[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 115-113]
SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS:
WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
__________
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
meeting jointly with
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
of the
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
[Serial No. 115-66]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JUNE 22, 2018
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-386 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JIM COOPER, Tennessee
DUNCAN HUNTER, California SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JODY B. HICE, Georgia RO KHANNA, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
Sarah Mineiro, Professional Staff Member
Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Michael Gancio, Clerk
------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BILL POSEY, Florida AMI BERA, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DONALD S. BEYER, Jr., Virginia
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
GARY PALMER, Alabama PAUL TONKO, New York
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona MARK TAKANO, California
ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
HON. BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California AMI BERA, California, Ranking
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma Member
MO BROOKS, Alabama ZOE LOFGREN, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DONALD S. BEYER, Jr., Virginia
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services.. 1
WITNESSES
Bridenstine, Hon. James F., Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration....................................... 2
Hyten, Gen John E., USAF, Commander, United States Strategic
Command........................................................ 1
Ross, Hon. Wilbur, Secretary of Commerce......................... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Bridenstine, Hon. James F.................................... 69
Babin, Hon. Brian, a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology................................................. 54
Hyten, Gen John E............................................ 59
Ross, Hon. Wilbur............................................ 76
Smith, Hon. Lamar, a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology................ 49
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Coffman.................................................. 83
Mr. Hunter................................................... 84
Mr. Mitchell................................................. 85
SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS:
WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES
ON ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
----------
House of Representatives, Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
Meeting Jointly with the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Space,
Washington, DC, Friday, June 22, 2018.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers
(chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ALABAMA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
Mr. Rogers. Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Babin
and Ranking Member Bera for their interest and cooperation in
organizing this joint hearing to discuss space situational
awareness in a whole of government context.
I also appreciate the interest expressed by members of the
House Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology more broadly, and, therefore, ask
unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members be allowed to
participate in today's hearing after all subcommittee members
have had an opportunity to ask questions. Is there objection?
Hearing none, so ordered.
Non-subcommittee members will be recognized at the
appropriate time for 5 minutes.
Given that we have an excellent panel of witnesses and lots
of member interest, I will ask unanimous consent to include
into the record all member statements and extraneous material.
Without objection, so ordered.
Today we will hear from an excellent panel of witnesses on
SSA [space situational awareness], including the Honorable
Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce; the Honorable Jim
Bridenstine, no stranger to this room or this subject matter,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
and another person who is no stranger to this room, General
John Hyten, Commander, United States Strategic Command.
I will turn it over to you for your brief opening
statements and then we will roll straight into questions.
General Hyten, start with you.
STATEMENT OF GEN JOHN E. HYTEN, USAF, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES
STRATEGIC COMMAND
General Hyten. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Babin, Smith,
the three chairmen, Ranking Members Cooper, Bera, Johnson,
distinguished committee members, all of you. It is an honor to
be here today with Secretary Ross and Administrator
Bridenstine. It is kind of difficult not to say Congressman
Bridenstine, but he is on this side of the table, which is
interesting.
So it is always a privilege to be here, and it is a
privilege to represent the 162,000 Americans that accomplish
the missions of my command every day. So I would like to thank
both committees for your enduring support to our Nation's
defense and in particular for your work on our national space
policy.
My command, U.S. Strategic Command, is a global warfighting
command. We set the conditions across the globe as the ultimate
guarantor of our national and allied security, and our missions
are to deter strategic attack and employ nuclear, space, global
strike, joint electronic warfare, and missile defense forces as
directed.
To do this, we rely on timely and accurate information
about the operational environments we operate in. Space is one
of those environments and it is no different than any other.
Space situational awareness is how we bring together the
multisource data needed for space control and to assess
adversary intentions.
Our national security mission demands that we make the
space environment as safe as possible to operate in, and that
has led to our current sharing arrangements. Today, we take our
space situational awareness data and make it available for
space safety, but it is not an inherent mission of Strategic
Command or the Department of Defense. And I have never believed
the Department of Defense should have to perform that space
traffic management for the world. We do that because we need to
do it.
So for a while now I have advocated to move space traffic
management to another agency while retaining the Department of
Defense--in the Department of Defense the essential elements of
space situational awareness needed for our national security.
So I believe transition is a good idea, and I support the
actions taken by the President on Monday to designate the
Department of Commerce as that lead. It is the right move, and
I commit to work with the administration, the Department of
Congress and the Congress--the Department of Commerce and the
Congress to meet the President's space traffic management
goals.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be
here. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General Hyten can be found in
the Appendix on page 59.]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, General.
The Chair now recognizes Administrator Bridenstine.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. BRIDENSTINE, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bridenstine. Chairman Cooper, Chairman Smith, Chairman
Babin, Ranking Member--or I should say Ranking Member Cooper
and--Chairman Rogers, I should say, Ranking Member Cooper and
Ranking Member Bera, it is great to be back. Thank you so much
for having me here. It is an honor to represent NASA here
before the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Space
Subcommittee here in the House of Representatives.
NASA has, of course, very important equities when it comes
to space situational awareness and space traffic management. Of
course, we have the Human Space Flight Program, and we have
dozens of satellites that are delivering critically important
science for our Nation and, in fact, for the entire world. So
we have a big stake in making sure we get right space
situational awareness and space traffic management.
For objects that are big enough to track--of course, we
don't do the tracking ourselves and we don't keep a catalog
ourselves. We rely on the Strategic Command for that through
the JSpOC [Joint Space Operations Center], but the data that we
receive from the JSpOC we analyze very closely to make sure
that our human space flight activities and our robotic space
flight activities are protected and that they remain safe. So
this is critical for us.
Objects that are too small to track, NASA has a department,
the Orbital Debris Program Office, that is responsible for
characterizing that orbital debris, and we characterize it
specifically so that we can model ultimately the risk from
these very small pieces of debris that are not trackable. And I
will be clear, the biggest risk is from objects that are not
trackable. That is the biggest part of what we deal with every
day when it comes to protecting our assets in space.
And so we characterize, you know, where those debris fields
are and ultimately how they could impact our missions and make
assessments how much do we need to invest to shield our assets
and/or maybe operate in different orbital regimes.
So this is important to NASA. I look forward to working
with this committee. I look forward to following the--
implementing I should say Space Policy Directive-2 and Space
Policy Directive-3 from the President that gives these new
activities to the Department of Commerce.
So, with that, I look forward to working with everybody
here and thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bridenstine can be found in
the Appendix on page 69.]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
Secretary Ross, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILBUR ROSS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Secretary Ross. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Rogers,
Chairman Babin, Ranking Members Cooper and Bera, and both
subcommittees, for allowing me to address you today. I would
also like to thank Chairman Lamar Smith, Chairman Thornberry,
and Ranking Members Johnson and Smith for your work on this
important issue. Your continued support of this
administration's space policy vision is greatly appreciated.
In addition, I thank my esteemed colleagues General Hyten
and Administrator Bridenstine for joining me on this panel. It
is a pleasure to work with all of you--decision makers,
leaders, and enablers of U.S. space commercial and defense
policy. Your work is imperative to the future achievement and
well-being of the United States.
The Trump administration and the Department of Commerce are
creating more opportunities for the space community to develop
and thrive. In just 6 months, President Trump has signed three
Presidential space directives. The first calls for human
expansion across the solar system. It is about time. The second
sets a schedule for streamlining regulations to unshackle
commercial activity in space.
Commerce is already advancing ambitious regulatory reform.
Over the last year, we have worked with Department of Defense,
State, Department of the Interior, and the Director of National
Intelligence to reduce commercial remote sensing application
timelines by about 50 percent from where they were before. We
have cut what was 210 days down to an average of 91 days.
The President's third space policy directive, signed at
this week's Space Council meeting, establishes the country's
first comprehensive national space traffic management policy.
The directive emphasizes safety, stability, and sustainability,
foundational elements to successful space activities, and it
names Commerce as the new U.S. Government interface for space
traffic coordination.
This new policy directs the Department to provide a basic
level of space situational awareness data for public and
nonpublic use, based on the space catalog compiled by the
Department of Defense [DOD]. This change will better enable DOD
to focus on its national security mission.
Commerce is eager to provide that service to industry, to
facilitate continued commercial development in outer space. As
the friend-of-business agency and not a typical old-fashioned
regulator, we are the perfect agency for the job. Unlike in
past generations, activity in space is becoming largely
commercial. Commerce already engages with private space
companies on export control, spectrum issues, remote sensing
licensing, and trade promotion. And we already manage, with
NASA's great support, the government's largest operational
civil satellite fleet, 14 NOAA [National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration] satellites and 4 for the Air Force.
We also have the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, which has a proven track record of working with
industry to conduct research and to define scientific standards
for business needs.
We are looking forward to taking on this new role of space
traffic coordination. The need for timely and accurate and
actionable SSA data and STM [space traffic management] services
has never been greater. DOD currently observes well over 20,000
objects circling the Earth, many of which are softball-size or
larger pieces of man-made space debris. These objects fly
around Earth at dangerous speeds of up to 17,500 miles per
hour, about 10 times the speed of a small bullet. Even more
concerning are the estimated 600,000 smaller objects that could
still cause significant harm if a collision occurred.
Congestion in space will only increase. In the next few
years, the number of American satellites in space will likely
grow from 800 to over 15,000. As more and more objects get
launched, effective space traffic coordination and orbital
debris mitigation standards will help promote our Earth's
orbits from further congestion.
With the growth of space commerce and DOD's focus on
national security, President Trump and the National Space
Council determined that Commerce should become the new civil
agency interface. With this role, Commerce can incentivize
innovative space services, based on an open architecture data
repository. This repository will establish a mechanism for SSA
data sharing that will enable/enhance STM services that will
empower greater industry-provided data and services.
Involvement by industry, academia, and other stakeholders is
paramount to the success of this endeavor, and it will take a
whole of government approach to face this challenge.
Working with NASA and DOD, Commerce is committed to
facilitating these discussions and implementing their results
so that the United States can provide global leadership for
space traffic standards. America must continue to be the leader
in space. Space traffic coordination is an important task, and
Commerce has dedicated serious deliberation and planning in its
execution. We have an excellent relationship with our partners
and we will continue working with them to carry out the
implementation plan approved by the National Space Council.
The administration is setting clear milestones and will be
transparent about achieving them. Commerce takes on this new
responsibility with several goals in mind. We will be dedicated
to creating economic growth and sustainable development in all
industry sectors.
Facilitating space traffic coordination will provide the
space industry with more tools to be successful. Commerce will
also work with industry to find ways to enhance space traffic
coordination data and be more adaptive to industry concerns.
Working with DOD, we will evolve the architecture that
currently supports U.S. Strategic Command to be even more
responsive to the space industry's needs. And we look forward
to working with Congress to protect a safe space environment
for future commercial growth.
With Commerce at the helm of commercial space traffic
coordination, we will ensure that the growing space industry
remains open for business, and America will continue to be the
flag of choice for space commerce.
I will be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Ross can be found in
the Appendix on page 76.]
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I thank all the witnesses for being here and for those
thoughtful opening statements and for what you do for our
country.
I recognize myself for the first set of questions.
General Hyten, I fully support the President's directive on
space management policy, but I do want to make sure that I am
clear on this, and I think you touched on it in your opening
statement.
Given that space is clearly now recognized as a warfighting
domain, are you saying that you don't believe that this unique
DOD SSA requirements can only be met by the military, that you
believe that they can be effectively met by nonmilitary
efforts?
General Hyten. So the--I really need to be specific on
that, because we have to do the space situational awareness
mission inside Strategic Command, inside the Department of
Defense for the missions that we have to do for national
security space.
Mr. Rogers. And that will continue?
General Hyten. That will not change. That will not change
for as far as I can see into the future, because we have to
know that information in order to defend ourselves against
potential threats. That is why we started doing this business
back in the Cold War days to begin with.
So we are going to continue that, but we don't have to be
the public face to the world for--that is what the new decision
is, to have the Department of Commerce be the public face to
the world.
Mr. Rogers. That is what I wanted to make clear, and I
appreciate that.
Mr. Secretary, you are right about the activity up there.
In addition to this roughly 620,000 pieces of debris that you
and the administrator have talked about, we have a lot of
activity going up and going to continue to be that way. You
talked about 600 or so, 600 to 800 satellites now and going
toward 15,000.
I know of Boeing and SpaceX in this country that are each
talking about putting constellations up for broadband
capability that can be as many as 2,000 or 3,000 satellites
each, just small sats. And I know there is at least one Indian
company that is doing the same thing, a couple thousand. That
is just going to proliferate, and I have been very concerned
about how we are going to manage that.
Tell me exactly how you see this working as far as that
traffic management and, more importantly, the debris mitigation
that you made reference to. I would open that up for either one
of the two of you.
Secretary Ross. Well, we already are dealing a lot with
some of these issues through NOAA, because of its satellites.
So we have people already somewhat familiar with this sector.
We have planned to send initial delegations out to Vandenberg,
out to Omaha to start learning more about the specifics that
would be involved. And we are prepared to dedicate people to
that and have people from those entities also working at
Commerce so that we make a seamless integration.
Hard to predict exactly what the timeline would be, but it
is probably something more or less on the order of a year to
make a seamless transition between the two.
Mr. Rogers. Do you anticipate cooperation with countries
like China and the companies therein and companies in India
that are going to also be concerned about this activity?
Secretary Ross. Well, yes. We, as you know, have a very
international map to both our activities and our physical
presence. And parts of our activity, such as the ITA
[International Trade Administration], the promotion entity that
has created some $3 billion of space business already, NIST
[National Institute of Standards and Technology] works with
just about every country in the world in evolving standards.
And standards and getting them agreed with other countries is
clearly a very important part of this activity.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Bridenstine, how would debris mitigation
work functionally? I just don't know. I don't have a clue.
