[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GROWTH OF GLOBAL SPACE CAPABILITIES: WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHY IT
MATTERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-446 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona, Chair
DAVID WU, Oregon PETE OLSON, Texas
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio Wisconsin
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
BARON P. HILL, Indiana MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD OBERMANN Subcommittee Staff Director
PAM WHITNEY Democratic Professional Staff Member
ALLEN LI Democratic Professional Staff Member
KEN MONROE Republican Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Republican Professional Staff Member
DEVIN BRYANT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
November 19, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Pete Olson, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Prepared Statement by Representative Parker Griffith, Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 16
Witnesses:
Mr. Marty Hauser, Vice President for Research And Analysis,
Washington Operations, the Space Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 23
Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, The George
Washington University
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Director, European Space Policy Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director, Secure World
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 36
Discussion
...............................................................
International Effect of U.S. Commitment...................... 40
...............................................................
Specialization in Space...................................... 41
...............................................................
ISS Continuation............................................. 42
...............................................................
Specialization............................................... 42
...............................................................
Maintaining American Leadership.............................. 43
...............................................................
Funding Problems............................................. 45
...............................................................
ITAR Restrictions............................................ 46
...............................................................
Ares I....................................................... 48
...............................................................
Mitigating Effect of Gap in Human Spaceflight................ 48
...............................................................
Global Space Market.......................................... 50
...............................................................
Selling Space to the Public Internationally.................. 51
...............................................................
Alternatives to Ares......................................... 52
...............................................................
ITAR......................................................... 54
...............................................................
Role of Private Advocacy..................................... 55
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Marty Hauser, Vice President for Research And Analysis,
Washington Operations, the Space Foundation.................... 60
Mr. J.P. Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association......................................... 63
Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, The George
Washington University.......................................... 67
Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Director, European Space Policy Institute... 72
Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director, Secure World
Foundation..................................................... 75
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Letter to The Honorable Gabrielle Giffords and Honorable Pete
Olson from Louis Friedman, Executive Director, The Planetary
Society........................................................ 80
THE GROWTH OF GLOBAL SPACE
CAPABILITIES: WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHY IT MATTERS
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gabrielle
Giffords [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
The Growth of Global Space Capabilities: What's Happening and Why It
Matters
thursday, november 19, 2009
10 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
I. Witnesses
Mr. Marty Hauser
Vice President for Research and Analysis, Washington Operations
The Space Foundation
Mr. J.P. Stevens
Vice President, Space Systems
Aerospace Industries Association
Dr. Scott Pace
Director, Space Policy Institute
The George Washington University
Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl
Director, European Space Policy Institute
Dr. Ray A. Williamson
Executive Director, Secure World Foundation
II. Overview
The space age was an outgrowth of an international initiative in
science, the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957-1958, that
sought to collect coordinated global measurements about the Earth.
Following the IGY, a number of nations, including the U.S., the Soviet
Union, European states both individually and collectively, Japan, and
Canada continued to pursue scientific and other activities in space, in
many cases through cooperative projects. These collaborations led to
many significant scientific and engineering projects including, for
example, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Cassini mission to Saturn, and
the International Space Station (ISS), which is the most extensive
cooperative effort to date. However, the years following the IGY were
also marked by competition, most notably the Cold War ``space race''
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the 1960s that
culminated in the successful American Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969.
For most of the first half-century of the space age, the U.S. and
Russia [formerly the Soviet Union] were the only nations capable of
launching humans into space. In 2003, China launched a human into space
and continues to take incrementally more challenging steps in human
spaceflight. Other nations have recently entered the space arena or are
quickly displaying increasing technical capabilities for space
activities. As examples, years, China and India have successfully
launched their first lunar probes, India has announced plans for a
human space program, and numerous countries around the world have
established space agencies.
In addition to governmental activities, a space economy has grown
to support the global demand for commercial space-related products and
services. Over time, a number of foreign nations have acquired the
capability to develop satellites and instruments and to deploy them
with independent launch systems. Others have purchased space assets
such as communications satellites on the commercial market and operate
them as part of their national infrastructure.
Attachment A provides a snapshot of international space
capabilities and the global space economy.
As an increasing number of nations pursue an active presence in
outer space, they do so in a global environment that is increasingly
interdependent and competitive economically and geopolitically and in
which some of the most pressing societal challenges facing nations will
require global solutions. As expressed in a recent report of the
National Research Council, America's Future in Space: Aligning the
Civil Space Program with National Needs, ``we live in a globalized
world of societies and nations characterized by intertwined economies,
trade commitments, and international security arrangements. Mutual
dependencies are much more pervasive and important than ever before.
Many of the pressing problems that now require our best efforts to
understand and resolve--from terrorism to climate change to demand for
energy--are also global in nature and must be addressed through mutual
worldwide action . . . the ability to operate from, through, and in
space will be a key component of potential solutions to 21' century
challenges.''
The hearing will examine the growth of global space capabilities -
among both established participants and new entrants-why it matters to
the United States, and what policy issues it raises.
III. Issues
What space capabilities now exist outside the U.S.
and are there any significant trends in that regard?
Why does the growth of non-U.S. space capabilities
matter to the U.S.?
What opportunities and challenges does the growth of
global space capabilities present to the United States?
What issues does the growth of non-U.S. space
capabilities raise for Congress as it assesses the future
direction and funding of the U.S. space program?
What issues does the growth of global space
capabilities raise for Europe as it assesses the future
direction and funding of its space activities?
What space capabilities are developing in the
emerging space states, and are there any significant trends in
that regard?
IV. Background
Global Space Revenues and Budgets for 2008
According to The Space Report 2009, global space revenues and
government budgets totaled an estimated $257.22 billion in 2008, based
on the best available information. In addition, The Space Report states
that, ``Commercial activity continues to constitute the majority of the
space economy, comprising 68% of the $257.22 billion total for 2009.''
The chart below shows a breakdown of the overall global space economy.
The U.S. government space budget is estimated at $66.63 billion for
2008 of which NASA and the Department of Defense comprise 65 percent,
according to The Space Report 2009. For Fiscal Year 2008, NASA's budget
was $17.31 billion and the Department of Defense's space budget was
$25.95 billion.
The total estimate of international space budgets for 2008, as
published in The Space Report 2009, is $16.44 billion. As shown in the
table below, the overall international space budget has grown by 12
percent from 2007 to 2008, although the growth was not shared among all
space nations. Some foreign space budgets are reported to have grown
significantly, while data documented in The Space Report 2009 shows
that other foreign space budgets declined sharply.
Recent Advisory and Other Reports on Global Space Activities and Issues
The goals pursued by nations seeking to develop space capabilities
are varied and include fostering national prestige, developing
technical skills and infrastructure, national security, innovation,
applications to serve societal needs, scientific research, human
exploration, commercial opportunities, and international cooperation.
A number of recent reports have considered the benefits of
international cooperation in space as well as issues related to the
growing number of nations pursuing activities in outer space.
Changing Environment
``There are rapidly emerging foreign space capabilities and the US.
does not control their proliferation.'' (Briefing of the Working Group
on the Health of the U.S. Space Industrial Base and the Impact of
Export Controls, February 2008.)
``While the United States remains a world leader in advanced
science and technology, it not longer dominates; it is now among the
leaders. We are increasingly interdependent with the rest of the
world.'' (National Research Council, Beyond ``Fortress America'':
National Security Controls on Science and Technology in a Globalized
World.)
Potential for New Partnerships
``These maturing capabilities around the world create a plethora of
potential partners for cooperative space endeavors, while at the same
time heightening competitiveness in . the international space arena.''
(National Research Council, Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and
Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop.)
Potential to Serve Broader National and International
Objectives
``Some particularly pressing or ambitious space activities
currently under discussion (e.g. measuring and monitoring global
climate change or continuing with human exploration of the solar
system) may only be possible through international collaboration.''
(National Research Council report, America's Future in Space: Aligning
the Civil Space Program with National Needs.)
Potential for U.S. Strategic Leadership
``The strategic leadership that the United States needs to exert
must be appropriate for the new era of globalization. The United States
must strengthen ties to traditional allies and build increasingly
effective working relationships with emerging powers.'' (National
Research Council report, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil
Space Program with National Needs.)
``Exerting a global leadership role in space activities is the best
means to ensure that space activities can serve the broader security
and economic interests of the nation.'' (National Research Council
report, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program
with National Needs.)
Competitiveness
In 2009, the Futron Corporation prepared Futon's 2009 Space
Competitiveness Index: A Comparative Analysis of How Countries Invest
In and Benefit from Space Industry. According to the executive summary
of the report:
``The United States (U.S.) remains the current leader
in space competitiveness, but its relative position had
declined marginally based on increased activity by other space
faring nations.''
The U.S. still leads in each of the major categories:
government, human capital, and industry, however, its
comparative advantage is narrowing in category.
European competitiveness remained roughly unchanged,
with improvement in government metrics tied to improved policy
and successful exploration programs, but offset by lower
industry metrics.
Russia also demonstrated improvements in government
metrics, alongside relatively lower human capital and industry
metrics.
Japan posted major gains between the 2008 and 2009
SCI [Space Competitiveness Index] metric evaluations, due to
substantial changes in its space strategy as well as its new
space law. This resulted in the country jumping ranks from the
seventh position in the 2008 SCI to the fourth position in the
2009 SCI.
China posted gains of nearly 10 percent in SCI points
overall, fueled by government activity and metrics, but fell
behind Japan in its overall ranking. The transparency of the
Chinese environment remains a hurdle for the country, which
publicly seeks greater international cooperation and commercial
activity.
Canada jumped nearly 10 percent in its overall SCI
points, based on government metrics around both civilian and
military space policy, along with a commitment to increase
overall funding on space programs.
India had a strong year of space activity,
registering double-digit improvements of government metrics,
but lagged in industry scoring.''
Security
``Important components of our civil and military infrastructure
reside in space, and America can provide true security for those space
assets by committing itself to use of the global commons by all and by
and by creating a mutual dependence in space that is in the best
interests of all nations to protect.'' (National Research Council
report, America's Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program
with National Needs.)
Human Spaceflight
``The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human
exploration of space. If international partners are actively engaged,
including on the ``critical path'' to success, there could be
substantial benefits to foreign relations and more overall resources
could become available to the human spaceflight program.'' (Review of
U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, Seeking a Human Spaceflight
Program Worthy of a Great Nation.)
In addition, the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee
report also stated that ``an even greater impediment to U.S.
involvement in international cooperative programs is the U.S.
International Trafficking [sic] in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The
Committee deems these laws to be outdated and overly restrictive for
the realities of the current technological and international political
environment.''
Capabilities. Thematic Areas
Below are brief summaries of key space areas and the degree to
which other nations participate in those space sectors.
Spaceflight
A number of nations have developed the capability to launch
payloads into orbit. The United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, China,
and India possess families of vehicles that can loft payloads into
polar and geosynchronous orbits. Early in 2009, Iran made its first
successful launch of a satellite into space and in late August of this
year, South Korea launched a satellite that was not deployed
successfully into its orbital location. North Korea has also pursued
development of a launch vehicle capable of launching satellites into
orbit. Other nations, including Spain and Brazil, have launch vehicles
under development. Many nations with launch vehicle capabilities also
maintain sounding rocket programs, which are typically low-cost access
to the microgravity environment for research and university programs.
Human Spaceflight
For most of the last half-century, the U.S. and Russia [formerly
the Soviet Union] have been the only nations capable of launching
humans into space. As noted above, during the 1960s, the U.S. and the
Soviet Union competed for primacy in human space flight. Later, in the
early-mid 1970s as part of ``dentente'', the U.S. and the Soviet Union
pursued a joint Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) mission, which
demonstrated the successful docking of a Soviet Soyuz and American
Apollo spacecraft. The ASTP represented the first international human
spaceflight project. In the early 1990s, the U.S. and Russia agreed to
pursue further spaceflight cooperation on the Russian Mir space station
and American Space Shuttle, followed by an invitation to Russia to join
the International Space Station partnership. In 2003, China became the
third nation to launch a piloted vehicle into space and in 2008 a
Chinese astronaut conducted that nation's first extravehicular activity
(EVA). In addition, over the years both the United States and the
Soviet Union/Russia have used their human spaceflight programs to
promote their geopolitical objectives through the flight of citizens of
countries with which they had agreements to do so.
Other nations have acquired human spaceflight experience as
participants in the International Space Station program, including
having their astronauts visit the ISS via the U.S. Space Shuttles or
Russian Soyuz vehicles. The International Space Station includes
European, Japanese, Russian, and Canadian partners that have developed
and contributed modules, nodes, and laboratories, the robotic arm, and
other key systems and hardware. Europe and Japan have recently
demonstrated the ability to deliver cargo to the Station with the
European launch of the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the
Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). Current plans include additional
ATV and HTV cargo deliveries to the ISS. NASA and the European Space
Agency recently signed a memorandum of understanding on civil space
transportation cooperation in an effort to share engineering analyses
and technology concepts that will help work on future launch systems,
human spaceflight and exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
According to an article in the October 12, 2009 issue of Aviation
Week and Space Technology, China plans to launch a 20-metric-ton Space
Station by 2020. As part of the preparations for that milestone, a
Tiangong 1 target spacecraft will be launched on a Long March launch
vehicle within the next year or so. Beginning in 2011, crewed Shenzhou
missions will conduct flights and Chinese astronauts will practice
docking and EVA activities with the Tiangong 1 spacecraft, according to
the Aviation Week and Space Technology article.
With the Vision for Space Exploration initiated by President Bush
in 2004 and authorized by Congress, fourteen nations came together in
2006 to create a strategy for working together on exploration beyond
low-Earth orbit. The results of that cooperative effort, The Global
Exploration Strategy: The Framework for Coordination, discusses the
benefits of coordinating global exploration in space such as leveraging
investments, sharing lessons learned, and improving the safety of human
spaceflight. The strategy outlines potential areas of coordination that
could include, for example, identifying standards to facilitate
interoperability, establishing processes to broaden participation in
planning and coordination, and assessing international legal agreements
and any requirements therein.
President Barack Obama met this week with Chinese President Hu
Jintao in Beijing. According to a U.S.-China Joint Statement dated
November 17, 2009 and issued by the White House Office of the Press
Secretary, ``The United States and China look forward to expanding
discussions on space science cooperation and starting a dialogue on
human space flight and space exploration, based on the principles of
transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit. Both sides welcome
reciprocal visits of the NASA Administrator and the appropriate Chinese
counterpart in 2010.''
Science
With its roots in the IGY, the space sciences have a long heritage
of international cooperation and coordination. The U.S. engages in both
multilateral and bilateral cooperative efforts in space science. The
fruits of these cooperative activities have been realized in several
productive scientific missions including the Hubble Space Telescope,
the series of ocean altimetry missions that measure sea-surface height,
the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory that studies the Sun, and the
Tropical Rainforest Measuring Mission to monitor tropical rainfall,
among several others. In 1958, after the Soviet launch of Sputnik
opened the space age, the International Council for Science (previously
the International Council of Scientific Unions) created the Committee
on Space Research, a multidisciplinary international science committee
to exchange the results of scientific activities conducted in space:
COSPAR currently lists 44 member nations.
In addition to the larger national and regional space programs,
including those of the U.S., Europe, France, Germany, Japan, and
Canada, several nations with emerging space programs, including India
and China, have also begun to demonstrate increasing capabilities in
space science activities. For example, Brazil and China have cooperated
on a series of Earth resources satellites. Japan, China, and India
launched lunar orbiters, the first planetary missions for China and
India. At the same time, nations with more established space programs
also continue to augment their technical skills and abilities to
accomplish increasingly challenging scientific activities, often
through cooperative projects. As examples, in November of 2009 NASA and
the European Space Agency signed a statement of intent for potential
joint robotic exploration of Mars, and Russia and India are planning a
robotic lander and rover expedition to the Moon.
Global Navigation and Positioning
The U.S. maintains the only completely operational global
positioning and navigation system (GPS)--the U.S. Navigation Signal
Positioning System, according to The Space Report 2009. The U.S. GPS
system provides for both military and civilian applications. The
Russian satellite navigation system, the Global Navigation Satellite
System (GLONASS) is used for military and civilian purposes. According
to The Space Report 2009, the Russian system ``declined during Russia's
economic downturn and is in the process of being reconstituted.'' The
European Union is developing a 30-satellite civilian satellite
navigation and positioning constellation, Galileo, with a projected
date of service beginning in 2010, according to The Space Report 2009.
In addition, China is planning to add to its existing Compass Satellite
network to provide positioning and navigation services over the Asia
Pacific region, Japan is developing the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System
to augment GPS service over Japan, and India is developing the Indian
Regional Navigational Satellite System.
Global navigation and positioning data are being used in myriad
applications including transportation, logistics, and location
services, among others. The commercial market for positioning and
navigation has been in the devices that receive the signals and in
associated services. As stated in The Space Report 2009, ``The
satellite positioning market is extremely large, with estimates of the
total revenues from equipment and services ranging as high as $56
billion a year, according to a 2008 study from ABI Research.''
Remote Sensing
Remote sensing data are used for a variety of purposes including
scientific research about climate change, the Earth system and
environment; weather forecasting; intelligence-gathering; urban and
land-use planning; and in applications to agriculture, fishing, mining,
construction, and public health. As discussed in the National Research
Council report, America's Future In Space: Aligning the Civil Space
Program with National Needs, ``Changes in land-use patterns,
agricultural productivity, ecosystems' health and forest resources are
readily observed from space; and their management can be enhanced by
the use of accurate position-sensing information and diagnostic
measurements taken at multiple wavelengths and as a function of time.
Space observations are thus an essential component of the ability to
manage the planet's resources, a source of knowledge that might protect
against the effects of its most damaging forces, and a tool to verify
the impact of international environmental agreements.''
According to The Space Report 2009, ``In 2008 the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Advisory Committee on
Commercial Remote Sensing reported that there were 88 satellites in use
or in development . . . operated by 27 different countries'' for civil,
scientific, and military applications. In addition, a report by the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Briefing of the
Working Group on the Health of the U.S. Space Industrial Base and the
Impact of Export Controls, notes that Russia, France, Israel, Korea,
and India have commercial imaging satellites of one meter in resolution
or better; Canada, the European Space Agency, Italy, Germany, and Japan
have civil radar imaging satellites; India and Argentina will also
possess radar imaging capability; and China has deployed two radar
imaging spacecraft.
Communications
Communications satellite services are a critical part of the
infrastructure in many nations, because they enable connections between
distant and remote locations and provide a means to transmit video,
data, voice, and radio content to multiple locations at the same time.
According to The Space Report 2009, the bulk of the satellite
communications services are provided by multinational service providers
such as Intelsat. In addition, several nations operate satellites that
provide communication services to a region or a nation. Nations with
the capability to operate fixed communications satellites include
China, Argentina, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Greece, Russia, Spain,
Indonesia, India, the United States, Kazakhstan, Korea, Philippines,
Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Mexico, Luxembourg, Thailand, Singapore,
Japan, Israel, Brazil, Norway, Canada, Turkey, Venezuela, Vietnam, and
the UAE, according to The Space Report. In addition, The Space Report
also notes that ``The fixed satellite services revenue was the
strongest market growth driver [for commercial satellite services]
increasing 31% to $16.79 billion in 2008 from $12.82 billion in 2007.''
Space Situational Awareness
Ensuring the future safety of civil and commercial spacecraft and
satellites is becoming a major concern, and one that will require
international collaboration. The February 2009 collision between an
Iridium Satellite-owned communications satellite and a defunct Russian
Cosmos satellite above Northern Siberia highlighted the growing problem
of space debris and the need to minimize the chances of in-space
collisions. That collision also increased the number of pieces of space
debris circling the Earth, a debris population that had already
experienced a significant increase two years earlier following a
Chinese anti-satellite weapons test that created thousands of
fragments.
While several nations such as Russia, France, Germany and Japan
have some form of space surveillance capability, these systems are not
interconnected and are neither as capable nor as robust as the United
States' Space Surveillance Network (SSN).
Many questions remain as to how to improve space situational
awareness with an ever growing population of spacecraft and
international operators. Improvements in information services,
capabilities, resources, and coordination will all have to be
addressed. In addition, although organizations and individuals have
examined the pros and cons of potential space traffic management
approaches or international ``rules of the road'', at this point, there
does not appear to be a consensus on the appropriate long-term
framework for space traffic management.
ATTACHMENT A
Chairwoman Giffords. This hearing will now come to order.
Good morning, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank
all of our witnesses for coming here today and of course our
Subcommittee members for being here and all of our staff.
The topic of this hearing, ``The Growth of Global Space
Capabilities: What Is Happening and Why It Matters'', is one
that should concern all members of this Subcommittee but also
all Members of Congress as well. Because the world is changing,
and those changes present both opportunities and frankly some
very challenges to the United States that we cannot ignore, and
today we are going to hopefully get to the bottom of some of
those opportunities and challenges.
While I believe this hearing is particularly timely in
light of the President traveling to China, Japan and other
nations of the Asian region, there is another reason why we
decided to hold this hearing at this time. We are at a critical
juncture and decisions are being contemplated that will have a
significant impact on both the direction and the health of our
Nation's civil space program for decades to come. While the
President and his advisors are engaged in their internal
deliberations on what to recommend for NASA and its human
spaceflight program, we believe it is imperative not for
Congress to stand by idly. Instead, I believe that Congress
must use the time remaining in this session to carry out the
independent oversight necessary to oversee and assess the
findings of the Augustine panel, and more importantly, to
illuminate the stakes that are involved in whatever decisions
the White House and Congress make regarding NASA's funding and
future direction. We started that oversight process, you will
remember, in September with a review of the overall, the
totality of the Augustine report. We followed that full
Committee hearing with a Subcommittee hearing to review what
needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of NASA's
technology programs, an issue raised by the Augustine panel.
Schedule permitting, I intend to follow today's hearing
with a hearing to examine human spaceflight safety issues, an
area that many believe was given inadequate scrutiny by the
Augustine report, and then a hearing to examine workforce and
industrial-base issues that are inextricably linked to the
decisions we make about NASA's future.
As I mentioned earlier, our hearing this morning focuses on
the growth of global space capabilities, capabilities that have
significant implications to the United States as we contemplate
the future of our own space program. As our witnesses will make
clear, at a time when some in the United States seem to be
questioning whether we should sustain a strong commitment to
investing in our space program, the rest of the world has not
hesitated to embrace the promise that the exploration and the
utilization of outer space can offer to them. Those other
nations recognize that space activities can spur innovation,
help improve the quality of life of their citizens, promote
national security and economic competitiveness, and advance
geopolitical objectives. That recognition echoes the
aspirations of our Congressional predecessors, many of whose
portraits we see here today, when they first established NASA
and undertook other related actions some 50 years ago.
While the Sputnik moment delivered by the Soviet Union in
1957 and the subsequent Space Race helped catalyze action by
the United States government, it was not just geopolitical
competition that drove us to invest in our U.S. space program.
Important as the Cold War rivalry was, I believe that even
then, visionaries in the Congress and the Executive Branch
recognized the benefits to our society and our country that a
strong and robust space program could deliver to the United
States. History has proved them right. Here we are today. We
can look at the myriad of ways that our space investments have
transformed our economy, our defense and our quality of life
over the last 50 years to realize that space has become woven
into the very fabric of all of our daily lives. So it is no
surprise that other nations, seeing the benefits that space
investments have delivered to our Nation, they want to share in
those benefits as well, and I, for one, see that as a positive
development and not one to fear. While we must always be
vigilant against those who would use space capabilities to
threaten others, we should not turn away from opportunities for
constructive engagement in peaceful space cooperation because,
as our witnesses make clear, there are no lack of challenges
that would benefit from cooperation among nations in the space
arena. That of course was expressed by President Kennedy almost
50 years ago. He said, ``This generation does not intend to
founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to
be part of it. We mean to lead it.''
We face of course different challenges today than the ones
that were faced by President Kennedy and folks that come before
us in the Congress, but it is really that vision of the
importance of space to the future of this country and the
importance of generally overall U.S. leadership in exploring
and utilizing space that has been borne out over the
intervening years. It is clear that the space capabilities that
have been created around the world can play a constructive and
a significant role in addressing the many societal challenges
we face today. It is also clear that our next great space
endeavor, that of human and robotic exploration of our solar
system, can benefit greatly from those same global space
capabilities.
Yet if we are to harness those capabilities, the United
States needs to make clear to the rest of the world that we are
not wavering. We are not wavering in our commitment to space
exploration and to the path that we started down. Of course, it
is hard to lead without a clear sense of direction.
Fortunately, this Congress has a sense of direction. The NASA
Authorization Act of 2008 established a Congressional consensus
in support of a strong human and robotic exploration initiative
as part of a robust and balanced space program and in support
of the devoting the resources needed to pay for it. I know the
President is currently grappling with many hard decisions in
the days ahead as he attempts to balance competing priorities,
but what to do about the Nation's space program doesn't have to
be one of them.
Based on the actions already taken by Congress over the
last four years, I think there is a clear path ahead that
already has broad Congressional support, and I am confident
that he will support it.
