[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION: BEYOND THE X PRIZE
=======================================================================
(109-2)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-870 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice- JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
Chair NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama BOB FILNER, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SUE W. KELLY, New York GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
GARY G. MILLER, California ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JULIA CARSON, Indiana
JON C. PORTER, Nevada TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
TED POE, Texas RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New York
LUIS G. FORTUNO, Puerto Rico
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., Louisiana
VACANCY
(ii)
?
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama Columbia
SUE W. KELLY, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey California
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM MATHESON, Utah
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TED POE, Texas JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
York, Vice-Chair BOB FILNER, California
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
VACANCY (Ex Officio)
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Page
Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 8
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, a Member of Congress from the State of
New York, Chairman, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 4
Douglass, John, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries
Association....................................................
80
Gomez, Lou, Program Manager, Southwest Regional Spaceport, New
Mexico......................................................... 18
Kelly, Michael, Chairman, Reusable Launch Vehicle Working Group,
COMSTAC........................................................ 18
Whitehorn, Will, President, Virgin Galactic..................... 18
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Berkley, Hon. Shelley, of Nevada................................. 32
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 41
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 63
Tauscher, Hon. Ellen, of California.............................. 67
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Blakey, Hon. Marion C........................................... 34
Douglass, John.................................................. 43
Gomez, Lou...................................................... 50
Kelly, Michael.................................................. 57
Whitehorn, Will................................................. 72
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION: BEYOND THE X PRIZE
----------
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
House of Representatives, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Aviation, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Mica. Good afternoon. I would like to call this hearing
of the Aviation Subcommittee to order.
We welcome the members attending. Unfortunately, today
there are a number of conflicting hearings and meetings. We are
getting a little bit of a late start and I apologize.
Today's hearing is going to focus on commercial space
transportation beyond the X Prize. The order of business will
be, we will hear my opening statement, and then the new Ranking
Member's opening statement, and then we will hear from Mr.
Boehlert, he has another commitment. Then if any other members
do have statements, we would be glad to recognize you, if that
is acceptable. So with that, let me welcome everyone again and
offer these opening remarks.
Today's hearing launches a new era in commercial
transportation oversight. Just four short months ago, Scaled
Composites' SpaceShipOne became the first privately operated
aircraft to launch more than 62 miles into space and return
safely twice in two weeks with a pilot on board. That
particular activity launched a whole new era in space and
passenger participation in commercial space travel.
This flight also altered our vision of what the aviation
system of the future will look like. We now see the
possibilities, including the development of space tourism. U.S.
spaceports, rapid global transportation, and point-to-point
commercial space flight services are all possibilities.
Yet it was not long ago when this was not at all what we
had envisioned. In fact, prior to the early 1980s, there was no
commercial space launch industry. Rather, we had private
payloads that were carried aboard government-owned launch
vehicles. Then several events prompted development of a United
States commercial space transportation industry. First, the
advent of international competition with the creation of a
European commercial launch services organization. Second, an
unaddressed demand for launch services with the banning of
commercial payloads, such as satellites, from flying aboard the
Space Shuttle after the Challenger disaster.
In 1984, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Act
which sought to encourage the development of the emerging
commercial space launch industry and also to facilitate
compliance with Federal requirements. Around this same time
licensing activities were consolidated in the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation within the Department of
Transportation. This office was transferred to the FAA in 1995.
By the year 2002, the U.S. commercial space launch industry
and the services and industries that it enabled accounted for
more than $95 billion in economic activity. But up until
October 2004, all commercial launches were conducted without a
crew or passengers on board.
Then the X Prize competition was announced to encourage the
development of human commercial space flight. The $10 million X
Prize was claimed by Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne with a
successful completion of a manned commercial space launch
mission in October of 2004. With this flight, the commercial
space launch industry entered into the next phase of its
development: manned commercial space transportation, which
raises new issues with regard to operations, impact analysis,
and also infrastructure development.
In order to encourage further development of commercial
space transportation, many pushed for an expansion of FAA's
licensing authority to include licensing space flights with
crews and also with passengers on board. Therefore, the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act passed Congress under
suspension of the rules at the end of the last session. This
Act gives the FAA the authority to license launches carrying
crew and space flight participants, otherwise known as
passengers. This recent development also brought the commercial
space transportation sector under the jurisdiction of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Obviously, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
views oversight of the commercial space launch industry from a
very unique perspective. Certainly, supporting this emerging
industry is in the best interests of the United States,
especially in light of growing international competition.
At the same time, ensuring that the FAA fulfills its
oversight responsibilities with regard to safety is also a
number one priority, and I know Administrator Blakey, who is
with us today, takes this all very seriously as well. As the
industry grows and develops, other issues will also require
this Committee's attention, including international
competition, and we see that now, Europe, China, Russia,
Ukraine, India, and Japan, they all offer commercial launch
services in competition with United States companies.
We also have issues of environmental impact analysis and
mitigation, we have questions relating to application of labor
laws, we also have questions of security of the launch
facilities, and finally, the current and future impact of
commercial space flights and commercial spaceports on our air
traffic control system and the safe and efficient use of
navigable air space.
I am pleased to welcome today the Honorable Sherwood
Boehlert, who is Chairman of the Committee on Science and an
active member of this Committee, to share his views with us
today. We are also pleased to have the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, the Honorable Marion Blakey
with us and we look forward to her testimony. For the first
time since the passage of the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act at the end of the 108th Congress, Administrator
Blakey will provide a public review of the FAA's role in
providing safety oversight of the commercial space
transportation industry. We also welcome our other expert
witnesses and appreciate the time they have taken to be with
us.
I would like to yield first, as I said, to our new Ranking
Member and again extend a warm welcome to Jerry Costello, who
is one of the most senior members of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Welcome, and you are recognized.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want you to know
that I look forward to working with you and the other members
of this Subcommittee and the full Committee.
We have a full plate and a lot of challenging issues in
front of us. A few of those issues, the financial condition of
the airline industry, the financial condition of the Aviation
Trust Fund, the modernization of the ATC system, just a few
issues, and then, of course, we will have to deal in the coming
days and weeks with the President's budget proposal which
significantly cuts the Airport Improvement program and also
funding for the ATC modernization program. But those issues
will be dealt with in another day.
Today we are here to address the issue of commercial space
transportation beyond the X Prize. I thank you for calling the
hearing on this important topic today. I am familiar with this
emerging industry as a member of the Science Committee, working
with Chairman Boehlert and our other members on that Committee.
I also am familiar with the industry because the X Prize
Foundation is based in St. Louis, Missouri, directly across the
river from my congressional district. So I am very familiar
with the X Prize Foundation and the program.
Many predict, as you stated, that commercial space tourism
will lead to regularly scheduled manned commercial space
flights that could generate upwards of $700 million a year in
revenue in years to come. As with any industry in its infancy,
we must be certain that it is receiving the proper Federal
safety oversight without discouraging innovation and
development.
I look forward to hearing from the FAA Administrator. I had
an opportunity to sit down with her earlier today and speak
with her concerning not only this issue but a number of other
issues. But I will look forward to hearing from the
Administrator today concerning the FAA's role in overseeing the
commercial space industry to ensure the safety of the
uninvolved public as well as the crew and space flight
participants.
As you noted in your opening statement, commercial space
launch activities will have an impact on our air traffic
control system as well as the environment. We must make certain
that the FAA has the proper tools that it needs to ensure the
safety of the flights for both aircraft and launch vehicles as
well as to protect the environment and other activities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, there are several
commercial spaceports currently under development that will be
used to support space tourism. This is a good time to examine
the issues associated with licensing these facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for calling the hearing
today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and look
forward to working with you.
Mr. Mica. Again I thank our Ranking Member and welcome him.
As I said, he is a senior member of the Transportation
Committee.
And as I mentioned the outline of our procedure today, I am
going to recognize Mr. Boehlert, also a senior member of the
Transportation Committee, but also Chair, a very important
Chair in the House, of the Committee on Science. We welcome
your remarks at this time, and then, as I said, we will go back
to members on our panel.
Welcome, and you are recognized, Mr. Boehlert.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, U.S.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Boehlert. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Subcommittee. I will be brief because you have got an
impressive list of witnesses and I know you are anxious to hear
what they have to say, I am anxious to learn what they have to
say also. We are following this very, very carefully. I just
want to use my time to make four simple points regarding
commercial human space flight.
First, the issue is important. As I mentioned during the
floor debate on the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments last
year, I am a convert to the cause. When our colleague Dana
Rohrabacher first started pressing the issue with me, I thought
the notion of commercial human space flight was, quite frankly,
a distraction.
But further research by the Committee, not to mention
further developments like Burt Rutan's flight to win the X
Prize, have convinced me otherwise. We do not know yet what
commercial space flight might lead to, but we need to give this
new industry a chance to develop.
That brings me to my second point, which is this, if this
new industry is to develop, if innovative technologies are to
be pursued, we need to strike the right balance in regulating
the industry. The law the President signed last year reflects a
year of negotiation that strikes the right balance--protecting
the public without stifling the industry.
This is an infant industry. It is not the equivalent of
today's airline industry. The law fully protects uninvolved
third parties and requires extraordinary disclosures to
immediate participants, and it sets the industry on a path
toward greater regulation as it develops. That is the right
balance and it passed muster with Members who are not exactly
in the anti-regulatory camp in both chambers of Congress. The
final wording was worked out between my staff and Senator
Hollings' staff.
