[Senate Hearing 115-898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-898
EXAMINING THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
SPACE STATION: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE,
AND COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 6, 2018
__________
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
59-903 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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 TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
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 June 6, 2018..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 1
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 3
Witnesses
Michael T. Suffredini, Chief Executive Officer and President,
Axiom Space, Inc............................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Bob Mitchell, President, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Jim Chilton, Senior Vice President, Space and Launch, Boeing
Defense, Space and Security, The Boeing Company................ 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Cynthia Bouthot, Director, Commercial Innovation and Sponsored
Programs, Center for the Advancement of Science in Space
(CASIS)........................................................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to:
Michael T. Suffredini........................................ 41
Bob Mitchell................................................. 42
Jim Chilton.................................................. 43
Cynthia Bouthot.............................................. 44
EXAMINING THE FUTURE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION:
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Gardner, Markey,
Nelson, and Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Good afternoon. This hearing is called to
order. Welcome to all the witnesses. Thank you for being here.
Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings
focused on the future of the International Space Station.
During the previous hearing, this subcommittee received
testimony from government witnesses who cast considerable doubt
on the administration's proposal to end Federal support of the
International Space Station in 2025. In our hearing, not only
did NASA confirm that the International Space Station has
operational life through at least 2028, if not longer, but
NASA's Inspector General raised significant concerns that it is
not only quite unlikely that a private entity or entities would
assume the Station's annual operating costs, but also, quote,
``Any assumption that ending direct Federal funding would free
up $3 billion to $4 billion in 2025 for use on other NASA
initiatives is wishful thinking.'' I agree with the concerns
that NASA's Inspector General has raised to this Subcommittee.
The concerns and the confirmation from NASA that the ISS
has operational life well beyond 2025 should not be taken
lightly by members of this Committee or by the National Space
Council.
American taxpayers have invested roughly $100 billion in
the International Space Station, and it is my firm belief that
it would be irresponsible for the United States Government to
prematurely end the life of the International Space Station
before maximizing American taxpayer investment. We should not
throw away that very significant investment of resources from
the taxpayers and also from our allies.
It is concerning that some have argued during this debate
that the rationale for ending direct funding of the ISS is that
the United States cannot afford both continued ISS operations
and deep space exploration at the same time. I disagree that
this is an either/or decision. And Congress has demonstrated a
strong bipartisan commitment to NASA and to our human
spaceflight programs through significant increases in
appropriations over the last several fiscal years to ensure
both a healthy low-Earth orbit and deep-space exploration
program.
What's clear is, we cannot afford to continue to pursue
policies that have the consequences of creating gaps in
capability or that send three and a half billion dollars in
taxpayer money to the Russian government because we failed to
plan to have adequate tools to reach low-Earth orbit, nor can
we create a leadership vacuum in low-Earth orbit that provides
a window of opportunity for the Chinese to capitalize upon as
they look to have an operational space station in low-Earth
orbit in 2022.
As long as I am Chairman of the Space Subcommittee, the ISS
will continue to have strong and bipartisan support in the U.S.
Senate. The past several years, we have passed two major pieces
of space legislation, working cooperatively, Republicans and
Democrats, in support of space, one that was signed by
President Obama, one that was signed by President Trump. The
purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony from
nongovernmental ISS stakeholders who can provide Congress with
their firsthand experience interacting with the ISS and what
the impact would be for commercial stakeholders, even those
looking at building a successor to the ISS, which we will need
one day, but we should not prematurely disregard the investment
we have made into it.
I look forward to our witnesses' testimony and will now
recognize our Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Senator Markey,
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Today, a trio of astronauts from the United States, Russia,
and Europe blasted off for the International Space Station.
But, if the Trump administration has its way, in just a few
short years, that sort of mission might not be possible. The
International Space Station is the lone platform in low-Earth
orbit on which our astronauts can undertake fundamental
research for humankind's health, well-being, and prosperity in
space. We continue to push deeper into our solar system, but
the Space Station remains of paramount importance.
Construction of the Space Station began in 1998, in
cooperation with the Russian, Canadian, European, and Japanese
space industries. Continuously occupied for almost two decades,
the scientific research executed onboard the Space Station has
given us unique insights from many stakeholders, and produced
countless valuable results. Because of the International Space
Station, we better understand the basic physics of our planet,
have developed antimicrobial vaccines, and are improving
cancer-fighting drugs. Yet, in February, the Trump
administration announced that it would end direct funding to
the International Space Station after 2024, turning it into a
privately run entity. Although many stakeholders have voiced
support for a long-term transition to a privately run Space
Station, they are fearful of the lights going out as a result
of the Trump administration's proposal. We simply cannot pull
the plug on the International Space Station without a plan in
place for what comes next.
As we work to put humankind back on the Moon and onto the
Martian surface for the first time, as well as to open up new
commercial and telecommunications opportunities in space, it is
crucial to understand the many dangers which we face. The
International Space Station is the only platform in existence
on which we can research how the harsh conditions of space
affect the human body and mind. In fact, NASA has declared that
an on-orbit platform like the Space Station is absolutely
necessary to research the impacts of the majority of risks to
human health that exist as we venture deeper into space.
If we really want to go where no one has gone before, we
need the International Space Station to not go away.
Outstanding universities, like MIT, the University of Florida,
Texas A&M, in partnership with the National Science Foundation
and the National Institutes of Health and companies across the
Nation, are all undertaking fundamental scientific research
through the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space.
This research can only be done in a microgravity environment
like the International Space Station. Putting an end to direct
funding for the Space Station after 2024 would seriously
interrupt, if not completely end, the scientific research that
is critical for building a commercial market in space. It would
spell serious trouble for both NASA and the commercial space
industry. We cannot afford to allow funding for the Space
Station to crater in 2025.
What we need is a nuanced transition plan for the next
great space age that carefully reflects the commercial market
and the space community's needs. But, that is not what this
administration has put forward. The International Space Station
is an irreplaceable facility for science and human exploration
in space. It is an interplanetary incubator fostering
discovery, focusing imagination, and supporting achievement. It
builds goodwill and good discoveries at the same time.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and
my colleagues, led by Senator Nelson on a bipartisan basis, to
ensure that the International Space Station can continue to
house the research that inspires the world and promotes
progress.
And we thank the witnesses for being here, and we look
forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Markey.
We'd 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.
Just to undergird the remarks already made by the Chairman
and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, I might note that
this November marks 20 years since the Russians launched the
Zarya module, and then NASA launched the Unity module two weeks
later, and so began the assembly of the International Space
Station.
Now we're on a new age, golden age, for this incredible
structure in space, the ISS, because Boeing and SpaceX are set
to begin launching crew from the Cape. That's going to allow us
to increase the number of astronauts aboard the Station and
dramatically increase the amount of research conducted. And, of
course, all of NASA's centers have come together too, from the
astronauts trained at Johnson that launched at Kennedy to the
experiments prepared and assembled in final form at Kennedy, to
ensure that the ISS is performing well. The ISS ought to keep
going to 2030, because now is the time to reap the benefits of
all the effort and all the expense that we have to build the
ISS. And now let's do the research on it. There's a broad
bipartisan consensus to keep it going and not to have this
arbitrary date that's going to cutoff after 2024.
Why in the world would you want to take a large, multiyear
investment of $100 billion and suddenly de-orbit it and let it
burn up on reentry? What about the commercial crew and the
cargo capabilities that we've been investing so heavily in?
What would happen to them if there's no certainty that they're
going to have a destination, even though we have other space
stations that are in the planning stage?
I can tell you one group of people that understand this,
and that's the Chinese. It's no accident that, within a few
months of the administration's proposal to end the Space
Station in 2025, the Chinese announced that their space station
will soon be open for business. And just last week, they
invited countries from around the world to conduct research
aboard their space station. And they advertise a lot of
capabilities--medical sample analysis, combustion science,
freezers, a science glove box--all of which are very similar to
what we have on the ISS. So, at one point in the future, we may
have low-Earth orbit filled with commercial space stations
serving NASA and other government and private-sector customers.
And then NASA is going to be doing what it needs to do, which
is, get out beyond low-Earth orbit and explore the heavens.
But, the ISS is not an obstacle to that. It can be
complementary.
Thank you all for holding this hearing. I appreciate it. We
are very fortunate to have a panel of experts, as we do today.
Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
And I'll make a point to observers that one of the things
that I think is striking across the opening statements--there
are many issues on which Senator Markey, Senator Nelson, and I
might disagree, but when you have unanimity across the partisan
spectrum, across the ideological spectrum, when you're hearing
the exact same thing from conservative Republicans and liberal
Democrats, that the ISS----
Senator Markey. And moderate Democrats. Moderate Democrats.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. I will let folks self-identify as they
choose.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. I didn't say ``nutcase lefties.'' I kept it--
everyone can self-identify on that spectrum.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. And even our friendly Libertarians in
Colorado.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. I mean, we've got a full spectrum. And yet,
what there's agreement across that spectrum is that the ISS is
a critical asset to the United States of America. It is a
tremendous asset for scientific research, for innovation, for
discovery. The American taxpayers have invested $100 billion
into it. Our allies have invested billions and billions of
dollars into it. And it would be foolish to waste that
investment, to cut it short, to invent an arbitrary deadline
like 2025 and say, ``Never mind that we have additional good,
productive use out of it. We're going to plunge our head in the
sand and throw away that asset.'' That is the height of
foolishness. And this is a message that should be heard. It
should be heard by every contractor, everyone doing business
with the ISS, by every researcher who has an idea for a new
innovation on the ISS, and by our allies, our partners in the
ISS, that, whatever might be put in an OMB proposal, it remains
the Congress of the United States that authorizes programs and
that appropriates programs. When you see bipartisan unanimity
in support of the ISS, the position of the United States
Government should be clear and unambiguous. Part of the reason
why you see that unanimity is because of what we're hearing
from the leaders at NASA, from the stakeholders, about the
science and the potential future.
This panel is an excellent representation of those, with
deep expertise and knowledge. And so, with that, I'm going to
introduce each of the four witnesses.
Mr. Michael Suffredini is the President and CEO of Axiom
Space. Axiom plans to launch two commercial modules in 2021,
setting the stage for the first commercial space station in
low-Earth orbit. Prior to Axiom, Mr. Suffredini served for 10
years at NASA as the Manager of the International Space
Station. In that role, Mr. Suffredini spearheaded the
transition of ISS from development and assembly to research and
commercial utilization. He managed a 15-nation team and a $3
billion budget, which was the largest international peacetime
project in the history of humanity.
Mr. Bob Mitchell, a longtime friend, is the President of
the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership. He has served in
this role since 2008. When he first joined the Partnership in
2000, Mr. Mitchell oversaw the statewide implementation of the
State--Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program. Prior to
that, Mr. Mitchell gained extensive experience during his 15
years at Grumman Aerospace Corporation, now known as Northrop
Grumman. As an executive at Grumman, Mr. Mitchell directed all
production, engineering, and material operations for the
Houston facility.
Mr. Jim Chilton is Senior Vice President of the Space and
Launch Division of Boeing Defense, Space, and Security. His
portfolio includes the International Space Station, the CST-100
Starliner Commercial Crew Vehicle, NASA's space-launch system,
government and commercial satellite systems, and Boeing's
participation in United Launch Alliance. Previously, Mr.
Chilton served as Vice President and Program Manager for
Exploration Launch Systems and led SLS, Boeing's Heavy-Lift
Launch Vehicle Program.
And finally, Ms. Cynthia Bouthot, who is Director of the
Commercial Innovation and Sponsored Programs at the Center for
the Advancement of Science in Space, also known as CASIS. Ms.
Bouthot heads a team of business development professionals that
focus on generating flight projects for the ISS National Lab in
the life science, energy, chemicals, materials, clean tech, and
IT sectors. Prior to her current position, Ms. Bouthot was
President of the Collaborative Innovation Group, an
organization focused on providing the tools and methodologies
to establish successful product offerings, developing efficient
routes to market, and building image and brand.
With that, we'll start the testimony. We'll begin with you,
Mr. Suffredini.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL T. SUFFREDINI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRESIDENT, AXIOM SPACE, INC.
Mr. Suffredini. Ranking Member Nelson, Chairman Cruz,
Ranking Member Markey, and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for inviting me to give my perspective on the future of the
International Space Station, and specifically the transition to
a vibrant, robust marketplace in low-Earth orbit.
From 2005 to 2015, as NASA's ISS Program Manager, I oversaw
the development, assembly, operation, utilization of the
International Space Station for the United States Government
and the 14 other countries who participated in the program. I
retired after 27 years of government service, and later
cofounded Axiom Space, whose goal is to build, launch, and
operate the world's first commercial space station. With
decades of engineering, operations, and management experience
in human spaceflight, we are uniquely equipped to take the
baton from the remarkably successful ISS to continue its legacy
in LEO and facilitate the extension of America's leadership
among spacefaring nations, but the handoff must be accomplished
carefully.
I see several key elements of a successful transition
strategy. First, as NASA begins its human spaceflight focus and
budget from LEO to deeper space exploration, one concept must
remain inviable. The United States must not relinquish
uninterrupted access to LEO for its astronauts. I have detailed
in my written testimony the work that is either underway or
planned for the ISS that will need to be continued indefinitely
in LEO to support sustained human deep-space exploration. But,
as important as those activities are, the principal argument
for the U.S. to maintain uninterrupted access to, and a
destination in, LEO is intangible to safeguard our position as
the world's preeminent spacefaring nation. We hold that
position today, thanks, in no small part, to our leadership of
the ISS partnership. But, other countries, like Russia, China,
and even Europe, are taking leadership steps, in the absence of
a strong American commitment to exploration, and the end of the
ISS represents an opportunity for them to fill the void.
Sending astronauts to a LEO platform will always appeal to
nation-states. It is, therefore, imperative that there be no
gap in access between the platform of today, the ISS, and its
American commercial successor.
Second, NASA must allow companies to compete for the right
to attach one or more modules to the ISS as soon as possible.
While it's certainly possible to develop and launch a free-
flying commercial space station, there are numerous advantages,
both for the commercial provider and the government, to
starting one or more modules mated to a port on the ISS. These
advantages are also outlined in my written testimony.
A NASA Request for Information in the summer of 2016
solicited information on the commercialization of LEO, the
potential business case, and the criteria to grant access to an
ISS port. This RFI was intended to inform a follow-on
announcement opportunity which, itself, would result in
granting access to an ISS port to a commercial entity. Now,
almost two years later, a NASA research announcement was
released, soliciting proposals to study commercialization of
LEO. These studies are not due until the end of the calendar
year. If the resultant studies are used only to inform a
competitive port-reward process, it is unlikely that access to
a port will be granted before 2020. The award of a birthing
port is the first dominant must-follow in a chain of events,
each of which relying on the previous, that will lead to a
viable commercial platform in LEO and confidence that the
Nation is ready to transition its human LEO activities from ISS
to commercial operators. Therefore, NASA should announce a fair
and open competition for the right to use an ISS birthing port
in parallel with, rather than following, the NRA studies.
Finally, the FY 2019 President's budget includes $150
million for LEO commercial development. As the head of a
commercial space-station company might reasonably expect, I
would like to receive some of that money to put toward module
development. I do not. These resources should be utilized to
foster increased LEO demand, to award contracts for development
of hardwares, to put NASA funding and its extensive development
requirements in the critical path for success and threatens to
hold the agency hostage in the event the awardee would need
more money to complete their design. NASA should give priority
to companies who raise their own capital. These firms will be
incentivized to help grow LEO demand beyond merely the
government customer. Their survival will depend on it.
