[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
(111-78)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
December 2, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-802 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN J. HALL, New York ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Aviation
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
Columbia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania Virginia
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii CONNIE MACK, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio, Vice Chair BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
VACANCY
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 4
Greason, Jeffrey, CEO, XCOR Aerospace and Vice President,
Commercial Spaceflight Federation.............................. 4
Nield, George C., Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial
Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.......... 4
Stevens, J.P., Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association of America, Inc......................... 4
Testwuide, James A., Chairman, The Great Lakes Aerospace Science
and Education Center at Spaceport Sheboygan, Wisconsin,
testifying on Behalf of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority,
accompanied by Mark C. Hanna, Vice President, Wisconsin
Aerospace Authority............................................ 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 21
Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................ 27
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 31
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 32
Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California............................ 37
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Dillingham, Dr. Gerald........................................... 41
Greason, Jeffrey................................................. 61
Nield, George C.................................................. 67
Stevens, J.P..................................................... 81
Testwuide, James A............................................... 86
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.007
HEARING ON COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
----------
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
F. Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Costello. The Subcommittee will come to order and the
Chair will ask all Members, staff, and everyone to turn
electronic devices off or on vibrate.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony
regarding commercial space transportation. I welcome all of our
witnesses here today.
I will give a brief opening statement and then recognize
the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any remarks he would like to
make or an opening statement.
I welcome everyone here to the Subcommittee hearing on
commercial space transportation. It has been almost five years
since this Subcommittee's last hearing on the topic, so it is
important that we get an update from the FAA Safety Oversight
on how the industry is evolving to ensure that the FAA has the
proper resources.
I am very familiar with the emerging commercial space
transportation industry, not only from my work on the House
Science and Technology Committee, but also because the X Prize
Foundation, which is well known for designing and managing
public competitions for aviation and space, is located in St.
Louis, Missouri, across the river from my congressional
district.
Though commercial space transportation tourism has not led
to regularly scheduled manned commercial spaceflights yet,
Virgin Galactic is ready to unveil its eight seat SpaceShipTwo
by the end of the month. Some Members of this Subcommittee saw
its launch vehicle, WhiteKnightTwo, debut at the Oshkosh Air
Show this past July.
One factor playing into the future of the commercial space
transportation industry is the expectation that the U.S. Space
Shuttle fleet will retire in 2010. The United States will be
without vehicles to transport cargo and people for at least
five years before the next U.S. launch vehicle will be
operational. The reality is that the United States may have to
rely on other countries to facilitate this travel unless
commercial space transportation is able to fill the gap.
Congress passed several laws to allow commercial space
transportation to develop, so we must ensure that the industry
has proper Federal safety oversight.
Since 1989, approximately 10 percent of launches have
failed. But in the last eight years this number has improved to
3 percent. As the number of launches is expected to increase
with commercial space tourism and the potential use of
commercial space launch vehicles by NASA, the FAA must have the
proper resources to ensure that new technologies and programs
evolve safely.
I look forward to hearing from the FAA Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation about the
FAA's role in overseeing the commercial space industry to
ensure the safety of the public, as well as the crew and
spaceflight participants.
Commercial space transportation is also likely to have an
impact on our air traffic control system, especially as the
United States implements the next generation air transportation
system. Today's low number of yearly launches allows the ATC to
adjust the national airspace system to accommodate launch and
reentry. For instance, if a commercial space transportation
vehicle missed its reentry window, the ATC could briefly shut
down the affected airspace. However, if the launch is increased
in the future, civil aviation traffic may not allow the ATC the
same flexibility and may require additional protocols
incorporated in NextGen to keep the airspace safe.
As we implement NextGen, it is important to consider all
space transportation issues that might impact the airspace. In
addition to the impact on our ATC, the environment and our
communities will be affected by increased commercial space
tourism. Congress must guarantee that FAA has the tools it
needs to ensure the safety of flight for both aircraft and
launch vehicles, as well as to protect the environment from
these activities. Currently, there are seven licensed
spaceports in the United States; six federally launched sites
and eight proposed spaceports in different degrees of
development. Environmental impact such as noise and greenhouse
gas emissions will play a role in commercial spaceports just as
they do at U.S. airports and communities.
It is important for this Subcommittee to examine the issues
associated with licensing these facilities and the role these
facilities have in the United States.
With that, I welcome our witnesses here today and look
forward to hearing their testimony.
Before I recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee,
Mr. Petri, for his remarks or opening statement, I ask
unanimous consent to allow two weeks for all Members to revise
and extend their remarks and to permit the submission of
additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Petri for his comments or his
opening statement.
Mr. Petri. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
important hearing. I requested this hearing because, although
it rarely dominates the headlines, man's commercial space
transportation represents the future of cargo and passenger
transportation in the United States and, in fact, around our
globe.
A little more than five years ago, Scaled Composites
SpaceShipOne became the first private spacecraft to launch more
than 62 miles into space and return safely twice in two weeks
with a pilot onboard. With this flight, the commercial space
launch industry, formally focused on delivery if payloads into
outer space, entered the next phase of its development, manned
commercial space transportation.
The SpaceShipOne launches altered our vision of what the
aviation system of the future will entail, including the
development of space tourism, U.S. spaceports, rapid global
transportation, and point-to-point commercial spaceflight
services. It also raised new issues with regard to safe
operations, impact analysis, and infrastructure development.
In 1984, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Act,
which sought to encourage the development of the emerging
commercial space launch industry and to facilitate compliance
with Federal safety requirements. This Act gave FAA the
authority to license commercial launches carrying crew and
spaceflight participants or passengers. The Office of
Commercial Spaceflight Transportation within the FAA oversees
the safety of the commercial space launch industry through
licensing and permitting activities.