With that, again I thank you. I welcome our witnesses.
And now we will hear from Mr. Olson.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Giffords follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Good morning. I'd like to begin by welcoming our witnesses to
today's hearing and thanking them for their participation.
The topic of this hearing-``The Growth of Global Space
Capabilities: What's Happening and Why It Matters'' is one that should
concern all Members of this Subcommittee, and indeed all Members of
Congress.
Because the world is changing--and those changes present both
opportunities and challenges to the United States that we cannot ignore
. . . nor should ignore.
While I believe this hearing is particularly timely given the
president's current trip to China, Japan, and other nations of the
Asian region, there is another reason why I decided to hold such a
hearing at this time.
We are at a critical juncture and decisions are being contemplated
that will have a significant impact on both the direction and health of
our nation's civil space program for decades to come.
While the president and his advisors are engaged in their internal
deliberations on what to recommend for NASA and its human space flight
program, I believe it is imperative for Congress to not stand idly by.
Instead, I believe that Congress must use the time remaining in
this Session to carry out the independent oversight necessary to assess
the findings of the Augustine panel, and more importantly, to
illuminate the stakes that are involved in whatever decisions the White
House and Congress make regarding NASA's funding and future direction.
We started that oversight process in September with a review of the
overall Augustine report.
We followed that full committee hearing with a subcommittee hearing
to review what needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of NASA's
technology programs--an issue raised by the Augustine panel.
Schedule permitting, I intend to follow today's hearing with a
hearing to examine human space flight safety issues--an area that many
believe was given inadequate scrutiny in the Augustine report--and then
a hearing to examine workforce and industrial base issues that are
inextricably linked to the decisions we make on NASA's future.
As I mentioned earlier, our hearing this morning focuses on the
growth of global space capabilities--capabilities that have significant
implications for the U.S. as we contemplate the future of our own space
program.
As our witnesses will make clear, at a time when some in the United
States seem to be questioning whether we should sustain a strong
commitment to investing in our space program, the rest of the world has
not hesitated to embrace the promise that the exploration and
utilization of outer space can offer to them.
Those other nations recognize that space activities can spur
innovation, help improve the quality of life of our citizens, promote
national security and economic competitiveness, and advance
geopolitical objectives.
That recognition echoes the aspirations of our congressional
predecessors when they established NASA and undertook other related
actions some fifty years ago.
While the ``Sputnik moment'' delivered by the Soviet Union in 1957
and the subsequent ``Space Race'' helped catalyze action by the U.S.
government, it was not just geopolitical competition that drove us to
invest in our space program.
Important as the Cold War rivalry was, I believe that even then,
visionaries in Congress and the Executive Branch recognized the
benefits to our society and our country that a strong and robust space
program could deliver to the United States.
History has proved them right.
We can just look at the myriad ways that our space investments have
transformed our economy, our defense, and our quality of life over the
last fifty years to realize the space has become woven into the very
fabric of our daily life.
So it's no surprise that other nations, seeing the benefits that
space investments have delivered to our nation want to share in those
benefits.
I, for one, see that as a positive development and not one to fear.
While we must always be vigilant against those who would use space
capabilities to threaten others, we should not turn away from
opportunities for constructive engagement in peaceful space
cooperation.
Because, as our witnesses make clear, there are no lack of
challenges that would benefit from cooperation among nations in the
space arena.
That said, I agree with the sentiment expressed by President
Kennedy when he said 47 years ago that:
``This generation does not intend to founder in the backwash
of the coming age of space. We mean to be part of it--we mean
to lead it.''
We face different challenges today than the ones faced by President
Kennedy, but his vision of the importance of space to the future of
this country and the importance of U.S. leadership in exploring and
utilizing space has been borne out over the intervening years.
It's clear that the space capabilities that are been created around
the world can play a constructive and significant role in addressing
the many societal challenges we face today.
It's also clear that our next great space endeavor--that of human
and robotic exploration of our solar system--can benefit greatly from
those same global space capabilities.
Yet if we are to harness those capabilities, the United States
needs to make clear to the rest of the world that we are not wavering
in our own commitment to space exploration and to the path we have
started down.
It's hard to lead without a clear sense of direction.
Or as Yogi Berra once said:
``If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably end up
somewhere else.''
Fortunately, I believe we do know.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 established a congressional
consensus in support of a strong human and robotic exploration
initiative as part of a robust and balanced space program--and in
support of devoting the resources needed to pay for it.
I know that the president will be grappling with many hard
decisions in the days ahead as he attempts to balance competing
priorities.
But what to do about the nation's space program doesn't have to be
one of them.
Based on the actions already taken by Congress over the last four
years, I think there is a clear path ahead that already has broad
congressional support, and I am confident that he will support it too.
With that, I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Olson. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for calling this
morning's hearing to examine the efforts and goals of countries
around the world that have recognized the importance of space
capabilities to their respective nations. Understanding their
objectives and how the United States can work with them
directly and indirectly to achieve common goals must, must be
an aspect of our own Nation's space program.
Let me begin by thanking our witnesses for their appearance
here today. I recognize that each of you has spent considerable
time and effort preparing for this hearing and in some cases
traveling a considerable distance to be here. Please know that
this Subcommittee appreciates your efforts as well as the
wisdom and experience you bring and that we will refer to your
guidance in the months and years ahead.
As has been well documented, the Space Age was born out of
international cooperation, came of age during a time of
international competition and now is maturing under a period of
both. How we progress going forward has global implications
beyond what we witnessed in the Cold War. We see nation after
nation recognize that space-based capabilities are beneficial
in the areas of disaster relief, broadband deployment,
telemedicine, agriculture, training and education and climate
monitoring, just to name a very few.
As interested as I am to hear what other countries are
doing and how they are investing their resources, I want to not
lose sight of how those efforts should impact the United States
of America. I am all for talking about global partnerships but
we should never, ever cede American leadership in endeavors we
have earned and invested in for several decades now. In the
area of human spaceflight in particular, the activity of other
nations is extremely telling. With each nation that commits to
the goal of sending humans into orbit and with each promise of
missions to the moon, both manned and unmanned, we should
recommit ourselves to an unequivocal path of human spaceflight
that serves as an example of leadership and potential
partnership for other nations.
Continuously since 2000, the International Space Station
has orbited the earth as an example of how nations can work
together to achieve great goals. The engineering, scientific
and diplomatic achievements of this lab should be an example of
the type of partnership we can achieve going forward. In an era
of lowered economic resources, particularly in our Nation, we
must find creative solutions to fund worthy enterprises.
We spend a lot of time in this room talking about the
benefits of space-based technologies, industries and
exploration, and it is critical to convey that those benefits
are not limited to the United States but that the impact is
global. After all, satellites don't just orbit America.
Whether the efforts are made at understanding our climate,
to help people recover from natural disasters or to connect
economies around the globe, we can look to space to help make
our world a better place. When that is the goal we are
discussing, it is more than worth the time of this Committee
and our witnesses again for sharing your insights with us.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Pete Olson
Madam Chairwoman, thank you for calling this morning's hearing to
examine the efforts and goals of countries around the world that have
recognized the importance of space capabilities to their respective
nations. Understanding their objectives, and how the United States can
work with them directly and indirectly to achieve common goals must be
an aspect of our own nation's space program.
Let me begin by thanking our witnesses for their appearance today
before this subcommittee. I recognize that each of you has spent
considerable time and effort preparing for this hearing, and in some
cases traveling considerable distance to be here. Please know that this
subcommittee appreciates your efforts, as well as the wisdom and
experience that you bring, and that we will refer to your guidance in
the months and years ahead.
As has been well documented, the space age was born out of
international cooperation, came of age during a time of international
competition, and now is maturing under a period of both. How we
progress going forward has global implications beyond even what we
witnessed during the Cold War.
We see nation after nation recognize that space based capabilities
are beneficial in the areas of disaster relief, broadband deployment,
telemedicine, agriculture, training and education, and climate
monitoring, just to name a very few.
As interested as I am to hear what other countries are doing and
how they are investing their resources, I want to not lose sight of how
those efforts should impact the United States. I'm all for talking
about global partnerships, but we should never cede American leadership
in endeavors we have earned and invested in for several decades now.
In the area of human space flight in particular, the activity of
other nations is extremely telling. With each nation that commits to
the goal of sending humans into orbit, and with each promise of
missions to the moon, both manned or unmanned, we should recommit
ourselves to an unequivocal path of human space flight that serves as
an example of leadership, and potential partnership for other nations.
Continuously since 2000, the International Space Station has
orbited Earth as an example of how nations can work together to achieve
great goals. The engineering, scientific, and diplomatic achievements
of this lab should be an example of the type of partnership going
forward. In an era of limited economic resources, particularly in our
nation, we must work to find creative solutions to fund worthy
enterprises.
We have spent a lot of time in this room talking about the benefits
of space-based technologies, industries, and exploration. It is
critical to convey that those benefits are not limited to the United
States, but that the impact is global. After all, satellites don't just
orbit over America.
Whether the efforts are to better understand our climate, to help
people recover from natural disasters, or to connect economies around
the globe, we can look to space to help make our world a better place.
When that is the goal we are discussing, it is more than worth the time
of this committee and I thank our witnesses again for sharing your
insights with us.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Parker Griffith
I would first like to thank Chairwoman Giffords and Ranking Member
Olson for their work on this hearing. The Space and Aeronautics
industry has become a booming industry ever since the Space race of the
1960's. While the United States won the space race when Apollo 11
landed on the moon in 1969, numerous countries before and after that
time, have sent astronauts to space and established space agencies.
America must continue to maintain its space dominance as superiority in
space equals excellence in national defense, intelligence, education,
future technologies, trade, and economic development. We can continue
to be America, or we can settle for second best. We should never be
satisfied with second best.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
If there are members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
Today we have a distinguished set of witnesses but we also
have a new Member of Congress, John Garamendi, who is sitting
in the audience. He is from California. John, where are you?
Congressman, good to see you. Welcome. We are excited about
having you in our Committee and we just want to welcome you and
make sure you're feeling at home here.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Giffords. Okay. Let us take a moment to
introduce our witnesses. First up we have Dr. Marty Hauser, who
is the Vice President of Research and Analysis of the
Washington Operations of the Space Foundation. As someone who
played a key role in the Space Report 2009, he is well
positioned to talk about the status of global space
capabilities and the global space economy. Next up we are going
to hear from Mr. J.P. Stevens, who is the Vice President for
Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries Association. He is
going to provide for us a perspective on the emerging global
space environment and the implications for the U.S. aerospace
industry and its workforce. We are also going to hear this
morning from Dr. Pace, Dr. Scott Pace, who is the Director of
the Space Policy Institute at the George Washington University.
He is going to provide some insights on what is growing in
terms of global space capabilities, what that means for the
United States leadership and associated policies that we will
need to confront. Also, we are going to hear from Dr. Kai-Uwe
Schrogl, who is the Director of the European Space Policy
Institute. He has agreed to provide a European perspective on
the impact and implications of growing space capabilities, and
we are pleased to have that foreign perspective this morning,
so good morning. And finally we have Dr. Ray Williamson, who is
the Executive Director of the Secure World Foundation. Dr.
Williamson will provide perspectives on the capabilities of
emerging space nations and as well some of the issues that we
are going to need to consider when engaging with them.
I will let all our witnesses know that you will each have
five minutes for your spoken testimony. I know that is not a
very long period of time but I know we are going to have some
really good questions and discussion a little bit later. Your
written testimony will be included in the record for the
hearing, and when you have completed your spoken testimony, we
will begin questions, and of course, each member will have five
questions. So Mr. Hauser, we are going to start with you.
STATEMENTS OF MR. MARTY HAUSER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND
ANALYSIS, WASHINGTON OPERATIONS, THE SPACE FOUNDATION
Mr. Hauser. Thank you, and good morning, Chairwoman
Giffords, Ranking Member Olson and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee. I am Marty Hauser and I am Vice President of
Washington Operations Research and Analysis at the Space
Foundation. On behalf of our board of directors and CEO, it is
a pleasure to be here today and I want to thank you for holding
this event.The Space Age is now more than 50 years old and has
given birth to a global industry valued at more than $257
billion. What was once the providence of only the United States
and the former Soviet Union is now a dramatically growing
industry. Many of our allies are catching up and they are
catching up fast. They have developed their nascent space
capabilities and are modestly and steadily investing in their
own space capabilities.
The trend we all know is that the U.S. leadership in space
is eroding on multiple fronts and legislative policy and fiscal
redirections are all critical. Most any space capability we
have in the United States now exists in other nations. Quality
may vary and no other country currently can do what we do but
the number of countries' capabilities are growing and again
growing steadily. Lots of countries have active space programs,
even countries at the low- and middle-income levels. The fact
is that more than 60 countries now have a space agency. This is
a significant trend as it wasn't half that large just a few
years ago. That said, with all of these nations so active in
space, it is increasing opportunities for more international
collaboration. Benefits can be found.
Another trend is an increasing willingness to share
knowledge and expertise about space. An example is China
agreeing to build and launch satellites for Nigeria and
Venezuela. They also train the staff in those countries how to
operate those systems. Established space companies are also
involved in training. The European company EADS is partnering
with Kazakhstan to build satellites, operate a satellite
integration center and train Kazak engineers. This is difficult
for American firms to do because of ITAR restrictions.
We also can't underestimate these countries either. Europe,
Japan, Russia, India and China have first-rate launch
capabilities. Japan, China and India all have programs today
that include lunar exploration. This past September a Space
Foundation delegation visited China and toured a number of
previously classified facilities. While I was not on that trip,
I was told it was quite stunning; the facilities are state-of-
the-art. Another member also went to French Guyana on a trip
and came back saying it is a launch site can teach us many
things about how to improve our launch infrastructure. He also
noted the large numbers of young men and women doing
engineering and technical work, that we need to better engage
young Americans and we need to encourage them to work in
America's space program. We are losing our competitive position
in some of the most critical disciplines such as launch,
manufacturing and services. We must work harder to preserve and
retain strategic, technical and commercial advantages to remain
the market leader in any global technology field.
In some cases, international capabilities provide
opportunities for us in terms of technology exchange, exports,
outcomes through direct foreign investment. In other instances,
the international capabilities may be competitive in nature and
may reduce U.S. capability and economic opportunity over the
long term. It can also create rivals, and I doubt that any of
us want to hear about a Soviet-Chinese relationship and
cooperation that goes on without involving the United States.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, space is--are crowded
and we need to reduce the debris that is up there because of
potential for satellite collisions is great.
Historically, the United States has held the position of
space superiority. This means we are in a more favorable
position than most other nations in space. However, this space
superiority is declining quickly towards parity. A few quick
examples. The Russians lead the world in space launch over the
past five years. They intend to increase that dramatically.
While Russia and the United States provide the most orbital
launches from year to year, 2007-2008 the share of non-U.S.-
Russian launches grew from 34 to 41 percent.
I don't envy your task but I agree with much of what you
both said in your opening statements. So for me, this is my
personal view as because comes down to one simple question:
Does the United States want to continue to be the leader in
space? If the answer is no, then we are already living our
future. If the answer is yes, however, we must remember that
our leadership position in space is not a birthright. Over the
past 50 years we have had to make bold decisions and earn that
leadership position. To continue being the global space leader,
we must bite the financial bullet, roll up our sleeves and get
to work. We apply our great minds and our great talent, find
better and smarter ways. We make the tradeoffs to do what is
necessary to get to and work in space. We build international
partnerships and share costs. Where no one else can, we stand
up and we lead the way we always have. We innovate, we educate,
we produce and we lead. Space is an enabler for people around
the world and a multitude of industries that can better our
world, but to better our world, we must first as the United
States once again enable space.
Thank you for your time. I will be prepared to answer your
questions later.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hauser follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marty Hauser
INTRODUCTION
Good morning Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking Member Olson, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee. My name is Marty Hauser and
I am Vice President of Washington Operations, Research and Analysis for
the Space Foundation. On behalf of myself and Space Foundation CEO,
Elliot Holokauahi Pulham, I want to thank the subcommittee for
providing the Space Foundation the honor to sit before you today to
talk about the trends we are seeing in non-U.S. space programs.
The Space Age is now more than fifty years old and it has given
birth to a global industry valued at more than $257 billion. Early on,
space was the province of only the former Soviet Union and the United
States. By the 1970's, many of our allies had developed nascent space
capabilities and they have modestly, yet steadily, invested in their
capabilities. Today we have an International Space Station and more
than 60 nations maintain space agencies with active space programs.
Space is getting more crowded, not only due to a rise in government-
funded space activity on a global scale, but also due to significant
growth in commercial space activity.
The world's oceans and airspace have been transformed over the
centuries from dangerous frontiers into channels through which trade
and travel are routine occurrences. A similartransformation is taking
place in space, as the global economy further establishes its dominance
over the frontier beyond the Earth's atmosphere. The challenging and
demanding environment of space means that activity there is expensive
and time-consuming. In spite of this, other nations clearly see the
value in space systems for a variety of reasons and they are devoting
scarce resources to create and expand space capabilities.
WHAT SPACE CAPABILITIES EXIST OUTSIDE THE U.S. AND ARE THERE ANY
SIGNIFICANT TRENDS IN THAT REGARD?
U.S. leadership is eroding on multiple fronts and both legislative
and policy redirections are critical.
Almost any general space capability that exists in the United
States, including human spaceflight, satellite manufacturing, launch,
space science, and military applications, also exists in other nations.
The quality of the capability may vary, but no other country has the
same breadth and depth of capabilities as the United States. However,
the number of countries with space capabilities is growing. This is
illustrated by Iran's recently acquired satellite launch capability and
efforts by the two Koreas to develop a launch capability. India has
plans to develop a human spaceflight program and the quality of its
other capabilities is improving. China has gone from rudimentary human
spaceflight to plans for a space station in the coming decade. China
clearly intends to achieve and maintain- status as a major space power.
Other countries have selected leadership in certain niches and large
number of countries have targeted development efforts toward Earth
observation and remote sensing, including military intelligence and
reconnaissance capabilities.
Canada, China, much of Europe, Brazil, Israel, India, Japan,
Russia, Iran and South Korea all have very active space programs. Some
are more capable than others; however, even among nations ranked by the
World Bank as having low or middle income levels, investments are being
made in the acquisition and use of space hardware and expertise. In
all, there are more than 60 nations that maintain space agencies. This
is a significant trend, as we see steady growth in the number of
nations whose governments are active in space in some fashion.
As the number of spacefaring nations increases, so do the
opportunities for international collaboration. The United States can
reap benefits from this in the form of new partnerships, but another
result could be that foreign governments will partner with each other
instead of the U.S. space program. To maximize the return on smaller
budgets, many nations seek to develop limited capabilities with the
expectation that they will be able to partner with another nation that
has complementary capabilities. For instance, a government may choose
between satellite development and launch vehicle technology, rather
than spending money on both. The natural partnerships that develop
between two such countries are likely to extend into other areas of
space activity because they already understand each other.
Another trend is an increasing willingness to share knowledge and
expertise about space technology and operations. Some countries take
the approach demonstrated by China when it agreed to build and launch
satellites for Nigeria and Venezuela, and to train staff in those
countries to operate the systems. Established space companies are also
involved in training, as when the European company EADS entered a
partnership earlier this year with the government of Kazakhstan to
build satellites, operate a satellite integration center, and train
Kazakhengineers. The details of such agreements are as varied as the
needs and abilities of the countries and companies that participate,
but they all indicate an interest in generating returns on a collective
investment rather than an individual one. This kind of activity is more
difficult in the United States due to the restrictions imposed by ITAR,
meaning that U.S. companies and government agencies are less desirable
partners because of the regulatory complications involved.
Europe, Japan, Russia, India, and China have first-rate launch
capabilities. Japan, China and India all have programs today that
include lunar exploration. Europe, Israel, and India have robust remote
sensing capabilities. Canada has a wide range of niche specialties,
most notably in robotics. Of particular note over the past decade is
the emergence of China's human spaceflight capabilities.
At present, there are only three nations with human spaceflight
capabilities; the United States, Russia, and now China. Once we retire
the Space Shuttle, that ``club'' will be just Russia and China for many
years. I would also add that India has also been working on its own
human spaceflight program as well.
In September 2009, a delegation led by the Space Foundation visited
China and toured a number of previously secret space facilities. It was
a stunning experience. Not only are China's facilities newer than ours,
but they are also state-of-the-art.
This past summer, a Space Foundation member visited the European
launch facilities in French Guiana. This modem and very active launch
site can teach us many things about how to improve our launch
infrastructure. Additionally, the large number of young twenty/thirty-
something men and women doing engineering and technical work in French
Guiana should make us sit up and realize that we need to better engage
young Americans and encourage them to join the space industry. I should
add that China has a lot of young people working on its space program
also.
WHY DOES THE GROWTH OF NON-U.S. SPACE CAPABILITIES MATTER TO THE U.S.?
Space provides many kinds of strategic, economic, scientific and
geopolitical benefits. Other nations understand this and they are
spending time and resources on it.
The United States is losing its relative competitive position in
most critical space industry disciplines such as launch, manufacturing,
service provision, and specialized services. Our relative competitive
position matters a great deal economically in the near- to mid-term,
and over the-longer term it is essential to our national defense and
security position. It is also essential to retaining the strategic,
technical and commercial advantages which accrue to the market leader
in any global technology field.
In some instances, international capability provides opportunities
for enhanced outcomes, benefiting the United States through technology
exchange, economic opportunity from exports, direct foreign investment,
or lower costs. These capabilities are complementary and beneficial,
and can provide additional means of cooperation on space ventures (like
NASA flying instruments on the first Indian lunar mission, Chandrayaan-
1), which can . become part of achieving broader U.S. foreign policy
goals.
Other international capabilities are competitive in nature and may
reduce U.S. capability and economic opportunity. In addition, some
technologies and capabilities are strategic, meaning U.S. leadership
confers value to the nation beyond pure capability or economic benefit.
In some cases the growth of non-U.S. space capabilities can be
threatening, as in the cases of Iran and North Korea. It can also
create rivals to U.S. capabilities in space if other countries such as
China and Russia cooperate with one another and/or other nations on
projects without involving the United States.
From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, the more actors in space, the
greater the chances of collisions between spacecraft, increased lethal
debris and associated traffic management problems, especially in low
Earth orbit. This poses a problem for the U.S. since we have the
largest number of space assets in orbit and the United States Air Force
is charged with cataloging and tracking all active and inactive space
objects. Currently the Air Force tracks more than 20,000 items in
space. The U.S. should take a leadership role and encourage other
spacefaring nations to agree to ``rules of the road'' for responsible
action in space. If this does not happen, there is a greater risk to
our space systems and it is more likely that we will lose access to
those vital capabilities.
From competitiveness viewpoint, having a strong technical workforce
is essential for a nation to be a serious competitor in the global
economy. Space is a potent lure for talented young minds. Competency in
space activities translates easily into other high-tech sectors of the
economy.
We reported a trend of concern in our book, The Space Report 2009,
showing that the United States is losing its lead in producing
bachelor-equivalent degrees in technical fields critical to sustaining
the space industry. In 2004, China produced approximately seven times
the number of engineering graduates from a population four times that
of the United States. In addition the National Science Foundation
reports that graduate student visas have declined since the attacks of
September 11, 2001 and that could translate into a declining talent
pool for U.S. space industry recruiting.
WHAT ISSUES DOES THE GROWTH OF NON-U.S. SPACE CAPABILITIES RAISE FOR
CONGRESS AS IT ASSESSES THE FUTURE DIRECTION AND
FUNDING OF THE U.S. SPACE PROGRAM?
Congress and the Administration must decide if America will
continue to lead in space. The position of the United States is one of
``space superiority,'' which means we have a more favorable position
than most others nations in space. However, even that space superiority
is beginning to slide toward greater parity.
For example, the Russians are the world leaders in space launches
over the past five years. While Russia and the United States provide
the most orbital space launches from year to year, in 20072008 alone,
the share of non-U.S./Russian launches grew from 34% to 41%. Similarly
in spacecraft manufacturing trends, the United States fell from clear
dominance in the 1990's to the point where in 2008 we produced the same
number of satellites as Europe. These are just a couple of the trends
and realities that become more clear each year.
Earlier in my--testimony I highlighted the wonderful assets and
facilities our European colleagues have in French Guiana. They should
be commended for the intelligent and effective investments they
continue to make in their launch site. They are not pouring vast sums
of money into their facilities in an effort to outspend us, but they
are certainly getting more out of their investments. While the funding
amounts and budgetary processes of China's investment in space
capabilities are hazy at best, I would posit to the subcommittee that
they are not outspending us either. It is interesting to note that some
nations, such as Russia and India, devote about half a percent of their
national budgets to space, a proportion similar to U.S. funding for
NASA. The reason that NASA's budget is larger than these other space
programs is because the total U.S. budget is considerably larger.
All of this begs several questions. What role does the United
States want or need to play in the global space industry? What does
securing and maintaining that position over time require both
financially and strategically? Does the U.S. government fully
understand the likely impacts of failing to achieve those goals? Can
the nation afford to assume a second-tier role in certain areas? If so,
what are those roles and what would the trade-offs be nationally for
making such a choice?
