[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OVERSIGHT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE
TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
(114-46)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 22, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-500 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROB WOODALL, Georgia ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
TODD ROKITA, Indiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
JOHN KATKO, New York CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
MIKE BOST, Illinois
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Columbia
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MIMI WALTERS, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida Officio)
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
George C. Nield, Ph.D., Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.......... 5
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.................. 5
Michael Gold, Chair, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory
Committee...................................................... 5
Michael Lopez-Alegria, Vice Chair, Commercial Space
Transportation Advisory Committee.............................. 5
Taber MacCallum, Chief Technology Officer, World View Enterprises 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.................................. 28
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
George C. Nield, Ph.D............................................ 33
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D....................................... 42
Michael Gold..................................................... 63
Michael Lopez-Alegria............................................ 70
Taber MacCallum.................................................. 78
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, responses to
questions for the record from Hon. Andre Carson, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana........... 62
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Statement of Vulcan Aerospace Corporation, submitted by Hon. Rick
Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington..................................................... 80
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OVERSIGHT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE
TRANSPORTATION
----------
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. Before actually getting started, I ask unanimous consent
that Members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with
the subcommittee at today's hearing, offer testimony and ask
questions. And without objection, so ordered.
Good morning, and thank you all for being here. Today we
will be examining the Federal Aviation Administration's
oversight of commercial space transportation. We are at an
exciting time in the aviation world. In the past few years,
this committee has met regularly to discuss the advent of
drones into the National Airspace System, and we are here this
morning to talk about the burgeoning industry of commercial
space transportation.
Before we begin, I would like to note that yesterday the
FAA released its long overdue final rule on small drones, and
although we are continuing to review it in detail, I am very
pleased that the rule focuses on safely integrating drones in
operation today while providing flexibility to permit more
advanced types of operations as technology improves. It is a
very good step forward, I think.
It has been 7 years since this subcommittee last held a
hearing dedicated to this topic. Since that time, the space
shuttle has been retired, leaving the United States without a
domestic option to transport humans into space, and requiring
NASA to pay millions of dollars per seat on Russian spacecraft.
Private industry, with the support of the FAA and NASA, is
working to fill this transportation gap, while developing new
and innovative methods to transport passengers and cargo safely
and efficiently into space. The result has been the domination
of these commercial space industries by the United States in
virtually all areas. United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of
Lockheed Martin and Boeing, provides valuable and highly
reliable launch services to the U.S. Government.
Orbital ATK has operated five successful unmanned supply
missions to the International Space Station, and we wish them
well on their launch 2 weeks from today.
SpaceX and Blue Origin are leading pioneers in the effort
to bring down the cost of commercial space launches by reusing
launch vehicles. Virgin Galactic, World View Enterprises, and
XCOR seek to offer new and exciting experiences and bring space
travel and tourism to the general public. These companies and
many others contribute to a highly innovative industry
advancing U.S. leadership in the field.
I believe we are witnessing a major change in
transportation, one that will match the energy and enthusiasm
of the early days of barnstorming. These advances require the
close cooperation and oversight of FAA's Office of Commercial
Space Transportation, or AST. AST's mission is to protect the
public, property, and the national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States during commercial launch or
reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and promote
U.S. commercial space transportation.
Commercial space transportation is still an inherently
risk-filled endeavor. Our hearing summary outlines two specific
accidents, but there have been others. We want to ensure that
AST and industry learn from these incidents in order to lay the
foundation for a future commercial space transportation safety
regulatory framework.
In November 2015, Congress passed the U.S. Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act, which has helped position the
industry in the United States to further expand and capitalize
on our Nation's leadership in this field. We have invited you
all here today to get a better sense of the state of the
industry following enactment of this law and to learn about
opportunities and challenges related to commercial space
transportation.
Though this is a newer topic to me and many on the
subcommittee, much of the FAA's work in this area is performed
in my district at the FAA's premier flagship technical facility
in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. There, private companies
are working with the FAA on a number of projects, including
modeling of debris fields, simulating launches and reentries,
utilizing the expertise of air traffic controllers, and testing
communications systems between spacecraft and air traffic
control.
We appreciate all of the work that industry and FAA are
doing at the FAA Tech Center in order to continue advancing
safe commercial space transportation. As this subcommittee
continues to assess the current state of the commercial space
transportation industry, it is important that industry engage
with members of this panel. I would also encourage all Members
to reach out to our distinguished witnesses and others in the
commercial space transportation field to learn more about how
this transportation sector impacts each and every congressional
district.
I am sure this will be an interesting hearing, and I very
much look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of
witnesses. Now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any
statements he may make.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for calling
this hearing to take a closer look at the FAA's oversight of
commercial space transportation.
This committee has not convened a hearing on commercial
space transportation since 2009, and I think we can all agree
that there have been many exciting advancements in the industry
that have occurred over the last 7 years, so I think it is
really ripe for us to take a look.
And as we have seen recently, there is a great deal of
promise with the expansion of the commercial space industry.
Take, for instance, Blue Origin's success this weekend in
landing the New Shepard rocket for the fourth time. This
reusable capsule could be used in the future for human
spaceflight, or SpaceX, which has been able to land its Falcon
9 rocket on an unmanned ship after successful missions and
deliver communication satellites into orbit.
But the promise of commercial space does not end there.
Several other companies, including many in my home State, are
venturing into unchartered territory when it comes to mining
asteroids, developing reusable vehicles, repairing satellites
in orbit and other research that we once thought was
impossible. In fact, this week, in Seattle, there is a
conference on space where many of the leading companies in the
industry are showcasing the latest in commercial space,
including commercial space transportation.
But with that immense promise comes the need to make sure
that we have a robust safety framework in place, and it is not
an easy thing to achieve particularly as Congress is cautious
to not overregulate this nascent industry. The commercial space
industry reminds me a lot of what we are currently confronting
with unmanned aircraft systems. Both industries are users of
the national airspace, experiencing fast-paced growth, and both
in their relative infancy.
As technology rapidly evolves, the regulatory side is
continually playing catchup. The small UAS rule, the FAA
announced yesterday, is representative of this challenge. The
FAA had to balance the interest of the public and of the uses
of the national airspace while at the same time being careful
not to stifle the industry.
As the commercial space industry continues to evolve, we
are going to face similar challenges, so I am very curious to
hear what our witnesses' perspectives are on how the Government
and industry can work together to build consensus around the
regulatory framework that fosters innovation while achieving
the highest possible level of safety. I am also interested to
hear some perspectives on how we can safely and efficiently
integrate commercial space launches into our air traffic
control system.
Since 1989, the FAA has licensed or permitted over 280
commercial space launches. Those numbers are forecasted
certainly to significantly increase in the coming years. What
that means is that FAA's air traffic controllers will need to
coordinate existing operations with those of the commercial
space industry, and of course, throw into that, UAS. It will
not be an easy undertaking.
So to me, it seems the most prudent way to accomplish that
is by having all of our air traffic control operations reside
with the FAA, the agency which is also responsible for
licensing these commercial space launches. And while it does
not fall under the jurisdiction of this committee, I would be
remiss if I did not mention my interest in commercial space
exploration and its impacts on national security.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I urge all of
us to pay close attention to how the DOD leverages the private
sector for national security missions, including launches. And
as commercial capabilities and satellite imaging and
communications continue to improve, the DOD's use of those
services will also grow.
Thus, I consider it vital that the DOD be given a seat at
the table when the FAA exercises oversight of commercial space
transportation, given that national security interest is at
stake as well. So it is a very exciting time for commercial
space and commercial space transportation, and I look forward
to learning more this morning. And with that, I want to again
thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. I would now like to
recognize Mr. DeFazio if you have any remarks you would like to
make.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief.
You know, I am hoping the panel will--I haven't had a chance to
read testimony, but will discuss what our role should be after
2023, when the moratorium on FAA regulating safety expires, if
we are looking at a robust, civilian basically tourist- or
science-based, commercially launched vehicles into space.