Though there were only four commercial space launches in
2009, I suspect a lot of behind the scenes activity has gone
into the goal of making manned commercial space transportation
both routine and safe. Given that the last hearing on
commercial space transportation held by this Subcommittee was,
as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in 2005, I am very interested
to get an update today on this important transportation sector.
As the industry grows and develops, other issues will
require this Committee's attention, including, first, the
impact of commercial space launches on the management of the
air traffic control system; second, the role of the FAA in
spaceport development; third, the impact of legal liability on
investment opportunities in commercial space transportation;
and, fourth, the best approach to ensuring the highest level of
safety of commercial space launches.
Some have predicted that within two to three years
commercial space tourism could really take off here in the
United States. If this prediction proves to be accurate, we
will witness a major development in human transportation, and
it is vitally important that the FAA and the Congress are
prepared.
I am happy to introduce Mr. Jim Testwuide and Mr. Mark
Hanna of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority. I appreciate that
they are here to share the views of the spaceport community.
The Wisconsin Aerospace Authority was established several years
ago through legislation passed by the Wisconsin State
legislature, signed into law by the governor to support the
development of the space industry in our particular State. Mr.
Testwuide will share with us the experience of the ongoing
effort to develop spaceport Sheboygan, which is located in my
congressional district, as well as other spaceports around the
Country.
Welcome, as well, to Mark Hanna of the Authority, who has
devoted much time and effort to this project.
I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their
participation, and I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important hearing.
Mr. Costello. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments
and for his opening statement.
Now the Chair will introduce the witnesses here today to
testify. The first witness will be Dr. George Nield, the
Associate Administrator for the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation with the FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director,
Physical Infrastructure Issues, with the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, who has testified before this
Subcommittee probably more times than he would like to, but he
has been with us many times; Mr. J.P. Stevens is the Vice
President, Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association of
America; Mr. Jeffrey Greason, CEO, XCOR Aerospace and Vice
Chairman, Commercial Spaceflight Federation; and Mr. James
Testwuide, who is the Chairman of The Great Lakes Aerospace
Science and Education Center, and he will be testifying on
behalf of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority; and he is
accompanied, but I understand will not offer testimony, but may
be here to answer questions, if we have questions, by Mr. Mark
Hanna, who is the Vice Chair of the Wisconsin Aerospace
Authority.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your appearance here today and we
look forward to hearing your testimony. I would remind our
witnesses that we would ask you to summarize your statement in
five minutes or so, and we want you to know that your full
statement will appear in the record.
With that, the Chair now recognizes Dr. George Nield.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE C. NIELD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE
OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; GERALD DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE;
J.P. STEVENS, VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS, AEROSPACE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; JEFFREY GREASON, CEO,
XCOR AEROSPACE AND VICE PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT
FEDERATION; AND JAMES A. TESTWUIDE, CHAIRMAN, THE GREAT LAKES
AEROSPACE SCIENCE AND EDUCATION CENTER AT SPACEPORT SHEBOYGAN,
WISCONSIN, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE WISCONSIN AEROSPACE
AUTHORITY, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK C. HANNA, VICE PRESIDENT,
WISCONSIN AEROSPACE AUTHORITY
Mr. Nield. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in
this hearing to update you on the activities of the Federal
Aviation Administration related to commercial space
transportation. This morning I would like to briefly summarize
the history, mission, and recent accomplishments of the FAA's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation and to highlight some
of the challenges we will be facing in the years ahead.
The Office was established through an Executive Order and
passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act back in 1984.
Originally, it was located in the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation. However, in November of 1995, it was
transferred to the FAA, where today it is one of the four lines
of business, along with aviation safety, airports, and the air
traffic organization.
Our most critical mission is ensuring public safety during
commercial launch and reentry activities. We do this in a
number of ways. First, we issue launch licenses, experimental
permits, and safety approvals. Since the Office was
established, there have been 200 licensed launches, with the
most recent being an Atlas 5 from Cape Canaveral just last
week. During all of those launches, there have not been any
accidents resulting in fatalities, serious injuries, or
significant property damage to the uninvolved public.
Our Office also issues licenses for the operation of launch
sites or spaceports. Since 1996, we have issued launch site
operator licenses for seven spaceports, with several others
having been proposed.
We also develop and issue regulations that are designed to
ensure that commercial launch and reentry activities are
conducted safely.
Finally, we perform safety inspections in conjunction with
all licensed and permitted launches to see to it that
operations are conducted in accordance with those regulations.
Shortly after the X Prize winning flights of SpaceShipOne,
Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004, which gave the FAA additional responsibilities for
regulating commercial human spaceflight. Consistent with that
legislation, our implementing regulations make clear that
individuals participating in human spaceflight will encounter
an elevated level of risk and, therefore, must be fully
informed of that risk and acknowledge it before climbing aboard
the rocket.
In the five years since adoption of the Commercial Space
Launch Amendments Act, the commercial space industry has come a
long way. At the same time, it is clear that the future will be
filled with challenges. For example, NASA is currently in the
process of retiring the Space Shuttle, with just five more
launches on the schedule.
After the Shuttle's retirement, commercial launches
licensed by the FAA will be a key part of the plan for delivery
of equipment and supplies to the International Space Station.
In fact, we are currently working very closely with both
Orbital Sciences Corporation and Space X, the companies that
have been selected by NASA to perform these resupply
activities, on their planned operations.
A second key challenge involves the start of commercial
human spaceflight, and specifically suborbital space tourism.
Today, our office is working with a number of different
companies, each of which is in the process of designing,
building, and testing rocket-powered vehicles capable of
carrying people to the edge of space. We know that not all of
the companies engaged in this effort will be successful. Some
will encounter technical difficulties; others will have
financial challenges. But I am quite sure that it will not be
long before we will be seeing test flights of a variety of
reusable launch vehicle concepts.
