[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASTROBIOLOGY: SEARCH FOR BIOSIGNATURES
IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 4, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-895 WASHINGTON : 2013
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
C O N T E N T S
December 4, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Witnesses:
Dr. Mary Voytek, Senior Scientist for Astrobiology, Planetary
Science Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
Dr. Sara Seager, Class of 1941 Professor of Physics and Planetary
Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Dr. Steven Dick, Baruch S. Blumberg Chair of Astrobiology, John
W. Kluge Center, Library of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
Discussion....................................................... 35
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Mary Voytek, Senior Scientist for Astrobiology, Planetary
Science Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 58
Dr. Sara Seager, Class of 1941 Professor of Physics and Planetary
Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology................. 70
Dr. Steven Dick, Baruch S. Blumberg Chair of Astrobiology, John
W. Kluge Center, Library of Congress........................... 75
ASTROBIOLOGY: SEARCH FOR BIOSIGNATURES
IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM AND BEYOND
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.005
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Astrobiology: the
Search for Biosignatures in our Solar System and Beyond.'' I
will recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement
and then recognize the Ranking Member.
The search for exoplanets and Earth-like planets is a
relatively new but inspiring area of space exploration.
Scientists are discovering solar systems in our own galaxy that
we never knew existed. As we learn more about these new worlds,
reasonable questions to ask are: what can we find on these
planets? Do the atmospheres of these planets provide
biosignatures that would indicate the presence of some form of
rudimentary life? And what would be the implications of such a
discovery?
The discovery of even microbes on another planet would be
the most newsworthy story in decades. It could affect the way
we view our place in the universe and it could create increased
interest in the core disciplines of astrobiology including
chemistry, physics, geology and biology.
The United States has pioneered the field of astrobiology
and continues to lead the world in this type of research. The
publication of scientific findings illustrates the field's
growth and growing popularity in the past 20 years.
A sample of professional papers published in Science
magazine between 1995 and 2013 shows significant growth in the
field of astrobiology. For example, in 1995, fewer than 50
papers were published on astrobiology. By 2012, that number had
increased to more than 500. In 1995, fewer than 500 scientific
reports cited astrobiology, but by 2012, it was almost 12,000.
Astrobiologists study the atmospheres of planets to
determine whether or not some of these newly discovered planets
possess possible signs of life such as microbes or some form of
vegetation. Scientists believe that such planets would produce
certain gases in their atmospheres. For example, when examined
from a distance, Earth's atmosphere contains large amounts of
oxygen. When looked at through a large infrared telescope, the
biosignature would be detectable from a distant point in space.
Using the infrared camera on the Hubble Space Telescope,
two teams of scientists from the University of Maryland, NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center, and the Space Science Telescope
Institute announced just yesterday that they had found
signatures of water in the atmospheres of five exoplanets. The
planets are similar to what are called hot Jupiters, too large
and gaseous to contain any form of known life. However, the
techniques used in this case are also being used to examine the
atmospheres of other planets.
Future telescopes, including the James Webb Space
Telescope, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey satellite, and the
Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope will help us discover more
about the atmospheres of exoplanets and whether or not microbes
or other forms of life could exist there.
I look forward to hearing how research in astrobiology
continues to expand this fascinating frontier.
That concludes my opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Chairman Smith: Good morning. The search for exoplanets and Earth-
like planets is a relatively new but inspiring area of space
exploration. Scientists are discovering solar systems in our own galaxy
that we never knew existed.
As we learn more about these new worlds, reasonable questions to
ask are: What could we find on these worlds? Do the atmospheres of
these worlds provide biosignatures that would indicate the presence of
some form of rudimentary life? And what would be the implications of
such a discovery?
The discovery of even microbes on another planet would be the most
newsworthy story in decades.
It could affect the way we view our place in the universe. It could
create increased interest in the core disciplines that fall under the
umbrella of astrobiology, including chemistry, physics, geology and
biology.
The United States pioneered the field of astrobiology and continues
to lead the world in this type of research. The publication of
scientific findings illustrates the field's growth and growing
popularity in the past 20 years.
A sample of professional papers published in Science magazine
between 1995 and 2013 shows significant growth in the field of
astrobiology. In 1995, fewer than 50 papers were published on
astrobiology. By 2012, that number had increased to more than 500. In
1995, fewer than 500 scientific reports cited astrobiology, but by
2012, it was almost 12,000.
Astrobiologists study the atmospheres of planets to determine
whether or not some of these newly discovered planets possess possible
signs of life, such as microbes or some form of vegetation. Scientists
believe that such planets would produce certain gases in their
atmospheres.
For example, when examined from a distance, Earth's atmosphere
contains large amounts of oxygen. When looked at through a large
infrared telescope, this biosignature would be detectable from a
distant point in space.
Using the infrared camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, two teams
of scientists from the University of Maryland, NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center and Space Science Telescope Institute announced yesterday
that they found signatures of water in the atmospheres of five
exoplanets.
The planets are similar to ``hot'' Jupiters, too large and gaseous
to contain any form of known life. However, the techniques used in this
case are also being used to examine the atmospheres of other planets.
Future telescopes, including the James Webb Space Telescope, the
Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and the Wide-Field Infrared
Survey Telescope will help us discover more about the atmospheres of
exoplanets and whether or not microbes or other forms of life could
exist there.
I look forward to hearing how research in astrobiology continues to
expand this fascinating frontier.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is
recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning, and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
There is no denying humankind's interest in establishing
whether life exists elsewhere in the universe. People have
probably speculated on that possibility since time immemorial.
The question of whether there is life beyond Earth got
increased attention this year following the Kepler Space
Telescope's discovery of Earth-sized exoplanets in habitable
zones around other stars, and Curiosity's finding of traces of
water in the Martian soil.
Astrobiology, as we will hear during this hearing, is an
interdisciplinary field that makes use of many fields of
science to investigate the possibility of life on other worlds.
As might have been guessed, NASA has played a major role in
astrobiology's development as a formal discipline. NASA's
Viking missions to Mars, launched in 1976, included three
biology experiments designed to look for possible signs of
life. The scientific excitement generated by the Viking
mission, new results from solar system exploration and
astronomical research programs in the mid nineties, and
advances in the fundamental biological sciences led to the
establishment of the NASA Astrobiology program in 1996.
Today, NASA's Astrobiology program consists of four
elements: grant programs, technological activities aimed at the
development of new scientific instrumentation, technological
activities aimed at the field-testing of new scientific
instruments, and the NASA Astrobiology Institute.
In addition, astrobiology has become a cross-cutting theme
in all of NASA's space science endeavors. For example, rather
than being standalone investigations, many planetary science
and astronomy missions work together in their search for life
in the Universe.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss were I not to make note
that continuing to provide adequate funding to NASA's science
programs is of critical importance if we are to continue to
make progress in astrobiology as well as other important
scientific fields. I hope that Congress recognizes the vital
contributions of ongoing and future NASA space science missions
in answering whether there is life in the Universe. This
hearing is an opportunity to shine light on these
contributions, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
I thank you, and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses.
There is no denying Humankind's interest in establishing whether
life exists elsewhere in the Universe. People have probably speculated
on that possibility since time immemorial.
The question of whether there is life beyond Earth got increased
attention this year following the Kepler space telescope's discovery of
Earth-sized exoplanets in habitable zones around other stars, and
Curiosity's finding of traces of water in Martian soil.
Astrobiology, as we will hear during this hearing, is an
interdisciplinary field that makes use of many fields of science to
investigate the possibility of life on other worlds.
As might have been guessed, NASA has played a major role in
astrobiology's development as a formal discipline. NASA's Viking
missions to Mars, launched in 1976, included three biology experiments
designed to look for possible signs of life. The scientific excitement
generated by the Viking mission, new results from solar system
exploration and astronomical research programs in the mid-1990s, and
advances in the fundamental biological sciences, led to the
establishment of the NASA Astrobiology Program in 1996.
Today, NASA's Astrobiology Program consists of four elements--
grants programs, technological activities aimed at the development of
new scientific instrumentation, technological activities aimed at the
field-testing of new scientific instruments, and the NASA Astrobiology
Institute.
In addition, astrobiology has become a cross-cutting theme in all
of NASA's space science endeavors. For example, rather than being
stand-alone investigations, many planetary science and astronomy
missions work together in their search for life in the Universe.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss were I not to make note that
continuing to provide adequate funding to NASA's science programs is of
critical importance if we are to continue to make progress in
astrobiology as well as other important scientific fields.
I hope that Congress recognizes the vital contributions of ongoing
and future NASA space science missions in answering whether there is
life in the Universe. This hearing is an opportunity to shine light on
these contributions.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is
Dr. Mary A. Voytek. Dr. Voytek became Senior Scientist for
Astrobiology in the Science Mission Directorate of NASA
headquarters in 2008. Dr. Voytek came to NASA from the U.S.
Geological Survey, where she headed the Microbiology and
Molecular Ecology Laboratory. Dr. Voytek has served on advisory
groups to the Department of the Interior, Department of Energy,
the National Science Foundation and NASA including NASA's
Planetary Protection Subcommittee. She received a Bachelor's in
biology from Johns Hopkins University, a Master's in biological
oceanography from the University of Rhode Island and a Ph.D. in
biology and ocean sciences from the University of California.