Mr. Bridenstine. So a couple of things. You mentioned
earlier, Chairman Rogers, that there were going to be these
constellations of potentially thousands of satellites in low
Earth orbit for the purpose of communications. That is
absolutely true.
Where NASA is right now, we participate in what is called
the Interagency Space Debris Coordination Committee. When this
committee hears the word ``interagency,'' you think of within
the U.S. Government. When we talk about the Interagency Space
Debris Coordination Committee, we are talking about space
agencies from around the world.
And this interagency committee includes 13 different space
agencies across the world. And what this organization has
determined is that every 5 to 9 years, if launch cadences stay
the same and the orbital debris fields stay the same, every 5
to 9 years we are going to have a collision in low Earth orbit
similar to the Iridium-Cosmos collision that we saw back in
2009 that created thousands of pieces of orbital debris. Now,
that is if launch cadences stay the same and constellations
don't grow. In fact, we are seeing just the opposite. Launch is
going to be happening a whole lot more frequently, especially
if I am successful doing my job as the NASA administrator. We
are going to see a lot more launches. We are going to see a lot
more activity in low Earth orbit. So these kind of collisions
beget even more collisions.
So we have to be very careful that we don't let this
eventually run away. And I am not saying that we are even close
to that right now, but we need to be thinking the next 50
years, 100 years down the road, especially as we take more
advantage of space.
As far as how NASA deals with a lot of the--you mentioned
the word ``mitigation'' challenges. NASA sets standards to
prevent new orbital debris from occurring. So when a spacecraft
gets launched and then it separates from its upper stage,
sometimes that can result in debris. And so we set standards
for ourselves as an agency to limit that kind of activity so
that we prevent or we limit as much as possible the danger from
space debris.
Those standards then ultimately get promulgated throughout
the rest of the interagency within the U.S. Government. So the
Department of Defense follows those standards. NOAA follows
those standards, other agencies that utilize space. And
eventually, it got to the point where now those standards are,
you know, required for commercial operations as well and, of
course, promulgated throughout the international community.
So NASA has led on this. I will be clear that not all the
countries follow the same standards, so that is often a
challenge, but I do believe it is important for us to lead and
that those standards could eventually get to a point where
there is enough international pressure that around the world
countries will have to follow those standards.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Cooper,
for any questions he may have.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too would like to welcome the witnesses. I appreciate Mr.
Bridenstine's chart here. I think that is very helpful in
helping us understand the debris problem. I am worried, though,
that the chart underestimates the difficulty. As you point out
in your testimony and Secretary Ross does as well, we have some
600,000 pieces of very tiny debris to monitor, because each one
of those pieces could be deadly.
General Hyten. That is right.
Mr. Cooper. And as all the witnesses said, this problem is
only increasing and it is probably increasing exponentially. So
right now as we are offloading the priceless work the Air Force
has been doing for space traffic management, right now we are
reaching the acute phase, the urgent phase for the entire
planet when, as Secretary Ross pointed out, a large percentage
of today's space debris is the result of just two collisions,
just two, and how there are going to be thousands and perhaps
tens of thousands of collision possibilities. And as the
Secretary also pointed out in his testimony, each one of these
could lead to a devastating chain reaction of creating yet
further debris, which could tax the power of even the fastest
supercomputer to monitor all these orbits and trajectories and
speeds and things like that.
So a simple question: Should we punish nations or companies
that cause satellite debris? It is one thing to use carrots.
Are we also going to consider sticks? To each of the witnesses.
Mr. Bridenstine. Ranking Member Cooper, within the Outer
Space Treaty, nations are responsible for what they do in
space. There is a liability that nations have for these kind of
activities. Unfortunately, if you look throughout history, some
very nefarious activities have happened in space.
On your subcommittee, we talk about the 2007 direct ascent
antisatellite missile launched by China that hit one of their
own weather satellites and created an orbital debris field of
thousands of pieces that we are, in fact, still dealing with
today in low Earth orbit. The challenge that we have is
enforcement at the international level. It is a big challenge.
So certainly we have seen activities change, based on
international pressure, but we haven't seen really any
enforcement as far as liability, anybody paying the price for
the damage that they have done to low Earth orbit.
Mr. Cooper. Let's make it a U.S.-only issue. Should we
punish a U.S. company that causes needless space debris?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a good question, sir. I would like
to take that for the record, maybe get back to you on what a
good approach on that might be.
But certainly--and I think you are aware of this keenly--we
want to maximize the utility of space. We want commercial
companies to have access and availability. And if they are not,
in fact, following the rules, we could deny access to space for
everybody altogether, which would undermine our ability to
maximize the utility of space. So there should be some kind of
legal regime, yes, sir.
Mr. Cooper. My time is limited with all the other members
here, but there is the attribution problem. NASA currently has
a statistical model to track these 600,000 pieces. How do you
tell a satellite company or, worse, an astronaut that they died
or were killed because of a statistic? People will want
attribution.
If you have enough data to form the model, then there must
be some reasonable source for that data. So we have got to
figure this out, because the 600,000 pieces you are tracking
today could be tens of millions or billions shortly.
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir. Attribution is critical, and
some of the new technologies that are being developed right now
could help us to attribute, you know, a piece of orbital debris
that caused somebody's loss of life to a specific nation or
company. That is a challenge going forward for sure.
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Chairman
Babin for any questions he may have.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, witnesses, for being here too.
Secretary Ross, I would like to start with you, if you
don't mind. I would like to start by stating my support for the
President's Space Policy Directive-3. And while I am at it, I
support 1 and 2 as well. In Congress, we have a responsibility
to protect the taxpayer. Government spending and bureaucracy is
a serious concern. However, not improving the Nation's civil
space situational awareness and space traffic management
framework is unacceptable.
What steps will be taken to protect against unnecessary
spending and how much funding will be needed to carry this
policy out?
Secretary Ross. Thank you for that question, sir. This
activity will report to the regulatory reform officer at
Commerce. And as you may be aware, we have already dismantled
65 regulations, which is more than any other Cabinet
department.
So we are keenly aware of the importance of reducing
bureaucratic burden, both in terms of direct taxpayer expense
and in terms of the burden unnecessarily placed on industry. So
that will be one of the activities we have very, very much in
mind.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you. Then the next question for
Administrator Bridenstine, NASA has substantial technical
expertise relevant to improving space situational awareness and
space traffic management. For example, Johnson Space Center is
home to the world-renowned orbital debris scientists. Under SD-
3, how will NASA leverage its expertise to further our national
SSA and STM efforts?
Mr. Bridenstine. It is a wonderful question, Chairman. So
under Space Policy Directive-3 and the implementation guidance,
NASA is directed to lead a research and technology effort that
takes advantages of the capabilities that we already have, but
also make investments to improve on those capabilities and
technologies.
I think our biggest area of focus historically has been
investing in characterizing the orbital debris population that
cannot be tracked because it is too small, and then assessing
risk based on that orbital debris population. And, of course,
Space Policy Directive-3 is going to take it a step further and
give us authorities to ultimately make investments to do space
situational awareness or, you know, potentially, you know,
creating an environment--kind of the way I see NASA being
involved.
I will just start over here a little bit. Kind of like the
way NASA does unmanned aerial systems traffic management, we
don't want to be involved in doing unmanned aerial systems
traffic management for the United States of America and
integrating UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] in into the
airspace. That is not the job of NASA. But what we can do is we
can do the technology demonstrations, we can do pilot programs,
we can do the research, and then ultimately take all of what we
learn and hand it over to the FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration], which is the way NASA is dealing with UTM,
unmanned aerial systems traffic management, right now.
I think going forward, under Space Policy Directive-3, we
are going to be charged with the same thing, maybe doing pilot
programs, demonstrating technology, and then ultimately handing
it over to Commerce, which will have the lead on space
situational awareness and space traffic management in the
future.
It is also true that NASA will not be creating data. That
is ultimately not what we do. Of course, the Air Force or I
should say Strategic Command creates data through the JSpOC,
and then that data could be provided to Commerce. It could also
be provided to commercial partners. And then the data that
Commerce has would be augmented probably also with commercial
partners.
And what NASA can do is ultimately test a lot of the
technologies, test the data, and then ultimately implement a
plan to help Commerce lead the effort.
Mr. Babin. Great. Okay, thank you.
And then, General Hyten, the DOD and in particular the Air
Force has proposed a significant increase in their space
capabilities with the fiscal year 2019 budget. Would you talk a
little bit about these capabilities that this increased
investment will provide and how they will enhance your
warfighting mission?
General Hyten. Mr. Chairman, I am a combatant commander, so
the specific answer can come from the Air Force. But as a
combatant commander, I do advocate for those capabilities.
And I am very aware of what the Air Force has put in the
budget, and I am pleased with the improvements the Air Force
has made in the budget, because those improvements come in a
number of different ways. For the purpose of this hearing, a
lot of those improvements are in space situational awareness.
The Air Force now has a joint program with the National
Reconnaissance Office called Silent Barker where, instead of
having two programs on two different sides of the national
security space business, there will be one. That one program
will improve our situational awareness of the geosynchronous
orbit in a significant way.
We are also producing the Space Fence. The Space Fence will
come online in 2019. That capability will allow us to see
hundreds of thousands of objects that we don't see today. That
data will be critical to our mission in the Department of
Defense, but we can also provide that to the Department of
Commerce and NASA to allow this broader piece to happen.
And then, broadly speaking, what you see in the budget is
an improvement of our ability to defend ourselves against
threats in space. What you see is a change of our architecture
from a large status quo structured approach to a more resilient
survivable capability that can defend ourselves in the future.
And then you see in the classified world a lot of work being
put to make sure we have the ability to defend ourselves if we
are attacked.
Mr. Babin. And then right along those same lines, how will
the establishment of a civil SSA program at the Department of
Commerce benefit DOD and continue to protect national
interests?
General Hyten. So we talked about the Iridium-Cosmos
collision in 2009. I was the investigating officer of that
collision. And one of the things we realized--and General
Chilton was the commander of Strategic Command at the time. And
when I briefed him, we kind of came to the realization that we
are going to have to do this flight safety mission ourselves.
And we had to take about a hundred airmen, a hundred military
people off of other missions and put them on that in order to
do that mission.
Now, we have become a little more efficient as we have gone
through the years, because we have been able to improve our
automation and capabilities, but we still have dozens and
dozens of airmen that do that all the time. When we move that
now into the Department of Commerce, we still have to do the
job for ourselves, but we will be able to free up those airmen
to focus on the warfighting missions that we need to worry
about. That is what we get out of this new approach.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir.
And then finally, Secretary Ross, Space Directive Number 3
states that basic space situational awareness and space traffic
management services should be provided free of direct user
fees. And just to clear up some concern and questions, what
services are considered basic and what are some examples of
services that go beyond basic?
Secretary Ross. Well, thank you. We can use the same
definition of basic services as has been used historically. We
don't see any reason to change that. But a major function will
be an open architecture approach to it. Commerce is directed to
build that under SPD-3 [Space Policy Directive-3] to
incorporate DOD and NASA information with information from
international partners and commercial operated data. So it will
be a two-directional set of communications, and that will
create an enhanced space situational awareness picture.
Mr. Babin. And then how about the basic--what is
considered--what would be considered beyond basic?
Secretary Ross. Well, the idea of open architecture. Right
now, there is not an open architecture. It is a one-way
communication channel. We think there is merit to having inputs
with information from international partners, as we do right
now with the National Weather Service. We coordinate with lots
and lots of other government entities in other parts of the
world, and that is a very important part of our activity.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Mr. Bera for any
questions he may have.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And obviously, this is an incredibly timely hearing. Before
I ask my questions, I also just want to be clear that we have
not made a decision, this body, Congress, as to where space
situational awareness should be housed. So that is not an
administrative decision; that is a congressional decision.
And Secretary Ross, with all due respect, I don't want the
Department of Commerce to start making those plans, because, as
has already been raised in each of the testimonies, this is
incredibly important as we go forward.
Now, I think it is important, you know, under the
leadership of both chairmen, of HASC [House Armed Services
Committee] as well as Science, Space, and Technology, I know
Chairman Smith, Chairman Babin, the Ranking Member Johnson, we
have been talking about this quite a bit and we have got to get
this right. It is better to get it right, because this is the
21st century. We have to make sure that DOD has everything that
it needs to continue to do the important work of protecting our
vital assets in space.
And, you know, as Administrator Bridenstine has already
pointed out, we don't want to stifle the innovation in the
commercial sector. We don't want to stifle the interest in the
international community. But we want to do this right and we do
need that, for lack of a better way of describing it, air
traffic control cop that is going to, you know, put everyone in
the right lane and, you know, to the best of our abilities
prevent accidents from happening in space.
You know, it really does have the possibility of
transforming what the 21st century looks like. So, you know,
again, this Congress, as a deliberative body, has oversight
over, you know, what situational awareness looks like in the
21st century. I appreciate the interest of the President and
the Vice President, the Space Council, and your interest,
Secretary Ross, but we have got to do our work and we are not
abdicating that responsibility.
So, Secretary Ross, if we are looking at housing
situational awareness within Department of Commerce, there is a
lot that has to go into this transition. What kind of resources
are necessary? What kind of oversight? How do you share
information that only the Department of Defense is probably
going to be able to see? How do you make that publicly
available? How do you make that internationally available?
I would ask, are you prepared through your department to
present an implementation and transition plan to Congress and
to this body?
Secretary Ross. We certainly would if and when we are
authorized to undertake the function. But we already, as I
mentioned, we disseminate to the public about 40 percent of all
the factual information emitted by the administration. So we
are very used to packaging information, getting it to the right
place, getting it in the right format for people to use.
And one example is space weather is, as you know, a very
major factor in this whole situation, because of the impact it
has on things that are orbiting around. Well, we are already
keenly involved with space weather through our space satellites
that are part of the National Weather Service. So we are
already into that aspect of it and in a very good position, for
example, to integrate that with these other activities.