As Congress has pointed out, space transportation is
inherently risky. At the FAA, safety, helping to safeguard the
public during spaceflight operations, is at the very core of
our mission, something that shapes our days and guides our
work. This is an exciting time for commercial space
transportation and we are committed to doing our part to enable
safe and successful operations by the industry.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. At the
appropriate time, I would be pleased to answer any questions
that the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Nield.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me back to appear before the Subcommittee again.
In October 2006, following the completion of a study done
at the request of this Committee, we made several
recommendations to FAA and proposed the matter for
congressional consideration regarding the commercial space
launch industry. My testimony today updates the status of those
recommendations and looks forward to some key emerging issues.
Regarding our recommendations, based on the forecast in
2006 of potentially significant growth in the commercial space
launch industry, especially the development of spaceports and
space tourism, we made three recommendations: first, FAA should
develop a strategic assessment to determine whether it had
enough staff with the right skills to handle the expected
workload; second, FAA should be proactive, rather than
reactive, in considering how to regulate the safety of space
tourism; and, third, we recommended that FAA and the Department
of Commerce develop a Memorandum of Understanding that would
clearly delineate their respective promotional roles for this
industry. We also asked the Congress to consider whether it
wanted to revisit the existing mandate for FAA to regulate the
safety of the industry, as well as promote it.
FAA has generally been responsive to our recommendations.
FAA has added technical staff to the Office of the Commercial
Space Transportation and developed an MOU with Commerce. FAA
has also taken steps towards being proactive in safety
regulations, but has been somewhat limited because of the
relatively low level of activity in the industry. For example,
since 2006, the annual number of FAA licensed commercial
launches has dropped off, from a high of 22 in 1998 to a total
of only 20 in the last three years, none of which were manned.
New spaceport development has also been limited. Overall, we
believe that FAA has taken reasonable steps to ensure that it
can fulfill its current safety oversight role.
Turning to the near future, senior FAA officials are
predicting significant increases in the number of commercial
launches in the relative short term and NASA plans to sponsor
commercial launches after it retires the Space Shuttle sometime
in 2010. As the space launch industry expands, Congress, FAA,
and other stakeholders will need to actively address several
issues: first, if the industry expands as predicted, a
reassessment of FAA's need for regulatory resources and
expertise would be appropriate; second, FAA will also need to
ensure that its current regulations on licensing and safety
requirements will also be suitable for spaceport operations and
for launches from NASA facilities; third, FAA must continue to
be proactive in developing safety indicators for the space
tourism industry.
Regarding our earlier request to Congress, we see no need
for Congress to step in at this time to require separation of
FAA's regulatory and promotional activities. However, we would
caution that FAA and Congress must continue to guard against
any potential conflict of interest between FAA and the space
launch industry such as those that were recently raised about
FAA and some elements of the airline industry.
With regard to emerging issues, international competition
is one such issue. High launch costs and export controls affect
the ability of U.S. companies to sell their services and
products abroad. Many of the industry experts we spoke with
pointed to the continuation of Federal indemnification and a
review of the current export licensing requirements as examples
of the kinds of Federal involvement needed to support the
industry's growth and competitiveness. Another emerging issue
in the international arena will be to develop and harmonize
safety standards and regulations, particularly those concerning
space tourism flights. U.S. leadership in developing standards
could boost U.S. R&D and manufacturing outputs, as well as
support future joint ventures.
Another key emerging issue that was identified by the
Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member in their opening
statements is the integration of space transportation into
NextGen. Among the issues to be considered are accommodating
spacecraft that are traveling to and from space through the
National Airspace System, determining controller workload and
crew rest requirements for space operations, and assessing
potential environmental impacts.
Finally, an overarching issue with implications for U.S.
space launch industry is lack of a comprehensive space launch
strategy. According to the National Academy of Sciences, such a
strategy could leverage resources from various agencies to
address such shared challenges as the diminishing space
industrial base, the scarcity of available technical workforce,
and reduced funding levels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Ranking
Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for
the opportunity to testify before you today.
AIA is the largest aerospace trade association in the
United States. We represent almost 300 manufacturing companies
that provide over 631,000 highly skilled jobs and indirectly
support another 2 million middle-class jobs and 30,000
suppliers from all 50 States.
I want to start off by saying we appreciate the efforts of
Congress to keep our commercial, civil, and national security
space programs healthy. We take comfort that Congress
recognizes that space has become a part of our daily lives and
virtually every part of the U.S. economy is touched by their
applications. We would also like to take this opportunity to
commend the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation,
which has been open to productive discussion on commercial
space issues. Their Commercial Space Transportation Advisory
Committee includes a wide range of industry experts who provide
information, advice, and recommendations to the FAA
Administrator on a regular basis. They also host the Annual
Commercial Space Transportation Conference, which industry has
found to be an excellent venue for sharing information and
expressing our concerns.
AIA believes FAA has struck the right balance on a very
difficult issue. On one side of the balance is the need to
safeguard the participants of human spaceflight and the general
public; on the other side is the need to provide flexibility so
that this industry can grow and become viable. Keep in mind
that with the success of SpaceShipOne in 2004, there have only
been three manned commercial spaceflights to date. We believe
the FAA presently has a sound framework in place and
understands that, as this new industry evolves, the regulations
must also evolve.
There are also outside events that could accelerate the
FAA's role in licensing and oversight. As you are aware, the
Augustine Committee recently provided the Administration with a
series of options regarding NASA's future direction. They
include continuing with the program of record, what is called
the Constellation Program, and operations that could have
commercial space companies flying astronauts to the
International Space Station. As Dr. Nield mentioned, the Space
Shuttle is also slated to retire after five more flights and
the FAA is preparing for commercial cargo flights to the
Station.
There are some other commercial space issues that concern
us. As space launch capabilities have been developed by other
nations, our share has decreased significantly. For example, in
2008, only 6 of the 28 commercial launches were conducted by
U.S. companies. Also, with every other nation with commercial
space launch capabilities provides their companies with some
form of government indemnification against third-party
liability.