Our second witness is Dr. Sara Seager. Dr. Seager is an
Astrophysicist and Planetary Scientist at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Professor Seager chairs a current NASA
Science and Technology Definition Team Study of the star shade
concept for space-based direct imaging to fined and
characterize other earths. Before joining MIT in 2007,
Professor Seager spent four years on the senior research staff
at the Carnegie Institute of Washington preceded by three years
at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.
She is a 2013 MacArthur Fellow, winner of the Genius Grant;
also, the 2012 recipient of the Raymond and Beverly Sackler
Prize in the Physical Sciences and the 2007 recipient of the
American Astronomical Society's Helen B. Warner Prize. She
received her Bachelor's of Science in the Math and Physics
Specialist Program from the University of Toronto. She also
holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from Harvard University.
Our third witness is Dr. Steven Dick. Dr. Dick currently
holds the Baruch S. Blumberg NASA Library of Congress Chair in
Astrobiology at the Library of Congress. He served as the
Charles A. Lindbergh Chair in Aerospace History at the National
Air and Space Museum from 2011 to 2012, and as the NASA Chief
Historian and Director of the NASA History Office from 2003 to
2009. Prior to that, he worked as an Astronomer and Historian
of Science at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.
for 24 years. He obtained his B.S. in astrophysics and M.A. and
Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science from Indiana
University.
We welcome you all and look forward to your testimony, and
Dr. Voytek, we will begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARY VOYTEK,
SENIOR SCIENTIST FOR ASTROBIOLOGY,
PLANETARY SCIENCE DIVISION,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Voytek. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss the topic of astrobiology.
For thousands of years, humans have looked up at the stars
and wondered whether life exists beyond our home planet. This
curiosity was renewed with the latest discoveries by NASA's
Kepler mission totaling 3,500 new candidate planets outside our
solar system. With Kepler's help, more than 800 potential
worlds have now been confirmed orbiting stars other than our
sun, and at least five of these are Earth-sized and orbiting
within the habitable zone in each of their stars. This reminds
us just how important NASA's work is to the understanding of
the universe and the potential for life beyond our solar
system.
A companion question that every child wonders is, where did
I come from? Astrobiology seeks to answer these enduring
questions. What is astrobiology? Astrobiology is the study of
the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in our
universe. It addresses three basic questions that have been
asked in various ways for generations: How does life begin and
evolve? Does life exist elsewhere in our universe? What is the
future of life here on Earth and beyond?
In striving to answer these questions, experts in
astronomy, astrophysics, Earth and planetary sciences, biology,
chemistry and many other relevant disciplines participate in
astrobiology research to achieve a comprehensive understanding
of biological, planetary and cosmic phenomena and the
relationships among them.
This multidisciplinary field encompasses the search for
habitable environments in our solar system as well as habitable
planets outside of our solar system. Astrobiology embraces
laboratory and field research into the origins and early
evolution of life on Earth, the search for evidence of
habitability and life on Mars and other bodies in our solar
system, as well as studies of the potential for life to adapt
to future challenges both here on Earth and beyond.
It is a cross-cutting theme in all of NASA's space science
endeavors. It knits together research in astrophysics, Earth
science, heliophysics as well as planetary sciences. The NASA
Astrobiology program is guided by a community-constructed
roadmap that is generated every five years. The ongoing
development of this roadmap embodies the composition of diverse
scientists, technologists from government, universities and
private institutions. These roadmaps outline multiple pathways
for research and exploration and contribute to our decisions on
how our investments might be prioritized and coordinated.
NASA established its current Astrobiology program in 1996.
Studies in the field of exobiology, a predecessor to
astrobiology, date back to the beginning of the U.S. space
program. We are proud of the results of our 50 years of
cutting-edge research.
In the 20th century, astrobiology has focused on a growing
number of NASA missions. As mentioned earlier, with Kepler's
mission, we have been able to detect Earth-sized planets within
the habitable zones around distant stars. These potentially
habitable planets will expand our search for life beyond our
own solar system.
Mars also continues to be an area of interest with the
Curiosity rover mission currently assessing the potential
habitability of that planet. In fact, results from that mission
have already shown that in the past, Gale Crater could have
supported microbial life.
However, since Earth is the only known example of an
inhabited planet, the search for life in the cosmos begins with
our understanding of life on Earth, so studying the origins and
evolutions of life on Earth improves our ability to recognize
and characterize life in its many imagined and yet potentially
possible forms.
In 2010, astrobiologists found that a number of microbes
from Earth could survive and grow in the low-pressure freezing
temperatures and oxygen-starved conditions seen on Mars.
Overall, astrobiologists have discovered life in numerous
extreme environments on Earth such as volcanic lakes, in
glaciers, sulfur springs. We have also found life in
extraordinary forms ranging from bacteria that consume
chemicals toxic to most life to microbes that live under high
levels of gamma or ultraviolet radiation. These discoveries
have taught us that life is tough, tenacious and metabolically
diverse and highly capable to adapt to local environmental
conditions. Knowledge gained through the astrobiology research
reveals new possibilities of what else might be out there and
how we might be able to find and recognize it.
An example of astrobiology technologies that have proved
useful for broader application is the Chemistry and Mineralogy
instrument that was developed for the NASA Curiosity rover.
CheMin is a highly sensitive instrument that can identify and
quantify the minerals present in the Martian rocks and is
currently being used in a commercial spin-off for a variety of
purposes including hazardous-material identification, mineral
prospecting, artifact preservation in museums, and even
detection of counterfeit pharmaceuticals in developing
countries.
In conclusion, life is a central theme that unifies NASA's
Science program, the science of astrobiology aims to achieve a
better understanding of our own world and the life that it
hosts. After 50 years, we are now in an era that can finally
provide data on whether or not we are alone in the universe.
This is an agenda for inspiring the next generation of
explorers and stewards to sustain NASA's mission of exploration
and discovery.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Voytek follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.014
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Voytek.
And Dr. Seager.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SARA SEAGER,
CLASS OF 1941 PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS
AND PLANETARY SCIENCE,
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Seager. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we
are truly at a unique time in human history. We stand on a
great threshold in space exploration.
On the one side, we now finally know that small planets
exist and are common, but on the other side lies the
possibility to find the true Earths with signs of life. The
point I want to make is, this is the first time in human
history we have the technological reach to cross the great
threshold. And as already explained, to infer the presence of
life on an exoplanet, we will search for biosignature gases,
which we define as a gas produced by life that can accumulate
in an atmosphere to levels that we can detect remotely by large
telescopes.
The example on Earth is oxygen, which fills our atmosphere
to 20 percent by volume, but without plants and photosynthetic
bacteria, we would have virtually no oxygen. So our search for
biosignature gases is a search for gases that we call it
``don't belong'' that are produced in huge quantities that can
be attributed to life.
And I would like to just say briefly that NASA-supported
astrobiology has been absolutely foundational in biosignature
gas research by connecting microbiologists with astronomers and
geologists and planetary scientists.
The main point I want to make, a main point, is that we
will not know if any exoplanet biosignature gas is produced by
intelligent life, or if it is produced by simple single-cell
bacteria. Right now we don't have any planets we can study for
biosignature gases. The Kepler planets, while small, are too
far away and too faint for any atmosphere follow-up studies.
NASA's TESS mission, led by MIT and scheduled for launch in
2017, is a two-year all-sky survey of more than half a million
bright stars. Now, while TESS will not reach down to the true
Earths, it will find dozens of rocky planets transiting small
cool stars.
The reason we are so excited about TESS is that dozens of
the TESS rocky planet atmospheres can be studied by the James
Webb Space Telescope and a few of these planets are likely
going to be in the star's habitable zone. So while the chance
for life detection with the James Webb is very, very, very
small, if life really is everywhere, we actually have a shot at
it.
Now, to up our chances of finding life on an exoplanet, we
need to move to a different kind of planet-finding and
characterizing technique, because the TESS/James Webb
combination focuses on a rare type of planet, a transiting
planet that has to be aligned just so, so it goes in front of
the star as seen from Earth. That is actually the easiest way
to find small planets right now, but it is not the best way
because we need to be able to search all of the nearby sun-like
stars.
So direct imaging is the starlight-blocking technique, and
it is extremely challenging because our Earth at visible
wavelengths is 10 billion times fainter than our sun. Ten
billion is such a huge number. This is a massive technological
challenge.
But NASA is studying two different direct imaging
techniques. One is the so-called internal coronagraph, where
specialized optics are placed inside the telescope, but the
telescope has to be incredibly specialized to be exceptionally
thermomechanically stable.
The other technique is the starshade, that is, putting a
giant specialized screen tens of meters in diameter and flying
in formation tens of thousands of kilometers from a telescope.
The starshade blocks out the starlight so only the planet light
reaches the telescope. Now, the internal coronagraph is more
mature, but the starshade is likely our best way to find Earths
in the new future because the starshade does all the hard work.
And we can have a simple telescope, relatively simple
telescope, with a very high throughput.
I wanted to just briefly give you my vision for how to
proceed after the James Webb Space Telescope and the TESS
mission and that is we need a small space telescope mission to
prove the direct imaging technique and to deliver exoplanet
science. We need to demonstrate both the internal coronagraph
and the starshade because we don't know which one will succeed
on a larger scale and both actually may be needed. The internal
coronagraph technique right now is under study for
instrumentation on AFTA/WFIRST. We will be able to observe some
giant planet atmospheres. The starshade and telescope system
could be supported under a so-called probe-class category and
could reach down on a couple of dozen stars for Earths.