Mr. Bera. Well great. As my colleague from Colorado, who is
helping us push a space weather bill through Congress, it might
sound really geeky or wonky, but incredibly important since all
of the technology that we rely on, GPS [Global Positioning
System] technology, et cetera, not just our military but
everyday consumers and individuals.
General Hyten, we have put a lot of responsibility on the
DOD and the Air Force, and the DOD has done a wonderful job
kind of monitoring; and, you know, it is time that we relieve
you of some of that burden for the international world and the
commercial sector.
From my perspective, as we go through this transition,
there still are going to be unique capabilities that only the
DOD has and only the DOD should have. We will have to think
through how that information gets passed on to NASA or to
Commerce or Department of Transportation. And as you are
thinking through this, do you have any thoughts of what we
should be thinking about as a deliberative body?
General Hyten. So a couple of thoughts. So I think from the
largest perspective, we have to make sure that as we go forward
in the future we always have the ability to make sure we
understand what our adversaries are doing. That means we have
to have exquisite situational awareness of exactly what is
happening on a real-time basis. That is why you have authorized
significant amounts of taxpayer dollars to be put against this
problem.
As we go into this different sharing arrangement, though, I
think the first rule that comes to mind is the first rule of
wing walking, and that is you don't let go of the strut until
you have good hold of the next strut, which means we can't let
loose of, you know, what we have now and what we are doing
until we know what is on the other side.
SPD-3 says for the future, the Department of Defense is
responsible for providing the authoritative catalog for our
country. That means the catalog will come out of the Department
of Defense. Now we have to push that into Department of
Commerce, into NASA, into other places.
We are going to look with open eyes at how we do that, what
the way is that we do that, are there better ways to do that. I
think you will see things as we go through the coming year of
different ways to do it. But, again, don't let go of the one
strut until you got hold of the next one.
Mr. Bera. And I share that sentiment. Let's hold onto that
strut. Let's think in a deliberative fashion what this looks
like. Think through all the different scenarios and then come
up with the right decision. Better to be deliberative about
this and get it right as opposed to be hasty about this.
Administrator Bridenstine--and, Jim, it is good to see you
on that side of the podium--I know we share a mutual interest
in, you know, allowing the commercial sector and recognizing
the importance of space, but I think we also share a value, and
I think all of us in this room share this value that the world
is best served with American leadership, and, you know, that
translates to space as well.
And, you know, I do think, you know, in how we look at the
world, NASA is going to be critically important as we address
this framework. Because it is not just a domestic issue; this
is an international issue. And let's get this framework right
and then take it to the international community so it does set
that framework.
Do you have any thoughts of what we should be thinking
about?
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely, Ranking Member Bera. And it is
good to be here. Thank you for that. And this goes really to
the heart of what Chairman Babin was talking about was what is
basic space situational awareness data? What is that? Because
it is very clear in SPD-3 and the implementation guidance that
that needs to be without fee, and the question is why. And as
you mentioned, American leadership here matters.
So we need to have, in my view, some basic SSA data
available for free, because then when people all around the
world are making investments, making determinations where they
are going to invest their money to do space activities, they
are going to make that determination in the United States of
America, because we will have a regime that provides safety and
security for their investments and at the same time is without
fee. So that attracts capital to the United States. It keeps us
in a preeminent position.
Now, there will be debate about the fact that some people
would like to see commercial companies--and this would be a
good thing and I support it. Some people would like to see
commercial companies providing the space situational awareness
and space traffic management. We could have a regime where
maybe Commerce were to license commercial companies to do that
activity, and then before you launch you have to prove to
Commerce that you have purchased or bought a subscription to
one of those commercial companies providing SSA and STM.
So that is a model where you would have a competitive
market to provide more data and better data, with multiple
[SSA]/STM providers all licensed by Commerce, but at the same
time we get back to what is that basic [SSA]/STM that would be
provided without fee. And this is going to be a balance,
because ultimately we want people to make investments in the
United States of America, and at the same time we want a
commercial competitive marketplace where these providers of STA
and--SSA and STM, they are competing to provide more data and
better data at a lower cost, driving down insurance rates, all
those kind of things.
So this is not going to be an easy thing, as you have
already identified, but here is what I think all of us believe.
It has to be done, because what is at stake is so important
right now.
Mr. Bera. Great. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Bera.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Lamar Smith for any
questions he may have.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me say that it is gratifying to see the
cooperation and collaboration between the two committees that
has resulted in this hearing today. This may be a first. It is
certainly the first in many years, and I hope it will be an
example of further cooperation between our committees.
Second of all, it is nice to see a former member of the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee as the new
administrator of NASA. Jim Bridenstine is the right person at
the right time in the right place, and that doesn't happen that
often, but it is nice that it happened here.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smith. Jim, good to be with you.
Secretary Ross, let me direct my first question to you, and
I think this will help a number of members here. Would you go
into some detail as to why you think the Department of Commerce
is the best agency to oversee the space traffic management?
Secretary Ross. Yes, sir. First of all, as you know, we
have elevated all of the space activities within Commerce into
the Office of Space Commerce, which reports directly to me. So
rather than being fragmented, rather than being buried in
different parts of the Department, we are pulling it all
together. That in and of itself will make it more functional,
less bureaucratic than it had been.
In terms of specific things that we can do, the ITA has the
statutory duty, as does the Office of Space Commerce, to
promote and assist this burgeoning space industry. The National
Institute for Standards and Technology, which has a very proven
record in developing standards and having them adopted
throughout global economies, will be very, very involved. NTIA
[National Telecommunications and Information Administration],
which manages Federal spectrum use for space communications,
will also play a very important role in it. And then NOAA, as
you know, it already oversees the largest operational space
force in the private civil sector.
So those are some of the experiences that we already have.
Notwithstanding, we continue to engage with our partners at the
Department of Transportation on a variety of issues, and we
will be working quite intensely with NASA on the one hand and
with DOD on the other hand.
So we already are planning within the next couple of weeks
to send, as I mentioned, a delegation to Omaha and to
Vandenberg. So we are trying very hard to figure out the proper
way to integrate ourselves.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Secretary Ross. The other thing that you should be aware,
many companies that don't need a license actually put a camera
on their payload anyway to get the license for remote sensing
from Commerce. And the reason they do that is it deals with
their compliance with the Outer Space Treaty.
So here you have companies volunteering to come under the
regulatory regime of the Department of Commerce. And I think
that speaks volumes about the degree to which the industry
feels we and they can work in very good unison together.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Administrator Bridenstine, NASA has had a long and strong
relationship with the Department of Defense that you have
mentioned, and should the Department of Commerce take over the
space traffic management, is your relationship with DOD going
to change one way or the other? And also, what would be NASA's
role in dealing with the Department of Commerce on some of the
issues that you have been dealing with the Department of
Defense?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a wonderful question. So even
right now, NASA has folks at the JSpOC that are looking out for
the interest of NASA, with all the great data and tools that
are available inside the JSpOC. So that is happening right now.
And if there is a NASA asset that could be at risk because
of an object that is being tracked at the JSpOC, those orbital
safety analysts ultimately take that data and they get in touch
with one of two people. They go straight to Johnson, where they
report it to the trajectory operations officer, we call it the
TOPO, you know, at Johnson Space Center.
And then they do further analysis to determine if that
object could ultimately put the International Space Station at
risk. That is what they are specifically looking for. And then
if it does, what do we do about it? So that is on one hand. And
on the other hand, some of the data goes to CARA [Conjunction
Assessment Risk Analysis], which is over at Goddard, for the
robotic capabilities.
But I guess my point is to your question, the answer is
yes, we have a great working relationship with the Department
of Defense. We have our NASA personnel working side by side
with their folks at the JSpOC feeding data to our centers to
make sure that our assets are protected. And I anticipate that
will continue.
As General Hyten has said, if we win we move to a day where
Commerce is at the helm of space situational awareness and
traffic management, it is absolutely true that the Department
of Defense will continue to keep the catalog, because they need
to for their own purposes.
So it is possible that NASA would continue to have our
personnel maybe at the JSpOC. No decision has been made. Maybe
we could take the data from the DOD and combine it with
commercial data over at Commerce and international data over at
Commerce and ultimately get a better integrated space picture
at a different agency, not that that would necessarily happen,
but it could. And if it did happen, then we would want our
folks over at Commerce and we would probably keep them at DOD
as well. But, again, this is way early and undetermined at this
point.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you, Administrator Bridenstine.
And, General Hyten, let me ask my last question to you. And
it has just been mentioned both by the administrator and by
Congressman Bera a few minutes ago in regard to the catalog of
space objects that users take advantage of to avoid collisions
in space. If the Department of Commerce takes over that
responsibility and others that are now assumed by the
Department of Defense, do you see any diminution in the quality
of product, any diminution in the quality of service if the
Department of Commerce takes over some of those
responsibilities?
General Hyten. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the line in
the Space Policy Directive-3 that says the Department of
Defense has to maintain the authority of the catalog, the
reason that is there is because you can't have arguing
catalogs. You can't have one in the Department of Commerce and
one in the Department of Defense and then you end up arguing.
We actually used to have that inside the Department of
Defense, because we had one that was done by the Navy, one that
was done by the Air Force. And it is not healthy to be arguing
over which one is better. You have to take the best data, build
that catalog. And that is why I said the authoritative catalog
will always be in the Department of Defense. Then we will feed
that data into the Department of Commerce.
And they can take other pieces to do the interface with
other nations, with the commercial sector, possibly with NASA.
I would envision what Congressman Bride--I did it--
Administrator Bridenstine said. I would see it at the JSpOC at
Vandenberg, soon to be the Coalition Space Operations Center.
We will have international partners, NASA, Commerce there, and
then we will feed information out of there into Commerce, into
NASA. I think that is the healthy way. But, like Secretary Ross
said, we are still in the early days of figuring this out.
Mr. Smith. Still, that clarification that you just
mentioned I think is very reassuring to us, and it portends a
wonderful relationship between DOD and the Department of
Commerce.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Johnson for any
questions she may have.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. Let me welcome our witnesses and thank you for your
service.
General, the Obama administration had considered agency
roles and responsibilities for the civil SSA data and
information services and had reached an interagency agreement
that FAA assume that role. I understand that FAA, in
coordination with DOD, was planning to do a pilot program at
FAA on civil SSA data and information services.
What would that pilot program have entailed, and what are
your thoughts on a pilot program as part of the transition of
SSA data sharing to the civil agency?
General Hyten. So thank you for the question, because it is
important that we kind of go back in history a little bit to
look at that. Because I have been working in this world for
over two decades. In 1998 I transitioned a mission, a weather
mission out of the Air Force into the Department of Commerce.
For the last 10 years, really since the Iridium-Cosmos
collision in 2009, I have been working very hard in the
interagency to try to figure out where to put that mission,
because it is not inherently a DOD mission.
And so in the last administration, we were working with
Commerce and Transportation. The FAA was going to do a pilot
program. That pilot program was going to basically look at what
it would take for us to ship the catalog into that organization
and for them what kind of analysis tools, what kind of pieces
would they have in order to do that information.
As we have transitioned, this administration and the new
SPD-3 that just came out says Commerce is going to take the
lead on that, based on the burgeoning commercial sector. From
the STRATCOM [Strategic Command] perspective, from the DOD
perspective, bluntly, it doesn't matter to me. We need a civil
agency that is doing that role. Commerce makes sense.
Transportation makes sense. That is a political decision. I
think that Secretary Ross has made a good argument today of why
Commerce is properly the situation to do that.
I will work with whatever element that our Nation decides
is the right place to do it, and SPD-3 makes it clear that
Commerce right now is the lead. So in the next few weeks, we
will be working closely with Commerce. If that changes, I will
work with whoever it takes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Any other comments from other panel members?
Mr. Bridenstine. Can you repeat the question one more time?
Ms. Johnson. The question that I had posed is about the
program, pilot program that had started with the FAA being the
lead and if any information is transferable or----
Mr. Bridenstine. So I think some of the arguments are that
especially commercial industry would like a one-stop shop. And
one of the challenges we have right now is that, from my
perspective, it looks very difficult to find a one-stop shop,
because you have got the FCC [Federal Communications
Commission] that is responsible for spectrum. You have got NOAA
that is responsible for remote sensing and imaging and that
kind of regulation. You have got the FAA that is responsible
for launch and reentry. And, of course, NASA is responsible for
giving advice on, you know, protecting the space environment
when it comes to orbital debris and even, you know, preventing
harmful contamination of planets and things like that.
So there are a whole host of different agencies involved in
space at different levels. So the question then becomes how you
do create a one-stop shop, and it looks increasingly more and
more difficult all the time.
So how do we minimize--this is the key I think, Ranking
Member Johnson, that we all have to recognize. How do we create
the maximum regulatory certainty with the minimal regulatory
burden? And if we can consolidate these activities in one
Federal agency or another, that minimizes the regulatory burden
for the commercial operators especially.
So Secretary of Commerce has I think very clearly
articulated that they believe they have the capability. The
President's Space Policy Directive-3 says that they want
Commerce to lead that activity. And I think that is a great
idea. In fact, I voted on the American Space Commerce Free
Enterprise Act and supported it in the subcommittee and the
full committee when I was on the other side of the--other side
of the aisle here. So I think the key is it needs to be done. I
think Commerce is a good place to do it.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Did you have any comment, Mr. Ross?
Secretary Ross. Yes. Well, couple of things. Commerce
already has many space industry-facing resources. By statute,
we are obliged to foster growth in the space commerce industry
through the Office of Space Commerce.
Second, we license satellite remote sensing activities
through the Commercial Remote Sensing Regulatory Affairs
Office.
Third, we manage Federal spectrum through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Fourth, we manage space weather data collection and
distribution through NOAA.
Fifth, we enforce the export administration regulations as
they apply to space objects through the Bureau of Industry and
Security.
Sixth, we promote U.S.-based industry abroad through the
International Trade Administration.