And then secondly, you know, I have a concern, and some
will remember this, for many, many, many years there was a
mandate that the FAA both promote and regulate the aviation
industry. For years I tried to change that, and in fact, during
one reauthorization, my amendment had been defeated, and people
said there is no conflict and there was no problem.
Unfortunately, the ValuJet crash happened. We were in
conference, and I get a call saying: How would we put your
provisions in the bill? I didn't get everything I wanted, but I
got most of it. There is an inherent conflict between promotion
and regulation and oversight of safety, and I think that we
need to look very carefully at that, and I hope that some of
the witnesses can address that.
I mean, it would be more appropriate to say commerce will
promote, FAA will regulate, in my opinion, but I would be
interested in the opinion of those who are going to testify.
So thank you really for holding this hearing today, Mr.
Chairman. I think it is a very important topic.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. Now we will turn to
our distinguished panel of witnesses today.
We have Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator of
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues for the United States Government
Accountability Office; Mr. Michael Gold, Chairman of Commercial
Space Transportation Advisory Committee; Mr. Michael Lopez-
Alegria, Vice Chairman of Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee; and Taber MacCallum, chief technology
officer of World View Enterprises.
I thank you all for being here today. I would also like to
ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be
included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
And to the witnesses, since your written testimony is in
the record, if you can try to come close to the 5 minutes, that
would be helpful. But Dr. Nield, you are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE C. NIELD, PH.D., ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE;
MICHAEL GOLD, CHAIR, COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; MICHAEL LOPEZ-ALEGRIA, VICE CHAIR, COMMERCIAL SPACE
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE; AND TABER MACCALLUM, CHIEF
TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, WORLD VIEW ENTERPRISES
Dr. Nield. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen----
Mr. LoBiondo. Can you--I think your mic needs to be flipped
on.
Dr. Nield. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee----
Mr. LoBiondo. I am sorry. Could you pull a little closer?
Dr. Nield. Thank you. Chairman LoBiondo----
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Dr. Nield [continuing]. Ranking Member Larsen, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you this morning about the FAA's
oversight of commercial space transportation. In my testimony
today, I will briefly describe the FAA's responsibilities,
discuss recent developments in commercial space transportation,
and identify some of our key challenges.
The FAA has exercised oversight of commercial space
transportation since 1995 when the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation was established as one of the FAA's lines of
business. Our mission is to protect the public safety, safety
of property, and national security and foreign policy interests
of the United States during commercial launch and reentry
activities and to encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S.
commercial space transportation.
This dual mission is an important part of our culture.
Although the FAA has licensed or permitted 290 launches to
date, there have never been any fatalities, serious injuries,
or significant property damage to the general public.
This is an exciting time for commercial space. Following
the retirement of the space shuttle, SpaceX and Orbital ATK
have been delivering food, clothes, and scientific equipment to
our astronauts on board the International Space Station as part
of the commercial cargo program. Separately, Boeing and SpaceX
have been awarded contracts under the commercial crew program
to take American astronauts to the ISS beginning as early as
2017. Although these are NASA contracts, the FAA is a critical
partner in both programs.
We are also starting to see some very impressive advances
in technology. Blue Origin has demonstrated that it can launch
and land the same rocket numerous times on suborbital flights.
SpaceX has shown that it can deliver satellites to orbit and
then successfully recover the first stages of its rockets,
touching down either on land or on a drone ship in the Atlantic
Ocean. These are incredible achievements that demonstrate both
the engineering prowess and the capability for innovation that
are hallmarks of American industry.
One of the key challenges that we are facing today involves
new and nontraditional space operations. Currently, the FAA
licenses commercial launches and reentries, but does not
regulate activities in orbit or beyond. For example, if a
company wanted to launch a payload to the moon, the FAA would
license the launch but not what happens on the lunar surface.
However, article VI of the Outer Space Treaty requires the
Government to authorize and continuously supervise all
nongovernmental activities in space.
Last fall, Congress directed the Office of Science and
Technology Policy to develop a process to address this issue.
After extensive discussions, both within the interagency
community and with industry, a plan was developed and has now
been forwarded to Congress. Under the recommended legislative
proposal, the FAA would be able to grant mission
authorizations, consistent with the international obligations,
foreign policy, and national security interests of the United
States.
A second challenge concerns how best to deal with the
growing problem of orbital debris. To operate safely in space,
operators must know where their systems are and when they have
a possibility of colliding with other objects. Currently, the
Department of Defense collects space surveillance data and
sends out collision warnings when needed. Congress directed the
Secretary of Transportation, in concurrence with the Department
of Defense, to provide a report on the feasibility of a civil
agency taking on this responsibility. We hope to provide this
report to Congress soon.
Finally, as the commercial space transportation industry
continues to grow, we must ensure that we maintain our ability
to keep pace. The FAA appreciates that the Appropriations
Committees have so far provided the full fiscal year 2017
appropriations request for our office. This funding is critical
to the work that we are doing, and we are grateful for your
continuing guidance and support.
In closing, I would like to recognize my predecessor, the
late Patti Grace Smith who passed away just a few weeks ago. A
true visionary, Patti once observed, ``Space is an attitude. It
is a set of capabilities, an acceptance of risk-taking
activities to uncover potential breakthroughs and endless
possibilities. That is precisely why we love it.''
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dillingham, you are recognized.
Dr. Dillingham. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Larsen, Ranking Member DeFazio, Mr. Duncan, and other members
of the subcommittee.
My testimony this morning focuses on two areas. First, the
developments in the industry, and second, the related
challenges FAA faces in overseeing and promoting the industry.
Regarding the developments in the industry. As Dr. Nield
has testified, one of the important developments in the
industry in recent years is that FAA has been licensing and
permitting increasing numbers and types of launches. The
expansion includes moving from exclusively single-use launch
vehicles to suborbital reusable vehicles. This expansion
includes changes in the launch industry that are bringing
significant changes to FAA's oversight, including determining
whether and when to regulate the safety of crew and spaceflight
participants and issues related to the increased workload for
licensing and permitting launches.
Regarding the regulation of safety. In 2014, FAA released a
set of recommended practices on human spaceflight occupant
safety. Currently, FAA is working with the industry to develop
voluntary consensus standards that are needed to implement the
agency's recommended practices.
Regarding the second challenge, which focuses on increasing
workload for FAA, the challenge includes licensing new and more
complex types of vehicles and technologies, such as where
companies are developing hybrid launch systems, which have both
aircraft and rocket powered components. This challenge also
includes licensing more complex launch sites. Launch sites
traditionally have been located in coastal areas at Federal
launch facilities. FAA is licensing more non-Federal launch
sites, and in 2014, FAA licensed an inland launch site that is
collocated at a commercial airport in Midland, Texas.
The potential impact of the challenges could have far
reaching implications. For example, the expansion could affect
the Federal Government's overall liability exposure and
indemnification for launches. In general, by increasing the
volume of launches and reentries and with the introduction of
new types of launch vehicles, the probability of an accident
occurring also increases.
A catastrophic accident could result in third-party losses
over the maximum probable loss, or MPL, which is now capped at
$500 million per launch and could in turn invoke Federal
indemnification. In our July 2012 report, we found that FAA's
MPL methodology, which was established in the 1980s, should be
reviewed and updated. Given the advances that have taken place
in catastrophic modeling, we recommended that FAA undertake
such a review.
Congress subsequently mandated the FAA to review its MPL
methodology and report back to it by April 2016. To date, FAA
has not submitted the required report. Another concern related
to the expanding commercial launch industry is FAA's budget
request and resource needs. In 2015, we found that FAA
generally based its budget submission on the number of launches
that it was projecting for the following year. But during 6 of
the 10 years from fiscal year 2005 to 2014, the actual number
of licensed and permitted launches was much lower than
projected. For 2016, FAA projected over 30 launches and
reentries. To date, there have been 13 launches in fiscal year
2016.