Now, here is the thing. If we want to really be able to
find planets with biosignature gases, we need hundreds of
Earth-like planets. We need to search thousands of sunlight-
stars. So for the intermediate future, we will require a large
visible wavelength telescope with a large mirror exceeding 10
meters in diameter. So that is a big thing for the future but
that is what it will really take if we want to up our chances
of success.
So I just wanted to briefly say that the level of public
interest in exoplanets has accelerated literally almost
exponentially in the nearly 20 years I have been in this field.
The number of people who approach me on a continual basis from
high school students to MIT students to other university
students to literally people all around the world to CEOs of
small tech companies to retirees, these people aren't just
interested in exoplanets, they want to work on exoplanets.
And so I will just close by leaving you with a vision, that
this search for finding life beyond Earth is so revolutionary,
it will really change the way that we see our place in the
cosmos such that we believe hundreds or a thousand years from
now, people will look back at us collectively as those people
who first found the Earth-like worlds, and so it could be our
greatest legacy. We just need to--you know, it is within our
power based on our near-term decisions and investments to
actually make this happen.
So Mr. Chairman and Committee, this concludes my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Seager follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.021
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Seager.
Dr. Dick.
TESTIMONY OF DR. STEVEN DICK,
BARUCH S. BLUMBERG CHAIR OF ASTROBIOLOGY,
JOHN W. KLUGE CENTER, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Dr. Dick. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on the subject of the past and future of
astrobiology. I do so not as a practitioner in the field but as
an historian of science who for four decades has documented the
debate over life beyond Earth. In that role, I can say that
this is a subject rich in history and promise and one that
fascinates the American public.
During my time as NASA Chief Historian, everywhere I went
people wanted to know about life on other worlds, and they
still do. Astrobiology raises fundamental questions and evokes
a sense of awe and wonder as we realize perhaps there is
something new under the sun and other the suns of other worlds.
The key discoveries in astrobiology over the last decade
have evoked that sense of awe and wonder. High on the list must
be the discovery of planets beyond our solar system, those so-
called exoplanets are the very first goal of the NASA
Astrobiology Roadmap.
Ground-based telescopes as well as the Hubble and Spitzer
telescopes have all contributed to these discoveries, and
NASA's Kepler spacecraft has opened the floodgates. By the end
of 2013, almost a thousand planets have been confirmed.
Thousands more are awaiting confirmation. Smaller and smaller
planets are being detected including Super Earths and Earth-
sized planets.
A second highlight is the continued search for life in our
solar system--goal 2 of the roadmap. A fleet of spacecraft over
the last decade has demonstrated that Mars had enough liquid
water in the past to be habitable for life. Spacecraft have
probed the icy moons of the outer solar system including the
Jovian moon Europa and the Saturnian moon Enceladus. The still-
ongoing Cassini/Huygens mission has found on the Saturnian moon
Titan an atmosphere believed to be rich in prebiotic organic
compounds and lakes of methane on the surface of that
satellite. And just a few months ago, Cassini captured an image
of Earth, a pale blue dot against the darkness of space.
Another of the highlights over the last decade has been to
demonstrate further the tenacity of life in extreme
environments--goal 5 of the Astrobiology Roadmap. Life has been
found in hydrothermal vents deep below the ocean, kilometers
below the ground, way above the boiling point of water, way
below its freezing point. The point is that life is more
tenacious than once thought and so may arise on planets under
conditions once thought unfavorable. Genomic analysis of these
microorganisms continues to shed light on how they function.
Among the critical issues in the search for life in the
solar system during the next decade will be a continued
research program on past and present life on Mars, employing
spacecraft such as MAVEN, which was just launched two weeks
ago, as well as continued field and laboratory research on the
origins, limits and future of life on Earth and other planets.
Beyond the solar system, the challenge now is to classify and
characterize newly discovered planets as well as the search for
even smaller ones. Over the next decades, spacecraft such as
TESS will search for rocky planets and stars, and the James
Webb Space Telescope will further characterize those planets
and their potential for life by searching for biosignatures in
their atmospheres. This is goal 7 of the roadmap.
I would like to say also that in my view, renewing the
search for radio and other artificial biosignatures as part of
the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, would
enhance NASA's Astrobiology program and repair the artificial
programmatic divorce that now exists between the search for
microbial and intelligent life. No biosignature would be more
important than a radio signal from another civilization on one
of those newly discovered planets, perhaps, especially if they
have something to say.
In concluding, I would be remiss if I failed to mention
that among the issues and challenges for the next decade are
goals related to astrobiology and society. Indeed, the
Astrobiology Roadmap recognizes as one of its four
implementation principles a broad societal interest in its
endeavors. Astrobiology raises profound questions with respect
to the impact on society. What will be the effect on our world
views, our philosophies and religions, if we discover microbial
or intelligent life beyond the Earth? Are there useful
analogies that will help us to evaluate societal impact?
History indicates that the discovery, or the failure to
discover extraterrestrial life, is likely to be an extended
affair as in the debates over the Viking spacecraft results and
the ALH84001 Mars rock controversy. These are the kinds of
societal aspects of astrobiology that I am now studying as part
of my time at the Library of Congress. Others are also studying
these societal impact questions, especially in the last five
years since the NASA Astrobiology Institute has supported a
roadmap and a focus group on astrobiology and society.
Finally, let me say that in my view, astrobiology embodies
the most important ideals of discovery, exploration and
inspiring our explorers for the next generation. No better hook
exists in my experience to get students interested in science
than the tantalizing and interdisciplinary questions of
astrobiology. I always like to quote Nobelist Baruch Blumberg,
the first Director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute and the
inspiration behind the Blumberg NASA Library of Congress Chair
that I hold now at the Library's Kluge Center, which brings
together scholars and policymakers. Astrobiology, Dr. Blumberg
said, is in the best tradition of our species and in the best
American tradition dating back to Lewis and Clark, to ask great
questions, to explore our world and other worlds, to infuse our
culture with new ideas, and to evoke that sense of awe and
wonder as we discover the true place of our pale blue dot in
the universe.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.027
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Dick.
Let me address my first question to Dr. Voytek and Dr.
Dick. First of all, this is an exciting subject, even an
inspirational one. It is also, I think worth noting that space
exploration, including the kinds of exploration we are talking
about today, attracts bipartisan interest and bipartisan
support. So, that is nice from the point of view of Members of
Congress, and also the subject has literally caught the
public's imagination, and that is something to build on and
something to encourage as well.
But Dr. Voytek and Dr. Dick, you both mentioned the
Astrobiology Roadmap. The last official roadmap was 2008.
Supposedly there is one every five years. I understand the 2013
is actually coming out in 2014, May, June or thereabouts. But
my question is this: when it comes to astrobiology, what should
be our goals today if you could write the roadmap? Obviously it
has changed a lot in the last five years but what should be our
astrobiology goals today? Dr. Voytek?
Dr. Voytek. So the current roadmap is being developed to
align--well, to----
Chairman Smith. What would be your goals?
Dr. Voytek. My goals would be to better enable the search
for life outside of Earth, which includes really pushing our
knowledge base about what is possible for life in general. So
to extend our research on extreme environments and push it to
the limit in terms of what kinds of conditions to better
establish habitability off the Earth.
Chairman Smith. Right.
Dr. Voytek. And I believe that we also need to push hard in
the area of synthetic biology to understand the basic building
blocks of life to enable a better search strategy for the
potential types of life. I anticipate that the first life we
find is likely to be a microbial, relatively simple life form,
and that it will be essential to know as life did on this
planet, it made itself from what was around it. It is likely it
will do the same on other planets, and so we need to be mindful
of what other possibilities there are.
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
Dr. Dick?
Dr. Dick. Well, aside from what has already been said, I
would like to see a voyage to Europa to find out what is under
the----
Chairman Smith. I would too.
Dr. Dick. --thick ice, what is swimming around down there
perhaps, or also out to Saturn with Enceladus and to find out
more about those water spouts that are shooting out of
Enceladus. There might be biosignatures there.
Chairman Smith. I think Europa is already on the list but
we will have to expedite that.
Dr. Dick. Right.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Dick. Also, I would say, as I mentioned, that I think
it would be great to repair this divorce between microbial--the
search for microbial intelligent life by including a more
robust program on SETI.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Good. Thank you, Dr. Dick.
Dr. Seager, I like your word ``revolutionary'' when it
comes to the possible discovery of microbes or other
interesting forms of life elsewhere on other planets. What I
wanted to ask you, and you went into some detail as to how we
might be able to detect these biosignatures, but could you give
us a hopeful timeline when might this occur? I know that there
are certain dates for the launches of these various telescopes,
but some people think we might actually achieve some
breakthroughs with the devices and the equipment we have today,
but I just want you to speculate. Do you think in what time
frame might we expect to find some evidence of, say, microbial
life elsewhere in the universe?
Dr. Seager. I always like to start by saying scientists
never like to speculate. We always like facts.
Chairman Smith. But you always do.
Dr. Seager. But we always do. Correct.