Now we need to ensure that the FAA is implementing the law
properly, which is my third point. Our Committee is watching
the process like a hawk, as I know your Committee is. The law
needs to be implemented by the commercial space side of FAA in
the balanced manner intended. Obviously, the commercial
aircraft side of FAA can inform the process, but implementation
is not a commercial aircraft venture.
I look forward to working with the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, on which I also serve, to make sure
we get this right, and that is my fourth point. Our Committees
share jurisdiction over the human portion of the commercial
space flight industry. We must not allow disputes between our
Committees to magnify any rivalries within FAA or elsewhere. We
need to move together to implement a balanced and predictable
regulatory regime quickly and effectively. The T&I Committee
was helpful in clearing the law for passage last year and I
hope we can move forward in that same spirit.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me just say that this is a
much more complicated issue than it appears at first blush. We
learned that the hard way in a year of discussions with a small
but fractious industry. But thanks to the new law, we now have
a clear blueprint to move forward in a way that will protect
the public while helping a new industry get on its feet. And
that is something that we all applaud. I look forward to
working with you and this entire panel as the new law is
implemented. And I thank you for the courtesy of this time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Boehlert. What we will do, you can
certainly join us on the panel as your schedule permits.
Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated at the outset,
I now run over to chair a hearing of the Science Committee. We
are dealing with a subject of some import to all of us
involving CAFE standards.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well we thank you again for your input, and
we look forward to working with you and the Science Committee.
At this time, are there additional members that seek
recognition? Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions.
We had a discussion last fall on the House floor and we will
resume the discussion.
Mr. Mica. If anyone has any opening remarks, we will revert
now to them.
Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Chairman Oberstar and
I have had discussions for 40 years on Capitol Hill, starting
as staff members and now as colleagues. I have the highest
regard and respect for him and I always value his input.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I am glad you two are getting
acquainted.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. Mr. Oberstar, you are recognized. Thanks, Mr.
Boehlert.
Mr. Oberstar. The issue before us is not the value of
commercial space travel, which has been well-documented,
Chairman Boehlert referenced it, Mr. Chairman, you referenced
it in your opening remarks, as did Mr. Costello. The issue
simply is safety of commercial passenger space travel.
In the debate that we had on the House floor--the very
abbreviated debate in the context of the suspension authority
which limits debate to 20 minutes a side, no amendments to be
offered--we explored this subject and heard the litany of
remarks that are repeated in the testimony by witnesses today.
Chairman Boehlert began by saying we need to give this industry
a chance to develop.
We do not want to stifle this industry, said another Member
during floor debate, we do not want to stifle this industry
with over-burdensome regulation in its infancy. There was
reference to killing the baby in its cradle. The FAA did not
stifle jet travel in its infancy. The whole jet industry
emerged very successfully under the watchful eye of the FAA.
Nor did all composite general aviation aircraft die in the
cradle. Rather, it was nurtured to successful launch under the
watchful eye and the intense attention to safety of the FAA.
All we are asking for, all that I was asking for, that a
substantial number of Members concurred with, is the FAA to
take a safety role for the passengers. The FAA's statement
today is a reference to safety on the ground. If a launch
vehicle blows up or falls from space, we want to be sure that
people and structures on the ground are protected. We ought to
worry about the people on the plane. That is what safety is all
about. That is what the whole history is of the FAA safety, the
premier safety agency in the world.
This legislation now in law, the statutory language sets up
commercial space travel for what we in this Subcommittee over
twenty years have occasionally pointed to the FAA's failures as
being a tombstone mentality: wait until someone dies, then
regulate. I think FAA has moved beyond that. This law now says
you do not do anything about safety for eight years or until
somebody dies, then do something. That is not safety. That is
not being anticipatory. That is being reactive, and that is
what offends me.
I proposed language, which, frankly, I thought was way too
lenient, that would require the FAA in issuing licenses to
establish minimum standards to protect the health and safety of
crews and passengers, do not worry about the people on the
ground, and require the FAA, in setting standards, to take into
consideration, in the language of the amendment I would have
offered had we been included in any of those preliminary
discussions, ``the inherently risky nature of human space.''
That is all. A caveat that, God forbid, we would never put in
language today.
In defense of the pending bill, which is now a law, those
who were advocating it said, oh, well, everybody who travels in
space is going to have to sign a waiver saying that they give
up any claim and understand the risks they are engaging in. How
many people do you think would sign on to fly a Metroliner if
they had to sign such a waiver, a 19 passenger aircraft people
are afraid to travel on now? How many people do you think would
sign up to fly on a 747 if they had to sign that waiver today,
knowingly sign this waiver, you alone are responsible for
yourself and you have no claim? Nobody. That is nonsense.
This is not an attempt on my part to stifle human travel in
space for commercial purposes, but to give the FAA, the world's
premier safety agency, a role in setting standards for safety
of passengers and crew. All FAA has now is to worry about
people on the ground and let those who want to fly sign their
life away. That is not being responsible and that is not
carrying out your responsibilities to the traveling public.
We will go through this hearing, we will hear what people
have to say, but I come back to the point we need at least a
framework of safety around commercial space travel. By no means
would that language stifle. In fact, had we the majority I
would be writing something much more safety oriented, but for
the moment we will deal with this. At least put this little
framework around safety in commercial space travel. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. Do other members seek
recognition on the majority side? The minority side? Ms.
Berkley?
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. I want to welcome Mr. Costello as the new Ranking
Member of our Subcommittee.
Las Vegas is not only the entertainment capital of the
world, but north Las Vegas is the home of Bigelow Aerospace.
The company's goal is to bring human space travel into
commercial business. Bigelow Aerospace, working in conjunction
with NASA, is on the cutting edge of space technology. In
November of 2005, not many months from now, the company will
launch its Genesis spacecraft, a third scaled version of its
inflatable space habitat technology, and will launch again in
2006. These inflatable test spacecraft will be designed to last
for several years in orbit.
Robert Bigelow, the company's founder, is passionate about
commercial space technology and is committed to producing
technology that is safe, reliable, user friendly, and
economical. Mr. Bigelow is providing me with a statement
regarding the commercial space travel and the FAA's oversight
duties, which I will submit for insertion in the record and I
will provide our first witness a copy of that also.
Mr. Chairman, this is exciting technology and we must
strike a balance between FAA's oversight and private
innovation. The oversight and regulation of commercial space
travel must be sufficient to ensure safety but must not stifle
ingenuity.
I look forward to testimony of our witness, who I look
forward to hearing every time she comes, and learning more
about this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Are there other members who seek
recognition? Mr. Carnahan, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are
recognized, sir.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since this is my
first Subcommittee hearing, let me say, first, how happy I am
to be here to work with you, Ranking Member Costello, whose
district is right next to mine back in the St. Louis area, and
everyone on this Aviation Subcommittee.
The economy of my home region in St. Louis has a long
history to the aviation industry. It was Charles Lindbergh and
the Spirit of St. Louis that won the $25,000 prize in 1927 for
his historic flight from New York to Paris. Lambert-St. Louis
Airport has over $5 billion economic impact to our St. Louis
region. In addition, both American Airlines and Boeing are
major regional employers. Needless to say, issues under the
jurisdiction of this Subcommittee are especially important to
my area of the country and the people who live there. I am
honored to be here.
The U.S. commercial space transportation industry is at an
exciting stage of innovation and development. Given the recent
activity, this hearing on the future of the industry and the
FAA's role regarding safety, oversight is very timely. I look
forward to hearing the testimony, and have a great day.
Mr. Mica. Any other members seek recognition at this time?
If not, I welcome members to submit statements for the record.
We will leave the record open for a period of, Mr. Costello
moves ten days?
Mr. Costello. Ten days.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, so ordered.
We will now turn to our second panel. We have the Honorable
Marion Blakey, who is the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, here to testify. Welcome back. We are pleased
to see you and are anxious to hear your opinion and ideas on
this important subject. You are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Blakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say how
delighted I am to be here today. It is my pleasure to appear
before you for what I understand is the first hearing of the
109th Congress for this Subcommittee. I also want to
congratulate the new members of the Subcommittee, and of course
the new Ranking Member, Congressman Costello.
Secretary Mineta and I truly value our partnership to make
our nation's aviation and space transportation systems the
safest and most efficient in the world, and that partnership is
no more critical than with this Committee. Lastly, I
particularly appreciate Congressman Boehlert's leadership and
enthusiasm for commercial space.
Commercial space transportation, a phrase that is
relatively new to our lexicon, brings us here today. The space
you and I grew up knowing dealt largely with final countdowns,
and Jules Bergman. Space was a place where you saw flickering
black and white photographs, images with leaps of mankind. Not
any more. America's love affair with space is vicarious no
more. There is a bold new group of people, astropreneurs, and
their aim is to bring space flight into everyone's grasp.
But in the larger context, commercial space transportation
is much greater than the thrill private citizens will
experience. It is an important step for transportation and for
humanity. It is a recipe that is going to lead to greater
exploration, innovation, and safety. Our job at the Department
of Transportation is to enable the development of human space
flight industry while protecting public safety. Given the pace
at which this fledgling industry is developing, that is going
to be a real challenge.