And finally, once the payload is separated from the rocket,
it is usually a different owner. The launch system is very
different and it is usually a different entity from the one who
has the payload. So there is no continuity between launch and
what goes on once the payload is in outer space. That payload
often is not, comes under our orbit in any event.
I hope that explains why we think we are quite logical.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, sir. What agencies now within Federal
Government that currently carries out the research on SSA and
the orbital debris, and to what extent are those activities
coordinated?
Mr. Bridenstine. Ranking Member Johnson, NASA, of course,
does a lot of the research and technology. We really kind of
set the standards that ultimately get followed by the other
agencies. So NASA is very involved in it. We partner with
universities and the commercial industry to come up with the
best practices and the technology and research. And so, when it
comes to the S&T [science and technology] piece of it, NASA
really takes the lead.
General Hyten. And Representative Johnson, we have a lot of
capability in the Department of Defense to look at that, but I
would agree with Administrator Bridenstine, that NASA is the
lead when it comes to the S&T into that. We take most of the
algorithms and incorporate into what we do. We have to be able
to characterize that, which is why we still do research in that
area, but NASA is clearly the lead.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Just one final question.
How could this work be leveraged in a civil operational SSA
system?
Mr. Bridenstine. So ultimately, the idea behind SSA and
STM, if we want to be as safe as possible, we need more data,
and we need better data, more accurate data, and we need the
ability to process that data. And so when it comes to science
and technology, which is what NASA does, those are investments
that we make. We want to be able to get more data, better data,
and be able to process it in a way that ultimately gives us a
much more safe environment, and then take that and hand it to
the agencies that actually do SSA and STM.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Lamborn, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all the
chairmen for putting together this great hearing. And thank you
for the panelists for what you are doing for our country. And I
have got one question for each one of you.
General Hyten, a lot of the data standards work for space
situational awareness is done in Colorado Springs at Air Force
Space Command. So how will this policy affect that tremendously
important work?
General Hyten. So the work that we need in order to
characterize threats will continue. It will continue through
STRATCOM, through my Joint Force Space Component commander, who
is also the Air Force Space Command commander in Colorado. He
has the people that do that work. That work will continue. It
has to continue. But I think what will change as we look into
the future, and this is just a natural progression as we look
in the domain, is that we will have to partner closer with, not
only NASA, and the Department of Commerce, Department of
Transportation, but the commercial sector as well, because
there is a number of significant commercial entities that
actually do this mission. And they have capabilities that we
need to be able to leverage as well.
So it can't be that one size fits all. We have to take the
best debris from wherever it comes and integrate that to
provide the best capabilities we can.
The interesting thing that, you know, following on to what
Administrator Bridenstine just said about the data, most of the
data comes from the Air Force. Most of the data comes from the
Department of Defense. We will ship that into multiple places,
though, and people can use that data to produce better
products. And I think that if we do it right, we will get
benefit out of that and the Department of Defense because the
folks that do that business will learn from others doing it as
well and we will apply the best practices in the business that
we have to do in the military.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. And oh, I see that the clock
is working now. So I guess I better hurry.
Administrator Bridenstine, and we have touched on this
already with other questions previously, but do you believe
that utilization of best of breed commercial SSA processing
software for enhanced foundational SSA for NASA to avoid a
potential catastrophic debris collision with the International
Space Station is the best way to go? Or where should that
software come from?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great question. The answer is to
the extent--and, of course, this is in the future, we are not
there yet--but to the extent we have a regime to do space
situational awareness and space traffic management that is
outside the Department of Defense, and instead in a civil
entity, there are different ways it could be organized.
And, of course, one of the ways it could be organized is
that it could be done by commercial providers of space
situational awareness that, in fact, some of which exist right
now today. The Space Data Association, for example, the ComSpOC
[Commercial Space Operations Center], and there are other
companies providing data that feed the ComSpOC and the Space
Data Association. So these are all technologies and
capabilities that can be done commercially, can be done
privately.
The question is, going back to what General Hyten was
talking about earlier, is who controls, who manages the data
set, the catalog that is definitive. And ultimately, can it be
enhanced with commercial, and those kind of things?
One model, as I said earlier, is you could have multiple
commercial companies and/or non-profits or universities
competing to provide SSA and STM to space operators. And the
reason you want competition is because it drives down price, it
increases innovation. Again, you get better data and more data.
That is a model that works. And then ultimately, the people
that pay for the data, that pay for the subscription would be
the operators.
It is also true that we have to balance this with the idea
that we don't want to drive people to other countries for their
space situational awareness and space traffic management by
having people in the United States pay for a subscription or
pay for fees. So this is a balancing act.
We want the United States of America to be preeminent when
it comes to SSA/STM; and at the same time, we want to have
commercial capabilities that give us more data, better data,
and a competitive environment to drive down cost and increase
innovation.
So it is very early in the process. It is something that we
really need to think through, and I am happy to be a part of
it.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay, thank you.
And I was going to ask you, Secretary Ross, the same
question. In just a few remaining seconds, do you want to
address that? And then I will yield back the balance of my
time.
Secretary Ross. Well, I agree very much with what the
administrator has just said. There are alternate models that
could be used, but at the end of the day, somebody in
government needs either to do it, or to license the private
sector to do it. So either model in concept could work, but you
still need a government interface. I don't think it is an
activity that should just be left unbridled to the private
sector. And I think everybody up here will agree with that.
Mr. Bridenstine. I agree with that, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Norcross, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairmans, for coming together to
have this discussion.
And it is good to see a member of HASC as the administrator
of NASA, certainly. The questions that I want to follow up on
are ones that we have all been working around.
When we talk about the assets, the assets of collection,
whether ground-based or space-based, who ultimately will be the
decider of those assets? Who is going to purchase them? Who is
going to look into them? And when that decision is made, I
would assume most of these things are going to have to go
through the Department of Defense first to say what is
sensitive nature and who decides, who makes that decision,
whether or not this information gets released to the commercial
side.
So, A, the assets, who is going to make the ultimate
investments, and I have heard you talk about the commercial
side, but ultimately--we don't want duplication, but it all
goes through the filter of the Department of Defense. So
ultimately, who makes that decision on what information gets
derived to the commercial side and who pays for the assets? If
we could start with General Hyten.
General Hyten. I will start, Congressman.
So I believe that if you look at it as a building block of
capabilities, I think the baseline capabilities is in the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Defense will have
to pay for that baseline. That baseline is what we need in
order to understand what our adversaries are doing in space----
Mr. Norcross. That is the highest and number one priority.
General Hyten. That is the number one priority. So the bill
for that comes to the Department of Defense. We have to pay for
the sensors. We have to pay for the ground sensors, the space
sensors, and the processing that allows us to do that. Now,
that is the baseline. But it doesn't talk about the interface
with the commercial sector. It doesn't talk about the interface
with others. We have been making that up. I mean, literally
making it up for 9 years now. We need to have a structured
process. And that is where the commercial sector can come in.
That is where the Department of Commerce can come in. And they
can look at a different way of doing business.
They can bring in other sources of information, other
display tools, other capabilities that can do that. They may
decide that there are other sources from the international
community that they can bring in. I would hope that we have a
partnership where if they bring other sources, they will feed
that into our algorithm so we can take advantage of that too.
We will have to work through those issues, but I see there is a
baseline building block that the Department of Defense is
responsible for, and then NASA, Commerce, the commercial
sector, can build on top of that for other applications and
other needs.
Mr. Norcross. But would you ultimately have veto power if
there is a piece of information that is coming from the
Commerce side over to you that you see.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Norcross, is your microphone on?
Mr. Norcross. Hello.
Mr. Rogers. There we go.
Mr. Norcross. I usually can be heard. Do you ultimately
have veto power on what information gets released?
General Hyten. So I think veto power is maybe too strong a
statement. We are not going to have veto power. But this is the
way it would work from a Department of Defense perspective, the
algorithm that we use that processes all of this information
that comes in, it is exquisite information, and we are going to
take commercial, international, we are going to take all the
information that we get. But believe it or not, some of it is
better than others. Some data is better than other data. And
the algorithms will be able to tell. And so if the data that we
get from whatever source is deemed not as good and not
providing the most accurate answer, we won't use that data in
our solution set. That is why it comes back to the
authoritative catalog is the key.
The authoritative catalog will take all the best data
information. But at this point in time, from my perspective,
all data is good, and then we will mathematically decide what
is the best data.
Mr. Norcross. And then on the commercial side is where you
would make those decisions?
Mr. Bridenstine. So there could be capabilities where
somebody who has, maybe a commercial radar, or a commercial
telescope that is creating their own data, that they could
actually get data that the Commerce Department might not have.
Or they could get data that even the DOD might not have. And
then they could share that data with either or both.
So we don't want to limit the idea that only the government
can do it. We need to have partners that can share. One of the
challenges sometimes, is that when you think about
international data, they might not want to give it to Strategic
Command. They might be willing to share data with Commerce. So
that is a reason, another reason we need a civil authority
doing this rather than simply the Department of Defense.
It is a lot like NASA, as a matter of fact. A lot of
countries around the world don't want to partner with the
United States Air Force, but they love to partner with NASA,
because we are a separate space agency capable of doing science
and technology apart from any kind of military capability, so--
--
Mr. Norcross. This is where you would allow the private
sector who was doing this also in through those doors?
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. And a lot of that private
sector might be more than happy to share the data with the
Department of Defense or others, and, in fact, they already do,
in many cases.
General Hyten. That is why I say I hope they would share,
but I can't guarantee that.
Mr. Norcross. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And this is very
gratifying. We have an administration that is clearly committed
to focus on space and what we can utilize space for and what
the dangers are and what the potential profit and benefit is.
And especially when we have a Secretary of Commerce personally
engaged, this has got to give a whole new energy to America's
space efforts. And I am very proud of each and every one of you
and proud of our President for also stepping forward in this
way.
I believe that we have reached a tipping point in space
beside what I just described. And that is, we have now reached
a time in space where we have capabilities of doing so much
more than what we are doing today. And the private sector has
the possibility of doing so much more because of our
technological capabilities. But at the same time, we have
reaching a tipping point where space debris may get in the way
of us achieving that goal.
So this is the first step that I have seen that we are
taking space debris seriously and that will open the door for
some of these other great potentials that we have.
We have whole constellations in the private sector being
proposed for remote sensing and observation that could be very
profitable businesses, but we know that unless we come to grips
with this space debris challenge, they will not be going up.
Let me ask you this: And I appreciate the fact that we are
now talking mainly about cataloging and bringing in even the
private sector for helping us catalog the problem. And make
sure we know what the problem and defining what it is. But have
we given any thought to actually having the private sector,
once it is cataloged, doing something about it, meaning,
actually having the private sector help us in extracting and
taking some of this space debris, bringing it down? I would
just like to ask that to the panel.
Mr. Bridenstine. Congressman, the answer is absolutely yes.
Of course, NASA is very involved in making investments right
now to do robotic servicing of satellites in orbit, which would
be an absolute game changer. And when you think about the
constellations that are going into low Earth orbit for
communications, we are talking about thousands and thousands of
satellites, what we don't want is each one of those satellites,
when they become defunct, we don't want them just becoming a
piece of space junk, right? We need to be able to either, A,
service them, or, B, de-orbit them. And I think there are good
plans underway for that.
But to the extent that NASA is making these investments in
robotics, it is not just for servicing, it could ultimately be
for, you know, the kind of activity you are talking about,
which would be remediation, you know, getting objects out of
space. But that has to become, as you mentioned, you want it
done commercially. I think that would be beneficial to
everybody. The way it becomes available commercially is
ultimately to do robotics for servicing of satellites, have
half a dozen, maybe even a dozen different companies, each with
their own constellations of a dozen or more satellites doing
robotic servicing.
Once they are in orbit doing this activity commercially,
because, again, they are doing it to serve customers that are
providing, you know, DIRECTV, Dish Network, internet broadband
from space, they are doing it for those purposes, well, then,
while they are there, they can also do some remediation and the
United States Government can actually pay for that service.
So this is an architecture that needs to be developed. NASA
is making investments, like I said, in the robotics. We are
making investments in rendezvous and proximity operations
autonomy, propulsion capabilities that can have a specific
impulse that can keep us, our satellites active for a very long
period of time.
So navigation, of course, the sensing that is necessary to
do ultimately the approaches and rendezvous and proximity. So
we are absolutely right now making investments in that
activity. When it is going to be sufficiently mature to move
out on what I think you are hoping that we can do, I don't have
answer for that at this time, but certainly----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All of you are laying the foundation
towards the next step. And without taking care of this
challenge, we will impede all the other great things that
humankind is capable of.
So thank you all. And Secretary Ross, especially thank you.
The general is out protecting our country in so many ways, and
this is part of it. And Secretary Ross, you are the guy who is
going to oversee commerce in the United States, and, you know,
this industry, the aerospace industry is a tremendous asset to
our country, and we are relying on you to, as you are showing
today, take leadership and keeping that a major part of our
economy.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. God bless.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yield back?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. My time was up anyway.
Mr. Rogers. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perlmutter for 5
minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, gentlemen,
thank you for your testimony today.
I just want to sort of get back to some basics just so I
understand the terminology here, because we are talking about
space situational awareness, which seems kind of wonky, and
traffic management.
So General, from your testimony, I understand you, the Air
Force, Department of Defense, would be, in effect, in charge of
the space situational awareness with your monitoring capacity.
Is that right?
General Hyten. Space situational awareness is a mission for
the Department of Defense, and we will continue to do that
mission. But it is interesting when you relate it to space
traffic management, because the reason we started doing the
space situational awareness mission, it was one of the--it was
the foundation of the space control mission when I started this
business 30-something years ago. We did it for space control.
But when we started attaching space traffic management to it,
we started thinking the catalog was actually to enable space
traffic management.