The only way for NASA to eventually divert much of the
almost $3.5 billion that it's spending today on ISS to deep-
space exploration is by not owning a LEO infrastructure or
becoming an anchored tenant. A truly commercial platform will
succeed only if it has multiple customers, both private and
government. Public-private partnership in this case work best
when the public promotes expansion of the demand and the
private spends its own capital to satisfy it.
In summary, we cannot afford for the transition, the United
States human presence in LEO, from the ISS to one or more U.S.
commercial platforms to be unsuccessful. Ensuring continued
access to a LEO platform for our astronauts will maintain our
position as the world's leading spacefaring nation. To achieve
this in a manner that will allow the most timely transition,
NASA must issue an opportunity for companies to compete for the
ISS port as soon as possible. Finally, any funding made
available to NASA to help develop commercial capability in LEO
should be spent on building demand.
I look forward to answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Suffredini follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael T. Suffredini, Chief Executive Office
and President, Axiom Space, Inc.
Dear Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey and Members of the
Subcommittee,
From 2005 to 2015, as NASA's International Space Station (ISS)
program manager, I oversaw the development, assembly, operation and
utilization of the International Space Station (ISS), for the United
States government and the other 14 nations invested in the program. I
retired after 27 years of government service, and later co-founded
Axiom Space, whose goal is to build, launch and operate the world's
first commercial space station. We are dedicated to making living and
working in Earth orbit commonplace, as a means to sustained human deep
space exploration. We plan to build a commercial successor to the ISS,
first attaching our modules to it, and then ultimately separating from
it when ISS is retired. We have an extraordinary team of seasoned space
and business professionals. With decades of engineering, operations and
management experience in human spaceflight, we are uniquely equipped to
take the baton from the remarkably successful ISS, continue its legacy
in low Earth orbit (LEO) and facilitate the extension of America's
leadership among spacefaring nations.
Throughout the course of modern history, it has been the role of
governments to open new frontiers. The Catholic Kings financed the
voyage of Cristopher Columbus that ultimately discovered the New World.
President Thomas Jefferson commissioned the expedition of Lewis and
Clark that began the westward expansion in the United States. When the
risk--personal or financial--is high, and the reward uncertain and/or
many years into the future, it is appropriate for governments to expend
state resources in the interest of their citizens. Once security is
established, a market is identified and revenue appears nearer term, it
is likewise appropriate for state actors to step aside in favor of
entrepreneurs, and to allow commerce to develop. Human presence in LEO
is ripe for such a transition; adhering to the following strategic
elements will provide the highest likelihood of a successful evolution
to a vibrant and robust commercial marketplace in LEO.
Ensure Continuous Access to LEO
As NASA begins to shift its human spaceflight focus--and, by
necessary consequence, its budget--from LEO to exploration of cis-lunar
space, one concept must remain inviolable: In order to preserve our
leadership in space, the United States must not relinquish
uninterrupted access to LEO for its astronauts. Needless to say, this
includes both a way to get there, and an orbiting platform on which to
continue the important activities underway today aboard the ISS.
Human deep space exploration will require the continuation of
several tasks that are either already underway or planned for execution
aboard the ISS. One is continued research into understanding the
responses of the human body to the space environment. NASA's Human
Research Program has been very successful in retiring many risks toward
a notional Mars flyby mission, but one set of investigations that is
not scheduled to be complete before ISS retirement, even assuming a
retirement of 2028, is on the effects of space radiation exposure.\1\
Secondly, microgravity can negatively affect machines as well as man.
The ISS has suffered the unexpected failure on-orbit of systems that
were thoroughly tested on the ground. Some broke down in the first few
hours of operation; others after months of successful run time. With
these systems in LEO, while neither simple nor inexpensive, the
logistics involved with repairing them were relatively straightforward.
Ultimately, the crew was always a short flight back to Earth if the
repairs were not successful. However, in a distant lunar retrograde
orbit--or, worse, on the way to Mars--such logistics would be orders of
magnitude more complex, if not impossible. For this reason, it is
imperative that critical hardware be thoroughly tested in LEO before
such systems are deployed to deep space, and a platform on which to do
so is crucial. The need for this capability in LEO will be continuous
for a sustainable human exploration program because as new technologies
are developed to better serve exploration, the technology and the
resultant systems will need to be thoroughly tested in LEO before being
deployed on missions further from our planet. Finally, current plans
for NASA's Lunar Orbiter Platform-Gateway reflect no more than annual
crewed missions of 30-day duration with astronauts from several
participating countries. This cadence will severely strain NASA's
ability to maintain an experienced and proficient astronaut corps. A
readily accessible LEO destination will be a vital proving ground where
astronauts can gain valuable spaceflight experience in preparation for
more challenging deep space missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NASA Advisory Council Human Operations and Exploration
Committee, March 2018, ISS Status and Transition, p. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As important as the considerations of human research, critical
systems hardware testing and astronaut proficiency are, the principal
argument for the U.S. to maintain uninterrupted access to and a
destination in LEO is intangible--to safeguard our position as the
world's preeminent spacefaring nation. We are clearly in that position
today, thanks to our leadership of the ISS partnership. But with Europe
having expressed its pivot toward the Moon before us, and the impending
launch of China's Tiangong-2 space station, our place at the head of
the class may be in jeopardy. The mission sequence planned today for
human deep space exploration--which may not begin for close to a
decade--may not be of sufficient frequency or duration to maintain the
interest of other nations. But there will always be useful work to do
aboard a LEO platform that will appeal to nation states with
astronauts. It is therefore imperative that there be no gap in access
between the platform of today--the ISS--and its American commercial
successor.
Award the Port
While it is certainly possible to develop and launch a free-flying
commercial space station, there are numerous advantages to starting
with one or more modules attached to the ISS, and then to separate them
prior to the lowering of the ISS altitude in preparation for its
deorbit. With modules attached to the ISS, a company can use revenue
generated from their utilization to offset capital requirements and
consequent investment needs. More importantly, such an arrangement
would allow a commercial operator more time to establish a viable
customer base, and would permit NASA to transition not only research
that is underway on ISS, along with attendant hardware, but also that
of National Lab customers. Being able to transfer useful research and
manufacturing hardware from ISS to a new platform on orbit when ISS is
retired will save significant costs (avoiding having to rebuild and
launch new hardware), ensure the ISS is utilized to the maximum extent
possible even as it nears retirement, and perhaps most importantly,
protect the LEO marketplace that will have developed at that point.
Finally, NASA will have less insight into the design and development of
commercially provided modules; having them attached to ISS for a period
of time will give NASA and other ISS partner government space agencies
an opportunity to gain experience not only with the modules but with
how their commercial provider operates and protects the crew and
spacecraft. There is clear benefit to both the government and to the
commercial space station developer to attach one or modules to the ISS
via one of its berthing ports.
In the summer of 2016, NASA issued the Sources Sought solicitation
``Advancing Economic Development in Low Earth Orbit via Commercial Use
of Limited Availability, Unique International Space Station
Capabilities.'' In it, NASA stated:
NASA will use the results of this RFI to guide development of a
possible future announcement of opportunity appropriate to the
Agency's objective of fostering a self-sustaining commercial
marketplace in LEO. NASA is seeking industry ideas to stimulate
economic development through the use of unique ISS capabilities
such as unused common berthing mechanism (CBM) attachment
ports, non-standard attachment sites or any other capability
which can be used in a way not previously envisioned.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Federal Business Opportunities, Advancing Economic Development
in Low Earth Orbit via Commercial Use of Limited Availability, Unique
International Space Station Capabilities
Responders were given six weeks to respond. Now, almost two years
later, industry is still waiting for the ``announcement of
opportunity.'' In the meantime, in its FY 2019 President's Budget, the
Administration has expressed a desire to defund the ISS as early as
2025, rather than the date presumed by many of 2028. These two events
combine to reduce the time available for developing a robust,
commercial market in LEO by up to five years. And the clock is still
ticking. NASA recently released a Research Announcement (NRA) for the
``Study for the Commercialization of Low Earth Orbit.'' This
solicitation ``. . . grants no rights for use of or guarantee of any
ISS port obligation.'' \3\ With the NRA schedule showing awardees being
selected in June or July, contracts to be finalized in August, and
study products due in December 2018,\4\ if these studies will be used
only to inform the aforementioned announcement of opportunity to
compete for the berthing port, it is reasonable to expect the awarding
of the port will occur no earlier than 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation
System, Study for Commercialization of Low Earth Orbit, Announcement,
p. 8
\4\ NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation
System, Study for Commercialization of Low Earth Orbit, Industry Day
Charts, p. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is difficult to imagine that an investor would commit a
significant outlay--the kind necessary to build one or more space
station modules--to a commercial company that doesn't have access to an
ISS berthing port. The start of construction, which will take several
years to complete, depends on this investment, which in turn depends on
the award of a berthing port. Once the module(s) is complete, it must
be launched, berthed and integrated with the ISS. And, of course, all
of this must occur before any customer could utilize the module. So,
the award of a berthing port to a company is the first domino that must
fall in a chain of events, each of which relying on the previous, that
will lead to a sound decision that the Nation is ready to transition
its human LEO activities from the ISS to one or more commercial
operators. Each day NASA delays this port award, it correspondingly
postpones the moment when it can reasonably shift its ISS operations
budget to that of deep space exploration.
A much more efficient course of action would be for NASA to
announce a fair and open competition for the right to use the ISS Node
2 forward berthing port in parallel with, rather than following, the
NRA studies. NASA could establish criteria for the port solicitation
utilizing the considerable information provided in response to the
summer 2016 ``Advancing Economic Development in Low Earth Orbit via
Commercial Use of Limited Availability, Unique International Space
Station Capabilities'' RFI, which reportedly resulted in responses from
19 industry partners. When the reports awarded through the ``Study for
the Commercialization of Low Earth Orbit'' NRA are submitted at the end
of this calendar year, NASA would verify the consistency between those
studies and their competitive process, make any adjustments necessary
as a result, and could be ready to award use of the berthing port to a
company within a month or two, rather than only then commencing to
develop a process to award the port. The parallel approach could save
up to a year, accelerating by the same amount the investment necessary
to build the successor to the ISS, and ultimately advancing the moment
when a viable commercial platform would allow NASA to shift its focus
from LEO infrastructure sustainment and operation to deep space
exploration.
Build Demand
The FY 2019 President's Budget includes $150M for LEO Commercial
Development. As a commercial space station company, you might
reasonably expect that Axiom would like to receive some of that money
to put toward design and building of one or more modules. We do not. To
award contracts for development of hardware is to put NASA funding and
extensive development requirements in the critical path for success,
and threatens to hold the Agency hostage in the event the awardee would
need more money to complete their design and build. Although the
Commercial Orbital Transportation System agreements and follow-on
Commercial Resupply Services contracts were both innovative and
successful, NASA is the only customer for those services, and without
its funding, the companies would surely discontinue manufacture of the
Dragon and Cygnus spacecraft. To avoid being put in the same posture
when it comes to a commercial orbital platform, NASA should give
priority to companies who raise their own capital, instead of asking
for government funding. These firms will be more incentivized to
succeed and therefore to grow LEO demand beyond merely the government
customer; their survival will depend on it. The only way for NASA to
eventually divert much of the almost $3.5B that it's spending today on
ISS to deep space exploration is by NOT being the anchor tenant. A
truly commercial platform will succeed only if it has multiple
customers--both private and government. In the short term, NASA's role
should be limited to making unique ISS resources available for
potential commercial partners, and to stimulating demand for on-orbit
services. When NASA is the only customer, there is no driver to create
demand. Public-private partnerships in this case work best when the
public promotes expansion of the demand, and the private spends its own
capital to satisfy it.
It is important for NASA to be judicious in selecting its partners
for commercial development of LEO. Since the ISS cannot support more
than one large commercial station provider, NASA should pick the one
that has the best chance of success, based on the technical merit of
their design, the soundness of their business case, and the pedigree of
their team. It should also acknowledge that demand will be, at least in
the beginning, limited. Picking more partners than there is demand to
satisfy will result in the failure of the market for LEO services to
develop. This further highlights the imperative that NASA use whatever
funding it receives for LEO commercial development to stimulate demand,
and limit supply side help to the right to use unique ISS capabilities,
such as a berthing port.
Don't Compete with Industry
Finally, one of the principal revenue streams that commercial space
station companies are pursuing is human spaceflight for astronauts from
other nations. The ISS partnership distributes flight opportunities
based on each partner's contribution to the project. Outside of these
allocations, NASA should not also offer flights to other nations either
inside or outside the ISS partnership, as this directly competes with
the offerings of commercial companies and would severely diminish the
addressable market available to them today. This would not only be in
violation of National Space Policy,\5\ it would be counterproductive to
the development of a sustainable commercial market for LEO services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Space Policy of the United States of America, June 28,
2010, p. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we cannot afford for the transition of the United
States' human presence in LEO from the ISS to one or more U.S.
commercial platforms to be unsuccessful. Ensuring continued access to a
LEO platform for our astronauts will maintain our position as the
world's leading spacefaring nation. Second, to achieve this transition
in a manner that allows the resources currently being allocated to ISS
to be eventually diverted toward human deep space exploration, NASA
must issue an opportunity for companies to compete for the ISS berthing
port as soon as possible. Third, any funding made available to NASA to
help develop a commercial capability in LEO should be spent on building
demand. Finally, NASA should be mindful of not competing with industry.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mitchell.
STATEMENT OF BOB MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, BAY AREA
HOUSTON ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Nelson, and Ranking Member Markey, thank you for the
opportunity today to be here to testify on the important topic
of the International Space Station.
I serve as the President of the Bay Area Houston Economic
Partnership, the member-driven 501(c)(6) nonprofit economic
development organization located just outside the gates of the
Johnson Space Center. We have over 268 members, which include a
diverse mix of businesses in aerospace, medical, life sciences,
petrochemicals, and maritime. We also are proud to work on
initiatives that contribute to the economic growth of the 13
cities and two counties in and around the Johnson Space Center.
Although aerospace companies make up a fraction of our
membership, the entire business community understands and
values the contributions of NASA and the space community in
making all of our lives better.
The ISS is a critical element of the work performance in
Houston at the Johnson Space Center and the backbone to
maintaining a number of key elements of our success in human
spaceflight--the astronaut corps, Mission Control, countless
technical resources, and world class researchers. The Johnson
Space Center offers unparalleled national capability that has
been built over decades of experience. The loss of, or
weakening of, its capabilities would have dramatic implications
to our outcomes in deep-space exploration.
The return on investment of the ISS can be calculated many
ways. It's difficult to quantify the exact dollar value of many
of these returns, but the overall impact is undeniable. The
International Space Station, by its design has established the
foundation for sustained generation of technology that improves
life on Earth. Each year, spinoffs, like new drugs, materials,
scientific technology, become licensed and begin generating new
revenue streams for companies, large and small.
Beyond the abilities show the ROI, ISS positions us to
tackle the challenge of deep space, buying down cost and risk
now and to give missions to the Moon and Mars a headstart. The
Station is a critical, inexpensive testbed for exploration and
hardware that needs to work perfectly on its first live
mission. It allows us to test, tweak, and perfect life-support
systems, radiation abatement methods, and other advanced
materials. These breakthroughs will eventually make it from
launch pad into our homes and businesses across America.
Through engagement with the Russian Space Agency and 13
other ISS partners, the U.S. has led an era of peaceful
collaboration and exploration that has provided stability in
space leading to the current level of space commercialization.
The commitment to the ISS, uninterrupted for the last 25 years,
has provided more than just a destination to space. The ISS has
cultivated a cultural learning lab for diplomacy, education,
and inspiration, a learning lab for technology applications,
testing performance machines, materials, and humans in space, a
science lab for comparing terrestrial knowledge in a new
frontier in weightlessness, a lab for exploring both on Earth
and outer space in preparation for the next exploration
endeavors.