We recommended that FAA provide more detailed information
in its budget submission about the various launch related
activities and overall workload. In our review of FAA's 2017
budget submission, we found that FAA had provided more detailed
information. We plan to continue to work with FAA to assess
what other steps they are taking to measure their commercial
space launch workload and to provide that critical information
to Congress to assist it in its oversight.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the
committee, that concludes my prepared statement.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
We will now turn to Mr. Gold. You are recognized.
Mr. Gold. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, distinguished members of the subcommittee, and
excellent subcommittee staff for this opportunity to discuss
critical issues facing the FAA AST and the commercial space
industry.
My name is Mike Gold, and I am the Chairman of the
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, or COMSTAC,
a Federal advisory committee comprised of executives from a
wide variety of aerospace corporations.
Before I delve into the challenges and opportunities that
the commercial space transportation industry faces, I would
like to take a moment, like Dr. Nield, to acknowledge the
passing of his predecessor, Patti Grace Smith. Ms. Smith
initially appointed me to the COMSTAC and served as the
Associate Administrator of Commercial Space Transportation for
an unprecedented 11 years. Ms. Smith was a beloved and well
respected leader in the commercial space world who fostered an
environment of growth, innovation, and cooperation between
industry and Government that we are still enjoying today.
It is actually appropriate that I begin my testimony with a
reference to Ms. Smith because I first met her at a meeting
during which we were attempting to address the issue of private
sector operations in low Earth orbit, or LEO. At that meeting,
I was told the AST has authority for commercial space
transportation launches to orbit as well as reentries from
orbit but that no Government agency has authority over private
sector operations in or beyond LEO.
Sixteen years later, we have still failed to answer this
basic question, and I come before you today begging for a
resolution. This problem stems from article VI of the Outer
Space Treaty, ratified by the U.S. in 1967, which requires
countries to provide authorization and continuing supervision
of their private sector space activities. The U.S. signed the
Outer Space Treaty, creating an obligation for the continuing
supervision of nongovernmental entities, but we failed to craft
a mechanism for such supervision to take place.
This created a potential regulatory quagmire that domestic
companies are already suffering from. Fortunately, a simple
effective solution is available. Congress should, as soon as
possible, direct the AST to update its regulations to support a
mission licensing process. The mission licensing approach, or
some iteration thereof, could mirror the AST's existing payload
review procedures and would be limited to requiring only basic
information, such as if the payload or planned activity will
conform to international treaty obligations or interfere with
national security interests.
The requirement for continuing supervision would be
explicitly met by inserting a proviso into every mission
license for the company to inform the AST if they experience a
material change to their activity. This concept would fully
address the continuing supervision requirement, via a benign
registration-based regime. Even if there were no Outer Space
Treaty, establishing a simple, efficient means of registering
domestic commercial space activities in and beyond LEO would
make sense to prevent potential conjunctions and other forms of
harmful interference between domestic and foreign outer space
activities. This issue must be resolved, and it must be
resolved with alacrity.
In addition to chairing the COMSTAC, I am also a vice
president of Washington operations for Space Systems Loral, the
world's most prolific commercial satellite manufacturer. As you
have seen in the videos, which have been playing in the
background, we are about to enter a new era of robotic
satellite servicing, wherein satellites are no longer built on
Earth and then disposed of, but instead are refueled,
refurbished, and enhanced while still in orbit.
This new world of satellite 2.0 will create a revolution in
capabilities, impacting every aspect of our daily lives in ways
that we cannot now even begin to imagine. However, what I can
predict with utter certainty is that the companies and
countries that are leaders in satellite servicing and orbital
assembly will enjoy an overwhelming competitive edge over
nations that have fallen behind.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA,
and NASA each have their own pilot programs to demonstrate
satellite servicing. But in order to transition such
capabilities to the private sector and to make the U.S. a
global leader, more support, programs, and funding are needed,
and the Government must not immediately throw up a regulatory
roadblock by failing to address article VI's continuing
supervision requirement.
Moreover, I would be remiss if I didn't use this
opportunity to also raise the COMSTAC's concern over funding
shortfalls at the AST. The workload at the AST continues to
increase rapidly, far exceeding the relatively meager growth in
the AST's budget. Without proper funding, I fear the AST will
soon simply run out of bodies to handle their ever increasing
workload, resulting in licensing and other administrative
delays that could substantially hamper commercial space
transportation development and encourage companies to move
their operations overseas.
At nearly every COMSTAC meeting, the committee has
recommended support for increased AST funding. I cannot think
of another example where industry has uniformly and
consistently called for increasing funding for a regulatory
agency, and this situation is both a tribute to Dr. Nield's
leadership as well as a warning sign regarding the dire need
for additional resources.
Again, I appreciate this opportunity to testify. I look
forward to answering your questions, and I urge the
subcommittee to take expeditious action to ensure that in the
future, commercial space companies can focus more on launches
and less on lawyers.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Gold.
Mr. Lopez-Alegria, you are recognized.
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking
Member Larsen, and Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for organizing the hearing and allowing
me to offer some thoughts as the Vice Chair of the COMSTAC.
Compared to the esteemed Chair of the COMSTAC----
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me, could you pull your microphone a
little closer.
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Hello, test. Is this better?
Mr. LoBiondo. Much better.
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. OK.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Compared to Mr. Gold, I am a latecomer
and a rather reluctant recruit to commercial space. In the
summer of 2006, I was a NASA astronaut in Baikonur, Kazakhstan,
waiting to launch to the International Space Station on a
Russian Soyuz rocket. Not 2 years earlier, a commercially built
hybrid launch system consisting of a strange mothership
airplane and a rocket-powered glider attached to its belly took
off from the Mojave Air and Space Port. After detaching from
the mother ship, the rocket blasted its way to an altitude of
100 kilometers, recognized the boundary of space, and then its
pilot made a glided landing on the same runway from which it
had departed. Five days later it happened again, clinching the
Ansari X Prize and signaling the dawn of the commercial space
age.
Back in Baikonur, I was scheduled to ride share the Soyuz
with someone bearing the same name, Anousheh Ansari. I was
honestly none too happy about it. Space was the realm of
professionals, and I didn't spend all that time training to
babysit a tourist.
But in the 10 or so days that I spent in space with
Anousheh, my views on space tourism were forever altered. As
the first person to blog from orbit, she reached tens of
thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't have cared about
ISS, about NASA, or about space. She sparked imagination in
adults and inspired kids. She made people look up instead of
looking down. She represented a wonderful idea: the
democratization of access to space.
I am mindful that we are a long way from being able to hop
on a rocket like we take Uber or Southwest, but we are
starting. It is an oft used but nonetheless valid analogy.
Commercial human spaceflight today is where commercial aviation
was in the 1920s. As of today, something like 550 people in the
history of humanity have been above 100 kilometers. In the next
several years, that number will double, and growth in the
following decades will be exponential.
Make no mistake, space is a tricky business. Massive
amounts of energy are focused to propel a spacecraft in its
intended direction during launch and insertion, and the same
energy must later be carefully and precisely shed for deorbit
and landing. But what was once the domain of only nation-states
is now a small but dynamic industry where entrepreneurship,
innovation, and efficiency are leveraging the advantages
brought about by computer-aided technologies to make business
cases close and unleash the competitive forces of free markets
to start a new kind of space race.
A threat to any nascent industry is overregulation that
might stifle innovation and cut off potential solutions to
difficult technical problems. Per the provisions of the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, and subsequent
extensions, while Dr. Nield's office effectively protects
health and safety of uninvolved public and the safety of
property, it is not currently allowed to issue regulations on
occupant safety in commercial human spaceflight.
As a pilot and an astronaut, I can assure you that a robust
safety culture is an important part of any flight operation,
and commercial space is no different. While Congress has wisely
directed the FAA to step aside and let industry take its first
baby steps, it is incumbent upon that industry to demonstrate
their willingness and ability to self-regulate. The development
of voluntary industry consensus standards serves just such a
purpose, and these standards can later serve as the building
blocks of regulation once an appropriate amount of experience
is gained and data collected, and rulemaking is therefore
allowed.