That is not why we do SSA. We do SSA to help defend
ourselves against threats. And by having somebody else
responsible for the space traffic management picture, the
Department of Commerce in this case, will allow us to get back
to using our SSA mission to focus on our space control mission,
which is the essential piece, and somebody else will be doing
the space traffic management. It is not that we don't have a
role to play. We do. But that is not our focus.
Mr. Perlmutter. But your main role is to just catalog and
gather all of this information, which, then, you will share
with NASA and with the Department of Commerce and other
important agencies----
General Hyten. Yes, sir.
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Intelligence agencies,
whatever they may be.
General Hyten. Exactly.
Mr. Perlmutter. So Mr. Secretary, let me turn my
questioning to you. So under this approach that has come out of
the Space Council and from the administration, Commerce is in
charge of traffic management. And so, that is a concept that is
not so hard for me to understand, because I just think about,
okay, who is the law enforcement? You know, who gives the
tickets? You know, who tows the abandoned vehicle? Who plows
the road? You know, how do these kinds of things occur. And
some of it is going to be commercial and some of it will be
regulatory. I mean, is that how you look at this?
Secretary Ross. Yes, I do. And as you are probably aware,
we already have very extensive collaboration and cooperation
with Department of Defense in our export control activities,
because those interface both with national defense and with our
job as being the ones to find people who are violating
sanctions on countries, who are planning to export militarily
sensitive materials.
So we have a pretty well-established vocabulary of how to
deal, between the Department of Defense and ourselves, and this
will just be another addition to that.
And I agree with what the general said. One size doesn't
fit all. There are going to have to be adjustments as we go
along. And the technologies will evolve, new space ventures
will evolve. You are going to get into lunar habitation, you
may very well get into asteroid mining, all kinds of
activities----
Mr. Perlmutter. So I am comfortable with--I mean, somebody
in this hierarchy has got to take the lead on if there is a
collision, you know, whose insurance pays for it.
Secretary Ross. Right.
Mr. Perlmutter. You know, that kind of thing. And Mr.
Administrator, you and I have had this conversation several
times. What are your thoughts, just the basics of this?
Mr. Bridenstine. A few things. As a pilot, if somebody says
to you on the radio, ``Call sign turn right 030 descend,
maintain 10,000 feet,'' you do it. Why? Because if you don't,
it is illegal and you could possibly die. So that is why you do
it.
Right now in space, nobody has authority to compel you to
maneuver. They can tell you, either the Department of Defense,
the Strategic Command, can tell you it is a good idea, but they
can't tell you to do it. So that is the difference between
space situational awareness, and, ultimately, space traffic
management.
One of the challenges with space traffic management is if
you compel somebody to maneuver, you could be burning 4 months
of their station-keeping fuel just to prevent them from having
a collision. And the best we can do these days, in some cases--
not all cases, but in some cases--the best we could do is, you
know, there is 1 in 10,000 chances that your satellite will
collide with another satellite.
And are you going to burn 4 months' worth of station-
keeping fuel and give up 4 months' worth of potential revenue
as a company in order to avoid a 1-in-10,000 chance? Now, the
answer is you are probably not, but when you think about the
catastrophic consequences of not maneuvering, should that 1-in-
10,000 chance occur, you can deny access to space or at least
make it more problematic for, you know, generations to come.
So this is a big deal. There has to be some agency that is
capable of doing that. Again, I want to be clear, because this
makes a lot of space operators nervous, we want an absolute
minimal regulatory burden with maximum regulatory certainty and
safety.
Mr. Perlmutter. But there has to be some kind of
management. And I agree with that, and I yield back to the
Chair.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Brooks for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Forgive me for
diverging from the primary focus of this hearing, but it occurs
to me that each of you has significant persuasive influence on
where the new Space Command will be headquartered, so I am
going touch on that for just a moment.
In that vein, I hope you will help make Redstone Arsenal a
finalist in the Space Command headquarters debate. Redstone
Arsenal has a lot to offer. We have, related to Space Command,
either related a lot or related a little, the following Space
Command activities: United States Army Aviation and Missile
Command; Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and
Engineering Center; PEO [Program Executive Office] Missiles and
Space; United States Army Space and Missile Command; Army
Forces Strategic Command; United States Missile Defense Agency;
Defense Intelligence Agency Missile and Space Intelligence
Center; NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, which is the home
and birthplace of America's space program; a wealth of
intellectual talent, engineers--we have the highest
concentration of engineers in the United States of America--
physicists, mathematicians, scientists.
In conclusion, I hope you will concur that Redstone Arsenal
and the Space Command seem like an excellent fit.
Now, with that sales pitch behind me, let's go more to the
substance of this particular hearing. I do appreciate your
indulgence, and I know you-all all have persuasive influence on
the ultimate outcome of that Space Command location debate.
I know that the Department of Defense has done some interim
work with the Federal Aviation Administration on SSA. With
respect to Jim Bridenstine's Space Renaissance Act from last
Congress, to put the one-stop shop for commercial space at the
Department of Transportation, not the Department of Commerce,
what would be your insight, your perspective on where we are
looking at now?
Mr. Bridenstine. A great question. As you just recognized,
I have, in the past, sponsored legislation, authored
legislation to have the one-stop shop be at FAA AST [Office of
Commercial Space Transportation], especially taking AST and
moving it out of the FAA and making it a direct report to the
Department of Transportation, specifically to the Secretary.
So that was legislation that I ran a couple of years ago to
really force the conversation about this kind of activity and
how important it is.
Now, I would also tell you as a member of the Science
Committee, Space Subcommittee specifically, I have voted
multiple times on the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise
Act, which puts this at Commerce.
So my views on this, of course, have shifted, but I think
more importantly than anything else, it has to be done. And to
me, it doesn't matter so much where, just the fact that we
don't have time to waste anymore. And if we get caught in
whether it is a parochial issue or a jurisdictional issue among
committees, and this thing gets held up for a year or two, we
are at risk, especially when you consider the large
constellations that are going to be put into low Earth orbit.
I think Secretary Ross has made a compelling argument for
why it should be Commerce. I fully support that, and I am ready
to move out on it.
Mr. Brooks. General Hyten, question for you, but first a
comment.
It is always good to see someone with the success that you
have enjoyed from my hometown, Huntsville, Alabama. So any time
you get a chance to come back, we have got over 100 generals
who have retired there. I am sure you would be welcome, too,
when that time comes.
General Hyten. Are you trying to retire me, Congressman?
Mr. Brooks. This question is for you. What is your
assessment today of the Department of Commerce's ability to
manage these authorities, and do they have the proper resources
and personnel needed to manage these authorities? And if not,
what is your opinion on what is needed to get them there?
General Hyten. So, I guess if it is a yes-or-no question
which you just asked, then the answer is no, they don't have
all the things they need to do.
But Secretary Ross realizes that, and he has committed
inside the National Space Council, he has committed to me at
breakfast this morning, that he is going to identify the right
people if he has to go down this path and put those people at
this job.
His folks have been unbelievably transparent and helpful in
defining what this space traffic management piece would be in
the Department of Commerce. They have been straightforward.
So he does not have all the issues he will need to do that
job in the future, but he has committed to making sure he
identifies those and pursues those. I am sure he will be
working with you on that issue in the future.
Mr. Brooks. Well, with respect to Secretary Ross and
General Hyten, and, of course, Jim Bridenstine, I happen to
serve on the--I am vice chair of the Space Subcommittee of SST
[Science, Space, and Technology Committee], and I am also on
the Strategic Forces Committee of House Armed Services
Committee.
So if there is anything I can do to help ensure that the
Department of Commerce has the resources it needs, please let
me know in wearing one hat or the other.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lamb for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bridenstine, first question for you.
You mentioned a couple times that you thought that if we
took the lead on SSA in the United States and developed a
better system through the Department of Commerce and worked
with private enterprise, that that would actually give the
United States a competitive advantage when it came to firms
actually opening their businesses and putting their capital
here in the future.
Would you mind elaborating on exactly how that would work?
Because I am just sort of picturing if what we are doing is
really making data available, why would that actually give
firms an incentive to locate in the United States? Or how could
we make sure that it does, I guess?
Mr. Bridenstine. Great question. So the idea is that we
have companies that are international, investing, in many
cases, billions of dollars into constellations that will be in
low Earth orbit. And those companies are going to be looking
for opportunities to protect their investments. How safe of a
regime are they going to have, and certainly, they are going to
want access to, you know, what the United States has to offer.
Now, it is absolutely true that given the current regime
that exists right now, the Department of Defense, through
STRATCOM, ultimately provides space situational awareness and
conjunction analysis to the entire world, and they do it for
free. And they do it for free because we have to protect the
space domain.
I mean, if you look historically, the Department of Defense
got into this business because they were trying to protect
American national security interest. Well, it is still in
America's national security interest to prevent collisions and
more orbital debris in space.
But I do believe that if the United States of America has a
regime that could be commercial, and it could be led by a
civilian agency, that a lot of companies all over the world are
going to want to establish American companies to get the
absolute best data for the protection of their $1 billion
investments, or $100 million investments, big investments.
And that, I think, is good for America. It grows the
economy, it helps our balance of payments and our trade
deficit, and I think that that is a big piece of what we ought
to be doing. It also could lower insurance premiums if they
have access to that data.
Mr. Lamb. Does that place the onus on us, then, to make
sure that any data-sharing from the civilian agency with
private firms would be dependent on that private firm having an
American presence, essentially?
Mr. Bridenstine. So there is different levels. We talked
about having basic SSA data that would be necessary for safety,
in general. And then there is data that could be made available
from commercial operators that would provide an enhanced level
of protection, if you will. And so finding that right balance,
I think, is important, because we want to have a competitive
market where we are trying to get more data and better data.
But as everybody here has agreed, it is inherently
governmental, because ultimately, it is in everybody's interest
to protect space. So we have to have that civil agency that is
responsible for it ultimately.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. General Hyten, I just wanted to follow
up on a point in your testimony about our adversaries, other
countries, even some of our allies making increasing
investments in space at the same time. Can you talk about any
of those to the extent you are able here that should concern us
or that make the space more competitive than we might realize,
investments being made by other countries?
General Hyten. So both China and Russia have invested
enormous amounts of their national treasure to build
capabilities for the sole purpose of countering the United
States advantage in space. They built ground-based
capabilities, space-based capabilities, a variety of different
technologies that I can't go into in this hearing. But enormous
amounts of their treasure with the sole purpose, it is not for
something going on in the Western Pacific, it is nothing for
going on--the sole purpose is to counter the United States
advantages in space.
And as the commander responsible for defending the Nation
in that domain, I have to look at those capabilities as real
threats. And that means I have to develop counters to those
threats, which is why the first thing I have to have, just like
in any other domain, is exquisite situational awareness of what
is happening in that domain so I can respond quickly enough.
That is the same in air, land, sea. It is the same in space.
Mr. Lamb. Are they spending more than us in any of these
domains, General, or just more than they have in the past?
General Hyten. I can't go into specifics, but in certain
areas they are investing more than we are. Our capabilities are
so huge, enormous, powerful that the capabilities they have
really can't impact us today. But what we have to make sure is
that 10 years from now, 20 years from now that is still the
same. That is the challenge.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
At this point, we are going to pause for a minute. While we
very much appreciate Secretary Ross and his participation in
this hearing has been very helpful, he has been called to the
White House. So we are going to excuse the Secretary and take
any further questions for him for the record, and allow him 10
days to provide a written response to the member who has a
question. And with that, thank you, Mr. Ross, and you are
excused.
Secretary Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you for your service to your country.
Administrator Bridenstine, you display a tremendous amount of
common sense, which makes it very clear why you are no longer
in Congress.
You gentlemen have provided excellent testimony in a very
fascinating time in our history of mankind where space has
clearly become a theater of engagement militarily, while at the
same time is a new frontier for tremendous expansion of
commercial activity.
We have models like this, of course, throughout the history
of man, there has never been a theater of engagement that did
not include civilian commercial activity, be it by land, sea,
or air. So the models of the past, as they help us to plan for
the future, I believe we are on the right track here, because
the DOD needs to handle defense and warfare capabilities in any
theater of engagement. And to divest itself--and it is
understandable why over the last, you know, several decades,
DOD has become deeply involved, it is obvious that cataloging
the activities in space, because of the responsibility of
recognizing space as a theater of engagement, it is
understandable why this has happened and got to this point,
where DOD is doing a tremendous amount of activity that pulls
it away from warfare capabilities. And it makes sense that at
this juncture we would divest some of those responsibilities to
the appropriate agency.
So with respect to my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, I believe what we endeavor to determine with absolute
certainty is which civilian agency is appropriate to relieve
that burden from DOD. So it has been suggested, and I am
leaning yes to concur, that the Department of Commerce is that
agency.
So General, is this a good idea? Is this a win for America
and for the defense of our Nation?
General Hyten. So, Congressman, this is actually a great
day. Probably should have said that earlier on. Because this is
a day that we have been looking for for a long time. We have
had interesting dynamics. The first time you see a collision
between a piece of debris and a Chinese satellite, what are you
supposed to do?
Well, I remember that conversation, and the commander
saying, tell them. You know, we don't want a collision to
happen. But how is that a Department of Defense mission? And so
we started a long time ago trying to figure out how do we do
this differently? That shouldn't be the responsibility of the
Department of Defense. We shouldn't be forcing our airmen,
soldiers, Marines, to make those kinds of decisions. That is
clearly other elements of our government.
So we have gone back and forth where it needs to be. The
administration has decided Commerce is the place. Secretary
Ross has jumped in and said, I am the guy, let's go ahead and
do that. I am all in with that. I am all in. I think that is
the right decision. We just ought to go.
Administrator Bridenstine said the same thing a while ago.
We got to just go now. It is the time. We can't waste any more
time.
Mr. Higgins. I concur. Administrator, would you comment on
that question, please?
Mr. Bridenstine. Here is what I would like to share. I
think it is an important philosophical debate, but when you
look at the expansion of humanity, whether humanity is crossing
the Atlantic or crossing the continents from, you know, from
east to west, or expanding into space, if you will, it is all
driven by commerce.