We must also sort out where the best opportunities for government
and industry partnerships are to improve results, reduce duplicative
effort and achieve the greatest cost efficiency? What are the best
opportunities for international collaboration to achieve the same
goals? Are there cost and effort efficiencies available within current
programs which would permit the deployment of resources to the most
essential future programs?
Given the high projected costs of the ultimate goals of human space
exploration, it seems unnecessary and unwise for one nation, such as
the United States, to go it alone. The growing capabilities of these
countries allow for cost-sharing on various aspects of such efforts,
while maintaining U.S. leadership. However, as the number of
spacefaring countries and their capabilities grow, it is not
unreasonable to think that a consortium of them could work together on
such missions without any involvement by the United States, if we
decide to exclude them or decide not to undertake such efforts.
If would be foolhardy for us to assume we know best for any and all
things related to space. I suggest we take a hard look at our space
capabilities and see where we have gaps and other failings. We should
see where other nations are doing better in those areas and learn some
lessons from them and in some cases partner with them. In areas where
no one else is able to lead, the United States should stand up and
lead.
I've stated that other nations clearly and easily understand the
value in investing in space systems. In the United States, we seem to
perpetually ask ourselves if we should continue to invest in space
systems. We currently lead the world in space, but that leadership
position is not a birthright. We must choose to continue to lead. If we
do not, we will be supplanted as the premier spacefaring nation.
I stand ready to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Hauser.
Mr. Stevens.
STATEMENT OF MR. J.P. STEVENS, VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS,
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
Mr. Stevens. Good morning, Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking
Member Olson and members of the committee, I am grateful to be
here to testify before you today.
The Aerospace Industries Association is the largest
aerospace trade association in the United States and we
represent--we have about 300 members and we represent over
640,000 high-wage workers and indirectly support another 2
million workers, 30 suppliers in all 50 states. We appreciate
the efforts of Congress to keep both our civil and national
security programs healthy.
Commercial interests such as banking transactions, business
and personal communications, all depend on communications and
GPS satellite. Essential national security information and all
of our military operations depend on space assets, and weather
and climate satellites give us lifesaving warnings and
information on climate change.
Now, for many years the benefits of space programs were
provided primarily by the United States and Russia. Our lead
was achieved because space was given a Cold War priority as far
as funding but funding is no longer at the level it was back
then. Other nations with the proper workforce and foresight to
make the necessary investments have rapidly caught up to us.
Allow me just quickly to mention a few areas where I believe
the United States has either lost or is losing its leadership
in space, and that includes satellites, human spaceflight and
launch systems.
As you are well aware, satellites are employed and built by
a number of nations. However, because of export control
restrictions, many countries are building and employing
satellites and advertising them as ITAR free. This is not good
for our companies when our share of the world market now is
only 29 percent. Global positioning system satellites are used
by our airlines, our emergency responders and others and they
also provide exact timing, which is critical to both the
financial and banking industry. Of the $144 billion that is
generated worldwide by satellite revenues, roughly $23 billion
come out of our system, our GPS system. However, other nations
are developing their own. Russia is about to launch six more
satellites and will have their system completed by March. The
Europeans and Chinese are working on theirs and they will have
their systems completed sometime between 2014 and 2017, and
India and Japan are developing their own systems. New global
navigation satellite systems compete with our system but most
importantly they raise the issues of compatibility and
interoperability not only between the systems but also the
systems they support.
In regard to human spaceflight, the Chinese orbited an
astronaut, as you are well aware, for a day in 2003 and since
then they have made significant milestones. They have had
multiple crews, orbital maneuvers and space walks. The thing to
remember here is that they are on the same pace as we were
during the moon race with the Russians but most importantly
they are doing it with fewer flights. The Europeans and
Japanese have flown cargo vessels to the International Space
Station and the Europeans are now talking about taking that
cargo section of their spacecraft and adding a human-rated
capsule. India is planning to set up astronaut training in 2012
and hope to have their first astronaut in space by 2015.
Another area of concern for us is the U.S. commercial space
launch industry which now only has about 15 percent of the
global market. Now, why is all this important to Congress?
Well, space is an excellent technology driver and military
programs enabled early human spaceflight. Recall John Glenn, my
former boss, and Yuri Gagarin were both launched on military
ICBMs. Well, the reverse is also true. These countries that are
getting into the space race now can enable their space
capabilities into military capabilities.
So what can you do? Well, the first thing we need from your
is your commitment to maintain space leadership. To do this, we
need stable and robust funding. Space programs take time to
develop, test and build. Fluctuating budgets and delayed
programs take their toll on agencies like NASA. We need your
leadership to support space being treated as a singular
enterprise where all the decisions and strategies of all the
agencies that deal with space are coordinated at the White
House level.
We need your support with our future workforce. Currently
we graduate only 74,000 engineers a year, and out of that many
of them are foreign nationals that return to their countries to
work on things like ITAR-free satellites and so that ends up
leaving us about 60,000, and you compare that with China and
India, basically they graduate hundreds of thousands each year.
Space systems are also producing small numbers, so
interruptions or cancellations negatively impact our big
companies but they can be catastrophic to the small suppliers
that often produce the small but critical components on which
huge portions of our economy, infrastructure and national
security depend.
I agree with you, Chairwoman, that as a Nation we need to
consider international partnerships but I will say cooperation
needs to be equitable with our partners and not adversely
impact our industrial base or our national security, and I
think a good example of this is the International Space Station
and I believe that the International Space Station should be
funded and flown until at least 2020.
In conclusion, our space technologies have become an
important part of our Nation's economic and national security
capabilities but our leadership in space and everything that
space supports is no longer guaranteed.
We thank the Committee for their time and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of J.P. Stevens
Introduction
Good morning Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking Member Olson and members
of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify
before you today on the growth of global space capabilities.
As the largest aerospace trade association in the United States,
the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) represents nearly 300
manufacturing companies with over 640,000 high-wage, highly skilled
aerospace employees across the three sectors: civil aviation, space
systems and national defense. This includes over 140,000 workers who
make the satellites, space sensors, spacecraft, launch vehicles and
ground support systems employed by NASA, DOD, NOAH, NRO and other
civil, military and intelligence space efforts. Our member companies
export 40 percent of their total output, and we routinely post the
nation's largest manufacturing trade surplus, which was over $57
billion in 2008. Aerospace indirectly supports 2 million middle class
jobs and 30,000 suppliers from all 50 states. The aerospace industry
continues to look to the future, investing heavily in research and
development, spending more than $100 billion over the last 15 years.
AIA appreciates the efforts of the Congress to keep our civil and
national security space programs healthy, as well as in promoting
commercial space ventures. Over several decades space technologies have
increasingly become a part of our daily lives with virtually every part
of the U.S. economy being touched by their applications.
Commercial interests such as banking transactions, business. and
personal communications, and precise location for our emergency
responders, airliners and automobiles all depend on communications and
GPS satellites.
Essential national security information and support of our troops'
military operations are all are dependent upon space assets.
Weather and climate satellites give us life saving warnings and
provide us recurring, global wide data on climate change.
Observing, monitoring and exploring space relies on incredibly
robust equipment functioning in extremely hostile and demanding
environments.
Additionally our space programs, particularly NASA's work, remain
an excellent source of inspiration for our youth to study science,
technology, engineering and mathematics and to enter our aerospace
workforce on which much of our nation's transportation, security and
satellite infrastructure depend.
Global space capabilities
For many years the benefits of space programs were provided
primarily by the United States and Russia. Our leadership was based on
the strength of our engineers and scientists, and research and
development supported by our industrial base. Our lead was also
achieved because space was given a `Cold War' priority and funding at a
level it no longer receives.
Now other nations with the foresight to make the necessary
investments and a pool of talented workers have rapidly caught up. By
learning from our early successes and mistakes their investments--while
not insubstantial--have generally not needed to be as great as ours to
reach near parity,
Allow me to quickly mention just a couple of areas where the U.S.
can rapidly lose its leadership edge in space: satellites and human
spaceflight.
Satellites are now employed and built by a number of nations.
Because of U.S. export control restrictions some foreign built
satellites actually advertise themselves as ``ITAR free.'' The U.S.
share of overall world wide satellite manufacturing revenues was 47
percent--or 4.6 billion dollars--in 2003 but it decreased to only 29
percent--or 3.1 billion dollars, in 2008.
An example of other nations developing their own satellite systems
can be seen with Global Positioning System satellites, or GPS. Our GPS
system is used by our military, airlines and emergency responders. It
also provides exact timing that allows our communications to share
limited bandwidth with more than one party at a time. This timing is
also important to accurately mark financial and banking transactions.
Of the 144 billion dollars generated world wide by satellite
revenues in 2008, roughly 23 billion are directly related to America's
GPS system.
As a result, other nations are moving into the global navigation
satellite market. Russia has modernized its GLONASS system and plans to
launch six more satellites by March. It should be complete next year.
The Europeans and Chinese both plan to have their systems--Galileo and
Compass--operational between 2014 and 2017. India and Japan are also
developing their own systems.
New global navigation satellite systems will compete with our
system, impacting our revenues. They will also raise issues of
compatibility (ensuring new systems don't impact the function of
existing ones) and interoperability (where the systems can work
together).
In regard to human spaceflight, other nations clearly recognize the
value of space programs as innovation drivers, increasing world stature
and as a source of national pride.
The Chinese orbited one ``Taikonaut'' for nearly a full day in
2003. Since then they have achieved significant milestones (multiple
crews, orbital maneuvers and space walks). The Chinese have made these
steps at about the same pace as the U.S. and U.S.S.R. did during the
moon race and they are doing it with far fewer flights.
The Chinese ``Shenzhou'' spacecraft is an adapted design of the
Russian Soyaz, which the U.S.S.R. once sent around the moon and
returned safely to the Earth with turtles aboard as biological
specimens. Using several flights on. its Long March V rocket--currently
under development--they could make a human moon landing within a
decade.
India is planning to set up an astronaut training center in 2012
and is looking at a human launch around 2015. They have also sent a
probe into lunar orbit.
The Europeans and Japanese have developed and flown remote control
cargo ships--the ATV and the HTV--to the International Space Station.
The Europeans have suggested in time they can replace the cargo section
of their craft with a capsule creating a human rated spacecraft.
Why is this important to Congress?
There is a clear trend that the projects other nations have for
space are already in place or could potentially be achieved within a
decade.
Space is a major demonstration of `smart power.' The United States
is a world power--as is Russia--and we have strong space programs.
China and India are becoming large players in the global economy and
they will certainly continue demonstrating their prowess with space
systems.
Even more substantial is that space is an excellent technology
driver. Military programs enabled early human space exploration. Recall
John Glenn and the Russian Yuri Gagarin were launched on ICBMs. It is
important to remember that the reverse is also true--strides other
countries make in their civil or commercial space programs can enable
military capabilities. From a security point of view we always want our
space capabilities to be leading edge.
Our lead has already shortened in many places. Over the last 20
years competition from foreign launch systems has grown significantly.
The U.S. Commercial Space Launch industry now only has about 15 percent
of the global commercial launch market.
What can Congress do?
Congress should maintain its commitment--both through the actions
of its Appropriators and Authorizers--to U.S. space leadership so we
have an edge, or at least are ``first among equals.'' This can best be
done by ensuring our nation maintains its industrial drive.
To do this first and foremost, our nation's space programs need
stable and robust funding. By their very nature space programs take
several years to develop, test and build. Once launched, satellites are
not accessible, so systems must work with high reliability the first
time. Fluctuating budgets and delayed programs take their toll on
schedule, production and maintaining a skilled workforce on the
project. Budget shortfalls also deeply impact agencies like NASA that
have been asked to take on many valuable projects simultaneously.
We need Congressional leadership to also support space being
treated as a ``singular enterprise'' where the decisions and strategies
of the many agencies using space are coordinated at a White House
level.
We face challenges with our future workforce. AIA members have
identified that a ``lack of trained technical workforce for the
future'' is one of the most important long-term issues facing our
industry. Currently the U.S. annually graduates just 74,000 engineers
in total--covering all fields in the discipline. Further, many of these
students are foreign nationals who return home shortly after graduating
which drops the number of domestically employable engineers under
60,000. In comparison, China and India respectively graduate 600,000
and 350,000 engineering students each year. The U.S. runs the real risk
of losing its skilled engineering lead over other nations.
Our space industrial base designs, develops, produces and supports
our spacecraft, satellites, launch systems and supporting
infrastructure. These systems are often produced in small, or even
single, numbers. We need to keep this base healthy. We ask that
Congress remember that interruptions or cancellations negatively impact
large companies and can be catastrophic to smaller firms--often the
only entities with the unique abilities to produce small but critical
components on which huge portions of our economy, infrastructure and
security depend. As an example, only one firm in the U.S. produces
ammonium perchlorate which is used in solid rocket propellants
including the space shuttle solid rocket boosters, other space launch
and military capabilities.
Additionally all other nations provide their commercial launchers
with some form of government indemnification. The House recently
extended our form of indemnification until the end of 2012 through the
Commercial Space Launch Act. We hope the Senate follows suit.
Elimination of U.S. government indemnification would drive even more
launch business overseas and could also impact launches of U.S. civil
and national security payloads. AIA. believes the indemnification of
U.S. commercial space launch should be made permanent.
Our nation needs to ramp up technological development, which has
atrophied in recent years. In the September the Review of U.S. Human
Spaceflight--or Augustine--Committee recommended NASA once again put
greater focus into this area.
As a nation, we need to consider future international partnerships,
pooling funds, talent and resources for space exploration or climate
study from space based sensors. International participation will
increase the number of possible projects, providing us with a win-win
situation. It will however, be important to ensure our cooperation is
equitable with our partners, opening opportunities for all but not
adversely impacting the U.S. industrial base.
An important step to promoting further international cooperation in
space is continuing U.S. participation on the International Space
Station until at least 2020. U.S. involvement is currently in danger of
ending in 2015. Supporting the ISS will clearly demonstrate America's
commitment in other areas of international cooperation in space.
Further this will allow America to continue utilizing the ISS as a
National Laboratory.
While AIA believes it is important to protect critical U.S.
capabilities, many U.S. export control policies are counterproductive
for our industry, negatively impacting our security interests. While we
must keep sensitive technologies out of the wrong hands, we also must
facilitate technology trade and cooperation critical to U.S. interests
with our friends and allies in a timely manner. Barriers to the export
competitiveness of U.S. companies have prompted numerous countries to
develop their own indigenous aerospace capabilities., leveraging their
own R&D and innovation. Without a cutting edge U.S. space industrial
base, our government could be forced to rely on foreign suppliers for
key components.
Conclusion
Over the last 50 years, space technologies have become an
increasingly important part of our nation's economic, scientific and
national security capabilities. Over time, all sectors of the U.S.
economy have become inextricably reliant upon space systems. As other
nations make rapid advancements in acquiring or exploring space
capabilities, America's leadership in space is no longer guaranteed and
the securing of its space assets is no longer assured.
I thank the committee for their time and attention and would be
happy to answer any questions.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Stevens.
Dr. Pace.
STATEMENT OF DR. SCOTT PACE, DIRECTOR, SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE,
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Pace. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member
Olson, for providing this opportunity to talk about this
important topic, and I particularly commend the international
orientation that you decided to take on this because I think
this goes to the heart of the geopolitical significance of
space that often isn't recognized.
The geosynchronous arc is crowded with communication
satellites. As you have heard, Russia, Europe, Japan, China,
India are modernizing or building their own satellite-based
navigation systems. The U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space is larger than ever with 69 member states. In some
cases, developments are cause for congratulations, as is I
believe the case when China became the third country to
independently conduct a space walk. In others, these
developments are a cause for concern as the case of North Korea
and Iranian missile programs.
Last month, I attended an annual meeting of the
International Astronautical Federation in Daejeon, South Korea.
There is a statute of South Korea's first astronaut on the main
boulevard. The president of South Korea spoke at the opening
ceremony and said, ``Space technology is already being applied
in various areas of our daily lives. Space technology is the
growth engine that will open the future of mankind and has
become a necessary tool of our own survival.'' Representatives
from Europe, Japan, Russian, China, India and Korea presented
their increasingly specific plans for exploration of the moon
and missions to Mars.
NASA also presented current U.S. plans, and images of
hardware being built and tested I have to say were quite
impressive. Just as impressive was the expressed spirit of
international cooperation and coordination not only among
International Space Station partners but rapidly rising powers
such as India, China and Korea, and this spirit has been in
development not overnight but over the last three years and is
part of an inclusive U.S. diplomatic strategy that resulted in
14 space agencies agreeing to a common global exploration
strategy.
Unfortunately, ongoing U.S. debates combined with the
realities of the fiscal year 2010 NASA budget have created an
air of uncertainty over U.S. intentions. To borrow from Norm
Augustine, you know, it is hard to get others to work on your
garden if you are pulling up the flowers to check the roots.
So the United States is a founding member of the space
club, as you have heard, but we are at the risk of shifting to
an emeritus status. The Chinese in particular have laid out a
careful, logical approach in which they plan to launch a
mission in 2011 to test docking and rendezvous techniques
followed by a man-tended laboratory in 2015 and a three-man
space station by 2020, an interesting date. The selection of 45
new taikonauts is underway along with plans for a lunar sample
return and a Mars orbiter, and I have to say I welcome peaceful
Chinese space exploration efforts. However, I don't want to see
them or other nations to be on the frontier of space without
us.
If we are not planning for what comes after the ISS, the
government is in effect getting out of the human space launch
business. There may be space tourists launched by U.S.
companies, and I certainly hope so. But tourism alone cannot
sustain a major international cooperative human spaceflight
effort. If we are not going beyond the earth orbit, we are
ignoring both the recommendations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board and the reality of increasing globalization
of space activity.
For India, ambitious space efforts are to attract new human
capital to a strategic aerospace sector which must compete with
a growing information technology sector. For China, human
spaceflight experiences are training a new generation of
technical specialists and raising the quality level of
industrial suppliers. For Japan and Europe, spaceflight demands
are creating interdisciplinary skills that can increase the
competitiveness of their aerospace and their non-aerospace
sectors. The sophisticated system engineering demanded by human
spaceflight is part and parcel of what a great nation does, and
more importantly, a symbol of what it is capable of doing.
Human spaceflight is the most demanding space activity
technically, financially and organizationally. From the
beginning it has also been the most symbolic activity both at
home and abroad, a powerful symbol of cooperation among former
adversaries such as on the International Space Station and the
deep international relationships built through the ISS are
among its most impressive and perhaps most enduring
achievements to date.
For the future, we need to continue efforts to bind friends
and allies to us in a multi-partner world in which space
capabilities are globalized. We need friends and allies to
secure the global commons of space upon which we all depend. We
need to inspire a new generation of Americans to take on many
demands in a globally competitive environment driven by
scientific and technical innovation. The international norms
for human space activity will be shaped by those who are there,
not by those who stay behind. If we want to see a human future
in space that reflects our values, then we must be a part of
that effort.
The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008, as mentioned,
combined with the global exploration strategy that was
developed with U.S. participation provides, in my view, a clear
and practical way forward for this Nation. I hope the
Administration and Congress will support the restoration and
necessary NASA funds for exploration and carrying out those
directions.
The United States is facing a generational transition away
from the period represented by the space shuttle and is just as
profound as the transition from Apollo was. The Nation will
need to compete and cooperate in space as never before. The
transition is upon us now at home and abroad. Just as we see
that others are not delaying their entries into space, the
question before this House will be, what will this Nation do?
Thank you for your attention and I would be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Pace
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for providing an opportunity to discuss
this important topic. The growth of global space capabilities presents
several important opportunities and challenges in charting future
directions and funding choices for U.S. space efforts. An understanding
of the changing international landscape, from low Earth orbit to
geosynchronous orbit, to the Moon and beyond, is of fundamental
importance to many national interests. Our national security and public
safety, global economic competitiveness and scientific capabilities,
are all reliant on access to space and space-based capabilities.
The geosynchronous arc is crowded with international communication
satellites. Russia, 'Europe, Japan, China and India are modernizing or
building their own satellite-based navigation systems. With Russian
assistance, South Korea attempted to launch a satellite from its own
territory this past August. Many smaller countries are organizing their
own space agencies to support scientific and technical research in
space, The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
is larger than ever--with 69 member states. As with many other
technologies, space capabilities are increasingly globalized--including
human space flight. In some cases, these developments are a cause for
congratulations as when China became the third country to independently
conduct a spacewalk. In others, these developments are a cause for
concern as in the case of North Korean and Iranian missile programs.
Globalization and Space
Last month I attended the annual meeting of the International
Astronautical Federation in Daejeon, South Korea. There was a statue of
South Korea's first astronaut, Yi So-Yeon, on the main boulevard. The
President of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak, spoke at the opening ceremony
and said, ``Space technology is already being applied in various areas
of our daily lives. Space technology is the growth engine that will
open the future of the mankind, and it has become a necessary tool for
our own survival.'' Representatives from Europe, Japan, Russia, China,
India, and Korea presented their increasingly specific plans for
explorations of the Moon and missions to Mars.
NASA also presented current U.S. plans for replacing the Space
Shuttle, and the images of the hardware being built and tested were
quite impressive. just as impressive was the expressed spirit of
international cooperation and coordination, not only among
International Space Station partners, but rapidly rising space powers
such as India, China, and Korea. This spirit has been in development
for three years, based on an inclusive U.S. diplomatic strategy that
resulted in 14 space agencies agreeing to a common Global Exploration
Strategy.
Let me quote from that strategy:
Space exploration follows a logical set of steps, starting with
basic knowledge and culminating, it is hoped, in a sustained
human presence in space. This journey requires a variety of
both robotic and human missions. The Global Exploration
Strategy provides a framework to coordinate the efforts and
contributions of all nations so that all may participate in the
expansion into space and benefit from it.
Unfortunately, the internal U.S. debate this past summer, combined
with the realities of the Fiscal Year 2010 NASA budget have created an
air of uncertainty over U.S. intentions. To borrow from Norm Augustine,
it's hard to get others to work on a garden if we're pulling up flowers
to check the roots. It's hard for many of our international friends to
secure support for human spaceflight from their governments if we
appear to have doubts about the value of the effort.
The United States is a founding member of the space club, but we're
at risk of shifting to emeritus status while others with more energy
step up. The Chinese in particular have laid out a careful, logical
approach in which they plan to launch a mission in 2011 to test docking
and rendezvous techniques, followed by a man-tended laboratory in 2015,
and a three-man space station by 2020. The selection of 45 new
taikonauts is underway along with plans for a lunar sample return
missions and Mars orbiter by 2013. To be clear, I welcome peaceful
Chinese space exploration efforts. However, I don't want them and other
nations to be on the frontier of space without us. We may not be in a
race, but we need to keep up with the new arrivals.
The Apollo program was intentionally a unilateral U.S. effort. The
whole point was to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon. The Space Shuttle
included international contributions such as the Canadian robot arm and
a European Spacelab. The space station began as a U.S.centered
international effort but evolved into the fully integrated partnership
that is the International Space Station (ISS) today. After the loss of
the Columbia, sustaining the ISS would not have been possible without
the international partners.
Questions for Space
Today, we have the Global Exploration Strategy as an international
common approach to human and robotic exploration of the Moon, Mars, and
beyond. There is no question about the practical, scientific, and even
diplomatic value of space exploration and this is recognized by other
spacefaring nations as well. What about humans in space? That is the
key question for our nation's civil space policy.
What are the questions that will drive and sustain a human space
exploration effort, if nations are not competing against each other in
Cold War-like competitions for prestige?
Challenger forced the question of whether we should risk humans
flying payloads that could be launched in other ways. The answer was no
and we moved satellites to expendable launch vehicles operated by
private companies.
Columbia forced the question of why are we risking humans at all.
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) said that travel
beyond Low Earth Orbit was necessary if we were to justify the risks
involved. The current U.S. Space Exploration Policy, past
NASAauthorizations by Congress, and Global Exploration Strategy are
consistent with the views of the CAIB.
If we are not planning for what comes after the ISS, the government
is, in effect, getting out of the human spaceflight business. There may
be space tourists launched by U.S. companies--I certainly hope so--but
tourism cannot sustain a major international cooperative human space
exploration effort. If we are not going beyond low Earth orbit, we are
ignoring both the recommendations of the CAIB and the reality of the
increasing globalization of space activity.
We should take a page from our science colleagues in asking simple,
but profound questions to shape an implementation strategy. In science,
questions such as ``Does life exist elsewhere in the solar system?'' or
``What is dark energy?'' help shape and sustain scientific strategies
and programs over long periods.
What is the question for human spaceflight? I believe it's asking
whether there is a human future beyond the Earth,
Dr. Harry Shipman posed two questions in his 1989 book Humans in
Space whose answers lead to very different human destinies. The first
is, ``Can extraterrestrial materials be used to support life in
locations other than Earth?'' And the second is, ``Can activities of
sustained economic worth be carried out at those locations?'' Or as I
shorten it: ``Can we live off the land?'' and ``Can we make it pay?"
