[Senate Hearing 115-283]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-283
REOPENING THE AMERICAN FRONTIER:
PROMOTING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO ADVANCE EXPLORATION AND
SETTLEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE,
AND COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-770 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS
TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts,
JERRY MORAN, Kansas Ranking
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
MIKE LEE, Utah TOM UDALL, New Mexico
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 13, 2017.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement from The Center for Advancement of Science in Space
(CASIS).................................................... 2
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 5
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 6
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 53
Witnesses
Jeffrey Manber, Chief Executive Officer, NanoRacks LLC........... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Tim Ellis, CEO and Co-Founder, Relativity Space, Inc............. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Tim Hughes, Senior Vice President, Global Business and Government
Affairs, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)......... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Dr. Moriba K. Jah, Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, Cockell School of Engineering, The
University of Texas at Austin.................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Robert D. Cabana, Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................. 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to:
Jeffrey Manber............................................... 59
Tim Ellis.................................................... 60
Tim Hughes................................................... 61
Dr. Moriba K. Jah............................................ 62
Robert D. Cabana............................................. 64
REOPENING THE AMERICAN FRONTIER:
PROMOTING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT TO ADVANCE EXPLORATION AND SETTLEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Space, Science, and
Competitiveness,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in Room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz, Chairman
of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Sullivan, Markey and
Nelson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this
hearing.
Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the
troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes, the ones who
see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they
have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them,
disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only
thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things.
They push the human race forward, and while some may see them
as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are
crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones
who do. That quote, of course, was made famous by Apple in the
company's 1997 television commercial, ``Think Different.''
Nearly 3 months ago, this subcommittee began a series of
hearings looking at the reopening of the American frontier.
These hearings are in a way dedicated to the crazy ones who not
only think differently, but who take risks and are looking to
push the human race forward by expanding American commerce and
settlement throughout the universe.
Our national space program is on the verge of a
renaissance. This renaissance is being driven by innovators who
don't accept the status quo and who are changing the very
nature of space flight. This renaissance is also being driven
by public-private partnerships between NASA and commercial
space companies.
In the last few years, we have witnessed the test flights
and success of reusable rockets, which will lower the cost for
Americans to access space. We've seen the deployment of Cube
Satellites from the International Space Station, which are not
only helping maximize the utilization of the International
Space Station, but are expanding research opportunities for
Federal agencies, industry, and even high schools.
As our previous hearings have showcased, we also have seen
an interest for American companies who are looking to expand a
commercial presence to the surface of the Moon and beyond.
Space exploration is rapidly expanding, and both commercial
companies and NASA are complementing one another. A survey by
the Department of Commerce found that U.S. companies had $62.9
billion in space-related sales in 2012. While U.S. Government
programs provided much of this market, about one-quarter of the
sales were within the commercial sector. Public-private
partnerships have become the backbone of core NASA programs,
such as the Commercial Orbiter Transportation Services, the
COTS program, and the Commercial Crew program, which will
finally end our dependence on Russia to transport American
astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
However, we shouldn't be content to rest on the laurels of
recent success. There is still a lot of work left that needs to
be completed to ensure continued U.S. competitiveness in space.
Congress needs to work to ensure that investment and innovation
within the commercial space sector isn't effectively chilled by
obsolete regulations or overly burdensome requirements that may
not naturally apply to new business models.
We must also continue to challenge NASA and the commercial
space community to find new ways to partner to advance our
national space policy goals, as Congress will never be able to
fully fund every priority within the space community.
And in preparation of an expansion of commercial space
activity, we will also need to examine orbital debris and how
it impacts exploration and space traffic management.
There are people who are crazy enough to think that they
can change the very nature of space exploration, and if they
keep pressing forward, they just might.
If there are no objections, I want to enter into the
hearing record a statement provided by the Center for the
Advancement of Science in Space.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of The Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS)
Public-Private Partnerships in Space: Examples from the ISS National
Laboratory Model
Public private partnerships are a key component to driving
innovation and national leadership. With the potential to address a
wide array of modern challenges from technology development to
infrastructure modernization, and from education to the economic
development of space, public private partnerships unlock new
possibilities unavailable when we rely solely on public or private
investment.
The International Space Station (ISS) National laboratory is a
great example of a public private partnership model that is working in
space. The ISS National Lab opens up the incredible possibilities of
the space station research environment to a diverse range of
researchers, entrepreneurs and innovators that could create entirely
new markets in space.
The International Space Station offers a unique research and
development platform, unlike any on Earth, enabling research that
benefits both exploration and life on Earth. In an effort to expand the
research opportunities this unparalleled platform provides to the
nation, the International Space Station United States Orbital Segment,
through bipartisan legislation, was designated as a U.S. National
Laboratory in 2005, enabling research and development access to a broad
range of commercial, academic and government users. After final
assembly of the ISS in 2011, the Center for the Advancement of Science
in Space (CASIS), a (501)(c)(3) organization, was selected by NASA to
manage the International Space Station United States National
Laboratory. CASIS fulfills its mission to accelerate space-based
research by engaging a variety of non-traditional space users,
operating in the fields of life science, physical science, technology
development, and remote sensing. CASIS engages primarily with
organizations that pay toward the value obtained on the International
Space Station National Laboratory, as well as with other organizations
addressing national science and research priorities. This research
serves commercial, and entrepreneurial needs and other important goals
such as the pursuit of new knowledge or education. Since 2011, CASIS
has stewarded more than 200 International Space Station research
projects, ranging from developing new drug therapies, to monitoring
tropical cyclones, to improving equipment for first-responders, to
producing unique fiber-optics materials in space. Working together with
NASA, CASIS aims to advance the Nation's leadership in commercial
space, pursue groundbreaking science not possible on Earth, and
leverage the space station to inspire the next generation.
Prior to the ISS National Lab Model, NASA traditionally funded all
aspects of International Space Station research, whether it was
research needed to further exploration, or discovery-based space
research that expanded upon its scientific agenda. As the International
Space Station evolved into a National Laboratory, CASIS has increased
the diversity of users by accelerating utilization of the International
Space Station National Laboratory as an innovation platform for a wide
variety of partners. These include Fortune 500 Organizations, small
businesses, educational institutions, philanthropic and research
Foundations, Federal and state government agencies, and other thought
leaders in pursuit of groundbreaking technology and innovation who are
interested in leveraging microgravity to solve complex research
problems on Earth. CASIS plays a role in not only attracting a diverse
set of users, including private companies, to utilize the International
Space Station National Laboratory, but also in engaging the private
sector through various research and cost-sharing arrangements.
CASIS has developed a successful sponsored program model that
attracts third party funding from private industry and other government
agencies to solve big problems or address target challenges. These
programs translate into projects on the International Space Station
National Laboratory. The sponsored program enables an organization to
ask new questions and explore key variables, using the International
Space Station National Laboratory environment as a tool in their
innovation portfolio. In return, the organization creates opportunities
for targeted research and development projects, STEM projects or
fosters novel ideas of startup companies. Fortune 500 companies,
government agencies and regional incubators have successfully used the
International Space Station National Lab sponsored program model. This
unique research and development model is flexible to meet the needs and
budget of a partnering organization. Successful sponsored programs
include Boeing Mass Challenge, Massachusetts Life Sciences Center,
National Space Foundation (NSF) fluid dynamics and combustion and NIH's
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) organ on
chip technologies that total more than $20 million in third party
funding over the last two years. Additional sponsored programs totaling
close to $5 million in 2017 with Fortune 500 organizations are imminent
and will target major challenges to humankind as well as STEM education
initiatives.
Much of the CASIS International Space Station National Laboratory
portfolio consists of organizations starting new space commercial
activities. Over the last 5 years CASIS has made concerted efforts to
educate a wide variety of organizations about the opportunity that the
International Space Station National Laboratory represents. Many of
these organizations are now using the International Space Station
National Laboratory as part of their research and technology
development process for the first time. Demand for space projects is
being seen in the following areas:
Better targeting and quick to fail models in drug
development that can lead to breakthroughs in curing disease
and better drug delivery systems that can lead to increased
access of therapies throughout the world
Accelerated Disease Modeling associated with aging and
chronic disease
Regenerative Medicine breakthroughs that can repair, restore
or replace damaged tissues and organs due to creating ways to
expand and grow cells in a three dimensional environment
Crop Science breakthroughs that can lead to ways to feed the
growing world population with less land, water, etc.
Understanding of fundamental material properties that can
lead to novel materials and better manufacturing processes on
earth
Creation of commercially relevant microgravity enabled
materials that may transform many U.S. industries including
telecommunication semi-conductor manufacturing
3D-Metal printing and other additive manufacturing capacity
in space
Quantum satellite technology that could benefit national
security
Remote sensing capability that can impact a variety of
downstream applications including maritime security (jamming,
spoofing), weather, agriculture productivity, energy and urban
development
As the demand for space research and development projects
increases, the supply of access to space, and research and development
facilities will need to be augmented. In space private sector
commercial research and development facility operators are on the
forefront of a new era of space research on the International Space
Station and future space platforms. These organizations operate their
facilities internally and externally on the International Space
Station. They provide users with more choices to address unique
research needs and are the pathfinders for a marketplace in low-Earth
orbit. Many of these companies have used their own resources to invest
in on-orbit research and development facilities, reducing the risk for
the Federal sector to develop these facilities and services. In its
first five years of International Space Station National Laboratory
management, CASIS has supported growth in the number of these research
and development facility operators from one in FY12 to five in FY16--
with four additional facilities expected to begin in-orbit operations
by FY18. CASIS fosters healthy competition between these supply
partners by allowing them to bid on each commercial customer projects,
seeking the best solution for the customer. The current commercial
facility operators are:
NanoRacks--Since 2009, NanoRacks has provided hardware and
services for the International Space Station National
Laboratory. Three internal research platforms can house plug-
and-play NanoLabs and provide critical capabilities such as
centrifugation and microscopy. Additionally, the NanoRacks
External Platform was launched in FY15 and provides
capabilities for Earth and deep space observation, sensor
development, and testing for advanced electronics and
materials.
BioServe--In-orbit offerings from BioServe include multiple
life sciences facilities and kits, including the multi-purpose
Space Automated Bioproduct Laboratory (SABL), launched in FY15.
SABL supports myriad initiatives for commercial life sciences
research as well as physical and material science experiments.
TechShot--Launched in FY15, the TechShot Bone Densitometer
is a commercial bone-density scanner for use in spaceflight
rodent research. In just one year, the successful operation of
this facility has already demonstrated its utility as a
catalyst for disease modeling research and commercial
biomedical initiatives in space.
Made In Space--In FY16, the Additive Manufacturing Facility
developed by Made In Space launched to the International Space
Station, enabling 3D printing projects from commercial,
educational, and government entities interested in the
development of objects for experiments and technology
demonstrations. These objects will be produced onboard the
International Space Station in a fraction of the time currently
required to have such objects manifested and delivered to the
station using traditional ground preparation and launch.
Space Tango--TangoLab-1 is a general research platform
launched in FY16. This facility from Space Tango allows
multiple automated experiments in the life and physical
sciences to run simultaneously. This architecture minimizes
crewmember interaction and reduces complexity while increasing
scalability, enabling improved throughput for users.
In addition to currently available capabilities, a growing pipeline
of commercial International Space Station National Laboratory
facilities in preparation (from Teledyne Brown, AlphaSpace, STaArS, and
HNu Photonics) will advance research in remote sensing, materials
testing, molecular biology, and tissue culture. Companies are exploring
how these capabilities might transition onto future low-Earth orbit
platforms, from free-flying spacecraft to expandable modules. Through
support of such companies, CASIS and NASA is enabling the International
Space Station National Laboratory to serve as an incubator for the low-
Earth orbit market and U.S. private sector spaceflight interests, and
using public private partnership funding models to share the risk and
benefits of these emerging human space flight activities.
CASIS is executing congressional intent by leveraging public
private partnerships to get the most out of the International Space
Station and its national lab. With the active involvement of our
partners, CASIS is helping deliver advances of scientific and economic
value to the Nation. As our outreach leads more organizations to form
public private partnerships to use the national lab, the Nation's
return on its investment in the ISS will continue to increase. And as
the ISS approaches the end of its planned service life, Congress will
have an opportunity to consider the value of maintaining a national
laboratory on another platform in space.
Senator Cruz. I now recognize the Committee's Ranking
Member, Senator Ed Markey, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And
thank you for this distinguished panel of witnesses. I think
it's going to be a great hearing.
When President Ulysses S. Grant hammered in the Golden
Spike on the Transcontinental Railroad, he was connecting not
only the eastern and western United States, but completing a
project made possible by a public-private partnership. We were
able to complete this historic achievement of connecting the
United States by way of rail by connecting government with
private industry.
As we now further look toward the stars, we should continue
to look to maximize these sorts of collaborative partnerships
between government and business, but we need to ensure that
these sorts of partnerships continue to benefit both the public
and the private partners. So we need to identify the ways in
which the public benefits from projects in space, including
those projects undertaken by private and commercial entities
will participate.
Every day we benefit from the transformational advancements
made possible due to space exploration. From GPS to cancer
research and everything in between, our activities in space and
the knowledge we develop there make life on Earth better. As
NASA increasingly turns its gaze further from Earth, we need to
ensure that we protect our capabilities to continue to conduct
the basic scientific research to conduct in space that has
driven so much innovation. The responsibility to continue
pursuing science closer to home needs to continue to be mission
critical and cannot simply be jettisoned.
The International Space Station orbiting the planet is the
successful result of partnerships between 15 countries and five
international space agencies, including NASA. The Space Station
is an example of international cooperation, but also of
successful public-private partnerships, which combine the
government's ability to invest in infrastructure and basic
research with the private sector's ability to innovate and
commercialize.
The National Laboratory located on the International Space
Station is managed by the Center for the Advancement of Science
in Space, which is tasked with promoting public-private
partnerships with the goals of fostering scientific
breakthroughs to benefit all of humankind and delivering a
commercial return on the investment that the United States has
made.
This collaboration has made it possible for private
entities across the United States to take advantage of this
incredibly important laboratory.
For example, Visidyne, a company based in Burlington,
Massachusetts, has conducted three major projects on the
International Space Station National Laboratory, developing
algorithms and imagery from the Station that can better predict
tropical cyclones and save lives. This work was only made
possible due to the public-private partnerships encouraged as a
part of the National Lab.
When we pursue these sorts of public-private partnerships
in the right way, the public interest will benefit. The Outer
Space Treaty states that the use of outer space, quote, should
be carried on for the benefit of all peoples. Therefore, we
need to make sure that we are continuing to structure our
priorities in space to maximize the scientific and other
benefits to all people.
We should also ensure that our space policies promote the
inclusion of small businesses and protect our ability to
conduct scientific and nonprofit activities as well as
promoting for-profit activities in the new frontier.
The United States continues to be a pioneer in space
activities, and our policies should support the continued
innovation that has been the key to America's economic success.
While space may be the final frontier, this is not the first
time that we have looked to innovate by allowing government and
industry to partner together. There may not be a golden spike
to symbolically connect Earth to space, but the same successful
collaboration between governments and business that fueled the
achievements of centuries past can drive the innovation in this
century and beyond. I look forward to working with this
Subcommittee and stakeholders to ensure American scientists and
American companies continue to be leaders in space.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Markey.
I would now like to recognize Senator Nelson, the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee, if he would care to make an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning. And we have an exciting topic here. We
are right on the cusp of a major breakthrough and a
reengagement of the American people in America's space program.
Now, we have certainly witnessed the gee-whiz stuff as we
see rovers on Mars and as we understand greater information
about the depths of the universe through the Hubble. And next
year we're going to launch the James Webb, which is going to
look back in time almost to the beginning of the universe.
We set upon the manned space program a new course with the
NASA bill back in 2010. It set a dual course. It set one
course--the commercial operations, as described by my two
colleagues--bringing new vitality into the space program with
creativity and ingeniousness, and that obviously is paying off
in the gee-whiz stuff that we see. We set off on the other dual
track with getting NASA out of low-Earth orbit and exploring
the cosmos, deep into the cosmos, and with the goal as set by
our President three years ago, followed by this President, to
go to Mars, followed by another NASA authorization bill that
sets that as its course, Mars with human beings, with American
boots on the surface of Mars.
In the course of that, there have been enormous changes.
The very launch pads that were created for the Apollo program
to take us to the Moon? Those launch pads, under the able
leadership of Bob Cabana, have been transformed: one for a
commercial operation that can handle all sizes of rockets; the
other, reconfigured.
And one of the things that we've got to tend to is to make
sure appropriators get us the $600 million requested to--since
this new launch vehicle, the monster rocket, the largest rocket
ever, called the SLS, with its spacecraft on top, Orion--it's
going to grow over time. It's going to evolve. It's going to
get up to where it is launching an unbelievable 260,000 pounds.
The Space Shuttle cargo bay, for example, would carry about
45,000.
And so that launch tower has to be capable, not for the
first of the SLS rockets, which is going to be smaller, but to
handle, as it evolves, when we put crew on it in 2021 or 2022.
And then we start doing the deep space missions and taking up
huge components that in lunar orbit will be assembled, and then
we will go off with humans to Mars and return.
That is an exciting future, and it couldn't be done had we
not had the leadership of Bob Cabana, who you will hear from
today. It couldn't have been done either if we hadn't had
finally the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and the FAA all getting in a
room and agreeing that we can use all of that unused real
estate down there at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for a
lot of this activity.
And now we're going to be--within a year and a half, 2
years--sending Americans on American rockets again. You will
see the American public reengage like you've never seen, once
Americans are flying on American rockets again. And that is the
excitement of the future. Right now, in what's called the
Operations and Checkout Building, named after Neil Armstrong,
Bob Cabana took the Vice President of the United States there
last week and showed him the spacecraft that is going to go--
Orion--on the top of the SLS next--in about a year and a half,
2 years. And so that's why I say we are right on the cusp.
I want to thank General Monteith, the Commander, the two-
star, that is the Commander of the Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station because we've never seen the cooperation of the Air
Force with NASA and the FAA like we are now seeing. And I'm
happy to report in last year's--actually, it's this year's
defense authorization that you and I have helped Chairman
McCain get out, there are provisions that we inserted to
improve the launch infrastructure at the range, at the Air
Force Eastern Test Range, and to accelerate the Air Force's
adaptation to reusable launch vehicles like SpaceX's Falcon 9.
And, Mr. Ellis, I want to add that I want you to know we
have a spot for you at what we generically call the Cape for
you to launch your rockets. I would love for Relativity Space
to become a part of the community of the folks as this exciting
business is being built there.
So thanks to all of you. Thanks to Senator Cruz and Senator
Markey for holding this hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
And I will note when the Vice President was down in
Florida, he promptly reached out and touched the display right
next to the ``Do Not Touch'' sign.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. And then he had the presence of mind and
quick wit to blame the junior Senator from Florida for enticing
him to do so.
Senator Nelson. And thank goodness I wasn't there, or he
would have blamed me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. Well, we appreciate this very distinguished
panel coming and testifying this morning. We have five
witnesses.
The first is Mr. Jeffrey Manber, who has served as the CEO
of NanoRacks since 2009, and is the Chairman of the XO Markets
Board. He has steered the growth of NanoRacks from a garage
space in Webster, Texas, to where NanoRacks is today, a pioneer
and leader in the commercial market for low-Earth orbit
utilization.
Our second witness is Mr. Tim Ellis, who is Co-Founder and
CEO of Relativity, based in Los Angeles, California. Relativity
is using 3D printing to build orbital rockets with zero human
labor. Prior to Relativity, he worked at Blue Origin as a
propulsion development engineer, and was involved in the
initial development of Blue Origin's BE-4 rocket engine.
Mr. Tim Hughes is Senior Vice President of Global Business
and Government Affairs at SpaceX. Prior to joining SpaceX, Mr.
Hughes served as majority counsel to the Committee on Science
and Technology in the United States House of Representatives.
He was the principal attorney responsible for helping draft and
shepherd the passage of groundbreaking commercial human
spaceflight legislation, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments
Act of 2004.
Dr. Moriba K. Jah is an Assistant Professor of Aerospace
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of
Texas at Austin. ``Hook 'Em.''
Dr. Jah. ``Hook 'Em.''
Senator Cruz. Prior to beginning at UT Austin, Dr. Jah was
the Director of the University of Arizona's Space Object
Behavioral Sciences with applications to space domain
awareness, space protection, space traffic monitoring, and
space debris research. Preceding that, Dr. Jah was the lead for
the Air Force Research Laboratory's Advanced Sciences and
Technology Research Institute for Astronautics and a principal
investigator for the Detect/Track/ID/Characterize Program at
the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate.
And, finally, Mr. Robert Cabana is a former NASA astronaut
currently serving as Director of NASA's John F. Kennedy Space
Center in Florida. In his current role, Mr. Cabana manages all
NASA facilities and activities at the spaceport, including a
team of civil service and contractor employees who operate and
support numerous space programs and projects. A veteran of four
space flights, Mr. Cabana has logged 38 days in space.
Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us.
Mr. Manber, we'll begin with you.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY MANBER,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NANORACKS LLC
Mr. Manber. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Markey, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
I'm delighted to discuss with you today the challenges we face
in developing an American-style marketplace in space.
Since my last visit before this Subcommittee in 2014, my
company, NanoRacks, has continued to grow into a commercial
space station company. We have taken on dozens of new customers
and have brought over 550 research projects to the Space
Station, including over 180 satellites, as you mentioned, all
with no direct NASA funding.
How is this possible? Through a growing number of public-
private partnerships between us and NASA, each one more
commercial in nature. Each partnership allows the creativity of
the private sector to further utilize the public investments
made by you and Congress for the Space Station.
NanoRacks has self-funded over $10 million in hardware to
date. Moving forward, we have partnered with Boeing Aerospace
and we are co-investing $15 million to manufacture the world's
first commercial space station airlock, we call it the Gateway
to Space, to further grow our business. These investments will
develop the technical expertise and hardware base to own and
operate our own space stations, a realistic goal we have set
for ourselves as U.S. policy has matured.
But why am I not seeking NASA money up front? Because
that's not how the commercial marketplace works. I want to make
sure there is no Space Station gap, just as there was with
Shuttle and transportation. For a seamless transition, I
believe we need the agility of the private sector to be
involved. I want to squeeze efficiencies where none existed
before, efficiencies in cost, efficiencies in use. This is how
you build a customer base, and this is how you expand markets,
even in outer space. This is called capitalism.
So how best to work with NASA to realize these
efficiencies? Or to put it another way, what is the optimal
partnership? The short answer is we don't know that answer yet.
But the good news is that our partnerships are getting more and
more productive, and the proof is our growing customer base.
In our partnerships, NASA has always been the safety
regulator, the launch provider, and station resource provider.