And philosophically, if we are going to go further, it is
going to be driven by commerce. And the resources that are
available in space are quite frankly, they are limitless. And
so Commerce, I think should take the helm here for that basic
philosophical reason.
The other thing that is important to note is that space has
transformed all of our lives, and we are now dependent on space
in ways we never--a lot of Americans don't recognize how
dependent we are on space. The way we navigate, the way we
communicate, the way we produce food, the way we produce
energy, how we do disaster relief, predict weather, monitor the
climate, the way we do national security and defense. All of it
depends on space.
In fact, the GPS signal is required for banking. If we lose
the GPS signal, that changes. In fact, it could be catastrophic
for our country. If you lose the GPS signal, you can't do
banking, next thing you know there is no milk in the grocery
store. Civil unrest. That is a huge challenge.
So here is the important thing, going back in time when you
think about the history of naval power, for example, Alfred
Thayer Mahan, he was a great theorist on naval power, commerce
ultimately results in that commerce being threatened.
And that is what is happening right now. Our entire way of
life is dependent on space. And our, not enemies necessarily,
but our competitors know that, and they are developing
capabilities to thwart our way of life.
And so if commerce is important for the power of nations as
Alfred Thayer Mahan said back in the 1800s, then defending that
commerce is also important as well, or protecting that
commerce, which is, again, why I believe it is perfectly
legitimate and good that Commerce take the helm of providing
space situational awareness and space traffic management.
Mr. Higgins. Gentleman, you present a compelling argument.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in response to your
invitation, I have a question for Secretary Ross that I will
submit basically noting my curiosity about as we transition to
this new plan, since I don't see anything in the fiscal year
2018 and 2019 budgets to help the Department of Commerce
finance that, how they plan on addressing it. But I will submit
that in writing.
If I could turn now to my fellow Oklahoman, the
administrator, Mr. Bridenstine. First of all, I promised your
constituents I will provide the most intense oversight----
Mr. Bridenstine. Oh my goodness.
Mr. Lucas [continuing]. Of your life for the rest of your
career in that role, which would be an awesome experience. Just
taking care of my fellow Oklahomans' concerns.
Let's talk for a moment, though, in general, if you would,
since this summer is the 60th anniversary of the legislation
that created your agency when the Eisenhower administration and
our predecessors in Congress determined that we needed to have
a civilian perspective on space exploration.
As we talk today about what Commerce is going to do and the
continued important mission of the Department of Defense, where
do you envision NASA actually playing as these issues evolve
over the coming decades?
Mr. Bridenstine. So NASA is an agency, we do discovery and
exploration. We do science. And, of course, we are not involved
in national security space. We are not involved in defense. But
certainly, we want to make sure that our assets are secure. And
that is when you think about space situational awareness, space
traffic management. And the fact that we have humans in orbit
right now, we have to be very aware of the space environment
and the risk that it poses to our astronauts.
So I like how you framed it, Chairman Lucas, that in 1958,
Eisenhower created NASA. He did it with an expressed intent
that space exploration not be part of the Department of
Defense. He wanted it intentionally separate. He wanted a
peaceful agency that can partner with the rest of the world in
making civilization-changing discoveries. That was his
objective.
And what I would say now is we don't necessarily want space
situational awareness and space traffic management to be a
Department of Defense specific issue. Certainly, they are going
to do that, but they don't have to do the conjunction analysis
and warning for the entire world for free, and not to mention
all of the commercial operators as well.
So I think it is important to have a civil agency capable
of doing that, just like Eisenhower envisioned for NASA back in
1958.
Mr. Lucas. General, some 30-plus years ago, I had a
conversation at a public event with a colonel who was an
officer in, I believe, what is probably your organization now
30 years back. And as a nonpublic official, I spent a little
bit of time asking him a variety of questions, being
inquisitive. And he was one of the most cautious, methodical,
thorough officers I have seen. He said absolutely nothing.
But I finally asked him a question, and I will ask you a
question, the same question I asked him. How do you sleep at
night? Thirty-some years ago he said, I sleep very well at
night. How do you sleep at night with your responsibilities?
General Hyten. I sleep very well.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you for the answer I wanted.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
General Hyten. One comment on that. It is important. The
reason I sleep well, as I mentioned in my opening statement,
because I have 162,000 of the best and brightest that America
has to offer that do the job every day. And they actually do
the work. I don't do any of the work. They do the work.
And because they are out there deployed under the ground,
under the sea, in the air, operating in space, that should
allow you to sleep well, because it allows me to sleep well.
Mr. Lucas. And that is the exact point I wanted you to
make, General, because the general public does not have an
understanding or an appreciation for all of that. And for 30-
plus years this important role has been fulfilled.
Again, thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will just say to
the administrator, welcome back. We are honored that you are in
the role you are in. We will miss you here, but you are the
right person for this position at this time, and we are honored
deeply that you are in that role. And welcome back here today.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Hice. General, let me begin with you. Just in light of
all the conversation today, how do you prioritize the competing
interests and needs between DOD, commercial, and SSA
requirements?
General Hyten. So it goes back to the discussion of a
building block. So the building block, the essential building
block, from my perspective, is our national security. And so
that is the first thing that I have to worry about. Do we have
enough information, enough situational awareness to allow me to
exercise the authorities and responsibilities that have been
given to me for the mission of Strategic Command and defend our
Nation in space.
That is the first priority. That is the priority that the
United States Department of Defense has to pay for, has to
understand, et cetera. We have chosen over the last 9 years,
since the Iridium-Cosmos collision, to pay for kind of the rest
of the world, both with resources in manpower and money to
provide that kind of collision warning, situational awareness
for the world because we realized after the Iridium-Cosmos
collision in 2009, if a collision occurs it is really bad for
the security of America and for the security of the world.
So nobody was doing it, so we said we can do it, so we did.
But ever since that time, we have been looking for the
structure that will allow us to just focus on our national
security mission and have somebody else do that. Somebody else
also pay the resources for that additional function. Not above
the baseline. We still have to continue to do the baseline, but
all those other pieces from that.
Now, the Space Policy Directive-3 designates the Department
of Commerce is the person to step up and do that, and Secretary
Ross has said he is the guy, he is going to step up and do
that. And that is what we, in the Department of Defense, have
been looking for, for a number of years. So we are happy with
where we are right now.
Mr. Hice. So are you saying the Department of Defense will
be the top priority followed by SSA, then commercial? Is that
kind of----
General Hyten. Well, from an SSA perspective, not from a
space traffic management perspective.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
General Hyten. Space traffic management should be somebody
else's job, but we have to focus on what we need from space
situational awareness in order to allow us to defend ourselves
in space, and defend ourselves against any adversaries that
might challenge us in space. That means exquisite situational
awareness. It just so happens that that information is what is
also needed for space traffic management.
But we will give that data to somebody else to process, to
do the analysis, to reach out, to reach out to nations, to
reach out to companies. We have been doing that, and we have
been making it up. And I am pretty proud of the folks that have
been making that up, because it is a miracle to me that we
haven't had a collision, but that should be somebody else's
job.
Mr. Hice. Then in light of that, how much currently, how
much manpower and resources and so forth do you use when
dedicating efforts to negotiate SSA agreements with commercial
foreign states and so forth?
General Hyten. So for negotiating SSA agreements, it has
been very small.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
General Hyten. It is four or five people on my staff that
do that work, and that is not their only job. They have other
jobs that they do as well. But that is one of their additional
duties, is to focus on that.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
General Hyten. But the biggest impact, though, is the
people that have to actually do the work, the processing. That
number is in the dozens. That is what will be offloaded to
significant numbers that will free them up to do what I believe
is the real warfighting missions.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So in freeing that up, you will be able to
better utilize it for defense purposes?
General Hyten. Exactly.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Administrator, I heard you bring up earlier,
and let me just ask you this, how will the trend that is
currently underway for small satellites affect SSA capabilities
and beyond?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is another great question. So every
orbital regime is different. Of course, we have a lot of assets
in low Earth orbit. We have a lot of assets in geostationary
orbit. Those are two orbits that are critically important and
they will require a space situational awareness and space
traffic management regime that is very different than a medium
Earth orbit or an orbit that is below low Earth orbit.
You know, sometimes I have heard people make the argument
that CubeSats ought to be below the International Space Station
in order to not necessarily be regulated at all with STM or
SSA. That if you are below the ISS, you are going to be de-
orbiting just based on the trace atmosphere at that level
within 5 to 10 years anyway, so we don't really need a regime.
So what I would say is it is not necessarily the size of
the satellite that matters, but what matters is where that
satellite is positioned and the different orbital regimes are
going to have different kind of requirements for, you know,
where they are located.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Again, thank you both, gentlemen, for all
you do. We are honored.
I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Mitchell for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, Mr. Bridenstine,
I want to congratulate you on becoming the administrator. And
thank you, as your departing the committee gave me the
opportunity to join the committee. So congratulations. And I am
warming your chair, I guess.
Mr. Bridenstine. You are, indeed. Thank you for doing that.
Mr. Mitchell. It is an honor, sir.
Question, if you could relay to also Mr. Ross, who will
submit to the committee.
You had advocated as well that this, this situational
awareness or traffic management go to the FAA. And the FAA is
currently involved in that they certify launches, aircraft that
are launched, they provide certification for that in this
process.
Can you share with me how much involvement the FAA has been
in this process as this transition is going on, and I will ask
the same question of Secretary Ross as well.
Mr. Bridenstine. Sure. So I will be honest. I have been in
Congress until about 7 or 8 weeks ago, so I wasn't part of all
the negotiations that got to the point where we were ready to
announce SPD-3, so I do know that FAA was involved. There were
meetings in the National Space Council where this discussion
was had.
How robust it was and who said what and when, I am not 100
percent sure. But I can tell you that everybody is in agreement
that I have talked to that this has to be done in a civil
agency.
Mr. Mitchell. Agreed.
Mr. Bridenstine. And, you know, Commerce is a good place to
do it. It is also important to note, as Secretary Ross noted,
that Commerce is involved in space in a robust way already. A
lot of people don't realize the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, about 40 percent of their budget is
space-related activities. And, of course, that is controlled by
Commerce. And ultimately, they make purchases for those
activities, and NASA is involved in buying a lot of their
satellites, or at least doing a lot of the requirements
generation and then the activities that are necessary to
acquire those satellites.
So NASA is involved in that. But it is a Commerce function.
It is also important to note that Commerce is involved in
remote sensing licensing, and that kind of activity. So there
is a lot of activities that are done both in Commerce and the
FAA.
A couple of years ago when I drafted that bill, you know,
my thought was, we will put it at FAA and we will take
everything and put it at FAA. It appears now that the right
course of action given the consensus that has been come to is
that it be at Commerce. And I fully support that. The key is,
it needs to be done. That needs to happen.
Mr. Mitchell. I agree that does need to be done.
One of the questions I have, as you well know, is space and
commercial FAA-type traffic isn't a clean division. There is
clearly, and I have talked with several folks involved, SpaceX
and others. There is an overlap of that. How do you reconcile
and maybe, General, you have some feedback, how do you
reconcile that or make it work?
Mr. Bridenstine. I will take it real quick. There are a lot
of seams here that are critically important. As you mentioned,
if you are going to get to space, you are going to have to go
through the National Airspace System, number one. Then when you
get to space, eventually you are going to potentially de-orbit
if you are in low Earth orbit.
And so in each of these cases, you are going to be taking
advantage of the National Airspace System. One of the
challenges that we have right now is when a launch occurs, the
National Airspace System for a geographic region gets shut down
for a number of hours and commercial air traffic has to go
around it. And it costs a lot of money and puts a big burden on
industry.
We want that to shrink. So whether it is launch or a whole
host of other activities, Commerce is going to have to work
with FAA and vice versa. And so these seams have to be really
well thought out and we need to prepare for them, but that is
going to happen regardless of where it is. Commerce and FAA are
going to have to work together to make it happen.
Mr. Mitchell. Agreed. My concern was, I admit, I sit on TI
[Transportation and Infrastructure Committee], and I am on the
Aviation Subcommittee.
Mr. Bridenstine. There you go.
Mr. Mitchell. I didn't see here, and I would encourage some
description of how actually you engage with the FAA on this
because I think there is, not just launch, but, in fact,
failure of a launch, that area needs to be closed. All the
risks and factors affect that civil aviation, that airspace
now.
General, do you have anything you wish to add to that, sir?
General Hyten. So I agree with the administrator. The key
there is when it comes to space, every element of the
government is involved. Some in big ways, some in small ways,
which means there is always going to be seams. So the way you
handle seams is with clear authorities and responsibilities.
And the authority to the Secretary of Defense is to defend the
Nation. The authority to the Commerce is to promote commerce.
Now, you have to decide, for this space traffic management,
where is the best place to put the authority? The
administration has decided the Department of Commerce is the
best place to put that. But that doesn't mean that--the FAA
still has a role, the Department of Defense still has a role,
NASA still has a role. We all are going to have roles as we go
through this, but we all have to align under some--because if
we don't, we will just keep doing it.
Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate that. And I would suggest that
maybe a little more clarity, and I will share with Secretary
Ross as well, in terms of what those seams are and that role of
the FAA so that we don't end up losing something there. I think
it would be critically important.
I appreciate your answers. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognize Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, Administrator,
thanks so much for being with us all morning.
Administrator Bridenstine, I am very impressed with the
many things NASA is doing in the space. The new Space Fence
radar; the NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model which predicts
what is coming in the next 30 to 35 years; the LEO-to-GEO [low
Earth orbit to geosynchronous Earth orbit] Environment Debris
model, LEGEND, which looks at what the environment is going to
be like in 100 to 200 years.
Can you tell us what LEGEND tells us about this 100 to 200
year? Is space going to become ever more crowded and ever more
dangerous?