If the answer to both questions is yes, we will see space
settlements and the incorporation of the Solar System into our economic
sphere as former Science Advisor Jack Marburger has suggested. If the
answer is no, then space is a form of Mount Everest--good for personal
challenge and tourism but nobody really lives there. Other answers
might see Antarctica-like outposts or perhaps a North Sea oil platform
exploiting space resources but without sustainable human communities in
space.
Many people seem to have faith-based answers to these questions but
I would suggest a greater humility in admitting that we don't really
know. And therefore our efforts should be to answer these questions as
in the course of human and robotic exploration beyond the Earth. The
quest to do so will teach us much of practical benefit as we seek to do
things that are hard. The experiences we gain in exploration will give
us new insights into what humans can do and who we are.
Value From Space
The practical benefits of sending humans beyond the Earth are the
``acceptable reasons'' of supporting national interests in science,
technology development, and international relations. For many
countries, these reasons are not just ``nice to do'' but serious
reasons of state. For India, ambitious space efforts attract new human
capital to the strategic aerospace sector, which must compete with a
growing information technology industry. For China, human spaceflight
experiences are training a new generation of technical specialists in
many fields and raising the quality level of industrial suppliers. For
Japan and Europe, space flight demands interdisciplinary skills that
can increase competitiveness in aerospace and non-aerospace sectors.
The sophisticated systems engineering demanded by human space flight
are part and parcel of what a great nation does, and more importantly,
what it is capable of doing.
Human spaceflight is the most demanding space activity,
technically, financially, and organizationally. From the beginning it
has also been the most symbolic activity, both at home and abroad. In
the past, it responded to the question of who we were as Americans in
the Cold War. Today, it is a powerful symbol of cooperation among
former adversaries on the International Space Station. The deep
international relationships built through the ISS are among its most
impressive and perhaps most enduring achievements to date.
The question of whether there is a human future beyond the Earth
will not be answered in a decade or five decades. It is a question that
will evolve, challenge, confound, and test.us for a long time as we try
to answer it.
For the future, we need to continue efforts to bind friends and
allies to us in a multi-partner world in which space capabilities are
globalized,
We need friends and allies to help secure the global commons of
space upon which we depend, to ensure that the space environment
remains free of interference and open to peaceful uses by all.
We need to inspire a new generation of Americans to take of the
many demands of a globally competitive environment driven by scientific
and technical innovation. The interdisciplinary demands of space flight
and human space flight in particular can be a highly effective school
for meeting those challenges.
It is not just our machines or even our DNA that travel into space
but our values as well. What values to we want to see be the norm in
human activities beyond low Earth orbit? The international norms for
human space activity will be shaped by those who are there, not by
those who stay behind. If we want to see a human future in space that
reflects our values then we must be part of that effort.
What Will the United States do?
Ambitious goals and rhetoric require difficult actions and serious
resources or the symbolism and actuality of human spaceflight will be
hollow. The President is critical to effectively setting space policy
priorities in budget requests to the Congress. All Presidents have put
their stamp on the nation's space efforts, from Kennedy and Nixon to
Clinton and Bush. Their actions have typically reflected the broader
international approach the United States seeks to play in the world.
Their decisions reflected considerations of national security and
foreign policy as well as scientific interests and budget constraints.
While each President has responded to the need to provide space
policy direction within the specific context of his era, beliefs, and
political priorities, in retrospect it is clear that many of these
choices have not proven advantageous to the long-term interests of the
United States. Many examples could be offered but it is not my intent
to review this history in detail. However, as the Congress considers
the future direction and funding of U.S. efforts in space--especially
human space exploration--I would hope that it takes a broad and
strategic view of global space developments. Those developments are
enabling new opportunities for international cooperation from the
International Space Station to lunar outposts and scientific missions
to Mars. Those same developments also mean the United States cannot
stand still and expect to influence the international development of
space. The NASA Authorization Acts of 2005 and 2008, combined with the
Global Exploration Strategy that was developed with U.S. participation,
provides a clear and practical way forward for the nation. 1 hope the
Administration and Congress will support the restoration of NASA funds
for exploration necessary to execute existing authorizations and
international strategies.
The United States is facing a generational transition away from the
period represented by the Space Shuttle that is just as profound as the
transition from Apollo was. We are facing a transition not just of
hardware and contracts, but also of leadership and values. NASA will be
cooperating more with commercial and international partners than ever
before. The nation will need to compete and cooperate in space as never
before. The transition is upon us at home and abroad, just as we see
that others are not delaying their entries into space. The question
before us is simple: What will this nation do?
Thank you for your attention. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Pace.
Dr. Schrogl.
STATEMENT OF DR. KAI-UWE SCHROGL, DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN SPACE
POLICY INSTITUTE
Dr. Schrogl. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking
Member, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today. In this intervention, I would like
to provide European perspectives on the implications of the
growth of global space-faring capabilities and to point out
some implications of these current trends for the trans-
Atlantic relations.
The European Space Policy Institute, ESPI, is the central
European think tank for space policy, created following a
decision by the member states of the European Space Agency,
ESA, and established as an independent institution in Vienna,
Austria. ESPI prepares analysis and conducts activities
addressed to policymakers in Europe with the aim of
facilitating the decision-making processes in the field of
space policy.
Madam Chairwoman, in addressing the first issue, the
European perspectives on the implications of the growth of
global space-faring capabilities, it should be pointed out that
Europe regards this trend as basically positive, but also
identifies numerous threats. The opportunities are twofold: a
rising number of space-faring countries and a broadening of
space programs and missions can be a beneficial tool for
supporting joint efforts for dealing with global problems. Two
examples are global climate change monitoring and disaster
management and mitigation. In both cases, the number of
coordinated satellite missions cannot be large enough in order
to achieve the highest impact possible. A second area of
opportunities lies in the possibility to develop markets for
space-related products and services on an international and
global scale. Threats, however, can be seen in the
proliferation of critical technologies or in the field of
lacking regulations in emerging space-faring countries, leading
to flags of convenience and distorting fair international
competition. Europe also understands that it can lose
international prestige, if it is passed by space powers like
China or India, which would have consequences for the
attractiveness of Europe as a high-technology partner. But this
consequence should only encourage Europe to further increase
its own efforts.
Now, Madam Chairwoman, the consequences of these trends for
the trans-Atlantic relations can be set out as three
categories: a promising field, which is cooperation in the
field of space for security, a necessary field, which is space
as a strategic economic issue area and tool to deal with
climate change, and the third, a potential field, which is
space exploration.
In our view, the most promising field for trans-Atlantic
cooperation today is space for security. Space situational
awareness should be addressed and organized in a cooperative
way between the United States and Europe. The European Draft
Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities is the first major
European diplomatic initiative in this field and should be
actively supported by the United States, since it matches
completely its interests. Other areas for cooperation could be
space for internal security or homeland security, maritime
security and responsive space, where both the United States and
Europe could benefit from closer cooperation. In addition to
that, the United States could consider benefiting from recent
technology developments made in Europe, for example, in the
field of radar technology.
A necessary field, the second one I want to mention, for
trans-Atlantic cooperation is the coordination in issues
related to space as a strategic economic area. ESPI has
recently published a joint memorandum with the Space Policy
Institute led by Dr. Pace identifying numerous actions. Amongst
them are the protection of the radio frequency spectrum for
space services, the promotion of open, interoperable standards
and the promotion of open international markets in space goods
and services as well as closer international consultations on
the development or modification of domestic regulations. The
United States and Europe should also jointly lead efforts in
using space for tackling the global problems, as I mentioned,
climate change.
Before that background, space exploration, while leading
the debate today, can only be regarded as a potential field of
trans-Atlantic cooperation. While first deliberations have to
be made now, the priority has to be the full and successful use
of the International Space Station as the basis for an
international space exploration program.
In summarizing, I first of all would like to point out that
the trans-Atlantic relations should receive your high
attention, since they are crucial in organizing the most
important aspects of space activities which are space for
security and space as a strategic economic field.
Dialogue and partnership in this field, with the European
Union and the European Space Agency as well as the European
Parliaments, should be intensified and institutionally
strengthened. The single issues, I have mentioned in these
areas, require roadmaps for implementing joint activities. This
might be reflected in the ongoing space policy review in the
United States and a strong United States-European partnership
can certainly strengthen security and successfully tackle
global challenges.
Thank you very much for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Schrogl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kai-Uwe Schrogl
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear today. In this intervention, I would like to
provide European perspectives on the implications of the growth of
global space-faring capabilities and to point out some implications of
these current trends for the trans-Atlantic relations.
In the outset, please allow me to introduce to you the European
Space Policy Institute (ESPI), which is the central European think tank
for space policy, created following a decision by the Member States of
the European Space Agency (ESA) and established as an independent
institution in Vienna, Austria. ESPI prepares analyses and conducts
activities addressed to policy-makers in Europe with the aim of
facilitating the decision-making processes in the field of space
policy.
1. In addressing the first issue, the European perspectives on the
implications of the growth of global space-faring capabilities, it
should be pointed out that Europe regards this trend as basically
positive, but also identifies numerous threats. The opportunities are
twofold: a raising number of space-faring countries and a broadening of
space programs and missions can be a beneficial tool for supporting
joint efforts for dealing with global problems. Two examples are global
climate change monitoring and disaster management and mitigation. In
both cases, the number of coordinated satellite missions cannot be
large enough in order to achieve the highest impact possible. A second
area of opportunities lies in the possibility to develop markets for
space-related products and services on an international and global
scale. Threats, however, can be seen in the proliferation of critical
technologies or in the field of lacking regulations in emerging space-
faring countries, leading to ``flags of convenience'' and distorting
fair international competition. Europe also understands that it can
loose international prestige, if it is passed by space powers like
China or India, which could have consequences for the attractiveness of
Europe as a high-technology partner. But this consequence should only
encourage Europe to further increase its own efforts.
2. The consequences of these trends for the trans-Atlantic
relations can be set out as three categories:
a promising field, which is cooperation in the field
of space for security,
a necessary field, which is space as a strategic
economic issue area and tool to deal with climate change,
a potential field, which is space exploration.
In our view, the most promising field for trans-Atlantic
cooperation today is space for security. Space Situational Awareness
should be addressed and organized in a cooperative way between the U.S.
and Europe. The European Draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space
Activities is the first major European diplomatic initiative in this
field and should be actively supported by the U.S., since it matches
completely its interests. Other areas for cooperation could be space
for internal security/homeland security, maritime security and
responsive space, where both the U.S. and Europe could benefit from
closer cooperation. In addition to that, the U.S. could consider
benefiting from recent technology developments made in Europe, for
example in the field of radar sensors.
A necessary field for trans-Atlantic cooperation is the
coordination in issues related to space as a strategic economic area.
ESPI has recently published a joint memorandum with the Space Policy
institute at George Washington University identifying numerous actions.
Amongst them are the protection of the radio frequency spectrum for
space services, the promotion of open, inter-operable standards and the
promotion of open international markets in space goods and services as
well as closer international consultations on the development or
modification of domestic regulations. The U.S. and Europe should also
jointly lead efforts in using space for tackling the global problems
like climate change.
Before that background, space exploration--while leading the
debate--can only be regarded as a potential field of trans-Atlantic
cooperation. While first deliberations have to be made now, the
priority has to be the full and successful use of the ISS as the basis
for an international space exploration program.
In summarizing, I first of all would like to point out that the
trans Atlantic relations should receive your high attention, since they
are crucial in organizing the most important aspects of space
activities: space for security and space as a strategic economic field.
Dialogue and partnership in this field (with the European Union and the
European Space Agency on the European side) should be intensified and
institutionally strengthened. The single issues, I have mentioned in
these areas, require roadmaps for implementing joint activities. This
might be reflected in the ongoing space policy review in the U.S. A
strong U.S.-European partnership can strengthen security and
successfully tackle global challenges.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you so much.
Last we are going to hear from Dr. Williamson.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAY A. WILLIAMSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECURE
WORLD FOUNDATION
Dr. Williamson. Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking Member Olson
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to share with you Secure World
Foundation's insights on the growth in world space capabilities
and why these changes are important to U.S. interests.
One of the most important characteristics of the past
decade is the rapid emergence of new actors in outer space.
Since 1999, the number of states with space systems in orbit
has increased from 27 to 37. Countries as diverse as Algeria,
Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, South Africa and Turkey have now
become part of the so-called space club. The addition to the
space environment of new players and spacecraft raises both
opportunities and challenges for the governance of space
activities, as you mentioned, Chairwoman Giffords. It also
means a larger marketplace for U.S. products. Finally, it
raises the important challenge that every space-faring state
wants to own its own earth observation and communications
satellite, leading to crowding in the orbits. This and the
growth of space debris increases the need to establish
effective governance of the global commons of outer space and
raises the following concerns for the United States. Have the
emerging space states instituted best operational practices in
designing and operating their launch systems and spacecraft?
Have they signed and modified the 1967 Treaty on Outer Space
and the other space agreements? Do they adhere to the United
Nations orbital debris guidelines?
In the view of the foundation, the United States could
improve its own orbital security for commerce, science and
national security and gain closer allies by engaging with the
emerging space states in two key areas: first, assisting
emerging space-faring countries to adhere to international best
practices in space activities. Guaranteeing the long-term
sustainability of outer space is one of the most important
space issues the United States will face over the next decade.
It is therefore important to assist emerging states to develop
clear policies and laws that conform with international norms.
This February, the U.N. Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space will begin work on a set of so-called best practices for
space activities. The United States can continue to play a
significant role in COPUOS by engaging with the small states as
well as the larger ones in defining best practices.
Second is taking greater advantages of the opportunities
that the emergence of these new space states present for U.S.
policymaking. The space arena can provide a powerful platform
for engaging in what has been called soft power, the use of
U.S. technological and economic capabilities in policies to
influence policymakers in other countries.
Through NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA, the
United States has long engaged with Latin America in space
science and applications. It may time to increase that
engagement in part to counterbalance the growing influence of
China in the region. China has taken a strong interest in Latin
America and has actively assisted both Brazil and Venezuela in
their space efforts. China and Brazil jointly developed and
operate the CBERS earth resource satellite system. Just a year
ago, China launched into orbit a Chinese communications
satellite that it sold to Venezuela under a technology transfer
agreement. Some 90 Venezuelan engineers and technicians
traveled to China to help build and launch the satellite.
Satellite Simon Bolivar now provides communications for most of
Latin America and has enabled Venezuela to extend its influence
throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
The United States could extend its own engagement with
Latin America through additional teaching and cooperative space
science and applications programs. However, the current onerous
ITAR regulations impede our ability to cooperate effectively
with space countries. ITAR reform would go a long way to fix
this impediment. We need a regulatory framework that assists,
not impedes the creation of new markets and enhances
international cooperation and competition.
We at Secure World Foundation mostly see space developments
among emerging space states as opportunities rather than as
threats. In general, the United States can bolster the long-
term security climate in space by working with these states to
build space capacity, especially in space science and
applications where current ITAR regulations are not large
issues. Enhanced ability to make use of the benefits that space
systems provide means a broader market for U.S. goods and
services, especially high-tech consumer items.
Just as important, however, is the need to assist emerging
space states to develop space policies with a global long-term
sustainable approach. The U.S. range of policies, legal
instruments and interagency practices can be instructive to
emerging space states that are just developing their own space-
related policies and law. Countries that gain an economic and
political stake in the space environment are more likely to
pitch in to preserve the space environment for the future.
Finally, these reflections lead to the overall need for the
United States to develop an overarching space strategy that
includes military, civil and commercial and international
components. Such a strategy would go a long way to clarify the
direction of U.S. investments in space and the nature and scope
of U.S. involvement in the international community.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Williamson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ray A. Williamson
Chairwoman Giffords, Ranking Member Olson, and distinguished
members of this Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
share with you Secure World Foundation's insights on the growth in
space capabilities throughout the world and why the changes this growth
represents are particularly important to U.S. interests. From the
emergence of China as a country with a significant human spaceflight
program to the launch this September of South Africa's second
indigenous remote sensing satellite, over the past decade the
international space community has experienced many significant changes.
One of the important, but often overlooked, characteristics of the
past decade is the rapid emergence of new actors in outer space. Since
1999, the number of States with space systems in orbit has increased
from 27 to 37. Countries as diverse as Algeria, Iran, Nigeria,
Venezuela, South Africa and Turkey have now become part of the so-
called ``space club.'' Eight States are now also capable of launching
satellites into orbit. South Korea will likely soon make that a total
of nine.
Countries wish to enter the space realm for a variety of reasons,
not least of which is the desire to gain prestige in the international
community. Rationales include the following, the priority of which
varies depending on the needs of the State:
Advance scientific and technical capacity. Emerging
space States see space science and technology as assisting in
the development of domestic scientific and technical capacity
well beyond the space scene. Information, communication and
imaging technologies, especially, have strong links to space
science and technology. Even health technologies and the
millennia old practice of agriculture are greatly enhanced by
space technology. For example, as an article last week in the
Economist highlighted, the data from remote sensing space
systems and GPS can assist in improving crop yield, and
reducing the overuse of fertilizer and seed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Harvest Moon: Artificial Satellites Are Helping Farmers Boost
Crop Yields,'' Economist, 7 November 2009, p. 73.
Improve the management and use of resources and
provide better protection against the ravages of natural
disasters. The smaller states place an especially heavy
emphasis on space applications. Hence, it is no surprise that
Algeria, Nigeria and Turkey decided to enter the space realm by
each purchasing a the satellite in the Disaster Monitoring
Constellation (DMC),\2\ which acquires a complete, medium-
resolution data set of the globe every day. All participating
States have access to data from the entire DMC, providing much
more coverage and timeliness at lower cost than each State
could achieve individually. Data from the DMC has helped those
countries tackle the enormous challenge of managing forests,
grasslands and waterways, and of responding to natural
disasters. Having access to the DMC system has also spurred the
creation of training in space technologies in these countries
and development of new markets for data products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.dmcii.com/about us constellation.htm. The DMC
satellites were designed and constructed by SSTL of the United Kingdom.
http://www.sstl.co.uk. DMC participants are: Algeria, China, Nigeria,
Spain, United Kingdom, and the Spanish company, Deimos. Turkey was part
of the original constellation but its satellite has reached the end of
life.
Enhance access to education and health information
throughout the country. For many developing countries,
especially, communication satellite systems can help spread
access to educational programs and modem communications and
information throughout a nation, especially those with poor
infrastructure or vast geographical extent. Such systems also
create opportunities for the development of tele-health and
tele-education to serve extended remote areas. Canada and India
have been particularly strong in providing tele-services to
remote areas. Further, space activities are exciting to young
people and help interest them in following careers in science
and mathematics, which are needed to develop the country's
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
industrial capacity.
Improve national security. One of the primary drivers
of a country's interest in space systems is their use in its
national security apparatus. Space technology can especially
assist in the improvement of border security. Furthermore, by
monitoring potentially hostile activities in neighboring
countries, space technology can help reduce tensions between
States and preempt conflict.
Advance industrial capacity and the economy. In order
to participate more effectively in the global space economy,
emerging space States use their entry to build the capacity to
design and build space components. This upgrading of their
economies can result in demand for products from the United
States and other developed countries. In addition, as a recent
study carried out by the Space Policy Institute of The George
Washington University has demonstrated for GPS technologies,
incorporating this space technology into the workflow of
transportation services can markedly improve efficiency and
reduce costs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Henry R. Hertzfeld, ``Space as a Utility: An Exploration of GPS
in Commercial Use,'' Report to Secure World Foundation, May 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prestige in the international community. We must not
overlook the role that prestige plays in joining the space
club. Identifying with other countries that are more advanced ,
technologically can be a powerful incentive because being part
of the growing number of countries with space capabilities
indicates a certain level of scientific and technological
achievement. This achievement enhances the pride of citizens
and augments the reputation of the country in the international
marketplace.
The addition to the space environment of spacecraft owned and
operated by emerging space States raises both opportunities and
challenges for the space community and the governance of space
activities. From the standpoint of increased opportunities, having more
space players means greater chances for finding other space actors with
which to cooperate in order to pursue space science and technology
development. Doing so means pooling some resources and saving costs for
each individual country.
Cooperation specifically means that States can create beneficial
international agreements on space science and applications and on space
exploration, allowing them to make advances that they might not achieve
on their own. European countries have demonstrated the enormous value
of such cooperation in the European Space Agency, a model that other
regions have indicated they would like to emulate when conditions are
right. Such cooperation can also lead to technological cooperation in
other, non space disciplines.
A greater number of space actors means a larger marketplace for
space products, of which both established and emerging actors can take
advantage. Greater numbers can result in increased demand for a variety
of commodities, everything from space launch vehicles to data analysis
software and expert advice, all of which can benefit U.S. industry.
More States involved in the pursuit of space science also potentially
means greater and broader advances in our knowledge of the universe.
The increase in the numbers of space actors, coupled with the fact
that the established space actors are increasing the numbers of their
spacecraft in orbit also increases the need to establish effective
governance of the global commons of outer space. Every spacefaring
State tends to want its own Earth observing and communications
satellite. As a result, we are beginning to experience crowding in
certain orbits, such as in low Earth polar, sun-synchronous orbit where
most Earth observation satellites are located and in the geosynchronous
orbits (GSO) favored for satellite communications.
As this Committee knows, the increasing growth of orbital debris
has also become an important concern in assuring the long term
sustainability of space activities. For the emerging spacefaring States
there is another set of issues related to sustainability:
Have they instituted best operational practices in
designing and operating their launch systems and spacecraft?
Have they signed and ratified the 1967 Treaty on
Outer Space and the subsequent Agreements on Liability,
Registration, and Return of Astronauts?
Do they adhere to the orbital debris guidelines
agreed to and passed by the United Nations General Assembly?
Since its inception, Secure World Foundation has partnered with
other institutions to pursue its mission of addressing space governance
issues and the long term sustainability of space activities. For
example, just one year ago, we, the European Space Policy Institute and
the International Academy of Astronautics, held a workshop in Vienna,
Austria focused on the fair and responsible use of outer space.\4\ The
workshop, which included analysts from emerging and established space
countries, focused on the identification and analysis of key challenges
to the achievement of fair and sustainable use of outer space for all
space actors, including the newly emerging space States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ European Space Policy Institute, Nov. 2008 conference, Fair and
Responsible Use of Outer Space, http://www.espi.or.at/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, the workshop emphasized the need for the
established spacefaring States to establish appropriate practices to
ensure that outer space remains available for the future use of
emerging States and guarantees the fair and equitable use of the
frequency spectrum for all space actors. By the same token, emerging
States have the responsibility to ensure that they act as good citizens
by adhering to the international space treaties and to resolutions such
as the UN Guidelines on Orbital Debris.
In the view of the Foundation, the United States can improve its
own orbital security for commerce, science and national security and
gain closer allies within the international community by engaging with
the emerging space States. The emergence of new space States raises two
key questions for the United States:
1) What can the United States do to assist emerging
spacefaring countries in adhering to international best
practices in space activities?
It is important to assist emerging states as much as possible to
develop clear polices that incorporate the elements of Outer Space
Treaty and the other three international Agreements and to bring them
into conformity with accepted space debris-reducing practices.
Maintaining the benefits we gain from space systems through
guaranteeing the long term sustainability of outer space is one of the
most important space issues the United States and other spacefaring
States will face over the next decade. It is a matter of ensuring space
security, space commerce, and the economic and social benefits with
which space systems provide us.
Over the past few years, the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space, or COPUOS has made excellent progress on improving the
international governance of space activities. The Committee has
developed guidelines on limiting the creation of orbital debris which
were passed in 2007 by the General Assembly. The U.S. delegation played
a significant part in that effort.
This February the COPUOS Subcommittee on Science and Technology
will begin serious work on a set of so-called ``best practices'' for
space activities. U.S. delegates to COPUOS have played a strong role in
both efforts. Committee membership includes many small states that had
a major role in crafting the Space Debris Guidelines and they are
likely to be helpful in reaching agreement on a best practices
document. The United States can continue to play a significant role
here by engaging with the small states as well as the larger ones in
the work on best practices.
2) Is the United States taking sufficient advantage of the
opportunities that the emergence of these States as spacefaring
entities present for U.S. policymaking?
The space arena can provide a powerful platform for engaging in
what has been termed ``Soft Power'' by analysts--the use of U.S.
technological and economic capabilities to influence policymakers in
other countries.
The case of Latin America might serve as a good example where the
use of soft power could assist the achievement of U.S. goals. Two weeks
ago, Secure World Foundation partnered with CRECTEALC, the Regional
Center for the Teaching of Science and Technology in Space for Latin
America and the Caribbean [Centro Regional de Ensennanza de Ciencia y
Tecnologia del Espacio para Amenrica Latina y el Caribe] to hold a
workshop focused on sharing the space policies, programs and plans of
Latin America.\5\ This workshop specifically included presentations on
space policy essentials, space security, international law of outer
space, and the structure of U.S. space activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The SWF-CRECTEALC workshop: http://
www.SecureWorldFoundation.org, SWF Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participants expressed appreciation for the focus on policy and
legal matters experienced in other countries that they might consider
in drawing up space policies and designing national legal regimes that
adhere to international space treaties. During the workshop
representatives of several Latin American countries presented their
countries' space policies and activities. They expressed just pride in
what they had accomplished, despite the financial and political
challenges of bringing a dedicated program of space science and
technology into being.