In many ways, the environment we are in is similar to the
barnstorming days of early aviation. Those early fliers took
great risk as part of the deal. People who flew with the
pioneers also flew because they loved the thrill, and it opened
up a whole new world. Just as we learned in aviation, increased
experimentation and testing can and will lead to significant
advances in safety.
But that kind of progress takes both time and experience.
It was more than 20 years after the Wright brothers' first
flight before Government regulations concerning aviation were
put into place, and I will tell you, they were relatively
primitive and simple at that point. Safer designs and
operations were the eventual result, and continents, once
separated by months long voyages, would suddenly be only a few
hours apart.
Space flight, I think, is following a similar path. Since
the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act in 1984, there
have been 168 licensed launches, and the uninvolved public has
experienced no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant
property damage. That is an impressive safety record.
I would like to compliment the FAA's Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Patti Grace
Smith, who is sitting here behind me, and her team, and the
entrepreneurs who have worked so hard to get this endeavor off
the ground. Believe me, I think it has been a lonely enterprise
part of that time, but their work has definitely paid off. I
also want to emphasize the FAA's commitment to this endeavor.
We will continue to draw on our long experience and our very
formidable resources to advance commercial space
transportation.
The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004
establishes a framework, a phased approach, if you will, for
the emergence of this mode of transportation. It is a
streamlined permitting process, similar to aviation's
experimental airworthiness certificate which, as you know,
allows aircraft designers and manufacturers to test new ideas
as they come along. As this critical phase evolves to a point
where license determination is warranted, our safety review of
the vehicle's operations will be more in-depth and certainly
more comprehensive.
The Commercial Space law of 2004 also allows the FAA to
oversee space tourism entrepreneurs without hampering our
ability to enforce public safety. For piloted vehicles, the FAA
treats the crew as part of the flight safety system. This means
that the FAA protects the crew, not for its own sake, but for
the protection of people on the ground.
In short, those on board will receive more protection
because of the FAA's concerns for the safety of the uninvolved
public. The law calls for this approach and calls this approach
acceptable for what they consider, we consider, ultra hazardous
activity. Passengers on early flights will be engaging at their
own risk in an activity that is comparable to extreme sports,
such as mountain climbing.
As with any ultra hazardous pioneering activities, there is
an unfortunate likelihood that lives may be lost. During this
period, though, the FAA and the industry will gain significant
operating experience and will be in a better position to
determine what standards should be required.
To date, America has made tremendous strides. The $10
million Ansari X Prize was awarded to the crew of Scaled
Composites' SpaceShipOne. Pilots Brian Binnie and Mike Melville
joined forces with Burt Rutan and Paul Allen to make aerospace
history with the first private manned vehicle to reach space.
The infrastructure to make it happen is also well underway. We
have licensed and regulated launch sites in California,
Florida, Virginia, and Alaska. A fifth site in California's
Mojave Desert is the Nation's first inland location to receive
a license. And you will be pleased to know that we are in
discussions with Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas about their
license applications as well.
So, as you can see, the short view is exciting and a risky
picture. However, it is the longer view that will not only
drive this industry forward, it will create transportation
advances for all. What might now be viewed as adventure or
sport for the barnstormer and the risk-taker is what leads to
yet one more giant step for mankind.
The advent of greater access to space, more efficient
travel, greater opportunities for exploration, and the chance
at expanding the limits of human experience are there for the
taking. What is more, we are realizing that they are well
within our grasp. And that, history tells us, means it is going
to happen much sooner than we think.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I complete my remarks. I look
forward to any questions.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I have a couple of quick questions and
then will defer to other members.
First, Ms. Blakey, does the FAA have all of the tools and
authority that you feel are needed to ensure the safety of the
so-called uninvolved public?
Ms. Blakey. I think we have a good range of tools. Again,
when you look at the safety record to date, 168 launches with
no blemish on safety, I think it tells us that the license
system has been working well, and it is a robust system. In
addition to that of course, the new Act also gives us
additional tools. So at this point and this stage, I would
stress, in the industry's development, I think we are all
right.
Mr. Mica. Good. The second question is really two parts.
First, I spoke a little bit about the impact of commercial
space flights and commercial spaceports on the air traffic
control system. And within our sort of range, that is something
I would like to know what problems you anticipate and how we
handle that.
The second thing, once you get outside of our airspace,
what steps are we now taking as far as international agreements
and such, or where do we hang our future as far as
participation in outer space, which we do not control, with
other countries? So, a two-part question.
Ms. Blakey. I am not sure I can see far enough into the
future for the second part to be very definitive. But what I do
see right now is that the current system in terms of air
traffic control is working very well. Within the corporate
culture of FAA, it is obviously very easy for us to pull
together and ensure that there is close coordination at the
very earliest stage of any projected launch. It is working
well.
We essentially control that airspace, issue notams to
pilots, put in place TFRs, and to date, I will say it has
occurred without any hiccups. We have also a pretty good
blueprint for this as we see more and more of these kinds of
launches. Reusable launch vehicles are coming into use, not
only going up but coming back down and entering the airspace as
gliders often with characteristics of airplanes. I think we
will be able to use that blueprint that we have worked very
hard on to make sure that it really does not cause disruption
in the system.
In terms of international activities, what we see there, of
course, is that right now we have got some countries that have
put all of their resources--I don't mean to say all--they have
put significant resources from the national standpoint behind
launches. So the concept of private and commercial is very
different there than it is here. It is essentially a national
enterprise there. And they have had some real success.
But I will say that we have a lot of pride given that we
have also seen in recent years the growth here again in some of
the launches. We have had success there. So, it is a mixed
picture and certainly issues of authority, jurisdiction, et
cetera, are ones that we will be working with a time goes on.
The United States has never had any difficulty so far in
staking out outer space, and I would anticipate we could
continue that.
Mr. Mica. Before I get to my other question, it is
interesting, and Mr. Oberstar might be interested in this, I
thank everybody for their cooperation on this Capetown Treaty,
where, we do not pass treaties, but where we modified Federal
law to create a registry so we could participate in that
registry. I never realized when we did it that not only did it
apply to airplanes and airplane engines, but also to
spacecraft.
So, for once we are sort of ahead of the game, at least in
the commercial pecking order and financing and lien and title
of this equipment. Usually, if you can finance it in the
private sector, you can sell it. So we may be a little bit
ahead of the game from that standpoint. Just an aside.
The last question that I have is, would you anticipate that
we would have a minimum age for space flight, because you have
to give I guess informed consent under the legislation? How
would you handle the age question?
Ms. Blakey. I think the requirements of any kind of
sensible informed consent regime would prevent people under the
age probably of 18, which seems to be the consensus on that,
from being able to enter into this kind of risky venture. So I
think we will be covering that fairly clearly in those
guidelines.
Mr. Mica. That is interesting. In 25 years they are going
to come back and dig up the testimony of Administrator Blakey
on February 9, 2005, that said no one under 18 should fly in
space. I wonder how that will be received?
Ms. Blakey. Hopefully, in 25 years the risk factors will be
dramatically different and it will be commonplace, if that is
the case.
On your point about the international arena, too, I was
remiss in not saying that in a way we are also ahead of the
game in the area of reusable launch vehicles. Because of the X
Prize and now the X Prize Cup coming to New Mexico, we are
seeing a lot of international innovators and entrepreneurs and
companies wanting to come to this country to set up for that
industry. So I think we are actually serving as a catalyst in a
way that is going to be very exciting.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Blakey, let me ask you for the record to detail what the FAA
licensing procedures are especially when it comes to regarding
safety and the environment. What does an applicant have to go
through to apply for and be granted a space launch operation?
Ms. Blakey. There are five essential elements that we
analyze, and there is a great deal of depth in each one of
these, but I would simply tick off the fact that, first, we
have to be satisfied that there are no policy issues involved
with a particular launch. This has to do with national security
and broad issues. The second is the payload. That has to be
something that is appropriate and again without significant
hazard, and so the payload issues have to be satisfied.
The most intensive and robust of course is the third
factor, and that is, if you satisfy the first two, we examine
whether it is going to be a safe launch. There we have a good
bit of depth because we really look at it from the standpoint
of system safety and do a tremendous amount of analysis
therefore of all of the parameters of that flight. It goes to
whether or not, in terms of looking at risk, looking at the
hazards, and mitigation of those, has that been satisfactorily
done. One has to look at the operating parameters. Often we
have to require changes from an operational standpoint so that,
for example, there is not a trajectory that might put the
uninvolved public at risk.
And then, of course, we also look at the broad issue of
whether this is an acceptable level of risk in terms of
commonly understood standards. We have a very high requirement
there as well. So with all of that in mind, there are two other
factors in a launch license, and those go to the issues of
environmental concerns, and then financial responsibility. We
ask is this launch viable?
Mr. Costello. You mentioned on page two of your testimony,
and I will not go through the whole paragraph, but you say,
``As you may know, commercial space launches are inherently
dangerous and risky operations,'' and I think we all
acknowledge that. You also indicate further in your testimony
that since 1989 the FAA has classified 10 percent of its 168
licensed launches as failures. I wonder, if 10 percent of the
168 launches that were licensed were classified as failures,
what is the definition of a failure?
Ms. Blakey. The definition of a failure is a launch that
had to be aborted, that it had anomalies in it, or there were
problems that did not justify it proceeding. That would be a
failure. It is very different of course from an accident where,
again, you do have injury, loss of property, or, in the worst
case, loss of life.