So let us say our input is that every--just for argument's
sake, if every star has an Earth and every Earth has life, then
we will find--we have a great chance of finding the first signs
of it with the TESS/James Webb Space Telescope combination. It
is likely that it is not that common. We see evidence already
that not every star has an Earth-size planet in the habitable
zones, but many do. In that case, we need to go to a direct
imaging mission in space, and there is no plan on the books for
that. We have lots of studies going on. If that one could be
implemented, when it is launched it would take a few years. In
that case, we also have to be lucky. If it is correct that one
in five stars like the sun now has an Earth, and every one of
those has life, then we would be able to find signs of life
with that relatively small space telescope mission.
My best guess, if you wanted the honest, very conservative
answer, if I have to----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Dr. Seager. --come back and be the one who has to hold the
responsibility for this, I would say we need that next-
generation telescope beyond the James Webb, the big telescope
in space. So we need to invest in technology now so this can
actually happen at some point. But once that one goes up, it
would just be a matter of a few years to survey enough stars
for planets and find them.
So I have given you the most optimistic case, somewhat
unrealistic, that the James Webb finds it. The least optimistic
case, we need to find out how to put a large mirror in space to
search enough to have a high enough chance.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Most optimistic then next five to 10
years?
Dr. Seager. Yes, the most optimistic is within a decade.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Seager. But I don't want to leave you with just being
optimistic because I don't--you know, we really do need to
invest in the future.
Chairman Smith. Right. I understand that. Thank you, Dr.
Seager.
My last question is for you all starting with Dr. Voytek.
What can we do to expedite the process? And that is a pretty
general question. Some of the answers have probably been given,
the development of these various telescope, tests and so forth,
but what can we as Members of Congress do to expedite the
process? I have a hunch probably the answer is going to be
funding, but so be it.
Dr. Voytek. Well, I was going to say continued support.
Congress and the Administration has provided excellent support
to the Planetary Sciences Division and Astrophysics and Science
Mission Directorate in general, and so we need your continued
support. I know that funding is tough but that is the best
thing you can do.
Chairman Smith. Okay. If we make it a priority, we can
achieve that five to ten year time frame perhaps.
Dr. Seager?
Dr. Seager. I would say that keeping our outreach abilities
in the university system with the experts who are actually
working on the field is so important. I think people don't
quite understand how often--you know, you think outreach
happens maybe at the museum or elsewhere, but as individuals,
we actually do a huge amount of this, and it is sort of
inspiring the next generation so we make sure we have that pool
of people to keep us not only at the forefront of space
technology but in biology and keeping this interest moving
along. I think that is the best investment we have.
Chairman Smith. Great. Okay.
Dr. Dick?
Dr. Dick. Aside from funding, I think just the idea that we
know that Congress is behind the program including, for
example, the SETI program. I think that we are still seeing the
repercussions from 20 years ago when that program was canceled,
and NASA is not forbidden from funding that but they realize
that Congress has sort of discouraged that 20 years ago.
Chairman Smith. I think there is more interest today and
more possibilities today with the discovery of all these
exoplanets. Thank you, Dr. Dick.
My time is way over. The gentlewoman from Texas, the
Ranking Member, is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
I guess this question is for all of you. To what extent are
the interagency and international collaborations important to
the astrobiology and what, if anything, is needed to facilitate
that collaboration to maximize the progress and findings?
Dr. Voytek. I will start with that. The Astrobiology
program when we established the Institute, part of its charter
was to explore means to enhance collaboration amongst all
nations that are interested in the questions that are addressed
by astrobiology, and we have been very successful in making
affiliations and collaborations. Each government has brought
their own resources to bear, and we try to facilitate work
together because just as it is multidisciplinary, it is also a
field of study that requires the entire expertise of the entire
globe really to bring to bear on this. It is a bold question
that we ask, and it requires everybody.
Dr. Seager. I will give you just a very specific example,
we try to collaborate where we can within ITAR for
international space technology but we have a special example
coming up, and that is the starshade technology. We may see a
scenario in a very budget-constrained environment where here in
the United States we build the starshade. We are leading that
technology right now. But we get the telescope and launch from
international partners. So that is a way that we could actually
accomplish this in the near term.
So in general, it is often challenging to work with other
countries for a variety of reasons but in this case we may want
to figure out how to do that.
Dr. Dick. Yes. The NASA History Office has just come out
with a new book on international cooperation with NASA over the
last 50 years, and it is really an important book, I think,
because it shows what can be done if we do cooperate. I would
have to agree with Sara that it has become more and more
difficult to cooperate, especially because of ITAR, the ITAR
regulations, and I have been told by people involved that the
Cassini program, for example, today probably could not be done
because of the ITAR regulations, which were not in effect
during the time that Cassini was built.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. The Chairman
Emeritus of the Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall,
is recognized.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will tell you, as
I look at this aggregation of witnesses, you have really done a
good job. I don't believe I have ever seen so much intelligence
at one table and so much interest that we have, but I will warn
you that when I was at SMU, you were the very type of people
that I didn't like. You ruined the curve for us ordinary
people. But I always respected you.
And Chairman, thank you. This is really interesting, and it
takes me back about 15 years ago when we had a hearing on
asteroids and found out during the hearing that an asteroid had
come within 15 minutes of us sometime during the 1980s and we
didn't know how many jillion miles that was but it sounded kind
of threatening to me.
But you have such an interesting study and you seem to be
so interested in it. I appreciate that.
I guess my first question is, how would you characterize
the importance of astrobiology in the general area of STEM
education that we have gone through and created and worked on
and nurtured here? Second, how would you motivate students, how
are you going to get them close to what the other witnesses
asked? It really should be easy, I guess, to answer but how do
you motivate students to pursue a career in astrobiology
research?
I guess Dr. Voytek, you might give me a quick answer to
that.
Dr. Voytek. I think that the topic of astrobiology is so
exciting and encompasses so many different aspects of science,
technology and inquiry that we almost have to do nothing but
present the topic for people to be engaged and excited and kids
to--I believe it is one of the most exciting areas of research
for children, and my own experience has been, it requires
almost no encouragement. It is an inspiration.
Mr. Hall. Well, I think you have the same problem that we
have, this Congress has had at the last probably three or four
Presidents asking them for more money for the thrust in space,
you know, and if we had had just X number of millions or
billions, why, we might not be begging Russia for a ride there
and back up to the Space Station. But you must wake up every
morning wanting to go to your work as exciting as it is and
excited as you feel.
Professor Seager, let me ask you this. You stated in your
testimony that ``As a Nation, we must continue to be bold in
our space endeavors so as not to only inspire the next
generation but also to keep a skilled workforce at the
forefront of technology.'' Do you feel that we are being bold
enough or too bold in meeting those goals, or can we be too
bold in meeting such an important goal?
Dr. Seager. Well, since you said it first, I will say we
can never be too bold. As we all know, China is headed to the
Moon right now as we speak, and we see China as, you know, in
the academic world, they are great at copying everything but we
haven't seen them really innovate. But you never know what the
future holds.
I will say that most of my students now--and I do work with
a lot of engineering students--they do not go on in
astrobiology or exoplanets nor do we want everyone to do that.
Many of them go out to work in civilian space science or
civilian industry or even for defense. So recruiting all these
people through their interest, they want to work on really hard
problems that have some impact, and you wouldn't know how many
of these people, they come to work on these problems because
they loved Mars as a child or, you know, they like the idea of
searching for life beyond Earth. No, I don't think we can be
too bold.
And it is not only inspiring for the public but it draws in
the people, those very people that, you know, make the curve
higher. You want them to come and to work on our hardest
problems for either science or for defense-related technology.
Mr. Hall. I just don't know how I am going to tell my
barber or folks in my hometown about your testimony here, but
you must really enjoy getting up every morning and going to
work, and I thank you for what I call revolutionary study and
presentation here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hall. The gentlewoman from
Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses. I concur with the comments about how
inspirational this testimony has been.
One of the issues that I discussed since I joined this
Committee early last year was how we could do a better job
educating the public about the benefits of space exploration
and research, and I know you have touched on this somewhat, but
I have to say that particularly now in a challenging budget
time when all of these things we are talking about have a price
tag, how do we do a better job? How do all of us do a better
job with that education?
And Dr. Voytek, I was pleased to read in your testimony
about how astrobiology research has benefited everyday lives,
and you talked about the technology used in the Deepwater
Horizon accident. Also, there was a mention in the testimony
about the Mars Curiosity rover, an instrument analyzing art
that can help with causes of deterioration of artwork. What are
some of the ways that we can go out and convince a skeptical
public that we should continue these investments? Please, go
ahead, and I would like to hear from all of you briefly and
allow time for one more question.
Dr. Voytek. Just very briefly, I often discuss our advances
and our approach to astrobiology and our big questions as the
search for a cure for cancer. It is a big, extremely important
question. It is research that has to be done, and even though
we have made tremendous progress, we haven't yet cured cancer.
We haven't yet found the origin for life on this planet or life
elsewhere.
But I think in the process, we have learned even more about
ourselves that have led to other improvements in biotechnology
and biomedicine, and the same is true for astrobiology because
of the types of questions that we ask, and so in addition to
the examples that you gave, we also have people working in
synthetic biology that have come up with new, rapid--technology
for rapid detection of HIV and hepatitis viruses, so there are
a lot of advances in biotechnology. Our discoveries have
revolutionized and made it possible for people to sequence the
human genome. So there have been a lot of big payoffs as we
move towards answering these very big questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much.
Dr. Seager and Dr. Dick, briefly.
Dr. Seager. I will be brief. I think we need to keep
hitting home the message that pure science leads to so many
things like the laser, like the human genome, and we need to
make that, you know, as clear as possible to as many people as
possible.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Dr. Dick?