NanoRacks is the designer and developer of the hardware,
provides the funding, and builds the customer base.
Sometimes NASA is a customer to us at NanoRacks, but there
is no guarantee. To my understanding, this is how our
partnerships with NASA are unique, no guarantee of NASA use, no
preoperational funding. We invest our own capital and pray
there's a market.
More recently, we have agreed to pay the space agency for
use of Space Station resources via pricing discounts and other
tangible advantages to the taxpayer. Our station satellite
deployment service is a great example. We, at NanoRacks, were
the program originator and the operator. In other words, it was
our idea and our capital and our hardware to deploy satellites
from the Station. NASA provided the existing Station resources.
The result? Today, we are one of the leading American
providers of CubeSat deployment opportunities. We have shown
that Space Station has a unique role in satellite deployment,
such as our Stash and Deploy program, where we store satellites
on the Station for months at a time before timely deployment.
You can't do that with a launch vehicle.
However, an even larger success is that we, NASA and
NanoRacks, have accelerated the growth of the small satellite
market on behalf of customers like Spire, Planet Labs,
universities, and other agencies of the U.S. Government now
using the Station for satellite deployment. Better use of
Station; again, no direct NASA funding.
What's next? We are proud to be part of the NASA NextSTEP
program. Specifically, NanoRacks, along with Space Systems
Loral, is studying the reuse of upper stages, including that of
the ULA Atlas 5, for use as a low-Earth orbit commercial
habitat. This pathway is made possible because of the growing
maturity of the partnership between NASA and NanoRacks.
Let me add one key point necessary for continued commercial
growth, if I may. I respectfully ask that by 2019, we know the
end date for Station services, whether it's 2024, whether it's
2028, the date to me is not as critical as the certainty. This
will help us attract investment capital.
Additionally, let me compliment this committee's work on
the ISS Transition Plan and specifically addressing this issue
in the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017.
In summation, we have a range of partnerships today, each
with greater commitments by NanoRacks. And I applaud the NASA
Space Station folks for more and more venturing out of their
own comfort zone in forging new relationships with companies
like NanoRacks. And I thank Congress and I thank you gentlemen
here today for the leadership you've shown on allowing us to go
down the commercial pathway.
I know we will continue to be successful because creating
new markets and tapping the next frontier is what America does
best, whether on the Earth or for the benefit of those of us on
Earth.
I look forward to answering your questions. And please
accept my written testimony as part of the record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manber follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Manber, Chief Executive Officer,
NanoRacks LLC
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, and other distinguished
members of the Space, Science, and Competitiveness subcommittee, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to return to this room to testify
before Congress once again. I look forward to discussing with you the
challenges we face at my company NanoRacks, and within the larger
commercial space industry, in seeking to develop a robust, American-
style, service-based economy in space. We seek a marketplace that will
realize multiple commercial space stations, in multiple orbits--within
near and deep space, serving both traditional and unique customers from
around the world.
Since my visit before this subcommittee in April of 2014, NanoRacks
has continued to grow into a commercial space station company via
greater utilization of the International Space Station and other
platforms. In the past three years we have taken on dozens of new
customers, ranging from high schools you represent, to multiple U.S.
agencies, other members of the commercial space industry and even
foreign governments. To date, NanoRacks has brought over 550 research
projects to the Space Station, including approximately 180 satellites,
many of which are educational-based experiments representing schools
throughout the country. All of this has been done with no direct NASA
funding. We are a company that lives on our customers and the revenue
generated from our ability to bring payloads and provide services to
the Space Station.
How is this all possible? Through a growing number of non-
traditional public-private partnerships between my company and NASA.
These relationships have grown in time to be more robust, as both
organizations learn what works and what doesn't for industry and for
government.
As I discussed three years ago before this subcommittee, we at
NanoRacks have chosen a business model that is quite normal here on the
Earth, but far less common in our space program. Fundamentally, we pay
for our own hardware. For example, we have invested $5 million in our
External Platform, over $4 million in our satellite deployment program,
and close to $1 million in our internal research frames. We are now
partnered with Boeing Aerospace and investing $15 million to
manufacture the world's first commercial space station airlock. This
expenditure of at least $30 million from one company, one small company
I would emphasize, has made the International Space Station more
robust, asserted American leadership and spurred the growth of new
markets.
Why am I not seeking upfront NASA money? Because that's not how the
commercial marketplace works. I want to make sure there is no space
station gap as there was with shuttle. For a seamless transition, we
need the agility of the private sector. I want to squeeze efficiencies
where none existed before: efficiencies in cost and efficiencies in
use. This is how you build a customer base, and this is how you expand
markets--whether on the Earth or in space. This is called capitalism.
For my company, these investments are intended to develop the
technical expertise and hardware base to eventually own and operate our
own space stations--a realistic goal we've set for ourselves as U.S.
policy has matured. Why does this work? Because the growth and
development of our public private partnership with NASA allows each of
our customers--whether NASA, the European Union, pharmaceutical
companies, schools, or industry, to pay fees to use our services--just
like any other business here on Earth.
When last here, I ended my talk by stating how we have forged a
new, and constantly evolving relationship with NASA. NASA is our
landlord, and NASA is our safety official. But every day the agency has
become less and less of a competitor. Still true! And today, we work
with NASA, not without challenges, but focused on establishing the
agency as a facilitator for the private sector building a space economy
in low-Earth orbit, and eventually, beyond LEO, that will make all
Americans proud.
This is what I would like to briefly talk with you more about
today: The changing relationship between NASA, NanoRacks and other
members of the industry--and how we together are working to fulfill the
wishes of you, in Congress, to inject more commercial practices in the
conduct of the American space program. The growing partnership between
NASA and NanoRacks adds value to each new program on the space station,
and, if utilized to its fullest potential, it can bring about a future
in which we can only dream today.
Our Evolving Partnership with NASA
Seven years ago when I first approached NASA, I told the space
agency I didn't want their funding. Boy that got their attention.
Instead, I wanted the right to put research hardware on the
International Space Station and offer services to the public, including
NASA, for a fee.
Some at NASA were shocked. How could we charge money for a service
onboard the station? Others asked so many questions from their public-
sector perspective: Who would set the price? What if there were no
customers? What would be the relationship between NASA and the company?
Would astronauts work on a commercial service? What services would we
offer? How would NASA know if we were successful? By the way, I told
them if we were still in business in five years with customers, we
would have been successful!
Both sides survived those initial days. And I applaud the Space
Station Program Office for more than once leaving their comfort zone to
meet our objectives at least half-way. Today, it is more accepted that
companies can utilize the space station for commercial gain. That's
great. And NanoRacks has competition--some offering very similar
services. That's a sign of policy success. Now comes the hard part.
What is the optimal partnership and policy between NASA and private
companies to assure a robust commercial marketplace in low-Earth orbit?
And, at the same time, is their one type of partnership that is optimal
or do different commercial programs, customers, and sectors require
differing partnerships?
Permit me to illustrate the landscape as we see it at NanoRacks.
For the past seven years, NanoRacks and NASA have worked together
in what has become the first public-private partnership that
demonstrates a true path to a commercial marketplace in orbit. Our
partnership serves two goals:
1. To unleash the power of the private sector in space services;
2. To assure U.S. leadership and new programs including commercial
space station platforms during a time of difficult Federal
budgets.
In our partnerships, NASA is the safety regulator, launch provider,
and station resource provider. NanoRacks is the designer and developer
of chosen hardware, the funding source for the hardware, and chief
marketer of on-orbit services.
Our relationship works because this program is voluntary. The
private sector (NanoRacks) can choose which hardware it wishes to
develop and market. Consequently, the government can choose if to
utilize the hardware. In plain language, NASA acts sometimes as a
customer to NanoRacks to use our services, but there is no guarantee
they will. And we should perform the service to be paid by customers.
And, in a growing number of cases we ``pay'' the space agency for use
of space station resources via pricing discounts and other tangible
advantages.
There is one other implicit understanding: the private sector
program can fail--and there may not be customers. NanoRacks assumes
this risk.
One of our largest demonstrated successes with this partnership has
been the development of our space station satellite deployment program.
NanoRacks recognized that American industry wanted to develop
sophisticated small satellites, but was stymied by the fact that the
only real small satellites launch opportunities were non-domestic.
NanoRacks believed the International Space Station could play a pivotal
role.
Today, our responsibilities in the public-private partnership have
expanded: we are the program originator and program operator related to
launching the small satellites of our customers. The government risk
remains confined to the safety of the hardware. And we use the NASA-
Japanese space agency (JAXA) barter relationship to utilize the
Japanese airlock to deploy the satellites, until the NanoRacks Airlock
Module, now under development, is on station in 2019.
As such, I believe this is as pure an example that has ever existed
of a public-private partnership between NASA and the private sector.
Unlike the Commercial Resupply Mission program (CRS), NASA did not
institute our program. NASA did not fund our program, and there was no
guarantee that NASA would even use our program. Let me add, however,
that CRS has proven to be everything we hoped in allowing a company
like SpaceX to leverage NASA as a customer, and truly change space
transportation today.
But look at what the NASA-NanoRacks partnership has provided:
American leadership in a marketplace for small satellite services.
Today, we are one of the leading American providers of small
satellite deployment opportunities in low-Earth orbit. Our experiment
has been a wonderful success: our satellite customers range from NASA
and other government agencies, the European Commission, private
companies, startups, universities, high schools--and yes, even
elementary schools. Over 180 small satellites have been deployed from
the station. Just as importantly, we have shown that space stations can
have several unique roles in satellite deployment. To cite just one
example, we have customers who store satellites on the space station to
deploy on demand, when necessary. That can't be done from a launch
vehicle!
So industry (NanoRacks) suggested a commercial space station
program (satellite deployments) to NASA. We fully funded the hardware.
We made use of NASA resources. NASA is ``paid'' via defined deployment
opportunities. And the U.S. Government has become growing customer as
well.
However, an even larger success is that we--NASA and NanoRacks--
accelerated the growth of the small satellite market. Without a doubt.
Because of our demonstrated success, private capital exists for non-ISS
launch services. Companies around the world are able to tap private
capital because there is an existing market. There are (literally!)
dozens of companies that offer low-cost, efficient CubeSats and
SmallSats.
For example, our customer Spire is changing the way we track ship
movements and weather from space through their CubeSat constellation.
The leadership at Spire tells me that this is causing NOAA to re-look
at public-private partnerships for the availability of commercial
weather data.
Clearly, our initiative and willingness to take the risk worked.
The market is growing and the number of customers is increasing, but
the ISS share of the marketplace is dropping, as it should, in a
growing competitive marketplace. This is a public-private partnership
at its best, whether on the ground or in low-Earth orbit.
Partnership Stage Two: Commercial Airlock on Space Station
As I previously mentioned, NanoRacks is currently manufacturing the
world's first commercial Airlock Module onboard the International Space
Station. The NanoRacks Airlock Module, which we call our ``Gateway to
Space,'' will be on the station in 2019. We solicited NASA for the
right to build and operate the Airlock. We did not seek NASA funding.
We saw a market need and are willing to invest our own capital to
increase the capacity of the station as a deployment platform for
smaller satellites and for moving larger cargo out of the station.
The advantages for the program are many: the NanoRacks Airlock
Module will be five times larger in volume than the current airlock
owned and operated by our friends at JAXA. It will be commercially
operated, efficient, allow NASA capabilities not possible today, and
best of all, at the proper time, the hardware can be removed and mated
onto our own future commercial platform. NASA is not funding the
Airlock Module. Rather, in an exciting and unique partnership with
Boeing, our two organizations are privately funding the hardware. Yet
we are aware that the Airlock Module is also utilizing valuable NASA
resources, and we have voluntarily entered into negotiations with the
space agency to forge a partnership that makes smart sense for both
parties.
In this regard, NanoRacks is a commercial space market pioneer.
Together with NASA we are forging an even larger partnership than that
for the satellite deployment program. At the same time, we have made
clear to the Space Station Program Office officials that we expect
other companies will also enter into such partnerships. And not just
for space station use. Use of taxpayer resources for commercial
services should either be at no-cost for all, or some sort of barter
arrangement for all.
For us, our Airlock Module is a stepping-stone to the goal of
working with NASA on commercial habitats in an equitable manner.
From Airlock to Commercial Space Stations beyond ISS
NASA has a unique opportunity, one previously only dreamed about:
fostering U.S. leadership in opening the door for commercial space
stations in low-Earth orbit and beyond. I have spent the last three
decades working to bring about a more commercial space marketplace,
including helping set up the first investment fund for commercial space
ventures on Wall Street and commercially marketing the Russian space
station Mir.
My time at NanoRacks has been focused on our long-term goal: owning
and operating commercial space stations, all while democratizing access
to space. One where NASA is a customer; where the capital is
commercial, and the operating system onboard the station is one based
on American-style free markets.
There are a number of approaches companies can take as we look to a
future beyond the International Space Station. Some of our colleagues
in the industry seek to realize the commercial habitats after the ISS
by constructing new platforms and stations on the ground, and launching
them into orbit. That's one way. And that's the expensive way.
Let's consider another strategy: the re-use of in-space hardware.
We have seen recently the value of re-using the first stage of launch
vehicles, as shown by both Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue
Origin. At NanoRacks, we are focused on re-using the second stage, not
for use in another rocket, but as the shells of commercial habitats.
I'm pleased to report that NASA has given us a chance to prove the
value of using re-purposed in-space hardware for commercial habitats in
low-Earth orbit.
Over fifty years ago, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Director Werner
von Braun proposed the idea of re-using the spent upper stage of a
rocket and converting it into an orbiting platform. From this concept
came America's first space station, Skylab, which was a re-purposed
second stage of a Saturn 5--the vehicle that took America to the Moon.
We are ``back to the future'' now at NanoRacks. We have been
awarded funding through the NASA NextSTEP Phase II program for the
``Ixion Initiative,'' a concept study for re-using in-space hardware
and converting upper stages of rockets into commercial habitats in low-
Earth orbit and deep space. Specifically, NanoRacks, along with Space
Systems Loral (SSL), is studying the re-use of upper stages, including
that of United Launch Alliance's (ULA) Atlas 5, for use as a low-Earth
commercial habitat.
This pathway is made possible because of the growing maturity of
the partnership between NASA and NanoRacks. From NASA's acceptance of
our first self-funded research platforms to our satellite deployers to
the commercial Airlock, we together have paved a partnership where the
gravity pull is mutual: both sides contribute what it does best. In
NASA's case, that is resources and hardware already paid for by the
taxpayer and available for further utilization. In NanoRacks' case,
that is capital and the expertise in attracting and working with
customers in a cost-efficient manner.
Let me add, if I may, one key point necessary to make our program a
success: The announcement of a firm date for the end of the current
mode of ISS operations. I respectfully ask that by 2019 we know the end
date for station services. Additionally, let me compliment this
committee's work on the ISS Transition Plan and specifically addressing
this issue in the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017.
No matter the end of operations date, the private sector needs to
hear what that date is, rather than keeping it ambiguous--and we seek
for this committee to emphasize this with the next NASA Administrator.
Also key is to understand the requirements of the U.S. Federal
Government as a customer, post-ISS. Keep in mind, this is not only
about creating a robust economy in space, but also assuring we do not
leave this territory to foreign governments.
The Ixion Initiative team and NanoRacks look forward to being part
of this discussion on the proper ISS transition.
However, some key questions still remain: How does NASA determine
the merits of a commercially funded program? How much should a company
be expected to contribute? How does NASA protect this emerging
marketplace from foreign government competition dumping at arbitrary
prices or zero cost? And how do we assure America's continued
leadership in near space in the event of commercial setbacks?
In short, what is the policy that will enable flexible, optimal,
public private partnerships between NASA and industry? We are far
closer than three years ago, and I'm confident with your continued
leadership we are close enough to imagine commercial habitats and
commercial in-space servicing in partnership with NASA. Close enough
for us to be confident enough to continue investing private capital.
Conclusion
We are in a new space race, one where to the winner belongs the
most robust use of the new frontier by all segments of our society.
NASA is ready, industry is ready, and I'm ready, to focus on our return
to the Moon and the human exploration of Mars. But I am sure that this
can only be done once we have freed up our national resources from low-
Earth orbit by creating a sustainable market economy in near space.
Whether we're reaching for Mars, returning humans to the Moon,
exploring asteroids, or conducting science and business on commercial
platforms, flexible partnerships constitute the direction we should be
heading, and the methodology we should be using. The International
Space Station has served as a powerful management and policy test bed
for how the government and private sector can undertake space
exploration together--and that has been proven by seven years (and
counting) of customer growth at NanoRacks.
I'm confident we are on the right pathway even though there is no
precedent to guide us. There is no proven formula to understand how to
make space just another place to do business, one where America will
excel. We are venturing into the unknown.
However, we will be successful in this venture because creating new
markets and tapping the next frontier is what America does best,
whether on the Earth, or for the benefit of those of us on Earth.
Thank you. I will look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Manber.
Mr. Ellis.
STATEMENT OF TIM ELLIS, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, RELATIVITY SPACE,
INC.
Mr. Ellis. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, members of
the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
My name is Tim Ellis. I'm a native of Plano, Texas, and the
CEO and Co-Founder of Relativity. We're a stealth-mode startup
creating a new launch service for orbital payloads, allowing
for enhanced launch certainty at significantly reduced cost.
Relativity's rockets are 100 percent designed, built, and flown
in the United States. We are based in Los Angeles with current
testing operations in Mississippi, and we are looking to expand
operations into Florida, Texas, and beyond.
We're a 2016 graduate of the prestigious startup
accelerator Y Combinator, whose alumni include Dropbox and
Airbnb. We then raised an eight-figure funding round led by top
Silicon Valley firm, Social Capital. As an entirely privately
funded startup, I believe Relativity offers a unique
perspective on building a space business.
The VC funding model is fantastic for creating innovation
in a short timeframe, but the reality is that startups often
operate on 12- to 24-month do-or-die funding cycles during
which we must hit aggressive growth goals or risk not being
able to raise more money to survive. This environment creates
both challenges and opportunities for time- and capital-
intensive efforts, like developing space infrastructure. This
reality is what led Relativity to first explore public-private
partnerships.
For the past 10 months, Relativity has worked with NASA
Stennis Space Center via a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement. We
are actively testing our liquid oxygen/liquid methane engines
with over six dozen hot fires in the past 6 months of testing.
Due to this partnership with NASA, we are able to spend more of
our precious time and investment capital on Relativity's other
never before seen technology innovations rather than commodity
infrastructure buildup for engine testing, and as a result,
we're a much more attractive opportunity for investors.
We believe the U.S. Government has an historic opportunity
to act as an accelerator for space startups, much like
President Eisenhower catalyzed the American automobile industry
when he created the interstate highway system.
I think progress would be made by addressing the four
following challenges.
First, the current incarnations of the Space Act Agreement
and Commercial Space Launch Act Agreement frameworks are not
ideal instruments for providing startups access to
infrastructure due to their limited applicability and
certainty. Relativity proposes a Commercial Space Lease
Agreement, a new framework similar to SAA or CSLA, but with
standardized provisions for greater access to leasing engine
test, rocket stage launch, or satellite development
infrastructure at direct cost, much like LC-39A and LC-13 at
Kennedy Space Center.
Second, currently there are lack of ideal launch sites in
the U.S. for small-class launch vehicles to meet polar,
retrograde, and sun synchronous orbits. Consequently, many
small satellite customers look to foreign launches from India,
Russia, and Europe. The use of an offshore drone ship launch
platform operating under an FAA license could potentially
alleviate this problem by allowing for launches in
international waters. The concept we envision is more like the
reverse of the drone ships and barges SpaceX and Blue Origin
pioneered for landing recovered boost stages versus the
expensive Sea Launch platform. Creating an open access West
Coast launch site similar to Kennedy's 39C could be another
alternative.
Third, for our potential customers, issues such as orbital
debris reduction and spectrum rights need to be tackled in a
way that do not limit the potential revenues of satellite
companies or the launchers that fly them. A large addressable
market needs to exist to attract private investment on both
sides.
Fourth, we also encourage NASA to explore a modulated
version of the Venture Class Launch Services program that
provides for larger recurring contracts.
In closing, Relativity is but one example of the hundreds
of dynamic space startups hard at work in suburban garages and
repurposed airplane hangars all across America. I believe we
are united by a vision for America that is predicated on
pushing the limit of what is possible, both in technology and
in spirit. We are all convinced that an incredible future waits
for us among the stars and that America will lead it.
Space is the ultimate stage for exploring our humanity.
What could be more human or more American than aspiring to do
something in the face of the impossible and succeeding?
I thank our team at Relativity for embarking on this
journey. And, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, and members
of the Committee, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Ellis, CEO and Co-Founder,
Relativity Space, Inc.
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Members of the Committee--
thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and for your
leadership in guiding America's ambitions in space. I firmly believe
that this Committee's work in the weeks and months ahead has the
potential to inspire and empower the next generation of space
entrepreneurs.
Relativity is a stealth-mode startup reimagining the way orbital
rockets are built and flown. We are creating a new launch service for
orbital payloads enabled by never-seen-before technologies, allowing
for a high degree of launch schedule certainty at significantly reduced
cost. The ability to get back and forth from space inexpensively and on
a reliable launch schedule will unleash not only economic opportunities
on Earth and beyond, but also push forward humankind's desire to
explore the heavens we have gazed at in wonder for thousands of years.
At the moment, however, there is a paucity of affordable launch options
capable of addressing emerging market demands. Satellite and other
payload customers increasingly require new models to access space on
short lead-times, at lower cost, with high frequency, and with scalable
services. From India to China and Russia to Europe, other countries are
racing to address these market needs, and at Relativity, we intend to
help preserve and expand U.S. dominance in commercial space.
When Dwight D. Eisenhower created the interstate highway system he
helped to catalyze the American automobile industry. I believe that
this Committee finds itself at a moment of similar opportunity. Smart
and aggressive updates to our national space infrastructure and
regulatory framework have the potential to unleash a new generation of
American ingenuity in space. Public-private partnerships will be
critical to continuing this tradition of bold innovation. Partnerships
build upon the enabling foundations NASA and other U.S. Government
agencies have created for private companies. They act as accelerators
that open doors of opportunity which might otherwise remain closed.
Today, due to a confluence of private investment, emerging markets,
the continued strong support of the United States Government, and the
maturation of revolutionary new technologies, commercial space is on
the cusp of changing forever. My testimony will reflect our company's
unique perspective from the intersection of these exciting trends. I am
hopeful that our conversation here today will help us develop a deeper
understanding of the challenges facing the next generation of
commercial space companies and the ways in which new legislation could
address these challenges.
Company Introduction
I co-founded Relativity in December 2015 with Jordan Noone. We are
alumni of Blue Origin and SpaceX, where we were both propulsion
development engineers and worked on programs such as BE-4, New Glenn,
Crew Dragon, and Cargo Dragon.