I would admit that it has been a bit of a struggle to
convince a disparate group of companies whose vehicle designs
vary greatly in size, shape, and even destination to come to
the table to work on something that doesn't immediately
positively impact their bottom line. But I can honestly say
that we are converged and heading in the right direction.
An important element of NASA's safety culture is effective
training. For over 40 years, a key tool in preparing members of
an astronaut corps with backgrounds that include not only
pilots but also scientists, engineers, and doctors, has been
flight in high-performance military aircraft. Exposure to
physiological stressors, wearing unfamiliar gear such as a
helmet, oxygen mask, and other equipment, and using the concept
of cockpit resource management to work as a team to make quick
decisions with real consequences, all combine to make this type
of training an excellent means to prepare nonaviators for space
missions.
As applied to commercial spaceflight, such an experience
would reduce the risk of a potentially safety compromising
outcome from a first-time flier, and might also be used as an
entry level and affordable trial to help inform a potential
spaceflight participant's decision on pursuing a suborbital
flight.
There are several companies that are interested in
providing such training, but since these military aircraft fall
in the experimental category, they are prohibited from being
used for compensation or hire. If stringent criteria that
establish relevance to commercial spaceflight and that
demonstrate superior levels of instructor pilot proficiency and
aircraft maintenance history are met, it is well within the
Secretary's purview, under the obligation to encourage,
facilitate, and promote commercial spaceflight, to support
legislation or rulemaking that would allow such operations.
I firmly believe this is an important addition to the
commercial spaceflight industry, and I thank you for this
opportunity to testify and look forward to hearing questions
from the subcommittee.
Mr. LoBiondo. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. MacCallum, you are recognized.
Mr. MacCallum. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the subcommittee.
FAA's oversight, regulation, and promotion of commercial
space transportation has fostered a strong and growing American
industry. The human spaceflight regulations that govern large
segments of our industry are currently temporary and I believe
should be made permanent.
This impermanence and subsequent uncertainty is one of the
largest factors influencing the future success of our industry.
Additionally, the industry's growth will require the FAA to
seamlessly incorporate routine commercial space operations into
the National Airspace System, without which we run the risk of
a conflict between airports, airlines, and the commercial space
industry.
I will explain three actions that Congress can take to
continue to foster the commercial space industry and protect
the public's interest.
First, some background. I am a founder and the CTO of World
View Enterprises. Our Arizona-based company is the operator of
Spaceport Tucson and is developing and operating balloon-based
vehicles working at the edge of space. Like an ice cube
floating on water, our vehicles float on top of the Earth's
atmosphere. Our vehicles have made numerous flights to high
altitudes for research, and we are the world's record holders
for human flight under a balloon, flying to 136,000 feet.
Here is Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipOne aircraft plus rocket
system designed to take spaceflight participants to the edge of
space in a suborbital rocket ride. Blue Origin's New Shepard
rocket uses a vertical take-off approach to provide
participants with a spaceflight experience. The World View
Voyager capsule, will ascend to the edge of space under a large
balloon shown here. All three of these companies' human
spaceflight operations are regulated by the FAA Office of
Commercial Space Transportation with whom we have worked for
many years. I am happy to say that the FAA Associate
Administrator responsible for this office, Dr. Nield, runs a
truly great organization.
Thank you for the opportunity to convey an industry's
perspective on FAA oversight of commercial spaceflight.
Spaceflight operations involving humans, called spaceflight
participants, are regulated under a regime based on the
participants being informed of the risks and formally
consenting to them. The regulations provide extensive
protection of the uninvolved public, protection of property,
and safe integration into the National Airspace System.
This informed consent regime ingeniously fosters
innovation, technology development, and investment by creating
a market for tourists, researchers, and astronauts to fly in
space. This, like other tourism or sporting activities, such as
skydiving, paragliding, and scuba diving, that involve informed
consent, waivers, and releases. Members of the public have the
right and freedom to voluntarily engage in activities where
they believe the benefits outweigh the informed risks.
However, unlike skydiving, the regime for human spaceflight
operation is temporary, called the learning period. It is
subject to extension by Congress, and under certain conditions,
all or part of this informed consent regime can be ended by the
FAA.
The idea behind the learning period was that a time will
come when the entire human commercial spaceflight industry
should be transitioned to a regime in which the safety of a
spaceflight participant is regulated. The informed consent
regime is creating an industry and should not be subject to
termination. At the same time, there is a desire and
longstanding vision, as we have heard, to see the commercial
space industry evolve into routine operations with the success
and safety of the commercial airline industry.
I believe that the best solution is for two regulatory
regimes to permanently exist in parallel. The existing informed
consent regulatory regime or license and a new extended
license, a regulatory regime that includes spaceflight
participant safety. An extended license would be required for
operations that constitute common carriage under Federal
aviation regulations.
For example, Virgin Galactic could offer regular 1-hour
service from New York to Sydney under an extended license. For
services whose destination is space itself, common carriage
does not apply, and the current license protecting the public
property and national airspace is appropriate. Voluntarily
garnering an extended license for such activities would confer,
I believe, a great competitive advantage to operators.
It is in the Government's interest to maintain our
country's leadership in aerospace by creating a stable yet
flexible regulatory regime. I encourage Congress to take the
lead in this area with three actions.
First, make the informed consent license permanent; second,
direct the FAA to develop an extended license to include
participant safety; and third, make it a high priority for the
FAA to seamlessly incorporate routine commercial space
operations into the National Airspace System.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. All right. Thank you very much. I will now
turn to Mr. Larsen for questions.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Mr. MacCallum, thanks for ending on
those notes about actions to take. Is it your opinion that FAA
could do these--take these actions with the current learning
period or moratorium that Congress has in place through 2023?
Mr. MacCallum. I believe that the FAA could develop an
extended license, one that involved the safety of human
spaceflight participants in parallel right now. And one of the
benefits of that is it allows the voluntary industry standards
to move from a voluntary basis within the current license
regime into being part of that extended license.
I do believe, for the sake of industry stability and
investment, that ending the impermanence of the current license
regime would be beneficial, especially in the context of
developing a permanent license that does involve the safety of
participants.
Mr. Larsen. Dr. Nield, would you agree? What would be your
answer to my question? Would the FAA be able to move forward on
these kinds of recommendations without lifting the moratorium?
Dr. Nield. Our understanding of the current law is that
there is a moratorium in place, the learning period which lasts
until 2023, and that specifically is intended to prevent the
FAA from issuing regulations that are designed to ensure the
safety of the flight crew or spaceflight participants. So we
believe that would preclude us from issuing new regulations.
Now, we certainly can work with industry on voluntary
consensus standards, and that is what we are planning to do.
Mr. Larsen. From an industry perspective, are voluntary
consensus standards enough? Mr. MacCallum.
Mr. MacCallum. I believe all active industries will self-
regulate, and putting together consensus standards helps create
a unified baseline. However, we see so many different
technologies that these standards must, by necessity, end up
being performance standards rather than trying to regulate
technology. Because of that and this situation that we are in,
that is why I think both regimes are beneficial, allowing
industry to graduate into a more regulated environment where
they can.
I cannot speculate on the exact points of the law. I would
hope that the FAA would be able to begin creating a parallel
regulatory regime that the industry can voluntarily move into,
but that would be a point of law I am not an expert on.
Mr. Larsen. Dr. Dillingham, can you discuss a little bit
more the issues brought up about the liability exposure the FAA
would have with regards to the issues that you brought up in
your report? You talked to them a little bit in your testimony.
Can you provide a little more detail about it?
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. There is a three-tier insurance
scheme for commercial space. At the first level is the maximum
probable loss insurance that is required of the launch, and
that is set on an individual basis by the characteristics of
the launch by FAA. If that probable loss, if that loss exceeds
the MPL that is capped at $500 million now, then the Federal
indemnification comes into play, which is a little bit more
than $3 billion, and if the loss or the damage exceeds that,
the third level goes to the launch company itself.