Through NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey and NOAA, the United
States has long engaged with Latin America in space science and
applications, in a variety of programs. It may be time to increase that
engagement, in part to counterbalance the growing influence of China in
the region.
In recent years, China has taken a strong interest in Latin America
and has actively assisted both Brazil and Venezuela in their space
efforts. China and Brazil jointly developed and operate the CBERS Earth
resources satellite system. Data from this system are available for
free to countries neighboring Brazil and to other countries who wish to
build a ground station.\6\ Other cooperative agreements in Earth and
space science are underway. Just a year ago, China launched into orbit
a DFH4 communication satellite that it had sold to Venezuela. The sales
agreement included a technology transfer arrangement that resulted in
some 90 Venezuelan engineers and technicians having direct involvement
in China in the satellite's construction and launch. Satellite Simon
Bolivar is now located at 78 degrees East Longitude over Uruguay and
provides communications for most of Latin America with C band satellite
communications. This satellite has enabled Venezuela to extend its
influence throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.imagingnotes.com/go/article_free.php?mp_id=134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States could extend its own engagement with Latin
America through teaching programs, perhaps with the U.N.-affiliated
CRECTEALC, which has campuses in Mexico and Brazil. It could also
explore more vigorously than it has, cooperative space science and
space applications efforts. However, the current onerous .ITAR
regulations make certain types of technology cooperation extremely
difficult. ITAR is a serious issue that impedes the U.S. ability to
cooperate effectively with emerging and established space countries
alike. ITAR reform would go a long way to fix this impediment. We need
a regulatory framework that assists, not impedes, the creation of new
markets and enhances international cooperation and competition.
One specific thing the United States might do with Latin America is
to take an active part in the Space Conference of the Americas that
will be held in Mexico in November 2010. This conference will bring
together all of the major Latin American and Caribbean countries that
are interested in outer space for several days of presentations,
discussions and sharing of ideas. The United States could gain a lot
not only from attending this important event but also from offering
some specific science and technology initiatives for the countries
attending.
In short, we at SWF mostly see space developments among emerging
space States as opportunities rather than as threats. In general, the
United States can bolster the long-term security climate in space by
working with emerging space states to build space capacity, especially
in space science and applications, where ITAR restrictions intrude
relatively little. Enhanced ability to make use of the benefits that
space systems provide also means a broader market for U.S. goods and
services, especially high technology consumer items like GPS devices.
Just as important, however, is the need to assist emerging space
States to develop space policies having a global, long-term sustainable
approach. Since the beginning of the space age, the United States has
constructed a range of policies, legal instruments and interagency
practices to guide its space efforts. These can be instructive to
emerging space States who are just developing their space-related
policies and laws.
Countries that gain an economic and political stake in the space
environment by having systems in orbit are more likely to be inclined
to pitch in to preserve the space environment for their benefit.
Nevertheless; it is important to work with all possible spacefaring
countries to ensure that the space environment remains available for
all for the many benefits space systems provide.
Finally, these reflections lead to the overall need for the United
States to develop an overarching space strategy that goes beyond any
necessary revisions to U.S. space policy and includes both
military, civil, and commercial components. Such a strategy would
go a long way to clarify the direction of U.S. investments in space
science, space applications, the human exploration of outer space, and
the nature and scope of U.S. involvement in the international
community.
* * *
Secure World Foundation (SWF) is a private operating foundation
headquartered in Superior, Colorado and with offices in Washington, DC
and Vienna, Austria. The Foundation is dedicated to maintaining the
secure and sustainable use of space for the benefit of Earth and all
its peoples. SWF engages with academics, policy makers, industry,
scientists and advocates in the space and international affairs
communities to support steps that strengthen governance of outer space
and delivery of the benefits of space to Earth. http://
www.SecureWorldFoundation.org.
International Effect of U.S. Commitment
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you so much, Dr. Williamson, and
to all of our panelists today, you really brought forward some
fascinating aspects of this very complex situation. At this
point we are going to begin our first round of questions. The
Chair recognizes herself for five minutes.
I think a couple of points were clear across all of our
witnesses. One is that the space environment globally is
changing, that we have seen a tremendous amount of development
in the last 50 years but particularly in the last decade. Also
that U.S. leadership is in question and the lack of commitment
that we have seen here in the United States and that the world
has seen really changes the perspective of this economic, this
defense aspect, exploration aspect, technological aspect that
space brings with it. So my question, and I am going to begin
with Dr. Pace, is a bit of twist. You know, you talked about
your international experience and I am interested to hear from
others as well, but what does this non-direct clear vision for
the United States mean to other countries without a clear,
precise vision for where we are going in space at this moment?
How does that change other nations' commitment without having a
U.S. strong lack of commitment to space?
Dr. Pace. Well, I think that it makes it difficult for
advocates in other countries who want to work with us to make
an argument that they will in fact be a partner. It also
increases desires to look for other partners and alliances with
other rising partners to make different arrangements as they
pursue their own self-interest. As I said, the global
exploration strategy is one which is a very collaborative
effort. It is not a situation where the United States says we
need to define everything and then you get to fit in in various
places. The global exploration strategy is one which has been
very inclusive to have other countries involved in defining the
architecture and working together in a way that really I think
is unprecedented. But if the United States appears not to be
there or to be uncertain to be there, then what is there to
talk about, and therefore people start looking at each other
and going, you know, maybe we should be making other
arrangements because we just don't know if the Americans are
going to be there. As a result, it is not as if people are
being hostile or anything to the United States; it is simply
that we are making ourselves irrelevant to the discussions, and
if we become irrelevant, then I think that does harm our
interests as people will pursue their own self-interests in
economic and commercial and international and security
interests.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you.
Dr. Schrogl?
Dr. Schrogl. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The United
States is still spending so much more money than all the other
space-faring countries that U.S. leadership is present in your
capabilities and in the activities you are conducting in outer
space. The United States is leading through this engagement,
and as I pointed out in my statement, Europe is very much
interested in a strong relationship with the United States. The
European countries have recently started to come up with
diplomatic initiatives of their own and we regard this as an
opportunity to jointly develop issues in outer space where the
United States could have taken leadership but where we as the
Europeans have waited for such initiatives. We have seen a
number of areas where Europe started debates like on space
debris and now on safe conduct of space activities where it is
absolutely necessary of course that the United States engages
actively in such debates and we have seen that the United
States is ready to cooperate in such fields with Europe in
order to come up with joint global visions in these fields. So
the United States certainly has to take an active role in the
international field. You can do that, and Europe is certainly
ready to work very closely with the United States in order to
achieve common objectives.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you.
I have more questions, but we have so many members, I think
we want to make sure with votes and everything we get
everyone's question in, so let me stop there and turn the floor
over to Mr. Olson.
Specialization in Space
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you
for your kindness, and gentlemen, I will be brief to make sure
that all the members get to ask their questions.
I want to talk about collaborations and specialization.
Going forward, exploration of space beyond low earth orbit
either robotically or by human presence will most likely be
done collaboratively between two or more nations. By limiting
the role each partner might play in a future mission, does this
necessarily mean that as nations become specialized in one of
several capabilities they give up the capability of maintaining
a full suite of capabilities and is necessarily bad--is it
necessarily bad if a nation decides to cede a set of
capabilities to another nation? Too much overspecialization.
Mr. Hauser, you are on the left.
Mr. Hauser. I think it depends on the nation's perspective
and what they want to achieve and what their goals are for
their own space program. You know, if you are a smaller country
and you don't have the financial wherewithal to do, then maybe
it gives you an opportunity to play where you might not have
been able to play before. If you have grandioser dreams, then
maybe overspecifying is a little bit too difficult. I would
defer to my colleagues, who probably know more specifics about
each of the nations, but I really--it does come down to the
objectives of that nation and to their own psyche about what
they want to achieve for their country and the status that they
want their country to be perceived at, so I think it really
comes down to them and what they want to do.
Mr. Olson. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. I would tend to agree with what Marty said,
and I would just add that I think for the United States,
though, it is a totally different issue. I think we need to be
capable in all areas of space. We are now and we should
continue to be that way. I think it would be unsatisfactory for
us to totally turn over one capability to another nation.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. That is exactly what I was
looking for. I appreciate that.
Dr. Pace.
Dr. Pace. I think, you know, keying off that, the
capabilities that we have should be commensurate with what our
responsibilities are. A relatively smaller country, a regional
power may want to have space capabilities that are appropriate
for it. If we want to see ourselves as a global power and
global influence, then we need to have a full suite of those
capabilities. So capabilities reflect what we think our role in
the world is, and I think that as my colleague mentioned about
strategic economic issues, if we are going to be cooperating
with other countries, part of what we should be doing is being
able to shape the ability of those countries to make it easier
for them to work with us, so that is why we talk about open
international standards, open markets. We protect the radio-
frequency spectrum. We talk about global commons. Just as we
are a maritime nation, we are a space nation and therefore
things that are part of that space commons are of deep interest
to us. I don't think there is a capability that we should
unilaterally cede to depend on others because I don't think
there is an aspect of our national security and foreign policy
that we would want to cede to others, but at the same time, we
should make it easier for others to work with us both by being
a stable and trusted partner and making sure that our standards
and markets are open to that cooperation.
ISS Continuation
Mr. Olson. And just to follow up on one of your comments,
do you think that by deorbiting the International Space Station
in 2015 that we sort of violate those promises we made to those
countries and hurt our standing globally?
Dr. Pace. I think that the problem with 2015 date, and I
agree with what has been said, that I think it should at least
be sustained through 2020 so that we can make a data-driven,
data-based decision on whether to continue it or not. I mean,
the experiment has been set up but the experiment has not yet
run so we should see whether we get value out of it. As I've
said, I think the international collaboration we have achieved
so far is already an outstanding value and a creation that is
very impressive. Now we need to run the science experiment, see
how that works, and then we make a decision based on real data
and real results and so I think it would be wrong to
preemptively deorbit that station. And if I might say, what I
would have preferred is that we may have put something in the
budget that said we are either going to deorbit it or we are
going to extend it and not have left it ambiguous the way we
did. But nonetheless, that is the decision now before this
Administration.
Mr. Olson. Yes, sir, agree on that comment as well.
Dr. Schrogl.
Specialization
Dr. Schrogl. Thank you. In Europe, we are used to the fact
that our smaller countries are not able to cover the whole
range of space activities so we are used to cooperation,
cooperation in the European framework in order to achieve
common objectives and then try to cover the whole field. Europe
and other countries, space-faring countries, are certainly very
much interested in getting into the position to have autonomous
capabilities in various areas be it space transportation, be it
now global navigation services, and as I said, it is, or it
will be extremely important in the future that these systems
will be combined and coordinated into systems of systems in
order to achieve common goals like global change where we
simply cannot have enough systems around the earth in order to
achieve these common objectives.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Schrogl.
Dr. Williamson?
Dr. Williamson. It seems to me it is not just a matter of
which technologies to focus on and so forth but what the
capabilities you want are, and in my view, the United States
should maintain a full range of technological capabilities but
it may be, for example, that we depend on another country more
for certain areas rather than others in order to achieve a
greater common good for the international community. So it is a
question of how--taking leadership to determine how we can best
use the capabilities of others to achieve our goals as well as
contribute to theirs.
Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for that answer.
I am over my time. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
We are going to hear from Representative Kosmas next.
Maintaning American Leadership
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you all, gentlemen, for being here this morning. It
has been quite enlightening to hear from you and I think
encouraging as well for us to understand the significance of
the opportunities before us to cooperate internationally in
space exploration. However, I suspect that you feel the angst
that we as members of this committee have and as
representatives of communities that depend on space and
consider it to be a very, very important issue for our Nation
both in national security as well as in advancements of science
and technology. I guess I would say ``ambiguous'' I think was a
word just used as to where are we headed, and I guess my
question is, what do you sense--some of you have made rather
blunt assessments as to the aggressive way in which other
countries are seeking to do the things that we have always
considered our primary territory and our ability to continue to
be a leader in space exploration. What do you consider to be
the greatest impediment that we are--by which we are hindered
at the moment in terms of our ability to continue to be leaders
in space exploration and specifically manned space exploration?
Mr. Hauser?
Mr. Hauser. Finance is certainly one of the biggest
impediments. You know, as we discussed already here, it is very
difficult not only for us to plan with our budgets but then for
other countries to depend on us and to engage in partnerships
and cooperative efforts if they don't have reasonable
comfortability that we are going to continue to be there as we
go through that process. There are probably some regulatory
issues as well. It is also a great impediment and certainly
hurting our own marketplace because of the ITAR restrictions
and in many ways we have been our own worst enemy. I am a
retired Air Force colonel so I certainly believe in protecting
national security but, you know, you have to protect what is
important but you also have to find ways to work in the
environment so that you are not so restrictive that you create
other markets and other opportunities for everybody else which
I personally believe we have, so we need to balance that out. I
think those are the two big ones that really come to my mind.
Ms. Kosmas. Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. Well, once again, Marty took my two things,
but I would like to add to it. The biggest concern I think we
have is ITAR, and it really affects the companies that we
represent, especially the small ones. Most of them need
business. It is a global economy. They need to be doing
business overseas to stay in business, and with the defense
market starting to go down, a lot of them are losing money
there and they need to be able to do business in a timely way.
It drastically impacts our industrial base and we need to
really watch that carefully.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you for that. I know that there have been
some movements made by other jurisdictions, Foreign Affairs
Committee, it is languishing perhaps in the Senate, but in
terms of what we as a Nation need to continue to have that kind
of inspiration and that kind of leadership, again, global
leadership in this space exploration, your final answer would
be finances and ITAR?
Mr. Stevens. It would be.
Ms. Kosmas. Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. I would say that again maybe as the policy guy,
it is policy, programs and budgets, the alignment between those
and there are a lot of disconnects between policies, programs
and budgets that we are looking at, and that is really the core
of instability. I think we need to have a clear statement that
we are going to be going beyond low earth orbit and doing what
the CAIB said we should do. I think we should have a program to
execute that ability to go beyond low earth orbit and I think
that there is one on the books, and I think we need to fund
those programs. Now, if we don't like those answers in some
ways, then we have a choice: we can change our goals, we can
decide to, you know, add more money or we can decide to take on
more risk. But I think that the fact that people are uncertain
about what policies, programs and budgets we are going to be
implementing is an ambiguous problem that makes other countries
wonder if we are going to be there as a partner. So policy
stability, I guess, would be my number one supported by the
resources to carry that out.
Ms. Kosmas. I think what you have all answered is
consistent with the recommendations from the Augustine
committee and those are of concern to us in terms of what will
be the outcome of that report and where those policies,
programs and funding will be established, so I think we are all
saying the same thing.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Representative Kosmas.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Funding Problems
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and I
appreciate your holding this hearing. I appreciate the
witnesses today, stimulating our discussion of America's space
program. One thing is clear. Although the complaint that
funding is a problem, something else is clear by the testimony
today is that we spend more money than any other country on
space. Thus, if there is a problem, it is not necessarily that
the money isn't there but the money that is being spent has not
been spent wisely and that there has been a lack of discipline,
prioritization and perhaps lack of professionality both inside
our government and in the private sector. I understand that the
Ares I was launched recently and I was just reading Buzz
Aldrin's analysis of that, which is very interesting. I would
submit that for the record at this point.
[The information follows:]
Why We Need Better Rockets
By Buzz Aldrin
Posted: November 9, 2009 04:56 p.m.
Well, it looked spectacular.
I'm referring to NASA's recent launch of the Ares 1-X, billed as
the prototype of the Ares 1 as a crew launch vehicle, a fancy term for
a manned space booster. The rocket is said to have performed as
planned, and ushered in the era of the Ares rockets to replace the
Space Shuttle next year. Only it won't. In fact, the much-hyped Ares 1-
X was much ado about nothing.
Yes, the rocket that thundered aloft from NASA's Launch Pad 39B
sure looked like an Ares 1. But that's where the resemblance stops.
Turns out the solid booster was--literally--bought from the Space
Shuttle program, since a five-segment booster being designed for Ares
wasn't ready. So they put a fake can on top of the four-segmented motor
to look like the real thing. Since the real Ares' upper stage rocket
engine, called the J-2X wasn't ready either, they mounted a fake upper
stage. No Orion capsule was ready, so--you guessed it--they mounted a
fake capsule with a real-looking but fake escape rocket that wouldn't
have worked if the booster had failed. Since the guidance system for
Ares wasn't ready either they went and bought a unit from the Atlas
rocket program and used it instead. Oh yes, the parachutes to recover
the booster were the real thing--and one of the three failed, causing
the booster to slam into the ocean too fast and banging the thing up.
So, why you might ask, if the whole machine was a bit of slight-of-hand
rocketry did NASA bother to spend almost half a billion dollars (that's
billion with a ``b'') in developing and launching the Ares 1-X?
The answer: politics.
Technical problems, the kind that follow every new rocket's
development, have haunted the Ares like leftovers from Halloween. The
rocket as currently designed shakes so much during launch that shock
absorbers are needed beneath its capsule payload. All of this takes
time to fix--and money, money that NASA really doesn't have. To stave
off critics, three years ago the Project Constellation managers
conceived of the 1-X flight to supposedly show some progress. They
could instrument the rocket with hundreds of sensors gathering
information never before obtained during a booster use in a Shuttle
mission. It would give the launch team some practice in the assembly of
an Ares. And NASA would find out if something as ungainly as the Ares 1
design--a thicker top than the bottom booster--could survive during
ascent through the Earth's atmosphere. Of course, all of the changes to
the Shuttle launch pad to accommodate the Ares wouldn't be ready in
time, so they decided to just leave all of the Shuttle hardware, such
as the rotating tower that envelops the Shuttles there. A success might
just buy more time for Ares to fix its problems.
And that's just what happened.
Meanwhile, the huge Ares V super booster is just a series of
drawings. Unlike the plan used to send Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and
me to the Moon in 1969, whereby we used just one rocket to lift all of
the elements of our Apollo spaceships, the current return-to-the-Moon
plan requires not one rocket but two-one launch of an Ares 1 carrying
the astronauts in the Orion capsule, and an Ares V lifting a big upper
stage, a sort of space tug, and the lunar landing craft called Altair.
Together, the two ships dock in orbit and then the tug, called the
Earth Departure Stage, fires up for the outbound trip to the Moon. Two
rockets in development; two launching systems. And two price tags. Two
ways for failure to occur. Or delays to develop.
Worse yet, neither rocket alone can accomplish a deep space
mission. And deep space, such as Mars is, as our friends in the recent
Augustine report stated, our destination in space. These rockets were
originally supposed to all be derivatives of the Space Shuttle-using
four segment boosters and Shuttle engines--but the designs were changed
to save money and development time. Neither of which has proven to be
the case today. Our Augustine panel colleagues stated flatly that some
new heavy lift rocket would be needed no matter which direction
President Barack Obama chose for the space program. But Ares 1 is too
small, barely able to lift the crew space capsule. And Ares V is too
weak to boost all of the elements together.
What do we need? One rocket for all our deep space missions. Save
the taxpayer's money by canceling the Ares 1 and V. And go ``back to
the future'' in designing the big beast. So how do we get to the space
station without Ares 1? Let the commercial space firms develop their
own crew launchers, and crew vehicles. Why should Uncle Sam be in the
people hauling business?
Here's my plan--and yes, I am a rocket scientist--cancel Ares 1 now
and the version of the Orion capsule that is supposed to fly astronauts
back and forth to the International Space Station. Instead, unleash the
commercial sector by paying them for transportation services to the
station. Could be capsules. Could be winged ships like the Space
Shuttle, capable of flying back to a runway with its crews and cargoes,
not splashing in the ocean like a cannonball. With the money saved,
start developing a true heavy lifter worthy of the Saturn V's
successor. Could be a side-mount rocket like the Shuttles, with a tank-
and-booster set flanked by a payload pod jammed full of cargo-or a
space capsule with astronauts in tow. Or new upper stages capable of
deep space missions. Let's open'er up to a true competition, with
designs from inside--and outside--NASA. If we bypass a foolish Moon
race and let the development of the Moon be an international affair, we
will have time to refine the super booster to make sure it is
compatible with our deep space goals, like missions flying by comets or
asteroids--or to the moons of Mars. Such a rocket would be ready when
the time comes to colonize Mars. No more false starts and dead end
rockets.
Maybe use innovative elements like new upper stage engines, or
entirely new propulsion systems. Or designs truly evolved from the
Shuttle era. The idea is to get the best thinking from rocketeers
before we start spending Uncle Sam's space bucks.
I confess I have a design in mind that I and my team have worked on
for years. It's called Aquila, and it is a true offspring of the Space
Shuttle. It makes maximum use of the existing Shuttle infrastructure--
unlike the real Ares--and Shuttle boosters, engines and the side-
mounted design where today the winged orbiter rides into space. If we
need bigger rocket engines, Boeing's RS-68 behemoth is always
available, flight proven and flight tested aboard the Delta IV
commercial launchers. You see, heavy lifting doesn't need to be heavy
spending, if we do the job right.
But let the designers take the field-and may the best booster win.
To paraphrase David Letterman, we don't need any stupid rocket tricks.
Just good sound engineering. For without good new rockets to carry our
payloads and crews, nobody is ever going to follow in Neil, Mike and my
footsteps into deep space. And that's where we are destined to go.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I understand that the Ares I actually
cost us a half a billion dollars. Is that correct? Ares I-X
cost us a half a billion dollars and it was--and if you take a
look at the details of exactly what it was all about, it was
probably the most expensive launch that we have had for a long
time and was not really an entire--it wasn't a rocket in and of
itself. But let us get to the subject at hand here.
ITAR Restrictions
When we talk about space cooperation, I personally believe
that space cooperation is a prerequisite because of cost
factors to future endeavors in space. We have got to have that
because we can't afford to do it on our own but in-space
cooperation, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to cooperate
with every country in the same way. The first complaint of the
witnesses today was ITAR. I have heard that. And second was
funding. But can we not cooperate with other countries like our
European friends and things like space debris, which I think is
a vitally important issue for us all to handle. It affects
every one of the space-faring nations without having to have an
elimination of the ITAR restrictions on dealing with vicious
dictatorships like China. Can we not cooperate with the rest of
the countries of the world, more democratic countries of the
world without having to lift ITAR restrictions on China? That
is my question to the panel. Go right ahead.
Dr. Pace. Well, I think that is a good question and I think
that there are a number of areas, for example, in basic
science, space science and earth science, where cooperation can
happen without necessarily changing the export control rule
because these are areas that we engaged with the Soviet Union
during the height of the Cold War. We had science programs that
went on and built relationships and so that is kind of a
careful foundation that I think could be done also with China
and may probably should be done with China. Issues of
protection of spectrum, issues such as sharing information
about space situational awareness standards, these are all
things where cooperation could be extended without violating
current export control rules. Regulatory reforms, open trade,
these again are things where progress I think can be made. But
at the end of the day, if you want to achieve the highest
degree of cooperation and the degree of insight and trust that
come only with flying together in space, you eventually do have
to control the ITAR regulations and the burdens they impose but
are there things that you can proceed with right now? Yes,
there are, and I think my colleague in the European Space
Policy Institute and I have tried to speak to that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, certainly, when we are talking about
future space endeavors, I think that China is a country that we
should look at and recognize, and by the way, the Germans had
tremendous technological capabilities during the 1930s and it
probably would have been a bad idea for us to enter into
cooperative relationships then at the same standard for Germany
that we had for our European, more democratic allies, and
perhaps in China until we see some reform. We could be
cooperating at the level that you are talking about within ITAR
but loosen the restrictions for ITAR with our other more
democratic countries. Isn't that a better strategy?
Dr. Williamson. Yes, sir. Well, I think we could certainly
adopt a strategy like that. One of the reasons--with respect to
China, one of the reasons that I focused as an example on Latin
America--I could have chosen other regions, Africa or some
other areas of the world--is that we see the increasing
influence of China in Latin America, specifically in the space
realm, and while I think that that has certainly assisted some
of those countries there to develop their space capabilities, I
am not sure we want to encourage that kind of activity with,
say, Venezuela, which has extended its own influence over Latin
America. So I think there are some concerns there and the
United States becoming a bit more involved, especially in the
space realm, because there is a great interest, a number of
countries are now--in Latin America are now developing their
own space policies and their own space programs, and--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, that is a good thing. Let us just
note--and I know my time is up, Madam Chairman. Just note for
the end that a lot of these Chinese space capabilities, some of
us believe that that came directly from America's irrational
cooperation with the Chinese 15 years ago in which there were
major transfers of technology that had been developed by
American taxpayers. We need to make sure we focus and get our
money's worth and not necessarily transfer those capabilities
to our adversaries and competitors. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairman.