I proudly spent my first eighteen years as a resident of Plano,
Texas, with both sides of my family residing among the great aerospace
states of Texas, Florida, Colorado, and Alaska for generations.
Relativity is based in Los Angeles, California, with testing operations
in Mississippi, and we are exploring potential test facility expansion
and launch opportunities in Florida, Alaska, Georgia, Texas,
California, and Hawaii. As cofounders, Jordan and I originally met
seven years ago as students at the University of Southern California in
the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. We led the first student group in the
United States to attain FAA clearance to launch a suborbital rocket
above the Von Karman line of 100 km, a project that ambitiously
involved us designing and building our own rockets from scratch as
young students. We were inspired by the long and storied history of the
great American innovators who were willing to dream big and boldly
claim: Impossible is nothing.
In January 2016, Relativity joined Y Combinator, a Silicon Valley-
based startup accelerator that is widely recognized as the most
prestigious accelerator in the world and whose notable alumni include
Airbnb, Dropbox, Stripe, and others among its combined $80 billion
company portfolio valuation. In March 2016, Relativity graduated from
the Y Combinator program and shortly afterwards, we raised an eight-
figure funding round led by Silicon Valley venture firm Social Capital,
with participation by Y Combinator Continuity, Phillip Spector
(formerly of Intelsat), the University of Southern California, Stanford
University, and other private investors. Still just two cofounders, we
expanded to our current Los Angeles facility in July 2016, and worked
to scale up a bigger and extraordinarily talented core team.
Relativity has begun testing of our liquid oxygen/liquid methane
engine with over six dozen hot fires across multiple test articles at
NASA Stennis Space Center, with plans for continued routine testing.
Additionally, we are hard at work developing a series of novel, never-
seen-before technologies for creating our own orbital launch service
and changing the way things get to space. Altogether, we made
significant progress in the last ten months and achieved dramatic
results that we will begin sharing publicly once out of stealth. We are
happy to discuss more details of our progress specifically with
government policy makers and regulators to ensure there is early
awareness of development plans for Relativity's capabilities, and form
public-private partnerships that will help get us there.
The Venture Perspective
Relativity is an entirely privately funded company and, as such, we
believe we have a rather unique perspective on building a successful
private space business.
As first-time founders, Social Capital, Y Combinator, and our other
investors and advisors taught Jordan and me some fundamental lessons
about how to run a successful startup. This advice may best be
distilled by the proverbial motto: ``Make something people want.''
Relativity was founded on the belief that people crave a fantastic
future, a future that pushes the boundaries of what we dream to be
possible and then brings those dreams to life. The very idea of America
is predicated on pushing the limit of what is possible, both in
technology and in spirit. Space is the ultimate stage for exploring our
humanity. We are convinced that an incredible future waits for us among
the stars, and that America will lead it. We believe this is
``something people want.''
But to help make this vision a reality Relativity must first build
a thriving business and, while Relativity's investors share our
conviction and ambition to build an iconic company, they also have very
real financial targets that we must reach, together, to be successful.
Working alongside some of the top venture capitalists (VC's) in Silicon
Valley, we have learned that investors generally focus on the following
key criteria when deciding whether or not to fund a company:
Potential for Outsized Returns: small capital investments
create large company value increases, normally in a 5-10 year
return on investment (ROI) timeframe
Large Total Addressable Market: the target market needs to
be $1B+, growing quickly, or emerging and highly disruptive
The VC funding model is fantastic for creating industry-disrupting
innovation in a relatively short timeframe, but it comes with some non-
intuitive quirks. Venture capital is predicated on the financial model
that approximately one-third of companies funded will fail, one-third
will simply break even, and one-third will successfully pay for all the
others and then some. Often, only a few breakout successes within an
investment portfolio constitute a vast majority of the ROI for a
venture capital firm. Thus, private investors seek to quickly determine
if a bet placed on a company will succeed or fail, primarily focusing
their attention on the ones that show the most promise. This dynamic
means startups often have only 12-24 months of funding remaining to
prove they are worth continued support from the venture community, or
left behind in the annals of entrepreneurial endeavor.
It is worth noting that investors have the entire economy's array
of industries on which to place their bets--space is but one sector,
and effectively must compete for limited investment capital against
scalable businesses in the software, consumer product, industrial,
biomedical, and a multitude of other sectors as well.
I mention this because in addition to the critical, daily challenge
of proving our technological concept, we must also reckon, on a daily
basis, with the equally critical challenge of meeting growth metrics
sufficient to remain an attractive private investment in repeated 12-24
month do-or-die timeframes.
The Startup Perspective
The above business-building parameters have real and immediate
implications for the way in which we think about and approach many
aspects of our R&D. For example, as capital is infused in discreet
funding rounds spaced approximately 12-24 months apart, we face not
only short-term execution timelines, but also must simultaneously focus
on achieving long-term goals that may be years into the future, well
past our current funding amounts. Interruptions to this timeframe, even
on the order of weeks or months, are highly impactful and can cause an
increase in business risk.
As a startup in the launch services industry, test infrastructure
is paramount to validating our technologies. However, this
infrastructure is extremely slow and expensive to procure, develop, and
operate. In the context of already enormous initial risks, neither
founders nor VC's have much desire to spend the bulk of our precious
time and capital toward de-risking what we view to be commodity
infrastructure: test sites, launch facilities and ranges, and other
commonly required development facilities.
Growing a small business in the environment sketched above has
serious ramifications for the way we think about potential partnerships
with the government and it will continue to do so at every stage of our
company's life cycle, exemplified by the many ``Series'' of investment
rounds a startup goes through and the partnerships that would be of
maximum use at each stage:
Early Stage--``Series Seed'': Lower barriers to entry
through contracts: NASA's Tipping Point, Announcement of
Collaborative Opportunity (ACO), Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) program, DARPA and DoD opportunities
Product Development--``Series A'': Test stands, bigger
infrastructure, Venture Class Launch Services, DARPA and DoD
opportunities
Growth--``Series B/C'': Launch pads and infrastructure,
launch licenses and regulation, larger government contracts and
recurring payload launch procurement
Scale--``Series D+'': Certification for flying government
payloads, large procurement contracts like Commercial Resupply
Services (CRS), Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
(COTS), and Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) incentivize
early private investments and close the loop on investor ROI as
well as bootstrap commercial success
Our key partnership to date has involved working closely with
NASA's Stennis Space Center. After a brief description of our
engagement with Stennis, the remainder of this testimony examines the
ways in which Relativity has approached vital government partnerships.
It includes a discussion of specific policy and regulatory fixes we
believe could go a long way towards unencumbering the next generation
of commercial space companies.
Working With NASA Stennis Space Center
In February 2016, Relativity was contacted by the DoD accelerator
MD5 to be one of their pilot companies. MD5 is a public-private
partnership between the DoD, NYU, and other top research universities
that accelerates startups by helping provide and facilitate access to
government infrastructure. As a result, Relativity signed a
Reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA Stennis Space Center in mid-
2016 for an extensive engine test campaign on an existing test stand.
This agreement has allowed Relativity to reimburse NASA for direct
costs incurred during the facility buildup, upgrade, and testing of our
in-house designed rocket engines.
We are pleased to report we have completed over six dozen hot fire
tests to date with routine testing ongoing. We thank NASA Stennis
Director Dr. Richard J. Gilbrech, along with David Coote, Gary Taylor,
Ray Nichols, and the rest of the Stennis team for their work in helping
us achieve these results to date, and look forward to our continued
progress in the future.
Relativity chose to partner with NASA and was initially drawn to
partnership opportunity with Stennis due to the fact that the testing
infrastructure was already built and that its team previously ran
several successful testing campaigns. Working with NASA has saved
Relativity almost a year toward commencing hot fire testing, enabling
us to meet our targets far sooner than if we had to build our own
engine stand from scratch and it allows us to develop faster against
our current funding timelines. It is also important to note that our
public-private partnership with Stennis allowed Relativity to invest in
other unique elements of our technology development because we had
capital available to deploy for those key initiatives rather than being
forced to spend money on building our own engine test stand. Investing
in the truly unprecedented side of our technology development, which is
a critical element of our planned business model, has the additional
benefit of putting us in a better position to receive further private
funding.
By partnering with the U.S. Government and using NASA's existing
infrastructure, Relativity was able to more quickly test our
proprietary new technologies, grow our operations, and ultimately
accelerate our time-to-market so that we will eventually be competing
with domestic and foreign competitors on an international scale.
Working with Stennis on a ``lean team'' approach has provided solid
learning experiences for both sides, and we wish to take these lessons
learned and carry them forward in an expanded, future public-private
partnership if Relativity's business needs can be optimally met.
Policy Recommendations: Startups and The Future of Partnerships
Public-private partnerships have provided critical resources for
our company's initial success. However, we have learned a lot about
working with the government along the way and would like to offer a few
suggestions for improvement. Our desire here is not merely self-
interested: We firmly believe that opening and strategically building
up specialized government infrastructure could act as an
``accelerator'' of space startups, in much the same way that President
Eisenhower created the highway system and catalyzed the automobile
industry.
We recognize that the commercial space legislation under
consideration today and in the weeks ahead may not be the proper
vehicle for space infrastructure investments. But we also recognize
that infrastructure writ large is very much a topic of discussion in
Washington and an issue that generates bi-partisan support. Ultimately,
we believe that if public-private partnerships can incentivize and
maximize investment into the space industry from private sources they
will, in turn, maximize the impact the U.S. Government can have in
fostering the industry, further consolidating our Nation's dominant
position when it comes to exploring the cosmos.
(1) Maximizing and Updating Launch Infrastructure
As mentioned above procuring and qualifying launch infrastructure--
launch pad, ground support equipment, range and communication systems,
and flight termination safety systems--is a daunting task for any
company, and particularly for a startup that is simultaneously
developing new manufacturing technologies and an orbital rocket on a
timeline of just a few years.
Relativity strongly support initiatives like NASA's development of
a mobile Universal Propellant Servicing System (UPSS) and the
Autonomous Flight Termination Systems (AFTS) developed by DARPA and
NASA, as these are perfect examples of the types of commodity
infrastructure development by the government, which adequately meet the
needs of private companies looking to reach operational status more
quickly and cost effectively.
Of particular note is that for small class launch vehicles, the
lack of accessible West Coast launch sites able to meet polar, sun
synchronous, and retrograde orbital inclinations leaves many small
satellite customers stuck with launching on foreign rockets from India,
Russia, and Europe. Internationally located FAA-licensed launch sites,
such as in New Zealand, are privately developed and not open to other
U.S. companies, and have technical advantages that are nearly
impossible to replicate in the United States other than potentially in
Hawaii or other remote Pacific islands. One potential near-term option
is to help create a small launch vehicle pad similar in design to KSC's
39C at Vandenberg Airforce Base in California, or another suitable West
coast location. Regardless, with emerging small satellite customers
split between desiring launches from the East coast and West coast due
to the orbits they provide, startups like Relativity must think about
multiple launch facilities and operations spread across the country.
The lack of a singular launch complex able to serve the bulk of
small satellite customers is a thorny problem to solve, but we have
postulated that the use of an offshore drone ship launch platform could
potentially alleviate this problem by launching in international waters
under an FAA license. The concept we envision is less complex than the
repurposed oil platform known as ``Sea Launch,'' and is more akin to
the reverse of the drone ships and barges SpaceX and Blue Origin have
pioneered for landing recovered boost stages. We believe it is worth
mentioning as a potential area for further regulatory and technical
investigation. The expected influx of massively higher frequency of
launches in the coming years will present new regulatory challenges. It
could cause an eventual bottleneck where multiple small launchers and
satellite constellations alike would be constrained in servicing a new
wave of commercial customer needs. Even proposing an uncharted solution
like international drone ship or barge launch goes to show just how
dire the launch bottleneck could be with current regulatory processes
and launch site limits to the total number of flights possible per year
in the United States. This is also a key issue that is pushing
companies to investigate air launch as an alternative solution, again
with daunting technical unknowns and operational challenges.
Finally, we are grateful for the government's foresight in helping
to create ready-access launch pads and propellant loading systems such
as 39C in Kennedy Space Center. However, Relativity is concerned that
39C is located too close to the Space Launch System (SLS) pad 39B,
potentially risking multi-month schedule delays as a national asset
like SLS will rightfully take schedule priority. Due to this proximity
to SLS, we are nervous about potential insurance premium increases that
launching at 39C could entail. We also believe it will be difficult to
serve multiple companies effectively from the same location, and while
there appear to be several available moth-balled facilities at Cape
Canaveral, for example, the growing scarcity of mature launch pads will
hinder new entrants' ability to meet customer demand.
(2) A New Model for Service Agreements
The current incarnations of the Space Act Agreement (SAA) and
Commercial Space Launch Act (CSLA) agreement contain problematic
provisions for handling conflicting test stand priorities.
We fully understand that in the event of a national emergency the
government may require the use of test infrastructure. Our primary
concern is that as the SAA and CSLA are currently drafted, if another
commercial company wants to use the same test stand as us (or any other
launch startup) NASA would be required to accommodate them in a
presumed ``one-month on, one-month off'' type testing arrangement. This
is troubling to a startup company where a delay of this sort could
seriously jeopardize our ability to hit milestones with enough momentum
required for further private funding. This is precisely the sort of
scheduling conflict that could wreak havoc with development deadlines,
and thus force us to seek highly inefficient alternatives, i.e.,
building our own infrastructure. We are willing to reimburse direct
costs and pay site maintenance fees in exchange for additional
guarantees. If launch startups had a window of time during which we
could lease engine and stage test stands this would go far to make us
more comfortable relying on government infrastructure during critical
development phases before operation.
Agreements with local centers like Stennis are extremely valuable
but risky mechanisms in the way they are formed. They save new small
launch startups precious time and money but they are negotiated in an
ad-hoc, case-by-case manner which creates a significant risk variable.
A more certain framework and policy stance for making agreements
between privately funded startups and the U.S. Government for
infrastructure use could greatly help startups in particular navigate
public-private partnerships.
Relativity thus proposes the creation of a ``Commercial Space Lease
Agreement''--a new framework similar to a reimbursable SAA or CSLA but
with provisions for leasing development testing infrastructure at
direct cost in much the same way launch infrastructure like LC-39A and
LC-13 at Kennedy Space Center is leased. To ensure competition for an
agreement of this type, public notices much like LC-39A and LC-13 could
be held for a period of time, with similar optionality on proposing
either exclusive-use or multi-user operations. Investment dollars from
venture capital often follow--not precede--winning these types of
agreements, worth noting for comparison of proposals versus more
entrenched and initially-funded competitors. Potentially leasable
facilities which are not considered moth-balled could be selectively
duplicated or expanded to ensure a higher number of participants have
equal access as the space industry grows. Continued support for
flexibility in the Company's choice of using either Company or
Government personnel, and supporting Company-funded facility upgrades
and modifications are critical to ensuring the best-of-both-worlds in a
testing infrastructure public-private partnership. As we envision it, a
Commercial Space Lease Agreement framework would lower competitive
barriers to entry and promote significantly more efficient use of
private capital and time, while reducing risk across the breadth of
company development phases by providing more certainty in negotiation
outcomes.
(3) Reimagining Procurement
While Relativity is currently entirely privately funded, the
opportunity for any company to apply for competitive partnership
contracts provides essential support and valuable signaling to
potential commercial customers.
As a startup operating under aggressive financial goals, Annual
Recurring Revenue (ARR) is a key long-term metric and far superior to
helping build our bottom line than one-off revenue generating events
such as Venture Class Launch Services (VCLS). VCLS is an excellent
opportunity for a company like ours because it enables us to gain
initial traction, generate revenue, and validate that we can attract
new commercial customers. While I strongly support any further rounds
of flight opportunities where we may apply for funding, a one-off
launch contract is unable to move the needle on a private investor's
ROI expectations--although we understand that with the current
incarnation of VCLS, that outcome perhaps was not the intent. We would
also point out that delays in contract awards, yearly submission
cycles, and any lags in funding a company once a contract has been
awarded may cause undue harm to a startup where weeks and months are
counted.
We would encourage NASA to investigate a modulated version of the
program that provides for recurring and larger launch contracts over
multiple launches. This could include a hybrid model of sorts, one that
predicated the award of a full contract on the successful execution of
an initial run of two-three launches over an agreed-upon period time.
Failure to meet clear benchmarks along the way would result in the
immediate termination of such an agreement. Alternatively, some version
of new public-private contracts like the Commercial Resupply Services
(CRS), Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), and
Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) that is geared towards smaller and
newer launchers would also incentivize early private investment.
(4) Avoiding the Licensing Logjam
The question of adequate resources for the Office of Commercial
Space Transportation has been raised in previous hearings, but as a
company that plans to soon join the ranks of those applying for launch
licenses with greater and greater frequency, it is of the utmost
importance in our minds that AST receive sufficient funding and
personnel to avoid a significant back up in licensing applications. We
understand that there is a broader and healthy debate taking place
about AST's role vis-a-vis that of the Department of Commerce's Office
of Space Commerce but this should in no way supplant a critical focus
on ensuring AST is equipped to carry out its current mission.
(5) Continuing to Support a Robust Satellite Market
Low cost, frequent, predictable orbital launch is simply the first
step in accessing space and creating a large impact above Earth and
beyond. Support of satellite companies--both established and emerging--
is needed to ensure the large total addressable market investors need
to see grows and matures. Issues such as orbital debris reduction need
to be tackled in a way that do not limit the potential revenues of
satellite companies or the launchers that fly them. Limits to the total
number of satellites in orbit would be more damaging than service
lifetime limits, tracking requirements, or end-of-life deorbit
requirements. This is especially true as many proposed orbital
constellations specifically benefit from a high number of payloads
circling the globe with rapid iteration of their technologies. We also
support innovative solutions to spectrum rights that increase the
number of satellite companies able to cost-effectively serve their
customers without interference. Our potential customers need to access
space today to prove their business models and survive until tomorrow,
and we do not wish to hinder them in doing so. Thus, we do not support
an explicit ban on unsubsidized foreign launchers as we wish to instead
work on public-private partnerships to create other incentives toward
fielding a low-cost U.S. designed, manufactured, and flown--non-ICBM
derived--orbital vehicle for small satellite constellations.
Conclusion: A Startup Vision for Commercial Space in the 21st Century
For the most part, Relativity has had an overwhelmingly positive
experience in its partnerships with NASA and MD5. However, we believe
it is important to point out that from conversations with our peers not
every commercial space startup feels the confidence to rely on public-
private partnerships in key development infrastructure roles yet.
Take, for example, this vital question of engine and vehicle stage
testing infrastructure. A dearth of available stands, an occasionally
cumbersome engagement process, an uncertain prioritization process--
those challenges and more will push many startups to spend valuable
private funds building their own test stands and support hardware.
Building our own development testing infrastructure continues to be an
expensive and inefficient process that results in a loss of time, money
and creative energy that could be better spent on cutting edge
innovation rather than on items which are proven commodities--and which
the U.S. Government is perfectly placed to provide access to be it via
existing infrastructure or through the targeted, gradual buildup of new
infrastructure to meet the demands of a new generation of private space
exploration companies.
Lastly, it is worth noting that no matter which strategy a company
pursues, startups like Relativity initially compete directly with much
larger and more well-funded competitors through new ideas, development
speed, equity ownership, and novel big-payoff technologies. It is that
willingness to innovate in the face of uncertain risk that uniquely
bonds startups, even as competitors. There is one other thing that any
startup worth its salt has in common: ambition. We grind and labor and
persevere not merely to get rich--there are probably easier ways to do
that--we do it to change the world. Commercial space startups do it
because we want to change the world by reaching the cosmos.
Relativity is here today as a representative example of a
successful partnership with the United States Government. We also
recognize that we are here today as one humble example of the hundreds
of dynamic space startups currently hard at work in suburban garages
and repurposed airplane hangars all across America. The United States
Government has not always been known for the nimbleness of action that
characterizes your average startup. But I would be so bold as to
venture that we are united by one thing that is greater than all of us:
A vision. A vision of the Stars and Stripes on the first spaceship to
safely land men and women on Mars. A vision of how we will guide this
world, our home, into a more fantastic future by learning to understand
new worlds and applying that knowledge to our own. A vision of all the
other missions that will expand the limits of our known universe and
the bounds of the human spirit. What could be more human and American
than aspiring to do something in the face of the impossible--and
succeeding?
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Members of the Committee--
thank you for this opportunity.
I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
Mr. Hughes.
STATEMENT OF TIM HUGHES, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
GLOBAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (SPACEX)
Mr. Hughes. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, Senator
Nelson, Senator Gardner, and members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to participate in this important
hearing.
I'm pleased to be here today representing the nearly 6,000
men and women of SpaceX who are working hard every day to
provide NASA, the Department of Defense, and our commercial
customers with critical launches to space.
SpaceX is a firm believer that public-private partnerships
between commercial space entities and the government, if
carried out with the right structure and the right incentives,
are among the best ways to rapidly, safely, and cost
effectively advance America's space program.
Before outlining some views on how to best leverage
commercial partnerships, I wanted to give the Committee a quick
update on what has been happening at SpaceX of late.
To begin, since the start of the year, we've completed 10
missions, including 3 in just a 12-day period, and these have
included landings of our first-stage booster, both at land and
at sea.
In addition to flying our commercial customers, SpaceX is
routinely supporting cargo resupply missions to and from the
International Space Station. And we have, in a set of historic
firsts, successfully launched two previously flown boosters for
commercial customers.
Separately, we're making great progress on a fully reusable
next generation launch system, which will enable large-scale
human and cargo transportation to and from the surface of Mars.
And most importantly, we are laser-focused on safely and
reliably launching astronauts onboard our Falcon 9 and Dragon 2
capsule with this launch to occur next year. This will restore
America's human space flight capability for the first time
since the Shuttle retired in 2011. And as noted by the
Chairman, it will end our Nation's reliance on Russia to carry
our own astronauts into space.
Mr. Chairman, this is an exciting and dynamic time for
space exploration. With new commercial space companies
emerging, private capital investment and commercial space
ventures surging, and new technologies and competition offering
rapid innovation, affordability, and flexibility, now is the
time for the U.S. space enterprise to make maximum use of
commercial capabilities.
There are a few points to that end that I'd like to make.
First, we encourage the Committee to look back on the NASA COTS
program. It offers important lessons about the utility of
public-private partnerships and the right way to carry them
out. NASA structured the COTS program very wisely. It shared
the risks, the costs, and the rewards of developing new space
transportation capabilities. Under the program, NASA provided
seed money for the demonstration of private space flight
capabilities, and it issued payments only after a company met
technical or financial performance metrics.