Our program expires in 29 days. We believe loss of
indemnification could drive even more launch business overseas
and could impact the launches of U.S. civil and national
security payloads. The current regime provides no funds and it
requires congressional approval for any payment, so continuing
to indemnify commercial launches incurs no additional expense
to the U.S. taxpayers. The House recently voted to extend
indemnification to the end of 2012, and we hope the Senate will
do the same.
Our space industrial base designs, builds, and supports all
our space systems. We need to keep this base healthy and
competitive. While AIA believes it is important to protect
critical U.S. capabilities, many export control policies are
counterproductive for our industry. While we must keep
sensitive technologies out of the wrong hands, we must also
facilitate trade 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
aerospace capabilities. Without a cutting-edge space industrial
base, our Government could be forced to rely on foreign
suppliers for key components, and I don't think we want that to
happen.
AIA members believe that most important long-term issues
facing our industry is having a trained technical workforce for
the future. Currently, we graduate just 74,000 engineers a
year. Further, many of those students are foreign nationals who
return home shortly after graduating, which drops the number of
domestically employable engineers to less than 60,000 per year.
In comparison, India and China respectively graduate 6 and 10
times more engineering students than we do each year.
So what can be done to draw more students into science and
engineering? Well, I believe one is expanding human
spaceflight. However, the industry that inspires our youth
needs to be present and vibrant if we expect them to major in a
stem discipline and become a part of our workforce.
In conclusion, our commercial space industry is at a
critical juncture; however, commercial spaceflights that will
carry humans into space is on the horizon. However, this market
is competitive, our share is small, and we have a lot of work
to do to ensure that this new industry has the opportunity to
grow and compete in a global marketplace.
I thank the Committee for their time and attention. I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Stevens, and now
recognizes Mr. Greason.
Mr. Greason. Thank you. Thank you all for the opportunity
to testify before this Committee on the state of the U.S.
commercial space transportation industry. As noted, I am
speaking today both as CEO of XCOR and as Vice Chairman of
Commercial Spaceflight Federation.
In the five years since Congress passed the Commercial
Space Launch Amendments Act, the clear and flexible regulatory
regime from that bipartisan act has boosted the confidence of
investors, entrepreneurs, and customers. The United States is
now seen as a leader in this field because of the support of
regulatory climate. That has encouraged development of several
suborbital reusable vehicles to address scientific research in
education markets, as well as spaceflight participants. Also,
there have been investments in commercial spacecraft for
carriage of cargo and humans to and from earth orbit using
expendable launch vehicles.
I believe AST has done a good job implementing the statute,
both in new regulations and through developing their skills to
work with these new kinds of vehicles. I particularly want to
praise the Office's placement of technical staff out in the
field, where they can closely observe, develop, and test
activities of industry.
In spite of advances in engineering and modeling, no one
can predict what the safest designs, technologies, or operating
approaches for commercial spacecraft will be. To learn them, we
must fly. And after a suitable flight test program, building up
the thousands of flights needed to learn what techniques work
the best means flying for revenue. The purpose of disclosing
our safety record through informed consent, as called for in
the Act, is to force companies to compete with each other to
improve safety as quickly as possible. This regulatory regime
grows out of the twin missions of AST to promote the industry,
while protecting the uninvolved public, ,the only workable
approach at this stage of development.
At the present time, questions of safety are foremost in
the minds of potential customers, both participants and payload
developers. To achieve a viable industry, we must innovate in
safety. That means achieving a superior record to what has been
done in the past. Innovation requires change, and to achieve
superior safety in the future, we have to try new safety
technologies and practices. The reality is that some of those
changes will be improvements and some will not, and without the
freedom to try, we can't improve.
This need to find a better, safer way to operate is what
motivates the industry, and the best way for the FAA to promote
the industry is to aid us in identifying best practices and
encouraging their swift adoption. That makes it critical that
we and the FAA collaborate and share knowledge freely. I can't
state strongly enough that at the present time the industry
faces irresistible economic pressure to strive for the safest
possible operation that is economically achievable, and the
FAA's mandate to promote the growth of the industry is
therefore a mandate to foster continuous safety improvement.
There is simply no conflict today between regulation and
promotion, and there will not be the chance for conflict until
industry has a demonstrated safety record in which multiple
operators have shown themselves safe enough that customers stop
shopping for safety and come to expect it as a given. We are
certainly not at that point today and don't expect to be for
many years.
Space vehicles transition through the airspace for launch
and reentry. Historically, space launches were so infrequent
that you cleared all the air traffic away from their launch.
That is not how suborbital reusable launch vehicles will
operate; a spaceflight will become one of many users of the
shared airspace in the remote regions where we fly. In Mojave,
we have recently been demonstrating elements of that airspace
coordination with XCOR's recent rocket-powered aircraft
operations.
Looking to the future for objects in orbit, space traffic
management is a very complicated issue. Orbital space is
inherently a global domain and the physics of the environment
make it very different from air traffic. That is an area where
there is a lot of policy development at the national and
international level that is required, and what agencies of the
U.S. Government will wind up playing what roles in the eventual
system is far from clear.
Any discussion of issues facing the commercial space
industry would be incomplete without repeating the need to
reform U.S. export control practices. I will not belabor the
problems that others have alluded to, but experience shows
that, regardless of the intent, the actual effect is to ensure
that bright aerospace engineers educated here go to work
overseas and that foreign investors invest in foreign
competitors instead of U.S. companies.
While commercial spaceflight, human spaceflight, and the
vehicles that produce it are still in their early days, we can
already see opportunities for industry to provide services
needed by the Department of Defense and NASA. The market of
serving these needs will stimulate further development of the
industry, as well as strengthens the Nation's space
capabilities.