I think it's important to take a detailed look at the
overall ISS budget, which is often cited at around 3 and a half
to 4 billion dollars per year. What is misleading about this
statement is that the commercial crew and cargo programs are
funded out of those funds along with overhead cost at the
centers housing the programs. The real ISS budget is a fraction
of that total cost, ranging from 1 to 1.5 billion dollars per
year. Saving this much each year will have minimal impact on
overall exploration efforts, in terms of funds transfer.
Commercial alternatives would likely cost significantly more
than sustaining the ISS, essentially creating an entirely new
development program while providing a fraction of the existing
capabilities.
If the U.S. Government terminates its support of the ISS in
2025 and we step away from the ISS before an equivalent long-
term engagement is created, there will be a disruption in the
space program in an emerging commercial industry. Not very long
ago, NASA's Constellation Program was canceled at the same time
we retired the Space Shuttle Program, which profoundly had a
negative impact on America's leadership in space. I sincerely
hope that we all learned a valuable lesson from this and trust
that you will not allow history to repeat itself.
My position is that the U.S. Government should commit to
the ISS for as long as it safely feasible to do so. However, as
we succeed, others look to follow. As you probably have seen,
just last week, China invited other nations to partner with
them on their space station. They realize, as we do, the power
of these partnerships and the leadership and the technology
that can be gained from them. As we question our commitment to
the future of the ISS, the Chinese space program is actively
seeking to leverage this moment in time to provide an
alternative path and platform for our traditional international
space partners. This has very serious implications for our
national security, trade, technology partnerships, and
leadership if this is not managed carefully.
At the end of the day, the ISS program is the culmination
of all the reasons we are so passionate about the entire space
program. It represents America's future in global leaderships,
education, innovation, healthcare, and the quality of life.
Thank you for the invitation to speak on this topic, and I
look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Mitchell, President,
Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership
Introduction
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson, distinguished members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to testify on
the important topic of the International Space Station.
I serve as the president of the Bay Area Houston Economic
Partnership, a member-driven, 501(c)(6) nonprofit economic development
organization located just outside the gates of the Johnson Space Center
in Bay Area Houston. We have over 268 members, which include a diverse
mix of businesses in aerospace, medical, life sciences, petrochemicals,
and maritime. We also are proud to work on initiatives that contribute
to the economic growth of the 13 cities and two counties in the area
around the Johnson Space Center. Although aerospace companies make up a
fraction of our membership, the entire business community understands
and values the contributions of NASA and the space community in making
all of our lives better.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a critical element of the
work performed in Houston at the NASA Johnson Space Center and the
backbone to maintaining a number of key elements of our success in
human spaceflight: the astronaut corps, mission control, countless
technical resources, and world-class researchers. The Johnson Space
Center offers an unparalleled national capability that has been built
over decades of experience. The loss of or weakening of its
capabilities would have dramatic implications to our outcomes in deep
space exploration.
I would like to note our strong appreciation for this committee's
careful review of any discussion about transitions on the ISS, which
must be done carefully and thoughtfully as a matter of national policy
objectives and priorities rather than as a response to short term
political or budget pressures. As was noted in the hearing with NASA
last month, going about this transition too quickly could result in the
loss of these key capabilities and lead to critical gaps in U.S.
capabilities in space, allowing international competitors to seize such
moments to usurp American leadership.
The ISS has achieved remarkable goals in science, diplomacy and
commercial space market advances, but its work is far from complete. It
remains as vital a resource today as it has since crews first started
manning it in November of 2000. There are multitudes of productive
initiatives left that can only be explored on the station.
Economic Impact
The technology generated out of ISS research continues to improve
the quality of human life. NASA literally publishes a book on all of
the spinoffs each year. New innovations boost our economy and create
jobs in our communities.
The ROI on the ISS can be calculated in many ways. It is difficult
to quantify the exact dollar value of many of these returns, but the
overall impact is undeniable. The International Space Station--by its
design and enactment--has established the foundation for sustained
generation of technology that improves life on earth. Each year,
spinoffs like new drugs, materials, and scientific technology become
licensed and begin generating new revenue streams for companies large
and small.
Beyond the ability to show an ROI, ISS positions us to tackle the
challenge of deep space by buying down cost and risk now to give
missions to the Moon and Mars a head start. The station is a critical,
inexpensive test bed for exploration hardware that needs to work
perfectly on its first live mission. It allows us to test, tweak, and
perfect life support systems, radiation abatement methods, and other
advanced materials. These breakthroughs will eventually make it from
the launch pad into our homes and businesses across America.
Through engagement with the Russian space agency and 13 other ISS
partners, the U.S. has led an era of peaceful collaboration and
exploration that has provided stability in space leading to the current
level of space commercialization. This commitment to ISS--uninterrupted
for the last 25 years--has provided more than just a destination in
space. The ISS has cultivated:
A cultural learning lab for diplomacy, education, and
inspiration
A learning lab for technology applications--testing
performance machines, materials, and humans in space
A science lab for comparing terrestrial knowledge in a new
frontier of weightlessness
A lab for exploring both our earth and outer space in
preparation for the next exploration endeavors
I think it is important to take a detailed look at the overall ISS
budget, which is often cited at $3B per year. What is misleading about
that estimate is that the Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are funded
out of those funds along with overhead costs at the centers housing the
programs and other expenses. The real ISS budget is a fraction of that
total cost, ranging from $1B--$1.5B/year. Saving this much each year
will have a minimal impact on our overall exploration efforts in terms
of a funds transfer. Commercial alternatives would likely cost
significantly more than sustaining the ISS, essentially creating an
entirely new development program, while providing a fraction of the
existing capabilities.
Leadership
History will look back at the ISS as the first time the world
joined together, under American leadership, to build an outpost in
space. The ISS partner relationships have fostered an invaluable boost
to diplomacy and global peace and a powerful tool to leverage resources
for necessary basic research. It remains the most visible symbol of
NASA and our human spaceflight program, and it is a unique asset that
should be used to its full extent by the U.S. and its partners.
However, as we succeed, others look to follow. As you have probably
seen, just last week China invited other nations to partner with them
on their space station. They realize, as we do, the power of these
partnerships and the leadership and the technology that can be gained
from them. As we question our commitment to the future of ISS, the
Chinese space program is actively seeking to leverage this moment in
time to provide an alternative path and platform for our traditional
international partners in space. This has very serious implications for
our national security, trade and technology partnerships, and
leadership if this is not managed carefully.
If the U.S. Government terminates its support of the ISS in 2025,
and we step away from ISS before an equivalent long-term engagement is
created, there will be a disruption in the space program and the
emerging commercial space industry. Not very long ago, NASA's
Constellation Program was cancelled at the same time as the retirement
of the Space Shuttle Program, which had a profoundly negative impact on
America's leadership position in space. I sincerely hope that we all
learned a valuable lesson from this and trust that you will not allow
history to repeat itself! My position is that the U.S. Government
should commit to the ISS for as long as it is safely feasible to do so.
Conclusion
Although counter-intuitive, the mere discussion of the end of life
to the ISS dries up the commercial investments that may one day provide
a viable revenue alternative. Scientists begin to worry about investing
time and resources if the endgame is uncertain bringing significant
challenges to future experiments, and international partners look in
other directions for leadership to advance their aspirations in space.
At the end of the day, the ISS program is the culmination of all of
the reasons we are so passionate about the entire space program--it
represents America's future in global leadership, education,
innovation, healthcare, and our quality of life.
Thank you for the invitation to speak on this topic, and I look
forward to your questions.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Chilton.
STATEMENT OF JIM CHILTON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,
SPACE AND LAUNCH, BOEING DEFENSE, SPACE AND
SECURITY, THE BOEING COMPANY
Mr. Chilton. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member
Nelson, Ranking Member Markey. I'm very grateful for the chance
to speak here, and also for your leadership over a long period
on space.
I'm here representing Boeing, and with great pride, as I
was once Mike Suffredini's contractor, building and supporting
a space station. Something I'd like to point out that's been
said is, humans have been living on orbit for 18 years, which
means that today's high school students, the kids graduating
this month, have never had a day in school without people
living and working aloft. And I support all previous witnesses
and the Senators who have said we ought to keep permanent human
presence in low-Earth orbit and for all of humanity.
Let me talk about Boeing's role. We were the prime system
developer of the Station from the U.S. operating-segment
standpoint. That meant we integrated all the international
partners, as well, because that was fundamentally an American-
led enterprise. That means we created a bunch of industrial
relationships with international partners. That was good for
American business, and I think it set a new model.
It does put us in a role to opine about ISS longevity.
Some of you may know that we recently conducted a study for
NASA and concluded, with NASA's approval, that the ISS could
live, structurally, through 2028. I'd like to point out that
it's not unusual for a Boeing product to go a lot longer than
her initial design life. Think about B-52s, where the grandsons
and daughters of the original pilots are now flying them.
They're actually better airplanes than they were before. And
today, the Space Station is a better vehicle than when the
first modules were hooked together.
But, the question of longevity is very important for anyone
who wants to close a business case. Think about buying an
airplane, where the airworthiness certificate expires in 3
years. So, it will be important for people to develop opinions
with facts and data around the long-term life of the Station.
Ours is that the mid-2030s are eminently reasonable, given the
history of our product lines.
Given that, if we assume that, let me talk about a first-
order commercial assessment as an industrial partner to NASA.
The U.S. operating segment costs the U.S. Government about $3.2
billion a year. These numbers are approximate. $1.8 billion of
that, over half, is launch--launch for resupply; $1.1 billion,
approximately, is ops and sustaining. That's keeping the lights
on. Boeing addresses about half of that market, a little less
than half. And, by the way, our cost of doing the same work has
come down about 30 percent in 10 years, so there has been
progress, in partnership with NASA. $300 million of this is the
research and science money, which my colleague and fellow
witness will address. But, if you add all that up, our
assessment is, the U.S. operating segment is funded by the
government at about $3.2 billion a year, and there's about $100
million of revenue that we've now been able to get across all
parties on Space Station. And that's a big gap. So, just as an
industrialist, please consider that some incremental
capability-based approach may make more market sense than
absolutely cutting it on a date.
There are global--well, let me add one more thing.
Historically, none of the people who generate revenue on the
Station today pay for launch, raising questions like, Does the
commercial entity--if this ever happened, if one commercial
entity operated the Station, do they control the launchers, or
does the government continue to provide those? I offer that
question because there are many things to be considered as we
go forward. But, the difference between $3.2 billion and $100
million is a lot, commercially. That's a big gap.
Global considerations have been mentioned, but I would
argue that ISS paved the way for true interdependency on space
projects. It is a false choice, in my view, that you have to
choose between going further into deep space and staying in
low-Earth orbit. We wouldn't know how to go further into deep
space if we hadn't learned how to build the Space Station. If
you believe that humanity is best served doing something
collaboratively with other nations for deep space, ISS is our
only model.
So, we should consider that government funding in the U.S.
is something that other nations look at. Their governments will
continue to fund their segments. Capital in their countries
doesn't flow in the same way that it flows in our country, in
the way Mr. Suffredini has referenced. So, we should all be
mindful that we have to harmonize that operating model if we
would like to retain the option to have international partners
under our leadership for deep space. So, we shouldn't fall for
the choice of station or BO. We need Station to prove out BO,
not just technically, but as an operating model across industry
and governments.
So, I'll leave you with--you now know our view, that LEO
and deeper space are compatible, and we shouldn't be lulled
into anyone trying to choose that we must do only one or the
other. So, I would offer a recommendation to use your
authorities and powers that we should avoid uncertainty for the
science community. Some of these long-cycle science projects
take 6 to 8 years lead time. If those researchers who currently
haven't been paying--some pay, some don't--believe that they
might get a bill, and they--or they believe that the model
won't be sound, we could see science dry up soon--this year,
next year--people on these long-cycle experiments. And we
should be mindful to signal certainty and incrementalism. We
should be very careful to, whatever we do, keep a permanent
human presence in space. We have had times in the U.S. where we
couldn't get access to space, between Apollo and Shuttle, and
we're going through one now, between Shuttle--let's not--I
respectfully suggest we try not to do that with our presence in
low-Earth orbit.
And so, when I wrap all that up, the uncertainty could be
around just picking a time and say everything must change by
one year. A more incremental capabilities-based approach seems
more appropriate, from Boeing's perspective.
Thank you for your time and attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chilton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Chilton, Senior Vice President, Space and
Launch, Boeing Defense, Space and Security, The Boeing Company
Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Nelson, Ranking Member Markey and
members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of The Boeing Company, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today to provide Boeing's perspective on
the future of the International Space Station and pathways to increase
commercial use of low Earth orbit (LEO). I appreciate your holding last
month's hearing with NASA and today's hearing with industry and other
stakeholders to understand the implications of important policy
decisions before Congress and the Administration that will determine
the future of American leadership in LEO.
Mr. Chairman, as you know Boeing is proud to work closely with the
Johnson Space Center and Mission Operations in Houston where about
1,000 Boeing employees collaborate with NASA teams to support the
astronauts, ISS operations and research on a daily basis. And Senator
Nelson, our Boeing team of more than 400 employees in and around the
Kennedy Space Center is preparing for launch of the CST-100 Starliner
later this year and supporting ISS, Space Launch System and the X-37B
spacecraft.
On November 2 the world will celebrate 18 years of a continuous
human presence in space. That means that students graduating high
school this month with aspirations of one day being part of human
exploration of deep space . . . will have lived their entire life on
Earth while men and women continuously orbited above . . . living,
working and expanding the realm of what's possible in space. In other
words, they were helping to make those students' dreams a reality.
The question the subcommittee is considering today has profound
implications for whether we will continue to have a continuous human
presence in space for decades to come, if not indefinitely. If we as a
country make strategic policy decisions at this juncture, future
generations may celebrate November 2, 2000 as the beginning of
mankind's permanent presence off Earth.
The men and women of Boeing are rightfully proud of our company's
role as NASA's prime contractor for the International Space Station. In
that capacity, we designed, developed, integrated, tested and delivered
all U.S.-built elements of the station. We also ensured these elements
integrated seamlessly with those built by our international partners, a
tough task given these elements were developed half way across the
world and only met for the first time on orbit.
Having created this unique home and laboratory in space, Boeing
maintains this continued orbital presence as NASA's contractor for
sustaining engineering for the ISS. We are responsible for maintaining
the station at peak performance levels to ensure that this invaluable
and inspirational engineering marvel remains available to NASA, its
international partners, other U.S. government agencies and private
companies.
But today, I am pleased to be here with this distinguished panel to
talk about ISS sustainment of a different sort. We ask you to use your
authority to preserve the long-term viability of this vital national
laboratory, this icon of aerospace engineering, this symbol of an
international vision for space, for as long as the Station is able to
operate safely and reliably; even as we work together to return to the
moon and press beyond into deep space.
And we believe that ISS mission goes well beyond 2028, ensuring
that the investment taxpayers and international partners made in
building the station continue to provide value for many years ahead.
As you may know, at NASA's request, Boeing performed a study on the
life of major space station hardware components. Our study shows the
primary structure can reach 2028 and found no technical showstoppers to
continued flight beyond 2028. The ISS was designed and built in
Boeing's robust tradition which has seen spacecraft and aircraft far
exceed their initial design life. Working with NASA we routinely
upgrade systems and capabilities. The fact is, the ISS is far more
capable now than it was even seven years ago. And with the NASA-Boeing
team focused on operations 24-7-365 we are able to operate in a mindset
of continuous improvement for safety and reliability.