Mr. Costello. In response to the Chairman's question about
the FAA's authority, flexibility to either regulate or to
address the issue of safety, to Mr. Oberstar's point, obviously
the legislation addresses the people who are on the ground, not
the crew or the passengers. I wonder, the same question, do you
believe that the FAA has the authority under the existing
legislation and the flexibility, when you say that safety is
the number three and the primary concern in the five criteria,
do you have the flexibility and the authority that you need now
to make certain to the best that the Agency can that the crew
and the passenger is safe as well as the people on the ground?
Ms. Blakey. I believe that the license process, which, as I
say, is highly detailed and involves not only the kind of
scrutiny I just detailed, but involves oversight and monitoring
throughout the launch itself, is a very robust one and allows
us a great deal of latitude in ensuring a sound performance.
What I would be reluctant to see us do is to try to
stipulate at this stage in the industry, design standards or
operating requirements. That really would have to be then one
size fits all for operations that we do not even know what they
are yet and the vehicles are not yet invented and made. I think
that is where we would find it difficult to engage. But the
concept of ensuring a sound performance from a safety
standpoint under the launch regime through licensing and now
permitting, I think will work.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Do other members seek recognition for
questions? Mrs. Kelly?
Mrs. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two
questions. I question the licensing process. Everybody here
probably knows this, but I would like to know how long that
licensing process takes and I would like to know what the cost
is.
Ms. Blakey. All right. Under the new legislation, we need
to have a license completed in 180 days. The permit process,
which again is new and is now envisioned, is 120 days. Now
there is a great deal of work that goes on before you formally
enter into the process and our staff engages very heavily in
consultations and the kind of discussion that gives a common
view when the application is formally made.
That said, the cost? I would be very hard pressed to
conjecture that. The next panel that is coming up I suspect
could give you some solid examples from their own direct
experiences in the private sector. I cannot tell you. However,
the law is also relatively new and the cost differs I think
significantly whether you are talking about the vast majority
of launches so far which involve expendable launch vehicles
versus the new reusable launch vehicles.
Mrs. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Additional questions? Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. I apologize for being late. I had three
meetings at the same time. Maybe this has been explored, and if
it has been, I apologize, but I am very concerned about safety
in this commercial flight trips. I wonder in the licensing if
you have standards for the safety of the vehicle?
Ms. Blakey. We look very closely at the safety of the
proposed vehicle in terms of its operating parameters, in terms
of some of the critical safety systems, engines, for example.
Propulsion is one of the things that we certainly focus on in
great detail. We try to understand why the design is set up the
way it is, what its performance envelope is, and then we try to
make sure that it will, in fact, deliver without a high degree
of risk to the public on whatever the proposed flight path is.
So there is a lot of work that goes into that without our
trying to anticipate what a vehicle should be or should look
like. That is what we want to allow the industry itself to come
forward with.
Ms. Johnson. Sure. In terms of the pilots, do they need the
same criteria or knowledge base as a regular pilot, or will
there be extra training?
Ms. Blakey. At this point, I think again we are going to be
looking at this case-by-case. Now I will tell you, it would be
hard to find folks more experienced than Mike Melville and
Brian Binnie, and they are our first two space pilots, if you
will. But I think what you are likely to see, and it's
certainly our expectation, would be that the people who are at
the controls will be highly experienced, many with test pilot
experience and other things that are analogous in terms of
their aviation experience as they step up. We have not set
particular certificates that are required yet.
Ms. Johnson. One last question. Are these flights without
liability?
Ms. Blakey. No, there is definite liability involved. What
I think is a sensible approach that we have taken so far, and
it is continued under this legislation, divides that liability.
There is essentially risk-sharing here, if you will. We require
an operator that comes forward for a launch license to take out
the first $500 million of insurance. So they have to step up to
the table. The government now indemnifies that launch for an
additional $1.5 billion. And should there be a catastrophic
event that would go past that cumulative total of $2 billion,
then the responsibility reverts back to the operator.
Ms. Johnson. I said that was the last, but one more. What
do you have to do to beef up your staff to accommodate the
additional expertise for this?
Ms. Blakey. The expertise on our staff?
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Blakey. You know, we have a broad range of scientists
and engineers, people who come to this from the standpoint of
missile experience with early launches and the development of
the missile industry, as well as people whose experience is
long and strong in aviation. I think that kind of cross-section
of experience is what we will look to enhance and increase with
people coming to it from an air traffic control standpoint as
this whole industry moves forward. I hope we will be able to
attract some people from the industry to join us so that,
again, the partnership is as strong as it can be.
Ms. Johnson. So the workload at this point is not heavy
enough to require additional bodies and minds?
Ms. Blakey. We are adding some staff now and we are hoping
to have the kind of workload that would call for adding to the
staff on an incremental basis. But I would return to one point,
and that is, we have a very strong corporate partnership in our
support for commercial space. We have everything from the
medical research capabilities of CAMI out in Oklahoma City, we
have the tech center that can do interesting and important
research that can support this, as well as all of the expertise
that comes to it from the aviation safety and air traffic
control side, and our airport regulators.
So, with all of that, it is not just the Office of
Commercial Space. They are the lead, they are the ones who have
the authority, but they draw on this expertise in a corporate
partnership. We have got an integrated product team now that
brings all those people together to support the office.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Other members with questions who seek
recognition? Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Blakey, thank you for your distinguished
presence among us. You always shed light and bring grasp and
understanding of aviation issues to our Committee and to the
public, the aviation community. I realize this is a little
difficult position for you to be in, addressing safety and
passenger space travel. I read with some great interest your
statement at Page 6, ``government requirements for building or
designing an aircraft date from 1926.'' Do you remember who it
was that initiated those regulations?
Ms. Blakey. I can tell you what they were but I cannot tell
you who. Perhaps you could. I will bet you can.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Oberstar. Yes. It was an Assistant Secretary of
Commerce who was slapped down by the industry and by the
Secretary of Commerce and his White House for having the
audacity to suggest that the government should regulate air
travel, the safety of air travel. You will stifle this
industry, they said.
And in the 1920s aircraft had the bad habit of losing a
wing in flight, losing an engine in flight. So this Assistant
Secretary of Commerce pulled his horns in and bided his time
and he became Secretary of Commerce, and then he launched the
regulations. Herbert Hoover--Hoover insisted on the regulation
of safety in aviation less for protecting those who would
travel than for advancing the cause of commercial aviation.
``If we do not make it safe,'' he said, ``people will not use
it.''
So now we are at the dawn of another era 80 years later. As
President, Hoover insisted pressing the agenda on safety. He is
not given much credit for it, as something else happened along
the way to obscure his presidency. But I will always give him
credit for that vision of what was needed in the service of
industry and, incidentally, service of safety for the traveling
public. Now safety is imbedded in our mind and heart and the
fabric of the FAA.
As I said, it is the premier agency and other aviation
agencies take their lead from the FAA and other countries of
the world look to the FAA. Brazil would not approve an Embraer
aircraft until the FAA first had certified it. Airbus, for all
of its competition with Boeing, knows it cannot put an aircraft
in the air--I remember a meeting with Airbus in Toulouse when
the president, Jean Pierson, said, ``It is extremely important
for us that the FAA accepts our design, because when it does we
can sell this airplane anywhere in the world.'' All right. Now,
with that background, give me an example of a safety regulation
that would stifle this industry.
Ms. Blakey. I think the concern about a regulation that
would be prescriptive is that we are not anticipating some of
the kinds of innovation, some of the kinds of operations that
could be, should be explored and could be, in fact, the real
making of this industry. We have only had--
Mr. Oberstar. What would you do, what would FAA do that you
would sign off on that would stifle this industry from the
standpoint of safety?
Ms. Blakey. We would certainly try not to. But I think the
concern is we do not know enough to set out a regulatory regime
yet for operations and for the design of vehicles that we do
not know what they are yet.
Mr. Oberstar. Do you think it is a good idea to wait until
there is a crash and a fatality to issue such regulations?
Ms. Blakey. We will not wait until there is a crash. One of
the things that I really do believe--
Mr. Oberstar. But you are prohibited from doing anything
until that by the law.
Ms. Blakey. The licensing regime and the permitting regime
gives us great latitude.
Mr. Oberstar. You know, I disagree with you. FAA has the
skill, the expertise, the understanding of aerodynamics and
design to be able to look at a vehicle and say, you know,
consider the context of the language that I offered,
``inherently risky nature of space travel'' and say this is
inherently risky, but this is really crazy, you ought not to do
this.
Ms. Blakey. I think the license regime, I think the
permitting process gives us great latitude to do that. One
thing I will stress, and I very much appreciate the confidence
that your remarks signify in the FAA, the FAA has a long and
important reputation for ensuring safety that we will not
compromise in any way. That will continue. And the vehicles
under which we can do it currently I think allow for us to do
that job and do it very well. It will be on a tailored basis,
it will be on the basis of each one of these as they come to us
because we cannot anticipate what they will look like. But you
can believe me, we will oversee safety.
Mr. Oberstar. You said in your testimony that you will
regulate safety to protect people on the ground. That would in
my mind indicate that the FAA would look at a design and a
structure and, if it found a design feature that was flawed,
likely to cause a crash, and your engineers know what they are
looking at when they look at conventional aircraft and say, you
cannot do that, that if it were likely to cause a crash over a
populated area, you would intervene.
