[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10051-S10054]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACT
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have had the honor for almost 50 years
now of being active in aviation. I have had occasion to fly almost
every kind of airplane that is up there, and it is an experience that
not many people get a chance to have in their normal lives. Something
is on the horizon right now that is an opportunity for people to do,
things that they never dreamed possible; that is, to feel and to
experience the thrill of flight into space.
Yesterday marked a very significant day in history. Today, the
SpaceShipOne, designed by Burt Rutan, who happens to be a friend of
mine, and piloted by Mike Melvill, who is a 62-year-old pilot, made the
first flight of the two required flights to claim the $10 million
Ansari X-Prize for carrying three people, or an equivalent weight, to
space twice within 2 weeks.
The brilliant concept of the Ansari X Prize exemplifies the
excellence that can be achieved through an incentivized approach rather
than a governmental mandate of punitive approach. To incentivize and
safely get government out of the way is the philosophy of the
Commercial Space
[[Page S10052]]
Launch Amendments Act of 2004, H.R. 3752. Tempt not only the pocketbook
but also the vision of anyone who has the creativity and imagination to
pursue it.
Space programs originally sprang to life in the face of international
competition. The realities of the cold war stimulated creativity, and
innovation in a dramatic new way. This government and NASA responded
with successes that dazzled even the most optimistic dreamer.
Since then, space advances have gone through the same channels with
the same motivation, but without the urgency and vision of ``The Space
Race.''
The Ansari X Prize is a refreshing new appeal to anyone who has the
faith and vision to respond. It is an appeal that looks for the likes
of Charles Lindberg--people who will think within the restraints of
practicality but without the restraints of a rutted concept of how it
is supposed to be done.
I am grateful that this competition is doing what it was designed to
do: spur a budding industry in commercial human space flight. Today's
flight paves the way for making space flight available to the public, a
long-time dream of many. Just imagine, ordinary people will be able to
experience the thrill of flying in space. But despite the existing
technology to make this dream possible, there are some obstacles.
One such barrier stems from this body. The text of my bill, S. 2772,
the Space CHASE Act, should pass the Senate right now as an amendment
to H.R. 3752. H.R. 3752 readily passed the House of Representatives in
March by a vote of 402 to 1. The House of Representatives and the
Federal Aviation Administration have agreed to the improvements
embodied in my Space CHASE Act, so it is better than the bill that
passed the House by 402 to 1. However, some Democrats are blocking this
legislation that is vital to the fledgling commercial space industry.
The legislation would define FAA licensing rules for suborbital
flights, as well as require passengers to sign waivers of legal
liability. Without such a waiver, the investors fear excessive lawsuits
by trial lawyers. Without investors, many of these fledgling
entrepreneurial space companies will not be able to get off the ground,
both literally and figuratively.
Unfortunately, some Democrats want to cater to the trial lawyers who
want the ability to file frivolous lawsuits and collect millions of
dollars should something go wrong on a flight. Perhaps even more
frustrating is that they will not explain exactly why they are
objecting.
Aviation Week is a magazine I have subscribed to for many years. It
is a publication I have grown to respect. I have read it with frequency
over the years. It has an excellent article in its September 27, 2004,
edition. It states:
One or more Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee are
holding up this bill, and, maddeningly, no one will say
publicly what they object to.
They are holding it up, and they won't say why they are holding it
up.
If they do not pass it, part of their legacy may be that of
having strangled an infant industry in the crib.
I compliment the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain. He has
been very helpful. But there are some Democrats we can't identify, as
the Aviation Week publication states.
I ask unanimous consent that these four pages of Aviation Week be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I also want to call to the attention of
the Senate a letter from nine discrete enterprises that are on the
cutting edge of this burgeoning industry. They all endorse the text of
my Space CHASE Act and call for the immediate passage of my legislation
as a substitute language for a thus-perfected H.R. 3752.
I commend these entrepreneurs by name: Jeff Greason, XCOR Aerospace;
John Carmack, Armadilla Aerospace; Elon Musk, Space X; George French,
Rocketplane, Ltd.; Eric Anderson, Space Adventures; Honorable Andrea
Seastrand, California Space Authority; Bill Khourie, Oklahoma Space
Industry Development Authority; Brian Chase, Space Foundation; Greg
Allison, Chairman, Executive Committee, National Space Society.
I ask unanimous consent that their letter also be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is a shame when we pander to trial
lawyers and allow them to kill an industry before it is able to get off
the ground.