It's important to add that Boeing continues to work with NASA to
reduce the costs of sustaining the International Space Station. In
fact, over the past 10 years, we have reduced the costs to our
sustaining role by more than 30 percent.
Notice that I said ``technical showstoppers.'' Unfortunately, we do
see that this potential extended life could be compromised due to
premature discussions about terminating the program or withdrawing U.S.
funding and support.
Like you, we are concerned by consideration of ending direct
government funding of ISS in 2025, creating an uncertain future for
this valuable space asset. Uncertainty due to the risk of subjecting
the station and all that it represents to the hope of a commercial
space market that may not have a chance to take shape in seven years--
risking reduction of elimination of research and science, and even
America's leadership role in LEO should viable commercial alternatives
not materialize.
Before considering this policy question, let's take a look at what
the ISS represents. . .
The ISS is--by far--the largest spacecraft in history and
represents the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars from 15
nations around the world. It operates 24/7.
ISS Provides a Unique Geopolitical Benefit
We believe that deep space exploration will only be possible
through international cooperation, and ISS proved this is best done
under American leadership. It will require global investment and
infusion of ideas from a coalition of space-faring nations. The
International Space Station has proven and will continue to prove that
it is possible, and it should be our model for our future in LEO as
well as in deep space as we prepare to launch the Space Launch System
with NASA and international astronauts on Exploration Missions to the
Moon in the 2020s. In fact, through current intergovernmental
agreements, our international partnerships on ISS are directly
contributing to cost-sharing for exploration, and can be further
leveraged as we build out the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway and build
systems for the Moon and Mars.
It is a model of geopolitical efficiency and tenacity that is far
from finished in its work to demonstrate the benefits of cooperative
space exploration. Abandoning the ISS at this time not only risks U.S.
leadership in space, but also imperils our ability to forge essential
collaborative political, engineering and scientific relationships
around the world.
NASA currently leads the world's space agencies, and is positioned
to lead a deep-space exploration campaign including international and
industry partners. Those other space agencies, space-faring nations and
emerging aspirants like Australia and the United Arab Emirates will not
abandon their plans if we abdicate our responsibility to lead and
inspire. Continued operations in low-Earth orbit will be essential for
them to realize their aspirations in space and provide them the
incentive and experience to make future contributions as we explore
deep space.
If the ISS program is terminated in 2025, then our international
partners and commercial businesses will look for alternative low Earth
orbit opportunities. Russia has talked about separating from ISS and
offering their capabilities to our international partners. China is
currently building and plans to operate their own space station
starting in 2022 and is engaging the international community to use it.
Ending American government support for ISS will have significant
impacts on our Nation's standing in the world, and weaken U.S.
influence of the international and commercial communities needed for
deep space exploration.
No nation alone can sustainably return humans to the moon and send
them to Mars--it will take the collective capacity and funding of our
global partners. If we end our human presence in LEO prior to having a
steady cadence of human spaceflight missions to deep space, we put at
risk not only U.S. funding but the support of international partners.
Also, if the U.S. is not the leader in human spaceflight, other nations
will assume that leadership role.
ISS Provides Significant Scientific Benefit
The ISS provides a unique, micro-gravity research capability unlike
anything else in the world. More than 2,000 experiments have been
conducted on orbit with the participation of 103 countries. And this
has contributed to significant breakthrough science. To cite just a
few:
The development of osteoporosis drugs available now to treat
bone loss
Clinical trials for treating Duchenne muscular dystrophy
A vaccine for salmonella
And currently in work:
Cancer therapy targeting tumor cells
Fiber production
Human organ and tissue manufacturing
The development of robotic arms to treat inoperable tumors
If the research and science community sees the ISS future as
uncertain, planning for future experiments could begin to slow or stop
as early as this year. These are long cycle endeavors, and not
commercial in nature. More than 300 experiments are performed every
month aboard the ISS. These experiments not only contribute to down-to-
earth scientific breakthroughs, but also develop understanding and
human health and environmental support systems to support future deep
space missions. It is for these reasons and more that with great wisdom
and an eye to the long-term future, Congress enacted the 2005 NASA
Authorization Act that designated the U.S segment of the ISS as a
national laboratory. National Laboratories, like the ISS, are important
to delivering world-class research and strengthening the overall
contribution of the laboratories to the Nation's research enterprise.
The ISS provides significant benefits here on Earth, and holds the
potential to expand our economic sphere beyond the Earth's surface.
It's also important to note that the work being done on ISS
inspires the next generation of researchers and visionaries. Boeing is
proud to sponsor the ``Genes in Space'' contest that offers an
opportunity for middle-school and high school students--future
researchers and explorers--in the U.S. and around the world, to propose
actual, meaningful experiments to be performed on orbit, and then
allows them to see their ideas in action.
Cutting short this government-supported research in 2025, or
causing future researchers to wonder whether the ISS will be viable in
its current science model, risks putting the brakes to much of the
breakthrough discoveries that could be possible. Even the uncertainty
of future government involvement puts new science at risk. With average
lead-time of six to seven years to plan, propose, fund and initiate
meaningful research projects, scientists and researchers will have
little choice but to abandon their ideas and look elsewhere. We must
ensure the science community that their future contributions to life on
Earth--and in space--will find a lasting home on orbit.
ISS provides significant economic opportunity
Our advocacy for continued government support for operation of the
Station does not dismiss the prospects of viable commercial utilization
of the ISS. We believe there is opportunity on orbit, but that it is
unlikely to happen with the turn of a switch on a certain date. Total
ISS reliance on private funding is unlikely to be economically viable
by 2025 absent significant, if not exclusive, NASA investment and
anchor tenancy. There will simply not be enough of a space economy in
place for market forces to drive robust commercial behavior in low-
Earth orbit in that timeframe. There is a good chance that a premature
termination of ISS could ultimately result in a U.S.-government funded
LEO platform with less capability, fewer international partners and
comparable costs. Such a plan could even inhibit the commercial
development of LEO, without ISS as an anchor without which bigger
business arrangements would not be viable.
We don't lack capacity for commercial opportunities with the ISS,
but the likelihood that those opportunities can fund the entire ISS by
2025 is very low. Currently NASA funds the U.S. Operating segment of
the ISS at $3B annually. Commercial revenue is $100M or less. This is
a big gap. The problem we really need to solve is growing the private
sector demand for services in space. We are already seeing signs of
what could be possible where commercialization and investment in the
ISS capability can seed and foster a sustainable economy in LEO. From
our vantage point, the Boeing/Nanoracks commercial airlock will enable
Cubesat and other small satellite deployment from ISS by way of the
national laboratory. Boeing investment in innovation targets an
untapped user community of start-ups through business accelerators like
MassChallenge.
But the fundamental fact remains and has been pointed out as
recently as last month's Science and Technology Policy Institute study,
``it is unlikely that a commercially owned and operated space station
will be economically viable by 2025.'' Indeed, today, there is less
than $100 million of revenue generated by commercial companies for
services aboard the ISS . . . at an annual cost to operate the Station
of $3.2 billion. Today's commercial LEO destination business case
relies on continued government funding while other markets around non-
US governments, manufacturing, and private spaceflight participants
continue to develop. This is unlikely to evolve much more toward a
viable commercial market by 2025.
Furthermore, uncertainty about that near-term future discourages
venture capitalists from substantial investment that leverages the ISS
as a platform. The U.S. government must continue serve as the anchor
customer in LEO and, to the greatest extent possible, maintain our
current international partners to drive global investment to U.S.
commercial providers serving and using the ISS. With continued
government support the Station can serve as an incubator to define
these future commercial opportunities, but the government must still be
able to rely on the Station for basic scientific research and more
understanding of what is needed to support deep space missions.
ISS continues to provide significant down-to-Earth economic opportunity
If economic opportunity is to be the driver of the Space Station's
future, let's not dismiss the real economic opportunity that has been
at the heart of development, assembly and operation of the Station for
over two decades. It's opportunity that continues well into the future.
Over the past 18 years of human presence on orbit, approximately
400 suppliers from at least 35 states have supported the Station. Last
year alone, 227 suppliers have been part of robust economic activity of
approximately $165 million. With approximately $300 million in annual
contract expenditures, at least $50 million has been awarded to small
businesses.
The ISS program, along with its crew and cargo transportation
programs, help ensure that NASA maintains critical leadership in
mission operations, human spaceflight and other competencies that will
be necessary as we launch upcoming Exploration Missions to the Moon and
beyond.
Long-term viability of the Station is essential to sustaining that
earthbound economic vitality.
All of these arguments--international collaboration, breakthrough
science and research, a nascent yet promising commercial space economy,
earthbound economic vitality, and deep space exploration needs--point
to a compelling rationale to keep the International Space Station
operating in a government-funded model through 2025 and on into the
future.
Recommendation
While it is very important for the Administration and Congress to
consider the future of ISS beyond 2024 and how to make greater
commercial use of this unprecedented platform, we believe that
proposing a termination date at this time will result in confusion,
missed opportunities and potentially compromise our permanent human
presence in space--just at a time when the commercial space ecosystem
in LEO is starting to develop. It also may compromise planned
scientific research and result in international partners losing
confidence in America's commitment to LEO.
Some have argued that the rationale for ending direct funding of
the ISS is that the United States cannot afford both continued ISS
operations and deep space exploration at the same time. We disagree
that this is an ``either-or'' decision, and Congress has demonstrated
its commitment to NASA and our human spaceflight programs through
significant increases in appropriations over the last several Fiscal
Years to ensure both a healthy LEO and deep space exploration program.
The retirement of the world-recognized Space Shuttle created a
misperception in some quarters that NASA was going out of business and
America was ceding space leadership. It is easy to see how that
perception could arise. Premature retirement of the Shuttle created a
seven-year gap in U.S. spaceflight and brought about a $3 billion
reliance on Russia to carry our astronauts to the ISS, effectively
leaving control of this vital asset in their hands. At the same time,
NASA only saw about $500 million shifted to exploration.
The ISS remains as the foundation for U.S. leadership in the
international space community, and premature retirement before we have
established follow-on capabilities and platforms could be even more
problematic than the void left after Shuttle retirement. As such, NASA
should develop a plan founded on transition criteria and objectives as
guidelines rather than an arbitrary decommission date to avoid future
unintended consequences which could undermine U.S. leadership and
recent investments in low-Earth orbit. Elements of the plan should
include, but not be limited to:
Continued U.S. human presence in LEO to sustain crew and
cargo transportation
Completion of exploration-related research and technology
development requiring ISS
Availability of alternate capability to conduct NASA
microgravity research
Establishment of a human exploration habitation capability
in deep space.
Considerations of ``industrialization'' vs pure
commercialization.
To ensure U.S. leadership in space we need a criteria-based
approach to the future of the International Space Station, not an
arbitrary end date. ISS serves an important role for deeper space
exploration, as a test bed and example of cooperation. The science
community needs to know ISS will be viable outside a pure commercial
model, or the science pipeline could begin to dry up soon. Moving
toward a more efficient industrial model on ISS makes sense if these
risks can be managed on a criteria based timeline.
Our generation--soon to include those high-school graduates
(Generation ISS, if you will)--are demonstrating how we will be able to
live in space for a half-century.
Thank you.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chilton.
Ms. Bouthot.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA BOUTHOT, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL
INNOVATION AND SPONSORED PROGRAMS, CENTER FOR
THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN SPACE (CASIS)
Ms. Bouthot. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Ranking
Member Nelson, thank you for the opportunity to share with you
my views on the International Space Station.
Today, I plan on discussing the success we've achieved in
driving new demand for the ISS National Lab. CASIS is the
manager of the National Lab and is serving as a bridge from a
government-driven operation to a commercially sustainable
marketplace. In this short time, I will describe why demand is
important to a sustainable LEO marketplace, what has that--what
is the state of that demand, and how have we been able to build
it, and, basically, why we need more time.
An end date was suggested for the ISS National Lab that
would fully commercialize operations by 2025. We understand
that commercialization is imminent, and we are fully supporting
this process. However, to achieve this goal, enough time must
be given, both for a smooth transition and for the Nation, to
realize the return on investment to the American taxpayer.
So, let me start with, Why is building demand important?
It's the foundation for a sustainable and self-funded LEO
marketplace. It's the source of revenue for the transportation
on-orbit providers and services markets, some of my colleagues
here on the panel. Demand is providing a tangible return on
investment to the American taxpayer. And finally, the demand
we're generating right now with research and development is the
underpinning for eventual manufacturing in space.
So, what is the state of this demand? Today, more than 55
percent of our payloads are commercial customers and include
large programs from iconic Fortune 500 companies as well as
innovative startups. We have flown more than 175 payloads, and
have 88 in queue. A majority are new to space, and 20 percent
are repeat users.
Work on the ISS is providing tangible return on investment
to the American taxpayer. We have looked at a value impact
process where our project sponsors, validated by external
experts, project incremental revenue of more than $900 million,
a total addressable market of $110 billion, an acceleration in
time to market, on average, of 1.5 years, and thousands of new
direct and indirect jobs. These are just a few of the economic
metrics tied directly to the projects executed on the
International Space Station National Lab.
Some examples of these projects are Houston Methodist
Research Institute, working with Novartis in Cambridge, on an
implantable drug delivery system for muscle atrophy; Nalco
Champion, an Ecolab company in Sugar Land, working on biofilms
related to corrosions in piping; and Honeywell, out of
Clearwater, Florida, looking at remote sensing applications to
detect oil and gas leaks in remote parts of the world.
So, let's step back. How were we able to build this demand?
CASIS has funding of $15 million per year from NASA, which does
not allow us to act like a big funding agency like the NIH.
Therefore, we had to find creative ways to build demand, which
admittedly has not been easy. When we first stood up CASIS,
there were no customers banging down our doors, and there was
generally a lack of awareness of the ISS. In my testimony, I
describe, over the past 6 years, what we did to actually build
this demand and how we evolved from an organization that
initially had to pay researchers, who were mostly academic, to
an organization that attracts commercial companies that are
paying their way. To date, over $140 million of skin in the
game which is non-CASIS, non-NASA funding has directly paid for
flight projects. This excludes transportation cost. And this
trend is increasing as more and more commercial companies are
seeing the value of space-based research.
Per our cooperative agreement with NASA, CASIS cannot
accept royalties or fees for services, so we had to be creative
when attempting to generate additional non-NASA funding to
support new demand. We created a sponsored program model that
has generated over $33 million of committed third-party funding
for XPRIZE-type competitions like Target's $1 million cotton
sustainability challenge and our partnership with Boeing on the
MassChallenge Accelerator and Genes in Space STEM Program.
So, finally, why do we need more time? First of all, we
believe the perceived cliff with a hard cut-off date of 2025 or
unknown path forward dampens long-term prospects for demand.
Companies will simply stop investing if they don't see a runway
that matches their R&D roadmap.
Second, any abrupt change in which the private sector is
asked to assume the role of managing the ISS without its best
and most profitable uses defined may stunt the return on the
investment to the American taxpayer.
And finally, the demand I've just described is nascent and
growing, and it's also on a trajectory to manufacturing in
space. Two big examples are advanced materials, which could
revolutionize the communications and semiconductors industry.
The second example is the regenerative medicine work we're
doing, which could ultimately lead to manufacturing new organs,
like heart and lung, in space.