Ms. Blakey. Absolutely. We would not grant a permit or
license.
Mr. Oberstar. So why would you not intervene in a design
flaw that is likely to endanger lives of passengers aboard an
aircraft that is going to the edge of space?
Ms. Blakey. The two things are inexorably linked.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, you are prohibited from doing that
under the law.
Ms. Blakey. I think what we are concerned about--
Mr. Oberstar. But given the authority, you could do that,
could you not, in a way that would not stifle the advancement
of science?
Ms. Blakey. I think the protection of the uninvolved public
goes a long way toward protecting those who are in the craft
itself. What I will say though--
Mr. Oberstar. Do you think a simple waiver of
responsibility is sufficient to protect people?
Ms. Blakey. I think it informs them. And I think as adults
who want to engage in risky exploration, and that is what this
is. This is not transportation and I think it is a mistake to
make analogies to transportation, people are not using it to
get from here to there. This is not routine, this is much more
comparable to climbing Mount Everest than it is to anything
else.
Mr. Oberstar. I think you and the others miss the point.
Experimentation with human lives, we do not allow that in the
laboratories of the Food and Drug Administration or of the
National Cancer Institute. Why should we allow it on space
travel?
Ms. Blakey. We do not prohibit all sorts of risky sport
activity, all sorts of risky exploration. In fact, this country
thrives on it.
Mr. Oberstar. Oh, I think you miss the point. Your agency
is the premier agency for safety. You ought to accept the
responsibility and not be abdicating that responsibility.
Ms. Blakey. The FAA, believe me, will always step up on
safety. And I think as we look at this over time, we are going
to see that the authority we have is flexible enough to address
most of the concerns we can anticipate. There will be some none
of us will be able to anticipate.
Mr. Oberstar. What you are saying to me, though, in
roundabout fashion, is that we are not able to conjure up
regulations you would issue at this time that would stifle the
advancement of this technology to launch people in commercial
passenger travel in space.
Ms. Blakey. I think that what we think is that we have the
authority we need currently as far as we can see. And let me
also just say this. This legislation is brand new, passed
December, as you point out. We are working with it ourselves.
Over time, if we find that it is hamstringing us, if it is
causing problems that we can see from a safety standpoint,
believe me, we will be the first to stick up our hand, no
question about it. But at this point, from what we can see, I
think we believe we can make this work.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, I have great lung power, but I will not
hold my breath that long.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman. Are there any further
questions for this witness?
[No response.]
Mr. Mica. I thank you, Ms. Blakey, for being with us and
for your testimony today. Sort of an exciting launch of our
Subcommittee hearings and actually a new era. And given my gene
pool, I do not think I will be here in 2030, but I have asked
Holly to check out your testimony in 2030 in light of some 25
years.
Ms. Blakey. I hope we will both be around to check that
out.
Mr. Mica. We thank you and we will excuse you at this time.
We now call our third panel, our last panel, and thank them
for being patient. We have four witnesses here.
First, we have Mr. John Douglass, president and CEO of
Aerospace Industries Association; we also have Michael Kelly,
who is chairman of the Reusable Launch Vehicle Working Group,
COMSTAC; we have Mr. Lou Gomez, program manager of the
Southwest Regional Spaceport in New Mexico; and then finally,
Mr. Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic. I would like
to welcome all of our witnesses. If you have any lengthy
statements or information you would like to be made part of the
record of this hearing, just request so through the Chair.
We will recognize first and welcome back Mr. John Douglass
with the Aerospace Industries Association. Welcome, sir, and
you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN DOUGLASS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AEROSPACE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL KELLY, CHAIRMAN, REUSABLE
LAUNCH VEHICLE WORKING GROUP, COMSTAC; LOU GOMEZ, PROGRAM
MANAGER, SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SPACEPORT, NEW MEXICO; WILL
WHITEHORN, PRESIDENT, VIRGIN GALACTIC
Mr. Douglass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
thanking you for having this hearing. This is an important
subject and I appreciate the fact that you and Mr. Costello are
taking the time to do this. With your permission, sir, I would
like to enter my written statement into the record.
Mr. Mica. Without objection, your entire statement will be
made part of the record.
Mr. Douglass. What I am going to try to do is very quickly
summarize some points that were in my statement. I have also
made a couple of notes from listening to the discussion that
has gone on before and I will just try and add a few comments
that might be helpful to the Committee relative to the
discussions that went before me.
The first thing I think to point out that needs to be
pointed out is that while this commercial space part of the
aerospace industry is a very important and vital part, it is
still a very small part of our overall aerospace industry in
the United States. In 2004, we had total sales of about $160
billion, $38 billion of it were in space related products, $20
of those $38 billion were done by the Department of Defense,
$16 billion were done by NASA, and $2 billion were done in the
commercial sector. So, $2 billion out of $160 billion.
But it is a part of our future that we hold to be very
important, and it is also very tightly laced into what we do as
a society on a day to day basis. More and more of our
communications, of our banking information and so on is going
through commercial space products.
To the discussion that went on before, it is important to
note that of all of the launches that were mentioned in the
previous testimony, only one of those launches involved humans.
All the rest were non-rated systems. And it is likely that for
a considerable period into the future the preponderance of
commercial space launches are going to be unpopulated launches,
and that is an important thing to remember as you look at the
regulation of this whole part of the industry.
It is also important to note the dependence of our economy
and our national security on commercial space. That is a
growing dependence and it is a dependence that is vital both to
our national security and to our economic security. It is also
important, Mr. Chairman, to note that this part of our
industry, just like the aircraft production base, tends to be a
cyclic part of our production.
As you are I am sure aware, when commercial satellites were
first begun to be launched, they had fairly short lifespans,
they had to be launched again in fairly small increments of
time. Today, we can put commercial space systems into orbit
that can last ten, fifteen years, fairly long periods of time.
And what happens is the market tends to get saturated, then
there will be a few lean years, then opportunities again open
up.
It is also important to note in that context, in the
beginning of this part of the space industry, the United States
was pretty much the sole provider of commercial launch services
to anybody in the world that wanted to go into a commercial
space endeavor. Because of the entry of other nations into this
arena, we are now at about 50 percent of the global market.
It is important for us to recognize that we do not want to
see the U.S. market share of this part of our industry decline
further. Today, in the commercial space arena we have, in
addition to the United States, we have the Russians, we have
the Chinese, we have the Indians, we have the Brazilians, and
probably our biggest competitor is, of course, the EU nations.
I want to also knit a couple of things together about the
discussion that went on before. One of the things that our
industry is most concerned about for the future is the
development of a new air traffic control system for our
atmospheric traffic of the future. It is very likely that a
significant portion of that system is going to be a space-based
system.
We certainly do not want to tie the Administrator's hands
in how that is constructed. It could be a space-based system
that was shared with the Department of Defense, it could be one
that is an FAA operated network of its own, Chairman Blakey or
whoever comes after her may want to have their own
constellation, but it could be a commercial constellation which
provided space-based imagery to our system, and we certainly
would not want to rule that out.
To the discussion about the safety issues that were
mentioned earlier, it is too bad that Mr. Oberstar had to leave
because I frankly would be interested in his response to our
long-range vision of how this should operate. The key issue
that we see today, sir, is that we want the system that
eventually evolves for commercial space travel to as closely as
possible mimic the system that we have for atmospheric air
travel.
In other words, we would like to see a series of
certificates established, a type certificate for the system
that would be the launch system, and an operator's certificate
for operating that system. Now you could imagine, sir, if we
had to get a separate license every time an airplane took off
in the United States, it would be a gillion licenses, and we
cannot do that. That is why we have a type certificate and an
operator's certificate.
And eventually, we are going to get into a regime where the
number of commercial space launches will be so numerous that we
will not be able to do that mission on a mission-by-mission
basis, we will have to have these type certificates. The sooner
we can move to that regime, the better that industry would like
it.
I think my time is up, sir. I would be glad to answer any
questions along any of these subjects.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We will defer questions until we have
heard from the other panelists.
I will now recognize Michael Kelly, Chairman of Reusable
Launch Vehicles Working Group. Welcome, and you are recognized,
sir.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you very much. I will greatly abbreviate
my comments, which are twofold in their focus. The first is to
tell you the direction that we believe that the emerging
private commercial space transportation industry is taking, and
this is hereafter referred to as the industry, and then on how
the industry has planned to address the issues left open by the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.
Now for the first time since it began many, many years ago,
this industry actually is emerging. But we have a long way to
go before there is such a thing as an ongoing, revenue-
producing industry and even the smallest of stumbles could add
years of delay.
The main thing that has happened over the past couple of
years in the way of establishing a market for this industry has
been the recognition that personal space flight, the conveyance
of paying passengers into space, is now the only reasonable
market that will sustain initial development of private space
transportation systems. Burt Rutan demonstrating his reusable
space ship, Richard Branson stepping forward and establishing a
credible operating company, and the market being demonstrated
by two paying passengers having flown into space on Russian
launchers have all brought this into focus as being a real
market and the one that is going to sustain the industry.
Now, the government has kept pace with this. The Commercial
Space Launch Amendments Act was the first piece of legislation
ever to address human passenger space flight. It continued to
provide for the safety of the uninvolved public, but it does
not preempt the right of space flyers to take their own
informed risks, and I highly commend the Congress for
recognizing individual rights.