Dr. Dick. Yes, I have actually edited a volume called
Societal Impact of Spaceflight, which I recommend to you, and
another one will be coming out soon.
There is a lot of talk often about spin-offs but it is not
just the spin-offs that you have heard here and other places.
It is also the satellite, the navigational satellites,
reconnaissance satellites, weather satellites, communication
satellites. All of those, of course, would not have happened
without the ability to go into space. And then finally, I would
say also I find that going around the country, people are very
interested in how we fit, what our place is in the universe,
and space exploration helps to solve that.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. And I want to follow up on some of
the comments that have been made about inspiring and educating
the next generation, and I know we have heard ``inspiration''
used a lot here today and ``being bold,'' and I know Mr. Hall
mentioned, Dr. Seager, your comment about the skilled workforce
on the forefront of technology.
How do we continue to engage young people, especially at a
young age? And I think if you looked at the panel today, most
people would think that two-thirds of the women--two-thirds of
scientists are women, which is of course not. So how do we
continue to get young people involved? Can you recommend any
changes to--I am also on the Education Committee--any changes
to STEM education, efforts to maximize students' interest? We
are talking about things like incorporating arts and design,
more hands-on learning. Do you have suggestions about how we
can engage more students in STEM education? Dr. Seager, I would
like to start with you.
Dr. Seager. This is such a huge topic, it would be
impossible for me to articulate all my thoughts, you know, in
the time that we have. So I may just say I would be happy to
talk to you about it at another point. It is a big, big, big
thing and we really need to do something new and different.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Dr. Seager. I will just say that all children are born
curious about the world, and somehow that ends up getting
squashed out of them, and so we really have a problem.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. We will definitely follow up.
Dr. Voytek?
Dr. Voytek. I just want to say one thing, and I think Sara
would agree with me, is that it is extremely important to start
as young as possible. If you wait to bring science and
technology to students that are in high school or college or
even junior high, you have already missed incredible
opportunities to develop their interest, their curiosity, and
set them on the path in those sorts of careers.
Dr. Seager. Yeah, I will just add one more thing. You know,
children, we all know, we were all one at some point, they love
dinosaurs. You know, often children love space and planets, and
we just need to keep that alive and do a better job at it.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Dr. Dick?
Dr. Dick. A very specific recommendation would be more
curriculum development. There are a few curricula on life in
the universe, which, you know, it pulls in everything. One of
the great things about astrobiology, astronomy, biology,
chemistry, you can talk about almost anything, and the
development of specific curricula that could be used in the
schools I think would be a very good way to start.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. I see my time is expired.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. The gentleman from
Mississippi, the Chairman of the Space Subcommittee, Mr.
Palazzo, is recognized.
Mr. Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate our
witnesses and their testimony today. This is a very exciting
subject, and I agree with everything that you all presented to
this panel so far.
Dr. Seager, I love your comments about we cannot be bold
enough, and you are talking about investment, and we need to do
a better job of investing in astrobiology. So could you expand
on those two? Where would you invest, and if you have a limited
amount of resources and you had to take from one area to put
into another area, feel free to comment on that, but also, and
I may open this up to everybody, is that when you have an
agency that is so risk-adverse and you throw the word ``bold''
out there and being different, how do you reconcile those two?
Dr. Seager. That is such a great question. I would like to
have an opportunity to later on perhaps provide a written
response. But I can try to answer it briefly right now.
Okay. So in terms of being bold in space, there is a new
huge thing happening, and that is, we call it CubeSats. They
are tiny spacecraft that now people all around the world are
building and launching. Students can do this. So, you know,
risk can change now because we can launch small things cheaply.
It wouldn't be very risky with something that is not that
costly, and in that way you can kind of educate the university-
level people, even down to some special high schools, in a very
colloquial way--well, so you know, we have other ways we can do
high risk and generate that.
The other question I think was about moving money around.
That one I can't answer. I think I----
Mr. Palazzo. You can't or don't want to?
Dr. Seager. Like I said, I would have to give it some more
thought. But one thing I do want to say is, what makes our
Nation unique is just our ability to innovate, and that
innovation is something that we--it is very hard to do because
you can't always put your finger on what actually it is. You
can't articulate it in a way that can actually be supported.
But that is why we ended up, you know, being able to get to the
Moon. That is why we end up being, you know, a leader in so
many things, and so that is the thing I would try to however
possible keep that alive, keep that really, really moving
forward here in America.
Mr. Palazzo. And if Dr. Voytek or Dr. Dick would like to--
--
Dr. Dick. Let me just bring up human spaceflight. When I
was a kid, I was told that we would be on Mars with humans by
1984. Obviously we didn't make it. But I do believe that we
should have as a long-term goal to go to Mars, or at least as
an initial goal, the moons of Mars. The moons of Mars were
discovered just a few blocks from the White House at the Naval
Observatory so there is sort of a peculiar American interest in
the moons of Mars, which are just a few thousand miles above
the surface of Mars and would be a great reconnaissance sort of
natural satellite space station for looking at Mars. So I
believe we should push towards Mars, maybe the Moon first again
and then Mars.
Dr. Voytek. I would actually like to take an opportunity to
focus mostly on missions and exploration. I think that the
important thing of our research program in the Science Mission
Directorate is that we actually are able to take risks because
the investments aren't on the order of millions and hundreds
and millions and billions of dollars to do exploration. We can
explore lots of these questions on Earth for, you know, a tenth
of that cost, and we are bold and we do take risks and
sometimes it pays off tremendously and sometimes we make
mistakes, but we try because, again, this is a bold question,
we are bold with our scientific portfolio and the research
programs.
Dr. Seager. I did think of one thing to add, and that is
the sort of rise of the, we call it just the private commercial
spaceflight world like SpaceX. I think the risk now can be
transferred to them in a way, still with some level of NASA
support, you know, when you are supporting them going to the
Space Station and things like that.
Mr. Palazzo. Real briefly, I will try to get one more
question out.
You know, we talk about budgets up here on Capitol Hill.
Our Nation is definitely in a financial crisis, and we continue
to fight amongst each other over shrinking discretinary budgets
when the largest driver of our deficit and our debt is
mandatory spending. So we have to come to terms with that.
But when you have got such great programs like this in
competition and national security doesn't actually seen to
propel Congress, or this Administration, to act in the best
interests of the Nation anymore, what would you think would
trigger us to focus more on exploring Earth-like planets and
getting more engaged in astrobiology?
Dr. Seager. Well, one thing that would help is making that
very strong message that it is legitimate science now. You
know, we are not like searching for aliens or looking for UFOs.
We are using standard astronomy. We are using models that have
been used for Earth's atmosphere and planetary atmosphere. So I
think making that message that it is really a legitimate field
of research is one of the critical aspects.
Dr. Dick. And just the very idea of exploration. I think
astrobiology embodies the American ideal of exploration, and I
think that really is a goal enough, to inspire the young people
and the citizens.
Dr. Seager. The one thing that sometimes is very hard to
see and communicate is, it is really a long-term investment in
our national security and we see it even in industry that
civilian space science is like a way you can do stuff openly,
and so that is--it is very hard to communicate very, very long-
term investment but that is essentially what you are doing
here.
Mr. Palazzo. I see my time is expired. I yield back. Thank
you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palazzo. The gentleman from
California, Dr. Bera, is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and I will reiterate
what everyone on the Committee has already said, fascinating
subject.
As someone who trained in biology and then went to medical
school, I think, Dr. Seager, you touched on, we are all born
with this natural curiosity from the youngest of ages--where
did we come from, where are we going, the origins of life,
whether it is on the scientific realm, whether it is in our
faith-based traditions, and so forth. It is naturally innate to
who we are as human beings.
So we don't have to rediscover this. Our children have this
naturally. What we have to do is grow that curiosity, and in
order for that to grow, we have to dream big. I mean, for those
of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s with the Space Race,
there was a dream. We didn't know how we were going to get to
the moon. We didn't know the technologies it would take us, yet
we dreamed about going there. And we have got to recapture that
American spirit, of dreaming big, of not knowing how we are
going to make this discoveries but truly committing ourselves
to making these discoveries so that our children, so those next
generations of scientists have this natural curiosity. And we
can't be limited by saying, oh, we don't have the money here,
or yes, we have got financial limitations, but we still have to
learn how to dream first and then we can work within those
limitations to say what is the best way to use those resources.
So that wasn't a question. That was more of a comment.
The question is, when we are looking at the origins of
life, when we are looking at the future of worlds and how that
affects our own planet, these are beyond country borders, these
are beyond nationalities, these are beyond faith traditions.
What can we do within the context, you know, if another country
happens to discover evidence of life on another planet? We are
all going to benefit from that discovery, and it is going to
propel us forward.
What is the context where we can work together, because we
are talking about big data sets. We are talking about analyzing
major data sets. What context at the international level would
you like to see in terms of collaboration in the search for
life? Dr. Voytek?
Dr. Voytek. I would say that we attempt with all missions
that are being planned by space-faring nations that we can
collaborate with them, either contributing personnel or
instruments, so we have a very good relationship with ESA, and
they have flown instruments on our vehicles and spacecraft; and
the counter is we have flown as well so their ExoMars mission
that is planned to launch in 2018, we have an instrument
onboard.