The problem with that, from our perspective, is that the
calculation, the methodology that FAA uses to establish where
that maximum probable loss is, is certainly dated by a few
decades, and we have asked them to update that because that
determines when the Feds become liable for the loss.
Mr. Larsen. When the taxpayers become liable for the loss?
Dr. Dillingham. Yes. The taxpayers, subject to
appropriations from the Congress. So it is very important that
that maximum probable loss insurance segment that is required
of the launch company be accurate and not pull the taxpayer in
before the taxpayer should be pulled in or is legislated to be
pulled in.
Mr. Larsen. OK. Did the GAO find that there are enough
folks then, in the FAA, to do inspections, to process licenses,
to do the basic work that they would be required to do?
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Larsen, that is hard to say, but what
the evidence has shown us, and we have talked to FAA about
this, that in some cases they were unable to do some 10 percent
of their required inspections for launches. We talked to FAA
about that, and you know, what are the implications of this?
What are the safety implications of this?
The response that we got was that there were no safety
implications, that the agency prioritized its inspections. I
could not understand how a critical mission guaranteeing
safety, and not able to do those inspections, was not, you
know, something that needed to be dealt with. We told FAA or--
and recommended to FAA, and they are following through on that
to if they need more resources, that in order to make that case
to Congress, they had to present better information so Congress
could evaluate the need, and that had to be based on a more
detailed explanation of what are the actual duties and
responsibilities that the agency has and how does it match up
with the resources they have.
And as we have seen, and everyone has testified to this
morning, there is expanding responsibilities, increasing
launches, but at the same time, the relative size of the FTEs
is pretty much been level across the board, not matching.
So a lot of this is on FAA in terms of making that
presentation to Congress to justify the resources that they
will need.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I have just one more question.
Mr. Gold, did you want to weigh in on that question? You
seem----
Mr. Gold. I would love to.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah.
Mr. Gold. And I really appreciate----
Mr. Larsen. Sure.
Mr. Gold [continuing]. The question, Congressman. I believe
the funding situation is just critical. Congressman DeFazio
mentioned safety. It is only a matter of time until safety
suffers due to a lack of funding.
I would like to compliment your colleagues, Congressman
Bridenstine and Congressman Kilmer, who have fought to at least
get the Presidential budget request for the FAA AST this year
and match what is in the Senate, but as you have heard from
everyone on this panel, the field is expanding, and to just
look at launches is a very poor way of judging what the AST
needs in terms of resources.
As I said in my testimony, the COMSTAC at every meeting has
endorsed the need for more funding. When have you seen
companies asking for more funding for their regulators before?
If we don't deal with this, I believe the repercussions will be
dire not just to safety, but maybe a little less important than
safety but still important, is the health of the industry. The
AST will be caught in a triage situation where they will
probably have to look at activities that involve the Government
first and only then look at the private sector funded
activities.
This is the exact opposite message that we want to send to
entrepreneurs, to innovators who are putting their own money
into these projects. So not only for safety but for the
competitiveness of America, we must deal with this issue.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you may wonder why
I am here, but we have a lot of space activity in Alaska, more
primary launches. But you know, I was just sitting here
thinking, you know, in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue
without any regulations, and I am a little concerned in this
new vision that you have, and thank you, all of you, for this,
that what we have watched over the years is regulations stifle
the imagination, the entrepreneurship, and this is a fledgling
industry. It really is something that is down the road. I will
never see the final of it, I know that, but it is something I
believe this Nation is going to be faced with, and it will be
exciting. It will be something that we can all look upon with
great pride.
What I don't want is the baby to be suffocated with too
many blankets. And all due respect to you, Dr. Nield, the FAA
doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world right now,
and we are working on a renewal of that bill, as you know. And
I just wondered, Dr. Nield, do you think that you should be the
agency or should we have another group of people that would
write regulations with the cooperation of the industry itself?
I am afraid you are going the get some college graduate, or
some noncollege graduate, involved writing regulation not
knowing the effect upon industry, which has happened in a lot
of other agencies. Do you think you are--you are the only one
in the street now. Do you think you are the appropriate one, or
should there be another agency to work with the industry to
make sure it is safe?
Dr. Nield. We very much believe that we are the right
people to do this. Although I respect the fact that different
people have different opinions, I believe that the dual mandate
to ensure public safety and to encourage, facilitate, and
promote the industry, and--based on the instructions in the
law--to regulate only to the extent necessary to meet
international obligations, public safety, foreign policy, and
national security interests of the U.S., is the right
calibration for us. We are strongly interested in seeing not
only safe, but also successful operations by the industry.
We believe we are doing a good job of that and certainly
encourage you to continue to interact with industry to see if
they agree with that assessment. We believe we can meet that
dual mandate, ensuring public safety and continuing to support
the great innovation.
Mr. Young. Again, my concern is, Mr. Chairman, maybe there
ought to be some type of direction so that that cooperation
continues because the agency itself changes personnel and they
change attitudes--not just you. I am talking about every
agency--about how the industry should interface with one
another. The biggest complaint we are having after my years in
Congress is the people directly affected are never consulted
when the regulations are being written.
Does anybody want to comment on that? Mr. Gold?
Mr. Gold. Thank you, Congressman. And again, I appreciate
the point you are making. A good example of what you are
referring to is export control regulations. Had export control
and ITAR existed for Columbus, he would still be in Europe
today.
Mr. Young. Yeah. That is right.
Mr. Gold. The overbroad and often irrational way that
export controls were implemented took America from being the
only country that would conduct commercial space launches to
often having only one launch per year. Companies would pay
millions of dollars to meet burdensome Government requirements
that often had almost no relation to reality, protecting parts
and components that you could purchase at a Radio Shack instead
of actually protecting technologies that warrant it.
So I am very concerned with this topic, but I can assure
you that there is no better relationship between industry and a
regulator than what we have with the FAA.
I think the group that you are almost referring to is
actually the COMSTAC, that we are the backbone with industry
that remains, regardless of who is in charge at the FAA AST. I
have served with COMSTAC under George's predecessor and George,
and the way that Dr. Nield interacts with us, the way that the
AST works cooperatively with industry has been tremendous and
necessary. As Taber points out, there is great diversity in
technologies, and this is not a well understood field, frankly,
by Government.
No one knows more about private sector systems than the
private sector.
Mr. Young. That is right.
Mr. Gold. And I assure you, Dr. Nield has reached out, as
well as his people, to work hand-in-glove with us. If they had
not, we would not be here asking for more funding for Dr.
Nield, I assure you.
Mr. Young. Well, again, I hope, Dr. Nield, you understand,
if you get more funding, it is going to go directly to the
program that has space exploration, not being spread around
looking at my tail numbers on my airplane, if you follow what I
am saying.
So that is just--my time is up, and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for allowing me to participate.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Don't worry. The tail
numbers are available commercially on a realtime basis, so you
don't have to worry about the Government there looking at you,
Don.
I just want to return to the question. I understand that we
want to promote this industry, and we do. You know, this is
great for the U.S. to maintain our leadership in space, but the
question is, why would we have the same agency promote and
oversee safety? Why wouldn't it be the Department of Commerce
or some other part of the Government that would do that?
Again, I mean, no offense, Dr. Nield, but I heard exactly
those same things a couple of months before ValuJet when my
amendment was defeated, and then my colleague said: Oops, that
doesn't look too good, does it?
And so why wouldn't it be appropriate to have another
agency of the Federal Government like the Department of
Commerce, promote?
Dr. Nield. Thank you for that question. I think an
important part of that is exactly what do we mean by the
terminology, and so let me explain how we interpret that
phrase, ``encourage, facilitate, and promote,'' by saying what
it is not. It is not favoring one company over another. It is
not cutting corners. It is not compromising when it comes to
public safety. In fact, we do have that perfect safety record
with 290 licensed or permitted activities.
Mr. DeFazio. The qualification being no member of the
public has been killed.