By using this approach, NASA was able to leverage its $800
million investment in the program alongside significant
commercial investment, and it yielded two new U.S. medium-class
launch vehicles and two new cargo spacecraft. This partnership
moved at rapid speed with the first flight of the Falcon 9 and
Dragon to orbit occurring in less than 4 years, and with the
first flight of an operational mission to the Space Station in
less than 6 years.
The features associated with the COTS program can be more
broadly applied now to the development of deep space
exploration systems for transportation, habitats,
communications, reconnaissance, and resource utilization. In
general, they include the use of pay-for-performance milestone-
based structures under firm-fixed-price contracts. Contractors
should be paid when they deliver and they should take risks and
they should share risks. Additionally, the government should
set high-level requirements, objectives, and goals, but should
not dictate how private partners achieve those goals. This
encourages fresh thinking and creative problem solving.
Further, competition is critical to the overall success of any
such program.
Overall, NASA should once again pursue a parallel track
with nontraditional partners meant to augment and increase the
probability of the long-term success of the Nation's space
exploration goals. We recommend a new competitive public-
private partnership modeled on COTS for deep space exploration.
Objectives here could include a sustained lunar presence, a
large cargo carriage to Mars, commercial space habitats and
weigh stations to other planets, or a deep space communications
program meant to supplement our current capabilities.
Regardless, we believe a competitive performance-based
partnership program with relatively small investment by the
government would yield great results for the Nation, along with
high-paying jobs and critical national space capabilities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to
share some thoughts on this topic. I look forward to any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Hughes, Senior Vice President for Global
Business and Government Affairs, Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
(SpaceX)
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important
hearing on ``Reopening the American Frontier.'' SpaceX is a firm
believer that public-private partnerships between U.S. commercial space
entities and the Government are the optimal vehicles to rapidly,
safely, and cost-effectively advance space exploration and settlement
of the solar system.
Under your leadership, the Committee recently has reviewed an array
of matters, including regulatory reform to enable commercial space to
thrive and revisions to the Outer Space Treaty, which are critical to
ensuring the Nation's continued leadership in space exploration.
Today's hearing provides a timely opportunity to discuss the nature of
NASA's recent successful partnerships with private industry and to
review how the United States can leverage such innovative approaches in
its deep space endeavors going forward. SpaceX's direct and significant
experience working under unique, innovative public-private partnerships
with NASA should help to shape the contours of this dialogue. In
addition to existing programs at NASA focused on deep space exploration
transportation and architectures, NASA again should pursue a parallel
track that leverages non-traditional, public-private partnership
approaches to increase the likelihood of success for the Nation's space
exploration objectives.
From its beginning, SpaceX has leveraged American innovation,
technical savvy, and an iterative culture to yield the most advanced
space launch vehicle and spacecraft systems in history. We are grateful
for NASA's ongoing support, which has been critical SpaceX's success.
We are proud to provide a dependable and affordable ride to space for
NASA, the Department of Defense, and the world's most sophisticated
commercial satellite manufacturers and operators. Today, we regularly
conduct critical un-crewed cargo resupply missions to and from the
International Space Station (ISS) with our Dragon spacecraft--which was
developed in partnership with NASA--and next year, we will begin
launching American astronauts on American rockets for the first time
since the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011. Commercially, SpaceX has
restored the U.S. as a leader in global commercial satellite launch,
taking back a market that had been wholly ceded to Russia and France
for over a decade. As we look to the future, SpaceX is committed to
continuing to support America's space program and to contribute to our
national exploration objectives through reliable, innovative, and
affordable access to space.
To begin, it bears noting that the National Aeronautics and Space
Act of 1958 identifies one of NASA's core mission areas as follows:
``[t]o seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest
commercial use of space.'' \1\ Additionally, the National Space
Transportation Policy expressly directs Federal agencies to ``[p]romote
and maintain a dynamic, healthy, and efficient domestic space
transportation industrial base,'' and to do so, in part, by cultivating
``increased technological innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S.
commercial space transportation sector through the use of incentives
such as non-traditional acquisition arrangements, competition, and
prizes.'' \2\ American policy-makers dating back to the formation of
NASA have recognized that the commercial use of space represents one of
the country's greatest assets--private sector ingenuity and capital,
rather than cost-plus contracts and open-ended requirements. This,
coupled with unique Government capability, technical insight,
experience, and resources, will sustain and grow American leadership in
space, and more broadly, benefit all of humankind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 115-10, title III, Sec. 305(b), title IV, Sec. 443(b),
Mar. 21, 2017, 131 Stat. 32, 47, added items 20148 and 20149.
\2\ National Space Transportation Policy. November 1, 2013.
Available at: https://www.nasa
.gov/sites/default/files/files/
national_space_transportation_policy_11212013.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today will focus on the following areas:
(1) The NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)
program should serve as an object lesson in successful, high-
value public-private partnership approaches. The COTS program
resulted in significant new capability for the U.S. Government,
saved hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, and helped
restore U.S. competitiveness in commercial space launch. The
lessons learned through COTS--a program to support cargo
transportation to low-Earth orbit (LEO)--could easily be
transposed on innovative partnership arrangements for deep
space exploration going forward.
(2) Public-private partnerships and commercial-type contract
approaches under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) can
provide cost-effective, accelerated development and deployment
of new space capabilities, if properly constructed and
tailored. Here, my testimony will focus on how the unique
features of such approaches can and should be applied to deep
space exploration initiatives to keep America at the cutting of
edge of space technology within reasonable budgets and
timetables.
(3) Specific commercial partnership concepts for deep space
exploration can complement and enhance the space exploration
efforts NASA is currently undertaking through more traditional
contract and development approaches. Here, my testimony sets
forth some possibilities that are additive, and emphasizes that
no single approach is perfect. That is, it is evident that the
country will benefit by applying multiple different approaches
and enabling multiple different, redundant pathways to space
exploration.
I. SpaceX Today
Founded in 2002, SpaceX employs approximately 6,000 people
dedicated to designing, manufacturing, and launching rockets and
spacecraft in and from the United States. To this end, SpaceX was
created with the express goal of dramatically improving the
reliability, safety, and affordability of space transportation. We have
made that goal a reality. And, of course, our ultimate goal is to help
to establish a permanent human presence in the stars, with an initial
focus on Mars as a destination.
To date, the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle has successfully
launched 37 times, all while achieving important evolutionary
reductions in the cost of space launch. Among other things, SpaceX has
focused on making our rockets reusable. After several years of self-
funded research and development on reusability, beginning with critical
work at our McGregor, Texas Rocket Development Facility, SpaceX has now
recovered a total of 13 Falcon 9 first stage boosters since December
2015--5 at Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and 8
aboard our autonomous spaceport droneships at sea. After a four-month
qualification program, SpaceX successfully launched and landed a
previously-flown Falcon 9 booster in March of this year, placing a
high-value telecommunications satellite into orbit for SES, a global
satellite operator. This was an historic first for an orbital-class
booster. In June 2017, SpaceX repeated this success with the launch of
the BulgariaSat-1 satellite using a flight-proven booster, which itself
had previously launched in January of 2017.
Currently, SpaceX has approximately 70 missions on manifest,
representing more than $10 billion in signed contracts for a diverse
and growing set of customers, including NASA, the Department of
Defense, commercial satellite operators, and allied international
governments. As our business continues to grow, SpaceX, as technology
companies should, invests heavily in the company's manufacturing and
launch infrastructure and advanced research and development projects,
including spacecraft development.
We remain laser-focused on reliability and safety as we prepare to
launch U.S. astronauts next year. This is a sacred responsibility that
we approach with the utmost dedication and diligence. Additionally, we
continue efforts to reach a cadence of a launch every two weeks or less
for 2017, with an even higher rate planned for 2018; to move toward
rapid and complete reusability of our boosters; to launch our Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle later this year, which will be the most powerful
rocket to launch since the Saturn V Moon rocket; to develop and produce
the initial prototypes for our broadband satellite system; and to
continue design and development work of a Mars launch vehicle
architecture. Critically, all of this innovation is occurring in the
United States, creating high-paying jobs, advancing technology, and
generating substantial economic activity.
To update the Committee on SpaceX's major milestones for 2017:
We have completed 10 missions in the past 7 months, for a
total 37 successful Falcon 9 launches overall. Recently, SpaceX
launched 4 successful missions in 32 days (3 of those in just
12 days);
We have already successfully completed two cargo resupply
missions to the ISS for NASA, CRS-10 and CRS-11, which was the
first re-flight of a Dragon spacecraft;
We successfully launched two flight-proven Falcon 9 rockets
for commercial satellite customers;
We successfully delivered the NROL-76 national security
payload to orbit for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
on May 1, 2017, the first dedicated national security mission
flown by SpaceX, under an innovative, commercial services
contract;
We were awarded a second GPS III missions under a
competitive procurement in the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle (EELV) Program, yielding a significant cost savings to
the Air Force;
We have launched missions from both active East and West
Coast launch sites; and,
We are completing final upgrades to the Falcon 9 (Block 5),
after which we'll focus much of our launch vehicle engineering
talent on SpaceX's Mars vehicle.
SpaceX maintains its manufacturing and engineering headquarters in
Hawthorne, CA; a satellite system design and development office in
Redmond, WA; a Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, TX;
and launch pads at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, NASA Kennedy Space
Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and, soon, a commercial launch site
near Brownsville, TX. SpaceX also relies upon a network of more than
4,400 American suppliers and partners--an investment in the American
industrial base when others are spending heavily abroad.
II. COTS: A Successful Model for Public Private Partnerships
The Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program has
been widely and correctly hailed as a major success for NASA and its
commercial partners, delivering significant new capability to the
Government at incredible value to the taxpayer.\3\ After the Space
Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, all Space Shuttle flight operations
were suspended for more than two years, and the United States became
reliant upon foreign governments to carry both American cargo and crew
to the International Space Station (ISS). In 2006, NASA established the
COTS program to develop new U.S. cargo capability to serve as a follow-
on to the Space Shuttle Program for missions to ISS. COTS was an
innovative, commercially competitive program that successfully
leveraged private sector dollars and ingenuity through public-private
partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``The development of commercial cargo vehicles is considered by
many as one of the major success stories at NASA in the last decade.''
Jeff Foust, ``For commercial cargo, ideas old and new,'' The Space
Review, March 23, 2015. Available at: http://www.thespacereview.com/
article/2717/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The COTS program was the first of its kind for NASA: a pay-for-
performance partnership between the U.S. Government and private
businesses to rapidly design and prototype critical technologies. NASA
structured the COTS program as a collaborative partnership with the
commercial space industry, sharing the risks, costs, and rewards of
developing new space transportation capabilities. Under the program,
NASA provided seed money for the development of private spaceflight
capabilities, but issued payment only after a company met technical and
financial performance milestones. The participating COTS contractors,
likewise, invested in the program and put their own financial skin in
the game. The contractual mechanism utilized was a ``Space Act
Agreement'' (SAA), which allows the agency to rapidly design and
prototype technologies, and allows contractual flexibility such that
private parties can contribute financially to what would otherwise be a
Government effort. The SAA has its genesis in ``other transactions
authority,'' which exists in Federal statute for NASA, as well as the
Department of Defense and many other Federal agencies.
NASA competitively awarded a COTS Space Act Agreement to SpaceX and
another entity in 2006. For SpaceX, the SAA ultimately represented a
total of $396 million of NASA investment, primarily focused on
development of the Dragon cargo capsule and two demonstration flights
of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft. SpaceX in turn
invested more than $500M (at that time) in the development of the
Falcon 9, including launch sites, production, and test facilities.\4\
In only four years, SpaceX went from a clean sheet design to launch of
the Falcon 9 and the first orbit and reentry of Dragon--an
unprecedented reduction in development time for a complex space system
that was realized under the SAA approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SpaceX has continued to invest in reliability, performance, and
reusability enhancements for Falcon 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2012, Falcon 9 successfully launched Dragon to orbit and the
spacecraft then successfully berthed with the Space Station, a mere six
years after contract award. Shortly thereafter in October 2012, the
first operational mission under the follow-on Commercial Resupply
Services (CRS) contract lifted off, resulting in mission success and
kicking off a new area of U.S. resupply to the space station.
This level of output and speed relative to expenditures is
unprecedented in the aerospace community and marked a major success for
NASA and its innovative approach to restore a critical capability. In
short, this was a major win for the U.S. taxpayer, for U.S.
manufacturing, for NASA specifically, and for the U.S. commercial space
industry. It was perhaps the greatest ``bang for the buck'' that NASA
has ever achieved.
Notably, in August 2011 NASA, using the NASA-Air Force Cost Model
(NAFCOM), determined that had Falcon 9 been developed under a
traditional NASA approach, the cost would have been approximately $4
billion. The analysis also showed development of the Falcon 9 would
have been approximately $1.7 billion based on the traditional
commercial models and assumed factors. However, NASA independently
verified SpaceX's development costs of both the Falcon 1 (our early
``pathfinder'' vehicle) and Falcon 9 at approximately $390 million in
the aggregate ($300 million for Falcon 9; $90 million for Falcon 1).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy, ``Falcon 9
Launch Vehicle: NAFCOM Cost Estimates,'' August 2011. Available at:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAF
COM.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond COTS, NASA has had other successes utilizing the innovative
and flexible framework enabled by Space Act Agreements.\6\ For example,
NASA successfully worked with Bigelow Aerospace, which makes expandable
modules and habitats for use in space. Here, once again NASA used an
SAA applying a firm-fixed-price structure and leveraging significant
private investment by Bigelow, to launch the Bigelow Expandable
Activity Module (BEAM) to the ISS. SpaceX launched BEAM to the Space
Station on April 8, 2016 during a cargo resupply mission. Once Dragon
berthed with the Space Station, NASA astronauts extracted the BEAM
module from Dragon's unpressurized trunk and attached it as a new
module to the ISS. When activated, BEAM expanded to ten times its size
at launch to provide more than 565 cubic feet of new volume to the
Station and became the first human-rated expandable module in space.
With this success, Bigelow and others will now develop technologies for
habitats in low-Earth orbit and beyond, which will likely later be
utilized by space agencies and commercial customers for in-orbit
research labs, habitats in LEO, lunar orbits, on Mars or elsewhere.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See: NASA, ``Public-Private Partnerships for Space Capability
Development: Driving Economic Growth and NASA's Mission,'' April 2014.
Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/
NASA_Partnership_Report_LR_20140429.pdf
\7\ NASA, ``Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM),'' May 31,
2017. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/
research/experiments/1804.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Value of Partnerships and Commercial-Type Partnerships
By any accounting, the COTS program has been an historic success.
According to NASA, ``[b]ecause these were partnerships, not traditional
contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget [less than a
single Space Shuttle mission] with partner funds. This resulted in two
new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo
spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.'' \8\
We encourage the Committee to consider ways to take the lessons learned
from the COTS program and more broadly utilize of the basic features of
this approach in future public-private partnerships that extend to deep
space exploration initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ NASA, ``Commercial Orbital Transportation Services: A New Era
in Spaceflight,'' February 2014. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/
sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic features of the COTS program include:
(1) Establishing high-level requirements and encouraging contractors
to execute against them with creative, innovate, and cost-
effective solutions, reducing ``requirements creep'' and
encouraging new thinking. The COTS program required contractors
to meet a clear set of established safety and interface ISS
requirements and high-level milestone requirements, rather than
implementing overly-specified and ever-changing detailed
Government requirements. This requires the Government customer
to tell contractors what they need to be done, rather than
prescribing how to do it. Coupled with firm, fixed-price
arrangements, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
found that ``the use of firm-fixed-price contracts--along with
well-defined requirements and a sufficient level of knowledge
about critical technologies--presents the least risk to the
government.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Government Accountability Office, ``NASA: Acquisition Approach
for Commercial Crew Transportation Includes Good Practices, but Faces
Significant Challenges,'' December 2011, (GAO-12-282). Available at:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587021.pdf. (Emphasis added).
(2) Using firm, fixed price, pay-for-performance, milestone based
agreements or contracts, creating proper incentives on the
contractor to execute toward successful conclusion, and
discouraging continuous Government requirement changes that add
costs and delay schedules. Pay-for-performance creates proper
incentives on both sides of the Government/contractor
relationship. Here, the GAO has reported: ``[f]irm-fixed-price
contracts place the onus on the contractor to provide the
deliverable at the time, place, and price negotiated by the
contractor and the government. In addition, firm-fixed-price
contracts place the maximum risk on the contractor as well as
full responsibility for all costs and any resulting profit or
loss.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
(3) Maximizing competition, which is critical to drive value and
performance, and improve quality of service to the customer.
Again, GAO has reported that ``promoting competition can help
save the taxpayer money, improve contractor performance, and
promote accountability for results.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid.
(4) Requiring a significant private capital contribution to the
overall program. The COTS agreements required commercial
partners to share costs and provide a significant percentage of
the overall total investment, resulting in lower costs to the
Government and high incentives for commercial firms to drive
toward operational success to generate revenue and recoup their
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
investment.
(5) Tolerating programmatic risk, and easy termination for failure.
One of the major early lessons learned under the COTS model was
borne of the failure of Rocketplane-Kistler, one of the
original winners of the first competitive down-select,
alongside SpaceX. Ultimately, Rocketplane-Kistler was unable to
execute against one of the financial milestones in its
agreement with NASA. As a result, NASA was able to early
terminate the agreement without significant lost investment or
time, and pivot to OrbitalATK (then Orbital Sciences) to serve
as the second provider under the program. This flexibility to
terminate contracts and rapidly ``stop the bleeding'' on non-
functional programs is one that is largely lost when applied to
traditional FAR-based contracts.
(6) Encouraging new, non-traditional companies to work with NASA.
Due to the complexity and cost associated with conforming to
traditional FAR-based contract requirements, start-up companies
with small teams and no expertise interfacing with the complex
regulatory and contractual environment associated with U.S.
Government are often deterred from participating at all. As a
result, the Government is often not at the cutting edge of new
commercial technology offerings. The use of Space Act
Agreements--as with COTS--can help enable such firms to do
business with the Government.
(7) Facilitating the development of new markets, and leveraging
market-driven pricing to support U.S. Government requirements
and missions. Today, SpaceX is the world's leading commercial
launch services provider measured by manifested launches. A
substantial majority of our more than 70 missions under
contract are commercial. This year, we are on track to launch
more than half of the world's accessible \12\ commercial
missions to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO). Next year, we
expect to launch a majority of the world's missions to GTO with
our Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Not all of the world's commercial satellite launches are open
to competition.
Prior to SpaceX entering the commercial space launch market with
the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, the U.S. had effectively ceded
this market to France and to Russia, and no U.S. company had
launched a single commercial mission to GTO since 2009. SpaceX
has brought this multi-billion dollar market back to the United
States. The benefit to NASA, and to the entire U.S. Government
when buying launch services, is that commercial competitiveness
drives launch prices lower for the Government customer (since
costs are widely distributed instead of borne entirely by the
Government), increases the robustness of the launch company's
business, and increases reliability and launch heritage through
higher flight rates. As a result of COTS--at least with respect
to SpaceX--NASA and the Department of Defense are paying lower
prices for launch with higher performance than in the past.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IV. Recommendations for Increasing Use of Public-Private Partnerships
for Deep Space Exploration
SpaceX applauds this Committee for examining ways in which public-
private partnerships and commercial arrangements can contribute to the
Nation's space exploration objectives, just as they have done to
enhance America's capabilities in low-Earth orbit. To this day,
America's achievement of landing men on the Moon and returning them
safely to Earth likely represents humankind's greatest and most
inspirational technological achievement. This was accomplished in eight
years using slide rules and pencils, with engineers literally inventing
rocket science as they progressed. Now, other nations like China seek
to replicate an achievement America first accomplished 48 years ago.
With the technology advancements and increased knowledge through
decades of work by NASA in deep space, including Mars, the United
States is now well-positioned to build upon past achievements in space
and surpass them. Coupled with the NASA resources and unique expertise,
American ingenuity, the principles of free enterprise, and the benefits
of competition, the United States can do more in space than has ever
been accomplished previously.
SpaceX recommends that, in parallel with existing programs at NASA
focused on deep space exploration transportation and architectures,
NASA again leverages non-traditional, public-private partnerships to
improve the likelihood of success for its space exploration objectives.
By leveraging flexible, innovative contracting approaches as well as
private capital, NASA and the space program could generate efficiency
gains and accelerate progress, while expanding the potential pool of
technology companies contributing to the overall effort to expand
humanity's presence in the solar system and ultimately establish
settlements on other planets.
What are the goals and near-term outcomes of such an approach?
American Aspiration and Inspiration. The last astronaut left
the surface of the Moon in 1972, and no one has returned since.
Despite being an historic achievement for America and
humankind, the Apollo program did not create a lasting,
sustained presence in deep space for humanity. A permanent
human presence on the Moon presents humanity's next obvious
foothold outside of Earth. However, rather than look back to
the Moon alone, the United States should also lead the world to
the next great destination: Mars. Moving beyond the Earth-Moon
system will open the broader solar system to human exploration,
a potentially generations-long enterprise. Both missions would
enable settlement and tap into America's spirit of exploration.
U.S. Leadership. A realistic and sustainable human
exploration program will demonstrate American leadership in
space exploration, technology innovation, and scientific
discovery for many years to come. This leadership will enhance
the American economy, extend America's technological edge, and
project American power. The technologies and applications
developed invariably will have beneficial impacts to America's
national security goals and space superiority.
American Jobs and Industrial Growth. Every dollar spent on
effective public-private partnerships and commercial-type
contracts to establish an American presence on the Moon or Mars
represents an investment in our economy, our technological
infrastructure, and our ability to achieve accelerated
advancements in space exploration and settlement. A viable Moon
or Mars program will create tens of thousands of high-tech,
high-paying American jobs and revitalize the U.S. manufacturing
sector in order to develop and produce large scale systems for
deep space transportation and capability (e.g., propulsion
systems, launch vehicles, spaceships, orbiting reconnaissance
systems, and communications satellites), as well as systems to
enable a permanent human presence on celestial bodies other
than Earth (e.g., life support systems, habitats, surface
power, surface exploration, and resource extraction). A Moon-
Mars initiative that leverages the strengths of the U.S.
Government and the strengths of the private sector and invests
in America's workforce will create new, high-paying American
jobs in dozens of states--but most importantly, it will move
the Nation's space exploration goals meaningfully forward.
To run in parallel with existing programs and increase the
probability of success of establishing initial human presence on the
Moon or Mars within the next in eight years to ten years, NASA could
build upon the already demonstrated successful COTS model and create a
similar COTS-like program for deep space exploration initiatives based
on the following proven elements:
Competition. NASA should hold an outcome-oriented, open
competition, and award initial contracts to at least four
companies. Later, NASA should down-select to at least two
contractors to maintain competition and, critically, to have
back up capability. Companies (or teams of companies) can
compete with existing or novel designs and technologies.