In conclusion, we are creating demand, we have a model
that's working, we see a trajectory to a sustainable
marketplace, but we need time to ensure smooth transition and
to fully realize the benefits and fulfill this vital mission.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bouthot follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia Bouthot, Director, Commercial Innovation
and Sponsored Programs, Center for the Advancement of Science in Space
Chairman Cruz, Senator Markey, and Members of the Committee, thank
you for the opportunity to discuss with you my thoughts on Examining
the Future of the International Space Station: Stakeholder
Perspectives. I am pleased to share with you my perspectives in my
capacity as the director of Commercial Innovation & Sponsored Programs,
Center for the Advancement of Science in Space. In this role, I work
directly with the private sector, nonprofits, and other government
agencies to bring awareness to U.S. organizations that the
International Space Station (ISS) U.S. National Laboratory is open for
business, ultimately driving new demand. We work with organizations to
analyze what projects would benefit from using the ISS National
Laboratory platform and have Earth and U.S. taxpayer benefit. The
Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), the manager of
the International Space Station U.S. National Laboratory, is creating a
brand-new marketplace in low Earth orbit (LEO) and generating demand
with new-to-space users. My team works with companies such as Target
and Novartis as well as nonprofits such as Houston Methodist Research
Hospital and the Michael J. Fox Foundation to introduce them to the
National Laboratory on the ISS and assist them in realizing the
benefits of utilizing this low Earth orbiting platform in a way that
provides value to them and value to the Nation.
I want to acknowledge the foresight Congress had back in 2005 when
it designated the U.S. operating segment of the ISS as the Nation's
newest National Laboratory. The NASA authorization Act of 2005 was
sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas and Senator Bill
Nelson from Florida. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed NASA
to engage in a cooperative agreement with a not-for-profit entity to
manage non-NASA utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. The
nonprofit was guaranteed allocation of not less than 50 percent of the
U.S. research capacity in order to implement these non-NASA research
and development (R&D) projects.
Through a competitive process, CASIS was selected as the nonprofit
to manage the ISS National Laboratory in late 2011. Between 2010 and
2015, a series of bipartisan legislation was passed to ensure
continuation of support and utilization of the ISS through 2024,
including support for exploration, development of commercial
capabilities, and international cooperation. I would like to express
our appreciation to past congressional leaders and yourselves for
setting forth a national vision for U.S. leadership in low Earth orbit
using the ISS National Laboratory as a pathfinder--essentially creating
CASIS to open the ISS National Laboratory to recruit the research
community from all sectors (commercial, academic, and other government
agencies), focusing on driving utilization of the ISS with a broad
range of new and non-traditional users. While NASA's ISS activities are
focused on exploration, technology development, and living and working
in space, CASIS was created to provide a pathway for disruptive non-
exploration R&D, commercial activities, and STEM education initiatives
with Earth-based applications that directly benefit the American public
and the Nation's economy. The ISS National Laboratory is working, and
CASIS has come a long way in implementing Section 504 of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2010.
My testimony is focused on the success and challenges we've
experienced in driving and attracting new private and public-sector
demand to utilize the ISS National Laboratory. This comes at a
propitious time when Congress is engaged in discussions of an ISS
transition. The ISS National Laboratory model serves as a bridge from a
government-driven operation to a commercially sustainable marketplace.
Our efforts will lay the foundation for a future commercial LEO
platform ecosystem and the attraction of private sector investment to
grow and sustain the program.
While we and our partners at NASA and in industry are making strong
progress in building interest and demand in space R&D, we do have
concerns about the impact of prematurely halting government support of
the ISS and its impact on this nascent market. The FY19 President's
budget request recommends a termination of direct funding of the ISS
with a transition to fully commercialize operations by 2025. We
understand that attraction of the commercial sector is a critical
element of a successful transition, and we at CASIS are working
diligently to inform this process. However, it is important that
sufficient time be dedicated to ensuring not only a smooth transition
but also a return on investment be realized for the American taxpayer
with regards to the ISS National Laboratory. We are truly still in the
early stage phase of the process of building a sustainable LEO
marketplace, with the creation of demand for access to the facility,
supply, and investment.
Today, more than 55 percent of our payloads are private sector
customers and include projects from iconic Fortune 500 companies and
innovative startups. We have flown more than 175 payloads and we have
88 in queue ready to go to the ISS National Laboratory. We have placed
emphasis on projects that benefit by using the unique ISS platform. A
majority of the ISS National Laboratory projects managed by CASIS are
new-to-space users and 20 percent are repeat CASIS customers who see
merit in continuing to utilize the ISS National Laboratory for their
R&D activities. These initial activities are key to building a
sustainable market. We are working with key R&D markets that we believe
could lead to sustainable demand for access to LEO, such as
manufacturing in microgravity.
Results and Impacts:
Over the past several years, we developed a value assessment
process that quantifies the value and impact back to the American
taxpayer. The methodology we adopted is based on best practice analogs
from industry, government research agencies, and other National
Laboratories and is directly applied to the R&D projects accomplished
on the ISS National Laboratory. To date, the following is the projected
value of these projects (conducted on approximately 75 percent of the
CASIS portfolio), validated by the project sponsors and external
experts:
Incremental revenue of more than $900M directly tied to ISS
National Laboratory projects
Total estimated addressable market of more than $110B
Accelerated time to market, on average between 1 and 3 years
1000s of new direct and indirect jobs
25+ new solution pathways of innovation (a measure of
innovation that can lead to a major advance in knowledge or new
intellectual property)
In this section we present examples of new ISS National Laboratory
users that are now conducting R&D projects using the benefits of
microgravity, the extreme conditions of space, and the LEO vantage
point for development of data and products that are subsequently
returned to the project sponsor on Earth:
Houston Methodist Research Institute (Texas): This team is
collaborating with Novartis (Massachusetts) on the development
of an implantable drug delivery device, using microgravity to
understand the capability of the small nanofluidic instrument
to deliver a drug. The end goal is to achieve efficacy in
combating muscle atrophy without the requirement of daily
injections.
Nalco Champion (a subsidiary of the Fortune 500 company
EcoLab) (Texas): This project is directed toward the mitigation
of bacterial biofilm-related corrosion in oil and gas lines. In
today's world, microbiologically influenced corrosion causes an
estimated $0.5B-1.5T in damages and lost revenue annually,
mostly in the oil and gas industries. The conditions produced
by microgravity are being exploited to better understand the
mechanisms of biofilm formation, their corrosive effect, and
methods to mitigate physical damage to metal surfaces--which
may potentially have tremendous economic benefit for this
industry.
Honeywell (Florida): This project is using remote sensing
applications to detect oil and gas leaks which, if successful,
would have major economic and environmental benefit for the
energy sector.
Sanofi (Florida): This project is directed toward improving
vaccine production, with microgravity enabling an understanding
of cell-based vaccine production compared to older models using
chicken eggs. Results could substantially reduce manufacturing
cost and time to production while improving both the quality
and efficiency of vaccine development.
Merck (New Jersey): This project is directed toward an
improved drug delivery formulation for a major new cancer
therapy using a monoclonal antibody, Keytruda. The goal is to
reduce the requirement for the administration of large
monoclonal antibody drugs in hospital settings, thereby
reducing hospital stays and costs.
Delta Faucet (Indiana): This project seeks to improve water
droplet formation technology in shower heads designed to make
the user feel wetter using less water. This technology can
improve water sustainability and water use efficiency.
Eli Lilly (Indiana): The company is undertaking four
projects--two focused on drug development and two focused on
drug delivery, including one to reduce the need for
refrigeration of some drugs. The latter, if achieved, would
facilitate worldwide distribution of biologics to parts of the
world that do not have refrigeration.
Business Integra (Texas): Demonstrate higher processing
speeds and less costly single-board computers available for the
aerospace market.
Goodyear (Ohio): Using microgravity to better understand
silica morphology for manufacturing tires with low rolling-
resistance that are more fuel efficient and safer.
Procter and Gamble (Ohio): Using microgravity to understand
complex fluid behavior and improve the functionality and shelf
life of consumer personal care products.
Anheuser-Busch International (Missouri): Barley is the 4th
most cultivated grain in the world. This project examines
barley seed germination to provide valuable information on the
production of barley for the agricultural community on Earth.
Target (Minnesota): This Challenge is focused on solutions
for more sustainable cotton production. A broad range of
solutions to improve cotton cultivation are to be explored
including plant genetics, plant root systems, and remote
sensing applications.
Mass Challenge (Massachusetts): 2D Nanomaterials initially
focused on radiation detection technology for homeland
security.
ISS National Laboratory--Early Challenges in Developing Demand:
CASIS receives $15M per year from NASA within the ISS Research
budget. Within the parameters defined in our cooperative agreement,
CASIS strives to identify creative ways to build demand and create a
sustainable business model to allow a future transition of the facility
to the private sector.
Our experience suggests that building sustainable demand is not a
trivial task. When we created CASIS, there were no customers banging
down our doors. There was generally a lack of awareness of the ISS
National Laboratory or demand for access to LEO for the conduct of
research that would benefit from the conditions on the ISS.
Thus, our first step was defining the intersection between
phenomena and advantages that LEO offers with propositions that are
interesting and beneficial to organizations here on the ground. As
noted with the company examples, there are three big reasons why R&D
takes place on the ISS National Laboratory:
Microgravity--the near absence of gravity has a
fundamentally unique effect on many biological and physical
systems that cannot be investigated for any duration of time on
Earth. Understanding how gravity acts upon the biological and
physical systems parlays into improving terrestrial R&D areas
such as human health, agriculture, and materials design.
Extreme Conditions of Space--accelerated degradation testing
using external platforms takes advantage of heat and cold
cycling, atomic oxygen, radiation, and debris impact.
Vantage Point--the ISS is big satellite bus providing a
platform for remote sensing applications from the unique
orbital altitude and path.
Because the commercial sector was not initially enthusiastic about
being on the ``bleeding edge'' of ISS use, we had to first focus on
generating proof-of-concept evidence. To introduce the research
community to the concept of LEO-based research, we issued solicitations
in key areas with a higher probability of success, such as stem cells,
advanced materials, and remote sensing. These were fully-funded
solicitations from CASIS that mainly engaged the academic research
community.
Once we had ``proof-of-concept'' evidence from this early work,
combined with the body of basic research that was done prior to CASIS,
we were able to talk with private sector customers about benefit to
their respective research areas. We have continued to refine our
approach by defining a commercial go-to-market strategy that focuses on
four main areas: life science, physical science, technology, and remote
sensing. We further delineated propositions that overlap with R&D
portfolio areas here on the ground. We can also conclude that much of
the publicly funded and even CASIS-funded basic research activities
leads to creation of research pathways and reduced risks for possible
downstream applications.
We evolved from an organization that initially had to PAY for
projects to an organization that attracts private-sector companies that
are paying their way. To date, more than $140M of non-CASIS/non-NASA
funding has directly paid for ISS National Laboratory projects. This
trend is increasing as more and more private-sector customers are
seeing the value of space-based R&D. While these funding trends are
positive, we are not yet at the point where organizations are willing
to pay for full project costs including transportation.
Per our cooperative agreement with NASA, CASIS cannot accept
royalties or fees for service--so again, we've had to be creative in
generating new non-NASA funding. We developed a new ``product'' called
a sponsored program, which is a pivot from our early unsuccessful
fundraising model. Sponsored programs leverage third-party funding to
support use of the ISS National Laboratory as an innovation platform
focused on solving big challenges through a competition or solicitation
model. They are also a great public-private partnership framework.
Demonstrating an upward trend in leveraged funding, in the last
three years, we have generated more than $33M of committed funding for
sponsored programs, with examples including:
Target Corporation's $1M cotton sustainability challenge is
funding three pathways from diverse sectors to investigate
water conservation.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has supported
multiple competitions related to ``Tissue Chip'' R&D in space,
committing up to $19M+ in support of multiple experiments
related to drug development and regenerative medicine.
The National Science Foundation has supported multiple
competitions related to tissue engineering, fluid physics, and
combustion, committing up to $5M+ in support of multiple space-
based experiments.
In addition to the economic value and impact delivered to the U.S.
taxpayer as a result of our R&D programs, we are also addressing
another critical national need--improvements in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, so our youth are better
prepared to participate and compete in our increasingly technology-
driven world. As defined in the enabling legislation that created
CASIS, our efforts in education constitute approximately 10 percent of
our total effort and are directed toward the creation of a national
STEM program using the ``bright shiny object'' of the ISS to attract,
motivate, and retain student interest. To achieve a national reach, we
have entered into a partnership with many leading institutions with
similar interests forming a consortium that includes the Boys and Girls
Clubs of American, Girls Inc., the Boys Scouts of America, and several
science museums and foundations, to create afterschool and summer
programs that augment the basic science exposures provided by our
public schools. We estimate that with programs such as our Space
Station Explorers Consortium effort, we are leveraging the ISS National
Laboratory to reach an estimated 800,000 students throughout the U.S.
yearly, a number that is expected to grow to approximately 2 million
during 2019. Space Station Explorers connects students and educators
with the astronauts on the ISS to discuss science programs, and even
design projects that can be flown to the station for execution in the
ISS National Laboratory (see: https://www.spacestationexplorers.org/).
What Does the Future look like?
One of our goals per the cooperative agreement is to stimulate,
develop and manage the uses of the ISS National Laboratory by
commercial, not-for-profit enterprises, other U.S. government agencies
(besides NASA) and academic institutions. This goal will contribute to
the building of a sustainable LEO marketplace that starts with private-
sector demand for access to the ISS. We believe the efforts of CASIS in
managing the ISS National Laboratory will encourage private-sector
participation and inform the Nation regarding how a smooth transition
can be made from near-total government sponsorship to a commercially
sustainable model. We believe that demand is in a formative stage for
this evolutionary process.
CASIS operations provide a critical element for a national effort
to support a smooth transition to a sustainable LEO marketplace. The
majority of private-sector companies positioning themselves for a
possible transition are engaged in preparing transportation services or
facilities (e.g., platforms, modules, and in-orbit laboratory R&D
facilities) required to carry out activities in LEO, whereas CASIS is
engaged in identification of the applications in LEO that will make use
of these facilities and services to establish the market.
Our current CASIS strategy, which is R&D based, includes a pathway
to in-orbit manufacturing in advanced materials and organ-on-chip
technologies. We believe in-orbit manufacturing could represent a
critical element of a new commercially driven and sustainable LEO
marketplace.
Conclusion:
A space-based National Laboratory is vital in supporting the
emergence of a sustainable LEO marketplace, and it is an important
construct not only for the existing ISS but also as model and testing
ground for a future space station or stations. The ISS National
Laboratory has been a pathfinder for examining and encouraging demand
for access to the unique ISS platform for R&D activities undertaken by
the private and non-NASA public sector. While the growth in numbers and
quality of project work suggests that we are making progress, we have
not reached the threshold for a sustained market. It is well understood
that Research and Development, and the translation of data into a
market, is a long and risk-laden process. More time is required to
ensure the early success in the identification of research applications
for LEO and sponsors prepared to pursue these initiatives. These
elements must be translated into a sustainable source of revenue for
the transportation, in-orbit provider, and services market.
The FY19PBR calls for the end of ISS direct funding by NASA by
2025. This perceived cliff, or unknown path forward for the
continuation of a platform in LEO, dampens long-term prospects for
demand from industries--companies will stop investing if they don't see
a runway that matches their own R&D roadmap. Also, any abrupt change in
which the private sector is asked to assume the role of managing the
ISS without its best and most profitable uses defined may stunt the
return on investment to the U.S. taxpayer.
In conclusion, we have been creating demand, we have a model that's
working, and we see a trajectory to a new sustainable marketplace--but
we need more time to fully realize the benefits and fulfill this vital
mission!
Mr. Chairman and Senator Markey, thank you again for opportunity to
address the committee on this important topic today. Thank you for your
time and attention. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Cruz. Thank you very much, Ms. Bouthot.
Let's start with questioning.
Mr. Chilton, based on the technical study in the report
that Boeing produced for NASA on the life span of the
International Space Station, what's your assessment of the real
life span of the Station? And how can we fully leverage this
investment to get the maximum return on the platform?