Four promising areas include small satellite launch,
suborbital research payloads, transport of NASA astronauts to
the International Space Station, and launch a propellant to
orbit for exploration missions. The combined promise of these
various markets strengthens my belief in a bright future for
the commercial space transportation industry operating within a
stable regulatory and policy framework.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks you for your testimony and
now recognizes Mr. Testwuide.
Mr. Testwuide. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Petri, and Subcommittee.
I would like to first state that the FAA AST has
successfully executed its mission as far as we can tell. FAA
integrates years of experience in aviation and airport
operation into its commercial spaceflight oversight. The
commercial space community must be self-constraining with
expert and experiential-based mentoring from the FAA and
others, providing guidelines for licensing and achieving safety
and environmental goals.
The U.S. needs to maintain its competitive edge and develop
an economically sustainable commercial space model. Industry,
State governments, and the FAA need to identify and mentor the
licensing of operators. Spaceport assets need to be identified,
and implementation plans and viability studies need to be
completed. Spaceport and vehicle developer/operators need to
continue the current collaborative environment among themselves
and the FAA.
The nurturing of spaceport assets provides efficient
growth. Efficiencies of a multiuse facility can be utilized.
Horizontal takeoff space planes can coexist at conventional
airports with proper attributes. Identification of current
assets that can be utilized by both conventional aviation and
space activities can dramatically reduce costs of the creation
of space infrastructure and spaceport creation. The earlier the
potential spaceport identifies the goal of launch licensing,
the sooner a spaceport development plan can be created and,
with that plan, the spaceport has greater potential for savings
through cooperative multiuse infrastructure planning.
Case study of Spaceport Sheboygan. We have restricted
airspace over low population density safety zone, Lake
Michigan; currently used by the Coast Guard and the Air
National Guard approximately 30 days a year; previously, has
received numerous FAA waivers to launch rockets up to 35 miles,
or 200,000 feet; home of Great Lakes Aerospace Science and
Education Center; close proximity to an active airport allowing
flight profile similar to other tourist profiles of other
spaceports; exclusive tourist destination, the American Club at
Kohler, already attracting visitors of that class; close
proximity to Wisconsin's Experimental Aircraft Association.
We have created the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority, whose
mission is to promote, stimulate, and facilitate aerospace-
related educational and economic opportunities, capabilities,
and activities within our State, including the development of
Spaceport Sheboygan.
And point-to-point suborbital transportation is on the
horizon. Eventually, suborbital spaceflight will evolve to
include point-to-point transportation opportunities. Suborbital
velocities outside the friction of the atmosphere bring the
entire world within a two hour flight. Spaceports that start as
space tourism centers will eventually become regional
suborbital hubs.
Wisconsin is trying to do its part. Wisconsin is doing its
part to capitalize on the opportunity presented by the
restricted airspace to help our Nation participate in the next
global transportation revolution. We ask that the Committee and
Subcommittee support approaches, actions, and licensing
processes currently used by the FAA. We at Wisconsin Aerospace
Authority and Spaceport Sheboygan look forward to engaging in
the next steps with the FAA.
We also ask the Committee to consider reintroducing Federal
funding for initial spaceport development planning. This type
of seed capital can assure the proper design of the spaceport
from its inception. With early recognition, the effective
utilization of existing attributes, the spaceport can utilize
its capital more effectively. Early and thorough planning
reduces risks--the risk to the environment, the economic risk
to the operator and its community--it increases the safety of
the uninvolved public and the operators; and it increases the
long-term economic viability and sustainability of the space
transportation industry in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Mr. Costello. And the Chair thanks you.
Dr. Nield, we will start with you. Let me ask you. As you
know, our Subcommittee usually deals with certification of
aircraft, and since commercial space transportation is not
certified, but it is licensed, can you walk us through the
process of the licensing process with the FAA?
Mr. Nield. Certainly. The launch licensing process actually
involves five separate reviews. We conduct a policy review to
ensure that the intended activity is consistent with our
national policy and foreign policy objectives; we look at the
payload involved to ensure that there is nothing unusual or
inappropriate concerning the purpose of the launch. Of course,
the most important review is the safety review, where we are
looking at possible hazards involved and how they can be
mitigated.
We also conduct an environmental review in compliance with
NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. There is, finally,
a financial responsibility review, which involves the analysis
of the maximum probable loss--not the worst case, but the most
likely bad day during a launch, and that information is used by
us to establish the insurance requirements for the launch
operators.
So with those reviews complete, that allows us to make a
determination on the issuance of a launch license. We have 180
days, through our statute, in order to come up with that
determination.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Greason, would you like to comment as to your
experience in dealing with the licensing process?
Mr. Greason. I think I would characterize it as we and the
FAA together, both us as an operator and us in the industry,
are still working out together exactly how to handle these new
class of vehicles. Every new vehicle right now, of the reusable
category, that comes to the FAA is essentially the first of its
kind, because we don't have standardization in the industry at
about how we are going to approach these problems.
Given that, it is a collaborative process and it takes
time. But I also think it is a value-added process; it is
very--any honest engineer appreciates having someone
knowledgeable looking over their shoulder and asking tough
question, so it is a challenging process sometimes to get
through, but I think it is a worthwhile one.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham, you state in your testimony that the FAA
needs to develop safety indicators and collect data to help
determine when to begin regulating crew and passenger safety. I
wonder if you might elaborate on that.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was mentioned
by some of the witnesses, and also as a result of the
legislation that said FAA shouldn't start to regulate until
after 2012, the points that we wanted to make is that due to
the relatively low activity in the industry, FAA has not been
able to actually do the kind of collection of safety data that
it has done or has done in the aviation area.
The point that we wanted to make was that FAA should
continue to be proactive in this area, doing the things that it
is currently doing like taking lessons learned and sharing
information. Those are some preliminary steps that they can
continue to take. But as soon as is feasible, when the
experience base is there, they should in fact be collecting
safety indicators so that they can be proactive in developing
needed regulations, as opposed to reactive.