Focus on Performance Goals Not Requirements. Like the COTS
program, NASA should set overall goals and establish clear
milestones for the program and enforce only the necessary level
of requirements and conduct continuous insight to ensure
contractors are meeting milestones. NASA should let private
companies determine how to achieve high-level requirements,
rather dictate detailed specifications that suffocate
innovation and ingenuity.
Fixed-Price, Milestone-Based Payments. NASA should pay for
performance achieved along the way, on a firm, fixed-price
basis that encourages rapid prototyping and development, rather
than only use traditional cost-plus Government contracts that
historically have resulted in cost overruns and led to schedule
delays.
Contractor Investment/Public-Private Partnership. The
benefits and burdens of funding such a program should be shared
by the Government and awardees, with commercial space partners
making commitments of at least one-third of the funding for any
bid made. This will buy-down risk for the Government,
incentivize performance, and demonstrate commitment.
Corporations should view this as an investment in technology
and potential follow-on business.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to testify before the
Committee today. Commercial-type contracts and public-private
partnerships have resulted in significant successful outcomes for NASA
and the Nation with respect to space capability. The principles applied
in past programs for low-Earth orbit capability can and should be
applied to deep space exploration. The United States can achieve
incredible advancements in technology by coupling NASA's established
capabilities, technical skills, and resources with those of the private
sector and American entrepreneurship.
Again, we appreciate and support the work this Committee has
undertaken to address policy matters before the commercial space
industry, and we look forward to continuing the dialogue.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.
Dr. Jah.
STATEMENT OF DR. MORIBA K. JAH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, AEROSPACE
ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING MECHANICS, COCKELL SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Dr. Jah. Chairman Cruz, Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr.
Markey, and other members, Senator Nelson, thank you very much
for having me here today coming to you from UT Austin.
I would like to speak to you a little bit today about some
of the problems that we have in space and why it's critical
that we do some problem-solving with not just government, but
academia and private industry.
Right now, the United States Strategic Command maintains a
database or a catalog of about 23,000 objects the size of a
softball and large all the way to school bus size. The good
news is that they are maintaining this day in and day out and
really working hard at it. The bad news is that it's not all
the objects in space that can threaten critical space services
and capabilities.
Before, when space first started with Sputnik, you only had
a few objects on orbit, so it wasn't very difficult to know
where things were or where things could be, but with 23,000
objects that are being tracked and others that are detected but
not tracked for a variety of reasons, it poses a huge problem.
The other thing, too, is that we have countries like India,
they just broke this record of launching 104 satellites in one
fell swoop just a few months ago. They're going to continue to
do this and just saturate the orbits with a lot of satellites,
which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. We shouldn't be
concerned with congestion; we should be concerned with not
understanding where these things are going, how they're
behaving, so that we can help businesses and commerce thrive.
I really like the analogy of the Western Frontier of old
because that's what space is pretty much today. Basically you
have some folks that are going up there trying to make money.
The big bonanza seems to be putting as much on orbit to look
down to track human-based activity or to monitor the Earth.
Also, you have OneWeb and SpaceX that are looking to do global
Internet. These are all great things.
But the guidelines that have been put in place to protect
that sanctuary, which no longer is quite the sanctuary it was
in terms of orbital safety and long-term preservation of space
activities, those guidelines are ill-suited because they were
based on a paradigm of decades ago, not what we're facing now
with all these new launches. And, again, the new launches
aren't a problem; the problem is that we don't have a space
traffic management system to really understand how best to do
these things.
For instance, all the objects that the USSTRATCOM tracks,
they're all modeled as spheres. How do we regulate spheres? How
do we understand which sphere is doing what when? It's very
difficult to do. On the roadways, we have guidelines on how to
manage the traffic. Things are based on size, how many axles,
that sort of thing. Trucks that are carrying hazardous material
are treated very differently than Vespa scooters. Maritime oil
tankers are treated very differently than kayaks and canoes.
What do we have for space? Nothing. We don't have anything
today, and that is a problem. There's a vacuum that needs to be
filled, and the United States is in the best position to do
that collaboratively between government, academia, and
industry.
Russia is basically saying that they want to have the UN
lead a space traffic management system. That's not a widely
adopted viewpoint for a variety of reasons. And so, again, the
United States is in a great position to show some leadership
and do something about this.
Regarding that space traffic management system, what should
this space traffic management system do? For sure, it should
ensure the safety of operations in space, maximize and
incentivize commercial opportunities. I hear some people on
orbit saying, ``Oh, FCC, please don't grant any more licenses
because any single object up here is going to pose this risk of
cataclysmic failures and all these things.'' That's not
necessarily the case. We have an unquantified risk because
there is so much that we still don't know. There is science
that still needs to be done.
We also need to provide transparency. USSTRATCOM is doing
the best it can to provide orbital safety products, but they
can't disclose where everything is in space for very good
reasons, so they shouldn't be asked to do that, and this is a
good reason why I agree with General Hyten here why that should
be moved outside of the DoD's purview.
A CSTM, a Civil Space Traffic Management System, should
observe and monitor, track and catalog these objects, and
inform the public of where things are at for orbital safety
purposes and reasons.
And with that, I say thank you again very much for having
me here. And I look forward to answering any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jah follows:]
Prepared Statement of Moriba K. Jah, Ph.D. Associate Professor,
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Cockrell School of
Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin
Mr. Committee Chairman Thune, Mr. Subcommittee Chairman Cruz,
Subcommittee Ranking Member Mr. Markey, and other members of this
subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today
to share my view of some salient issues that affect orbital safety,
space traffic, and the future of our Nation's space exploration and
exploitation program. It is an honor to be seated at this table with
some of our world's Space sector giants. My name is Moriba Jah. I'm an
engineer, scientist, and a technologist. The views I express today have
been shaped through an 18-year aerospace engineering career in
government, industry and academia. I started my career as a member of
the technical staff of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I navigated
a variety of spacecraft to Mars and Asteroid Itokawa, and also
developed advanced spacecraft navigation algorithms toward autonomy and
improved orbital knowledge, beginning with Mars Global Surveyor and
ending with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter mission. After JPL, I
worked as a Civil Servant in the Air Force Research Laboratory, where I
led the design, development, and implementation of algorithms that have
successfully and autonomously detected, tracked, identified, and
characterized man-made objects in space, so called ``Resident Space
Objects,'' to include orbital debris. My last position within AFRL was
as the Mission Lead for Space Situational Awareness. Amongst my
achievements, I was given the highest award that can be earned as an
AFRL employee, that of AFRL Fellow. Currently, I am fortunate to serve
on the faculty of the Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Department, in the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of
Texas at Austin. At UT Austin, I lead a research program called ASTRIA
focused on the design, development, and technical transition of
astronautical sciences and technologies relevant to Spacecraft
Navigation, Space Situational Awareness, and Space Traffic Management.
I am a Fellow of several organizations and professional societies and
serve as a chair and member of several major space-related national and
international technical committees. However, I am here today as an
individual and the views I express are mine alone. I'd like to also
thank my wife Cassaundra, and children Denali, Inara, and Satyana for
lending me to you, today.
Executive Summary
We have laws, regulations, and norms of behavior on our roadways,
waterways, and airways. We classify and regulate traffic based upon
things like size, maneuverability, weight, hazard potential, and
others. An oil tanker is treated very differently than a kayak. A truck
carrying hazardous fuel is treated quite differently than a Vespa
scooter.
Do we have an equivalent Civil Space Traffic Management (CSTM)
System? No. Do we need one? Absolutely. Why? Uncontrolled and
unpredictable growth of the use of near Earth space. What form could a
CSTM System take? What role should America have in it? This is what I
am here to discuss.
To be clear, the question is not, ``do we need a Civil Space
Traffic Management system'' but rather, ``What form does such a system
involve and how do we design, test, implement, enforce, and maintain
the system.''
Today, I'm going to address this problem by briefly establishing:
Why we need such a CSTM system
What could be the components of a CSTM system
What are the next steps required to put this into effect
Regarding the ``why'' of us needing a CSTM System, I'll begin by
saying that our Space Domain and Environment is no longer the sparsely-
populated state-actor-dominant sphere of activity it was decades ago.
Our need to explore and grow has motivated the commercial sector,
epitomized by our own people the likes of Mr Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk,
to discover the state-of-the-possible and turn that into our state-of-
practice. This is exactly what we want to see happen and indeed foster
and encourage. However, the U.S. is not the only country with growing
activities in space. India, just recently broke the record for the
largest number of deployed satellites in a single launch, 104 to be
exact. Licenses are currently being sought for the launch and
deployment of thousands of satellites, within the next few years. So,
who is rigorously and comprehensively analyzing the growth of the
Resident Space Object population and how does this affect Orbital
Safety of Operations and the Long-Term Sustainability of Space
Activities? The view of most space actors and investors is that it is
someone else's problem! I vehemently disagree.
The Space Domain and Environment is still much like our Western
Frontier of old. It suffers from a lack of monitoring, vast
geographical sparsity, potential for ``lawlessness'', lack of
environmental protection, etc. Space Piracy has likely already
happened, is happening, and will happen so long as we lack the ability
to comprehensively monitor all space activities. This unfortunate human
behavior has happened in all other domains and to expect the Space
Domain to be an exception is naive at best. The problem is exacerbated
by the fact that our space technology has made access to space cheaper,
which has brought greater numbers of space actors to participate in the
space commerce sector, much like what the Transcontinental Railroad did
for businesses connecting the East Coast with the Western Frontier.
The United States of America has developed, maintains, and
distributes, to the rest of the world, the largest free record of
cataloged man-made objects in space, so called ``Resident Space
Objects''. This catalog is owned and operated by the U.S. Department of
Defense, specifically our dedicated men and women of the U.S. Strategic
Command (USSTRATCOM). Many organizations and entities around the world
use these Orbital Safety products on a daily basis. However, for the
growing needs and demands of the space community these products have
been shown many times to be inadequate. They incur an increasing burden
upon the USSTRATCOM primary mission, which is National Defense.
We need a CSTM system because:
Orbital Debris experts worldwide agree that
Compared to what is being tracked in our USSTRATCOM
catalog, the number of mission-damaging and debris-
generating RSOs (1 centimeter in diameter and larger) is at
least 100 times greater.
Two-Line-Elements (TLEs), which provide basic orbital
information on RSOs, are insufficient to meet growing
Orbital Safety needs because the theory is based on
averaged motion and they lack any measure of uncertainty.
We do not fully understand the reasons we cannot track more
objects. All untrackable objects pose an unquantified level of
threat or hazard to space operations and safety.
For reasons of National Security, USSTRATCOM cannot be fully
transparent in providing knowledge of where all trackable RSOs
are located in space. This is at odds with efforts at the
United Nations Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN-
COPUOS) where we talk about transparency and confidence
building measures (TCBMs) for collaboration.
Russia has suggested the creation of a UN-developed and led
effort to perform Space Traffic Management/Control. This is not
a view accepted by everyone, but if we do not step up as
leaders and provide a meaningful solution for others to join
and follow, someone else absolutely will. It's only a matter of
time.
Europe is developing their own Space Situational Awareness
(SSA) program and their own catalog of RSOs, as well as many
other nations, in part because the USSTRATCOM products do not
meet their SSA and STM needs and requirements.
The number of RSOs is growing at a rate that is outpacing
global governance measures for the space domain and
environment.
What are the proposed components of a Civil STM System?
The CSTM Mission should:
Assure the safety of operations in space.
Maximize, foster, and incentivize the use of commercial
capabilities and data sources.
Provide transparency, advocacy of informed guidelines, and
safety services as a public good to preserve the space
environment for continued, unhindered, and uncontested access
and use of space.
The CSTM Primary Functions would be to:
Observe and Monitor: Space Domain and Traffic Observations,
Space Situational Awareness (SSA)
Track and Catalog: Identify, Characterize, and Catalog
Objects; Relational Statistics, Catalog Updates, Traffic
Attribution, Achieve Track ``Custody''
Analyze and Inform: Information Dissemination, Safety
Products, Conjunction Data Messages
What are the next steps required to put this into effect?
Provide the FAA with an adequately funded and resourced
mandate to: (1) use their STM Pilot Program to work with the
community and provide the first instance of a Civil STM system
and (2) begin collecting and exploiting space object (e.g.,
non-SSN tracking) data for orbital safety purposes, with an eye
to do this via a Public-Private-Partnership.
Create or expand the existing role of NASA to: (1) lead the
technical requirements for a robust, effective, and meaningful
CSTM System, and (2) to work closely with other government
agencies, industry, and academia.
Conjunction Analysis concerns itself with predicting
close approaches between any two RSOs; it is a growing and
changing field, and research into new methods is critical
to keep up with the rapidly changing and marginally
predictable space environment. NASA already has a research
investment in this area (the CARA Program at Goddard Space
Flight Center) that can be leveraged along with 30+ years
of developing and executing this capability for use by
civil space operators. It is government's role to retire
risk, invest in Science and Technology (S&T) Research and
Development (R&D), and share the results with the community
to encourage growth.
Invest in and expand the role of University Affiliated
Research Centers (UARCs) as foundational, dedicated, and
focused government-academic partnerships to solidify science
and technology (S&T) research and development for critical
space-related core technical competencies and technology risk-
retirement needed by the U.S. Space Exploration program and
Commercial Space Industry.
Engage and craft mechanisms for Industry to get their
investment and participation in a CSTM System:
Satellite manufacturers
Satellite launch providers
Space Insurance Brokers and Providers
Commercial Space Situational Awareness Providers
Space Angel Investors and Venture Capitalists
Space Service Users
Mr. Chairman, in the years since the end of World War II, American
Exceptionalism has set standards to which the world has aspired. Right
now, today, the world needs leadership in this issue. Implemented
effectively, Space Traffic Management will provide secure access to
space for our critical national infrastructure. It will guarantee
America can lead the world in the commercial exploitation of space, and
that America can maintain its lead over the world in space exploration
and space science. This committee could provide that leadership, and
the opportunity to act is before you.
Narrative
In my vast travels around the globe, speaking to and collaborating
with space scientists, engineers, and policymakers, it is evident that
``American Exceptionalism'' is still invoked and desperately yearned
for, by the many. America's leadership in the space domain, underscored
by taking on and delivering upon what seemed to be an impossible feat,
to send humans to another celestial body and return them safely, has
inspired not only our great nation, but an entire planet, and seeded
some of the world's most creative and innovative ideas.
Exploration is critical to who we are as a species; it drives our
growth and evolution. When our minds and bodies are idle, we tend to
self-defeating behaviors. What brings out the best in Americans? Rising
to great challenges, and working as a nation to overcome them. What got
Americans to the Moon and back, safely and repeatedly? Government,
Industry and Academia working seamlessly, together. No one sector could
do it by themselves.
The U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) currently has over 24,000
records active in its space situational awareness database, commonly
referred to as the Department of Defense ``catalog.'' Of these, well
over 18,400 records correspond to well-tracked, well-understood RSOs in
Earth-centric orbit, roughly 1,300 of which are operational satellites;
the rest are so-called ``space junk.'' The remaining records in
USSTRATCOM's active space situational awareness database are not as
well-tracked or understood, which creates uncertainty when operational
satellites are screened against them to identify possible spaceflight
safety hazards, or conjunctions. The number of RSOs is increasing given
an increase in launches, and on-orbit breakup events (i.e., when one
RSO collides with another, a satellite explodes, or breaks on its own
due to space aging and material fatigue and stresses). If we could
track every detected object, we could wrap a sensible Space Traffic
Management system around that and even develop empirically-based
policies and regulations. Unfortunately, it is hypothesized that we can
only track a few percent of the total number of RSOs that can cause
loss, disruption, or degradation to critical space services,
capabilities, and activities. In other words, we have an orbital
iceberg equivalent of sorts. The ability to track an object in space
depends on two main factors: our ability to detect the object AND our
ability to uniquely identify the object. This is to underscore that an
object that is detectable does not imply it is trackable, and this is a
critical distinction to make moving forward.
Tracking an object means that we know where it was, is, and have
some idea of what it is and where it will be. Think of how we track air
traffic, where the aircraft is in the custody of someone who monitors
its motion and relationship to other aircraft. The following Figure (1)
puts into perspective the problem we face in our inability to track
more of the objects we can detect. It was generated from real data
collected by the U.S. Space Surveillance Telescope, about to be shipped
to Exmouth, Australia. It is worth mentioning that while we will soon
have a long-awaited Space Fence on Kwajalein, the results are likely to
be much like with the Space Surveillance Telescope, as seen in Figure
1. When one has an exquisite sensor and it's unique, you'll get very
accurate observations during a very small part of the total orbit and
you'll be observing things that other sensors will not or cannot. Think
of a hula-hoop. An exquisite sensor is having one hand on this hoop.
Think about the variety of ways in which the hula-hoop can rotate if
you only grab it with one hand. This is like the ambiguity you will
have with a unique and exquisite sensor. It will help but you'll have a
large number of objects that you can detect but will be unable to
track.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. A Single Night's Worth of Resident Space Object (RSO
Detections (for various orbital regions) from the U.S. Space
Surveillance Telescope (SST) in New Mexico. Detections (dots) that are
Black are those believed to be from known (cataloged) RSOs. All else
(Cyan) are Detectable but Untrackable RSOs.
So, what prevents us from doing better at tracking objects in
space? First, we don't have ubiquitous observations, meaning we don't
persistently detect all objects all of the time. In fact, we generally
have very sparse observations on any given object in space. Globally,
we do not share observational data as a community. This lack of data
sharing is perhaps the single most problem in us having a more robust
space traffic monitoring and management capability. Secondly, every
single object in the world's largest space object catalog (that of our
DoD) is represented and modeled as a sphere, a cannonball in space!
Needless to say, there aren't many man-made cannonball-shaped objects
in space. Only those space objects whose motion is not significantly
different from that of a sphere in between observations, are ones we
can ``track.'' Gravity is what I call an equal opportunity accelerator:
just tell me where you are and I will tell you your acceleration due to
gravity, regardless of your size, shape, material constitution,
orientation, etc. However, there are non-gravitational forces
experienced by objects and all of these depend on the object's physical
characteristics. Thus, the lack of a rigorous object characterization
and classification scheme is a strong contributor to our inability to
track more objects in space. When we wish to understand any population
of things, we first ``tag'' individuals in that population and then
``track'' these individuals through time, space, frequencies, and
evaluate their interaction with other individuals and their
environment. We formulate hypotheses, test them, and draw conclusions
based upon evidence. We do not do this, rigorously and scientifically,
for space objects. If we wish to someday have a Code of Conduct for
Outer Space, we will need to know how many classes or species of space
objects there are, and how each class moves, behaves, is influenced by
the local environment, etc. Trucks carrying hazardous fuel are
regulated differently than Vespa scooters, Oil Tankers on our seas are
regulated differently than kayaks and canoes. So, why would we treat
all things in space as the same thing . . . cannonballs? The following
figure (2) is a cartoon to show the difference between the limitations
imposed by assuming space objects to be cannonball-like versus what
they actually are like.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2. Difference between the motion experienced by a spherical
(cannonball-like) space object and a satellite with realistic size,
shape, orientation, and material properties. For the sphere, the
acceleration due to the sun's effects are unidirectional. In reality,
our tracking data informs us that objects experience accelerations due
to the Sun's effects in 3-dimensional space (multi-directional).
Lastly, regarding our inability to track more objects in space, are
the mathematics and physics we use to process the observed data and
infer physical quantities regarding these objects. It really matters .
. . call these our algorithms. Our representation of uncertainties is
demonstrably and inarguably oftentimes flawed, unrealistic, and
inconsistent amongst our software and tools. The following figure (3)
shows a picture our current problem with having multiple detections at
multiple times and having to find clever methods of uniquely
identifying objects in order to make them go from detectable to
trackable. Most RSOs are defunct and therefore do not self-report their
identities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3. How to Uniquely Identify Space Objects from a Set of
Unidentified Detected Objects in Order to Make Detectable Objects,
Trackable. The method shown here is one of Multiple Hypothesis Testing
as a mechanism to decide which detections should be paired to which
objects.
If the RSO population was held constant, I'd say we'd have more
time on our hands to figure this all out. However, our global space
environment is on a path of suffering a Tragedy of the Commons given
that our Geospace belongs to all humans and that many space actors
behave according to their own self-interests without full consideration
of the impact of their space operations and activities on the whole
environment . . . our Space Commons!
As the cost of access to space is decreasing, the number of space
actors is increasing. It's like what the Transcontinental Railroad did
for helping businesses explode, connecting the East Coast and Western
Frontier. Just a few months ago, we saw a record-breaking 104
satellites being deployed by India's PSLV space capabilities.
Unfortunately, while they did assess potential collisions amongst these
104 satellites, no one performed analyses of potential collisions
between those 104 newly deployed satellites and the remainder of the
current RSO population. OneWeb just recently received the ``green
light'' from the FCC to equip LEO with over a thousand satellites that
will aim to provide global internet. SpaceX will surely be soon to
follow with a planned 4000 satellites.
As experienced in the Western Frontier of old, the environmental
impact of runaway mining and prospecting was harsh and detrimental in
many instances. Examples are mercury poisoning, silt in our water
sources, etc. Our space environment is becoming much more commercially
driven and populated. Many ``New Space'' companies or start-ups are
getting significant investment from Angel Investors and Venture
Capitalists who are focused on getting a Return On Investment (ROI)
within a few years, believing Space Traffic and Orbital Safety to be
someone else's problem. I have personally found an absence of space
operations expertise amongst the workforce driving some of these ``New
Space'' ventures, causing me further concern regarding orbital safety
and long-term sustainability of space activities. There is a mentality
of ``take risks and fail often.'' While this worked well for software
companies in Silicon Valley, we can't afford to have this exact
mentality in space.
Existing orbital safety methods, information, and processes are not
designed to handle the current space traffic conditions let alone the
planned activities with larger satellite constellations. There are no
standard ``rules of the road'' for space operations and activities, and
we should avoid creating these in a vacuum, absent informed science and
technology. While USSTRATCOM provides orbital safety products to the
world for free on behalf of the U.S. Government, for very good reasons
it cannot simultaneously be fully open and transparent and this is a
self-evident obstacle to meaningful international collaboration and
partnership due to its defensive responsibilities. I'm in full
agreement with Gen Hyten, Gen Raymond, Rep Bridenstine, Rep Babin, and
others in that a Civil Space Traffic Management (CSTM) system makes
good sense to enabling more innovative U.S. space operations into the
future.