I urge these Democrats to stop the obstruction and pass this
important legislation that will let the American people have the
freedom to experience space, the final frontier.
Exhibit 1
[From Aviation Week & Space Technology, September, 2004]
Commercial Space--At a Tipping Point
``I have such faith in the private sector that I've dreamed
of the day that government monopoly would be replaced by
commercialization or at least some form of partnership.''
Those words, on the prospects of private manned spacecraft
and industrial space stations, were penned by President
Ronald Reagan in a letter to Aviation Week & Space
Technology's publisher in March 1985.
It has taken two decades, but now there are tangible
indications that such a dream could indeed become a reality.
Many of them are detailed in this week's cover story (see p.
54) and in the lead article of our World News and Analysis
section (see p. 26) But one of the most visible indications
is yet to come.
This week, Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne is set to make
the first of the two required flights to claim the $10
million Ansari X-Prize far hauling three people (or an
equivalent mass) to the edge of space twice within two weeks.
The prize could be won as early as next week. Designer Burt
Rutan and/or the team's backer, Microsoft billionaire Paul
Allen, may even climb in for the ride.
Should Rutan's crew stumble, there are others fast on their
heels. A half-dozen or more serious competitors have spent
many times the prize money in developing their vehicles. That
is exactly what Peter Diamandis had in mind when he organized
the X-Prize Foundation a decade ago to seed a private human
spaceflight industry, and our hat is off to him.
Dating even further back, there were entrepreneurs saying
that making human spaceflight both reliable and affordable
was possible with existing technology. The problems, they
said, were not technical but financial and political, even
psychological.
Unintentionally, NASA made it hard for these pioneers to
attract capital. First, the agency was a competitor because
it operated its own expensive vehicle, the space shuttle.
Then, when NASA tried to develop a new, cheaper-to-operate
reusable vehicle, it opted to include challenging cutting-
edge technologies, making program execution difficult and
expensive. As one might expect, when entrepreneurs went
looking on Wall Street for money for their simpler projects,
they were rebuffed by potential investors who believed human
spaceflight was inherently costly, dangerous and prone to
failure.
On top of that was a chicken-and-egg problem of economics.
To drastically lower the costs of spaceflight, a vehicle
needs to fly frequently. But to find enough customers to fly
frequently, one needs to have low prices, and that requires
low costs. The solution seemed to lie in new markets, and the
one many believed could jump-start the private sector was
``space tourism.''
When the Russians began selling spare seats on Soyuz
spacecraft to dot.com zillionaires and rock stars, it became
harder to posit the economic impossibility of space tourism.
But it was the first suborbital flight of SpaceShipOne to 100
km. altitude, back in June, that removed the giggle factor
from discussions of space tourism. Pictures of pilot Mike
Melvill sitting atop his privately financed craft and waving
victoriously made the front pages of newspapers aroung the
world.
Meanwhile, things had changed in the government. Many in
Congress ``got religion'' on commercial space (more about
that later). NASA began working seriously with startups such
as Bigelow Aerospace on manned spacecraft. And Adminstrator
Sean O'Keefe bought into the prize paradigm, seeing to it
that the agency itself would sponsor some of these fledgling
enterprises.
This week, Robert T. Bigelow will make some news on that
front. He plans to announce a $50-million ``America's Space
Prize,'' an orbital analog to the X-Prize. To be sure, taking
humans into orbit and bringing them back safely is orders of
magnitude more difficult than taking them on a suborbital
ride, but don't dismiss the salutary effects of $50 million.
Prizes have an important and glorious place in the history
of flight, dating to the days of the Wrights, Curtiss and
Santos-Dumont. The revolution in public understanding of the
practicality and possibilities of aviation that Charles A.
Lindbergh wrought in laying claim to the $25,000 Orteig Prize
in 1927 is widely seen as having been a necessary ingredient
for the growth of an airline industry.
We night now be poised at a tipping point in public
understanding of the commercial possibilities of human
spaceflight. But if the X -Prize is to be remembered as
something more than a stunt, there must be a legal
[[Page S10053]]
framework in place for market-based spaceflight to grow.