Mr. Costello. Thank you.
Mr. Stevens, you indicate in your testimony that there are
issues that the FAA obviously needs to look at surrounding
integrated commercial spaceflight into the air traffic control
system. I wonder if you might elaborate on some of those
issues.
Mr. Stevens. Well, I think I would add to what I said in my
testimony by saying that it is a complex issue and, as we look
at NextGen moving forward, we need to take into account all
those issues and, as we develop that policy, make sure they are
incorporated into it.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Greason or Mr. Testwuide, any specifics
that you would like to add?
Mr. Testwuide. I would like to amplify and extend some of
the things that Mr. Dillingham was saying about the need for
tracking safety indicators. I think it is a misconception of
the state of the current Act, the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act, that the FAA is currently constrained from
regulating. Instead, they are constrained only to regulate for
the safety of the participants where there is data, in the
sense of a series of incidents or an accident, that shows that
there is a problem that needs regulating.
And I, wearing my hat as a member of the industry trade
association, couldn't be more in favor of that. In fact, if
anything, I completely agree we need to work together very hard
to make sure that we have as much advanced data as possible so
that we can spot trends and take action, whatever action might
be, as early as we can; and that is a collaborative thing
between us and the FAA.
Mr. Greason. And I would just like to reiterate what Mr.
Stevens said about education and encouraging our youth. I
firmly believe that the space program had a very large bias in
creating a large number of engineers 20, 30 years ago, and I
think if we can engage the youth today in our further
exploration of space, we can reinvigorate the education on the
stem situation and get our Country back in a more engineering
and scientific methodology in education.
Mr. Costello. Dr. Nield, the senior FAA officials in the
past have predicted that commercial airspace transportation,
the industry, will expand not 200 to 300 annual launches. Not
only a question for you, but a question for others on the
panel, if you would like to answer it. How soon do you think
that we would begin to see increases and reach the level of 200
launches a year?
Mr. Nield. Well, that is an excellent question. Of course,
it is hard to predict the future, but as I look at the kinds of
activities that we are likely to see, I anticipate three
different kinds. We will see a continuation of the current
expendable launches of telecommunication satellites and so
forth that we have had for a number of years, and that will
continue on into the indefinite future.
We will also see, shortly, with the retirement of the Space
Shuttle, a new kind of commercial activity designed to take
cargo to the International Space Station. I believe that
activity will be on the order of six to eight launches per year
and will start in the next couple of years.
But the prime driver for the kinds of flight rates that you
mentioned will, in all likelihood, be a result of suborbital
space tourism and the commercial human space flight. I believe
that within the next five years we will see several companies
that are conducting regular and frequent launches up to the
edge of space, and that will, of course, greatly change how we
think about space transportation.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. I agree with Dr. Nield on all those accounts.
The one thing I would bring up is that I am very concerned, as
I mentioned in my testimony, that the number of commercial
launches done by the United States is very low, and we need to
really take a look at ITAR reform. As I mentioned, that is
hurting our industry. And we definitely need to pass, get the
Senate to approve indemnification before the end of this year.
Mr. Costello. Anyone else on the panel?
Mr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Costello. Yes, Dr. Dillingham.
Mr. Dillingham. I think it is important to point out that,
to the extent that the industry does expand, that FAA will need
to match the resources and skill mix that will be needed to
oversee that industry, collaboratively or otherwise. And I
think it is important to note that, in addition to the pipeline
not being what the pipeline should be for math and science,
there is also the potential difficulty with FAA attracting
those people, those kinds of skilled people to skew it to the
agency.
We recently issued a report that indicated that FAA had
some work to do in order to make itself a place where those
kinds of skills would be inclined to go to, and, to their
credit, Administrator Babbitt has made that a focus, but this
could take time, and FAA, right now, they are in fact able to
match the size of the industry and its activity, but it is
something that needs to be kept on the radar screen.
Mr. Costello. Very good. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri.
Mr. Petri. Well, thank you all for your testimony. I, first
of all, want to say that I am happy to hear, in Dr. Nield's and
other members of the panel's testimony, somewhat of a measure
of sensitivity to the relationship between a very high-tech,
very emerging industry and what can be the deadening hand of
government regulation. If we can protect ourselves from success
if we are not careful. And yet, at the other hand, we do have
some obligation to make sure that things are being done
responsibly and risks are taken.
I was sensitized to that myself at the EAA several years
ago, when I was invited to have lunch with a giant in this
field, Burt Routan, who was pleading with the FAA to classify
SpaceShipOne as a spaceship, not as an airplane, because, if it
had to go through certification for airplanes, it would have,
he thought, had a very adverse effect on his long-term success.
He has developed cutting-edge planes for the intelligence
industry and defense industry for a generation, and very
successfully.
But he said the mentality of his team is to continually
challenge the design and look for further ways to improve it;
and if they suddenly had to switch to defending the design,
that would have a psychologically deadening effect on
innovation and, he thought, on safety, actually. And he has had
a very wonderful safety record given what he has been
attempting to do over the years. So this is an interesting
balance and I am happy to hear that you are sensitive to that.
Maybe one question for Mr. Testwuide. Working in a
midwestern community on this whole cutting-edge industry, what
is really in it at the end of the day for a local community or
State that participates in this program? Could you discuss why
people should be interested in and trying to participate in
this whole effort?
Mr. Testwuide. Thank you, Mr. Petri. Yes. I think for a
small town like Sheboygan, Wisconsin and a State that is not
typically thought of as a cutting-edge technology State--I
would have exception to that, but I don't think in the general
Nation people get much beyond bratwurst and cheese. I would say
that there are lots of things that it brings, including, as I
mentioned before, the awe of space travel to the midwest and to
a local region. But the industrial impact of having regular
spaceflights just for tourism, then possibly a midwest point-
to-point hub, have long-term financial ramifications for the
region, and I think that would be very good economically long-
term.