That does not mean that safety of space flyers is not a
serious issue. This is the other half of the equation. And if
it is not addressed in legislation, how is it to be ensured?
This is the foremost concern of the industry.
And in order to answer the question of how we ensure the
safety of flight, both out of a concern for human life and also
for the health of the industry which would be severely damaged
by unsafe operations, a group of industry leaders met earlier
this year in January to discuss an industry solution for
ensuring the safety of space flyers. They developed a plan to
establish a federally-recognized Industry Consensus Standards
Organization. The primary purpose of this would be to formulate
industry Consensus Standards that would ensure the safety of
space flyers. Any time industry Consensus Standards exist, they
take the place of Federal regulations.
Such standards are prevalent in the United States. The best
example, and I use this for a specific reason, is Underwriters
Laboratories. Not only electrical devices, but almost every
hazardous device sold in this country carries a UL stamp of
approval. This is an independent organization whose stamp of
approval carries the weight of over a century of experience and
gives a device both market acceptance and a limit to liability
for the manufacturer, that people, while they do not have to
get that stamp of approval, should do nothing else. We believe
the same stamp of approval will provide the same level of
safety and protection for both passengers and manufacturers and
operators of space ships.
Of course there is only one way to ensure perfect safety,
and that is not to engage in an activity. If the Government
regulates the safety aspects of space flyers themselves, we
think this would be tantamount to prohibiting personal space
flight as an activity. There is no experience base on which to
formulate regulations that are similar to the ones that FAA has
used for years. The only people who are gaining the experience
that can be applied quickly and in the time required to support
this industry are the people who are in it themselves. That is
why we advocate an Industry Standards group, and independent
one, rather than a Federal regulatory agency.
Congress has shown its commitment to guaranteeing the
freedom of this industry to grow as a commercial enterprise and
maintaining that course is I think something we as an industry
would like to see happen. We are certainly stepping up to our
part of the job by taking responsibility for the freedom that
we do have to trade value for value with people, selling them a
service to convey them into space with the informed consent
that they have that this is a risky operation.
That concludes my oral arguments. I have a much longer
written statement that I am sure you have questions about.
Mr. Mica. We will be glad to put the entire statement in
the record if you would like to submit it. We thank you for
your testimony.
We will hear now from Mr. Lou Gomez, program manager of
Southwest Regional Spaceport, New Mexico. Welcome, sir, and you
are recognized.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to brief
the Committee on the status of the New Mexico Spaceport
development efforts. I will be briefing you on what we have
done so far and what our plans are, what our progress is.
Before I get started, I want to thank the FAA, particularly
Administrator Marion Blakey and Associate Administrator Patti
Smith for their continuing support for our program.
Some of our program highlights in the developing our
spaceport. From 1994 to 1996, we completed feasibility studies
for an inland spaceport. From 1966 to 1967, we conducted
environmental studies and submitted initial license application
to the FAA. In 1998, we submitted a Statement of Qualifications
to Lockheed Martin to host the VentureStar program. The
Lockheed Martin folks told us that our proposal was top rated.
In 2003, we submitted a proposal to the X Prize Foundation to
host the X Prize Cup. And in 2004, New Mexico was selected to
host the X Prize Cup.
New Mexico has several advantages, including low population
density, uncongested airspace, altitude advantages, excellent
weather, and State support, both political and popular.
This chart here shows the population density of the United
States. As you take a look at that red circle there, you will
see where the spaceport is located. Of course, you can see that
we have very, very low population density and this feeds back
into the safety problems that you were discussing earlier,
because one of the things you have to satisfy is the FAA
requirement for flight safety and being able to meet their
expected casualty rates. So you can see that helps us
tremendously in that area.
The next chart shows the air traffic throughout the United
States. Again, if you take a look at that red circle, you will
see that the spaceport is located in an area where there is
hardly any air traffic. The reason for that is we are adjacent
to the Army's White Sands Missile Range and they have
controlled airspace and that limits the air traffic through
that area.
The next chart is a chart that we put together using
VentureStar vehicle performance data. We actually put this in
our proposal to Lockheed Martin. What we did is we took their
vehicle performance data, put together this chart, and it
basically shows that by launching from New Mexico, we are at an
altitude of 4300 feet and our latitude is 38.2, you can pick up
almost 3,000 pounds of payload to orbit by launching from New
Mexico versus some of the other sites in the United States.
We have excellent weather. Southern New Mexico's benign
climate is amenable to year-round outdoor work. Major weather
disturbances such as hurricanes and tornadoes are rare, and we
have no salt air corrosion.
The Southwest Regional Spaceport is located in southern New
Mexico in Sierra County, between Las Cruces and Truth or
Consequences. It is shown there on the map as the Southwest
Regional Spaceport. Also shown there to the right in green is
the White Sands Missile Range and that is what helps us in our
controlled air space.
Since winning the X Prize Cup, New Mexico has been working
to develop the program and required infrastructure. The drawing
I am about to show you is a conceptual layout that includes
runways, launch/landing pads, propellant storage areas, vehicle
assembly buildings, office and control buildings. If you look
at that chart, this is an actual view of the Southwest Regional
Spaceport itself. The buildings are conceptual, but the land
itself is where the spaceport will be located. As you can see,
there is very, very low population density, it is flat, so that
helps our flight safety situation.
As far as issues and concerns, we believe that commercial
space is an emerging industry that has the potential for
significant positive impact on the U.S. economy. We ask
Congress and the regulatory agencies to take a careful approach
to legislation and regulation of this industry to ensure that
unintended negative effects do not occur.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, this
concludes my presentation. I will be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Mr. Mica. Again, I thank you.
We will now hear from Mr. Will Whitehorn, who is president
of Virgin Galactic. We appreciate your patience. Welcome, and
you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Whitehorn. Thank you very much, Chairman. I will not
repeat the statement which I have brought forward today. I will
just make a few comments to endorse those that my colleagues
have made already.
This is a fledgling industry. It is an industry which, in
terms of passenger carrying, is in its infancy, an infancy
which began last year with the first flights of SpaceShipOne.
We, as a group of companies involved in the airline industry
worldwide, we have three airlines operating around the world,
one of which flies into many cities in the U.S.A., we take
safety extremely seriously at Virgin Group and we would not be
entering this industry unless we had a safety culture to bring
to it.
One of the reasons that Burt Rutan and Paul Allen have been
very keen to work with Virgin on the second phase of the
SpaceShipOne project, we call it SpaceShipTwo, one of the
reasons they have been keen to work with us is because of the
culture we bring of being involved in the civil aviation
industry.
Virgin has been operating in that industry now for nearly
30 years and we actually have a unique record worldwide in that
we have never lost a single passenger in an accident, despite
operating around the world over 120 aircraft. We have also been
for nearly ten years now in the rail industry in the U.K.,
where we have introduced the most modern fleet of trains in the
United Kingdom. We carry 50 million passengers a year in that
industry. We have never lost a single person in an accident.
Now we intend to bring this culture to this industry right
from the word go. But we would not enable ourselves to raise
the funds to develop this business and order the spaceships
necessary to create a space industry which would eventually
lead to a wider commercialization of space and cheap economical
and safe satellite launching, and eventually space exploration,
this could not be achieved if it was stifled at birth as an
industry by a regulatory structure which was designed for a
mature industry. So we endorse the way that Congress has passed
an Act which does allow an investment to take place in this
industry.
That does not mean to say that as an operator working with
a manufacturer, Burt Rutan Scaled Composites, we will not make
safety the highest priority. We intend to build the spacecraft,
which I have just been in the Mojave Desert contracting to have
built, the first five spacecraft, we will build them beyond
what we would regard as a certification of aircraft in the
United States, that we will take the choices as to how we do
that and we will work with the FAA to ensure that they consider
the decisions that we have taken in the circumstances of the
knowledge that we have at this time to be the best ones. Not
every decision that is taken in these early years will be the
right one. But it will be taken in the best and informed way by
the parties. Mistakes may be made, but they will be learned
from.
But given that we have had 1,800 people who have now
approached us wishing to fly in the early years, and given that
they read like a textbook of Hollywood, Congress itself,
international stardom, we are hardly likely to launch space
flights which will kill these people. It will not be our
intention to operate in anything but the safest way possible.
We have put our brand on the line by going into this
industry. But our $120 million initial investment in buying the
technology from Paul Allen, and $100 million on building the
first five spaceships with Burt Rutan is an investment we are
making in the United States. We intend to operate in the United
States and we intend to build our second and third operations
after Mojave in maybe places like New Mexico, Florida, or other
parts of the USA where spaceports are developed. We are
intending to do that and invest in building a U.S. company
because we believe the regulatory environment for doing it is
the right one and the right decisions have been taken to
encourage this fledgling industry.
I personally see it much more in terms of Wilbur and
Orville Wright. If we see Burt Rutan as being like the Wright
Brothers in this industry and what we have had before is what
existed before aircraft were developed in the early 1900s,
before we had an industry which was based upon transporting
people across the Atlantic in large ships, large ships which
were heavily regulated in their construction by the late 19th
century, in fact, so regulated that they built the world's
safest ever ship called the Titanic and look what happened
there. That was the most regulated industry of its time in the
world.