A government-only solution makes no sense given that transparency,
open sharing, ease of working with international partners, etc. is a
strenuous situation for the U.S. Government at best. The government
also lack the full spectrum of expertise required to do this job
exceptionally well. A commercial-only solution makes no sense because
no single entity has the solution to such a multi-disciplinary problem,
nor does it have all the expertise required. Moreover, funding a
company or consortium of companies to do this is likely to result in an
inability for external input to be well received and incorporated. I've
witnessed and experienced this, many times, as a Civil Servant.
Therefore, I propose that the best solution moving forward would be
to create a Non-profit Civil Space Traffic Management (CSTM) Public-
Private-Partnership (PPP) that will:
Accelerate the pace and reduce the costs of CSTM development
by modernizing approaches to SSA and STM, with focus on long-
term sustainability of space activities, through the creation
of new federated data standards, measurement standards, models
and ontologies, open source software, and data management and
analysis techniques that aid in the scientific evaluation of
the efficacy and safety of space operations, and attendant
policies.
Act as a neutral public-private entity that could create
consortia of industry, academia, and government for
collaboration and sharing of databases, computational
techniques, and standards.
Operate a CSTM system that provides the accuracies and
products necessary to safely enable innovative and non-
traditional commercial uses of space.
The CSTM Mission should be to:
Assure the safety of operations in space.
Maximize, encourage, and incentivize the use of commercial
capabilities and data sources.
Provide transparency, advocacy of informed guidelines, and
safety services as a public good to preserve the space
environment.
The CSTM Primary Functions would be to:
Observe and Monitor: Space Domain and Traffic Observations,
Space Situational Awareness (SSA)
Track and Catalog: Identify, Characterize, and Catalog
Objects; Relational Statistics, Catalog Updates, Traffic
Attribution, Achieve Track ``Custody''
Analyze and Inform: Information Dissemination, Safety
Products, Conjunction Data Messages
The Tenants of a Non-Profit CSTM Public Private Partnership (PPP)
would be to provide and incentivize:
Open observational data--All collected or acquired data will
be made open and available for 3rd party analysis to improve
learning and enable high Quality of Service domain analysis.
Open catalog of space objects and events--All derived
conclusions from CSTM data will be made open and available for
3rd party verification and peer-review of results and
conclusions.
Open Safety Advisory Services--As these services are
intended to be a global public good, they will be made
available to the world.
Open and objective verification of data and analyses--As the
CSTM capabilities and processes improve, impartial feedback
will be made available to all service providers in the spirit
of achieving increasingly effective Quality of Service.
Open Market--It is not the role of the FAA to define the
economics of the data and/or analysis marketplace. The intent
of the CSTM PPP is to empower industry to stay involved in the
provision of service to all space domain actors.
Open Workforce Development--It is to the benefit of all for
the specialized skills required of effective space traffic
managers to proliferate globally. To this end this CSTM PPP
will support mechanisms which result in the education of
additional skilled space traffic managers and analysts.
The Benefits of a CSTM PPP are that it would:
Provide standard and benchmark data sets that enable
quantifiably consistent comparative analyses between competing
tools, techniques, and algorithms.
Provide the government with a transparent mechanism to guide
and exploit CSTM activities and capabilities AND a sustained/
focused investment in STEM education.
Provide industry with a free foundational CSTM service and a
marketplace of focused, cost-shared and openly available
sciences and technologies that it can ``pick up'' and
operationalize/commercialize for its own profit.
Provide academia with a sustained scientific and
technological CSTM research and educational investment, to
ensure that the U.S. is stocked with capable and skilled
workforce to handle the scientific and technological problems
of tomorrow.
How does industry profit from such an activity, financially? It can
easily wrap profit-making services around the foundational ``for public
good'' layer of orbital safety services and products. It lowers the bar
for entry for new space initiatives as they don't need to shoulder the
burden of self-providing of these orbital safety services. It's like
the benefit of the U.S. developed, owned, and operated Global
Positioning System (GPS)! Think of not only the paradigm-changing
science but explosion of commerce that has resulted from this U.S.
Government investment and service. Many companies have developed
profit-making applications which exploit the layer of foundational
service provided by GPS.
I also propose that the FAA's Center of Excellence in Commercial
Space Transportation be leveraged as an existing mechanism under which
a larger academic consortium could be assembled, invested in, and
properly leveraged for Space Traffic Management. The current FAA CoE
CST membership would need to be expanded upon and increased but focused
funding would need to be appropriated and delivered to the CoE with a
strategic roadmap on how the S&T is developed and transitioned to both
government and industry. Several University Affiliated Research Centers
(UARCs) should also be invoked, invested in, and leveraged, to be
foundational partners in this STM research and development effort. The
UARCs could provide foundational capabilities and sciences to the FAA
CoE CST and those CoE academic members could then focus them uniquely
on STM needs and requirements, working closely with the government and
commercial communities.
Two remaining points for me to make are (1) our society has become
too risk averse. We say that we want to push the boundary of
exploration except that we are intolerant to failure. This is a gross
inconsistency. You can't have leading edge exploration with zero
failure. Failure should be calculated but embraced as a necessity of
pushing the limits of our science and technology. We maintain a leading
edge by assuming and embracing risk. We would have never gotten man to
the moon and back, safely, without taking risks! Had we not achieved
this lunar exploration first and convincingly, our world would be quite
different today, and I'm not sure it would be for the better. (2) I
have been asked if the U.S. Government should take great strides in
providing security clearances to as many academics as possible. My
answer is, ``no.'' Instead, put the effort in declassifying material
that should have never been classified to begin with and material that
no longer requires it. In other words, make as much information
available to the largest pool of smart and passionate people as
possible, without sacrificing national security needs, and our country
will emerge victorious!
The motto of my research program at UT Austin, ASTRIA, is:
Ex Coelestis, Scientia . . . Nihil Arcanum Est! This loosely
translates to, ``from the heavens, knowledge . . . nothing hides!''
As Ever,
Moriba K. Jah, Ph.D.
Associate Professor,
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Cockrell School of Engineering,
The University of Texas at Austin.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Dr. Jah.
Mr. Cabana.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. CABANA, DIRECTOR,
JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Cabana. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Senator
Nelson, thank you for this opportunity to appear today to
discuss NASA's public-private partnerships enabling commercial
space. I submitted a statement for the record, but I've got a
few remarks.
Since the end of the Shuttle program in July 2011, the
Kennedy Space Center has gone through a major transformation,
establishing itself as the Nation's premier multiuser
spaceport, enabling both government and commercial operations
to and from low-Earth orbit and beyond. This would not have
been possible without the authorities granted by law that
allowed us to establish the public-private partnerships that
have totally reshaped KSC and Florida Space Coast. And I would
like to thank Senator Nelson for his help in support of this
effort.
Following the last flight of the Space Shuttle, KSC
performed a thorough evaluation of all its facilities,
identifying those necessary to support the Space Launch System
and Orion, those that were excess and could support commercial
operations, and those that were no longer needed and could be
razed, thus, reducing our operating costs and becoming more
cost efficient and effective.
Using a notice of availability in 2011, KSC went out to the
commercial space industry to see who might be interested in
operating and maintaining the excess facilities not scheduled
for demolition. Working directly with the commercial space
industry, and in partnership with Space Florida, KSC now has
SpaceX, Boeing, and the Air Force all operating from former
Shuttle facilities. And in Exploration Park, a research and
development park, on Kennedy property, but outside the secure
perimeter, Blue Origin is now building a manufacturing facility
approximately half the volume of the Vehicle Assembly Building
for their New Glenn rocket, and OneWeb is building a satellite
manufacturing facility.
These partnerships are not successful just because of the
unique facilities made available, but also because of the
effort made to allow our commercial partners as much autonomy
as possible in their day-to-day operations.
Public-private partnerships work. Instead of having these
facilities rust away in the salt air, we have enabled a vibrant
and diverse commercial-government operation on the Space Coast
that has already seen eight successful launches by SpaceX this
year.
The International Space Station is a unique National
Laboratory in low-Earth orbit that provides a destination for
our commercial partners: Orbital ATK and SpaceX for resupply
under the Commercial Resupply Services Contract, and Sierra
Nevada Corporation, under CRS-2, as well as the destination for
the Commercial Crew Program for Boeing and SpaceX, who will be
flying crews to the International Space Station on test flights
next year.
The NASA investment in ground systems to launch deep space
exploration systems creates enormous synergies with private
investment, leading to our shared future in space. As we move
deeper into space with SLS and Orion, NASA is looking to expand
our public-private partnerships through Next Space Technologies
for Exploration Partnerships-2, or NextSTEP-2, where in August
of last year, six companies were selected to develop prototypes
or concepts for deep space habitats.
Public-private partnerships have worked well at KSC and
across the agency. In order for us to be a successful nation,
we need both government and commercial space integrated
together. KSC is committed to successfully meeting NASA's
mission needs and continuing to grow as a multiuser spaceport.
In all of human history, only three nations have sent
humans to space: the United States, Russia, and China. Today,
at the Kennedy Space Center, there are four United States
companies building hardware and infrastructure to launch humans
to orbit: Blue Origin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and SpaceX. I
think that's pretty darn amazing and something that we can be
proud of as a nation, and public-private partnerships have
played a key role in making that happen.
Thank you for your time. And I look forward to your
questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabana follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert D. Cabana, Director, John F. Kennedy Space
Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Chairman Cruz, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss NASA's public-private partnerships and enabling commercial
space.
Since 1962, when it was formally established as NASA's Launch
Operations Center, the Agency's John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has
helped set the stage for America's adventure in space. From the early
days of Project Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo to the Space Shuttle and
International Space Station (ISS) programs, from the Hubble Space
Telescope to the Mars rovers, KSC enjoys a rich heritage in its vital
role as NASA's processing and launch center.
Today, KSC is upgrading its ground systems in preparation for
America's next great spaceflight endeavor--the exploration of deep
space beyond low-Earth orbit with the Space Launch System and Orion.
KSC's Ground Systems Development and Operations Program has transformed
Launch Complex 39B to support the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift
vehicle and the Orion crew vehicle and the overall Exploration Systems
Development work for human exploration of deep space. By the end of
this calendar year, the construction of all the hardware and facilities
necessary to support the processing and launch of the SLS and Orion
will be complete and validation testing will ensue. The Orion
spacecraft for Exploration Mission-1 is currently being built in the
recently refurbished Operations and Checkout Building High Bay, and
Launch Complex 39 will be ready to support the first test flight of the
SLS and Orion in 2019.
In keeping with the history of terrestrial exploration, Government-
led space exploration has enabled the rise of private sector space
ventures that build off of Government-emplaced infrastructure. Since
the end of the Space Shuttle Program in 2011, KSC has utilized public-
private partnerships to establish itself as the Nation's premiere
multi-user spaceport, supporting both Government and commercial flights
to and from low-Earth orbit and beyond. With the extension of the
International Space Station to at least 2024, the Commercial Crew
Program is working diligently with our commercial providers, Boeing and
SpaceX, to carry astronauts on flight tests to the Space Station from
United States soil in 2018. Meanwhile, our Launch Services Program
continues to procure and manage the commercial launch services needed
to launch NASA's scientific, weather, and communications satellites, as
well as robotic missions into the solar system and beyond. We have been
successful in numerous commercial partnerships that have been
instrumental in revitalizing underutilized facilities at no cost to
NASA and taxpayers, while enabling commercial space operations.
NASA and KSC are moving forward into a new era of human spaceflight
with activities in both low-Earth orbit and deep space, and we are
committed to partnering with industry to enable commercial spaceflight
companies to manufacture, process, and launch their systems from the
Space Coast.
KSC's Philosophy on Public-Private Partnerships
Following the 2004 decision to end the Space Shuttle Program, it
became clear that many of the facilities utilized to support the
Shuttle would not be required to support SLS or Orion. Therefore, NASA
conducted an assessment of the $2.7 billion worth of Shuttle assets to
identify those we needed and those we did not. As a result of that
assessment, KSC was able to determine which of those facilities should
be demolished and which should be candidates for partnerships with
outside entities. In 2010, KSC created what is now known as the Center
Planning and Development (CPD) directorate to manage the strategic
planning for this transition. CPD is tasked with developing partnering
opportunities with Federal and non-Federal entities, including broadly
announcing opportunities seeking partners to use KSC assets, as well as
evaluating unsolicited partnership offers and ensuring that proposed
partners offer value compatible with NASA's vision and strategic goals.
Using this process, KSC was able to (1) leverage underutilized
facilities to help U.S. companies develop new capabilities, reduce the
cost of space activities, and create jobs on the Space Coast, while (2)
preserving and revitalizing critical NASA assets by transitioning
financial responsibility for those facilities to our partners.
KSC's Partnerships
Through a January 2011 Notice of Availability, NASA sought to
identify potential outside interest in KSC assets that the Agency
determined to be partially or fully available for other users at the
conclusion of the Space Shuttle Program. The Notice sought to ensure
broad awareness and visibility of the anticipated opportunities for
partnerships between NASA and industry and other non-Federal public
entities. NASA's purpose in pursuing such partnerships was to maximize
utilization of KSC's unique infrastructure, while minimizing the
Center's operations and maintenance (O&M) burden, and to enable
commercial space operations.
KSC's partnership efforts have resulted in agreements of varying
sizes with commercial entities, universities, as well as Federal,
state, and local government for physical assets and services. The types
of services range from providing launch sites to access to technical
capabilities. KSC has been able to use our extensive launch vehicle and
processing expertise to enhance the success of our commercial partners.
Looking across the KSC landscape, you can visually see the
construction and modifications that Blue Origin, Boeing, Florida Power
and Light (FPL), OneWeb, Space Florida, SpaceX, the U.S. Air Force and
others have made to grow the industry on the Space Coast. Blue Origin
is building a 750,000 square foot manufacturing facility, just outside
of KSC's secure area in Exploration Park, which is about half the
volume of our historic Vehicle Assembly Building.
All three former Orbiter Processing Facilities house new
spacecraft, the former Shuttle main engine shop is being used by Boeing
to manufacture the service modules for its CST-100 Starliner
spacecraft, and the former Processing Control Center will be used to
monitor on-site spacecraft manufacturing and processing and throughout
mission phases.
FPL currently is using 60 acres of former orange grove as a solar
field to produce 10 megawatts of power to supply the grid. As part of
our agreement, FPL built a one-megawatt solar field for NASA to offset
our energy costs. FPL is responsible for the O&M of the solar field for
30 years.
OneWeb Satellites is building a 150,000-square-foot factory in the
Exploration Park. OneWeb, in partnership with Airbus' American branch,
intends to build 2,000 satellites that will form a constellation
capable of wirelessly connecting every portion of the world to the
Internet.
SpaceX commenced launches from Launch Complex 39A in February of
this year. Amidst launches, they are modifying the launch pad to
support future commercial crew missions aboard the company's Crew
Dragon, as well as future Falcon Heavy launches.
In 2013, NASA selected Space Florida to take over operations at the
Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF). Through this partnership, KSC's 15,000-
foot runway can be converted to accommodate a wide range of users,
supporting Government and commercial needs, while removing NASA's
responsibility to maintain the associated facilities.
NASA has also selected Orbital ATK to negotiate an agreement under
which it will occupy and operate from Vehicle Assembly Building High
Bay 2, and negotiations are underway to use other processing
facilities. These facilities are some of the largest on KSC and
contribute significantly to the Center's O&M costs. NASA seeks to build
on that success by continuing to search for opportunities to partner
with outside organizations to reduce Government costs and enable the
aerospace industry.
International Space Station
As NASA's processing and launch center, KSC is the gateway to the
Station along with the Wallops Flight Facility. NASA is continuing to
develop initiatives to use the Station to enable increased commercial
investment and to transition to more public-private partnership models.
The Center for the Advancement of Science In Space manages the
activities of the ISS National Laboratory to increase the utilization
of the Space Station by other Federal entities and the private sector.
National Laboratory partners can use the unique microgravity
environment of space and the advanced research facilities aboard
Station to enable investigations that may give them the edge in the
global competition to develop valuable, high-technology products and
services.
Under the original Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts,
our two commercial cargo partners, SpaceX and Orbital ATK, provide
cargo deliveries to Station. Through CRS contract modifications, KSC
has been able to provide processing support of Orbital ATK's fourth,
sixth, and seventh Cygnus cargo resupply missions to the Space Station.
This opportunity enabled Orbital ATK to capitalize on the Center's
expertise and infrastructure while also enabling the use of an
alternate launch vehicle for cargo resupply missions to enhance
operational flexibility. KSC also is currently looking at future
partnership opportunities with Sierra Nevada Corporation as part of the
follow-on CRS-2 contract.
NASA's commercial crew providers, Boeing and SpaceX, are developing
the Starliner and Crew Dragon spacecraft, respectively. These companies
have made significant progress toward returning crew launches to the
United States, and NASA anticipates having these capabilities in place
by 2019 to regularly fly astronauts on operational missions safely to
and from Station. The crew and cargo vehicles, as well as the launch
vehicles developed by these providers, have the potential to support
future commercial enterprises as well.
It is NASA's intention to transition low-Earth orbit operations to
private platforms and capabilities enabled by commercial markets,
academia, and Government agencies, including NASA, that have an
interest in and need for research and activities there. NASA continues
to seek ways to further commercialize operations on the International
Space Station. The next payload processing contract, Research,
Engineering, Mission and Integration Services or REMIS, will enable the
design and conduct of science operations in low-Earth orbit by the
commercial market. The contract is targeted to be awarded July 2017.
Deep Space
NASA looks forward to expanded partnerships as we leave low-Earth
orbit and head for deep space. In August 2016, NASA selected six United
States companies to help advance our mission to put humans deeper into
our solar system by developing ground prototypes and concepts for deep
space habitats.
Through the public-private partnerships enabled by Next Space
Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2, NASA and industry partners
will expand commercial development of space in low-Earth orbit while
also improving deep space exploration capabilities to support more
extensive human spaceflight missions.
Expandable habitats are one such concept--they require less payload
volume on the rocket than traditional rigid structures, and expand
after being deployed in space to provide additional room for astronauts
to live and work inside. The Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM)
is the first human-rated expandable habitat to be tested in space.
During its two-year demonstration attached to the Station's Tranquility
port, crew members will routinely enter the habitat to take
measurements and monitor its performance to help inform future designs
of habitat systems. BEAM will be tested to see how it performs in the
thermal environment of space and how it reacts to radiation,
micrometeoroids and orbital debris.
Government and Industry
Public-private partnerships have worked well at KSC and across the
Agency. In order for us as a Nation to be successful, we need both
Government and commercial space exploration. For instance, industry's
vital role in low-Earth orbit transportation has lowered development
and launch costs, and enabled NASA to invest in uncharted territories,
like new technologies and deep space exploration. The work we do
together and the lessons learned that we share are essential for the
United States space economy.
Conclusion
KSC is committed to successfully meeting NASA's mission
requirements and continuing to grow in its role as a multi-user
spaceport that launches NASA's deep space exploration missions and
catalyzes the continued growth and development of the commercial space
industry. The long-term strategy to expand United States access to
space and stimulate the development of the domestic launch industry
continues to gain traction and minimize operating costs. NASA remains
committed to meeting our Nation's goals in deep space human exploration
with careful stewardship of our critical resources and wise investment
of taxpayer dollars. NASA is making strides toward these goals with
KSC's transformation into a multi-user spaceport of the future, where
both Government and commercial space operations can be conducted and
support one another.
In all of human history only three nations (United States of
America, Russia, and China) have launched humans into space. Today at
the Kennedy Space Center, there are four United States commercial
companies building systems to launch people from the Space Coast (Blue
Origin with the Space Vehicle, Boeing with the CST-100 Starliner,
Lockheed Martin with NASA's Orion, and SpaceX with the Crew Dragon).
This is an amazing time for our Nation, and one that I am proud to say
that we have enabled at KSC.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Cabana.
And thank you to each of you for your testimony.
In the last Congress, this committee worked with our
counterparts in the House to enact the U.S. Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act. One of the major components of that
legislation was the continuation of the regulatory moratorium,
preventing the FAA from implementing regulations governing
commercial space flight that would affect the operations of the
crews' transportation capabilities currently under development.
While there is a regulatory moratorium right now pertaining to
the FAA--and this is a question to any of the witnesses--can
any of you identify for this committee any regulations that in
your judgment are having a negative impact on the industry that
Congress should examine?
Dr. Jah. Yes. Thank you. Right now, there's a policy issue
that needs to be fixed with regards to commercial companies
being able to go up in orbit and provide space situational
awareness data to folks. Other countries can do that; we can't
yet. And NOAA has to provide a waiver for these companies to be
able to do that. Unfortunately, there are reasons that some
people feel, well, we should really take a look at this to
figure out the best way forward, but I think that that will be
something, a positive thing that could be done, is to remove
that barrier because I think that's a severe hindrance in us
being able to monitor and understand what's going on in space.
Senator Cruz. OK. That's helpful.
Anyone else?
Mr. Hughes. With respect to launch and reentry, this is
governed by the FAA. And SpaceX, for instance, has 70 launches
on manifest. Nearly all of them will be commercially licensed.
The cadence and pace with which we are now launching, combined
with startup companies and other companies that will be
offering launch from the United States very soon, gives rise to
concerns that the existing regulatory regime isn't rightsized
for this volume of launch. So we want to make sure that the FAA
has the right resources to carry out the launches and not be an
inhibitor to growth in this business.
We also think the time is ripe for the FAA to go back and
scrub the Part 400 regulations that are used for launch and
reentry. They were written at a time where the United States
might be launching six to eight times a year. They aren't
really rightsized at this point for the volume that we're
talking about. And here we're talking about things like
transitioning from one-off boutique licenses to mission
authorizations for missions that look similar in nature, and
moving rapidly toward a recognition that the cadence of pace
and launch dictates a new approach by the FAA. And here's--this
is an area where we think a re-review would be quite helpful.
Senator Cruz. Now, when you talk about rightsizing, are you
focused on dollars and manpower, or do you think there need to
be structural changes as well?
Mr. Hughes. Primarily focusing on dollars and manpower,
but, you know, I think any sort of study on this should look to
the way to optimize any structure.
Senator Cruz. Another significant component of the
Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act was extending the
life of the International Space Station to 2024. It is not
clear from a technical perspective when we will reach the end
of life of the ISS. However, to ensure that our national space
program doesn't face a gap in capability post-ISS similar to
what we are experiencing post-Space Shuttle, the NASA
Transition Authorization Act of 2017 instructed NASA to come up
with a plan so that at some point we can have a smooth
transition from the ISS to our next capability.
To each of the witnesses, in your judgment, what will our
national space program look like post-ISS? And do you have any
recommendations for what the next major capability should be?
Mr. Manber. Obviously, I spend little time thinking about
that. Thank you, Senator.
As we look out in the next decade, we don't think there
will ever be a facility in low-Earth orbit like the
International Space Station. You can tell it was built by
governments. I mean, it's just large, it's connected. So if you
want to do microgravity research, well, you don't really maybe
want visiting astronauts. It's just everything is together in
one place.