There is a measure pending in Congress that would go a long
way to providing that framework--the Commercial Space Launch
Amendments Act of 2004 (H.R. 3752)--but it has been stalled
in the Senate for months. It would spell but FAA licensing
rules for suborbital flights. Most critically, the bill would
make it clear that paying passengers are ``spaceflight
participants'' who understand the risks. And it would require
them to sign waivers of legal liability. Without this
provision, the prospect of relatives of passengers suing and
collecting millions in damages following an accident would
likely scare off investors. And without outside investors,
many of today's space entrepreneurs will go out of business
in the not-too-distant future.
This bill is not some wild-eyed libertarian scheme. It
passed the House in March by a vote of 402-1. Science
Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert of New York, perhaps the
``greenest'' Republican in the House, even went along with a
provision that would exempt these launchers from some
environmental regulations. Admitting he first thought the
legislation ``flighty,'' Boehlert says he came to see it as
essential: ``This is about a lot more than `joy rides' in
space, although there's nothing wrong with such an
enterprise. This is about the future of the U.S. aerospace
industry.''
One or more Democrats on the Senate Commerce Committee are
holding up this bill, and, maddeningly, no one will say
publicly what they object to. Democrats say they want the job
growth the Bush administration has failed to deliver. If they
do, they ought to pass this bill. If they do not pass it,
part of their legacy may be that of having strangled an
infant industry in the crib.
____
Show Time
(By Craig Covault)
The Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne suborbital vehicle that
will attempt this week and next to twice rocket above 100 km.
to claim the $10-million Ansari X-Prize highlights a major
new wave of commercial space activity taking stride into
early October.
The initiatives include the planned announcement this week
of a new, much larger $50-million ``America's Space Prize''
to spur private development of an orbital space transport
that by 2010 could carry 5-7 astronauts to an orbiting
station.
The new America's Space Prize is being initiated by
millionaire developer Robert T. Bigelow who wants a low-cost
manned transport to take crews to Bigelow Aerospace
inflatable space modules under development in North Las
Vegas, Nev. (see cover and p. 54).
Until recently, individual commercial space ``wannabes''
struggled for technical competence and respectability.
But a more business-like approach by commercial space
company managers coupled with their innovative use of
technology is enabling them to capture bigger government
contracts, such as the $42 million just awarded by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) for quick
reaction launch developments.
The new commercial companies are also increasingly
``breaking down the hidebound bureaucracies'' of NASA and the
larger aerospace companies, says Courtney Stadd, NASA's
former chief of staff. He says commercial space is beginning
to do this with a more diverse, and increasingly capable base
of dynamic new companies, staffed with younger engineers more
representative of the future than the past.
They are forming in effect ``a new national incubator for
technology and talent'' that aerospace industry can draw upon
for major innovation, says Stadd, who has long been
affiliated with commercial space start-ups.
Private/commercial ventures like SpaceShipOne carry an
inherent high-risk of failure, including the risk of a fatal
accident, But the new commercial space industry is far more
steeled to accept and recover from failure than it was
earlier, Stadd said.
Several new commercial space milestones have just occurred
or will occur by early October. They include:
SpaceShipOne X-Prize flights. The flights to capture the X-
Prize are set for Sept. 29 and Oct. 4. at Mojave, Calif.
Propulsion subcontractor SpaceDev of Poway, Calif., itself a
small commercial space company, has delivered to the Burt
Rutan team three new SpaceShipOne systems carrying more
synthetic rubber fuel and nitrous oxide oxidizer than used
during the demonstration flight June 21 (AWST June 28, p.
28).
This is to provide more performance earlier in the profile
when the vehicle is in the lower, more dense, atmospheric
phase of flight. More performance at lower altitude is
necessary so the engine can more assuredly propel the
slightly heavier X-Prize configured vehicle higher than 62
mi. altitude.
Canadian Da Vinci X-Prize attempt. The Canadian Da Vinci
Project plans to make its first try for the X-Prize with
launch of a manned rocket from a balloon 80,000 ft. over
Kindersley, Saskatchewan, as early as Oct. 2. SpaceDev's
``Dream Chaser'' manned vehicle. In a major new
development, SpaceDev has just signed an agreement with
the NASA Ames Research Center for technology collaboration
in the design of what initially would be a new higher-
performance commercial manned suborbital vehicle capable
of carrying 3-5 people to about 100 mi. altitude. This
compares with about 62 mi. for the 1-3-person
SpaceShipOne.