Ares I
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Representative Rohrabacher.
And also for the record, I just want to state that the Ares I-X
launch not only was highly successful but also a very necessary
key part of moving towards the Constellation program, which
members of Congress have supported, and a new platform, a new
vehicle and I for one am just particularly pleased with the
results of Ares I.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you pleased with the cost of the
project for what we got out of it?
Chairwoman Giffords. Congressman Rohrabacher, as you know,
because you have certainly been the Subcommittee chair in the
past, that what we do as a Nation with human exploration is
very risky, it is very complicated. Obviously we have not seen
it replicated in many different examples by many different
countries or, you know, by individual standalone companies, and
you know, there is a cost to greatness and I for one am willing
to pay that cost.
Representative Fudge.
Mitigating Effect of Gap in Human Spaceflight
Ms. Fudge. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being
here today, all the panelists. I really just have one question
actually.
Mr. Pace, I believe it was your statement, you indicated
that China's human spaceflight experiences are training a new
generation of technical specialists and raising the quality
level of industrial suppliers. I know that I sit in these
hearings all the time and most of the people I see in rooms,
especially in this committee, are very young people. My staff
is very young. I have people who are very interested in science
who tell me that if we continue to go forward as we have with
knowing that probably at least for the next five years that we
are not going to have any human access to space, what do we do
to keep our young people engaged? What is your suggestion? What
do we do to keep our young people engaged and our supplier base
capable so that as we go forward we can be where we need to be?
Anyone can answer the question. I just happened to think it was
Mr. Pace that said it. Thank you.
Dr. Pace. I will see what my colleagues suggest. I think
the fundamental thing we have to do is, we have to do real
missions. We have to have real hardware. We can't simply have
programs where we have lots of view graphs and we say how great
things are going to be. They can be modest things. They can be
small satellites. They can be balloons. They can be aircraft.
They can be test flights such as the Ares vehicle. They can be
things that take a long time. But there is a unique change that
occurs when engineers see real hardware happening. You start
figuring out who is actually really good in the field and who
is, maybe they should stick to, you know, doing view graphs.
And that lack of sense of reality, where is the real hardware
going to be, I think is the thing that most deters people from
pursuing longer-term careers because they don't see what is
going to be built, and thank you for mentioning the Chinese
case. I have to note there was just a press report this week
that China had opened a 7,000-square meter plant outside
Beijing that is used for design and development of the lunar
exploration systems in orbit management of spacecraft and
analyses. They are laying the groundwork now for a very long
term. It may take them longer than expected but they have
younger people coming. They are investing in the facilities.
They have got a fairly logical program that is step by step
going forward. They will do it with or without us, and again, I
said we shouldn't fear them being out there but we should worry
if we are not out there with them.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you. Yes?
Dr. Williamson. I would like to pick up on something Dr.
Pace mentioned and add to it a bit. It is the question for
engineers, scientists to work with hardware, to work with
experiments, to work with observations and so forth so we can
do a lot in those realms, even with small satellites. I teach
in the International Space University from time to time, and
you find there some very, very great interest in space, even
when the projects are small, where there are small satellites,
but the point is that the students have a chance to get their
fingers dirty soldering, you know, the circuit boards and so
forth and actually putting together a small satellite, and it
is wonderful when they work but there is still an excitement if
the project fails at some point because they have actually had
a hand in it, so I think that is very important.
Ms. Fudge. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Stevens. This afternoon I have the pleasure of going to
a commercial launch. It is my six-year-old son at St. Steven's
model rocket club. They are launching rockets this afternoon
and I hope that some day he participates in AIA's Team America
Rocketry Challenge, which is a big event that I think you are
aware of. The point I am trying to make is that we need to get
to these kids early and we need to get them excited, and I know
that the chairwoman mentioned you are going to be having a
hearing on workforce and industrial base, and I know you will
talk more about it then, but I think as has been said here, we
really need to have stable funding and we need to have policies
that cross Administrations. We cannot have each President that
comes up every four or eight years changing the direction that
we are going. We have to stick to something because to get to
the moon, to get to an asteroid to do things is going to cross
many Administrations and we can't keep on changing horses in
the middle of the river.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much. I just want to thank all of
you for your answers and just say for the record that what I am
hearing today from a panel of experts is that it is worth the
money to do what we need to do to keep us where we need to be
as a Nation, where we need to get young people engaged in
science early, and it is worth it. Sometimes we fail, sometimes
we succeed, but the dollars are necessary to keep us as the
premier country in this world, so I thank you very much.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Representative Fudge.
We have noticed that votes are going to be called between
11:15 and 11:30, but I think we have time for another round
with the members, and it is a long round of votes so we are
going to have to adjourn when the votes are called and we have
to leave.
Global Space Market
I have another couple of quick questions. Specifically, we
talked about growing international capabilities and what is
happening with space products in the global market.
Specifically, I would like to hear in what exact products or
which types of services are we seeing increased competition, I
mean true, real competition with what we have been able to
produce here in the United States. Let me start with Mr.
Stevens, so that way you can't blame Mr. Hauser for taking your
answers.
Mr. Stevens. Well, the two issues that come to my mind are
launch capability, and I mentioned that, and COMSATS. These are
two areas that are being undercut, and it is difficult to
compete with nations that have a labor force and don't pay them
what we pay people and take care of people that way. So that is
very tough, and the ITAR adds to that type of thing. It makes
it very difficult for us to do business with people overseas
and, as I mentioned, that is why we are coming up with--other
countries are coming up with satellites where they don't have
to do business with us. It makes it much easier, so--
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you.
Other people? Dr. Pace.
Dr. Pace. Well, I think I would like to point out, the
launch vehicle and the communications satellite industry are
the two areas where you see U.S. market share drop off fairly
seriously over the last decade or more, and particularly in the
case of space launch. One of the problems there is that there
is a relatively small number of launches that are competed
every year and they are competed with other countries that have
different industrial policies. In some cases, as is said, it is
because of differences in what they pay people. In some cases
they are inheriting material that was left over from the Cold
War, or in other cases other countries have decided we are
simply going to produce a certain production run of vehicles
and then simply going to then make those vehicles available, so
it is not a commercial market in a pure sense. It is, we are
going to have X numbers of vehicles, we will produce those. We
want to keep a production line open. We want to maintain a
certain size industrial base and then we will allocate those
vehicles. That is not, you know, a commercial market and so it
is really hard, I think, for private U.S. firms who are trying
to compete against state enterprises or against foreign
industrial policies that are there for other purposes to
compete in that kind of market. It is a very hard question. I
don't know that I would want to emulate or replicate that
policy for the United States but I think it is fair to
recognize that we are not competing on the same terms and
conditions that other countries are, and that has an effect on
our industrial base and our competitiveness since we have to
ask okay, now what should we do given that reality. As I say,
the globalized market means not only are there more competitors
in terms of products but there are more competitors in terms of
alternative policies that affect our companies.
Selling Space to the Public Internationally
Chairwoman Giffords. I have been thinking about other
countries that certainly have financial constraints in this day
and age just like the United States yet other countries while
they don't spend the dollars that we exactly spend in terms of
their budgetary priorities are making significant inroads. How
is it that other global leaders or other governments are
justifying to their people the benefits or, you know, the
rewards or the sacrifices being made to fund new space
innovation? Dr. Schrogl?
Dr. Schrogl. In fact, Europe has recognized space as a lead
market. The European Union has set out a number of particularly
important areas for the economy and one out of six has been
space, and this was a clear signal that space does comprise a
number of benefits, be it in manufacturing, but even more so in
the services, and Europe wants to grow, of course, in this area
and its strategy is in particular also in view of Galileo as a
global system which will certainly provide a new setting and
create competition in particular also for the services which
are provided in the manufacturing which is related to GPS and
where Europe intends to grow considerably. So the European
governments say the economic impact of space will be raising
and it is also doing its best to make the right framework
conditions on the regulatory level as well as on the policy
level, which is a straightforward European space policy to make
that really become to the benefit of the people. On the other
hand, I should mention that as well the European leaders have
recognized the high potential of space as a symbolic issue area
and that the prestige you can get in the international field
should not be underestimated by the Europeans. So far we
haven't really went into that but now we are recognizing it,
also vis-`-vis the other countries which are competitors in
this field, attractiveness as a high technology part like China
or India. So Europe is putting together a whole set of
arguments in order to invest in space and make it known to the
public that this is money well spent.
Chairwoman Giffords. Interesting.
Dr. Williamson.
Dr. Williamson. I might add to that that Europe has
invested time and effort into developing a kind of strategy for
its space efforts in Europe, and I think as I mentioned in my
testimony, I think it would be very helpful for the United
States not just to develop policies but also a strategy going
forward to guide our space efforts. One of the things that
Europe and a lot of the small countries have done is focus a
lot on earth observation services in addition to the technology
and the science. We have tended to focus more in earth
observations on the science side of it and a lot less in the
service side of it for public sector, and the difficulties
there are enhanced or made more difficult by the fact that it
is very difficult to make a shift from the science side that
NASA funds into, say, for earth observations either U.S.
Geological Survey taking over systems or NOAA taking over
systems, which tend to be very expensive systems to develop and
maintain. So that is one area that we could work on, it seems
to me is fixing that. I am not sure how to do it. I know it has
been around for a long time but I feel the need to point that
out once again.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Dr. Williamson.
Congressman Olson.
Alternatives to Ares
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
I have one question. It will be very brief. It is for you,
Dr. Pace. In your testimony, you state that the human
spaceflight review has ``created an air of uncertainty over
U.S. intentions.'' Now, I am concerned that any changes to the
program at this point will extend the gap, and I know that I am
going to step on the territory and I am going to incur the
wrath of my colleague from California here but I thought the
Ares I-X launch was an extremely successful launch, and my
question for you is, how are the alterations of the path we
have planned for the Ares I affect your ability as a partner,
an international partner, particularly if we assume that we are
going to extend the space station to 2020 and we are going to
have to have some access to it?
Dr. Pace. Well, thank you. You know, I have to say in one
area I will certainly agree with Congressman Rohrabacher in
that the Ares I did not demonstrate brand-new physics. I mean,
it was an engineering achievement, it was a test achievement.
It was not something that you would consider technologically
groundbreaking, and that is a good thing because the shuttle
program is ending and we need to have a vehicle that we can
rely on for access to space. It is time to really, I think, put
aside a lot of the really pretty view graphs and make sure that
the U.S. government and this Nation has the capability that it
is going to be able to rely on. Now, if it turns out that other
commercial activities are able to take over the burden of
getting to LEO, I will be thrilled. I think that will be
absolutely wonderful. But the question is, I don't want to bet
on that happening unless I know that I have got something else
to back it up. So to me, the Ares I vehicle is absolutely
necessary as insurance and as a way of making sure I can get to
space so I can place considered bets on the commercial
community. It in fact is enabling of those bets on the
commercial community. And the other thing is, it helps me bring
forward that capability, that strategic capability in this
country for doing human spaceflight farther in the future. So
it is a crucial bridge, if you will, to the future, because if
it turns out that we don't have Ares I, if it turns out that
the commercial options take longer and are more expensive than
maybe people expect, the result is, we will be reliant upon our
ISS partners, in particular Russia. Now, Russia has been an
excellent partner. If it was not for Russia after the loss of
Columbia, we would not have been maintaining the station. But a
strategy going forward that is willing to place maybe a decade
worth of bet on relying on a foreign country for access to our
facility to me is not a great idea. I want to encourage
commercial but I want to have a backup option in case it
doesn't show up on time.
Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. Thank you for those comments.
Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
Representative Kosmas.
Ms. Kosmas. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I was going to ask a different question but in light of the
comments that were just made, I think it is an excellent place
to round out this conversation today. I think Dr. Pace said
much of what we have been saying as a committee and as a group
of members who strongly support manned space exploration and
the continuation of our ability to maximize the use of the
International Space Station with our partners but also to
continue and look for what you all had suggested, which is
policy, programs and budgets that will work going forward and a
consistency of programs, and I think we are all most interested
in seeing that occur and we appreciate your conversation with
us today. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Gifford. Thank you, Representative Kosmas.
Congressman Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, here I am again. Let us just note
that as we progress with this discussion that there is no doubt
in my mind that space investment is worth the money. There is
no doubt about that, and I am a strong supporter of making
sure--and space cooperation is essential if we are going to
achieve the potential that we have and all of humankind has in
terms of utilizing space for the benefit of the people here on
earth but also to explore in the areas beyond. The question
isn't whether or not it is worth the money. The question is,
are we getting our money's worth that we are spending. We are
spending more than any other country of the world yet we are
falling behind. What does that tell you? We have got to do some
things better than what we are doing and we are not going to do
it by simply excusing inefficiencies when we see them.
Now, let us note that in the private sector and the
commercial space business, you have SpaceX out there, and from
what I have seen, SpaceX has spent less money and developed a
whole new rocket system, the Falcon system, and everything that
they spent is less than the cost of a design test of Ares 1-X
that has not even tested any new hardware. Now, this test that
we just had was a test of design but not a test of hardware but
yet you have a commercial endeavor that is able to spend less
money and develop a whole new rocket system. Now, we can't go
on like that. What we have here is not a lack of money. We have
a lack of discipline, a lack of focus, a lack of prioritization
and a lack of demand by Members of the United States Congress
on more-effective use of the resources that we are spending,
and I would suggest that we do need to cooperate. That is one
of the things that we can maximize it but we also have to keep
in mind that when we cooperate with non-democratic countries
like China, there is a payback and in the end it is a brutal
payback for the people of the United States who have upgraded,
which we did 15 years ago with our cooperation with China. We
upgraded their capabilities and now they are coming back as our
competitors and our adversaries. So it seems to me that we just
have to be responsible and we have to be self-disciplined and
we have to try to be as realistic as we can, and sorry to shoot
that out but maybe some of the panelists or the chairman would
like to comment on that. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Stevens. What a softball. I would rather talk about the
times when I went to UCLA and used to surf down at Huntington,
but I guess I will take this one on.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I never cut you off when you were down
there.
Mr. Stevens. I represent all the companies you mentioned,
SpaceX, and all the companies that are building Ares I, and I
would say that having been a program manager over on the
aircraft side of things, it is hard to tell exactly what the
costs are and what it costs to do something these days. I would
agree with you that any time there is acquisition, there are
ways to do things better, and we need to take a look at that. I
don't think there is competition between companies like SpaceX
and the other companies that are building Ares I. They are two
different missions. One is designed to go up in a commercial
way, supply the International Space Station. The other one is
already looking at human spaceflight and it takes a lot of
money to do that type of thing, and it is supposed to go beyond
that. It will provide us the capability. And as I said earlier,
I don't think we should be changing horses in the middle of the
stream right now or we will never be able to get up there. We
will have to extend the space station to 2030 by the time we
start--we get something--the government gets something. I hope
you are right about SpaceX. They are a very good company and I
think they will do great in the commercial world, and as I
mentioned, it is good both ways to have two different systems
to get up there.
ITAR
On the ITAR side of things, I agree with a lot of what you
are saying but it is impacting us. I think we need to take a
look, as you mentioned earlier, at different countries and how
we treat them. Scott mentioned that we are working with the
Chinese on different things. We are members of the Global Earth
Observation Systems. Eighty countries are involved in that. We
are sharing climate data and things like that and that is a
good thing to do, and one would think that if we had an
accident of some sort up on the International Space Station and
the Chinese had the capability of rescuing our astronauts, we
would like to take that into account, but we do not want to be
in a position of handing over important data, and as I said
earlier, the two questions you need to ask whenever you are
thinking about doing cooperation with other countries is,
number one, how does it impact national security, and number
two, how does it impact the industrial base.
Chairwoman Giffords. Great. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
As we all know, votes have been called. I have one final
question, and certainly if there is anyone else that wants a
final question, please let me know. We have a few minutes here.
A couple of nights ago I had the pleasure of listening to a
lecture on Hubble by Dr. John Grunsfeld over at the
Smithsonian, and the images of course from Hubble are
absolutely phenomenal but more so than that, having spent a lot
of time watching a lot of space station videos, as we all have
a chance when the crews come back and at home too, get a chance
to watch these videos, it really, I mean, just piques the
imagination there of how large the universe is and all the
questions that we have about the universe that are really
unanswered, and I think it touches too this human exploration
part of getting out of lower earth orbit and moving back to the
moon and then going on and exploring this vast, vast tract of
sky that we have. There have been a lot of questions, and I
think as members of this Subcommittee and Members of Congress,
we take space very seriously but in some respect, in terms of
the growth of global space capabilities, the problems and the
opportunities it presents, that this also needs to be
shouldered by the private sector and also by the nonprofit
community, all of these NGOs out there, these groups that also
have an interest in space.
Role of Private Advocacy
So I guess my final question to the panelists is that
obviously you can hear a strong commitment by members of this
Subcommittee, the Committee and the vast majority of Members of
Congress. You can see that and certainly in the past budgets
that we have supported. But really, what is the responsibility
and what are the actions that the private sector and folks out
there in the nonprofit world--I mean, what are all of you
willing to do to make sure that the United States continues to
lead in this area? Mr. Hauser?
Mr. Hauser. I will take the first stab at it. I would like
to think we are attempting to do our job fairly well. Certainly
in the Space Foundation we have a very active education program
and based on the question earlier, I had wanted to share that
we have a partnership with Charles County, Maryland, which is
quite a fabulous partnership. A very forward-leaning school
superintendent wanted to build a planetarium for our students
and he realized the only way to do that was to leverage it
across all of the disciplines. So every grade level and every
discipline has to integrate space and science into their
education program, which is pretty fascinating. You find the
teachers are thrilled with what they are doing because the
English teacher is teaching mythology, you know, based on
space. You find, I can't think of the right word, but teachers,
shop teachers talking about mining asteroids and things like
that.
So I think part of what we do is the education process. The
other thing we do at Space Foundation obviously is come to
hearings like this. We publish the Space Report. We thank you
for the plug earlier today to help educate and inform America,
and we spend a great deal of time trying to make sure that this
works for not only the technical person but, you know, grabs my
mom's interest as well too. And then I would say that we do a
lot of things to partner with industry, provide networking
forums and things like that again to get our message out and to
interest more people in space and in science and all the things
you just mentioned. So thank you for the opportunity.
Chairwoman Giffords. Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. One of the things that the Aerospace
Industries Association on the space side is ramping up and
really doing a big campaign, I think. We are talking to our
members about doing this right now but we really to focus and
get the public involved. If you look back at the public
approval of going to the moon back when we did that, it was
only about 40 percent, but if you talk to people now and you
look at surveys and Gallup polls and what is going on, it is
close to 77 percent. So people like space, they want the United
States to remain a leader in space and, you know, we just need
to stay involved. We need to keep the funding stable and
robust, as I mentioned, so that would be my answer.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you.
Dr. Pace?
Dr. Pace. Well, I think the most important way I think we
contribute at George Washington University of course is the
education of people and the people over the many, many years
who come through the program, you find them all over the world.
We have students who are in every space agency around the
world, we have visiting scholars from all over the world, and
so that there is a community that has been built up that on one
hand recognizes deep differences that other countries have
their own subjective objectives and interests and needs but
also the commonality that you describe as we sort of look
beyond, you know, our immediate needs and we recognize this
broader horizon that we can be moving toward.
So one of the things I think that we try to do is try to
connect space to these sort of broader interests of national
security, foreign policy, economic development, international
trade development, that is not simply about a bunch of
engineers having a good time with their own particular project
but it is about serving a sort of broader, really more
transcendent interest in our societies, and I think that is one
of the privileges in the institute that I have is being able to
see that in generation after generation of students who come
through that program.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you.
Dr. Schrogl, could we have the European perspective?
Dr. Schrogl. Yes, indeed, Madam Chairwoman. I cannot
exactly respond to your question because I am working for the
purpose of having Europe maybe in the future being a leader in
outer space, at least a small leader. Now, we are trying to
convey the message that space is useful for a number of policy
areas, and this is I think a theme that Scott Pace has already
mentioned as well. In Europe is it very complicated with all
the levels we have for the member states at the European level
to also educate the decision makers that space is a tool, a
powerful tool to achieve results in these policy areas ranging
from security to knowledge, mobility, resource management and
the environment in particular. And so this is one of our main
tasks to show the benefit of space and space applications in
these policy areas, and of course then to try to convince the
decision makers as well as all the users, the potential users
to reap the benefit from utilizing space capabilities to this
extent.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you.
Dr. Williamson.
Dr. Williamson. Well, yes. The Secure World Foundation, it
is a small foundation with offices in Colorado, United States,
and Vienna. We have focused heavily on space sustainability and
educating people not only in the United States but also in
other countries about the importance of focusing some effort on
sustainability so that we reduce the issues with space debris
and also with this orbital crowding that I mentioned in my
testimony. One of the things we do is partner with an
organization in Canada, Project Plowshares, to produce this
Space Security Index every year, and which is available online
and in paper copy, so that we educate people about space
policies and about the importance of maintaining the space
environment for all the benefits we obtain from the space
environment.
Chairwoman Giffords. Thank you. I just want to thank all of
our witnesses today. Any additional questions? No? Okay. Again,
I mean, I think we covered a lot of ground, and this is
something during a very difficult time of competing budget
priorities that we need to continue to be vigilant about and we
need to continue to focus on, so again, for our witnesses,
thank you so much for being here.
Before we bring the hearing to a close, also I want to make
sure that the record will remain open for 2 weeks for
additional statements from the members and for answers to any
follow-up questions that Subcommittee members may ask of our
witnesses. The witnesses are now excused and the hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Marty Hauser, Vice President for Research And Analysis,
Washington Operations, the Space Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. What does the changing global space arena and the increasing
capabilities of space players mean for our national security interests?
A1. It means that a domain we are accustomed to operating in with
complete freedom is more constrained. This limits our options and we
must take more third parties into consideration when we select a course
of action related to space.
Q2. You indicate in your statement that China and the Europeans,
though not spending more, are getting more out of their investments
than we are. What is your basis for saying that? In your opinion, what
investments in NASA would give us a greater bang for the buck?
A2. Estimates of Chinese spending vary, but the administrator of the
Chinese National Space Agency stated in 2006 that they had spent $2.8
billion on developing human spaceflight capabilities over the years.
This is less than the amount spent on the Space Shuttle in a typical
year (approximately $3 billion). Even accounting for fewer Chinese
flights, and assuming that the administrator's statement was accurate,
this is a very low price for developing human spaceflight capabilities
(partly due to collaboration with Russia). On the European front, in
spite of a lower level of overall space spending the Europeans
developed a launch vehicle, the Ariane 5 that is the only booster
capable of delivering two large communications satellites to
geosynchronous orbit at a time. This capability has made the Ariane 5 a
world leader in the commercial launch industry. Investments in NASA
that are intended specifically to produce or enhance commercial
applications may give the United States a greater return.
Q3. The Space Foundation organized a private delegation to China and
visited space facilities and infrastructure for China's human space
flight program. What, during the visit, was most striking? How, if at
all, did the visit change perceptions of China's space capabilities on
the part of those who went on the trip?
A3. I was not on that trip but I am told what was most striking is that
they have a program of record that they are committed to. They are not
trying to ``leap frog'' ahead of the United States in terms of manned
space, but they are making steady incremental progress. While here in
the U.S. we are making programmatic and funding starts and stops. This
focusand commitment by the Chinese will allow them move ahead of us in
space.
Q4. What is the impact of U.S. export controls, particularly ITAR, on
the United States' ability to reach out to emerging spacefaring
nations? What would you recommend be done?
A4. It is crippling for the aerospace industry. It dramatically affects
our business opportunities and operations. The loss of business due to
unnecessary export controls creates a long term national security issue
for us. We must protect critical national security technology without
question but we must also find a balance and loosen unnecessary
restrictions. This would allow our companies to compete internationally
and to build and rebuild necessary partnerships and collaborative
efforts with other countries. The administration and emerging
congressional efforts at export modernization should be applauded.
Q5. To what extent does cooperating on space activities improve
domestic national capabilities in science and technology? Does that
apply to emerging space powers as well as to the United States?
A5. Ideally, if a partner has a core competency, for example Canada and
their tele-robotics, it allows the partner to focus on their strengths,
reduces demand on the US to develop such capabilities, and allows the
US to devote resources to other critical path systems. I believe this
is true when dealing with emerging space powers as well. In some cases
it is even more beneficial because they are starting with a clean slate
and can focus their investment in new areas of expertise that have not
been fully explored.
Q6. While several new participants have entered the global space arena
and others are demonstrating increasing capabilities, what do we know
about the ability of these nations to sustain their space programs and
investments?
A6. Not surprisingly it is not easy to garner complete and concrete
data on how other nations are explicitly funding their programs. What
we have seen is that other nations are doing two things when
prioritizing and allocating scarce resources:
#1. Identifying near-term, pragmatic needs and requirements
that can be addressed via space assets/capabilities
#2. Where appropriate, they are making their contributions to
any collaborative space effort with other nations.