So logically, as you look out, you see a multiplicity of
commercial platforms, some unmanned for in-space manufacturing.
We are focused on in-space manufacturing deployment. Some will
be for professional astronauts, warehouses, fuel depots,
stepping stones as we go to deep space. We're looking at
supporting ventures like Blue Origin and Orion as they go
further out into deep space. We're looking at it with factories
and warehouses.
So the answer to your question is I think we're going to
see a multiplicity of commercial platforms, less expensive,
dedicated to one use, just as you have on the Earth.
Senator Cruz. Anyone else?
Mr. Hughes. I share the view that low-Earth orbit will
become a place where there are multiple platforms. There are a
number of companies working on really exciting technologies for
space habitats, whether in conjunction with the International
Space Station, if it goes in the direction of privatization, or
independent of the International Space Station. And to
Jeffrey's point, this can be viewed as a stair step into deeper
space exploration needs.
So when we talk about the U.S. enterprise after the
International Space Station, I think it's important to think
about a sustained human presence out further whether it's the
Moon or Mars, SpaceX's focus, we've made no mistake about it,
is focused on Mars. It's really one of the reasons for our
being, to put human boots on Mars.
And NASA's program right now is focused on Mars as well.
And we think there are complementary things that could occur to
make sure that there is a sustainable presence on Mars long
term, for instance, large cargo carriage to Mars to put the
resources in place that would allow permanent human presence.
That's not something that's currently in the trade space, and
it might be something that would be really ripe for a prize or
for a public-private partnership that sets a high-level
requirement against which companies could bid to demonstrate
their capability to do that.
Senator Cruz. OK. Very good.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Cabana, do you believe that there is a risk that we
will lose key scientific and research capabilities in space if
we largely turn over functions closer to Earth to private
companies? What is the balance there to make sure that as a
nation we are guaranteed to have access to that knowledge?
Mr. Cabana. Yes, sir. Well, I think the International Space
Station has proven to be an outstanding test bed in preparing
the Nation to actually have a permanent presence in low-Earth
orbit to enable the commercial operations. I agree with the
other panel members that have said that, you know, eventually
it's NASA's goal to move out of low-Earth orbit. We know how to
do that, and utilizing the Space Station as a stepping stone to
enable operations to low-Earth orbit, I think we will establish
the commercial presence to allow NASA to focus on the more
challenging mission of exploring beyond our home planet.
So I think that as commercial space grows--and it's
critical that we have a transition from the International Space
Station and low-Earth orbit, that we continue to maintain that
presence. I think that we will be able to do science in low-
Earth orbit, and NASA will also participate in that science. It
won't be a NASA space station, hopefully it will be a
commercial space station that's up there as we transition, but
that doesn't mean that we won't continue to do science in low-
Earth orbit participating with our commercial partners. And I
think that's where these commercial-government--these private-
public partnerships are going to be critical to making that
happen.
Senator Markey. OK, great. Thank you. Now, how do you
believe the public would be best served by the National Lab
when the International Space Station is retired? Should it be
hosted by a new International Space Station or should it be
hosted by a private station, or should it be a public-private
partnership?
Mr. Cabana. Sir, I'm going to defer on that one to other
folks at NASA, and we'll give you a more detailed written
statement for the record rather than my opinion.
Senator Markey. Anyone out there have a view? Does SpaceX
have a view, Mr. Hughes?
Mr. Hughes. I think there's a natural progress for the
International Space Station to transition to a private venture.
When you look at the overall NASA budget, there is obviously a
significant outlay year after year for the International Space
Station. And if you want to do bigger things in space,
eventually you may transition off the International Space
Station into these broader goals. That said, the International
Space Station is, as Mr. Cabana indicated, a critical stepping
off point for deeper space exploration, and we shouldn't move
off it prematurely.
Senator Markey. Mr. Cabana.
Mr. Cabana. I would just like to enforce that point. I
think it's critical that we don't end the International Space
Station until we have established commercial operations in low-
Earth orbit. So right now the Space Station serves as a
critical destination for our commercial partners for both crew
and cargo as we develop this capability for commercial entities
to operate in low-Earth orbit.
Senator Markey. And what do you think a reasonable
timeframe would be, Mr. Cabana, for NASA reaching a conclusion
as to what makes the most sense for the next era?
Mr. Cabana. Well, again, I agree, you know--I support--it's
really good that we have until 2024, the Space Station would be
capable of going beyond that. Again, I think it's something
that we need to look at, and working with Bill Gerstenmaier in
NASA headquarters, we can give you a more detailed answer on
that.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Cabana.
Yes, Mr. Manber.
Mr. Manber. Yes. If I may say that as I said in my remarks,
that certainty is very important to us in the private sector.
And so it's almost less important to us whether it's 2024 or
2026, as at some point in the next several years, I call for
2019, we say if these conditions are met in the private sector,
we can see transitioning from current Station services so that
we're able to raise the capital and other requirements that are
necessary.
Senator Markey. So you're saying you don't want the
decision in 2024 or 2026, that in 2019, everyone can adjust to
the new----
Mr. Manber. If the decision is announced and let's say you
and Congress task NASA to say, ``What would be the
conditions?'' We would like to see that by 2019 where we in the
private sector can then begin to prepare and be ready by--I
think we'll be ready before 2024, but if the Station is there
to 2026 or 2028, fine, as long as we have certainty.
Senator Markey. Do you agree with that, Mr. Cabana, that
the sooner that kind of a policy can be established, the better
it will be for everyone, government and private sector?
Mr. Cabana. I think that it's important to work together
with the government, with Congress, and the private sector to
come up with a date that we want to transition from the Space
Station, but we have to ensure that there is something to
transition to.
Senator Markey. Exactly.
Mr. Manber. Exactly.
Senator Markey. Mr. Manber?
Mr. Manber. Yes, I would of course agree. I lived through
the Shuttle gap, and we're all living through it now, and given
the foreign interests as well, it's very important that the
United States does not give up its role in low-Earth orbit.
Senator Markey. So are you saying, Mr. Manber, but it's
better that we telescope the time-frame that it will take for
us to reach some certainty----
Mr. Manber. Yes.
Senator Markey.--because that plan would then most likely
unleash a lot of the capacity----
Mr. Manber. Yes, exactly.
Senator Markey.--which we have. So NASA has a stake.
Mr. Manber. Right.
Senator Markey. The American--yes.
Mr. Manber. And I'll say that I've been frankly pleasantly
surprised how serious NASA--we interface with the folks at
Johnson Space Center--how seriously they are taking this issue.
And we're speaking to them monthly about, ``How do you have,
let's say, an International Space Station and also have a
commercial platform at the same time? When does NASA give up
offering on Station certain services if we have a platform and
it also offers those services?''
These are complex issues. We recognize that. And I'm very
pleased at how much our NASA colleagues are looking into this,
but for us, it's certainty. We need private sector capital, and
the first thing they ask us is, ``When is the--,'' you know,
``What's the policy?''
Senator Markey. Can you explain that to me just a little
bit more? You're kind of saying that NASA is like a carnivorous
vegetarian. It's----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Manber. I wasn't aware I was doing that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. Well, in a way you were.
Mr. Manber. Yes. Well----
Senator Markey. You were saying, well--you know, there's an
old song, ``Did you ever have to make up your mind to choose as
to one and leave the other behind? Did you ever have to make up
your mind?'' And that's what you're saying, that that creates
more certainty in the private sector----
Mr. Manber. Yes.
Senator Markey.--because they know then what their
opportunities are, they can go to the capital markets and then
they can move. So can you just expand upon that a little bit?
Mr. Manber. Yes, yes. I mean, NASA and all the partners on
the International Space Station have done a tremendous job of
looking at, ``How do you utilize a station? What do we use it
for? How do we work together?'' And now they're looking at,
``How do you involve the private sector?'' So I give them full
credit for this mindset change.
But we've also identified at NanoRacks four to six markets
that are not silly markets like branding or advertising, but
certain in-space manufacturing and other markets we can't do on
the International Space Station. It's holding back the
development of in-space resources. It can't be done in the
Station because it's manned. It can't be done on the Station
because there are certain international requirements.
So as we look at further utilization, clearly there is a
sunset where the Station has proven itself. I mean, my
company's revenue is dependent on Station, so don't get me
wrong, I'm not being critical, but the Station is serving its
purpose, and we, in the private sector, believe in public-
private partnerships, we can offer commercial platforms, we
just need to know what you folks in Congress want from us.
Senator Markey. I understand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Dr. Jah, on January 11, 2007, China launched a ballistic
missile from Xichang Space Launch Center that aimed at a
nonoperative Chinese weather satellite, the Fengyun 1C,
completely destroying the satellite. The destruction of the
satellite created more than 3,000 pieces of space debris, the
largest ever tracked, and much of it is expected to remain in
orbit for decades. According to NASA, more than 21,000 orbital
debris larger than 10 centimeters are known to exist today.
For members of this committee who may not be as familiar
with space debris, could you please explain the current state
of space debris, how it is impacting space exploration, and
what steps Congress should consider taking to address this
issue?
Dr. Jah. Absolutely. Thank you very much. So, correct,
there are about 21,000 pieces of debris that the U.S. Strategic
Command tracks and maintains every day.
What are these things? Well, for one thing, most of the
things that we launch in space don't come back, and at the end
of their lives, it's almost like the car runs out of fuel, it
just stops wherever it stops, and then you go get another car
and you jump into that, and then you keep on driving. That's
the state of what's going on up there.
Now, are there highways in space? Absolutely. There are
certain orbital regimes that are being more and more impacted.
In fact, thank you, Mr. Cruz, for the example with the Chinese
ASAT test. At the sun synchronous altitude--so there are these
kind of Goldilocks places, places where the gravity field is
just right so that certain missions can be enabled for Earth
observation, for communication satellites, the geostationary
ring. So there are certainly Goldilocks kind of regimes. And
sun synchronous orbital altitudes are becoming more and more
congested.
Where the Chinese decided to do this was really a bad place
because it falls into that sun synchronous orbital regime, a
place where other people are trying to put satellites, like
OneWeb and SpaceX, and these sorts of things.
And so what it does is two things. One, because we don't
really understand the risk and we're not able to track
everything because the smaller pieces are very difficult to
track. I mean, 1-centimeter diameter pieces can be mission
catastrophic, and those are extremely difficult to track.
So we detect many things. We can't track everything for a
variety of reasons. Certain orbital altitudes are becoming more
congested. And, again, it's not so much the number of things
that we should be concerned about, but it's not being able to
predict where these things are going to be from one moment to
the next, and you have USSTRATCOM that are providing these free
services to the globe saying, ``We predict that at this time at
this place there is a likelihood of collision of two objects,''
so that operators can try to move out of the way.
But how many of those are real? How many of those would
actually happen? That's very difficult to calculate. And so
that's part of the problem when it comes to the debris. It's
increasing, it's not going down. There is no way to clean the
stuff up. The European Space Agency has something called Clean
Space, they're trying to identify different pieces of debris
that they can go and remove, but it's not economically feasible
to do that because it costs more to bring something down than
to put something up that works.
And politically, it's not very feasible because any given
nation that has a piece of debris assigned to them, they're the
sovereign owners of that piece of garbage, and so it becomes
problematic to just go up and clean other people's stuff.
Senator Cruz. So are there any steps we can take that would
be positive in terms of addressing this challenge?
Dr. Jah. Yes, sorry about that. So I think positive steps
are, one, monitor things more collaboratively. And what do I
mean by that? So USSTRATCOM has a Space Surveillance Network.
It collects these data and it tries to produce orbits for
things, but the actual sensor observations aren't shared.
They're not shared with other people for very good reasons.
Different countries have different sensors. And so everybody
has their own eyes, but we don't have all eyes together.
And so because we don't share these observations kind of
ubiquitously internationally and with other partners, I think
the first step is create a data lake where all these
observations can come together, expose it to as many people as
possible to analyze, and just infer things, and through the
exercise of the analysis and the inference, I think you're
going to end up with a better idea of what's up there and
understand that better.
Senator Cruz. So the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation has licensed ten spaceports in seven states
since 1996: two each in California, Florida, and Texas, and one
each in Oklahoma, Alaska, New Mexico, and Virginia. I wanted to
ask the witnesses, how is NASA working with these spaceports to
support or enable its missions? And what can NASA be doing
better?
Mr. Cabana. From a NASA point of view, we work very closely
with the Air Force and the FAA at the Kennedy Space Center to
make commercial operations a lot easier than they have been in
the past. I think we've got a great partnership with the FAA,
and especially the 45th Space Wing and General Monteith right
now as we work to make it easier to launch from KSC, what's
required for a commercial launch license, how the commercial
customers meet that requirement.
As far as operating away from NASA's Kennedy Space Center,
I'm not familiar with what NASA is doing in direct regards with
any other spaceport. Now, we're working with other commercial
customers to supply services for NASA, such as Virgin Galactic
in the future, and so on, and they'll be operating, of course,
out in New Mexico. So from that point of view, we work with the
commercial customers, not necessarily the spaceports
themselves.
Senator Cruz. Anyone else on this?
Mr. Hughes. I just wanted to echo some things in Mr.
Cabana's statement there. First of all, I read his statement
with great interest because it's remarkable the transition that
Kennedy Space Center has undertaken since Shuttle retirement in
2011. Bob and his team have done an amazing job bringing
commercial firms to Kennedy and getting us to a place where we
can operate effectively. And the cadence of launch that I
mentioned earlier that SpaceX is undergoing is a direct tribute
to the work that he and his team are doing. And that is true
relative to the Air Force, the 30 Space Wing and the 45th,
General Monteith, Colonel Hough.
I think one of our chief concerns relative to the ranges
and the spaceports is that there is infrastructure that could
probably use modernization: the roads, some of the bridges. The
electrical infrastructure at Vandenberg in particular is aging.
We've had situations in the past where actually the electricity
had gone out prior to a launch. And Senator Nelson has been
very active in helping to modernize the infrastructure at the
spaceports.
In order to keep the commercial companies running in
conjunction with NASA, I think additional modernization of
infrastructure would be quite helpful.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me come back to you, Mr. Manber, if I can. Your initial
partnership with NASA involved no funding from the agency to
your company, which when dealing with the government is quite
an innovative approach, and importantly, this meant that
NanoRacks assumed most of the risk of the arrangement and could
benefit from success, but protect taxpayers' dollars because
very few of them were exposed.
Can you talk about how you see that expanding in the years
ahead and what that could mean for as long as there is an
established understandable policy for, again, a more rapid
innovative era to unfold?
Mr. Manber. It's a great question, Senator, because there
are some things that governments do well and there are some
things that government does not do well. And one of the things
that government does well is provide some of the basic
infrastructure that the private sector cannot. And just as Mr.
Hughes was just alluding to, the infrastructure, the roads, in
space, we have the Space Station, and it's a foundation, it's a
platform. And what the private sector is doing through
companies like mine is we're leveraging that investment that
you've made on behalf of the taxpayer.
So really moving forward, I see the public-private
partnerships of the future being where there are occasions
where the government continues to provide an infrastructure. It
could be, for example, the lower cost or space transportation
that SpaceX and Dream Chaser and Orbital and others will be
doing, and leave it to the private sector to provide some of
the add-on services.
It could be, as we've talked about now with Orion, where
there are certain basic things that the government is
supporting, but the private sector, as I mentioned earlier,
provides the fuel depots, the warehouses, at our cost, and we
look to customers, whether it's in the government or whether
it's in the private sector, asteroid mining or whatever it
might be.
So some of my colleagues talk about this utopian view with
less government. I don't see that and I don't welcome that. We
need government, of course, as regulator, we need government as
provider of infrastructure. So I think we need to find the
right--I mean, look at aviation. I'll leave my expertise for a
moment and say in this country, the government provides the
safety officials, the FAA, and the air traffic controllers, and
the government helps maintain the airports, but the private
sector has the planes, sells the tickets, and worries that we
get home on Thanksgiving along with the government. So for me,
that's a model that may work in space as we move further out,
with the government providing the infrastructure and the
private sector selling the tickets.
Senator Markey. Mm-hmm. Interesting. Although there are
many who want the FAA to be privatized as well.
Mr. Manber. I said I was leaving my expertise.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. No, I appreciate that, provides this
Committee.
Mr. Manber. Yes.
Senator Markey. So, Mr. Hughes, could you speak to that
question of where you see the balance in the future?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, yes. So as we move into outside of low-
Earth orbit into deep space exploration, I think that there's
obviously a program of record right now that is NASA's central
focus for deep space exploration, but I think it can be readily
supplemented with public-private partnerships to allow us to
sustain a permanent presence in space. So I mentioned earlier
the idea of putting forward either prizes or high-level
requirements that companies can meet relative to maintaining
that human presence. One idea might be for the government to
put forward high-level requirements relative to large cargo to
Mars, or vertical takeoff and landing demonstrations on the
Moon, or perhaps even something like establishing a more robust
communications network that would enable more rapid and
efficient communication to and from Mars.
Senator Markey. Do you need a prize to do it----
Mr. Hughes. You don't----
Senator Markey.--or is the reward financially sufficient in
order to make sure once the rule is set, that it's more like
the Oklahoma Sooners, and they're just ready to go once they
know what the rules are? So do we really need a prize?
Mr. Hughes. No, I actually don't think a prize is
necessarily the right approach. A prize could be one way to
pursue it, but actually I think the preferable approach would
be a COTS-like program that I referenced in my testimony where
there would be some element of public-private partnership where
high-level requirements are set, companies put their own skin
in the game in conjunction with the government, and there's a
long-term market against which you work.
Senator Markey. Mm-hmm. Interesting. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
you and the Ranking Member holding this hearing. I think it's
a--you know, we've always got to look out to the future and be
inspired, and I think that's what we're trying to do here in a
lot of ways. And I appreciate the witnesses and all your
expertise on this important issue.
I wanted to ask about the importance of U.S. FAA-licensed
spaceports to commercial space launches. In Alaska, we have the
Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak. Actually, just yesterday,
you may have seen in the news, it conducted a THAAD missile
test that was very successful.
And can you give me from your perspective what the benefits
are from a commercial perspective of having these kind of--they
go into really one of the topics of the hearing, which is
really a public-private partnership approach, a little bit
different from, say, the Kennedy Space Center. But just your
thoughts on the importance of those kind of space complexes
that we have like, for example, in Kodiak?
Mr. Ellis. I can speak to that one. Thank you, Senator
Sullivan. So as Dr. Jah pointed out before, there are different
types of orbits, and there's kind of a Goldilocks zone that
different markets fit into. So for us, especially being a small
satellite launch company, and as OneWeb and SpaceX and these
companies are making constellations, that having a launch site
that is geography dependent to the technical requirements of
the customer is very important. So in Alaska, at the Kodiak
site you reference, you could reach what's called polar or sun
synchronous orbits----
Senator Sullivan. And it's the only non-government-owned
space complex that allows you to do that in the world, correct?
Mr. Ellis. I'm not sure about the world, but in the United
States that is true.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Ellis. There is also a military missile range in
Hawaii, Barking Sands, but they are doing more missile testing.
Senator Sullivan. But--go ahead.
Mr. Ellis. Yes. So it's just very important that we look at
markets and how they're changing and what needs customers have
because right now having a West Coast launch site that is
accessible other than Kodiak, it is a challenge.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you. Any other thoughts on
just kind of those kind of commercial space complexes, space
launch complexes, what they can do for our capability?
Mr. Hughes. So a little bit different than the spaceport
concept, I can speak to SpaceX's experience with launch sites.
So we have two launch sites at Cape Canaveral and one launch
site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and then a private launch
site under development in Texas. Our work at Vandenberg and at
Cape Canaveral has been critical, and we worked hand-in-glove
at the Cape with Mr. Cabana's team to establish processes by
which we can provide commercial launch, national security
launch, and NASA launch as well.
And in the absence of public-private partnerships like the
kind that enabled SpaceX to take on LC-39A, which is our newest
launch site, the former Shuttle site, we would be inhibited
from taking on the big manifest that we've acquired. Right now
we have 70 launches on manifest. We took more than 50 percent
of the global market last year for commercial satellite launch
away from the French and the Russians. And in the absence of
our commercial partnerships with NASA at both Kennedy and
Vandenberg, we would not be able to service that manifest. So
it's quite critical.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me broaden kind of a topic
here. Did any of you--did any of the witnesses see the movie
The Martian?
[Laughter.]
Senator Sullivan. So I took one of my daughters to see the
movie The Martian, and I'm not a Hollywood movie critic or
anything, but when you come out of a movie and your eighth
grade daughter says, ``Boy, I need to study math and science
more because that looks like that could be a real interesting
future,'' to me that was pretty inspiring and a pretty good
movie.
And what do you see we should be doing to try to inspire
the next generation of Americans beyond movies like that that
can get them interested in what this whole hearing is about,
which is kind of the future of space where, you know, in the
NASA days and the Apollo space mission days, every young
American was inspired? I think we've lost some of that, but we
can regain it.
You guys are the experts. What do you think beyond just a
good Hollywood movie we can be doing to inspire the next
generation of Americans to do more math and science and maybe
be on Mars in a couple decades? Yes. Anyone.
Dr. Jah. Yes. So thank you, Senator Sullivan. I think first
and foremost, one of the things that--you mentioned Apollo and
that sort of inspiration. Those were days of what I would call
real exploration where we strapped on the idea of taking risk.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Dr. Jah. I think we've become very risk averse----
Senator Sullivan. And why? Why did--after the Shuttle
accidents and things like----
Dr. Jah. Yes. So the thing is, you know, taxpayers say, ``I
want to know where my dollars are going. I want guaranteed
success as much as possible.'' And when you start levying those
requirements of it has to be successful or else--I mean, JPL
had a couple failures as well with Mars when I worked at JPL.
And so when you levy that requirement, that really turns into
doing the last thing that you did that worked, and that is not
really pushing the boundary of exploration. And I think
allowing NASA to go back to those days of you're in a risk
retirement kind of mentality, and, you know, some bad things
are going to happen and some lives are likely to be lost, I
think strapping on that idea of risk to get out there and
explore, I think that's the thing that will inspire our next
generation, is to see bold moves and not just argument upon
argument and incremental kind of things, but just bold, ``We're
going to do this and we're committed to it, and it's just going
to happen.''
Senator Sullivan. By the way, the Chairman and I are very
interested in missile defense, and we hear that a lot from our
experts in the missile defense area, that the risk of failure
really inhibits us from making significant advances.
Anyone else on that question? I know--sorry, Mr. Chairman,
is that all right?
Senator Cruz. Take your time.
Senator Sullivan. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Cabana. I would like to add to that, sir. I think
taking risk is important, I just want to take informed risk. I
want to understand the risk that I'm taking and mitigate it as
best as possible. Our Visitors Center at the Kennedy Space
Center, it's totally run by--there are no appropriated dollars
that run it.