The new vehicle will be designed using the basic
aerodynamic shape of the Orbital Sciences/U.S Air Force X-34
demonstrator that never flew before cancellation. The X-34
concept, but not the original hardware, will be redesigned
for manned vertical launch on suborbital flights as early as
2008, depending upon the flow of commercial or government
funding for the program, said Jim Benson, SpaceDev chairman
and CEO. SpaceDev and Ames will work on potential utilization
of the vehicle by NASA, USAF or the private sector. Benson's
ultimate objective is to scale the Dream Chaser design to an
orbital vehicle.
SpaceX Falcon 1 to Vandenberg. The first privately
developed low-cost Falcon 1 unmanned orbital launch vehicle
has been completed by SpaceX at its El Segundo plant and is
to be taken late this week or early next to its launch pad at
Vandenberg AFB, Calif. This major milestone could lead to the
first launch by late November, if a static firing on the pad
can be completed before the Western Range closes for upgrades
throughout December, says Elon Musk, CEO of Space Exploration
Technologies (SpaceX).
Musk told Aviation Week & Space Technology he now has four
firm contracts with deposits for Falcon missions, including
one just signed with the Malaysian Space Agency. Two others
are from the U.S. government and one from Bigelow Aerospace
for launch of a Genesis one-third scale inflatable module.
Commercial Zero-G flights. Amerijet International of Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., has just become the first commercial
airline ever to receive FAA certification for commercial
parabolic weightless flight operations. The flights are to
begin Oct. 9, at about $3,000 per person. The project will
use a Boeing 727-200 to conduct parabolic tourist flights out
of the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood, Fla., International Airport
in connection with the Zero-6 Corp.
NASA Commercial Transportation Call. NASA has just issued a
comprehensive ``request for information'' sounding out the
aerospace industry for new concepts in commercial space
transportation services related to the agency's new
exploration initiative. It is the single most comprehensive
call for commercial space transportation concepts ever made
by the agency. Responses, on which new contracting can be
based, are due back next September.
Darpa/USAF Rapid Launch Awards. Nearly $42 million in
development contracts are just being awarded to four
companies, mostly commercial space start-ups, as Phase II in
the Darpa/USAF Falcon Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) program. The
effort is designed to lead to a much more rapid launch
capability for 1,000-lb. critical U.S. military satellites
for less than $5 million per mission.
Except for Lockheed Martin, which received $11.6 million,
all of the winners are small start-up companies. Lockheed's
concept builds on its Michoud, La., development of a hybrid
powered system burning nontoxic fuel and liquid oxygen (AWST
Feb. 3, 2003, p. 54).
There is a range of innovative launch concepts among the
commercial start-up companies that won, but only AirLaunch
would deploy its two-stage ``QuickReach'' liquid propellant
booster from a C-17 that could be staged from literally any
friendly airfield around the world.
It won $11.3 million to explore the concept that could
provide great launch flexibility. Several small commercial
space companies including Space Vector Inc. of Chatsworth,
Calif., and Universal Space Lines of Newport Beach, Calif.,
are part of the AirLaunch team.
Another winner was Microcosm of El Segundo, Calif., that is
developing the simple liquid oxygen/kerosene pressure-fed
``Scorpius'' engine system. Microcosm won $10.4 million to
further develop its 52-ft.-long Sprite launcher using a six-
barrel cluster of the engines to provide 120,000 lb. of
liftoff thrust.
SpaceX, also based in El Segundo, won $8 million for its
Falcon launcher. The project, by coincidence, has the same
name as the overall Air Force/Darpa program.
All of the selected companies are to conduct 10-month
preliminary design studies toward a downselect to one or more
competitors that will perform an actual launch in 2007.
But since SpaceX is more advanced in hardware fabrication
than the other competitors, Darpa and USAF have asked it to
perform an ``Early Responsive Launch Test'' with a Falcon 1
launch about July 2005. Musk said the objective will be to
cut the Falcon's launch pad time by 50%--to just one week.
This Aviation Week & Space Technology editor recently saw
the first Falcon flight vehicle in final assembly at the
SpaceX plant in El Segundo.
It is being readied this week for the trip to Vandenberg
AFB and mounting on its launch pad.
The flight engines have completed their final pre-
integration qualification tests at SpaceX test facilities
near McGregor, Tex., and development engines and components
continue to be tested at the site. Earlier turbopump problems
have been solved. But some other engine components, earlier
made of aluminum, have been switched to Inconel because of a
hairline crack found in one several weeks ago.
The Falcon 1 first stage will likely end up weighing less
than its specification weight--a highly positive factor. This
is because earlier delays allowed the program enough time to
switch a composite interstage for a heavier aluminum
structure, saving about 150 lb.