In addition, the model for space is changing daily. It used to be
countries like the U.S. and Russia built their own launch vehicle and
satellite, launched it, and operated it. That paradigm has changed and
now has numerous possibilities. Now that more nations with smaller
budgets have recognized the value of space and using space assets and
products, there are all kinds of unique arrangements. For example, one
country could pay another to build their desired satellite, pay another
to launch and operate it for them. This a la carte way of purchasing
hardware and support comes in just about any type of arrangement one
could want. And in some instances, like China, there is a package of
agreements and services that extend beyond space, i.e., building and
operating a country's satellite in exchange for rights to oil or other
resources or land use. These are the arrangements that turn countries
into partners and potentially threaten the long term security of the
United States.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. Talking about other space-faring nations, you stated that,
``(T)hey are not outspending us, but they are certainly getting more
out of their investments.'' Could you expand on that statement? How are
other space-faring nations able to exploit their investments to greater
effect?
A1. Over the past decade and across both civilian and national security
space, US government programs have seen programs start, have their
requirements change, costs increase, schedule delays, get restructured
and cancelled. Billions are wasted because of poor management,
unrealistic expectations and funding uncertainty. Other nations are not
immune from these problems, but they seem more judicious in how they
allocate funds.
Q1a. For what period of time does the US typically hold on to newly
developed space technologies--whether talking about launchers, sensors
or other related capabilities--before these technologies are replicated
by other countries?
A1a. Unfortunately I am not a technology expert and I don't think I am
qualified to answer this question. That said, I will take a stab at it.
There is no simple answer--it depends on the technology and the
capabilities of the other countries that are involved. In some cases,
it is enough to know that a capability exists. Once that is known, it
is possible to determine how it is accomplished and how it can be
duplicated. Other technologies require significant empirical testing to
perfect, and substantial resources must be dedicated to the research
process before the capability can be replicated.
Q2. What capabilities are the emerging space-faring nations working
hardest to develop, and why? Should we be concerned?
A2. Many emerging spacefaring nations, particularly developing nations,
are focusing on capabilities that are Earth-oriented and show direct
benefits for education, communications, agriculture, and other public
services. The greatest concern may be when these emerging space nations
do not seek assistance from the United States for their programs, as it
is a lost opportunity for us to use ``soft power'' to form useful
connections with them for the long teen.
Q3. What are the long-term effects and strategic implications on our
country's economy, our ability to engage in international
collaborations, and our ability to exploit space, if we are reduced to
launching a relative handful of civil missions each year?
A3. There will be all sorts of unforeseen ripple effects through the
aerospace industrial base, and the number of talented young Americans
who choose space as a career.
This will eventually spill over into how the US develops cutting
edge technology and capabilities in both civilian and national security
communities. Costs per flight will increase as well.
Q4. How closely coupled are our commercial and civil space programs,
including human spaceflight, to our national security space posture?
Would a reduction in civil space R&D and infrastructure imperil the
technology base and capabilities on the military side?
A4. They inexorably linked. Most companies that comprise our space
industrial base perform work in both civil and national security space.
An easy example is ATK. The lion's share of their work with solid
rocket boosters (SRBs) is with NASA. Due to economies of scale it
reduces the costs for the Department of Defense (DOD) usage of SRBs. If
NASA ends their use of SRBs or dramatically reduces their use of SRBs,
the costs for ATK and DOD will increase.
Additionally, in many cases space technology and equipment is
provided by smaller, second tier suppliers. Many of them are the only
supplier of a specific piece of necessary space equipment. Today, many
of them exist on the margins when it comes to profitability. If demand
and requirements decrease, many could not afford to stay in business,
thus causing problems for the entire production chain and potentially
create an unrecoverable affect in the industrial base.
Questions submitted by Representative Parker Griffith
Q1. Regarding space dominance, my question for the panel focuses on
Human Space Flight Exploration. I would like to remind everyone, we
currently have a capable and recently tested Constellation program
intended for low earth orbit, which is managed in my district at
Marshall Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama. Could you talk about the
geopolitical perception of the United States if we walked away from the
current national exploration initiative and further extended the human
space flight gap by turning over the mission to a commercial industry
that is yet to have a human rated space exploration vehicle?
A1. In the past several days we are starting to see that reaction to
such a scenario. We ourselves have had interactions with foreign space
officials who are somewhat dismayed and saddened by such a move. While
a move to a commercial launch marketplace may be a good long term
solution, no doubt in the short term it weakens the perception of the
U.S. being the global space leader we are known to be. It also begs the
question, what is the true commitment of the United States to human
spaceflight, and when will we make a decision and stick to it?
Q2. How can the United States maintain its space dominance when we are
reassessing the goals of human space flight exploration with
presidential administration and continuing to underfund our NASA
programs? What is needed for the United States to maintain its space
dominance and inspire America's youth?
A2. Programmatic and funding starts and stops hurt development of
vehicles and systems as well as failing to get the public enthused
about space. I think a sustained commitment to the program by
successive Congresses and Presidents will help. This commitment needs
to be aggressive in spirit and in effort. It must be well developed and
installed in programmatic goals and provide increasing long term,
reliable national funding to achieve those goals.
Q3. While the United States is attempting to maintain space dominance,
the financial and public support is waning as we get past 2010. How do
we work to reverse this trend?
A3. NASA and its contractor partners need to execute as best they can.
Overruns and delays reduce enthusiasm. Nothing builds support more than
mission success. A new vision must be developed quickly, communicated
and then funded long term without wavering commitment. As they say in
the movies, ``If you build it, they will come.''
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by J.P. Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. What does the changing global space arena and the increasing
capabilities of space players mean for our national security interests?
A1. Space is a `high ground' in national security and a resource
currently available to only a few other nations. As the use of space
increases, new and potentially unfriendly nations will secure these
capabilities. Increases in foreign communications satellites could
support foreign troops and unmanned vehicles. Other nations are
developing GPS systems which could be employed for targeting and
military navigation. Remote sensing will provide other nations a global
view of military and industrial capabilities and even deployments.
It is incumbent upon the United States to remain vigilant about
these foreign space capabilities while we continually maintain -. and
advance--our own capabilities. We are risking our national security
should we become complacent about these capabilities.
Q2. In your prepared statement, you mentioned increasing competition
in the satellite manufacturing industry and the decline in the U.S.
share of revenues in this market. What are the implications of the U.S.
market position in these and other industries for our national space
capabilities?
A2. In 2007, the satellite market provided the U.S. 257,000 jobs
(services--84,000; manufacturing--27,000; launch services--50,000; and
ground equipment--96,000).
The U.S. had 47 percent (4.6 billion dollars) of satellite
manufacturing revenues in 2003; this number sank to 29 percent (3.1
billion dollars) by 2008. This loss of market share has a major impact
on U.S. aerospace companies and continues to be of concern.
The satellite industry is a 144 billion dollar industry worldwide;
with satellite services providing 58 percent of these revenues, ground
equipment providing 32 percent, satellite manufacturing providing 7
percent and launch services providing 3 percent. Services and ground
equipment alone represent 130 billion dollars worldwide each year. As
foreign satellite use grows, the U.S. share of the overall satellite
industry will continue to decline.
Due to an overly restrictive export control system for commercial
satellite and related technologies, U.S. firms are becoming
increasingly reliant on government contracts for business
sustainability. As the U.S. market share declines and government
programs remain flat or decline, many U.S. companies--particularly
small firms or component manufacturers--are faced with hard choices,
including whether or not to exit the market altogether.
Further erosion of the U.S. market share has far reaching
implications to our nation's space industry, especially our second and
third tier suppliers. These suppliers are necessary for more than just
commercial satellite customers, as many produce components needed for
our national security community. Losing these companies puts our
national security at risk, can increase the cost of major space
programs, and impacts the ability of industry to meet the needs of our
military and intelligence community.
Q3. What is the impact of U.S. export controls, particularly ITAR, on
the United States' ability to reach out to emerging space nations? What
would you recommend be done here?
A3. Outdated export barriers affecting U.S. companies have prompted
other countries to develop their own indigenous capabilities, and have
promoted the ability of other nations to trade in space technology
globally. In light of the current export control system, U.S. firms
have become increasingly dependent on government contracts to remain in
business and are not able to compete on a level playing field globally.
These restrictions make it harder for the U.S. government and industry
to partner with our friends and allies internationally.
Our export control system is currently under review by the
administration, and also requires legislative action to move control of
commercial satellites and related components to the Department of
Commerce. A system must be developed that keeps sensitive technologies
out of the wrong hands while facilitating technology trade and
cooperation with our friends and allies in a timely manner.
Q4. I am concerned about continued U.S. competitiveness in the global
economy. What does the increase in global space capabilities among
other space nations mean for our U.S. aerospace industry and our
economic competitiveness? Are any of the emerging space nations able to
compete with space products and services on the global market? In what
areas are we likely to see increased competition due to growing space
capabilities?
A4. As demonstrated in question two, the global satellite industry is
increasingly leaving U.S. companies behind. Another key area of concern
is commercial launch services. In 2008, U.S. companies launched only
six of 28 worldwide commercial payloads. Currently, Russia and Europe
have around 60 percent of the global launch market. In addition, our
GPS system will be facing competition in the next several years with
systems being developed or deployed by Russia, the European Union,
China, India, and Japan.
The increased competition worldwide is of serious concern to the
U.S. aerospace industry. Fostering a business environment that rewards
innovation and risk, while removing barriers that exist with our
current export control regime, is what is needed to ensure we remain
competitive into the future.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. For what period of time does the U.S. typically hold on to newly
developed space technologies--whether talking about launchers, sensors
or other related capabilities--before these technologies are replicated
by other countries?
A1. Four variables to consider are (1) the cost of pursuing the
specific technology, (2) which areas of expertise a nation chooses to
pursue, (3) the capacity of each nation for R&D of the new technology,
and (4) a willingness to invest. For example, space launch is a very
expensive program requiring long lead times and a steep learning curve,
while sensors for remote sensing are a relatively easier project.
Willingness to fully invest in a project helps reduce technology
development times, allowing nations to catch up with the U.S. With the
Cold War funding enjoyed by the Apollo program, the U.S. was able to
develop the Saturn V moon rocket in just eight years. The proposed Ares
V heavy lift rocket, which has a less robust funding profile projected,
is estimated to take the U.S. at least twice as long to develop.
Nations such as China, however, have both the capacity for R&D and
the willingness to invest. Utilizing the technology development of the
U.S. and Russian space programs, the Chinese were able to meet major
space milestones at a significantly accelerated pace. Their first three
manned flights have included flights with multiple crews, orbital
maneuvers, and extra-vehicular activity. India and Japan have both
orbited probes around the moon, Europe and Japan have launched remote
control cargo vehicles to the International Space Station, and India
has developed a remote sensing system.
As space technologies increase their presence in the global
marketplace, it is reasonable to expect that emerging space countries
will be able to make sizable improvements to their technological
capabilities at a much faster pace than the U.S. needed for developing
technologies from scratch. Other countries are able to build their
development upon existing systems.
Q2. What capabilities are the emerging space-faring nations working
hardest to develop, and why? Should we be concerned?
A2. The U.S. has competitors in every aspect of space technology. The
area which nations are most likely to prioritize for technology
development is remote sensing. This is comparatively simple,
inexpensive and can have commercial, civil, and national security
applications.
Two other areas of rapid growth are GPS and human space flight.
Europe, China, India, and Japan are developing GPS systems (Russia is
currently deploying one). China has a
human space program and India is expected to have a human
spaceflight in this decade. Europe and Japan have developed unmanned
cargo delivery systems to the International Space Station; these
projects have developed technologies which can directly support human
spaceflight.
The development of new capabilities by emerging players is an area
of major concern. It represents not only commercial competition, but
also has national security implications because many civil and
commercial capabilities (remote sensing, communications satellites, and
GPS) can serve dual purposes.
Q3. What are the long-term effects and strategic implications on our
country's economy, our ability to engage in international
collaborations, and our ability to exploit space, if we are reduced to
launching a relative handful of civil missions each year?
A3. The U.S. has been in the enviable position of being the leader in
both civil and commercial space ventures. However, the increase in
players in commercial space and the businesses supported by commercial
space (communications, remote sensing, launch, and soon GPS), means a
loss of the U.S. global share.
This decline not only affects businesses but also the perception of
the U.S. as the global leader of space. This leadership gives us an
advantage when we cooperate internationally. If our leadership
continues to erode so does our voice in cooperative international
efforts.
Q4. How closely coupled are our commercial and civil space programs,
including human spaceflight, to our national security posture? Would a
reduction in civil space R&D and infrastructure imperil the technology
base capabilities on the military side?
A4. Our space efforts are deeply intertwined between commercial
ventures, civil programs and national security space programs. Many of
the same companies support all three ventures, sometimes with the same
equipment. For example, the GPS program is administered by the
Department of Defense, yet countless civilian and commercial
applications render the system indispensable. Similarly, commercial,
civil and national security payloads are often placed in orbit by the
same types of launchers. Therefore, when one program is canceled or
delayed, the impact can easily spread across our space industrial base.
Reducing our civil space R&D effectively reduces the overall
investment in our space industrial and technology base. Even though the
space industry has the ability to move talent between programs, and to
share resources (such as components for satellites, launchers or the
solid fuel for launch systems which is provided by a single company for
commercial, civil and national security projects), a reduction in any
one aspect of R&D ultimately affects the entire resource pool
NASA's R&D is largely driven by developing or improving human rated
systems. A reduction in human exploration R&D would significantly
reduce the overall pool of space R&D that benefits the nation.
Questions submitted by Representative Parker Griffith
Q1. Regarding space dominance, my question for the panel focuses on
Human Space Flight Exploration. I would like to remind everyone, we
currently have a capable and recently tested Constellation program
intended for low earth orbit, which is managed in my district at
Marshall Flight Center in Huntsville Al. Could you talk about the
geopolitical perception of the United States if we walked away from the
current national exploration initiative and further extended the human
spaceflight gap by turning over the mission to a commercial industry
that has yet to have a human rated space exploration vehicle?
A1. Other nations recognize the value of space programs as innovation
drivers, for increasing world stature and as a source of national
pride. It is imperative the United States maintain our stature as the
world leader in space. Developing the next generation of launch and
human spaceflight capabilities is a necessary component toward this
end. Supporting the civil space program, while also encouraging
commercial development, is critical toward ensure a robust space
industry able to support the United States' goals in the future.
Q2. How can the United States maintain its space dominance when we are
reassessing the goals of human spaceflight exploration with
presidential administration and continuing to under fund our NASA
programs? What is needed for the United States to maintain its space
dominance and inspire America's youth?
A2. Despite recent advancements from other space faring nations, the
United States remains at the forefront of human space exploration.
However, unless NASA receives an increased investment, the U.S. risks
falling behind as other countries continue to invest in their human
space exploration missions. Periodic reassessment of our programs is
prudent; however, it is imperative that the U.S. demonstrate resolve
and commitment toward our human spaceflight goals. The impact of
indecision is felt across the entire U.S. space industrial base and
speaks volumes to America's youth. Increasing investment in NASA sends
a direct message to our youth that they should pursue science,
engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM) education, and that an
exciting aerospace career can be theirs.
Q3. While the Untied States is attempting to maintain space dominance,
the financial and public support is waning as we get past 2010. How do
we reverse this trend?
A3. The primary way the U.S. can maintain space dominance in this era
of growing global competitiveness is by greater investments in NASA and
in our space industrial base.
The industrial base designs, develops, produces and supports our
spacecraft, satellites, launch systems and supporting infrastructure.
These systems are often produced in small, even single, numbers.
Production interruptions or cancellations can negatively impact large
companies and can be catastrophic to smaller firms--often the only
entities with the unique abilities to produce small but critical
components on which huge portions of our economy, infrastructure and
security depend.
NASA and the space industrial base also drive significant
technological development. The need for better composites, smaller
components, more sensitive instruments and more robust systems must be
constantly addressed. These developments most commonly occur with the
design and production of next generation systems.
It is critical, especially in these times of tight budgets, that
the administration and Congress prioritize and support this industrial
base. It is also important to take every opportunity to engage and
educate the general public as to the importance space systems and
technology play in their everyday lives.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, The
George Washington University
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. Recently, President Obama was in China meeting with Chinese
President Hu Jintao. One of the areas they discussed was space.
According to a U.S.-China Joint Statement released by the White House,
the U.S. and China plan to expand discussions on space science
cooperation and begin dialogue on human space flight and exploration.
What are your thoughts on how we should approach this dialogue? What
are appropriate issues for the agenda? What areas of space science and
human space flight might serve as a starting point for U.S.-China
engagement?
A1. As with the Soviet Union, the first steps in space cooperation
should be modest, science-driven projects that create confidence
through their reciprocity and transparency. China is unlike the
situation of the Soviet Union in that a high degree of scientific
cooperation already exists in many fields so extending cooperation to
new fields of Earth and space science should be easier. However,
China's space efforts are like the Soviets in that the military plays a
leading, if not fully dominant, role. Thus cooperation in human space
flight needs to be consistent with the state of U.S.-Chinese military-
to-military dialogs. A breakdown or suspension in mil-to-mil exchanges,
for example, would necessarily call into question NASA dialog with the
PLA.
Initial pilot efforts in Earth and space science could be followed
by biomedical data exchanges relevant to human space flight. In close
consultation with the partners, small Chinese experiments could be
flown on the International Space Station and reciprocal experiments
flown on future Chinese manned facilities. There is much in the way of
multilateral technical work that the United States an China could
cooperate on, such a protection of space frequencies, standardization
of communications and navigation protocols, and sharing of space
situational awareness data relevant to both man-made and natural
objects in space. Such standardization would increase the opportunities
for communications cross-support for unmanned scientific missions.
Finally, consideration could be given to flying cargo to both
International Space Station and a Shenzhou-based Chinese station.
Interoperable docking and rendezvous procedures would be needed to
accomplish this. Such a capability would have to be thoroughly reviewed
by the ISS partners, but may be attractive in order to diversify
logistics support to ISS after the end of the Shuttle program. One
might even imagine using a commercial U.S. resupply launch for the U.S.
contribution.
Q2. What is the impact of U.S. export controls, particularly ITAR, on
the United States' ability to. reach out to emerging space nations?
What would you recommend be done?
A2. U.S. export controls, particularly ITAR, are a significant barrier
to U.S. engagement with emerging space nations via direct and indirect
reasons. Such controls bar the transfer dangerous technology but they
also create additional burdens on U.S. government employees and
contractors even on approved international cooperative projects. NASA
may have State Department approval to conduct a cooperative project
with certain technology transfer boundaries but its contractors still
need export licenses with their foreign counterparts. Contractors with
the best expertise are often unwilling to risk potential legal
liability in meeting with foreign nationals to resolve technical issues
that necessitate lengthy workarounds through government employees who
are not as expert. This creates additional mission risk.
The fundamental problem is not export control or even 1TAR per se,
but the legislatively mandated lack of flexibility in the current
system. The solution would be to return responsibility for the U.S.
Munitions List (specifically Category XV) to the Executive Branch, with
continuing legislative oversight, and have the Executive Branch
rationalize and update the USML to better reflect current global and
market realities. The State Department should further delegate, on a
case-by-case basis, the responsibility for oversight of export control
compliance to agencies engaged in approved (e.g., via Circular-175
process) international cooperative space activities.
Q3. Many of the challenges that we face as a society-climate change,
ensuring the availability of clean energy and water, and protection
from potential near-Earth objects that might be headed toward Earth-
will require multilateral solutions. To what extent will these societal
issues influence the development of global space capabilities? What is
the appropriate means by which to engage emerging and established
space-faring nations on such issues?
A3. There are several useful models for the engagement of emerging and
established space-faring nations on issues requiring multilateral
cooperation. Some of them already exist as voluntary associations among
space agencies, such as the Consultative Committee on Space Data
Standards, the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the
International Space Exploration Group under the Global Exploration
Strategy. Others, in areas such as space situational awareness and
near-Earth objects, are just forming. These organizations tend to be
more pragmatic and flexible than ``top-down'' approaches such as a
single international space agency and thus gain wider participation
from nations at differing levels of space development.
The United States can best promote engagement by being a technical
leader in these groups and building community networks that align with
our broader national interests. For example, the SERVIR initiative by
NASA and USAID in Latin America and Africa helps forecast environmental
changes and to improve response to natural disasters. Cooperative
networks like this have been beneficial in sectors such as satellite
communications, remote sensing, weather, and global positioning. It
will hopefully be the case in space weather, space situational
awareness, and future explorations of the Moon and beyond.
Q4. In your prepared statement, you say that ``We need friends and
allies to help secure the global commons of space upon which we depend,
to ensure that the space environment remains free of interference and
open to peaceful uses by all.'' How should we be engaging both the new
and established space players in ensuring the peaceful use of the
global commons?
A4. The United States should engage new and established space players
on the peaceful use of the global commons through the ``bottom-up''
networks described in the previous answer. The focus should be on the
creation of measurable and verifiable norms of behavior, such as
``rules of the road'' on satellite approaches and space debris
generation. Effort should be put into creating treaties limiting ill-
defined capabilities (e.g., bans on ``space weapons'').
The United States should also be proactive in creating a more
stable and predictable international regime for private investment, for
example, by clarifying property rights in space that can impact space
debris (e.g., salvage and removal rights) and extraction of local
resources (e.g., lunar oxygen and water). Such efforts must necessarily
engage our international space partners since unilateral statements
cannot create a predictable investment environment. On the other
hand, not all space-faring nations should be accorded equal treatment.
Countries like North Korea and Iran may have emerging space
capabilities and aspiration, but nuclear and missile proliferation
issues should accord them few benefits from being in the ``space
club.'' The degree to which we cooperate with other nations in space
will varying by the degree to which we hold common political interests
in space and other areas.
Q5. To what extent does cooperating on space activities improve
domestic national capabilities in science and technology? Does that
apply to emerging space powers as well as to the United States?
A5. Space cooperation can benefit domestic and national capabilities in
science and technology directly and indirectly. Direct benefits can
come from technology transfer, training, and education. Indirect
benefits can come from a stronger political and economic basis of
support for challenging space activities. For example, the
International Space Station has benefited U.S. national. capabilities,
not so much by technologies acquired from others (although there were
lessons from Russian experiences) as from the international political
support that enabled the project to proceed.
International cooperation creates challenges for technical and
political coordination, but realistic awareness of those challenges
also forces more conscious deliberation on the purpose and structure of
a space mission. Such pre-commitment thinking typically improves the
chances for mission success if there is decision to cooperate.
Q6. The International Space Station the ISS has become an orbiting
symbol of global space cooperation, with many nations involved in its
creation and sustainment. How best can the role of the ISS be expanded
to become a tool to foster cooperation with emerging space nations?
A6. With the completion of the International Space Station, cooperation
with emerging space nations can be fostered by encouraging utilization
of this unique facility. ISS partners would need to be consulted, but
one could imagine multiple opportunities for sponsoring payloads and
experiments on the ISS. Depending on the quality of the experiments,
resources contributed, and confidence established, invitations to be
formal ISS partners on the ISS could be extended. These invitations
would carry utilization rights and would have to be consistent with the
foreign policy interests of the current partners. Thus invitations to
India, South Korea, and possibly Brazil would be more likely than
invitations to China. The latter has significant resources and
expertise, but political and technical insight into the Chinese space
program is lacking.
Emerging space nations could also utilize commercial launches and
potential commercial facilities in orbit to build up expertise prior to
or in parallel with ISS activities. While some nations, such as Iran
and North Korea, would still be barred from using U.S. suppliers, other
countries would be able to without the same level of political
sensitivity and symbolism of being on the ISS itself.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. For what period of time does the US typically hold on to newly
developed space technologies--whether talking about launchers, sensors
or other related capabilities--before these technologies are replicated
by other countries?
A1. A lead in space technology can be created and maintained by
innovating faster than competitors and/or by trying to slow the
competitors down through restricting the spread of technical
innovations (e.g., export controls, classification, proprietary
protections). Depending on the resources and incentives of competitors,
a technical lead may persist for more than two decades (in the case of
some space launchers and satellites) to less than 2 years (in the case
of space-based information technologies.)
U.S. funding for space technologies have declined and export
controls have limited foreign markets so the U.S. space industrial base
has consolidated and shrank. Even where necessary, export controls and
other restrictive decisions create incentives for others to develop
indigenous capabilities that, in the long run, further erode the
ability of the U.S. to innovate faster.
Q2. What capabilities are the emerging space-faring nations working
hardest to develop, and why? Should we be concerned?
A2. The primary capability others are working hardest to develop and
which cause the greatest concern are space launchers that can be used
for ballistic missiles. The obvious concern is that such missiles could
be used to carry weapons of mass. destruction,
At the same time, U.S. commercial launch providers have largely
been driven from the international competitive market in the face of
European and Russian competition. Given the strategic important of
space launch, it may be necessary to treat at least the larger vehicles
as we do Naval shipyards--as a industrial capability that will be
sustained at a certain size necessary to meet national needs.
Q3. What are the long-term effects and strategic implications on our
country's economy, our ability to engage in international
collaborations, and our ability to exploit space, if we are reduced to
launching a relative handful of civil missions each year?