Mr. Bridenstine. Absolutely. So just to be clear, Space
Fence is not a NASA project; it is a DOD project. But we
certainly will benefit from it. I am a little concerned that we
are going to learn about so much space debris that our
astronauts are going to be sheltering in place a lot more than
they are right now. In fact, we haven't sheltered in place
since 2015.
Once we have more situational awareness on all the debris
that is out there, it could--you know, once you know what you
need to be worried about, you get more worried about it. So
there is a concern there on my end.
Mr. Beyer. Administrator, let me ask you the most naive
question of the morning. Is there anything we can do to collect
the debris that is out there?
Mr. Bridenstine. There are certain technologies that are
being developed. NASA, of course, is involved in robotic
servicing of satellites. It is a project we have right now
underway that is called Restore-L, and we are going to service
a Landsat-7 satellite, which is a good project.
But ultimately, if we want to do robotic servicing in a way
that is beneficial to our country and game-changing, we need to
develop robotic technologies that can then be licensed to a
dozen companies, and each of those companies could have a dozen
satellites in low Earth orbit doing robotic servicing of
satellites. When we get to that position, it is absolutely
possible that we could hire some of those commercial companies
to remove orbital debris.
So that is certainly within the realm of possibility and a
futuristic kind of thought, a futuristic kind of thinking about
how to deal with the orbital debris population.
Mr. Beyer. It would certainly, if you look at that 30 to 35
years or 100 to 200 years. I am working on the assumption that
mankind is going to put ever more debris up there year after
year.
Mr. Bridenstine. That is true. It is also true that the
biggest risk to missions in low Earth orbit, the biggest risk
is from objects that are too small to even track. So we can
kind of create a statistical model as to what the environment
looks like and create probabilities about how long a satellite
can last in low Earth orbit, given the pelting that it is going
to receive from debris, and how much shielding it might need to
have.
So we can create those statistical models. But ultimately,
the biggest risk is from objects that we can't even track right
now. So it is going to be hard to remove them if we don't know
that they are there specifically.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Administrator, I know you have a hard
science background with your triple major at Rice. Is there any
value to the orbital degradation of the stuff or is it just too
small to have the orbits degrade in our lifetimes?
Mr. Bridenstine. Oh, they do degrade, especially in low
Earth orbit. There is trace atmosphere. The gravity of the
Earth is not uniform. And so we see a lot of these objects
behaving in ways that sometimes are unanticipated.
I know Dr. Moriba Jah was here just a few minutes ago from
the University of Texas. He talks about the fact that a lot of
these objects in space that are not even trackable or the
objects that are trackable, we model them as if they are all
perfect spheres, and they are not. We model them as if they
don't spin or maneuver, and they do. We model them as if the
Earth's gravity is perfectly uniform, and it's not.
So there is a lot we need to learn about orbital debris and
how it behaves so that ultimately we can get better data to
ultimately make predictions and characterizations that can
protect our assets and property.
But you are hitting some very key points, which are it is a
dangerous environment, we need to do the best we can to
characterize that environment, and ultimately we need to be
able to detect objects that are smaller than 10 centimeters,
which is what we can do right now.
Mr. Beyer. Let me ask you a small but probably important
budget question. In your testimony, you talked about the
Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis office----
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes.
Mr. Beyer [continuing]. At Goddard, which I am sure you are
very proud of, and that they have the primary role of checking
65 spacecraft, et cetera, et cetera. Its budget is $4 million a
year, and yet we know the rest of the things you are putting up
there are billions of dollars. Are we spending enough money on
the CARA office?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think we are. Certainly, more money is
better, but given the risk that we are seeing to our missions
and their ability to assess those risks and then make
determinations for maneuvers as necessary, I believe we are in
a good position right now with the investments that we have.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Dunn, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Bridenstine, Jim, it is great to see you
here. I have a couple of questions about the services currently
provided. So the Space Policy Directive reaffirmed the basic
collision avoidance information services are and should
continue to be provided free of user fees. Can you confirm that
that is so going forward?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a big objective, again, because it
is important for the United States of America to be preeminent
here in this capability, and we want companies to locate in the
United States believing that they are going to have these kind
of services available through a civil agency. So I believe
basic SSA is important for the safety of the space environment
in general.
Mr. Dunn. As do my constituents.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay, good.
Mr. Dunn. In that same vein, if the government contracts
with a private company to provide space situational awareness
functions, in that situation will the data and the analytics
continue to be available and will the raw data be available in
repository form so that civilian companies can perform their
own analytics?
Mr. Bridenstine. So that is a wonderful question and not an
easy one, but eventually the way I think it is going to go is
there is going to be a basic SSA kind of capability that is
available to everybody, and it will be without fee, which I
think is important.
But there are also going to be private companies that are
going to want to give advantages to other private companies
operating in space. And in order to provide that advantage,
they are going to license their data to a private company and
the U.S. Government might not have access to that.
So that presents an opportunity for commercial companies to
augment data and get better resolution, higher resolution. And
really in a free market, you know, the United States Government
can't confiscate that data.
So I think there is going to be an architecture that is
going to have a basic SSA capability, and then there are also
going to be commercial companies that can come alongside and
provide that to operators, maybe in their model. Other people
might want to develop sensors and data and sell it directly to
the government. That might be a model as well.
Mr. Dunn. So specifically, can you address the raw data
that the government currently gathers? Would that raw data be
available to private companies?
Mr. Bridenstine. It would be available to the public. Any
government data would be available to the public. And right
now, that data generally comes from STRATCOM through the JSpOC.
Mr. Dunn. Let me ask you. Maybe I should have asked the
general, he is holding that. But let me ask, what was the
rationale for assigning the Department of Commerce, not NASA,
as the lead civil agency for space situational awareness?
Mr. Bridenstine. So NASA is an agency that does science and
technology. We do discovery. We do exploration. What we don't
do is regulate. That is historic----
Mr. Dunn. I think that is good. I just wanted to get you on
record, because I actually agree with that decision. I just
wanted to get it out.
General Hyten, space is being designated as a warfighting
domain as well as a commercial domain. Where do you see the
trend in space control sort of evolving for DOD in space
situational awareness?
General Hyten. It is interesting, because as the combatant
commander with space as my joint operating area, I actually
have two priorities and some people think they conflict.
Priority number one is to defend this Nation against all
threats. That means I have to be able to watch any threat, deal
with any threat, defeat any threat. And I do that.
But I also have an implied task that says I have to make
sure that the space environment is safe for the future, because
anything bad that happens in space, it is not like we were
talking about cleaning up the environment a while ago. It is
not like you can just go out right now and clean it up. You
know, if you have a collision in space, the impacts are
forever. So there is an implied task that I have to be able to
operate safely in order to do that.
That is why for the last 9 years we have stepped up to the
job of providing that for the world. We will continue to do
that until, hopefully, the Department of Commerce steps up in
the near term to do that for us, because it is in our interest
as a Nation to have a secure space environment.
Mr. Dunn. I couldn't agree with you more, and I think you
have done a great job. I hope you continue to have a great
presence there.
A comment. I was looking when I saw that Space Policy
Directive Number 3 came out, I said, what were 1 and 2? So I
had a chance to go back and look at that. And, you know, the
SPD-1 was let's go to the moon and Mars. SPD-2 was let's
streamline the space regulatory environment. And now I am
looking at SPD-3 and I am looking at all the things it
addresses, and my staff summed that up well for me. They said,
just make space great again.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rogers. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Foster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Foster. Thank you to our witnesses, and congratulations
to Administrator Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you.
Mr. Foster. Nice to have you back. I would like, if you
could, to speak a little bit about how you are viewing the
international governance and enforcement of space commerce. You
know, the United States is not alone. I think it's, you know,
the rest of the world has roughly a comparable number of
orbiting devices and that ratio is going to change over time.
And so do you anticipate a future where every country
pretty much goes its own way and regulates its own commerce and
we have to worry about a race to the bottom for the lowest
level of regulation which will be the lowest cost for
multinational corporations, or do you anticipate that the U.S.
regulator will serve underneath and be potentially overridden
by an international body with regulation over all space
activities?
Mr. Bridenstine. That is a great question, Congressman.
Currently, in some orbital regimes, the International
Telecommunications Union, the ITU, which is a part of the
United Nations, does license orbital slots for the
international community. And, of course, American companies are
involved in getting their orbital slots from the ITU. The ITU
is also involved in allocating spectrum for commercial
operators. So there is already an international component
there.
Maybe where at this point it is insufficient is what is
happening largely in low Earth orbit, where there is a whole
lot more debris and a whole lot more risk, I should say.
And the answer is, right now there isn't that kind of
international oversight in low Earth orbit the way there is in
geostationary orbit. And what I would say is I think the
direction we should go is we should set those standards, and
NASA has a history of doing this.
Mr. Foster. Right. But there is the enforcement problem
when someone goes to a country that is not setting those
standards, puts stuff up in space. Who says no and how is that
enforced?
Mr. Bridenstine. It is done through the ITU, which is----
Mr. Foster. I mean, look at the South China Sea, right?
Mr. Bridenstine. Right. No, that is right.
Mr. Foster. You know, an international body clearly spoke
and said that is not an acceptable activity, and a certain
country that will remain nameless sort of is ignoring that.
When that recurs in space, what is the scenario here that you
are thinking of?
Mr. Bridenstine. So as a pilot in the Navy, I used to
operate in the Persian Gulf, and we would get challenged by
various countries and they would say, you are operating in the
wrong part of the world or whatever.
And we would always go back and say, under ICAO procedures,
the International Civil Aviation Organization, that we were a
sovereign U.S. aircraft operating in international airspace,
due regard. And that word ``due regard'' is ultimately what
protects us from challenges from the international community.
And I would argue that, you know, as it relates to us right
now in space, we operate due regard. And I would say that as
time goes on, American leadership might need to be a little
stronger here so that ultimately we don't have collisions that
beget more collisions.
Mr. Foster. Okay. But what happens when two countries start
fighting over mining the same asteroid or things like that? You
know, is there any alternative to an international governance
organization? And if there is not, why are we not prioritizing
that first, to get that structure in place and get the U.S.
regulators plugged into it?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think the model that we utilize right
now--and, of course, this is established through the Outer
Space Treaty, where----
Mr. Foster. Many countries are not signatories to the Outer
Space Treaty, they have not ratified it, important countries,
you know, like China, like others I could name.
Mr. Bridenstine. Sure. So certainly that requires
international pressure to get them to conform to the
international standards.
Mr. Foster. So is your concept here that U.S. regulation
will be secondary to international regulation, or that we are
just going to go make up our own rules?
Mr. Bridenstine. I think we adhere to the treaties that are
currently in place, specifically the Outer Space Treaty. And as
long as, you know, we are operating under the obligations of
our international treaty----
Mr. Foster. Right. Which are incomplete and there will have
to be detailed regulations. For example, if you look at
cybersecurity, you can't have people put up swarms of
satellites without enough cybersecurity that ensures they can't
be hacked and use their station-keeping ability to go and, you
know, knock out the ISS, or any of these sort of scenarios.
There will have to be international standards on, for
example, cybersecurity for any satellite with station-keeping
ability. Okay. And there will be different--countries will have
different opinions on that. If some country thinks that the
U.S. standards are not high enough and we say no, that is too
expensive, how do you anticipate that that decision will be
handled?
Mr. Bridenstine. So as far as your earlier suggestion that
if we mine an asteroid and maybe somebody else wants to mine
the same asteroid and that could result in a dispute, I think
the odds of that are exceptionally small, but I think also at
the same time we can operate due regard. And whoever extracts
the resource has the rights to the resource under the Outer
Space Treaty, which we are signatories to.
Mr. Foster. All right. Well, I guess my time is up here.
But, you know, I really urge you to think more about the
international--you know, the idea that America acting alone is
a reasonable model to proceed is not going to work. You know,
50 years from now, the majority of objects in orbit are not
going to be U.S. objects and we are not going to dominate space
in the long term, and we should start planning for that and
accept it rather than just pretending like the world is not
changing.
Mr. Bridenstine. I would argue that we are in compliance
with our obligations under the Outer Space Treaty and other
treaties, and that ultimately we will----
Mr. Foster. Yeah, but we have to get all the countries on
Earth to do this or it is not going to be too meaningful. And
that is the thing that worries me. And we have to start by
strengthening those agreements and making them uniform, and I
don't see a lot of effort on this administration in plugging
into a strong international regulatory regime.
Mr. Bridenstine. There isn't a strong international
regulatory regime.
Mr. Foster. And that should be prioritized.
I am over my time. I yield back.
Mr. Bridenstine. And so we need to have American
leadership.
Mr. Rogers. The gentleman yields back.
And that brings us to the conclusion of this hearing. I did
want to point out that we had members having to come and go. So
some members may have some questions they need to get to you
all. So we are going to leave the record open for 10 days, if
you could respond to those in writing.
And also make note of something else. This is a very
important area of interest, and that is demonstrated by the
fact that we had 30 Members of Congress participate in this
joint subcommittee hearing today, many of whom weren't even on
the two subcommittees. And combined with if you went outside, 2
hours before this hearing the line started forming to get in
here. That usually only happens when the chiefs are here or the
Secretary. People care about what you do. And we are very proud
that we have got two competent individuals such as you serving
in the roles that you have.
So thank you for being here. It has been very helpful. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
June 22, 2018
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
June 22, 2018
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
June 22, 2018
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
Mr. Coffman. Regarding the transition of civil oriented Space
Situational Awareness (SSA) services from USSTRATCOM to the Department
of Commerce (DOC), as suggested in the House Science Committee's
legislation a. How will the handoff occur and what is the estimated
timeframe for such a transition? What criteria will be used to
determine that the civil DOC SSA system is ready for operations? b.
Will the current USSTRATCOM SSA system be available as a backup to the
civil DOC SSA system, and vice versa? Will USSTRATCOM space object
tracking sensors, including the Space Fence, be used by the civil DOC
SSA system? If so, how will the military sensors be integrated with the
DOC? c. How will all global satellite owner/operators be incentivized
to participate in the civil DOC SSA and Space Traffic Coordination
(STC) programs?