Last year, we set a record for the number of visitors that
we had, 1.6 million, and we're on track to beat that this year.
There is great interest in space. And I go over there on a
regular basis, and I'll just walk up to kids and ask them,
``Hey, how did you enjoy your day?'' and it's the exact right
mix of entertainment, but also learning. And they are truly
inspired when they see what's going on, when they see our
history, but they also get a chance to see what our future is.
And I think to continue to generate that interest in students
today to pursue math and science, we need to continue on the
path we're on.
We have to continue having launches at the Cape. I don't
care what rocket it is or what's on it. Anytime a rocket ship
leaves planet Earth, that is an inspiring experience, and
people walk away from it motivated and enthused and wanting to
be part of what we're doing.
I think we're on the right track. We just need to follow
through, continue to build on what we've done, continue to have
commercial launches, to have an exploration program for NASA to
go beyond planet Earth to work in partnership with our
commercial companies to make that happen. I think we're doing
all the right things and we've just got to press ahead.
And I want to make--I read the book, the book is a lot
better than the movie, but I saw the movie, too. I want to make
The Martian happen for real.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Cabana. Everything except that part for the story at
the beginning----
Senator Sullivan. Yes, we don't want to leave Matt Damon on
Mars.
Mr. Cabana. I don't want to leave anybody behind. But----
Senator Cruz. Do you have someone in mind that you want to
leave there?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cabana. No, but I volunteer to go. I'm ready. I think
we need to continue to pursue this bold path that we're on and
continue to have the success that we're having, and that's
going to continue to generate this interest in math and
science.
Senator Sullivan. Anyone else?
Mr. Manber. Yes. Sorry. If I may make two quick comments.
The first is on the risk aspect, one of the toughest things at
NanoRacks was getting NASA and the Space Station program early
on to recognize that failure was OK as long as it didn't hurt
the safety of the crew. And they were just so focused that we
had to build the customers' payloads so it would work 100
percent of the time, but the customer didn't want to pay that
cost. And maybe they get 70 percent of their results, as long
as it didn't--and today we're at a point with the Space Station
program where they understand failures on the private sector
side. If I don't get the hardware to work, my customer doesn't
pay me. And so we're reaching a very interesting balance with
NASA now.
On the education, let me say that one of the biggest
surprises for NanoRacks when we started was our early customers
were educational schools, and it's gotten to be such a huge
program for us that we've created a new company, a public
benefits company, called DreamUp. And it's separate from us.
And we've flown four or five schools in Texas, in Houston.
We've flown I think it's something like 40 high schools, we've
flown high schools in Israel, 160 congressional districts of
schools, with no NASA funding. And some of the parents have
bake sales, they get together, they get local--the Subaru
dealers, gives them sponsorship.
And so I can tell you that in the trenches out there, you
know, in the small towns, the enthusiasm for space and
education and research is huge, and that DreamUp is growing
significantly, and it's wonderful, and there is no government
funding.
Senator Sullivan. Great. That's great to hear. Anyone else
on that important topic?
Mr. Ellis. Yes, yes, I can speak to it. So as CEO of
Relativity, I am humbled to speak on behalf of all of venture-
backed startups. I can definitely tell you if you're getting
venture capital, you do not dream small, you dream big, and you
take huge risks, and you're looking for outsized returns.
So I think that setting an example, you know, myself, being
a 27-year-old co-founder of a space company that's now tested
rocket engines at NASA Stennis Space Center, that I hope to be
an inspiration for other people, and that members that join our
team at Relativity and all of the other venture-backed startups
are able to see that success, and having more winners will
actually inspire people to go make that reality happen
themselves.
Senator Sullivan. Great.
Mr. Hughes. And I'll jump in as well. So SpaceX's goal,
stated goal, for years now is to make humanity a multi-
planetary species, a rather lofty goal, and it's one that we
deeply believe in, and it drives almost every decision that we
make within the company. And so I think setting big goals like
that is critical.
And the way that the government can help to encourage this
through public-private partnerships are to set high-level
requirements and not tell companies how to complete them, but,
rather, establish the requirements, partner with the companies
to get them done and to get them in a way that is rapid and
efficient, safe and reliable. There are a number of
opportunities I think that we've got out to the right here to
complement our existing program to get to Mars that can rely
upon commercial capabilities, set these big goals, let private
capital work in conjunction with government money to achieve
these goals, and get it done in 4 to 8 years.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this
hearing. And I didn't get a--are you a fan of The Martian as
well?
Senator Cruz. I am, although an even more important
technological innovation, if any of you could develop a
lightsaber----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz.--I think that would truly energize interest
in space exploration.
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. I think
this was a productive hearing, a helpful hearing, with a lot of
good, positive suggestions that came out of it.
The hearing record is going to remain open for 2 weeks.
During this time, any Senators that have follow-up questions
for the record, they're asked to submit them for the record,
and upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their
written answers to the Committee as soon as possible.
And with that being said, thank you again. This is hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Jeffrey Manber
Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships
Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I
included in the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the
Department of Defense (DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among
other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited
satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When
the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial
partnerships can--where appropriate--play a key role in filling these
needs.
What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you
from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S.
space capabilities, like the domain awareness and communications gaps
in the Arctic?
Answer. There are challenges to working with the U.S. Government,
but in more cases than before there is a mutual understanding that the
commercial community can provide services, rather than hardware. And
these services are economically efficient, and place the burden of risk
not on the taxpayer but on the commercial organization. We are moving
the scale of the needed public private partnerships more to the private
sector. We at NanoRacks welcome that. But challenges remain. They are
contractual and they are challenges of mindset. To many in the USG,
small is still not desirable. Whether small hardware or smaller budget.
It is changing, but it remains an obstacle. Also contractual. For a
company like NanoRacks some of the key programs require an onramp that
is thousands of pages long and require dedicated proposal writers who
understand the jargon. During the Mercury and Gemini and Apollo days,
some of the contracts were several pages long. We need a return to
that. Here is what the USG needs. Please provide. If you don't provide,
you don't get paid. If you do provide, here is the rate.
Internet Access in Rural Areas
Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and
many times are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy
telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are
extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity hinders business growth
and increased economic activity.
Commercial space provides the possibility of increased
communications, including satellite-based broadband internet, at a
reduced cost. Especially if the cost of launches continues to decline,
this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places
like Alaska.
How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-
level Internet to the most rural areas?
Answer. First off, commercial space offers a diversification of in-
space opportunities. To be specific, this means that states like Alaska
can have their own spaceport. How wonderful. We support the development
of regional spaceports that meet the needs of the region. In this case,
for Alaska, it is polar orbit launches that can accommodate small
satellite constellations that meet much of the needs of the business
and residential sectors. Commercial space offers off the shelf
opportunities in satellite communications, satellite navigations, earth
observation to monitor environmental issues and so on. There is now
growing private sector capital available where there is a regional
customer.
Question 3. Is latency still an issue?
Answer. As we understand, latency is still an issue.
Thank you for allowing us to respond. We welcome further dialogue
on advancing commercial in-space services via the Alaska spaceport to
meet the needs of the people of Alaska.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Tim Ellis
Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships
Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I
included in the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the
Department of Defense (DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among
other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited
satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When
the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial
partnerships can--where appropriate--play a key role in filling these
needs. What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented
you from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S.
space capabilities, like the domain awareness and communications gaps
in the Arctic?
Answer. Relativity is a new launch services provider for payloads
following the ``small satellite'' form factor of less than 1,000 kg.
Satellites in this weight class can potentially be a primary solution
to communication gaps in remote locations, such as the Arctic areas
described.
Primary challenges include open access to a launch site capable of
satisfying the commonly used polar or sun synchronous orbits used by
these satellite communication systems. Geography dictates that in the
United States, a West Coast launch location is ideal to reach high
inclination orbits without prohibitively flying over land or using a
costly ``dog leg'' flight maneuver, such as from Wallops Island. The
Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska is one such
potential commercially-usable site, as well as Vandenberg Airforce Base
in California. Both sites would need modification to be ideally capable
of launching cryogenic liquid fueled orbital rockets optimized for
small satellite launches. Some of these modifications include shipping,
receiving, and ground transport infrastructure for rocket vehicles,
cryogenic propellant loading and ground handling equipment, and
expanded support for Autonomous Flight Termination Systems. We are
beginning conversations with both sites to assess applicability to
Relativity's needs, and would be happy to follow up with any other
roadblocks or challenges we find.
A potential Hawaiian island located site, or drone and barge ship
launch platform, could also help solve the challenge of U.S.-based
launch sites open to smaller orbital rockets performing on a commercial
basis. Streamlining procurement by the government through expanded use
of Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) would incentivize emerging
companies and startups with the most cutting-edge technologies to work
with the government earlier in their lifecycles. This is due to the
lower overhead requirements and streamlined procurement process
agreements such as OTA's provide, which reduce the burden on personnel-
strapped startups and allow transactions to happen more quickly for
both parties.
Internet Access in Rural Areas
Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and
many times are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy
telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are
extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity hinders business growth
and increased economic activity.
Commercial space provides the possibility of increased
communications, including satellite based broadband internet, at a
reduced cost. Especially if the cost of launches continues to decline,
this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places
like Alaska.
How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-
level Internet to the most rural areas?
Answer. Relativity believes we are at the beginning of a huge
growth phase in satellite Internet and connectivity capabilities.
Several major, well-funded constellations of distributed ``small
satellites'' are being developed that would greatly aid in solving the
issue of rapidly deployable, low cost, high bandwidth access to remote
areas such as in Alaska.
As mentioned above, this future is possible ``especially if the
cost of launches continues to decline''. Relativity and several other
private, commercial space launch companies are emerging to fill the
needs of the emerging small satellite sector. Currently, none of the
proposed and in-development Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite
constellations are in full operating service. There is great promise,
with significant funding going to both satellite companies and the
launchers that will serve them. However, for the space ecosystem to
capitalize on this opportunity requires an ROI incentive for continued
private funding, advanced technology development, infrastructure
buildup, and successful relationships with regulators and the U.S.
Government.
Question 3. Is latency still an issue?
Answer. Yes. For streaming internet, video and voice
communications, and applications with high inout bandwidth needs,
latency at traditional Geosynchronous Earth Orbits (GEO) high above the
Earth will always inhibit these systems from serving these low latency
applications. This is a fundamental physical limit to the speed of
signals traveling through a long, fixed distance through space. Medium
Earth Orbits (MEO) and Low Earth Orbits (LEO) increasingly improve
latency by locating satellites at lower and lower altitudes, and thus
shorter transmission distances and times to the surface of the Earth.
However, using MEO and especially LEO satellite constellations
necessitates much larger numbers of satellites to provide continuous,
effective coverage due to the orbital periods and ground tracks they
require. The future of distributed LEO satellite constellations
promises latency and bandwidth that is comparable to terrestrial
coaxial cable and fiber internet, however none of these constellations
are currently fully operational and are in various development phases.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Tim Hughes
Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships
Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I
included in the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the
Department of Defense (DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among
other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited
satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When
the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial
partnerships can--where appropriate--play a key role in filling these
needs.
What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you
from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S.
space capabilities, like the domain awareness and communications gaps
in the Arctic?
Answer. SpaceX agrees that commercial partnerships can serve to
rapidly support the development and deployment of capability for the
Department of Defense, as well as other U.S. Government entities. We
recommend the Government make fuller use of innovative Federal
contracting strategies, like Other Transaction Authority (OTA) and
commercial contracting methods in leveraging commercial capability.
Specifically, some challenges include:
Government requirements that add cost and schedule delay;
Vague or poorly defined requirements;
Use of non-commercial contracts and the imposition of
unnecessary or inappropriate contract clauses and requirements
onto commercial contracts;
Costs and time associated with certification of commercial
products and commodities for Government use;
Number and scope of compliance documents associated with DOD
contracts;
Onerous and time-consuming proposal process for DOD
contracts; and
Unnecessarily slow acquisition processes.
Internet Access in Rural Areas
Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and
many times are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy
telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are
extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity hinders business growth
and increased economic activity. Commercial space provides the
possibility of increased communications, including satellite-based
broadband internet, at a reduced cost. Especially if the cost of
launches continues to decline, this could provide real benefits to
consumers in extremely rural places like Alaska.
How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-
level Internet to the most rural areas?
Answer. SpaceX agrees that even the latest terrestrial
telecommunications infrastructure is often costly (or cost-prohibitive)
with respect to extending broadband services to remote areas,
particularly to certain terrains like those in Alaska. We also
recognize the undeniable social and economic value that comes when
communities can access quality, high-speed broadband. The disparity in
available service to rural and ``hard-to-reach'' areas is the result of
the heavy, up-front capital expenditures that terrestrial build-outs
require to connect small and dispersed communities in such remote
locations. Regulatory approvals, such as environmental approvals and
local rights of way issues associated with siting cable and fiber
broadband infrastructure, compound this problem. Additionally, given
higher latitudes, traditional satellites located high above the equator
often cannot ``see'' all of Alaska's territory with comparable speeds
and costs offered elsewhere in the Continental U.S.
SpaceX seeks to address the challenges of access by developing a
next-generation satellite system that will apply innovative
technologies to provide rapid broadband data rates and minimal latency.
Initially, the SpaceX system will consist of 4,425 satellites operating
in 83 orbital planes in orbits close to the Earth. This will include
polar orbiting satellites designed specifically to serve high-latitude
areas like Alaska. The SpaceX constellation is designed to provide a
wide range of broadband and communications services for residential,
commercial, institutional, governmental, and professional users
worldwide. The goal of the system is to provide high-speed, low-latency
broadband directly to end-users.
Our planned satellite constellation would remove the per-mile
construction costs inherent in rural and remote broadband access
solutions and bypass the complexity of expanding terrestrial broadband
networks (for instance, digging trenches, environmental approvals, and
property rights issues). By operating close to the earth, the system
will replace typical speed and latency complaints from current-
generation satellite broadband offerings with service speeds,
latencies, and pricing equivalent to terrestrial and 5G wireless
technologies available in urban centers.
By investing upfront in a large-scale global satellite
constellation, the cost of reaching additional customers--even in the
most remote areas of the world--becomes incremental. Because the system
will bring global coverage, including high-latitude customers, the cost
of reaching these areas becomes essentially the price of a consumer
terminal.
Commercial space is further contributing to the deployment of such
systems by driving down the high cost of launch. SpaceX, for example,
has developed its Falcon 9 rocket to be highly reliable and affordable.
We have further innovated to enable our rockets to be reusable by
landing the first stage of rockets on land or at sea on ocean-going
droneships, and then re-launching previously flown boosters. Reduced
launch costs will enable the deployment of large satellite
constellations that can then help Alaskans get connected to affordable,
high-speed broadband internet.
Question 3. Is latency still an issue?
Answer. Current-generation satellite broadband services utilize
geostationary (GEO) satellites that fly at altitudes of 35,000 km,
resulting in higher latencies (typically around 250 milliseconds) as
the broadband signals traverse to and from the satellite in space. By
contrast, the SpaceX broadband system will operate in low-Earth orbit
(LEO), at altitudes ranging from 1,110 km to 1,325 km. This
dramatically shorter distance allows for latencies between 25-35
milliseconds.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Dr. Moriba K. Jah
Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships
Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I
included in the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the
Department of Defense (DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among
other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited
satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When
the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial
partnerships can--where appropriate--play a key role in filling these
needs.
What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you
from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S.
space capabilities, like the domain awareness and communications gaps
in the Arctic?
Answer. Thank you for the question sir. The primary challenges I
have had have been:
(1) There is no real strategic and coordinated investment in
government-related science and technology (S&T) research. There
is an army of researchers and academics waiting to tackle our
most dire S&T challenges and problems, but we cannot engage
this community without a dedicated investment. Moreover, the
small investment in S&T research that currently exists is
scattered and each government entity funds work without being
aware of what other government entities are funding. The U.S.
Government is likely paying may times for the same work without
knowing it. Each government entity needs to be free to invest
in S&T research as it needs to satisfy its own gaps but much
benefit could be had by having an office that coordinates this
investment such that S&T can be leveraged across the government
and to prevent funding the same work more than once. There
should also be a strategic roadmap that clearly identifies how
the S&T research will be transitioned as it matures. The U.S.
Government should also favor companies that propose solutions
that leverage or build upon previous U.S. Government (taxpayer)
investment. Germany has so called ``Fraunhofer Institutes \1\''
which are an effective marriage between government, industry,
and academia. The U.K. has the so called ``Satellite
Applications Catapult.''\2\ The U.S. has so called ``University
Affiliated Research Centers.''\3\ These too should be
reenergized and enlisted to serve a cohesive government,
industry, and academic partnership in S&T research and
development and risk retirement. These could be made to augment
or compliment Public-Private-Partnerships for space domain
awareness, space traffic management, orbital safety, and space
commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/institutes.html
\2\ https://sa.catapult.org.uk/services/centres-of-excellence/
\3\ http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/
20130426_UARC_Engagement
Guide.pdf
(2) The National Science Foundation (NSF) has not been historically
keen to fund research in space-related technologies, areas
where the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) has
but AFOSR has a much much smaller budget. If the NSF could be
motivated to complement AFOSR's investment areas in these
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
topics, that would be greatly beneficial.
(3) Many U.S. Government meetings have required security clearances
which I have, but most researchers do not. More unfortunately
is that almost all of these meetings are absent any classified
information being exchanged or shown. I've questioned why the
U.S. Government continues to over-classify material and the
answer is complicated. However, a great effort must be
undertaken in making as much information as possible, available
to the scientific and technological communities if we wish to
empower our country in maintaining a leading edge regarding our
space services and capabilities.
(4) The U.S. Government has focused upon developing systems making
sure that the space systems (including the ground segments)
themselves are robust and work, but paying much less attention
to the accuracy of information being generated and distributed
by these space systems. No one has been assessing the physical
and statistical consistency amongst various space situational/
domain awareness funded efforts. The assumption is that as long
as different products and applications meet interface control
requirements, all is good. This is a flawed assumption that
works to our collective detriment. The world's best plumbing
can distribute potable water or sewage.
(5) The U.S. Government is losing its internal competency to
quantify and assess the goodness and accuracy of funded
projects and delivered products. So, it relies strongly on what
is called SETA support or FFRDCs. Unfortunately, these
oftentimes work in their own self-interest and under the guise
of information security, avoid independent scrutiny and peer-
review. Many innovative, disruptive, and paradigm-shifting
solutions never make it to the U.S. Government's table so to
speak. The U.S. Government lacks an independent and unbiased
group of people who can help it quantify and assess products to
meet its needs for space situational and domain awareness.
Scientific and Technological solution developers, providers,
and integrators must never be the same people!
(6) Very rigid acquisition processes also hinder rapid and agile
deployment of space services and capabilities, like
communications in the Arctic. I suspect that initiatives like
the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx)\4\ is a method
to remedy this discrepancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.diux.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Access in Rural Areas
Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and
many times are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy
telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are
extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity hinders business growth
and increased economic activity.
Commercial space provides the possibility of increased
communications, including satellite-based broadband internet, at a
reduced cost. Especially if the cost of launches continues to decline,
this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places
like Alaska. How can recent advances in commercial space help provide
broadband-level Internet to the most rural areas?
Answer. This is a very relevant question. Companies such as Planet
Labs \5\ have demonstrated an innate capability to rapidly and
effectively deploy space based assets to fill gaps. Planet has paved
the way for companies such as OneWeb and SpaceX to deploy massive
numbers of space-based assets to deliver the very capabilities that you
desire for Alaska and the world writ large. The activities of these
companies should be encouraged and assisted as appropriate, without
sacrificing the ability to motivate competing technologies. General
Hyten created a commercial cell in the National Space Defense Center
\6\ for Battlespace Management, Command, and Control (BMC2) at
Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs. The U.S. Government could take a
page from this book and create a commercial cell that addresses
communications and global Internet to meet our national needs. Perhaps
this could be championed under the newly formed National Space Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.planet.com
\6\ http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/jicspoc-morphs-to-national-
space-defense-centerwhat-it-means/
Question 3. Is latency still an issue?
Answer. Yes, latency is very much still an issue but this can be
mitigated and remedied via (a) leveraging other on-orbit assets as
effective relays (b) heavily investing in quantum computing and
communications as recently demonstrated by China.\7\ (c) investing in
autonomous satellite systems and networks (e.g., via the Air Force
Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate \8\ including academic
partnerships, and the Operationally Responsive Space \9\ office) that
can capitalize on Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence to self-
heal/repair and reconfigure in near real time in the presence of sensed
latencies and/or outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-
satellite-achieves-spookyaction-record-distance
\8\ http://www.kirtland.af.mil/Units/AFRL-Space-Vehicles-
Directorate/
\9\ http://www.kirtland.af.mil/Units/ORS/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Robert D. Cabana
Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships
Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I
included in the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the
Department of Defense (DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among
other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited
satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When
the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial
partnerships can--where appropriate--play a key role in filling these
needs.
What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you
from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S.
space capabilities, like the domain awareness and communications gaps
in the Arctic?
Answer. NASA employs several kinds of commercial partnership
mechanisms to address U.S. space capabilities, including--but not
limited to--Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contracts to
fulfill Agency requirements, as well as funded and unfunded Space Act
Agreements (SAAs), which support and encourage commercial innovation.
The Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) contracts, under which Space
Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital ATK have been providing
cargo resupply to the International Space Station (ISS), are examples
of the former. NASA's Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft
Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative, which has established multiple
no-funds-exchanged SAA partnerships with U.S. private sector entities,
is an example of the latter. The purpose of these SAAs is to encourage
the development of robotic lunar landers that can be integrated with
U.S. commercial launch capabilities to deliver payloads to the lunar
surface. NASA looks forward to continuing commercial partnerships to
address Agency requirements and to support commercial innovation in the
future.
As to addressing U.S. space capabilities such as domain awareness
and military communications in the Arctic, the Committee may wish to
contact the Department of Defense for details on their efforts in these
areas.
Internet Access in Rural Areas
Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and
many times are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy
telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are
extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity hinders business growth
and increased economic activity.
Commercial space provides the possibility of increased
communications, including satellite-based broadband internet, at a
reduced cost. Especially if the cost of launches continues to decline,
this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places
like Alaska.
How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-
level Internet to the most rural areas?
Answer. While NASA defers to private industry to articulate the
business case supporting the provision of services to specific
customers, a number of companies currently offer launch services and
satellite-based communications services that could potentially increase
broadband Internet access in rural areas.
Question 3. Is latency still an issue?
Answer. Please see response to Question #2, above. NASA defers to
private industry on the specifics for their ability to provide
broadband Internet service to rural areas.