Dr. Nield. Which is the job that Congress has given to us.
Mr. DeFazio. There is some criticism of the NTSB regarding
the process that went forward, you know, the construction of
the vehicle before there was any review by FAA AST, and the
whole human factors interaction issue in which some FAA AST
technical staff member reported their questions did not
directly relate to public safety, were filtered by FAA AST
management to reduce the burden on scale. Well, unfortunately,
someone died.
So, that leads me exactly to the point I am making. That
pressure was exerted and they complied because of your
promotional mandate.
Dr. Dillingham, do you have anything to comment on this? Is
there another agency of Government that could do the promotion
while the FAA could just focus on safety and maybe they
wouldn't need to hire a bunch more people if they just focused
on that part.
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. In one of our
earlier reports, we made that exact point, that there is either
inherent or potential conflict with the dual mandate of
promotion and safety oversight. We also made the recommendation
that FAA work with the Department of Commerce to come up with a
memorandum of understanding that would in fact delineate which
of the agencies would be responsible for what part of promotion
in line with their statutory--their statutory situation, as
well as their mission.
So bottom line, we still think that that is something that
needs to be looked at. It is hard to know where that line is
drawn, but the more the industry expands with all the different
kinds of vehicles and technologies, it is becoming--it is still
a risk and will become even more of a risk.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Now, back to this, the insurance. I am struggling with this
a little bit. When did FAA set the $500 million cap on acquired
insurance?
Dr. Dillingham. FAA developed the methodology to set the
level of insurance in the mid-1980s, I think.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And they also have this nub then where you
have the Federal Government indemnification, which back then I
think was estimated to be $1.5 billion, but now we are
adjusting that part for inflation and saying the potential
Government indemnification, subject to appropriation--might be
a problem there--is $3.06 billion but we haven't talked about
the $500 million and indexing that to inflation.
So why are we indexing the Government, the taxpayer's
liability to inflation but not the required acquisition of
insurance?
Dr. Dillingham. Dr. Nield.
Dr. Nield. My understanding is both of those numbers are
inflation adjusted. I could be incorrect about that but----
Mr. DeFazio. I don't know. My understanding is from the GAO
documents that it was set at $500 million and that it hasn't
been indexed.
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Congressman, if I could just comment. I
think the reason that we really don't know the answer to that
question is because that number practically has never been
approached. It is actually set by the MPL with a cap of $500
million, and if the maximum probable loss is calculated to be
less that, then the question has never been asked, and as I
understand it, that has been the case.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So I mean, wouldn't this vary per
operation, depending upon whether you are launching out of a
heavily populated area, whether you are launching in a very
remote area, the trajectory that you are going to use, et
cetera, shouldn't it vary on each one?
Dr. Nield. Yes, it does. We calculate a separate maximum
probable loss for each vehicle, each location, and as long as
it is less than that cap of $500 million, then that is the
number in terms of how much insurance needs to be purchased.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. But if someone were doing something that
you thought was going to exceed $500 million, you would just
say: Well, you buy $500 million and the Government will take
care of the rest?
Dr. Nield. That is the general principle, although I think
it is important to recognize that it is a conditional payment
of excess third-party claims. It is not a guarantee. Congress
would need to be persuaded that payment is the appropriate
thing to do to reimburse the third parties that have suffered
under that condition.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Where are we in
relation to other countries, Dr. Nield? Are any other countries
further along in this area than we are?
Dr. Nield. There is a bit of a dichotomy. It was mentioned
previously that we are currently relying on the Russians to
take our astronauts to the International Space Station,
although industry is working hard to bring that capability back
to the U.S.
But in terms of commercial space transportation
specifically, including suborbital spaceflight, the U.S. is far
and away in the lead right now. That is because of the
creativity and innovation of our American industry, and also,
frankly, I believe because of the proactive way that we have
set up a regulatory framework that lets everyone know what is
expected, what the rules are going to be. You can factor that
into your planning, and you can proceed under an informed
consent regime as opposed to insisting upon zero risk. That is
a different environment than any other country has put into
place.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I would have assumed that we were ahead,
particularly you talked about the Russians. Their economy is in
tatters, so I wouldn't expect that there would be a lot of
commercial space programs over there, but I am like Mr.
DeFazio, I was going to ask some questions about this
indemnification procedure.
According to the information we have, it has been in effect
since 1988, 28 years now, and it has not been invoked, yet it
is still in the law till 2025.
I know there are some businesses and industries that the
Federal Government insures but not many. Most businesses that
we would--that I could go into or that anyone could go into are
not insured. They are not backed up by the Federal Government.
Why is it still necessary that we place this potential
liability on the taxpayers? I mean, this is--maybe it was done
at the first to encourage a new industry, but when it has gone
on this long----
Dr. Nield. Thank you for that question. My understanding is
that indemnification is something that is very important to
industry in terms of being internationally competitive. Most
other nations have a much more supportive environment in terms
of an indemnification regime. The other thing to remember is
that in that period of time, the 28 years, the U.S. regime has
never resulted in the cost of a single dime to the taxpayers
because of the safety culture and the structure that we have
set up. So, it is working well, in our opinion.
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Dr. Dillingham.
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Duncan, you spoke about Russia. And I
think it is important to note that in terms of indemnification,
where we have a cap of $3.06 billion, there is no cap in Russia
so they have a two-tier system. Once the launch company reaches
its goal, then the Government will support any amount of damage
that occurs. And it is one of the concerns that the U.S. has in
terms of competitiveness of launches, that if they have a
better regime of indemnification and insurance, that companies
may move towards offshore rather than U.S. launching them. So
indemnification is really important.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Carson.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member
Larsen. This is for all the witnesses. Congress previously
imposed a moratorium to prevent the FAA from issuing more
robust regulations on the operational safety of commercial
spaceflight until 2023. And the rationale was, essentially, to
avoid overregulating an emerging industry in its infancy.
Do you think that this moratorium needs to be revisited?
And should it end earlier or be extended? Based on what is
actually happening in the industry today, what do you all think
about updating the operational safely rules currently in place?
Mr. MacCallum. I think it is important to make the system
that we are in right now permanent.
I want to address a point that Ranking Member DeFazio
brought up, which I think elucidates this. AST regulates the
safety of uninvolved public property, national airspace. So
these activities, these launches, are very heavily regulated.
We have chosen not to regulate the safety of the passenger
because it is, frankly, an experience. It is not common
carriage. We are not taking a person from one place to another.
As an experience, I believe it is not in the public's
interest to have the safety of the participant regulated.
Furthermore, it is not in the public's interest to regulate the
safety of a test pilot developing new technologies. These are
risks we want our industry to take.
And so what happened with Virgin Galactic is tragic. But it
is the kind of thing that happens as we develop new
technologies. And it is not in any way the fault of AST or Dr.
Nield's leadership that that happened. Dr. Nield was regulating
to the letter of the law and, I believe, has no fault. And we
should not be--you know, it is Monday morning quarterbacking
both looking at the report from--after the accident or the work
that was done at AST. I believe they have done a great job, and
we should maintain this regulatory regime because it is
building a great industry. And giving it more stability is
appropriate.
When it goes to common carriage, selling a ticket from one
point to another, New York to Sydney, then I believe we are and
appropriately, in accordance with the regulations, in a place
where we should regulate the safety of the passenger. But only
then.
Mr. Gold. And if I could just chime in as well,
Congressman. To echo Taber's sentiments, no new frontier has
ever been settled without loss of life. It is unfortunate. It
is tragic. It has happened before, and I am afraid it will
happen again. Again, what Dr. Nield and AST did was not driven
by their desire to promote the industry. It was the legislative
authority that they were given. This is a decision that
Congress has made, the administration has made, and unless that
changes, there is nothing more that Dr. Nield can or should do
in that arena.
And I believe that we have struck a good balance in this
area. The COMSTAC has set up the Standards Working Group, and I
would welcome our Vice Chair to say more about what we in
industry are doing here. But what remains undone and what I
would like to say in response to a previous question about are
we behind foreign countries, you have heard many of us talk
about this article VI concern of authorization and continuing
supervision. Other countries have already dealt with that issue
and dealt with it well.