General Hyten. Although a timeframe and detailed specifics of
transitioning inherently non-military space traffic management
functions to the DOC are still being finalized, USSTRATCOM has fully
partnered with the DOC, to ensure a smooth, efficient and most
importantly, safe hand-off. By year-end, both Departments will jointly
provide a progress report to the National Space Council detailing
requirements for a successful transition . . . to include a timeline
for transition, a construct for managing the provision of basic SSA
data; assessing the statutory and regulatory changes required; and
maintaining the US space catalog while making portions releasable (via
DOC) to the public.
b. USSTRATCOM will continue to maintain the authoritative US space
catalog and to provide military-unique SSA services upon DOC developing
its indigenous STM capabilities. As part of this effort, we will
investigate providing backup capabilities for DOC. The DOC will make
publically available portions of the authoritative catalog which DOD
will continue to maintain. We expect a variety of DOD, civil, Allied,
and commercial sensors will contribute data which will be used to form
DOC's publically releasable catalog.
c. We anticipate global satellite owner/operators wanting to
leverage DOC capabilities out of their own best interest just as they
use the USSTRATCOM capabilities today. This information will preserve
their ability to utilize the space domain while minimizing the risk
from orbital debris.
Mr. Coffman. We have very important assets in my district that
contribute to the Space Situational Awareness mission, and it is clear
that DOD's SSA requirements will be increasing in the future given our
space control plans. How will the administration's new Space Traffic
Management Policy help you better prioritize DOD resources to meet DOD
requirements?
General Hyten. While many details concerning the increased
Department of Commerce role in SSA remain under development, by moving
any inherently non-military activities to a civil agency I will be able
to re-prioritize my resources to focus on meeting DOD requirements.
These include:
Strengthen intelligence collection, analysis, and sharing
to effectively assess potential adversary space, counterspace
capabilities vulnerabilities and intentions
Acquire enhanced SSA capabilities and leverage commercial
and allied/partner capabilities to provide Indications & Warning (I &
W) of objects in space
Achieve full operational capability of the National Space
Defense Center and continue development of infrastructure to allow
command and control of space warfighting capabilities
Pivot SSA capabilities from routine catalog maintenance
to more dynamic, search-based situational awareness with increased
focus on potential hostile activity. This will enhance our ability to
Protect and Defend the space domain and provide space effects for
warfighters around the world
Deter, and-when necessary--defeat adversary space and
counterspace threats.
Mr. Coffman. Given that the DOD has already negotiated more than 60
different agreements with commercial and international entities, what
is your plan to smoothly transfer those contracts to the Department of
Commerce to minimize service disruption? Do you believe that you will
need to maintain mil-to-mil agreements for SSA, how are you thinking
about that framework of international military cooperation in the SSA
realm for the future? a. What is your assessment today of the
Department of Commerce's ability to manage these authorities? Do they
have the proper resources and personnel and what is your opinion on
what is needed to get them there? b. What are the implications of an
immediate move of these situational space awareness (SSA) authorities
from DOD to the Department of Commerce? Are you concerned that hiccups
in a transition may damage the United States position as the lead
provider of global SSA?
General Hyten. As of 21 Sep 18, USSTRATCOM has 88 agreements with
governments, commercial satellite owner operations, and service
providers. For military-to-military agreements, USSTRATCOM will
continue to have a significant role, however, many SSA sharing
agreements are not inherently military. Consequently, USSTRATCOM is
working closely with the Department of Commerce (DOC) to ensure an
efficient and smooth transition of these non-military U.S. agreements
with civil and commercial spacefarers. Though many details remain under
development, a future where the DOC is responsible for negotiating,
concluding, and executing SSA sharing agreements with commercial
entities is indeed achievable. While DOC grows its capabilities,
USSTRATCOM is fully committed to supporting our commercial, civil and
international partners. We have no intention of transferring these
responsibilities before DOC is prepared to take them on. I am not
concerned about the transition because I have faith in the men and
women executing this mission.
Mr. Coffman. Are you concerned this new need for space funding will
cannibalize from NASA budgets?
Mr. Bridenstine. Space Policy Directive-3 (SPD-3), National Space
Traffic Management Policy, recognizes that after more than 60 years of
human space activities, orbital debris has become a serious problem to
space operations. SPD-3 highlighted the need to advance space
situational awareness and improve the fundamental knowledge of the
space environment, such as the characterization of small debris. NASA
will continue to prioritize requirements within available budget
constraints, while striving to achieve SPD-3 objectives.
Mr. Coffman. Regarding the transition of civil oriented Space
Situational Awareness (SSA) services from USSTRATCOM to the Department
of Commerce (DOC), as suggested in the House Science Committee's
legislation, a. How will the handoff occur and what is the estimated
timeframe for such a transition? What criteria will be used to
determine that the civil DOC SSA system is ready for operations? b.
Will the current USSTRATCOM SSA system be available as a backup to the
civil DOC SSA system, and vice versa? Will USSTRATCOM space object
tracking sensors, including the Space Fence, be used by the civil DOC
SSA system? If so, how will the military sensors be integrated with the
DOC? c. How will all global satellite owner/operators be incentivized
to participate in the civil DOC SSA and Space Traffic Coordination
(STC) programs?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Coffman. Given that the DOD has already negotiated more than 60
different agreements with commercial and international entities, what
is your plan to smoothly transfer those contracts to the Department of
Commerce to minimize service disruption? Do you believe that you will
need to maintain mil-to-mil agreements for SSA, how are you thinking
about that framework of international military cooperation in the SSA
realm for the future? a. What is your assessment today of the
Department of Commerce's ability to manage these authorities? Do they
have the proper resources and personnel and what is your opinion on
what is needed to get them there? b. What are the implications of an
immediate move of these situational space awareness (SSA) authorities
from DOD to the Department of Commerce? Are you concerned that hiccups
in a transition may damage the United States position as the lead
provider of global SSA?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Coffman. How much will this new program cost in year one, and
how will these costs grow in the out-years?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HUNTER
Mr. Hunter. The 2013 National Space Transportation Policy calls for
the use of U.S. rockets for U.S. government payloads, with some minor
exceptions that perhaps should be revisited anyway. President Trump's
Space Policy Directive-2 directs the executive branch to ``encourage
American leadership in space'' and ``promote economic growth.'' The
U.S. currently has a competitive space launch industry, yet NASA
payloads continue to fly on foreign launch vehicles, even those that
are subsidized by foreign governments. Could NASA better promote the
goals of the National Space Transportation Policy and Space Policy
Directive 2 by using American rockets to launch American satellites?
Should we have a ``Buy American, Fly American'' policy?
General Hyten, as DOD looks to purchase more commercial data and
services, do you agree that these should be purchased from entities
that launch from American spaceports?
General Hyten. The U.S. operates in a unique and contested space
domain where all opportunities must be utilized. This includes
leveraging our partner nations, if necessary, to increase
responsiveness and capabilities. While I firmly believe the nation
should maintain the ability to launch a vast majority of its payloads,
such restrictions may limit the responsiveness and capabilities
necessary to meet increasingly dynamic DOD requirements. The
President's National Strategy for Space addresses this issue. It
stipulates the National Space Council develop a plan to remove
barriers, streamline regulations, and reduce bureaucratic hurdles to
commercial space companies, taking into account national security/
public safety. Furthermore, the strategy directs Departments and
Agencies to ``promote conditions that result in a thriving and
competitive domestic space industry'' and ``ensure the health of the
industrial base to support required activities while protecting
critical U.S. technologies and capabilities.''
Mr. Hunter. Administrator Bridenstine, the 2013 National Space
Transportation Policy calls for the use of U.S. rockets for U.S.
government payloads, with some minor exceptions that perhaps should be
revisited anyway. President Trump's Space Policy Directive-2 directs
the executive branch to ``encourage American leadership in space'' and
``promote economic growth.'' The U.S. currently has a competitive space
launch industry, yet NASA payloads continue to fly on foreign launch
vehicles, even those that are subsidized by foreign governments. Could
NASA better promote the goals of the National Space Transportation
Policy and Space Policy Directive-2 by using American rockets to launch
American satellites? Should we have a ``Buy American, Fly American''
policy?
Mr. Bridenstine. NASA believes existing statute and policy supports
a ``Buy American Fly American'' objective. NASA complies with 51 USC
50131, the 2013 National Space Transportation Policy, and Space Policy
Directive-2 for the launch services it procures and uses in support of
Agency payload missions, with regard to both the launch vehicle and the
provider of the launch service. 51 USC Sec. 50131 requires the U.S.
Government to procure space transportation services from domestic
commercial providers, with a few specific exceptions. The National
Space Policy also requires the U.S. Government to use U.S. commercial
space transportation services. NASA procures launch services in
accordance with existing law and policy. In addition, NASA does not buy
foreign launch vehicles for the launch of its satellites or science
missions. United States Government payloads are to be launched on space
launch vehicles manufactured in the United States, unless exempted by
the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs through an
interagency process. This policy, however, does not apply to use of
foreign launch vehicles on a no-exchange-of-funds basis to support the
following: flight of scientific instruments on foreign spacecraft,
international scientific programs, or other cooperative government-to-
government programs. A primary example of the application of this
exception is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), for which the
European Space Agency (ESA) has agreed to provide an Ariane 5 launcher
and associated launch services to NASA as part of the European
contribution to the mission.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MITCHELL
Mr. Mitchell. Administrator Bridenstine, you testified that the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already been involved in
discussions about Space Situational Awareness (SSA) and Space Traffic
Management (STM). Can you detail how the National Aeronautical and
Space Administration has worked with the Department of Transportation
and the FAA previously--both during your tenure and before
Mr. Bridenstine. The FAA has held informal discussions with NASA,
among other space operators, about the Agency's internal methods for
conjunction assessment risk analysis for both robotic and human
spacecraft. However, these information exchanges were all informal;
there is no formal agreement between NASA and the FAA focused on SSA or
STM activities.
Mr. Mitchell. You testified that you support the Department of
Commerce leading this mission as Space Policy Directive-3 calls for,
but you also acknowledged that the FAA has special expertise in
managing air traffic already. How does your agency intend to work with
the FAA on SSA and STM moving forward?
Mr. Bridenstine. Under the auspices of SPD-3, NASA is leading an
interagency effort to update the U.S. Government Orbital Debris
Mitigation Standard Practices so that that regulatory agencies--
Departments of Transportation and Commerce or the Federal
Communications Commission--have a sound scientific and technical basis
for developing orbital debris mitigation policies and regulations for
their respective commercial licensing regimes. NASA also has expertise
in conjunction assessment risk analysis within our human and robotic
space missions and will provide inputs relative to best practices to
help inform DOT and DOC efforts.
Mr. Mitchell. General Hyten testified that when it comes to space,
every element of the government is involved and that means there are
going to be seams. He said that the seams are best addressed by
establishing clear authorities and responsibilities. Can you provide
more detail on how authorities and responsibilities are going to be
handled among the partners identified in Space Policy Directive-3,
especially the Department of Transportation?
Mr. Bridenstine. NASA would respectfully defer to the SPD-3, the
first National Space Traffic Management Policy for a detailed and
comprehensive outline of roles and responsibilities within the
interagency, both currently and in future, as the Department of Defense
transitions some roles to the Department of Commerce. The Department of
Transportation will retain its current role of regulation of commercial
launch, landing and spaceports.
Mr. Mitchell. Both space and traditional commercial airspace
traffic have some interplay, how are you resolving that issue? How are
you working with FAA to address that specific seam?
Mr. Bridenstine. Launch and landing are where spaceflight
interfaces with the U.S. National Airspace and its air traffic. NASA is
a partner in a four-agency coordination group (Air Force Space Command,
National Reconnaissance Office, FAA, NASA) that consider, among other
launch and landing topics, how to address joint use between the launch
ranges and the National Airspace as the number of commercial launch
ranges and the frequency of commercial space launches is expected to
increase.
Mr. Mitchell. How does NASA envision Space Situational Awareness
and Space Traffic Management playing out in practice? Will this be
handled by a government agency or is this an authority that could be
given to another type of non-governmental entity?
Mr. Bridenstine. The SPD-3 outlines a thoughtful and practical
approach for implementing an improved future construct for Space
Traffic Management, including Space Situational Awareness. SPD-3 does
not limit involvement in STM and SSA activities and products to
government agencies. As with any proposed approach, NASA and the rest
of the interagency will make adjustments along the way as appropriate
and as circumstances warrant.
Mr. Mitchell. Administrator Bridenstine testified that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has already been involved in discussions
about Space Situational Awareness (SSA) and Space Traffic Management
(STM). Can you detail how the Department of Commerce has worked with
the Department of Transportation and the FAA--both during your tenure
and before?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Mitchell. Space Policy Directive-3 makes the Department of
Commerce the lead agency for Space Situational Awareness and Space
Traffic Management, but it also calls on them to cooperate with other
agencies. The Federal Aviation Administration at the Department of
Transportation already has unique expertise in commercial airspace
management. How does the Department of Commerce plan to work with them
on this issue moving forward?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Mitchell. General Hyten testified that when it comes to space,
every element of the government is involved and that means there are
going to be seams. He said that the seams are best addressed by
establishing clear authorities and responsibilities. Can you provide
more detail on how authorities and responsibilities are going to be
handled among your partners identified in Space Policy Directive-3,
especially the Department of Transportation?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Mitchell. Both space and traditional commercial airspace
traffic have some interplay, how are you resolving that issue? How are
you working with FAA to address that specific seam?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]
Mr. Mitchell. How does the Department of Commerce envision Space
Situational Awareness and Space Traffic Management playing out in
practice? Will this be handled by a government agency or is this an
authority that could be given to another type of non-governmental
entity?
Secretary Ross. [The information was not available at the time of
printing.]