[[Page S10054]]
Also switching the overall thrust frame from steel to
titanium has saved another 100 lb. These improvements will be
especially helpful when the vehicle eventually begins to
launch heavier payloads, Musk said.
____
Exhibit 2
September 21, 2004.
Senator John McCain,
Chair, Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, 241
Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Sam Brownback,
Chair, Subcommittee on Science Technology, & Space, 303 Hart
Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Ernest Hollings,
Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce, Science, &
Transportation, 125 Russell Building, Washington, DC.
Senator John Breaux,
Chair, Subcommittee on Science Technology, & Space, 503 Hart
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Sirs, we are writing to respectfully urge that the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
quickly report out and secure Senate passage of a perfected
H.R. 3752, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of
2004.
As you know, the U.S. commercial expendable launch vehicle
industry is challenged by a highly competitive international
market, and NASA's recent orbital reusable launch vehicle
development programs have not been successful. Fortunately,
the recent emergence of a suborbital reusable launch vehicle
industry demonstrates that American entrepreneurs are
bringing new private resources and ideas to bear on the vital
goal of advancing U.S. space transportation capabilities and
competitiveness, largely to pursue new commercial human
spaceflight markets.
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (CSLA) as amended
(49 U.S.C. 70101 et seq.) gives the Secretary of
Transportation sole regulatory authority over commercial
space transportation, which has been delegated to the FAA's
Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation (ASST). That jurisdiction includes launches of
a `suborbital rocket' on a `suborbital trajectory,' but
unfortunately those terms were never defined in law.
Furthermore, the CSLA is silent on the issue of whether such
vehicles might carry persons. Therefore, confusion has
developed as to whether some of these suborbital RLVs might
be regulated as a rocket or an airplane, or worse still, as
both. Last summer a joint hearing of the Senate Science,
Technology, and Space Subcommittee and the House Space &
Aeronautics Subcommittee heard strong and unanimous testimony
that this regulatory uncertainty was a real and unnecessary
barrier to private investment in, and therefore the success
of, this new suborbital RLV industry, and that Congress
needed to fill in the ``legislative gap'' in the CSLA.
To address this issue, the House Science Committee crafted
H.R. 3752 after holding an additional public hearing, a
private forum, and extensive individual consultations with a
broad range of interested and disinterested parties. The
legislation not only creates the regulatory clarity needed by
industry, but strikes an important balance among competing
public policy objectives.
For example, the legislation continues the CSLA's priority
of protecting the safety of the uninvolved public, and also
affirms FAA/AST's authority to set safety-related
requirements for crew in these new vehicles. H.R. 3752 and
its committee report also directs FAA to promulgate
regulations requiring the full disclosure of the safety
records of human spaceflight vehicles and their operating
companies to all prospective customers, giving them informed
consent. (This is very different from the laissez faire
approach which existed during the barnstorming days of
aviation.)
The bill also creates a new, streamlined experimental
permit regime that allows for expedited review of non-revenue
flight test of vehicles so that companies can demonstrate
safe operating records before proceeding to revenue flight.
It should be noted that flights under experimental permits
would not be eligible to receive federal indemnification
against third party claims, and even during revenue flight
the spaceflight participants would not be eligible to receive
indemnification.
For all of these reasons, H.R. 3752 was sponsored by the
committee's bipartisan leadership, and passed the House of
Representatives by the overwhelming vote of 402 to 1 in March
of this year.
In recent months, Congressional staff, the FAA, and various
industry participants have developed compromise language that
would provide greater clarity over regulatory jurisdiction of
so-called hybrid suborbital rockets. With these changes,
which are attached to this letter, H.R. 3752 is ready for
final consideration in and passage by the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the full
Senate.
We, the undersigned leaders of this industry and supporting
public policy organizations, therefore respectfully urge you
to support this consensus amendment and send a perfected H.R.
3752 to the Senate floor this month for passage by unanimous
consent so it can be reconsidered by the House and enacted
into law before the November election.
Truly yours,
Jeff Greason, XCOR Aerospace; Elon Musk, Space X; Eric
Anderson, Space Adventures; Bill Khourie, Oklahoma
Space Industry Development Authority; Greg Allison,
Chairman, Executive Committee National Space Society;
John Carmack, Armadillo Aerospace; George French,
Rocketplane, Ltd; Hon. Andrea Seastrand, California
Space Authority; Brian Chase, Space Foundation.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________