Along came the changes that took place in 1903 when two
brothers built an aircraft that managed to fly and the rapid
development of that industry which created an industry through
both the First World War and beyond it, which then got to
maturity level by 1926 which deserved regulation. It was
regulated in the United Kingdom first. In fact, the FAA in the
United States was modelled on the CAA in the U.K., which is the
world's oldest regulatory structure for aircraft design. That
development was not right at the beginning. The FAA was not
created by Herbert Hoover to kill an industry. It was there to
create a standard for it.
Now we have learned from those lessons in the aviation
industry today and we believe that, working with the FAA, the
new industry that is forming can create those standards of the
future. As they develop, they can be introduced. And if this
industry gets it wrong and the FAA gets it wrong, Congress will
be the first people down the throats of this industry, and I
will not have a brand worth its name. So we do not intend for
that to happen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I thank all of our panelists for their
testimony. A couple of questions now.
Mr. Douglass, what do you believe that the FAA's role
should be in providing safety oversight of commercial space
transportation industry?
Mr. Douglass. I think eventually it needs to be pretty much
the same that it is for airplanes, sir. When you think about
what is happening today in I guess the term would be human-
rated commercial space systems, we are probably inventing some
new terminology here because this is such a new thing, many of
the scientific things that are taking place have already been
pioneered by the government in various ways.
For example, this remarkable achievement of SpaceShipOne,
as remarkable as it is, was achieved almost 40 years ago by
NASA and Alan Shepard's first suborbital flight. So our
government and our industry knows a lot more about this kind of
stuff than let us say the government and the industry did
during the first 10 or 20 years after the Wright Brothers flew
their airplanes. Everybody was learning it together in those
days.
In this instance, you have a situation where the government
has invested in this and has made a number of wonderful
achievements in space, and now the commercial industry is
following down that path. So we do know a lot more. And I think
there is a role there for the FAA but it should be as close as
possible to the way they regulate air traffic.
Mr. Mica. The U.S. has lost quite a bit of business in the
commercial space launch industry. As far as U.S. commercial
space transportation industry, how do you see that competition
evolving? Now Mr. Whitehorn is pretty optimistic. He felt that
within our regulatory environment, et cetera, that they could
launch their project within the United States. Do you think we
will lose to the international arena if we get too bogged down
in regulating and sort of protecting the industry against
itself?
Mr. Douglass. We certainly have to be mindful of what is
going on in other parts of the world and we need to have a
regulatory regime here in the United States that recognizes
that this is going to end up being a global phenomena. The
Russians already, as you know, are using their government
systems to take people up to space for a very large amount of
money. So one could argue in a sense the Russians are already
ahead of us in this.
I think, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, people do not
really know how big this market is going to be. I find what
some of my colleagues have said today interesting and
courageous and it is wonderful that people are willing to put a
lot of money into investing this. But I just cannot sit here
today and tell you that this is absolutely going to happen. And
I have a lot of confidence, frankly, in this Committee and
confidence in Administrator Blakey and Secretary Mineta to walk
the balance that you need, to regulate when you need to, but to
give latitude when you need to. I think we have struck a pretty
good balance so far.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Gomez, have you given Ms. Blakey a request
for AIP funding for your project?
Mr. Gomez. Yes, we have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. I thought you would appreciate that
one.
Mr. Kelly, you seem to think that there will be some
inevitable problems and possibly accidents or something to set
this program back. Somewhere I thought I heard you say that we
might anticipate some of these possible eventualities, such as
we have developed with our aviation experience and the
development of our commercial passenger aviation system. And by
the same token, I thought I heard you also say that, basically,
we should stay out of the Government regulation of commercial
space transportation industry. How do you reconcile those?
Mr. Kelly. Good question.
Mr. Mica. Maybe I took something out of context.
Mr. Kelly. No, no, no. Actually, it is a very good question
because I want to distinguish among three different things. One
is, first of all, the regulation that is now in place for
ensuring the safety of the uninvolved public. That is not only
an appropriate function of Government, Government is the only
entity that can do this. It has consequences that go far beyond
simply the reckless actions of someone flying too close to a
population area. There are international aspects, treaty,
national security issues, et cetera. Only the Government can or
should regulate these things. And it is doing a very good job.
AST does this through its launch licensing process.
The second area--I think Administration Blakey made an
excellent remark--in the early days of personal space flight,
this is not transportation, this is an adventure activity. That
is what the first flights are going to be like. People are
going to be taking risks not in the way they would getting on a
bus or on an airplane or a train.
I am impressed with the safety record you have because rail
travel historically has been the most dangerous of anything.
Quite an achievement. They are going to be getting on something
that they know is dangerous, that is all there is to it. It is
a risky business. And the farther and faster you go, the more
risky it gets. There will be fatalities. Nobody wants them. It
is something that the industry and the passengers are just
going to have to deal with. But they will.
The industry is going to pose itself to get experience as
quickly as it can and disseminate it among the developers and
operators as quickly as they can. It happens now in all other
industries and this one is no exception. And so for the phase
of the exploratory and adventure part of this industry, I do
not think that you can have anything else but a self-regulated
industry.
Now when it goes into the mode of having what would be a
common carrier regular transportation system, I think that is a
gray area. I think that FAA has done a very good job at
ensuring passenger safety, there is no question about that. I
am not sure that it has done the best possible job only because
Government, by its very nature, takes longer to introduce
safety innovations than industry does.
That is not a criticism at all. They do provide a high
level of safety, there is no question about it, whether it is
as high as it could be is another question. However, the
industry to some extent supersedes this anyway. Boeing, for
example, has a certification regime that incorporates the FARs
as a subset. Theirs is actually much more stringent than the
Federal Aviation Agency. That is not true of everybody, but it
certainly true of some companies.
Mr. Mica. I thank you for your testimonies. I thank all of
our witnesses.
Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Kelly, I was
going to ask you my first question and it was the last question
that the Chairman just asked, because I was kind of confused as
to what the Government's role in your view should be as far as
regulation and safety.
And I was going to ask you, if you were saying in your
testimony, as I read it here, that the industry has higher
standards, in many cases far superior to the Government, and it
says in terms of actual safety, ``industry standards are likely
to be superior to Government regulations,'' and I understand
the point that you are making, but I was going to ask you to
kind of clarify what you think the Government's role should be
and what you think the private sector's role should be. So I am
glad that you clarified that.
Mr. Douglass, you made the point, in answer to Chairman
Mica's question of what the FAA's role should be, you said that
``eventually'' it should pretty much be the same as it is in
aviation. I wonder if you would clarify what you mean by that,
when you say ``eventually'' it should be the same as aviation.
Mr. Douglass. Well, sir, as you know, we are developing a
new air traffic control system for our country and the time
frame that we are looking at is all of the traffic that we
expect between now and 2025. I think it is reasonable to
expect, now we are in 2005, that is 20 years from now, that
this part of our industry will have developed to the point
where there could potentially be many, many of these launches.
And just as that air traffic control system is going to
have to accommodate all kinds of new air-breathing vehicles,
like we are talking about air taxis, and remotely piloted air
vehicles and so on, it has got to also be able to accommodate
both the launch and reentry from space if it is going to occur
on a routine basis. We cannot have situations where we stop all
the air traffic on the East Coast every time we do a launch. We
cannot have air traffic between Los Angeles and the East Coast
stopped every time we launch something out somewhere in New
Mexico or Arizona or wherever it is. We have got to have a
seamless system that works in a coordinated way.
And so, just looking towards that period of time into the
future, we think that eventually we ought to be able to have a
system where you could get a type certificate for the launch
vehicle that you were using and the reentry vehicle that you
would come back in and an operator's certificate, just the way
the FAA does today where all of the things that Mr. Kelly and
others have talked about today are a part of the certification
process as you get your type certificate and your operator's
certificate, and then this would the operate on a relatively
seamless basis. We do not see it over the long term as being
feasible to get an individual license for every single launch
that would occur as these launches begin to become numerous.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
Mr. Kuhl. [Presiding.] Are there any other members asking
questions? Mr. Oberstar?
Mr. Oberstar. I welcome this panel. I read your testimony
last night in preparation for today's hearings and was very
interested in the various comments made.
Mr. Douglass, I have enormous respect for you and the
leadership you have provided for the aerospace sector. You have
been a champion voice, a solid, thoughtful, constructive voice.
You have all pointed to the great advantages, commercial
benefits of space travel and certainly of the tantalizing
challenge to the human spirit of space travel.
What I do not understand is the statement that you had in
your statement, Mr. Kelly, saying that ``Federal regulation of
space flyer safety would almost be''--you used the word
almost--``the equivalent of outlawing personal space flight.''
What do you mean by that? What do you mean by outlawing?
Mr. Kelly. The restrictions that one would have to place on
safety provisions for passengers at this stage of our
knowledge--
Mr. Oberstar. Give me an example.
Mr. Kelly. Sure, I will give you an example. Someone had
asked, and I believe it was you, asked earlier if the FAA would
permit a plane that did not meet structural safety factors to
fly if it was likely to fall apart over a city, and the answer
was, no, and it should not. If the Federal Government decided
that it was going to say, okay, passengers will not be safe
unless spacecraft have aircraft structural factors of safety,
knowing nothing else, that would physically make impossible
space travel. You cannot have--
Mr. Oberstar. But if you look at the language that I
proposed in the course of the debate last fall, with the caveat
``taking into consideration the inherently risky nature of
space travel,'' how can that be the equivalent of outlawing
personal space flight.