Our plan for 2020 is to bring back samples. We are
already--we have been working with the international community
to figure out how to share the results and participate together
in the analysis of those samples. I think that, you know, we
have ITAR restrictions but, you know, scientists--science is an
area that crosses boundaries pretty easily. There is a natural
curiosity, and our scientists are doing a lot of the work for
us.
Mr. Bera. Dr. Seager, let us say we do build this next
generation of telescope. Again, we are going to--we will be
bringing in massive amounts of data and it will take a lot of
eyes and a lot of analysis. I know in other aspects, we have
allowed those amateur astronomers and the public to go out
there and look at this data. Again, that is a way of even
getting high school students, elementary school students
looking at this, imagining things. What are some contexts in
which we can do that again, bring in the entire planet?
Dr. Seager. Well, I would like to address it from a
slightly different view, and I think it is great for scientists
to interact internationally because we don't have a political
agenda as scientists. But I think when it does come to space
technology, it is just--this is my personal opinion--it is so
much more efficient because we don't have this extra layer of
bureaucracy and inefficiency to do it all ourselves here in
America. However, if the budget realities and practicalities
don't allow it, then I support the international cooperation in
space technology.
In terms of the big data that is public like the Kepler
data, for example, any one of us here, we can download the
data, we can look at it all around the world. I think that is
really great, and that does make the world come together in a
unique way.
Mr. Bera. Dr. Dick, did you want to add anything?
Dr. Dick. I would just say that it very much depends on the
scenario when you are talking about international cooperation,
whether it is microbial life or intelligent life and the
implications of finding that. There are various international
organizations that can be worked through like the International
Academy of Astronautics, and there is work being done on what
we should do if--and what the impact would be if either
microbial or intelligent life would be found.
Mr. Bera. Great.
Dr. Voytek. Let me say one more thing. I want to reiterate
a point that you brought up, which citizen science is
incredible. I think it is a way to engage the public. I think
we have shown in astronomy, in particular, how it is a tapped
workforce that has done tremendous scientific work for us, and
I think particularly with telescopic data that we will continue
to use it in the future and maximize it. It has been awe-
aspiring to me to see how people have just gotten involved and
are planet hunters themselves. I think the public is dying to
get involved even more.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Bera. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, witnesses. It is fascinating testimony, fascinating
written testimony. I hated for it to end actually. I wish you
could have added some more pages to your testimony. It is fun
to read, very enjoyable. I think, you know, you pretty much
indicated that life on other planets is inevitable. It is just
a matter of time and funding. Clearly, that is it.
If our species survives long enough and I wonder, a
question to the three of you, what you see as the greatest
dangers to life on Earth.
Dr. Dick. Well, we have had the recent experience of the
fireball over Russia. I would have to say that the asteroid
impacts are a danger. There is a range of material coming in.
We are in a pinball machine and we are in outer space. And you
have all this material coming in and occasionally a larger one
comes in, as over Russia, but it is entirely possible, as
evidenced by some of the craters on the Earth, the ones that
wiped out the dinosaurs, they happened over much longer periods
but I believe that's one of the motivations for human
spaceflight is to get at least some of us off the Earth in case
there is a catastrophic event such as that.
Dr. Seager. Well, we do like to believe with, you know,
sort of the--in the current--we do like to think with our
current resources of monitoring asteroids that we will find
something big before it finds us, but that is certainly an
important area to keep up.
If I can give my personal opinion, I think overpopulation
of our planet is going to be our biggest problem.
Dr. Voytek. I would say with all systems that resources,
particularly essential resources, can be limiting and so I
think as we look other places for alternative energy or other
means to support a large population, that that is a threat to
our planet.
Mr. Posey. Okay. You know, conditions on other planets are
going to seem harsh at first, and we know in history conditions
on planet Earth have been harsh. If we came here or explored
Earth 64 million years ago, we would say wow, it is too cold,
and if we were 65 million years ago we might say wow, it is too
hot. So I guess there is going to be windows of opportunity on
the other planets too. Any comment on that?
Dr. Dick. Well, it is one of the great things about this
research being done just in the last two decades on life in
extreme environments, just how tenacious life is, you know, in
extreme temperatures and under the oceans in these hydrothermal
vents at extreme temperatures and pressures. You find not only
microbial life but these long tube worms. I mean, it is just
amazing. It seems wherever conditions are possible and by
conditions, I mean, a much broader range than we used to have,
that life does arise and arise fairly quickly.
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Dr. Voytek. I would say that we talk about life in extreme
environments, and I will note that it is mostly microbial, and
it is mostly extreme by our own reference. So it is an
anthropocentric definition of what is extreme because in fact
we have had the capability to inhabit warm places, cold places
because of our technology. We basically bring everything back
to conditions that support a comfortable life for humans, and
so exploration, colonization on other planets and harsh
environments will require that we do the same. We are not going
to suddenly develop the capability to live at, over the
temperature of boiling water. We will have to make our local
environment hospitable to ourselves, and we have that
technology now.
Mr. Posey. Dr. Seager?
Dr. Seager. I am going to defer on that question.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What do you believe was the highest
historical temperature on the surface of Earth prior to the
extinction of the dinosaurs, Dr. Dick?
Dr. Dick. It is hard to say. That is not my area of
expertise. But I can say that on Venus, for example, the
temperature is now 900 degrees Fahrenheit with sulfuric acid
rain and very harsh conditions, and Mars, of course, is much
colder now than the Earth. So one of the goals of astrobiology
is to try and figure out how planets that seem to be so similar
in the past have diverged.
Mr. Posey. Dr. Seager?
Dr. Seager. One thing I always tell my students is that
every day is like a Ph.D. defense. So I actually don't remember
that number off the top of my head.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Dr. Voytek?
Dr. Voytek. Ditto. Except that, as you mentioned yourself,
Earth has experienced extremes in environmental conditions from
the early formation, and so certainly environmental conditions
well beyond the limits of human life.
Dr. Seager. But these changes do happen very slowly, and we
believe that life will adapt.
Mr. Posey. Thank you all very much for your testimony. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey. The gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find this topic
fascinating.
I have a question that I may ask all of you but I want to
ask Dr. Seager first. If you were king for a day and could
offer an X-Prize for something in your field, what would it be?
Dr. Seager. It would be for finding the nearest Earth-like
planet, you know, around the star that is closest to our own
planet. So I will try to answer that one more time in a more
clear way.
Mr. Massie. Yes.
Dr. Seager. You know, we would like to know just sort of as
a legacy for the future which of the very, very, very nearby
sun-like stars have a planet that is like Earth with habitable
conditions and surface liquid water required for all life as we
know it. So I would offer that prize for being able to find
that. That would have to be a prize that was sort of on the
order of billions, not just millions.
Mr. Massie. Okay. And Dr. Dick, what would you----
Dr. Dick. I am going to stick with Europa, I think, because
it is less than a billion miles away, and if we could offer a
prize for somebody to get there and find a way to drill down
below the ice, we don't know exactly how thick it is but that
would be a feat in itself if we could drill down through that
ice and see what is below the ice.
Mr. Massie. And Dr. Voytek?
Dr. Voytek. I am going to pick Enceladus. I would like to
offer a prize for somebody to go sample the plumes.
Mr. Massie. Okay. Thank you.
And so Dr. Seager, you mentioned a starshade, and this
captured my attention and imagination. So is this something
that would be deployed in space? Could you describe that just--
--
Dr. Seager. Yes. I didn't mention that. Pretty much we do
need to go up to space to get above the blurring effects of
Earth's atmosphere. Now, the starshade is something that has
been in development for a number of years supported by NASA.
The concept actually was first written down in the 1980s by a
French physical optics researcher. So would you want me to just
elaborate on the starshade?
Mr. Massie. Yes, maybe 30 seconds.
Dr. Seager. Okay, sure. So first of all, the starshade does
have heritage from large radio-deployables in space, okay?
Those are like 20-meter structures that unfold into a parabolic
shape. A starshade is a flat shape. It is not a circle or a
square because that has--light will go around the edges and
just cause problems. It has to be very specially shaped. It
ends up looking like a flower. Okay. Now, demonstrations have
been in the lab of how you would fold up the petals, how they
would unfurl, and they have to be--the petals have to be made
very, very precisely because remember, we have to block out the
starlight to basically better than a part in ten billion.
Now, the starshade would essentially just be like, you
know, looking at a single light and blocking it with your hand,
and the starshade would have to fly far away from a telescope.
You could actually use any type of telescope. Now, this just
can't go in any orbit because formation flying is tricky and so
you really want to get away from Earth, either in an Earth-
trailing or Earth-leading orbit or at what we call L2. So the
starshade is--it has been under development and it is ongoing.
Mr. Massie. So you have to pick a light to block, Right? So
you would----
Dr. Seager. Correct.
Mr. Massie. --place some bets on a star?
Dr. Seager. Well, so we are now in this Committee that I am
chairing, the Science and Technology Definition Team, we are
spending a lot of time on that exact question. And so the
question really is, which stars are you going to go to, because
you can move the starshade around the sky or around in space or
the telescope can be moving around. You know, there is sort of
a scenario where you send up two or three starshades. You
always have something going on. There is a scenario where as
the starshade is making its way to another--you know, to line
up with another star, your telescope is going to be like a very
new version of Hubble and doing general astrophysics. So yes,
that is a problem but it is not a limiting problem.
