so this may be an area where we may need to do an inventory. So thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Thank you. Under agreement with our ranking member, we are going to open it for a second round of questions if we might. I will start off and I am sure Mr. Whitesides might have some questions as well if you wanted to follow up from yours earlier. I think one of the things that we wanted to get into is the safety concerns on the ISS. There has been I think some thoughtful questions by Mr. Whitesides and others about when the date might be that we deorbit. There has been concerns about which segment within the ISS might be the greatest concern for safety. I have heard some discussion among some of the folks who come to visit with me in my office about the Russian component to that space station. Mr. Montalbano, would you mind commenting on that potential safety concern that you all might have with NASA?

Okay, thank you for the question. First of all, as I said, safety is the priority that we do every day. We talk to our flight control team and in almost every meeting we have, safety is a priority, so I want you to know that we take that very seriously. Looking at the space station, just a couple things, it has been talked today about age of the space station. Throughout the 25 years, what we do on space station for our critical systems, for example our life support systems, when something breaks, we bring it home, we find out why it broke, we repair it, we fix it, we have a new design, and we fly it and we test it again. So today the reliability of space station, our parts are actually failing less, even though we are flying longer, because we have updated and we have upgraded these parts. And a lot of the stuff we do on space station today is flowing forward to the Orion spacecraft and the Artemis.

That said, if I could, how does that compare with what the Russians might be doing at that same station?

Okay, so there is a lot of talk about this area we have called the PrK, it is an area section, about a four-foot section at the aft end of the Russian segment. It has had some structural issues where we have seen some leaks. Today the current position right now is there are no leaks, the leaks have been they put some sealant over it and we are not leaking. However, we are still worried about the structure there. And today what we do is we minimize the time that we are in that area. And when we are in that area, we close the hatch between the U.S. and the Russian segment and we put the crew members on the U.S. crew members on the side of the U.S. side where that hatch is closed. The other thing we do is we minimize the time it is pressured. So when that area is not pressurized, it is not the risk is not there, it is only when you are doing the pressurization, which you do not do every day, you do periodically, maybe every six weeks or so. Going forward, the plan is to minimize the use of that area and work with our Russian colleagues such that we could have a vehicle docked instead today to that port where that area of leak is to another port where we can transfer supplies so we can save that port and save for the lifetime of the International Space Station.

Thank you. And along the same lines in talking about deorbiting, how about the idea of just shared cost associated with deorbiting the space station in the future? There has been discussion about the negotiate and barter with our ISS partners. Will this be a cost that is borne by the United States taxpayer or will this be a shared cost when we potentially deorbit?

It will be a shared cost and we already have an agreement with our counterparts on a shared cost that would be based on the mass of your segment.

Mr. Precourt, in your written testimony you highlight ASAP's ongoing concerns about the need for a comprehensive and executable strategy for the transition from the ISS to commercial space stations. You also note that the current lack of strategy creates a credible risk of a gap in the U.S. human spaceflight capability in low Earth orbit. Could you elaborate on that?

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yes, there is as I mentioned earlier, there are three buckets that we worry about with respect to the resources to ensure continued safe operations. Mr. Montalbano just did a really nice job of explaining how they are operating and managing risks and the great thing about that bucket is that we are aware of the risks, we have been communicating them across the interface between us and Russia in particular for the PrK, and we are dealing with them with action. The second bucket is how we transition to the new space station entities. And you take the immense amount of experience on the current space station and then the budding experience coming from the new elements and marrying them together, this phased approach of moving and migrating from the station to the CLDs and resourcing that transition is really, really critical so that they get off on a good foot. We learned a lot from the Mir space station and a lot of the risks that were realized on that station that have not ever materialized on ISS because of the great lessons learned. And then finally the third bucket is resourcing the deorbit vehicle appropriately so that we maintain that safety.

Thank you, Mr. Precourt. And with my time having expired, I will now recognize Ms. Foushee for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Montalbano, I would like to come back to you. We ran out of time before you could respond to my question regarding whether or not NASA has conducted its own market analysis regarding the transition from the ISS to a commercial platform.

So in the sense of we have talked to these commercial providers, we have seen it in action. So for example, on space station a few years ago, we had a pricing policy for what it takes to fly a commercial type payload. We carved out five percent of the space station resources for a commercial payload and we said, okay, anybody wants to fly, and we said, okay, here is the cost. And it was about $3,000 a kilogram. Fast forward a couple years and we were told, hey, quit subsidizing that industry, we need to grow it, go to full cost. We went to full cost from $3,000 a kilogram to fly to $20,000 a kilogram and nobody is taking us up on that. So the way we have done the analysis is how we have operated with it. We have done private astronaut missions and I can tell you each of the private astronaut missions, each of the missions have struggled to get to fill up the manifest of the crew members. So our experience is with talking to the different providers and then actual implementation on the International Space Station.