Mr. Chilton. Our assessment of life span of Station with
all the calculations complete is to 2028. In the course of
doing that, we saw no technical showstoppers to extend her life
significantly. I mentioned previously that 2030 seemed very
reasonable.
I'd like to point out that, as we've improved, in
partnership with NASA, the capability of the Station, I
mentioned it's a better platform today than 10 years ago. The
natural upgrade and improvement process in the course of
maintenance is--should take all the subsystems that are not
structure just as reasonably.
Senator Cruz. So, from a scientific and technical
perspective, you don't see any significant barriers to going to
at least 2028 and potentially 2030 or beyond. Is that right?
Mr. Chilton. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Cruz. OK, thank you.
Let me ask a question to all the witnesses. What do you
think could be the unintended consequences of terminating
Federal funding for ISS in 2025, 5 years, potentially, before
the end of its usable life?
I'll open that up to anyone.
Mr. Chilton. I don't mind starting. I think we could signal
to the science community some uncertainty, and we could see
science dry up. I think we could signal to the entrepreneurial
community, who may need more time, and we could see capital dry
up. I think we could--you know, I'll use the term ``head
fake''--we could have some people start something and, as we go
down this path, they've invested some capital, and they find
it's not going to work out because we're not certifying the
life extension using government dollars. And, frankly, I think
the transportation costs are a bit of an elephant in the room.
Everybody who's able to generate revenue on ISS today is having
government-sponsored transportation back and forth. So, that's
got to be solved.
Ms. Bouthot. I would just add that the entrepreneurial
community, the commercial community, when they look at doing
research on Station, they're not looking at a one-shot deal.
They're looking at a research roadmap, especially when we're
talking about our pharmaceutical companies that are doing work.
We're talking about a 10-year timeframe. They do not want to
see a trajectory that does not meet their research roadmap.
We've already had anecdotal evidence of companies that we're
working with to try to get to Station hesitate once that 2025
date was announced.
Senator Cruz. And if we get to 2025 and the only Space
Station in low-Earth orbit is being operated by China, is that
good for the United States of America?
Mr. Mitchell. You know, Congressman, that is exactly what I
was going to add to the conversation, is that our biggest
concern, as well, needs to be the international relationships
that we've developed all these years, developed the
collaboration. Look at the relationship that we continue to
have today with Russia. Even though we know what's going on in
the world, this is the one thing that has really pulled us all
together, kept us focused and working together. To give that up
to China would be devastating to--in my opinion.
Mr. Suffredini. So, I'd like to add, you know, I lived
through ISS for many, many years, since the beginning. During
that process, I was involved in the decision process from the
outside of watching us decide that we would retire Shuttle and
have commercial crew. It didn't really turn out the way we had
all talked about, which really was, you had to have--bring on a
commercial crew provider and then let Shuttle retire. And we
are seriously suffering the consequences today. That we are
relying on another country to get us to orbit, get our crews to
orbit and back, is a travesty. If we are going to lead, which
this country only should be doing, we need to do it by making
the right commitments and making sure our transitions are
sound. We need to stay in space. We have to be there. That's
the high ground. That's where we need to be. And we need to do
it with other countries, as well. That's critically important
for us, as well. So, to lose the ISS without having some other
capability orbit that is American-made, I think it would be a
huge mistake.
Senator Cruz. So, if I understand your testimony, you're
saying, before we wind down any platform, that history has
taught us we need to have a reliable alternative in place first
so that we're not left with nothing and a lack of capability
and a vulnerability to other nations.
Mr. Suffredini. That is of critical importance. Yes, sir.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Mitchell, you and I are both Houstonians.
What impact does the Johnson Space Center have on economic
development and jobs in and around Houston? And what would
happen if NASA were to prematurely cancel a large program like
ISS or to reduce Mission Control at JSC?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, NASA has a tremendous impact from an
economic development standpoint. Today, there's currently $1.4
billion in salaries that go to the Johnson Space Center. But,
more importantly, I need to set up the answer to that question
by stating a few facts. And that is that, in 2012, the Johnson
Space Center had 18,294 employees. Today, we have less than
11,000 employees. Today, currently, there are a little over
4,700 that are working on the International Space Station. I
hate to use the same term that I used a few minutes ago, but it
would be devastating to the community and to the space program
to cut our number of people working for NASA, supporting the
International Space Station. That would put us down to less
than 5,000 people. So, we'd be devastating to the community.
Senator Cruz. OK, thank you.
My final question, Ms. Bouthot, is directed to you. Your
written testimony highlights that more than 55 percent of
payloads to the National Lab are private-sector customers, and
that includes projects from iconic Fortune 500 companies and
also from innovative startups. Some of the examples of research
that have been conducted on the ISS include: Goodyear is using
microgravity to better understand silica morphology for the
manufacturing of new tires with low rolling resistance that are
more fuel efficient and safer. CASIS material states that,
quote, ``Research could give Goodyear a competitive advantage
in the tire industry by developing superior rubber materials.''
Likewise, Procter & Gamble is using microgravity to understand
complex fluid behavior and to improve the functionality and
shelf life of consumer personal care products, such as shampoo,
shaving cream, and gelatin. Merck is using microgravity to grow
a crystalline suspension of millions of tiny uniform crystals
to improve the formulation of the company's cancer
immunotherapy drug, Keytruda. Keytruda is the drug that helped
former President Jimmy Carter's cancer go into remission. And
Forbes has reported that some analysts predict that Keytruda
may be Merck's next $10 billion drug.
Now, Ms. Bouthot, tell me, to what extent do American
taxpayers receive direct payments or benefits from the research
that's being conducted by Fortune 500 companies that may give
them a competitive advantage in their respective industries?
Ms. Bouthot. That's an excellent question. And I--we were
just with Paul Reichert, the researcher from Merck, yesterday
talking about the Keytruda drug at the Bio Conference, and I
have to say that Merck is one of the biggest spokes companies
and advocates for doing research in space. I would step back
and point to the work that we have done to quantify value and
impact back to the American taxpayer. We have looked at best-
practice analogs around, What are the economic, the innovation,
and the humankind social benefits? Those were the numbers I was
quoting, around the $900 million of incremental revenue, the
$110 billion of total addressable market, the acceleration in
time to market. These are some examples of those broader
economic impacts that are coming back to the American taxpayer.
When you mentioned Goodyear, with the tires, not only are
there going to be return on investments to Goodyear from tire
sales and being a leader in their industry, but those tires are
going to result in lower emissions. I've got another--which is
a humankind benefit--we've got other examples, like Delta
Faucet, which is looking at showerheads. And again, their
project may result to Delta Faucet and their product, but the
point is, How do you make a better water-efficient tool that,
again, can look at these broader humankind benefits?
So, we've done a lot of work looking at best-practice
analogs to understand how we can best communicate that overall
value of economic, innovation, and humankind benefit back to
the country, in addition to what the individual organizations
are doing in terms of benefiting from that work on Station.
Senator Cruz. Well, thank you for your testimony. I think
that was helpful. If I understood you right, though, you said
that there would be benefits to humanity from new technologies,
and those are certainly real and cognizable. At the same time,
there's not currently a revenue stream coming to the taxpayers
if a $10 billion drug is developed on the ISS, that that
revenue, that profit is not going back to the taxpayers. I know
I and, I think, other members of this committee are interested
in working with stakeholders in thinking about whether it makes
sense for the taxpayers to enjoy some of the upside. We see
many of our large research universities that innovate in
science and enjoying the upside from the innovations they
receive. And I think that has the potential, over the long
term, to help provide additional funding streams for deep-space
exploration and for continued American leadership in space. So,
that will be a continued topic of discussion among members of
this committee and stakeholders throughout the industry.
I will note, at this point, that I am, unfortunately, going
to a meeting at the White House right now. And so, Senator
Markey is--or Senator Nelson has very kindly agreed to chair
the remainder of----
Senator Markey. I'm going to chair the remainder.
Senator Cruz. OK. So, they're----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. One or the other will chair, and I'll let
them fight it out as to who gets the gavel. But, I appreciate
both of their willingness to chair. And I apologize that this
conflict arose just a couple of hours ago. And so, being unable
to be in two places at once----
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, you might not want me to
chair, because we might, by the time you got back, already have
passed a NASA bill.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cruz. I have faith we will continue to work
together in a bipartisan manner to get that done.
And I want to thank each of the witnesses. I think this
hearing has already been productive, and I'm sure there will be
continued and very positive discussion, going forward. So,
thank you for being here.
And, with that, I'll turn it over to Senator Markey.
Senator Markey [presiding]. And I will recognize the
Ranking Member, Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. I have a quick question to follow up on the
question of products and medicines.
I'm curious. Do you happen to know what it is about the
properties of zero G that are allowing Keytruda to become more
effective, even more so than it already is?
Ms. Bouthot. So, Merck is actually doing protein
crystallization work on Station. And what they're doing is,
they're looking at the ability to deliver the biologic in a
less painful way. So, it's all about the protein
crystallization effects of larger, more formed proteins on
Station within microgravity. The big, sort of, end result for
Keytruda is, right now those biologics are very painful to
deliver into the body. They have to be administered in the
hospital. And the work that Merck is doing with Keytruda using
protein crystallization in microgravity is allowing that
biologic to be delivered less painfully into the body and also
let it be delivered in a doctor's office or even the homecare
setting, which dramatically will reduce the healthcare-type
costs associated with it.
Senator Nelson. Well, I'm curious to hear more about that.
If you want to see the original apparatus on protein
crystallization on orbit, I invite you to stop by the office,
over here at the Hart Building. But, what I can't understand
is, from what you just said, what it is about zero G and the
growing of crystals in zero G, which we've been doing now for
32 years, that is making the Keytruda drug less painful, as you
indicated. I'd just like to follow up with that.
Ms. Bouthot. I'm happy to--I will take that offline, and we
will bring back information to you, detailed information, on
that.
Senator Nelson. I'll just say this in passing. We've given
all these kinds of reasons of why you want to extend the ISS
beyond 2024, but this one is an example of something that the
American people can immediately understand. If you are
developing products and medicines unique to the properties of
zero gravity of orbit, then, when the American people see that
being developed for applications here on Earth, that's going to
be pretty dramatic. So, keep those examples coming, and in the
course of your testimony, if you might give other examples,
that would be very good.
Mr. Mitchell. Senator, I could give you an example right
now.
Senator Nelson. Please.
Mr. Mitchell. OK. Osteoporosis and low bone mass are
estimated to affect 44 million U.S. men and women over the age
of 50 every year. A pharmaceutical company named Amgen decided
to fly mice on the ISS and study the impacts of certain drugs
on the mice's bone mass while in orbit. It was discovered that
the drug named Osteoprotegerin, OPG, decreased bone
reabsorption in compared to untreated mice. So, their first
year of sales in 2011 was $554 million. This year, their sales
will reach $3.3 billion. So, there's another example.
Senator Nelson. And so, what you're saying is, by the
properties of zero G, of which we already know, besides this
experiment with mice, we know that that's affecting our
astronauts. And that's why they have such a vigorous physical
regimen onboard the Space Station, because when you don't have
the effects of gravity, and you don't have that stress on the
skeletal structure, then there is a lessening of bone mass.
We've seen this by the annual physicals that are occurring over
time, what they call a longitudinal study of astronaut health.
So, what you're saying is, by growing mice, they see lessened
bone mass and then this drug is directly helping that?
Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir. In fact, there are two drugs that
they've created now. It's Prolia and Xgeva. Those are the two
drugs that they were able to develop from that experiment on
the ISS with the mice.
Senator Nelson. OK. Thank you very much.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
So, the--this hearing, I think, is fascinating to everyone
who is watching it, because it's talking about this potential
to have real benefits that flow to corporations and, through
corporations, to individuals all across our country and all
across the world. And that storyline is really the 21st story--
21st-century storyline. You know, people know that Tang was
developed because of the original 1960s NASA program. But, it
has been harder for people to step back and look at the
constellation of possibilities, you know, for our country and
for the world from the next generation of NASA investment, of
space exploration, of the recombinant private-sector/public-
sector DNA combinations that can make a tremendous difference
in the future.
I know that, just on the International Space Station from
Massachusetts, we have 1Drop Diagnostics U.S. From Boston--we
have Guardian Technologies, from Boston. We have radiation
monitoring devices, from Watertown. We have Emulate,
Incorporated, from Cambridge. But, as you said, Ms. Bouthot,
the public still doesn't grasp that Novartis has an interest in
this. That is that it's not just the companies that are
providing the equipment for the Space Station who are now
interested in it, it's companies who don't provide equipment,
who are trying to find ways in which they can use these
technologies to improve their ability to create products,
create jobs, create wealth in our society.
So, can you expand upon that a little bit more, what the
vision is of the private-sector companies?
Ms. Bouthot. I think that it's important to note that these
examples that we're giving on the demand side are from
nontraditional space companies that would not normally think
about diverting their research goals to do something in low-
Earth orbit, even though they are starting to see the benefit.
So, the more that we have this proof of concept, the more
results that we're getting, the more value that we're
projecting, the more that we see this demand increasing. But, I
would just like to mention that, yesterday, General Abramson,
who is our CASIS Interim Chief Executive Officer, and I were at
the Bio Conference in Boston. General Abe came up with this
idea to give Pioneer Awards to four of the major pharmaceutical
companies that we're working with: Merck, Novartis, Lilly, and
Amgen. And I actually was very skeptical, saying, ``You know,
we're already working with these companies. Why do we need to
give them an award?'' And, as it turned out, it was fabulous.
We got senior-level, real excitement about receiving this
Pioneer Award. And I think we have to recognize, when we're
working with this nontraditional demand, that, yes, they may
be, you know, producing their own research and benefiting from
it, there may be the knock-on benefits to the value and return
on investment to the American taxpayer, but these
nontraditional space companies are truly pioneers in doing this
type of research on Station. And we should really acknowledge
that and celebrate that. So, I'd just like to----
Senator Markey. So, again, you're--so, you're saying that--
perhaps not Novartis itself, but companies like Novartis, who
now look at the Space Station, see real potential for research
that leads to development----
Ms. Bouthot. That's right.
Senator Markey.--of new products, are now looking at a
2024-2025 cliff--and again, not necessarily Novartis, but
companies like that, dozens of them, maybe hundreds of them, if
they felt that there was a runway here--start to say, ``Well,
with that cliff, why should I take the risk''----
Ms. Bouthot. That's exactly----
Senator Markey. --``of making the investment now, in this
new way of looking at the Space Station, which actually starts
to create products back on Earth, that create jobs?'' So, what
percent of these companies would you say are in that category?
Is it pervasive across our economy that companies that
historically have been looking at this are now a little bit
more hesitant to engage?
Ms. Bouthot. I only have anecdotal evidence, but what I
would say is this. In every case, when we talk with a
commercial company about the research they're doing on Station,
these are strategic discussions about a broad portfolio of the
work they're doing. It's never a one-shot deal. They would not
divert resources for that. So, they do need to see that runway
that matches their development timeline. For drug companies,
that development timeline is 10-plus years. So, we already have
anecdotal evidence of companies that we've initiated
discussions with about doing research on Station. Once they
heard that 2025 date, they really started pulling back and
questioning.
Senator Markey. So, you're saying that, if a drug company
was trying to develop a new line of research, they'd give
themselves 10 years----
Ms. Bouthot. At least.
Senator Markey.--in order to make the breakthrough.
Ms. Bouthot. Yes.
Senator Markey. And if all we're going to give them is
another 7 years, that makes it more problematic for them----
Ms. Bouthot. Right.
Senator Markey.--in terms of taking tens of millions or
hundreds of millions of dollars and putting it at risk. Is that
what you're saying?