Mr. Kelly. Once again, if you are formulating regulations
with no experience whatsoever, how do you do it? The FAA--
Mr. Oberstar. Well, there was no experience in the 1920s.
Mr. Kelly. Oh, yes, there was 26 years of experience.
Mr. Oberstar. Sure, there were a lot of fatalities.
Mr. Kelly. That is exactly right, and--
Mr. Oberstar. And there was no experience with composites
when Cirrus began its plan to build an all composite general
aviation aircraft but as an all composite aircraft. There were
parts of aircrafts built with composites, but not an all
composite. They did not know for sure whether the wings should
go entirely through the aircraft, or whether it should be
joined somewhere in the mid-section of the aircraft. Those
matters were all worked out.
Mr. Kelly. It takes a long time to do that and this
particular industry is so capital intensive that we cannot
afford to wait.
Mr. Oberstar. You cannot afford to thread safety into it?
Mr. Kelly. No, no, no. You can afford to thread safety into
it, you cannot afford to thread paranoia into it.
Mr. Oberstar. No one is talking about paranoia. Do you
think the FAA is paranoid? Hardly.
Mr. Kelly. No. I think that a responsible agency--
Mr. Oberstar. I do not think that is a defensible argument.
Mr. Kelly. A responsible agency that was charged with doing
something that no one can do would tend to err on the side of
caution.
Mr. Oberstar. I do not think that we are talking about
something that no one can do.
Mr. Kelly. No one can do it. There is no experience. There
is no precedent.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Whitehorn has had experience.
Mr. Kelly. No, no, no. There is no precedent for the safety
of flight of spaceships. No matter what--
Mr. Oberstar. I disagree with your premise. We have a body
of safety professionals in the Federal Aviation Administration
who understand how to move toward safety. We do not have zero
fatality as a goal in commercial aviation, subspace commercial
aviation. It is a goal of reducing fatalities and reducing
risk.
Mr. Kelly. That is another aspect of this, and that is I do
not think--I take that back. The Administrator recognized that
this is a risky operation, especially at the beginning, and it
is. This is inherently a higher risk proposition than regular
air transportation.
I disagree, however, that there is any experience base on
which to formulate regulations. The experience that you have
from expendable launch vehicles, and the example of Alan
Shepard's flight into space was cited, is completely
inapplicable to reusable launch vehicles, and, frankly, the
experience that we have with airplanes is as well. There is no
overlap between the two.
Mr. Oberstar. I do not think that is a defense against
incorporating safety in the design features of this vehicle.
Mr. Whitehorn, what safety concerns did you have in moving
ahead with your launch?
Mr. Whitehorn. That is a very good question to ask because
I plan to be on one of the test flights, so I am taking this
issue particularly seriously in a personal sense.
Mr. Oberstar. I should think so.
Mr. Whitehorn. Our view of this issue at Virgin, which is a
company very experienced in dealing with regulatory authorities
both in the United Kingdom and in the United States on safety
issues, and where I think we have a very good track record in
this area, our view is that we should be building SpaceShipTwo,
the successor to SpaceShipOne, which will carry the first
commercial passengers affordably into space, our view is that
we should be building it above the current standards in
aviation that exist at the moment. But it is better that we
spend our investment dollars on doing that than going through
bureaucratic processes at this stage in the game which may not
be the right ones.
You were asking earlier, you were asking Marion Blakey I
think the question what is it that you do not want to regulate,
give me an example, I think you asked her. I thought I would
give you an example of the kind of issues that one has to
grapple with at this stage where a light touch of regulation in
the personal sense is probably important.
Pressure suits is a good example. Pressure suits are worn
by supersonic fighter pilots, they are worn in space, NASA
astronauts would wear them on a Shuttle mission, for example,
they would wear a pressure suit. However, if you were going to
take space tourists into space where you are not going to have
years of experience of the individuals, it may be actually
negative in the safety sense and it may be counter-intuitive to
design a pressure suit for a commercial space tourist. It may
be better to design the vehicle that you are taking them in
with a whole safety regime around the vehicle.
The vehicle itself that goes into space becomes your
lifeboat in the event of an incident. You do not rely on the
extraneous technologies that NASA has relied on which it has
cobbled together in its 40 years of experience, from oxygen to
pressure suits, rather than treating the vehicle itself as a
safety lifeboat in its own right.
Mr. Oberstar. So you pressurize the vehicle, not the
individual.
Mr. Whitehorn. Not only pressurize the vehicle, but you
think of how you design their experience so that when they
experience the G-forces they do not need a pressure suit to be
safe in that reentry. That is new and blue sky thinking where a
very heavy regulatory regime at this stage would actually
potentially force us away from the safest thing to do once we
have considered it.
Mr. Oberstar. You fear an FAA or a safety regulatory
regime--
Mr. Whitehorn. I have no fear of the FAA, sir.
Mr. Oberstar.--that would come in and impose upon you some
regulation of this kind. That is not the way the FAA operates.
They work with the manufacturer in the development of new
design aircraft, for example. If in your case--
Mr. Whitehorn. Let me put it this way. There has been a lot
of experience built up in this industry--
Mr. Oberstar. Just a minute. If, in your case, you are
convinced that pressurizing the aircraft rather than the
individual within the aircraft is safe, do you think the FAA is
going to say oh, no, I do not think so. They are going to work
with you to develop that idea.
Mr. Whitehorn. Well, actually, we would be pressurizing the
craft anyway. We are talking about a pressure suit to protect
you against G-forces, not for breathability. But just let me
give you an example. The received wisdom as it would be laid
down by NASA would necessarily dictate that you cannot send
somebody into space experiencing these G-forces unless you put
them in a pressure suit.
In fact, experience has told us that you can now design the
entire craft and the person's position in the craft with the
freedoms that we would have to do that because of the nature of
the beast that we are creating, which is something to carry
people into space for the experience of the adventure. We may
be able to design a craft in a safer way by ignoring that
received wisdom and experience at this stage, that received
wisdom and experience developed in a governmental program
designed around an entire range of goals which are not
necessarily goals about safety. The Apollo space program was
not a program designed with safety as the first priority, it
was designed with getting to the Moon as the first priority.
Actually, as I said in the testimony, our project here,
given the nature of the worldwide business we operate and the
brand we have, safety is our first priority. It may not even be
the FAA's first priority at this stage in the project. It may
not even be the first priority of other aspects of the
industry, those who are creating new star relaunchable vehicles
for satellites. But for our company coming into this business,
working with Scaled Composites, safety is our first priority.
Mr. Oberstar. Sure. So I do not understand your fear of a
regulatory regime within which the FAA is a partner in the
development of the safety and using its body of expertise over
many decades to participate in the safety--
Mr. Whitehorn. I think you will find, Congressman Oberstar,
that in nothing I have said today nor in my testimony have I
experienced any fear of that sort. If the regulatory regime
that had been passed as a result of the Act going through
Congress in 2004 had introduced different criteria, then we may
well have worked with those criteria.
But we are where we are and I am telling you what we are
planning to do is to operate, in terms of the way we do things,
to create the safest possible experience for the greatest
number of people. We are working on the Benthamite principle of
the greatest happiness of the greatest number as this project
goes forward and commercial space tourism leads to a new
industry.
Mr. Oberstar. Let me just read to you the language of the
bill, which is the language that I discussed in the course
debate on the House floor last fall. ``In carrying out
responsibilities under this provision, the Secretary shall
ensure that each license approved includes minimum standards to
protect the health and safety of crews and space flight
participants, taking into account the inherently risky nature
of human flight.'' What objection do you find to that?
Mr. Whitehorn. I do not find any objection to that.
Mr. Oberstar. Fine. Mr. Douglass, do you find any objection
to that?
Mr. Douglass. Sir, I am uninformed by the debate that you
all had. But my sense of this is that I do not.
Mr. Oberstar. The only objection was the gentleman from
California, my dear friend Mr. Rohrabacher, who said, you know,
I want to get this bill passed now and if we accepted that
language we might have to go back to conference with the Senate
and work it out, and we just do not have time to do it, it is
the end of the session. They did not involve our Committee in
this process. We could have had this language all done and
included.
Mr. Kelly, do you find that language objectionable?
Mr. Kelly. I am sorry, could you repeat it?
Mr. Oberstar. I will be happy to do that. ``The Secretary
shall ensure that each license approved includes minimum
standards to protect the health and safety of crews and space
flight participants, taking into account the inherently risky
nature of human flight.''
Mr. Kelly. Actually, I have no objection to that. In fact,
it is part of, or it should be part anyway, of an AST license
to ensure the crew safety with respect to their being part of
the safety loop involving third party liability. No, I have no
objection to that sort of thing at all.
Mr. Oberstar. You are a wonderful panel. Thank you very
much. I appreciate your contribution.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Whitehorn. And thank you for your enthusiasm, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Kuhl. Thank you, Congressman. Is there any other member
that wishes to question? I do not believe so.
On behalf of Chairman Mica, let me thank the members of
Panel III for coming and testifying. We found it very
interesting and very, very helpful in this process. So thank
you again for coming. Your participation is certainly
appreciated.
Mr. Costello, any last comments?
Mr. Costello. Just to thank the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Kuhl. Okay. And thank you, Administrator Blakey, we
appreciate your attendance here.
And with that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0870.043