But as yet, there is no official analysis.

There is not a I cannot give you a NASA official report that says here is how we done it. There is individual reports through the different activities that we have done, whether it be private astronaut missions or like I said that commercial policy that we have done.

Well let me ask this, what level of long-term financial commitment does NASA anticipate for a future platform or for R&D in LEO following the end of the ISS operations?

So as we move forward with the commercial LEO destinations, we are going to put out these requests for information and then requests for proposals. Once we have those and a path forward, we will understand what the necessary financial commitment will need to be.

Thank you. Mr. Cavossa, I have had the pleasure of visiting some of our industry partner facilities in Florida when I attended the Crew-11 launch last summer. As you know, industry plays a key role in building the future workforce. How does or how is the Commercial Space Federation working to expand access to aerospace careers and good-paying jobs, including through partnerships with HBCUs, MSIs, and community colleges?

Great question, ma'am. I mean, CSF is a nonprofit advocacy group here in Washington, D.C., very much focused on representing our companies' interests before the Congress and this administration. So we really haven't gotten into workforce development issues very much. It's something we could get more active in in the future, especially with HBCUs, but it's not something we've done to date. Now my member companies, I'm sure have engaged much more heavily in those areas because they're all hiring. They're all looking to add to the workforce very aggressively. They're bringing in former NASA engineers and NASA flight controllers and folks left and right, and I think that's something that they could probably answer more in a more detailed way than I can.

I am going to try to get this last question for all of the panelists. Realizing future opportunities in LEO for Artemis and in space writ large depend on a robust and skilled workforce. On the government side, that workforce has undergone significant reductions as the administration sought to gut the number of federal workers. What are the most pressing workforce issues and needs related to the ISS transition and our future in LEO and how should they be addressed? We will start with Mr. Precourt.

Thank you, ma'am, for the question. And as a matter of fact, we addressed some of that in our 2025 annual report. We too are concerned about the capabilities of the workforce in the transition here. I think a lot of the experience has left the agency and we are looking for some robust and aggressive work to make sure that the agency maintains a highly skilled workforce such that from a safety standpoint they have the abilities to look into their partners' developments and understand where the risks are. These are positions at NASA that as you know are historically very coveted. They are positions that lead to massive great careers in and technologies that we can only dream of in the future. So I really applaud the administrator for what he is doing right now, which is to attract more into the agency and make sure that the highest levels of authority are put onto an emphasis or put onto this education.

Thank you for that. Unfortunately, my time is up, so I yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Foushee. I now recognize our chairman for five minutes. Dr. Babin, you're recognized.

Thank you very much. Mr. Montalbano, yesterday the administrator announced the Ignition Initiative to transition to an iterative, iterative execution-focused approach for NASA missions. Is NASA considering allowing iterative, iterative capabilities for CLD platforms?

The current plan that we're on today for the commercial LEO destinations, it concerns us very much because it's a winner-take-all approach. With one provider, you're putting all your eggs in that one basket. We believe that the option that we introduced yesterday has an opportunity, multiple opportunities for the commercial industry to get involved, start out in an incremental approach. They can come to the International Space Station, they don't have to be fully equipped, they can grow, and then when they're done and they're ready to separate, they go off and become their own space station. So we believe the option that we introduced yesterday by Administrator Isaacman is a good path forward.

Thank you. Mr. Precourt, in your written testimony, you highlight ASAP's ongoing concerns about the need for a comprehensive and executable strategy for the transition from the ISS to commercial space stations. You also noted that the current lack of a strategy creates a, quote, "credible risk of a gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability in low Earth orbit." Congress required ISS transition plans in the last two authorization acts. Can you expand on the challenges created by NASA's current lack of a comprehensive transition strategy and how that contributes to the risk of a gap between ISS end of life and the availability of commercial platforms?

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. Again, we're concerned about the three buckets of resources that are needed: the ongoing maintenance of the station, the ability to deorbit it, and then the ability to make sure there's a concrete transition to these new providers that exploits the experience and systems capabilities that are currently on orbit. And so with the time remaining and the ability to move forward on a lot of these things quickly, we do have a credible risk of a gap because time is short.