I just recently spoke to some colleagues and friends from
the United Arab Emirates who are busy setting up a regime that
does bolster and support safety but also creates an environment
that is conducive to innovation, to growth. And if the United
States can't even deal with this simple fundamental issue of
addressing an existing international obligation, well, then
where are we as a country?
So rather than looking at the moratorium, which I think we
can have a discussion about, this is a near-term question that
has to be dealt with with alacrity, and then I think we can
continue to investigate a moratorium and look at what the
COMSTAC and Commercial Spaceflight Federation and industry as a
whole are doing relative to developing industry standards.
Dr. Dillingham. As you know, the moratorium was recently
extended. But as the U.S. is operating under that moratorium,
one of the things that is supposed to happen during the course
of that is the collection of operational data and experiences,
which would in fact feed into the development of regulations
when that time is appropriate and Congress makes that
pronouncement. However, from what we can learn, there has been
not a lot of coming together of presenting operational
information from the various companies for competitive reasons
or other kinds of reasons.
So as the moratorium goes forward, it is going to be
important that the most safety related operational information
is available to FAA so that it can in fact have a basis for
regulation when that time comes.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Nield, you have heard the testimony, I know, and it is
an interesting dynamic. A moratorium seems to be the antithesis
of--and yet at the same time agree with Mr. MacCallum that if
you need a moratorium, then you are not capable of doing the
job. What would you wait for? And I am thinking of the Next
Generation Aviation, which you are familiar with, which is 20
years behind now.
Mr. MacCallum, this industry, there are many different
groups in it. It is a great opportunity, depending on who you
are and what your level of risk you are able to take. But, I
mean, is it possible to do everything everybody wants to do
here successfully without having a great deal of latitude in
the process? Because there are multiple ways of doing this and
ideas. And we have seen that over the last 5 or 10 years.
Mr. MacCallum. I believe the current system that protects
the public, national airspace, private property, is actually
working very well. The safety record speaks for itself. I
believe we should not be regulating where we don't need to
regulate. We certainly should regulate where common carriage
exists.
Mr. Hanna. But we are not behind yet.
Mr. MacCallum. I am sorry?
Mr. Hanna. Internationally, we are not behind yet. But
``yet'' being the operative word.
Mr. MacCallum. Well, I believe one should never
underestimate one's competition. And it is quite easy for
emerging countries to develop sets of laws that are more
favorable than ours. The instability that we have in calling
something a temporary moratorium or learning period makes other
countries attractive.
Mr. Hanna. It looks like a cheap excuse.
Mr. MacCallum. I believe stability and regulation is one of
the foundations on which our economy is grown. And we should
continue that prerogative.
Mr. Hanna. What do you think, Dr. Nield? Can you manage all
that?
Dr. Nield. Congress has decided to extend this moratorium
until 2023. In the ideal world, though, I think we should be
working right now to set up what the permanent framework looks
like. If that was done appropriately with, for example, a top
level regulatory structure where the details of exactly what
you have to do is based on industry-developed consensus
standards, then I think you would have the best of both worlds.
Because you would have the Government oversight, and you would
have a permanent regime that everyone can count on. The details
of what is required would be developed by the people who know
it--who have built, designed, and are operating these systems.
So to the extent that we can encourage progress along that
approach, I think that would be the best of all worlds.
Mr. Hanna. Mr. Gold.
Mr. Gold. Congressman, I think it is important to remember
just how young this industry is. We don't even know what we
don't know, in many instances. There are a great diversity of
technologies and approaches. And as Dr. Nield says, and the
COMSTAC has been proactive in working with the AST, we need to
use this time with the moratorium to figure out what should be
done, what can be done. And it is ultimately a balance.
You know, we have international competition here, safety
over there, and we have to work together as industry and
Government to find that Goldilocks zone where we protect the
uninvolved public and protect everyone else, yet don't deter
industry. And I think we have had a very collegial and a very
productive relationship between AST and Government so far.
Mr. Hanna. Does everyone agree with that?
Mr. MacCallum. This is the foundation of my proposal to
have two parallel regulatory regimes. Because it takes the heat
out of the situation now where industry is looking down the
road at the end of the moratorium and regulations are changing,
but we are spending huge amounts of money. Over almost $3
billion was invested just in 2015 in developing vehicles. But
we don't know what those new regulations might be, so it is an
inherent threat to the industry.
By creating a parallel regime that adopts industry
standards and does exactly what Dr. Nield has just recommended,
by allowing a voluntary graduation from a license to an
extended license, I think we create the environment that both
encourages new technologies that may come along in 8 years to
work in a regulated environment where there is informed consent
and allow the graduation to one where the safety of the
participant is regulated.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank the witnesses
for being here, especially Mr. Gold. I think you have some
familiarity with southern Nevada from your time at Bigelow. A
lot of people who come to my district get transported to
another dimension, but they don't usually think about it as
space travel. So appreciate your knowledge.
I would like to address my question to you, Mr. Gold, and
to Dr. Nield. You know, we are just a couple of weeks away from
the reauthorization again of the FAA bill. The Senate has
passed a version. And we have a version over here on the House
side that calls for a privatization of air traffic control
system. Part of the problem with that is that it puts the
decisionmaking in the hands of a commission or a committee that
is dominated by just primarily one special interest and leaves
out a lot of the players, including commercial space industry.
So I would ask you, Mr. Gold, if you would be satisfied
with a system that where they determine rates and access and
every bit of use of airspace where you are not at the table?
And I would ask Dr. Nield if he would comment on kind of the
relationship between the Office of Commercial Space and air
traffic. And I know it is a substantial one, and what kind of
challenges would be posed if we moved to this new system that
is in the House bill?
Mr. Gold. First, Congresswoman, let me congratulate you and
your constituent Bigelow Aerospace and everyone in southern
Nevada who worked to get the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module
onto the International Space Station. I used to say that
Bigelow Aerospace was the biggest gamble in Las Vegas, but no
longer.
Ms. Titus. That is right.
Mr. Gold. And it is going in a great direction. And
congratulations to you.
Again, we have talked a lot about regulatory risk, you
know, choking the child in its crib. And I think what you raise
is an excellent example of this. Again, we are dealing with a
young industry, one that is just leaving the cradle and
beginning to walk. And if we suffocate it with regulations, and
particularly regulations where we are not able to interact, to
have that seat at the table, to provide the advice, because,
again, this is not the aviation industry. These are not mature
systems that Government officials have great experience and
knowledge of. Most of the experience with commercial
spaceflight systems remain only in that company itself because
they are so unique and so different and so immature at this
time.
And part of the reason that you see myself and others in
industry be so supportive of Dr. Nield is not only due to his
excellent leadership, but Dr. Nield and his predecessors have
always had a seat for us at the table. It is part of why I am
here at this hearing with the COMSTAC. And any system that does
not allow us that insight, that transparency, and that voice, I
would strongly be against.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Doctor.
Dr. Nield. Yes, I would just point out that the FAA has a
strategic initiative that is intended to integrate commercial
space activities with other users of the National Airspace
System. That includes UAS flights as well as commercial space
launch and reentry. We are trying to make sure that you can
operate both kinds of systems without negatively impacting
others. We have been working very closely with the Air Traffic
Organization [ATO] for what is happening today, and with the
NextGen office, including the FAA technical center, for what we
want to happen tomorrow.
Based on that close collaboration and the research that we
are doing right now, I feel pretty confident that we will be
able to continue that relationship, regardless of what Congress
decides to do on the future of the ATO.
Ms. Titus. So you think it would work out if you privatize
air traffic controllers and they don't have a seat at the table
and you are kind of taken out of the picture?
Dr. Nield. I am confident that we can make it work
whichever way Congress decides to proceed.