Ms. Bouthot. Yes.
Senator Markey. Yes.
Now, what other industries are like the drug industry, that
are name industries that are looking at the Space Station in
the future for dramatic increase in commercialization of
products that would be developed up there?
Ms. Bouthot. So, a--so, drug companies within our life-
science vertical are big. We have four big areas that we focus
on. The second is physical sciences, which has a whole host of
consumer product and industrial-type companies doing research.
Senator Markey. For example.
Ms. Bouthot. Goodyear. We've already talked about Goodyear.
They are doing--looking at the morphology of the silica within
their tires. NEMAC, it's a Wisconsin-based company looking at
lighter, cheaper alloy in the production of engines. So, we've
got whole--and we mentioned Procter & Gamble, where they were
looking at shelf life and those types of things. So, that's a
big area that we're seeing interest. The third is technology.
We're seeing technology companies looking at a whole host of
project work on Station. And then, the fourth is the remote-
sensing area. We gave the example of Honeywell looking at using
remote-sensing applications to detect oil and gas leaks in
parts of the world that--you know, that there's nobody there.
So, we're seeing a broad interest in all of those four
categories. And, you know, the research portfolio discussions
we have with each and every one of those companies is similar.
Once they look at this sort of investment and shifting
resources, they do not want to see a cliff.
Senator Markey. Right. So, we have a situation, here, where
NASA is eager to move on to Moon--to the Moon and to Mars, and
then to just say to the private sector, ``Here, you take low-
Earth orbit. Your job to figure this out now and to try to
figure out how to commercialize it.''
Mr. Chilton, do you think that the commercial market will
be ready to take on the low-Earth orbit missions by 2025?
Mr. Chilton. I think signaling that we have to do it by
2025 or there is no market will become a self-fulfilling
prophecy for no market. There has to be an incremental
approach. I would add to the previous answer the transportation
industry. We've got a Starliner product, previously discussed.
If I'm not sure that the commercial industry running the
Station is going to buy resupply in its current form, I've got
an uncertain market, and product upgrades and continued
advances become problematic.
So, I think that, with the revenue gap of $3.2 billion of
cost to about $100 million of revenue is probably unlikely to
close and come together in 7 years, sir.
Senator Markey. And she did mention Goodyear tires, which
is in the transportation sector, OK. So, what are the biggest
challenges that the private sector--private space sector faces
in terms of taking the helm from NASA? What are those top
obstacles that will be hard for them to resolve?
Mr. Chilton. I'll throw out a few and then wait for
reaction from my colleagues.
We have to remember, the Space Station is a National Lab
today, by law, and those typically don't have to generate
revenue. The people who staff that National Lab are government
employees, highly trained. The new commercial operators got a
very small pool of applicants to staff their lab if they're
operating it commercially. Currently, the U.S. Astronaut Corps
and from--some from a few other nations.
Other obstacles are, that Station includes labs from Europe
and Japan. And so, you have to get the export control and all
the policy things right to be able to work with them up there.
I think those are all long-cycle obstacles. And 7 years will be
tough.
Senator Markey. Long cycle is, in your mind, not 5 to 7
years. It's longer than that.
Mr. Chilton. With absolute certainty and knowing you could
approach policy, 7 years seems like a long time. History
suggests, commercial crew and otherwise, that this is a long-
cycle endeavor. I respectfully offer that the answer to who
might not show up in 7 years, how many of them are thinking
about it, that would quit? It's 100 percent of those who
haven't started. If you're in the pipeline to take something to
Station commercially today, you may continue. If you're
thinking about it, but haven't started, now you've got a new
consideration.
Senator Markey. So, it's going to create a chilling effect,
then, on anyone else that--although there are always other
private-sector opportunities, which any company can look at,
but this would be one that, in your opinion, would just be too
risky if someone was starting now and thinking about trying to
put something together for--before--that's completed before
2025.
Mr. Chilton. In my view, the capital you could attract for
this in the complete absence of a government backbone is not
going to be as attractive as other options.
Senator Markey. OK. Thank you.
So, on average, NASA's budget for the Space Station is $3.4
billion a year. The administration's central argument for its
proposal to end direct funding of the Space Station in the mid-
2020s is, ``to reduce costs.'' Though funds for the Space
Station could be used for other costly deep-space missions, I
am skeptical those missions would be successful without the
important research carried out on the Space Station.
To all of you, why is it important that the government
continue to fund the Space Station at those levels into the
mid-2020s and possibly after?
Mr. Suffredini.
Mr. Suffredini. Yes. Thank you.
Well, I don't know if you're asking about the funding in
general or just keeping the International Space Station around.
But, in our view, and similar to the rest of the folks here
with me, the idea that the ISS goes away without some other
platform being available is not good, for a number of reasons,
not the least of which is what you've heard here this
afternoon. But, when you think about, as has been said here,
the fact that we have users onboard today, many of who,
particularly those trying to do manufacturing, they're--if you
pick a date and don't have a sound plan, you're going to lose
these people. And you'll see the utilization of ISS start to
tail off. But, most critical, from our way of thinking about
it, is, you're going to lose the LEO marketplace that is slowly
building. So, we think the big push for the International Space
Station, other than what it does today, starts with what's
going on at CASIS, which is bringing commercial entities to the
market, particularly right now in research, but also in
studying manufacturing options, but then to continue that
process, because, as you're saying--as you're seeing here
today, a lot of these things are on a very long cycle, and so,
we're just now starting to be able to give evidence of specific
cases where it's useful. If we start talking about ending ISS
without having another platform available to take over, what's
going to happen is, we're going to have a big dip, which we may
not recover from. It's----
Senator Markey. So, Mr. Mitchell, if you could give us your
view on--on this argument----
Mr. Mitchell. Right.
Senator Markey.--that they're saying, ``We just have to
reduce costs. And this just has to go,'' what's your answer to
that?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, it--to me, you can't do it. It's
impossible. I like the term ``backbone.'' The Federal
Government has to be the backbone of the ISS. Even if you do
commercialize it, there's no way you can make the business
plan, in my opinion, for small commercial companies and our
launch vehicles to support the ISS. So, in my opinion, you have
to have a backbone to it. You go back and look at this year's
budget. To operate the ISS itself is--1.4 is the proposal. The
Space transportation is 2.5. There's your 3.5 to 4 billion
dollars. 2.5 to launch. So, who's going to pay for that? To me,
there's just not a business plan in the commercial industry to
be able to maintain and launch at the same time.
Senator Markey. So, let me come back to you, then, Mr.
Suffredini. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that,
``NASA Is talking to several international companies about
forming a consortium that would take over operation of the
International Space Station and run it as a commercial space
lab.'' NASA Administrator said, in an interview, ``Axiom Space
is one of a handful of companies looking at building the
commercial successor to ISS.'' What would happen to Axiom Space
if NASA establishes a consortium to operate ISS? Are you
concerned that it could have a chilling effect on competition
and innovation?
Mr. Suffredini. Well, I think those are really two
different things. Operating the ISS with a consortium
theoretically would continue ISS as we know it till sometime
the government decides it won't be spending money on it
anymore. I think Jim's been very clear, and we see it the same
way, you're not going to make money off the International Space
Station as it is today. It is expensive to own and operate.
However, new spacecraft built specifically based on later
technology, we can build them much less expensive, operate them
for less cost. And so, we actually can make a buck.
So, the answer to your question is, As long as there is a
point at which we will ultimately transition to a fully
commercial capability, having a transition period where
industry does operate the ISS is certainly viable, in our way
of thinking.
Senator Markey. Ms. Bouthot, you--NASA carries out vital
research on the Space Station. A platform like the Space
Station addresses 22 out of 33 human health risks identified by
NASA for current and future deep-space missions, including the
effects of a closed spacecraft design and what effect exposure
to long-term radiation would have on cancer rates. Could you
elaborate on the consequences of this administration's proposal
about ISS and what would happen to all of this important
research?
Ms. Bouthot. I think you've noted life science is a very
rich area for research on Station, not just for the commercial
and entrepreneurial community that are doing it, but also as a
proof of concept and a proving ground for a lot of the work
that NASA is doing. I think we see the ISS National Lab as this
proof of concept that can eventually lead to the Moon, to
exploration and beyond, but also as being on the cusp of a
sustainable manufacturing, where some of the things that you've
just noted, we eventually could be not just finding proof-of-
concept solutions in the short term, but actually solving them
in the longer term.
Senator Markey. OK. So----
Yes, Mr. Chilton.
Mr. Chilton. Senator, I would offer that NASA--when we talk
about eliminating cost versus reducing cost, NASA will--I
predict NASA will want access to the Station in all scenarios.
And, beyond 2025, they need to address those human health
risks, they need to learn more about long-term life support.
So, NASA and the government will spend money on the Station in
some model. The desire to reduce that seems reasonable on some
timescale, but the idea of just eliminating it on a date
certain, less reasonable.
Senator Markey. OK. So, let me ask you this. When you say
to them, ``It's not reasonable to completely reduce it, because
there's going to be a need for research for NASA,'' what do
they say to you?
Mr. Chilton. In full disclosure, they've, in good faith,
asked for studies and information from industry. We've all
submitted those, and we don't have our feedback yet.
Senator Markey. You don't have feedback yet, OK. So,
they've given you this opportunity to explain to them how you
can't just pull out, that NASA's still going to need a
substantial amount of information coming back from the Space
Station in order to help all these already preceding
initiatives that NASA has. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Chilton. Yes. They're giving us a chance to give them
full feedback, and asking broadly, not just companies like
Boeing.
Senator Markey. OK, beautiful.
OK. Here's what I--how's what I'd like to do. I'd like to
give each one of you one minute to summarize what you want the
Subcommittee, the Full Committee, to remember as we're moving
forward here. And again, understanding that Senator Cruz and I
agree, Senator Nelson and I agree with Senator Cruz on these
issues, in terms of the sequencing that should, in fact, take
place. So, that's no small moment in the history of this
Committee. So, we're--and congratulations on creating our
consensus here, because we--it definitely helps to increase
dramatically our likely success, our effectiveness in getting
the right answer here.
So, I'm going to give each one of you one minute to tell us
what you want the Committee to remember about your testimony,
and about the future of NASA and the Space Station.
Mr. Suffredini.
Mr. Suffredini. Well, first, I'd say we feel strongly that
the United States should not allow a gap of access to LEO and a
platform on which to operate. We would like to see the
government and the agency work toward supporting commercial
being able to be in a position, at some point, to take over for
the International Space Station. And, to that end, we'd like to
see port solicitation be put in place immediately, and that any
money additional that NASA is given for commercial development
be spent on helping develop demand.
Senator Markey. Thanks.
Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. I think--what I'd like to say is,
to go back what I said a little bit earlier, and that's for us
to understand the importance of our leadership, America's
leadership in space and to look at what China, what Russia,
what are other countries trying to accomplish to get ahead of
us on that. And the fact that--again, go back to China--China
just, you know, recently, last week, asked our international
partners to work with them on their ISS--or their space
station. It's something that we should be concerned about. To
me, it's a national security issue, it's global leadership, and
that's where our focus should be, not to mention that we have
to have this as a testbed for us to go on to Moon and Mars and
beyond. But, first and foremost, in my mind, we have to
maintain our leadership in space.
Senator Markey. Yes, beautiful.
Mr. Chilton.
Mr. Chilton. First, I would say a strong recommendation
that you consider a criteria- versus time-based way to reduce
cost, just let the facts and data and the markets emerge as
they do on the time they naturally do versus say it must be a
certain time. That's first. Second, as you do that, avoid
uncertainty for the research and science communities. We need
to keep that pipeline full, and we need to signal to them that
we're deliberatively working through this, and that lab will be
there. And the third thing I would ask you to do is remember
those high school students who spend every day of their life
with humans living and working aloft. I'll call them Generation
ISS. Let's not have them talking, in 10 or 15 years, saying,
``In my day, we had people in space, living continuously.''
Let's just keep it that way.
Senator Markey. Thank you----
Mr. Chilton. Thank you.
Senator Markey.--Mr. Chilton.
Ms. Bouthot.
Ms. Bouthot. I'll go back to the demand. And we believe
demand is the underpinning for building a sustainable LEO
marketplace. We believe that it is also the trajectory to
eventual manufacturing in space. And when we can do that, we
will truly have a viable market that can support supply as well
as the nontraditional demand. We would hope that we continue to
receive support around generating this demand and looking at
the capabilities that these new users need. We're working very
closely with NASA now on identifying what those enabling
capabilities are. So, understanding what the best--what can
best meet the needs of these new users, and protecting them,
and also really celebrating these new users, because they are
pioneers in the creation of this new marketplace.
Senator Markey. OK, beautiful.
Well, this was an excellent, excellent hearing, excellent
set of witnesses. We thank you.
And again, we're trying to work as closely as we can
together in order to come up with a common perspective that we
can advocate for on a bipartisan basis in order to ensure that
we get the right result here.
And the hearing record will remain open for two weeks.
During this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions
for the record to our witnesses. And, upon receipt, the
witnesses are requested to submit their written answers to the
Committee as soon as possible.
The Committee thanks the witnesses for appearing today.
And, with that--he took the gavel with him. No, no, no, no.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Michael T. Suffredini
Question 1. What are the most important things NASA should and
should not be doing in the near future to grow commercial activity
aboard crewed platforms in low Earth orbit?
Answer. The most important thing NASA could be doing is to
immediately make an ISS berthing port available for a company that is
building a follow-on U.S. commercial space station. Since at the moment
the ISS can provide only enough power for a single attached set of
space station modules, and a station should be attached to ISS prior to
its retirement to allow transfer of the existing commercial and
government users, NASA must immediately create a competitive process
that permits commercial entities to compete for an ISS berthing port to
attach to (assuming said commercial entity intends to remain on orbit
post ISS retirement). In addition, preference for the ISS port usage
should be given to companies who request no money from NASA for the
development, launch and operation of their space station.
Second, any additional money NASA is given for ``LEO
Commercialization'' should be spent specifically on building demand.
While some enhancement of the commercial research development effort by
CASIS is necessary, an Administration-wide effort to educate and
incentivize companies to manufacture products in LEO would result in
the kind of growth not seen since the advent of the internet. With the
proper growth of demand, U.S. commercial suppliers can gain private
investment to address the demand.
NASA should NOT compete with commercial companies trying to
establish a LEO marketplace for human spaceflight platform related
services. There are a number of cases where NASA could end up competing
with commercial LEO supplier entities; NASA should be very sensitive to
making sure that whenever they are asked to provide a service to
anyone, they point the requestor to U.S. commercial suppliers. A case
in point is what is referred to as country customers. An early big
market for commercial LEO providers are countries who want to build a
human spaceflight program, or those who want more access to space for
their existing programs. When these countries come to NASA for flight
opportunities for their astronauts and related services, NASA should
NOT barter to 1) provide those flight opportunities to ISS for these
countries; 2) assist the countries in selecting their national
astronauts; 3) train their crew; or 4) provide any other services
relative to implementing a human spaceflight program. NASA can still
have a partnership for ISS and exploration beyond LEO with such
countries, but should point countries to U.S. commercial entities to
supply these LEO operational capabilities.
Question 2. Would an extension of the space station beyond 2025 be
helpful to your company and ones like it? What would be the impact of
deorbiting the ISS in 2025, or of NASA turning over the ISS to a
``commercial operator'' (who might then compete with other commercial
space stations in LEO) as has also been suggested?