Thank you. And back to Mr. Montalbano. After the ISS program, NASA intends to be one of many customers for privately owned space stations. What will be the role of NASA's workforce in future LEO operations after the conclusion of the ISS program?

We plan to be one of many customers with the new commercial providers after the International Space Station is done, and we plan to support in that area as a customer.

Amen. And to follow up, both Mr. Cavossa and Mr. Precourt, what skill sets and technical expertise should NASA maintain to be an informed customer of the CLDs?

I can just comment in one area, sir, that we want NASA to be a very smart buyer of commercial capability. So at the end of the day, NASA should be and I think is investing in a contracting team that knows how to do public-private partnership contracts and starts to move the organization away from cost-plus and much more toward firm-fixed-price competitive procurement.

Yes. Mr. Precourt?

And I would echo the same. There's both the contracting and acquisition side, then there's the technical engineering side. They both run hand in hand. Technical authorities need to be embedded early in the process of acquisition so that the right requirements are understood and distributed through the system and they can be verified as systems are built. And so we've long advocated that the agency have a primary acquisition officer at the agency level with huge expertise in how to set incentives for the contracts and that the technical authority at the agency be properly resourced and filled with expertise to manage those engineering challenges.

Thank you. Last, Mr. Cavossa and Mr. Montalbano. The NASA Office of Inspector General and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel have raised concerns about the potential market for commercial space stations. ASAP has expressed concern that there is not, quote, "a clear robust business case," unquote, for CLDs. In 2021, the NASA OIG reported that unless overall commercial demand expands markedly, future low Earth orbit platforms will likely not be viable without continued government support. To what extent do you agree with ASAP and the NASA OIG's concerns about the potential market for CLDs?

Sir, I'll answer briefly that we all agree that we would like NASA to be an anchor tenant, a key tenant, but the commercial market is developing. These companies, again, have raised billions, they have contracts in place, they have lots of interest, they've just been waiting for NASA to point out the strategy because NASA is going to be probably the first and largest customer in the beginning and then over time a much smaller customer.

Okay. I think we're out of time, so I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I next recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides. You're recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just want to first of all say one thing, which is that I have a huge amount of respect for Mr. Montalbano and his team. What they have done is absolutely amazing over the last few decades. It is the standard of the world, and we are super proud of your service. I think this is fascinating that we have two rounds of questions. There's a lot of interest in this subject. Let me get clear what the basic idea of this new plan is because I'm not totally clear. I think what I heard is that NASA would buy a new government core that would plug into ISS and then into that core private commercial providers would plug into that core. Is that accurate?

First of all, thank you for the comments and yes, that's accurate. We'd have a government core that would have opportunities for two ports, say one on each side, for a commercial LEO destination to attach to, to grow, to learn, and operate on space station such that they can gain that experience and then separate and go off on their own.

And does NASA have a plan or a competition for that core now?

And so today we're releasing a RFI on this new concept. The plan is to get input from industry of how they would like to work.

My challenge is that like normally my experience with new pieces of ISS is that it takes like 10 years to build. So I just don't I don't get how where are we going to get this new thing and doesn't that go beyond the lifetime ISS substantially? I just fundamentally don't understand.

So we want industry to industry's been telling us they're ready to go work, they're ready to move faster. You've heard it from Jared Isaacman, he's ready to move faster. We're ready to shortcut wherever we can to get a module up there. The benefit of this module is it's attaching to the International Space Station, so you don't need all your critical systems because you have the safe haven of the International Space Station. We think with the less capability and the speed that we're injecting into the system, you can get there.

Okay. Another question on the budget. So the new this new option kind of states that the agency can't afford to fund a single commercial station. I'm not sure if that's totally true, but I think that's my understanding. However, this new idea calls for NASA to design, procure, and launch this new core module to provide power and propulsion. I just don't see how it's fiscally possible for NASA to afford the development and launch of a custom-built government core module while maintaining ISS while claiming at the same time it can't afford to be a customer on a commercial station that is being privately financed. I just don't understand.

So this core module again, just to make sure we understand it, doesn't have to have power and propulsion. By attaching to ISS, you can take the ISS resources and operate that module. The purpose of the core is it's an opportunity for us to use the resources, we'll move things over. So for example, we have a carbon dioxide removal system on the International Space Station that has been working great. We can move that into that module and then now these these commercial providers, they don't have to spend money on life support, which has been over time a huge investment for providers.