A3. A prolonged low launch rate leads to the deterioration of the
skilled work force necessary to routinely operate in space. This is the
core reason why a prolonged gap in human spaceflight is bad for the
country. A gap of a few years is not permanently harmful, but going
beyond 6 years is harmful since experienced workers leave and new ones
don't have opportunities to learn.
At low flight rates, the ability of the United State to engage in
international cooperation, much less lead in space, deteriorates as the
intellectual capital in both government and industry retires and leaves
without projects to attract new talent. The United States will still
rely on space for its national security and economy, but it will become
more reliant on others who remain active, such as Europe, Russia, and
China. This is not a situation we should welcome or accept.
Q4. How closely coupled are our commercial and civil space programs,
including human spaceflight, to our national security space posture?
Would a reduction in civil space R&D and infrastructure imperil the
technology base and capabilities on the military side?
A4. U.S. commercial and civil space programs, including human
spaceflight, are inextricably linked to our national security posture.
With the end of the Cold War and the dramatic consolidation of the
defense industrial base in the 1990's, it is not possible to talk about
separate civil and defense industrial space capabilities. The human
capital, facilities, technologies, and finances are intertwined. The
U.S. loss of international market share in space launch and satellites
has intensified the importance of the U.S. government as a primary
customer.
Current defense budget pressures will mean that national security
space projects will be hard pressed to execute on time and on-schedule,
much less create innovative technical breakthroughs as in the past.
This means the lower civil space spending and fewer challenging
projects (in science or exploration) will mean less technical
innovation in the space sector as a whole. Such pressures can be
partially offset through international cooperation and burden sharing,
but ultimately, one cannot be good at a skill if you don't practice it
yourself.
Questions submitted by Representative Parker Griffith
Q1. Regarding space dominance, my question for the panel focuses on
Human Space Flight Exploration. I would like to remind everyone, we
currently have a capable and recently tested Constellation program
intended for low earth orbit, which is managed in my district at
Marshall Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama. Could you talk about the
geopolitical perception of the United States if we walked away from the
current national exploration initiative and further extended the human
space flight gap by turning over the mission to a commercial industry
that is yet to have a human rated space exploration vehicle?
A1. The current Global Exploration Strategy, developed by 14 space
agencies, is developing a lunar architecture involving humans and
robots as well as a robotic Mars Sample Return architecture. This
unprecedented level of cooperation was driven by the United States on
the assumption that it would have a robust space transportation
capability beyond Low Earth Orbit. Even if commercial industry were to
field a human-rated launch vehicle, that does not imply a human-rated
heavy-lift launch vehicle or a vehicle of carrying humans beyond LEO.
If the commercial industry is not able to field human-rated vehicle
in a timely manner--and many international space agencies are
skeptical--then the United States has much less to contribute to the
Global Exploration strategy. U.S. influence on international space
developments, technically, militarily, legally, politically, and
economically, will decline as a result. States will have less reason to
accept U.S. leadership in space if the U.S. is reliant on Russia,
Europe, and possibly China, even for access to the International Space
Station. U.S. scientific leadership will likely remain unchanged,
however, due to the on-going strength of U.S. Earth and space science
communities.
Q2. How can the United States maintain its space dominance when we are
reassessing the goals of human space flight exploration with
presidential administration and continuing to underfund our NASA
programs? What is needed for the United States to maintain its space
dominance and inspire America's youth?
A2. The United States needs to show persistence and ability to execute
long-range goals while still allowing for flexibility and innovation.
There is no fundamental incompatibility between the potential use of
commercial firms for access to LEO and Constellation--in fact they are
synergistic with each other. However, it's important to have a known
option in hand like Constellation, in order to take risks such as
betting on undemonstrated commercial suppliers. The alternative of not
having an assured capability and betting completely on commercial
launchers is--in effect--a decision to acceptance dependence on foreign
launchers should the commercial options be delayed or fail.
Q3. While the United States is attempting to maintain space dominance,
the financial and public support is waning as we get past 2010. How do
we work to reverse this trend?
A3. Space is a deeply symbolic activity as well as one that is crucial
to national security and economic competitiveness. Space achievements
are a very positive reflection on the United States while space
failures are negative indictments. In order to maintain U.S. space
leadership, clearer links much be drawn between space and the
geopolitical and economic standing of the United States as well as the
symbolism of being a world power. These linkages were important during
the Cold War and are still important today in environmental of rapid
globalization and rising space power. In addition, and unlike the Cold
War, there are new opportunities for space to touch people more
directly--whether though everyday technologies like GPS or even space
tourism in the future.
In order to strengthen financial and public support for space,
tangible demonstrations are needed that the United States is determined
to lead exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit, that there will be
opportunities for young people to be part of such missions, and that
these missions will have a purpose that justifies that risks and costs.
As I testified, determining whether and what kind of future humanity
has in space is the kind of strategic question that can drive human
space exploration, as well as technical innovation and international
leadership here on Earth.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Director, European Space Policy
Institute
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. How does Europe view the changing global space arena and what are
Europe's plans for engaging new and emerging space nations?
A1. More actors are regarded by Europe as an enrichment and an
opportunity to reach joint goals and objectives of global relevance and
concern.
Cooperation in science and Earth observation application areas for
common goals and goods (e.g. Africa will be a focus for 2010 in the EU)
are of high priority. The new focus for NASA on issues like climate
change is a most welcome complement to Europe's strategy.
Europe also envisages industrial partnerships wherever possible
(e.g. with countries like South Korea).
But Europe is at the same time careful about proliferation of
critical technologies.
Europe also encourages the development of an international
regulatory framework which is good for economic and industrial
development and space applications but which at the same time prevents
``flags of convenience''.
Q2. Recently, a number of European nations met in Prague to discuss
Europe's future plans for human and robotic exploration. What was the
outcome of that meeting, and what impact will U.S. decisions on its
human exploration program have on Europe's plans?
A2. The Prague conference put Exploration on the agenda of the high
political (ministerial) level.
Europe intends to be a major actor in this field and will foresee
the provision of the necessary funds in its future space budgets,
A follow-on ministerial conference is already scheduled for 21
October 2010 under the Belgium EU Council Presidency.
Exploration is regarded as a global task; to be conducted in close
partnership with the United States. The United States decisions will
strongly affect European long-term plans, in particular regarding human
exploration (mid-term plans for robotic exploration might be less but
will still be affected).
Q3. Many of the challenges that we face as a society-climate change,
ensuring the availability of clean energy and water, and protection
from potential near-Earth objects that might be headed toward Earth-
will require multilateral solutions. In your view, to what extent will
these societal issues influence the development of global space
capabilities?
A3. They are already influencing programmatic developments in Europe,
in particular visible in GMES (the flagship program ``Global Monitoring
for Environment and Security'') which covers issues related to
sustainable development in Europe and in the global context.
``Visionary'' issues like energy from space and NEO are not on the
current political agenda (nor are they on the agenda of the public or
the media). The European policy is strongly focused on concrete
benefits from space, accepts exploration as an important stimulus for
long-term perspectives but is reluctant to lead political debates on
utopian technologies
Q4. Europe has developed The European Draft Code of Conduct for Outer
Space Activities. What are the major elements of that draft code of
conduct? Has Europe broached the issue of a code of conduct with
emerging space nations?
A4. The major elements of the Draft Code of Conduct are information
sharing on space activities and space situations, the notification
rules for space activities and through that the establishing of
confidence-building measures; it also contains provisions for organized
implementation.
The Draft Code of Conduct intends to establish first elements of
traffic rules in outer space, which shall benefit all operators and
raise the security and safety of space operations (for civilian as well
as military uses).
The Draft Code of Conduct expressly responds to United States
interests in safeguarding its military as well as civilian space
activities and assets.
Presenting the Draft Code of Conduct can be regarded as the so far
major diplomatic initiative by Europe in the field of international
space policy. Consultations have started immediately after the
presentation and are conducted with all States (major space powers,
emerging space powers as well as other States and international
organizations) throughout this year until a decision on the further
procedure (most possibly an inter-governmental conference for agreeing
on a Code; but not as a international treaty) is taken.
Q5. In your testimony, you noted that Europe is working to ``educate
the decision makers that space is a tool, a powerful tool to achieve
results in these policy areas ranging from security to knowledge,
mobility, resource management and the environment in particular.'' What
specific approaches does Europe use to educate decision makers? Could
you provide examples of how Europe conveys to the public the benefits
of its investments in space?
A5. In the parliamentary field, the Committees of the European
Parliament as well as the national parliaments are regularly briefed on
space applications for their respective fields of competence. This is
either done from inside the parliaments (there exist space groups in
numerous parliaments) or from the outside through agencies, lobbyists
or think tanks (like the European Space Policy Institute).
The space groups in the national parliaments as organized in the
European Interparliamentary Space Conference (EISC), which meets on an
annual basis in order to assess the optimum use of space applications
in policy areas and the development of the space sector as a whole. It
invites relevant actors (agencies, industry, users) to inform its
members in a comprehensive way.
In the governmental field in particular the space agencies actively
promote space applications vis-a-vis organizations, institutions and
agencies (in all sectors like security, transport, resource management
etc.) which are potential users; for that purpose, the space agency
heads lead these ``marketing'' efforts vis-a-vis the heads of these
actors.
There are also numerous European bodies, whose competences range
from decision-making to coordination (to mention on the highest level
is the European Space Council and its informal meetings). They do
encompass elements of ``education/awaress building through
coordination/decision-making.''
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. From Europe's perspective, what actions should the U.S. take to
strengthen our trans-Atlantic relationship in space-related
capabilities and programs?
A1. The recent announcements for increasing international cooperation
have been received a thoroughly positive reaction on the political as
well as the agency level in Europe.
Increasing cooperation should happen in all issue areas of space
activities, civilian as well as security related.
The field of space and security should be one particular focus for
cooperation. In concrete terms: for jointly improving Space Situational
Awareness, jointly develop space for Internal/Homeland Security and for
technology developments (especially sensors). Space and climate change
could be another prime focus.
The United States should be truly ready to open its market for
European space components and the participation of European companies
in the enlarging commercialization of United States government funded
space programs.
Other areas for cooperation and coordination could be:
Protection of the radio spectrum used by space
services from harmful interference.
Protection of the space environment and mitigation of
orbital debris.
Promotion of open, interoperable standards for space
systems.
Promotion of open international markets in space
goods and services, and preventing the proliferation of
ballistic missile technologies.
Encouragement of international consultation on the
development or modification of domestic regulations affecting
any Commercial space sector.
Encouragement of international cooperation through
space projects that benefits all mankind, such as better
understanding of the global environment and explorations beyond
low Earth orbit.
Questions submitted by Representative Parker Griffith
Q1. Regarding space dominance, my question for the panel focuses on
Human Space Flight Exploration. I would like to remind everyone, we
currently have a capable and recently tested Constellation program
intended for low earth orbit, which is managed in my district at
Marshall Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama. Could you talk about the
geopolitical perception of the United States if we walked away from the
current national exploration initiative and further extended the human
space flight gap by turning over the mission to a commercial industry
that is yet to have a human rated space exploration vehicle? How can
the United States maintain its space dominance when we are reassessing
the goals of human space flight exploration with presidential
administration and continuing to underfund our NASA programs? What is
needed for the United States to maintain its space dominance and
inspire America's youth? While the United States is attempting to
maintain space dominance, the financial and public support is waning as
we get past 2010. How do we work to reverse this trend?
A1. These questions are addressed to United States institutions on the
panel. Here a general remark from the European perspective is provided.
Seen from Europe, the United States dominance is not primarily
based on its role in exploration but on its military capabilities and
in general the dominating space budgets. Europe understands the recent
announcements regarding enlarging international cooperation in a way
that the United States does not simply want to dominate is open to a
fair partnership, in which Europe is most vividly interested.
The American Youth might also be inspired by issues like the
contribution of space to manage climate change and other issues of
global concern.
Seen from Europe, it is difficult to understand, how dominance in
the field of space exploration can be maintained without autonomous
human spaceflight capabilities.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director, Secure World
Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords
Q1. Earlier this year the Subcommittee held a hearing on Keeping the
Space Environment Safe for Civil and Commercial Users. Dealing with the
issues of orbital debris and minimizing any chances of in-space
collisions are critical for maintaining our activities in. space. The
growing number of nations active in space certainly adds to the
importance of ensuring a safe space environment. How can the United
States get more countries engaged in terms of responsible space
behavior? What can be done to encourage newer space nations to engage
in safe space practices?
A1. One of the most important actions the United States can take in
encouraging other countries to develop responsible behavior in space is
to take an active part in the discussions within the UN Committee on
the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) and other venues where these
matters are discussed. In 2009, C99UOS established the Working Group on
Space Sustainability, of the COPUOS Subcommittee on Science and
Technology. That Working Group will be actively working on a set of
``best practices'' in space that would, in the experience of experts in
space operations, contribute greatly to a sustainable space
environment. It is chaired by Dr. Peter Martinez of South Africa, an
astronomer and key player in the development of S. Africa's space
policy and young space agency.
Newer space nations are generally hungry for information and
policies that would improve their changes of operating safely in outer
space. The United States can help emerging space entities improve their
safety of operations without jeopardizing the U.S. control of sensitive
technology by informing emerging spate states about responsible space
behavior and demonstrating what responsible space behavior consists of.
This could be done by participating in international workshops on safe
operational practices. Secure World Foundation is doing what it can by
cosponsoring and taking part in workshops designed to foster adherence
to the international treaties on space, establish constructive. space
policies, and discuss the importance of national regulation in emerging
space nations.
Q2. Recently, President Obama was in China meeting with Chinese
President Hu Jintao. One of the areas they discussed was space.
According to a U.S.-China Joint Statement released by the White House,
the U.S. and China plan to expand discussions on space science
cooperation and begin dialogue on human space flight and exploration
What are your thoughts on how we should approach this dialogue? What
are appropriate issues for the agenda? What areas of space science and
human space flight might serve as a starting point for U.S.-China
engagement?
A2. It is important for the United States to cooperate in a meaningful
way with China, both to gain from China's growing scientific and
applications prowess and also to establish better relations between the
two countries. There are many areas of science of interest to
scientists and applications experts both in China and the United
States. These include terrestrial and space weather, climate change,
and many areas of space exploration and human spaceflight. One way to
start this process is to share scientific data and then as confidence
is gained, it could be possible even to do some joint missions. Human
spaceflight is more difficult because of the technology transfer issues
that arise in a joint mission, but here again, dialog and sharing of
data on the in-flight experiments and tests on human reaction to the
space environment provide an avenue for cooperation at little risk to
unwanted technology transfer. Both countries have a lot to learn in
human health-related disciplines and cooperation could help.
Q3. What is the impact of U.S. export controls, particularly ITAR, on
the United States' ability to reach out to emerging space nations? What
would you recommend be done?
A3. U.S. export controls can certainly impede the U.S. ability to reach
out to emerging space States by preventing these countries from
purchasing U.S. systems and components. Meanwhile, our economic
competitors, including China, are selling systems to these States and
even engaging in the transfer of technology and know-how to them. This
not only assists emerging space States develop indigenous capabilities,
it undercuts U.S. industry. For example, as mentioned in our testimony,
Venezuela purchased a communications satellite and launch from China.
As part of the arrangement, Venezuela sent a large team of engineers to
work with Chinese engineers in the construction of the satellite and to
be trained in operations. China has offered similar arrangements to
other countries, including Nigeria, as part of a soft power strategy to
increase its influence in regions with important strategic resources.
Because a number of countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa are
planning to create their own space programs, the United; States has an
opportunity to work closely with them in developing their capabilities
and to guide them toward incorporating safe practices in their space
activities. In order to do so, however, the terns of ITAR will need to
be restructured to make it possible for countries friendly to the
United States at a minimum to have access to those U.S. space
technologies for which there are equivalent competing technologies in
the world market. Other more sensitive technologies could be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
Q4. Many of the challenges at we face as a society--climate change,
ensuring the availability of clean energy and water, and protection
from potential near--Earth objects that might be headed toward Earth-
will require multilateral solutions. To what extent will these societal
issues influence the development of global space capabilities? What its
the appropriate means by which to engage emerging and established
space-faring nations on such issues?
A4. All of the challenges you mention in the question will require the
use of satellite technologies to understand and tackle fully. Earth-
orbiting satellites alone have the capability to assess both harmful
and beneficial changes in Earth's environment, no matter which country
is experiencing them. Further, their synoptic view of the atmosphere,
land, oceans and ice fields makes them ideal for monitoring large
scale, subtle processes on Earth. However, the scale of observations
needed and the cost require international cooperation both in space and
on the Earth. Further, only sovereign States environmental measurements
on their own soil and in order to measure climate change with accuracy
and precision; scientists need local measurements.
The U.S. practice of making most civilian satellite data openly
available has gone a long way to support international cooperation on
these important environmental matters. Some countries, however, will
need additional capacity building in the form of training and
assistance to make the most effective use of those data, and they can
in return make local environmental data available to U.S. researchers.
Established space faring States can therefore contribute instruments
and satellites and the emerging space states can contribute local data
and the manpower to collect data needed by scientists. The new
communication tools, such as smart phones, netbooks, and digital
cameras and analytic software available in the consumer marketplace can
be put to use to assist data gathering and analysis at relatively low
cost.
Q5. To what extent does cooperating on space activities improve
domestic national capabilities in science and technology? Does that
apply to emerging space powers as well as to the United States?
A5. Scientists and engineers have discovered that cooperating on
research projects with their counterparts from other countries can spur
innovation in both countries because scientists from different cultures
tend to approach problems from different directions even though they
are working from the same basic scientific laws and data. Further, no
country has the financial resources or personnel to tackle every aspect
of science and engineering. As a result, countries develop specialties
that contribute to diversity in scientific approaches to problems. Even
emerging space powers can take a substantial part in research and
development because they often specialize in areas of Earth science
that are of local interest and in terrestrial and space weather
research. Space weather research and monitoring, especially, depends on
dispersed measurements of magnetic field intensity and direction at
Earth stations located around the globe. Many countries with only
modest research budgets can therefore contribute to science by taking
these measurements, which require a high level of scientific
sophistication but relatively small investments, and in doing so, take
part in a worldwide scientific endeavor. It is a matter of fitting
their contributions to their specific circumstances.
Q6. In your prepared statement you note that ``It is important to
assist emerging states as much as possible to develop clear policies
that incorporate elements of Outer Space Treaty and the other . . .
international agreements.'' What are your thoughts on how the U.S.
should go about helping newer space States to develop space policies?
A6. Here again, continuing the U.S. constructive active involvement in
UN COPUOS demonstrates to other members of COPUOS, many of whom are
emerging space States, the U.S. interest in supporting the development
of safe space practices and adherence to the space treaties. The United
States has been very supportive of the new Working Group on Space
Sustainability and has contributed several elements to the initial
working document that was developed under France's leadership. In
addition, U.S. involvement, through NASA, NOAA and the Department of
State, in the Space Conference of the Americas in Mexico in November
2010 will go a long way toward demonstrating U.S. interest in the
development of beneficial and constructive space policies. Other
regions hold similar conferences that are attended by high-level
officials from emerging space States and they can be influenced
positively by the U.S. experience in developing policies and
legislation that supports the international treaties.
Questions submitted by Representative Pete Olson
Q1. For what period of time does the US typically hold on to newly
developed space technologies--whether talking about launchers, sensors
or other related capabilities--before these technologies are replicated
by other countries?
A1. This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer, primarily
because it differs almost on a technology-to-technology basis. There is
also the challenge of classification--most often, these technologies
are first developed by classified military programs and eventually make
their way into commercial and civil programs. This question would best
be answered by elements of the US intelligence community in a
classified setting. This also assumes that work being done in the
United States is not being done independently elsewhere. Europe, for
example, now manufacture ITAR-free satellites that compete quite
successfully with U.S. systems. This gives Europe companies far more
flexibility than U.S. companies have on the world market for
contracting with launch companies. Further, in certain technological
arenas, such as high speed data processing, commercial technology
developed for the consumer market is being inserted into the space
realm in many different ways. These technologies are by their very
nature available on a worldwide basis commercially.
Q2. What capabilities are the emerging space-faring nations working
hardest to develop, and why? Should we be concerned?
A2. Very few emerging space-faring nations are working on capabilities
that are specifically for military benefits. However, since many space
capabilities have dual military and civil uses, there are likely to be
at least minimal military benefits from practically any space
capability. Emerging space-faring nations are developing,
instrumentation, payloads and launchers. Most of the payloads tend to
be spacecraft like earth-observation satellites or communications
satellites, and are used primarily for civilian applications.
Launchers--and very few countries are actually working to develop their
own launchers--are of concern because many of these technologies can be
used to create a long-range ballistic missile program. One does not
necessarily lead into the other, but there is a dual-use nature to the
capability needed.
The specific technologies that emerging space-faring nations
concentrate on is usually a function of their overall strategy and
goals for their use of space. For example, India initially focused on
using their space program to provide socioeconomic benefits for their
citizens, including telemedicine, communications, education and
resource utilization. However, in recent years as their space program
has matured, the focus has shifted toward military and defense
applications, such as surveillance and imaging and even anti-satellite
capabilities, and prestige applications, such as exploration of the
Moon.
Q3. What are the long-term effects and strategic implications on our
country's economy, our ability to engage in international
collaborations, and our ability to exploit space, if we are reduced to
launching a relative handful of civil missions each year?
A3. The vast majority of national security and economic benefits that
the United States derives from space are a product of the non-human
spaceflight programs. However, human spaceflight is a significant
source of jobs; furthermore, it is a primary means by which the United
States engages in cooperation in space by using space collaboration as
a soft power tool of international outreach.
Q4. How closely coupled are our commercial and civil space programs,
including human spaceflight, to our national security space posture?
Would a reduction in civil space R&D and infrastructure imperil the
technology base and capabilities on the military side?
A4. Commercial space is a significant part of the U.S. national
security space posture. In addition to providing the industrial
capacity to produce the space capabilities that the U.S. military
requires, the commercial space sector has also become a sort of
``emergency reserve'' for certain capability shortfalls. For example,
80% or more of the U.S. military's satellite communication traffic for
the Middle East and Afghanistan currently travels over commercial
satellite networks, because the military satellite networks cannot
provide the necessary bandwidth. Remote sensing imagery is another
example.
Civil space programs have less of a direct impact on the US
national security space posture. There are concerns that cancellation
of the human space flight program would depress the U.S. solid-rocket
motor industrial base, and thus have a negative effect on US security
space posture, but this would be difficult to quantify.
Questions submitted by Representative Parker Griffith
Q1. Regarding space dominance, my question for the panel focuses on
Human Space Flight Exploration. I would like to remind everyone, we
currently have a capable and recently tested Constellation program
intended for low earth orbit, which is managed in my district at
Marshall Flight Center in Huntsville Alabama. Could you talk about the
geopolitical perception of the United States if we walked away from the
current national exploration initiative and further extended the human
space flight gap by turning over the mission to a commercial industry
that is yet to have a human rated space exploration vehicle?
A1. The geopolitical perception would have more to do with the end
result of such a change in policy rather than the means of doing so.
The inability of the United States to continue to place humans into
space and be at the forefront of space exploration could be seen
globally as a sign of the weakening of American leadership in space and
technology. The policy decision concerning the direction in which the
American human spaceflight program proceeds should be seen in the light
of which strategy is most likely to produce a successful result and
strengthen the American lead in technology and space industry. The
strategy should also link U.S. space goals and activities to other
issues in the international arena. The problems and concerns countries
have about other political and technological issues could affect how
much they would be willing to cooperate with the United States on space
activities.
Q2. How can the United States maintain its space dominance when we are
reassessing the goals of human space flight exploration with
presidential administration and continuing to underfund our NASA
programs? What is needed for the United States to maintain its space
dominance and inspire America's youth?
A2. Proper funding is essential for success of any major undertaking,
and human spaceflight and space exploration are no different. However,
the United States continues to be the preeminent space power, despite
changes in our human space flight exploration program: a majority of
the satellites on-orbit is owned/affiliated with the United States, and
the U.S. government is a major buyer of space capabilities. It also
spends more on its civil and classified military program than the
spending of all other countries combined.
Inspiring America's youth is critical, but it is only part of the
problem--many in recent generations are proud of NASA's accomplishments
but still do not seek degrees or jobs in the scientific and technical
fields. This perhaps has more to do with economics than inspiration--
youth with aptitude in mathematics are likely to find the career
economic opportunities in the financial or Silicon Valley world to be
more alluring than those in the aerospace engineering or scientific
world.
Q3. While the United States is attempting to maintain space dominance,
the financial and public support is waning as we get past 2010. How do
we work to reverse this trend?
A3. The United States needs a defined strategy for what it hopes to
achieve in space, and then give the programs defined by the strategy
sufficient resources (funding, people, high-level support) to carry it
out. Otherwise it is uncertain what the United States wishes to
accomplish and as such, the public, focused on economic uncertainty at
home and other more tangible issues, is reluctant to throw its support
behind an amorphous program.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record