Mr. Massie. And that would--you would be leveraging the
Hubble so----
Dr. Seager. So we wouldn't use the Hubble in this case,
only because Hubble is in low-Earth orbit and Earth's reflected
light is a problem as is Earth's gravity for formation flying.
But we could essentially use even--I don't want to use the
word, you know, ``any old space telescope'' because it is still
a problem, but the telescope doesn't have to really be special
in any way. It just has to be in the right orbit.
Mr. Massie. And is there some sort of--I know in itself the
concept is bang for the buck but is there within that a bang
for the buck version of it that you could do that would prove
its concept or give some quick results for----
Dr. Seager. I mean, this is something we have definitely
thought a lot about and because of the scaling issues like, you
know, showing it--okay. It is difficult to do anything in space
except the real thing because to demonstrate on the scales
required and to get, you know, that one in ten billion, really
the real thing. However, there are many things that we can do
just on the ground and that are ongoing and need to continue
like we call it subscale, smaller versions, demonstrations in
the lab. There is, you know, testing in the outdoors. You have
to go many kilometers separated. So there are things that we
can do. But the problem of finding Earth is so hard, there is
really no easier, cheap way to actually do it.
Mr. Massie. Thank you.
And Dr. Dick, in my last few seconds I would like to touch
on something that you mentioned in your opening testimony is
reconnecting that gap between SETI and astrobiology, or it
looks like astrobiology has kind of subsumed that space. What
is the state of SETI right now?
Dr. Dick. Well, objective 7.2 of the Astrobiology Roadmap
does mention biosignatures of technology, which technically is
SETI but I think the problem is that NASA does not really
support that with funding based on the termination of the SETI
program by Congress 20 years ago. So if Congress would wish to
get SETI going again with some, with even a little bit of
funding, that would be an important addition, I think, to
astrobiology because right now it is really an artificial
separation. We are looking for microbes, but after that, we are
not looking for intelligence with the NASA program.
Mr. Massie. Great. Thank you very much. Yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Massie. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Dr. Voytek, specifically about oil
and gas exploration, and your thoughts on--if you think that it
is practical that some of the technology that is being adapted
can be specifically used to detect leaks at great depths as it
pertains to oil and gas exploration, particularly offshore.
Dr. Voytek. Yes. So one of the examples I gave in my
testimony was a technology that was developed at Woods Hole
Oceanographic, and it was a combination of an autonomous
vehicle and a mass spectrometer that could detect hydrocarbons,
and it was used to identify and map the leak from the Deep
Horizon spill. Its original design for the Astrobiology program
was to try to search for the source of biogenic gases and
chemicals, so to identify the sources in the deep sea from
hydrothermal vents and, say, the production of methane or
hydrocarbons that were produced by microbes. So, I think that
that was a great example of that technology being adapted to a
very important environmental problem.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
Do you want to add something? You looked like you wanted to
add something, Dr. Dick? Okay.
I did have a question for you, Dr. Dick, specifically about
the emergence of astrobiology and how you thought that NASA's
early initiatives such as the Viking landers on Mars affect the
evolution of research at NASA related to the search for life in
the universe.
Dr. Dick. Well, the Viking experiments had a great impact,
I think. The biology experiments were three biology
experiments, and one of them--one of the principal
investigators to this day believes he found biology on Mars but
the gas chromatograph's mass spectrometer found no organic
molecules on Mars which means you if you don't ever get any
molecules, you can't have life. So that sort of put a damper on
the Mars program for a while. I think it was something like 15
years at least before we went back to Mars with another
spacecraft. So those kinds of things really can have an impact.
But now with the rovers that we have, including Curiosity, are
looking for those organic molecules. They haven't found any
complex organic molecules, maybe some very simple ones, but of
course, we have only looked in very specific places. So those
specific kinds of events in the development of astrobiology can
have a great effect as in the case of the Mars rock ALH84001 in
1996. I think that gave a great spur to astrobiology, the
development of astrobiology over much broader program than the
old NASA exobiology program which was pretty much limited to
origins of life, and that is the astrobiology program that we
have today.
Mr. Veasey. And speaking of that, how does that history
sort of inform planning for the next decade of astrobiology
research?
Dr. Dick. Well, I think if we find anything on Mars in the
nature of organic molecules or other things like that, history
tells us that that would have a great impact on funding for the
future. So we are all hopeful that such things will be found
aside from all the other interesting things that those rovers
are finding.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Veasey. The gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, is recognized.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. This has been very helpful and very interesting.
I also have the privilege of serving as one of the co-
chairmen along with my colleague, Mr. Lipinski, who was unable
to be here today, of the STEM Caucus, and all of us, every
Member of Congress that I speak with, is passionate about how
do we get young people interested in science and technology and
space and engineering and mathematics, and clearly this field
that you all are talking about is, I think, a great avenue to
get young people interested.
One question I would have for you of getting into that is
when--looking back in your own history, when was the first time
you really were interested in this and kind of made the
decision, this is what I want to do personally?
Dr. Seager. You know, my first memories are about the Moon
and stars, but it wasn't until much--so the seed gets planted
early but it wasn't until much later, maybe my late teens, that
I realized it was a career choice.
Dr. Dick. I grew up in rural southern Indiana, where it was
very dark, so the night sky is what inspired me to start with
it from a very young age and it just grew from there, and I
would have to say also I was very much influenced by science
fiction. One of the things I found when I worked at NASA is, a
lot of people in NASA were inspired by science fiction, and
those novels about, you know, life on other planets and that
sort of thing. So for me, it was from a very early age.
Dr. Voytek. And for me, my father was a physician and he
gave me his medical school microscope when I was about seven,
and I started exploring my backyard and the streams and the
refrigerator and the food and saw that life was everywhere.
Everything was moving. It was kind of scary for my diet but it
set me off for my natural interest in how life persists on our
planet.
Dr. Seager. One thing you will find from most scientists
is, there is one special individual who helped them along. In
some of our cases, it was a parent. Let us face it: most kids
in America, your parent is not a scientist or a doctor. And in
that case, it is a teacher. So we need to have a better way
to--I mean, we would all like to see teachers be like the best-
paid people in the country to recruit the people who are really
the very best, but we really need to find a way to reach the
teachers. Our children are just spending, you know, so much of
their waking hours in school. Everyone needs to encounter that
one special person to enable them.
Mr. Hultgren. I absolutely agree, and that was really where
I wanted to go next is, the idea is, much of this is sparked
grammar-school age, so, you know, maybe up to 6th grade, 7th
grade, 8th grade, maybe a little bit later in high school when
you really see, hey this is something I could pursue. Part of
the challenge is, I think a lot of teachers are intimidated,
certainly when you start talking about astrobiology. That would
be something for a 4th-grade teacher to have to inspire kids.
That would be intimidating. And so any ways that we can be
providing resources to teachers I think is so important, or
even bringing in people like yourselves to be talking to young
people to let them know how exciting this is and how their
generation could be the generation that makes this great
discovery. It could be one of them, and how exciting that would
be to do that.
So any way that--suggestions you have and really did want,
Dr. Seager, to take you up on your offer of a follow-up of
talking about education----
Dr. Seager. Yes. Well, I just want to offer three comments.
The first comment is that unfortunately, our education system
here in America including universities is the same as it has
been for hundreds of years.
Mr. Hultgren. Yes.
Dr. Seager. Number two, children, as you know, they love
their--the ones that have iPad or the Internet. The whole big
data social media thing is something that could actually be big
in schools where the teachers are not up on things. The third
thing I keep repeating is, it is very hard for us here to have
the long-term investment. The long-term investment is to change
the culture for our university undergraduate educated people
that they can and should be teachers at the elementary level.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, and I do think this is the type of
thing--you know, again, there is a disconnect with, we want to
have, you know, great education for our kids. We also struggle
with limited resources that we have got, how do we figure out
compensating teachers, getting the right people there, bringing
people from the outside who aren't necessarily certified but
can inspire to be engaged in the classrooms while bringing
business, bringing our laboratories, bringing NASA, every
possible way whether through technology or otherwise. You are
right, I mean, the door is open like it has never been before
to get that into the classroom but we have just got to do it.
Let me switch gears real quickly because, Dr. Seager, I
want to ask you a little bit more about the-- you mentioned the
coronagraph--is that right?--and then also the starshade, and
you also mentioned collaborating with the international
community as a cost-savings measure on that. I wonder if there
is any other countries that are doing work in those specific
areas that we should be aware of and has collaboration on such
projects already been discussed in the scientific community,
and how can we encourage that or push it forward?
Dr. Seager. Well, I would say that it is in ESA in Europe.
In the past when we were supporting a so-called terrestrial
planet finder mission, we did have an agreement with the
Europeans. I forget the other part of your question.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, it was just if there is--so it sounds
like Europe is open. Has that already started?
Dr. Seager. So Europe has recently made their choice for
their next big missions in the coming decades, and they did not
choose anything in exoplanets.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay.
Dr. Seager. I think that really just means the door may be
open for an international collaboration.
Mr. Hultgren. Okay. Part of our challenge--I am way over--
but I think it is frustrating when we have try and have these
international collaborations when we are running on CRs, where
we literally don't know month to month if we are going to fund
programs. Somehow we have got to get back to regular order. We
have got to get back to, I think, specifically with science is
pull it out of this year-to-year funding, worse, month-to-month
funding.