Yeah, I'm also still not clear about like when you do undock, so you have two commercial modules, like do they stay attached to the core or do you like have them go off in different directions? Have you thought that through?

Yes, sir. They could they could one could separate and then one could separate with the core module.

Okay. It'll be up to them, it'll be up to the providers or they can neither can separate with the core module. Let me just make a final point, Mr. Chairman, which isn't really a question. The fundamental issue I have here is that in a general sense NASA has for 20 years been following a strategy which hopes to attract new sources of private investment in civil space projects with the idea that by germinating that cooperation, NASA will have to spend less on development and hopefully less on ongoing operations due to shared costs. These cost savings to the government can then be used for other important program areas like future exploration to the moon. That strategy was important to the development of the Falcon 9, Dragon, core rationale I think behind the strategy of commercial stations. Here's my challenge. Based on NASA's new option, or sorry, based on the old plan, several companies raised probably in excess of $2 billion in private capital and did so on the expectation that NASA would kind of follow through. And my my concern is that if NASA is not a reliable partner for private investors, we're not going to get that money and we're not going to save then money by being able to cost-share with the private sector. Like this is a basic business point. So that's my time. So thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Whitesides. I now recognize Ms. Salinas for five minutes from the state of Oregon. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry I wasn't here for the conversation with Mr. Fong, but Mr. Cavossa, you recommended that Congress consider liability protections for companies operating in LEO due to shortcomings in the private market. Aside from indemnification, is there a role for the federal government to potentially provide or support insurance products or otherwise support the development of the private insurance market in this space?

Yeah, thank you for the question. Again, I think we we did this right once before with the Commercial Space Launch Act in how we indemnify commercial launch. And as you've seen, ma'am, the U.S. launch industry has grown tremendously since then to be able to operate under that indemnification regime. We're looking for something very similar on the space station side.

Great. Thank you. Does anybody else care to answer? Thank you. All right, I have seen firsthand the thrill and excitement that comes along with an ISS downlink. I was able to participate in a Congressional Hispanic Caucus conversation with Frank Rubio when he was up on the space station, and it was really inspiring to hear his story as a first-generation American astronaut. I felt like a little kid just watching him and talking to this guy. So I know how inspiring it can be for young people, particularly from underserved communities, to see real representation like that. Mr. Montalbano, can you talk a little bit about how NASA delivers STEM engagement through the ISS program today and how the agency plans to structure these activities after transitioning to commercial providers?

So first of all, Frank Rubio, 370 days on orbit, an American hero, so it was awesome that you got to participate in that. You know, today the STEM participation and in educating our children across the globe is a priority and activities that we do on a regular basis on board the International Space Station. We do it not only domestically, we do it with our international partners. We have opportunities where the crew members get to talk to different schools. We get opportunities where they can do different experiments with the with the students. We have colleges and and even high schools now that are flying experiments that we're performing on board the International Space Station. And our goal is to speed up that time. What we've done on the International Space Station is we said that if you have something that you want to fly on space station and we can try and turn it around in six, maybe nine months. In the past, that's been multiple years, there's been so many requirements, it's just taken it's it's it's longer than the students in school and it just didn't make sense. So we've cut that back. We said, hey, if this isn't a safety issue, then rock and roll, get it on board, get it done in six, nine months, and we'll fly it on space station. And I expect that'll continue. The private industry's going to jump on that, and I expect that will continue. Dave, if you wanted to add anything to that.

Yes, please, Mr. Cavossa.

No, agree. I mean, one of one of our member companies, ISS National Labs, has told us that most recently that within the next sort of 8 to 12 months, their backlog of projects that they're trying to bring on to the station will cover the station through 2030 and beyond. I mean, the number of projects, research, etc., is is tremendous, which is again, we think, a sign of the health of the commercial LEO economy. We don't think that that's it. We think there's a lot more there.

Mr. Precourt, any partnerships that you're working on or?

Within the ASAP panel, we always applaud the education outreach. It brings more talent to the industry and all that we can do for a variety of the population to be exposed to space is a big benefit.

Thank you. All right, my time hasn't expired, but I will yield back. Thank you. All right, my time hasn't expired, but I will yield back.

Thank you, Ms. Salinas. I first want to thank each one of the participants today in really being helpful and candid with your answers. And I also want to applaud NASA for being so transparent over the last few weeks and really laying out a mission plan and giving voice to so many people. We appreciate that candor every step of the way and what Mr. Isaacman has done in his early tenure in office and giving us a better step forward. With that, the record will remain open for 10 days for additional comments and written questions from members. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.