In the short-term, I think you get back to the
psychological realization that we are on the cutting edge, that
if you come from Wisconsin, you can go to Madison and get some
very fancy engineering experience, if you choose to. You will
be with, unfortunately, right now, an awful lot of foreigners,
but I would love to see a lot more Badgers there becoming
engineers and going to work for Mr. Greason and or the FAA and
developing this area in the future.
So I think there is a great opportunity and a missed
opportunity by most of rural America, or central America, I
should say, in the space world. We have recognized it because
we have that asset out in Lake Michigan that is clearly a low
population density area, a couple fishermen, and it is
restricted and it has been used, so we intend to capitalize on
that asset and see if we can move forward with this prospect.
Mr. Petri. You mentioned cheese and bratwurst, and probably
beer would be appropriate as well.
Mr. Testwuide. I think so.
Mr. Petri.--although it is not as much as it was. But I
think people aren't aware our biggest employer, at least for
many years, has been General Electric, and part of that is
making missile guidance systems.
Mr. Testwuide. Correct.
Mr. Petri. We had a tremendous industrial infrastructure
for everything from lattice, making the big castings that are
vital for the airplane industry, to many of the key components
that support our Navy around the world. The subcontractors are
very intense in our region. So we have nothing to apologize for
in terms of contributing to the space effort in our part of the
world.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now
recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for having this hearing.
I have been interested in this area since we had one
citizen to go into space and came and gave his overview of what
it meant. What I would like to ask Dr. Nield is you stated that
the FAA identifies policies which may have an unintended
adverse impact on commercial space transportation efforts.
Could you go into that a little bit more?
Mr. Nield. Certainly. As part of our statutory charge, we
are encouraged to work with other Government agencies to do
exactly what you have described, and I think an excellent
example of that would be our partnership with the United States
Air Force on the eastern launch range. We have worked together
for a number of years to try and develop common launch safety
standards so that whether a rocket is being launched in order
to put a defense satellite into orbit or for a commercial
communications satellite, the basic safety standards would be
the same.
So that is not an issue of being hard or easy on safety, it
is a question of can we come together and have common standards
so that these launch providers do not have to keep a separate
set of books depending on who the customer is for the launch.
So that would be one example of the kinds of things that we are
trying to do in order to streamline and make the system more
effective.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Dillingham, were you intending to imply that the FAA
would be prepared to handle this increased commercial launch
activity after NASA retires the Space Shuttle?
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Yes, I think that
FAA is taking the steps that will allow it to in fact handle
the extra activities that will take place when the Space
Shuttle is retired sometime in 2010. What I also meant to say
is not only as NASA turns over those kinds of responsibilities,
as the other part of the space launch industry expands, FAA
will also need to expand its resources to be able to handle
that.
Ms. Johnson. Has anyone given any thought to what it would
cost just a regular American citizen who wants to pay to go
into space for a vacation?
Mr. Greason. For suborbital flights, which is the area
where commercial human spaceflight is likely to start,
different providers are charging different prices. The high-end
mark is at about $200,000 right now. I think the lower
announced price is about $90,000 or $95,000. But everyone
expects that, as with all other areas of high technology, once
you enter into service and there is more than one company
operating, there will be a great deal of competitive pressure
on those prices and they will come down home, we all hope,
fairly quickly.
Ms. Johnson. One final question. There had been a couple of
delegations to my office asking about space to put a launch pad
for a commercial space visits. Is that still in action? I
haven't heard from them for a while now. Anywhere. It doesn't
have to be Texas, although that is the premier place to do it.
Mr. Nield. We would be happy to work with your staff to
arrange those types of tours. We know they are very
inspirational to those who take part.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and would say
that I think Illinois would be a perfect location. I think Mr.
Petri thinks that Wisconsin would be a good location as well.
He suggests maybe we can do a Committee trip to space.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Costello. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start with Dr. Dillingham. The Chairman asked Dr.
Nield a question about the 200 to 300 annual launches that were
expected, and in your testimony, Dr. Dillingham, you state that
if senior FAA official predictions are correct, that that is
the number. A reassessment of FAA's resources in areas of
expertise would at that point be appropriate. I was wondering
if you could expand upon what you meant by that.
Mr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Altmire. I predicated that
by saying if those numbers turn out to be, as we all have said
this morning, this is an industry in its very beginning stages
and it is not clear how this is all going to play out in terms
of this is very technical, this is new, and we have had
predictions before. You will recall when we talked about the
very light jet industry, there were going to be thousands in
the skies in the next few years. It hasn't turned out to be
that way. So to the extent that we do get this expansion, then,
again, we would say FAA needs to expand as well in order to
carry out its mission.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you.
Mr. Stevens, in your testimony, you describe some important
issues facing the future of U.S. space policy, such as funding
U.S. reusable launch vehicles versus relying on commercial
space transportation. I was wondering if you could expand upon
what you meant by that.
Mr. Stevens. Could you ask that question----
Mr. Altmire. The difference between the two, the funding of
U.S. reusable launch vehicles versus relying on commercial
space transportation.
Mr. Stevens. Well, I think the issue is, when you are
talking about the Government program or the Constellation
Program to supply the International Space Station and the
competition that is going on with the commercial companies,
what we believe is that there is no competition, that they are
two different programs. In fact, the Constellation Program is
designed to take us out of low earth orbit, and that is where
we need to head. The commercial companies will pick up the
slack and take care of all the logistical requirements of
supplying the International Station.
Why I think this is a great way to do business is that, if
we get to that point where that is happening, we will have at
least two different rocket systems, United States rocket
systems, to supply our International Space Station, and we
won't be in the situation we are today by paying $50 million
per U.S. astronaut to send them up on a Russian vehicle.