What I hear is, every other nation has five-year, ten-year,
twenty-year fully funded science budgets. When we come and talk
to them about collaboration, oftentimes they will laugh back at
us because they know we don't even know what is going to happen
after January 15th because that is when the C.R. expires. So we
have got some big struggles, would love to have your help on
all of these suggestions you would have for us to move forward.
My hope is that you get a sense that there is a desire,
that we are excited about this and we want to work with you and
want your help to do this well.
So with that, thanks, Chairman, for your graciousness, and
I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. The gentlewoman
from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and going along with my
colleague from Illinois, my question is, I started a STEM
academy in my district, but my question, all due respect, Dr.
Dick, how do we get more women and minorities involved? Because
it seems like, you know, we need so many more women represented
and minorities in the field, particularly African Americans.
Are there any best practices anywhere?
Dr. Dick. Well, I know that NASA Astrobiology Institute
does have summer workshops both for students and for the
teachers. I am not sure exactly how you encourage the women and
minorities to get involved in that, but I am sure the program
could be expanded and in that way you might get more, but I
would have to think about it more.
Dr. Voytek. Maybe I can speak to our programs. The
Astrobiology program actually has a minorities program and we
are working with the United Negro College Fund to teach the
teachers, and a cascade effect of training and providing role
models for students, so that they can see that this is
something that I can do. So one of the things that we do is
this minority institute program, which brings in scientists to
work side by side with other astrobiologists, and they are
encouraged to develop curricula to take back to their
universities, and we work very closely with Historical Black
Universities and other minority-serving institutions.
We also have internships that focus on underrepresented
groups, and I would be happy to share with the Committee all
the work that we have done up until this point in astrobiology,
both with missions and just within our own program, that target
curricula development, workshops for teachers and how--the
efforts that we have made to make astrobiology part of a STEM
approach.
Dr. Seager. I will just be brief and say we just need role
models. You need children to be able to see people in their own
community and schools that plants deeply in their mind, oh, I
can be like that. I think that is a big thing. And then we need
to change the culture at the higher institutions so that it is
okay to be different initially, and then we need critical mass
so there is no difference.
Ms. Kelly. I definitely agree with that. We work with 6th,
7th, 8th graders, and they don't even realize what the
possibilities are until we expose them to the possibilities,
and they are so thrilled with what we are doing, but it is just
that we have to move it from school to school. We can't just
keep coming back to the same students.
Thank you so much. Yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.
Chairman Smith. Oh, well.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question on
behalf of the whole Republican and Democrats.
Chairman Smith. Of course.
Mr. Hall. Do you think there is life out there? You know,
are they studying us, and what do they think about New York
City?
Dr. Seager. Well, let me just say that in our own Milky Way
galaxy, there are a hundred billion stars, and we now believe
in our universe we have more than a hundred billion galaxies.
So if you just do the math, the chance that there is a planet
like Earth out there with life on it is very high.
Mr. Hall. I didn't do the math. There is three things about
math I couldn't do, and that is add and subtract.
Dr. Seager. Well, if we had more time, we could work it
out. But let us just say that the chance for life is very high.
The biologists never like us to speculate in that way, but the
real question really is, you know, is there life very near her
in our neighborhood of stars, and that is the question that we
are really addressing for real for the first time.
Dr. Voytek. On behalf of the biologists, I think it is fine
to speculate. We think that life takes over any chance it gets,
and so we believe there is a high probability, and I think that
one of the amazing things about our own planet is whether they
are looking at New York or some small town in Indiana, the
diversity of life here and the way that we have chosen to live
our lives is just phenomenal, and I think it goes all the way
down from humans to microbes.
Dr. Dick. One of the great things about finding the other
planets is that it corroborates what many of us have viewed as
a guiding principle that what has happened here in our own
solar system has happened elsewhere. A lot of people didn't
believe that for a long time until 20 years ago when we started
to find the planets, and now we find that they are everywhere.
So it is another step, of course, to life and an even bigger
step to intelligence but I think the guiding principle holds
that what has happened here will happen elsewhere in this huge
universe.
Mr. Hall. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Hall, a good question to end
with, and let me thank you all for being here today. This has
been just--oh, I am sorry, the gentleman from Utah, Mr.
Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. I have been patiently waiting. Mr. Chairman, I
assume you are yielding?
Chairman Smith. I recognized you, I thought.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Smith. We will even give you an extra minute for
the oversight.
Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you, and it has been interesting,
and Mr. Hall actually jumped on something that I wanted to
maybe conclude with, and before I do, I thank the witnesses
once again, the panelists. It has been--it is fun to hear
something and not to leave a hearing frustrated or like you
want to throttle the other side like we do in some of our
hearings of course is overly politicized, and I appreciate, you
know, the recognition that it is in our human nature to explore
and to discover.
I want to come back and just be more specific, if I could.
Just very quickly, based on your experience, based on your
training and kind of your gut, do you think it is even
conceivable that there is not other life somewhere in the
universe? Is it even possible?
Dr. Dick. It is conceivable, but I mean, we really don't
know. This is why it would be such a great thing to find life
on Mars because if you find even microbial life on Mars or that
sort of thing at a low level, which is independent at the
beginning at life, an independent genesis, that means that life
began on two planets very close together where conditions were
possible, and you can from that extrapolate out to the rest of
the universe. But it is possible if we don't find life on Mars
and eventually over the years don't find life anywhere else
that it either doesn't exist or it is very rare. Now, you can
define ``rare'' yourself. If one out of a billion stars in our
galaxy has life, then you still have 400 planets with life on
them, so----
Mr. Stewart. Well, and I want to go kind of quickly on this
because I am actually trying to get to a point. Do you believe
that there is life out there, Dr. Dick?
Dr. Dick. Yes, I do.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. Dr. Seager?
Dr. Seager. Yes.
Mr. Stewart. Okay.
Dr. Voytek. Yes.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. I think most of us do. I mean, and you
look--as you have indicated here, you look at the numbers, it
is impossible almost--okay, forgive me for using
``inconceivable'' but it just seems essentially that there
would have to be somewhere.
And then kind of the presumption here of this hearing is
that eventually we are going to discover each other whether we
discover them or they discover us or however that process might
be, and I think in a lot of these conversations we assume that
the discovery might be that we find some basic form of life,
something, you know, not at all like us, I mean, bacteria or
microbes or whatever there might be, but it is possible as
well, isn't it, that we find a more sophisticated form of life?
Is that true?
Dr. Dick. Yes.
Dr. Voytek. Yes.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. Again, it would have to be at least
possible.
Dr. Dick. I will just say that my view is that microbial
life would be more abundant than intelligent life because it is
harder to get to intelligence, but on the other hand, you have
these vast scales of time that have evolved also.
Mr. Stewart. Yeah, exactly.
Dr. Seager. There is a chance that intelligent life is very
rare and not within our sphere to communicate with.
Mr. Stewart. And that is actually my next question, and
that is, what--let us assume that we find life. What do we do
then? I mean, do we--do you have conversations about what the
next step is? Are there any conversations about how we would
attempt to communicate with life, or how does that change
things for us in the way we view ourselves?
Dr. Voytek. I know that----
Mr. Rohrabacher. We do that with Twitter.
Mr. Stewart. No, this is intelligent life.
Dr. Voytek. We certainly discuss what would be the
implications for society, you know, what are the philosophical
ramifications, the religious ramifications, and we have funded
studies through the dialog on science and ethics and religion,
through the AAAS, and so we think about those aspects. I think
that--and I will say that--and I don't know about if we have
thought about how to communicate or invite them home for dinner
or what, but----
Mr. Stewart. So that really isn't either of your--it is not
within your realms of considering what we do after we discover
it? Is that true? Or do you consider that?
Dr. Seager. I don't know if it is the best place for us to
talk about it because this is one of the things that is sort of
in its infancy and maybe even a bit marginal, but people do
talk about it. Maybe you send up an ever bigger space
telescope, 50-meter telescope and find more. We need to get
pictures and detail of the planet. There are people here on our
planet now in our country who want to be able to send a robotic
probe to another star with a planet. It would take a very long
time to figure out how to do that and to actually get there.
But there are conversations going on. They are just not at a
really formal or well-articulated level.
Dr. Voytek. With the exception of the fact that since
probabilistically, we believe it is likely we will find
microbial life. People in my field are extremely interested in
getting a sample of that and being able to immediately compare
it to what life is like here and start abstracting more
information about exactly what life is, how do we define it,
how is it different, what have they learned on that planet that
makes it survive there, what can we learn in our own system. I
think that there is a plan as a comparative finding a species
or another example and so we----
Dr. Dick. This is exactly what I am working on at the
Library of Congress for my year right now. And I would also say
that there are protocols, official protocols, which have
actually gone through the United Nations about what happens if
you find extraterrestrial intelligence. Basically the plan is
to confirm it first and then tell everybody, not keep any
secrets.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. And that would be interesting, wouldn't
it, if some people knew and others didn't.
Dr. Dick. Right.
Mr. Stewart. And as interesting as it is to talk about the
discovery, I think the more fun conversation is what happens
after that and what we do with that information.
Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me the
opportunity.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Stewart, good questions.
Thank you again to the witnesses for your attendance today
and for speaking about such an interesting and fascinating
subject. I think you have enlightened us all, and we look
forward to staying in touch with you about the issues involved.
So thank you again. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Mary Voytek
Responses by Dr. Sara Seager
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.036
Responses by Dr. Steven Dick
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6895.031