Answer. Axiom takes as a given that the United States must maintain
a continuous presence in space to maintain its global leadership
position in human spaceflight. This can be accomplished by ensuring a
U.S. commercially developed ISS follow-on space station is available to
utilize before ISS is retired. Axiom Space, Inc. is developing just a
commercial space station to follow the ISS. In fact, we believe any ISS
follow-on station should first attach to ISS to ensure continuity for
all users, including National Lab, government and commercial entities.
This is critical to fully utilizing ISS toward the end of its life and
ensuring the LEO economy developed up to the point of ISS retirement
isn't discarded when ISS is deorbited.
However, at this point, due to the lack of NASA making a berthing
port on ISS available, it would be very difficult for a commercial
company to build a station, attach it to ISS, transfer National Lab and
other government and commercial users from ISS to the commercial
station and separate to operate independently by 2025. The first step
in the process is a solicitation to compete for the use of a berthing
port on ISS. Once the port is awarded to a company, then the company
can secure the investment necessary to design, build, launch, assemble
and operate the new space station. NASA is just now concluding the
selection process for a second study on LEO commercialization that is
not due to be complete until the end of this year. Assuming 3 months to
review the study results and decide to create a solicitation for the
port, NASA could not be ready to award a port before mid-2020.
Investors have expressed the need to see the port awarded before
significant investment will be available; no significant commercial
space station development can take place until after use of the
berthing port is awarded. At this point, therefore, it will be
difficult to build a successful station that begins its life at ISS if
ISS is retired in 2025.
Finally, turning over ISS to a ``commercial'' operator who would
then be allowed to sell LEO services would effective kill any truly
commercial LEO effort. First, the ``commercial operator'' model is not
commercial at all. It is a NASA contractor that will be paid about $3B
to operate ISS and make it available to NASA to meet its needs and
commitments. The company that wins this contract (likely to be the
large ISS contractors for NASA today on ISS) will easily be able to
undercut any would-be commercial provider, since they can use their fee
(and what is sure to be significant margin in their operation) to
subsidize their cost, thus preventing real competition. Without
competition, the ISS contractor will own any user market. Without any
competition, the NASA contractor will not be incentivized to build a
successor platform, since the U.S. government is subsidizing the one
they use and paying significant fee to keep the ISS viable. No new
platform means no creative cost reductions for users and very limited
enhancements to ISS. Also, when ISS life does end (which is
inevitable), it is highly likely that no U.S. commercial platform will
be available to take over. Perhaps more disturbing, commercial startups
like Axiom Space are incentivized to help build the LEO demand, but
this NASA contractor will not be incentivized to build demand since it
has NASA as an anchor tenant. The government should not under estimate
the effort a truly commercial company will put into developing LEO
demand . . . which the government will benefit from.
If the government wants to create a consolidated contractor to take
over operations of ISS to perhaps save some money and/or for political
reasons, this contractor must be forbidden from selling services
commercially on orbit.
In summary, the most effective way to grow a commercial market in
LEO, and the quickest/safest way ensure a U.S. capability for NASA
astronauts in LEO, is to take steps today to incentivize commercial
suppliers for LEO services. These include: immediately generating a
solicitation for commercial space station companies to compete for use
of an ISS berthing port; utilizing any additional ``commercial LEO
development'' funds for developing LEO demand, in particular in-space
manufacturing; ensuring NASA does not provide spaceflight opportunities
to other countries that do not otherwise already have opportunities
through the ISS partnership, or sell related astronaut or flight
operation services that are commercially available to other nations;
and, finally, if NASA creates a consolidated operations contract for
ISS, ensuring the companies involved cannot sell ISS services or flight
opportunities.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Bob Mitchell
Question. What are the most important things NASA should and should
not be doing in the near future to grow commercial activity aboard
crewed platforms in low Earth orbit?
Answer. The most important thing NASA should be doing is continuing
to provide access and services for research in LEO onboard the
International Space Station (ISS). ISS is an excellent proving ground
to foster the development of a commercial LEO economy. NASA should also
communicate that ISS will continue to provide these services through
2028 and beyond--as long as this national and international asset can
provide these services. Without a level of certainty, we will continue
to lose critical research opportunities which will hinder economic
growth. NASA should also continue to allow researchers to retain the
rights to the information and discoveries. If NASA were to retain
rights or put a royalty/tax on research, there is a high likelihood
that the LEO commercial market would collapse. The government is
already getting economic benefit in the form of taxes on new products
developed based on ISS research. NASA should also continue to provide
access to potential commercial capabilities on-board ISS, like
Nanorack's Airlock and the possibility of a future commercial habitat.
In conclusion, any level of uncertainty with regards to ISS
availability will have a significant impact on the future of commercial
LEO economy.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Jim Chilton
Question 1. What are the most important things NASA should and
should not be doing in the near future to grow commercial activity
aboard crewed platforms in low Earth orbit?
Answer. NASA, industry and international partners should seek to
fully leverage the ISS over the next decade to foster growth in
commercial demand for services in LEO. The ISS provides an unparalleled
platform and opportunity for commercial entities to explore different
technologies and business models, while leveraging the ISS National Lab
as well as the regular crew and cargo transportation funded by NASA.
Unfortunately, there is no ``silver bullet'' for rapid
commercialization and growth. Currently, NASA and foreign governments
remain the exclusive or primary funders of spaceflight in LEO and there
is no comparable non-government market demand for these services.
Today, there is a large gap between supply and demand in LEO with
significantly more supply than market demand for these services. As I
noted in my testimony, NASA currently funds the on-orbit U.S. operating
segment of the ISS at approximately $3 billion annually. $1.8B of this
is for crew and cargo resupply launches, $1.1B for station operations
and maintenance, and the balance for science. Commercial revenue is
$100 million or less. This is a significant gap to close, but
commercial revenue can grow with a long-term commitment to ISS as a
platform available to commercial users and time for this nascent market
to grow. However, it would be premature to assume how long it will take
for this market to grow and what the ultimate nature of this market may
entail
A key element to successful commercialization is allowing
sufficient time and stability for market maturation. There are a number
of new and growing businesses and commercial opportunities that have
developed in recent years thanks to NASA encouragement and industry
investment. For example, the Boeing/Nanoracks commercial airlock will
enable Cubesat and other small satellite deployment from ISS by way of
the national laboratory. Although some argue this is a launch service
taking advantage of the no cost access NASA allows for science, it does
show emerging demand. Additionally, Boeing investment in innovation
targets an untapped user community of start-ups through business
accelerators like MassChallenge. These efforts, among others on ISS,
may foster the development of commercial demand, but it is too soon to
know how and when this market may mature to provide sufficient demand
independent of significant government support. At the present time,
commercial activities on ISS are heavily subsidized and consistent with
the laboratory environment, are primarily in the incubation phase of
development. The larger question revolves around how to mature
commercial concepts from the incubation phase into viable self-
sustaining market opportunities? Continued ISS operations are needed to
explore processes for economic maturation and reduce the dependence on
government subsidies.
NASA has been very forward-leaning in supporting the development of
commercial supply services and capabilities through significant
investment and service purchases of cargo and crew transportation,
support for CASIS and the ISS National Lab, as well as ongoing work
with commercial service providers to help stimulate a market for
cubesats, experiments and testing onboard the ISS. To fully leverage
these investments and emerging markets, the ISS should be extended
through at least 2030 to provide the necessary time to enable
commercial demand in LEO. We applaud the leadership of this committee
in the extension of ISS authorization through at least 2030 in the
Space Frontier Act to provide the necessary time and stability to
foster commercial growth.
Regulating In-Space Activities. The Trump administration has
proposed establishing a new office at the Department of Commerce that
would be responsible for overseeing commercial activities in space.
This would be separate from the Department of Transportation's
responsibility to regulate launch and reentry. So, crewed commercial
space vehicles such as Starliner would have to deal with Department of
Transportation regulations during launch and reentry but with
Department of Commerce for operations in space. A different idea would
be to have one department--be it Commerce or Transportation--just take
care of everything as a ``one-stop-shop.''
The Boeing Company supports the principles of Space Policy
Directive-3 (SPD-3), which transitions Space Situational Awareness
(SSA) and Space Traffic Management (STM) authorities to ensure that
America's national security, civil, and commercial space assets are
fully protected from space debris and other orbital threats. The Trump
Administration has indicated that the Department of Commerce should be
the lead agency for these functions and the House and Senate committees
of jurisdiction are considering legislation in both chambers that
address the implementation of these and other commercial space reforms,
including those in your Space Frontier Act.
Above all, it is important that SSA and STM be implemented in a
manner that establishes a positive example and precedent for the
industry and the international community. With the anticipated growth
in launches, satellites and orbital debris in the years ahead, we need
an effective SSA and STM process and standards to prevent costly or
even catastrophic impacts in orbit. Boeing is a longtime partner with
the DoD, NASA, and other agencies on national security, human
spaceflight, and commercial satellite programs and as the risk of space
debris grows we are committed to astronaut safety and the protection of
critical assets operating in space.
We look forward to working with the Administration, Congress and
all of the appropriate entities involved in the licensing and
management of commercial space launch and activities to ensure safe,
responsible and transparent oversight of civil and commercial entities
operating in space.
Question 2. What do you think is the best way for the government to
provide oversight and supervision for new activities in space?
Answer. The best way for the government to provide oversight and
supervision in space is to establish a clear regulatory regime and to
ensure that all civil and commercial actors operating in space are
conducting activities in compliance with these rules. We believe that
the protection of national assets--including national security systems,
GPS, the International Space Station, weather satellites, among other
assets--should be at the center of any regulatory regime, and that
there should be a clear process that ensures full compliance with these
rules by all actors in space. Civil and commercial entities should be
expected to share equally in these responsibilities and obligations to
protect our national assets.
Question 3. If NASA's demand for commercial crew transportation
goes down as a result of retiring the space station in 2025, what is
the impact on commercial crew transportation? Will there be enough
demand to keep multiple U.S. crew transportation providers in business?
Answer. Currently there is significantly more commercial
transportation supply than commercial demand for LEO services. NASA is
currently a monopsony buyer, able to compete multiple existing and
emerging providers. Without more destinations or demand on ISS, there
will be an upper limit to the number of launch resupply providers who
can remain viable. NASA should carefully manage this supply and demand
imbalance until a larger market emerges.
NASA investment and the continued operation of the ISS are central
to the business case for the current cargo and crew transportation
providers as nascent commercial demand continues to develop and grow.
Without continued ISS operations, it is unlikely that NASA would need
to sustain currently planned levels of cargo and crew transportation to
LEO, which could result in higher prices to sustain less frequent
transportation or fewer providers. The commercial space habitat market
is still in its infancy and based on past development program
schedules, it is unlikely that an alternative to ISS that would drive
this level of demand and investment would be in place by the mid-2020s.
While Boeing is confident that there is commercial interest in
Starliner transportation services to ISS for international and non-
government astronauts, this market is mostly predicated on governments
and companies seeking to conduct activities on the ISS using the
platform's unique assets and facilities. It is not safe to assume that
alternative U.S. platforms will materialize or will provide the same
capabilities that attract potential commercial demand as the ISS.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to
Cynthia Bouthot
Question 1. What are the most important things NASA should and
should not be doing in the near future to grow commercial activity
aboard crewed platforms in low Earth orbit?
Answer. Since our partnership began in 2011, NASA has been an
incredible partner, and it has been an honor to work together with this
agency to support the ISS National Laboratory.
By continuing its commitment to space exploration, development of
advanced technological capabilities, and international cooperation,
NASA's success and reliability is at the foundation of our corporate
partnerships and our ability to someday achieve the commercialization
of low Earth orbit (LEO), particularly research and development (R&D)
on the ISS National Lab.
Potential concerns that we are addressing together with NASA
include the high cost of transportation and regulation that could
hinder getting payloads to LEO, as well as the continued training and
development of a U.S. workforce of scientists that will operate in LEO
on the ISS National Lab and beyond. Transportation and talent are both
invaluable resources in this endeavor. We work collaboratively with
NASA to cultivate a wide range of potential ISS National Lab users to
develop research projects and programs that will be impactful from an
economic, innovation, or social perspective. We are growing a network
of investors, and through that network, we are able to distribute
information and investment opportunities to bring in people who have
not yet made their first investments in space, thereby infusing more
capital into this emerging ecosystem.
To summarize the important things NASA should and should not be
doing in the near future:
(1) Focus on transportation and providing low-cost and repeatable
access to LEO.
(2) Continue to use the ISS National Lab as a pathfinder for:
a. Commercial activities, including proof-of-concept activities
aligned with strategic investments that will lead to larger
sustainable activities such as in-orbit manufacturing.
b. Technology readiness level (TRL) maturation of commercial
products that have Earth applications.
c. Public-sector basic research activities, which are the
underpinning for future private-sector activities (e.g.,
keep the seed corn, continue to cultivate the pipeline of
the U.S. workforce, and advance U.S. innovation in areas
such as tissue engineering activities by the National
Istitutes of Health and the National Science Foundation).
(3) Create a balanced strategy for the development of alternative
commercial platforms and capabilities and the development of
demand by the private sector. It is important to now consider
low-cost R&D platforms beyond the lifetime of the ISS to ensure
a gapless transition by the time the ISS is decommissioned. In
parallel, attention needs to be given to understanding,
creating, and enabling demand by the private (and public)
sector. The emerging commercial platform market needs to
understand the nontraditional customers. Don't put the cart
before the horse.
(4) Don't put in place processes or policies that would detract
demand interest, such as intellectual property (IP) and data
rights. For example, the U.S. should create a broad exemption
from the Federal government taking a stake in a company's IP
and data rights. Companies that cover the cost of their
projects in space (not including transportation costs) should
be exempt from any stake the U.S. government would otherwise
take. Establishing simple IP and data right expectations will
help drive demand for commercialized space.
(5) Retain an honest nonconflicted broker to manage the activities
and evaluate the value of national laboratory platform(s). This
construct is the same principle used for ground-based national
laboratories and is effective for fair practices in getting
ideas and products from lab to market.
(6) Reduce the regulatory burden for companies looking to operate in
space.
(7) Focus on cost-sharing partnerships by attracting and enabling
third-party investment opportunities in space research and
technology development (e.g., the ISS National Lab investor
network).
Question 2. How does uncertainty about the future of the space
station impact your efforts to grow commercial use of the space
station? Have you noticed any hesitation from potential users or
investors over the last few months?
Answer. The FY 19PBR calls for the end of ISS direct funding by
NASA by 2025. This perceived cliff, or uncertainty of the path forward
for the continuation of the ISS, negatively impacts the long-term
prospects for demand from industries. Companies are no longer
incentivized to invest if they don't see a runway that coincides with
their R&D timeline. For example, the time required to develop and test
a new medication or make meaningful advances in tissue engineering is
quite long, spanning several years. If an end to the ISS National Lab
is perceived, it will discourage long-term investment in the lab, which
will destabilize prospects for further LEO commercialization. Moreover,
uncertainty about the future of the ISS National Lab could prevent the
lab from being able to attract the top talent necessary to perform
experiments and operate properly.
Therefore, we believe any abrupt change in which the private sector
is asked to assume the risk of managing the ISS without its uses
defined will stunt the return on investment that the ISS National Lab
currently creates for tax payers. We instead recommend a managed,
gapless transition to the commercialization of LEO, in which
policymakers, NASA, CASIS, the Department of Commerce, and private
industry work together to define a timeline that is based on measured,
proven commercialization techniques.
When CASIS was created, we were an organization that literally had
to pay for projects that would attract private-sector companies to
participate in LEO R&D. Today, more than $140 million of non-CASIS/non-
NASA funding has directly paid for ISS National Lab projects. Although
this trend is increasing, we are not yet at the point at which
organizations are willing to pay for full project costs. We need more
time and certainty in this market to achieve commercialization;
however, we know that we can get there.
[all]