And something that I read today was also that we will be
paying--because we have an agreement with other countries--
European and Japanese astronauts, we will be paying for them
too. So I don't see any sort of competition among the both;
they are two separate programs, they both overlap and they
both, I think, will be very supportive of keeping the United
States in the position that it needs to be in the future.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you.
Mr. Greason, in response to the last questioner, you talked
about suborbital would be the place where we would start, but
then perhaps more thereafter. Can you explain with regard to
the duration of the flight and when you say we may go beyond
suborbital, what are we talking about? What are we looking at?
Mr. Greason. Suborbital flights, because we are all using
the same physics, we are all using the same air, it can take
some time to reach the point where you turn on the rocket
engine; that varies by system. But once you turn on the rocket
engine, the flight typically lasts about half an hour from that
point, most of that being coming back home through the
atmosphere.
There certainly are roadmaps out there and technological
plans out there--my own company is among them--for how these
systems will evolve over timed orbital systems, where you can
talk about days or weeks or longer. The likely progress is that
suborbital human service will begin--that you will begin a
small volume of commercial human spaceflight with capsules on
expendable rockets, where commercial and Government customers
might both be users of the same system; and that it will take
some time beyond that for fully reusable orbital systems to
come along which will take us to a whole new level.
Mr. Altmire. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Nield states in his testimony that the Air Force and
the FAA and NTSB have a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
commercial space accidents and incidents. I notice also that
Mr. Stevens states that, as space launch capabilities have been
developed by other nations, U.S. commercial launches have
decreased significantly, mainly because they have government
indemnification.
What recommendations do you have for improving the
competitiveness of the commercial space travel with respect to
indemnification? Do you think this is a policy that we should
continue?
Mr. Nield. Yes. As was previously mentioned by Mr. Stevens
and others, we believe that the action by the House to extend
the current indemnification process is very appropriate. We
certainly encourage the Senate to act on that. However, in the
long term, we think there is merit to looking at a more
extended period, to allow companies to do long-range strategic
planning, investment and so forth, knowing with some certainty
what indemnification regime they would be subject to. So that
would be an excellent example of what the Government could do
in order to provide some certainty and support for the
industry.
Mr. Boccieri. At the space launch sites--I guess there are
several of them between NASA and the military, Cape Canaveral,
et cetera--how do they work with the commercial launch, the
vehicles, in the sense to promote the most expeditious
trajectory, one that is not going to damage satellites or hurt
any of our military/commercial capabilities to communications?
Mr. Nield. We work very well together. Again, I mentioned
the partnership with the Air Force. We have an office at
Patrick Air Force Base to have a person on the scene and
interact on a daily basis with the range there so that we
understand the issues. I mentioned the common safety standards.
We also have an excellent relationship with NASA. And that
will become even more important as the Shuttle is retired and
various commercial rockets are considered by NASA for their use
as well. So I think, in general, the Government agencies
involved work very well together and we are all looking to
industry to try and understand how they can bring their
capabilities to the table to support our national interests.
Mr. Boccieri. Do you find that our international
competitors--I know China is very aggressive in trying to put
an astronaut on the moon. Do you find that there is a lot of
international competitiveness in relaying--in addition to that
question, do you think that we can do a better job of promoting
more engineers into the field?
Mr. Nield. Certainly workforce is a key issue for the
entire industry. We need to pay attention to that and that is
something that you cannot fix immediately; it is a long-term
process to have people studying the math and science and
engineering early in their educational process.
In terms of the international relationships, it is
interesting because there certainly is a competitive
environment in terms of the prices that are being offered by
other nations to launch rockets into space. Many of those
countries subsidize their programs and they make it very
difficult for our companies to compete.
But in terms of the suborbital space tourism industry, I
think it is generally acknowledged that the United States is in
the lead in that particular area for a number of reasons. We
tend to have a much more innovative population and corporate
culture that is trying these new and different ideas with
advanced technologies, so we have seen more developments, more
planning, more testing in this Country than anywhere else.
I have also been told, as I participate in international
conferences, that our regulatory regime that Congress has put
in place in this Country is something that is envied, frankly,
to enable us to concentrate on protecting public safety while
allowing the acceptance of risk during some of these more
dangerous activities. That is something that is not universally
shared, and the companies in other countries, frankly, would
love to have a level playing field, as they describe it, in
terms of how they treat those things.
Mr. Boccieri. One last question to the panel. Right now
this seems as if it is a millionaire's or a billionaire's
endeavor. Do you anticipate that the average Bob and Betty
Buckeye from Ohio might someday climb in a rocket ship? And how
far away do you think that is?
Mr. Greason. Anybody who buys a cell phone or a computer or
a flat screen TV to put on their wall ought to be very thankful
that there are all these high net worth early adopters who paid
to bring the volume up and the technology to the point where
everybody else can use it. I don't think spaceflight is ever
going to be, even suborbital spaceflight, is ever going to be
quite as cheap as air travel is today.
But I can easily see it getting down to the point where, at
some point in the future, and, no, I am not going to predict
how soon that is because it is too many steps ahead. But I can
see it getting down to the price of a cruise; and that is not
something that is reserved for billionaires.
Mr. Boccieri. Well, I haven't been on a cruise yet, sir.
Mr. Greason. I haven't either, but I understand that they
do quite well.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you.
Mr. Costello. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
Any other Members have additional questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Costello. If not, let me thank the witnesses for
testifying here today. This has been a very productive and
useful hearing. Our number one priority in this Subcommittee is
safety and, as space transportation and tourism increases in
the future, we want to make certain that the FAA has the
resources to go forward to ensure that space transportation and
tourism in fact goes forward and is as safe as it possibly can
be.
So we will be monitoring the activities in space
transportation, working closely with the FAA and, when
necessary, we will be holding additional hearings and providing
aggressive oversight. So we thank you for your testimony today
and the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3802.091