Ms. Titus. OK. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have heard a common theme of a new frontier and emerging
industry, young industry. Mr. Lopez-Alegria, help me understand
what the tipping point is when it does move to the common
carriage that Mr. MacCallum mentioned. When do we stop having
the conversation about an immature industry and start having
the conversation about safety and a mature industry that is
ready for commercial travel?
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Thanks for that question, Congressman. I
think what Mr. Gold referred to before, in the COMSTAC's
Standards Working Group, is that we have started to lay out
this roadmap to regulation. And we have identified some
milestones, which clearly don't have dates or anything
associated with them.
The first step is to develop consensus industry standards
with the participation of FAA, AST, and any stakeholder,
Government, private, doesn't matter. At some point, and I will
get back to when that point is in just a second, we could use
that standard--those standards as a basis of some sort of
primitive regulation per se. And at some point when we get to
the time of where common carriage, as Mr. MacCallum has pointed
out, it might be appropriate to certificate these airplanes,
like the FAA does with commercial carriers. That obviously is
way out in the future, and we at this table would be extremely
excited to be here when that happens. But it is really far
away.
Mr. Woodall. Will it be obvious to me as an outside
observer what the difference is between an adventurer and an
explorer and someone who is seeking common carriage? How do I
tell that transition is happening?
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Well, I think the concept of common
carriage means you are going from sort of point A to point B
routinely. I mean, how we define that, I think, is sort of in
the eyes of the beholder. But I think there will be a mechanism
to make that judgment when the time is right.
On the first tipping point, though, between when we do not
issue regulations for occupant safety and when we do, right now
there is a moratorium that will expire in 2023 unless it is
extended again. It was originally supposed to expire in 2012.
And it didn't expire because when it was written in 2004, we
thought, well, in 8 years we will be there. Well, 8 years came
and went and we weren't there. And then 3 more years came and
went and we still weren't there. And now we have decided it is
going to take another 8 years. And maybe 8 years isn't long
enough either.
I think the point is, it isn't a date. It's an accumulation
of experience and gathering the data that Dr. Dillingham
referred to that we can make--we have the basis on which to
make fundamental, sound regulation helped with these standards.
So the CSLCA that was referred to by the chairman, asked for a
report to identify what are the metrics. What is it? If it is
not a date, is it a number of takeoffs and landings? Is it so
many hours of flight time? And they are off working on that,
and I think that report is due later this year. But that is the
kind of answer that we hope to get.
Mr. Woodall. Mr. MacCallum, I agree with you. I think a
stable regulatory foundation is what our economy is built upon.
But I have looked at your Web site. I have thought about
packing a picnic basket and getting a few friends and coming
over. Because I think I understand balloon travel. And I would
be regulated for safety today on anybody's balloon but yours.
What was that process for the FAA that distinguished what
you are doing as space travel as opposed to just the common
balloon experience I would expect?
Mr. MacCallum. So we looked at being certified as a hot air
balloon is certified. The difficulty is that those regulations
are built around a vehicle that goes a few thousand feet in the
air under a wicker basket with a cotton envelope. We are going
30 kilometers up into the edge of space in a balloon the size
of a football stadium. So it is a whole new technical realm.
And there really wasn't a process in the certification side,
aviation safety side of the FAA to really encompass what is
fundamentally a spacecraft hanging under a very large balloon
at the edge of space.
However, the regulatory system that has been set up for
commercial space where the public is protected, property,
national interests are protected, but we are allowed to develop
a new technology under that regulatory regime, is frankly what
allowed the investment and our progress to go forward. Without
that kind of regulatory regime, we would be unable to move
forward because we would have to develop the FAA's
understanding of our technology in a certification process that
would, frankly, take too long and have too many inherent risks.
I think we know when we have gone from an adventure to
travel under common carriage by the very definition of common
carriage in the regulations, which is that you are holding out
to take a person from a point to a point. An easier way to
think of this if I am buying a ticket because my boss told me I
had to get to Sydney in an hour, then that is common carriage
because I am not taking that flight because of the adventure
and the experience. I am taking that flight because my boss
told me to. And in that case, it is reasonable to regulate the
safety of the occupants.
If I am just going to space or I am a researcher or I am
going for the experience, I am doing it because that is either
my profession or a more desired experience. And I think we can
make that distinction pretty clear, and there will be a market
forever for people who want to go experience space. And the
existing regulatory regime is perfect for that experience, much
like any other sport that we see where the participant's safety
is not regulated, but the impacts to the broader community is.
Mr. Woodall. I thank you all for your expertise.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Dr. Nield, can you describe the current process for
alerting air traffic control to a spacecraft that will reenter
the atmosphere and pass through the NAS?
Dr. Nield. Yes. Our current launch and reentry activities
require us to work very, very closely with the Air Traffic
Organization. We engage them from the very start. When someone
comes in and wants a launch license, part of that license is
the requirement for a letter of agreement between the operator
and the ATO on responsibilities relative to deciding what days,
what times, and what conditions those activities can take
place. Closer to the launch, the agency is putting out notices
to airmen and notices to mariners 48 hours ahead of time. As
appropriate, the agency would either implement the flight under
restricted areas or have temporary flight restrictions to
ensure that the launch or reentry does not negatively impact
any of the existing air traffic. So, it is a continuing process
and it is working very well.
In the future, we want to try to automate that process so
it is not such a manual process with telephone calls and typing
in data on the keyboard. Rather, we can take realtime data and
have that directly show up on the air traffic controllers'
screens.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Dr. Dillingham, according to the August 2015 report your
testimony is based on, AST's 2015 business plan contained a
plan to determine the feasibility of a voluntary safety
reporting system which has been very successful in enhancing
commercial aviation safety.
In your view, has the FAA made any progress in establishing
such a system for commercial space transportation sector?
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Chairman, from what we were able to
learn, FAA made an effort to establish that voluntary reporting
system. However, they did not receive the kind of cooperation
that they needed from the launch companies themselves, meaning
that they were not really forthcoming with operational data for
concerns with competitiveness and proprietary information.
As of the last time we spoke to FAA, that had not changed.
It may require some kind of legislative relief in order to
protect that kind of information if the companies decide to
share it.
Mr. LoBiondo. Anybody else on the panel want to comment on
that?
Mr. Lopez-Alegria, in your testimony, you stated the fact
that the occupant safety is not yet regulated in commercial
spaceflight does not mean that it is not safe. Can you
elaborate on that?
Mr. Lopez-Alegria. Well, I think the--you know, regulation
doesn't make things safe and not regulating doesn't make them
not safe was a sort of simple point of what I was trying to get
at. I think we have sort of talked at length here about why we
think the current regime is appropriate. In fact, premature
regulation could reduce safety by eliminating viable technical
solutions to problems that would--what would be more effective
than what might be imposed by a Government regulation.
So the--you know, a lot of people point to the unfortunate
accident by Scaled Composites and say: Well, there is proof
that we are not safe. Again, I think that AST did the job which
they were directed to do by Congress. These sorts of accidents
are part and parcel of any development program. I don't need to
point back to Apollo I or the two space shuttle accidents. You
know, this is a tough business, and it is dangerous. My point
is that regulating it right now would not make it safer.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah, just a closing statement, Mr. Chairman.
It has been 7 years since this particular committee or
subcommittee has had a hearing on commercial space. Other
committees have, but we haven't really explored our
jurisdiction on this in 7 years. And I don't want it to be 7
years before we do this again.
There is a lot to absorb. I think as the industry grows,
and we need to, we should put as much attention into this as we
are putting into things like UAS in order to stay on top of
these issues. So I hope we can have a followup or explore some
new issues or other issues in this--certainly perhaps, knocking
on wood--early on in the next Congress.
Mr. LoBiondo. Are you also volunteering for an experience?
Mr. Larsen. I have enough experiences at this job every
day. And this--I think this is about as close as I am going to
get to commercial space in my lifetime, right here.
Mr. LoBiondo. I want to thank the panel very much. It was
very enlightening. We appreciate your expertise. We appreciate
your service. And we hope to be in touch.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]