[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCIAL SPACE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 20, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-56
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-894 WASHINGTON : 2013
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
------
Subcommittee on Space
HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAN MAFFEI, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DEREK KILMER, Washington
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
BILL POSEY, Florida JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
November 20, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Steven Palazzo, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Subcommittee on
Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Submitted statement of Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.................... 9
10
Witnesses:
Panel I
The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Member, Majority Whip, U.S. House
of Representatives
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 14
Panel II
Ms. Patricia Cooper, President, Satellite Industry Association
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 20
Mr. Stuart Witt, CEO and General Manager, Mojave Air and Space
Port
Oral Statement............................................... 30
Written Statement............................................ 32
Mr. Dennis Tito, Chairman, Inspiration Mars Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Discussion....................................................... 79
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Patricia Cooper, President, Satellite Industry Association... 96
Mr. Stuart Witt, CEO and General Manager, Mojave Air and Space
Port........................................................... 107
Mr. Dennis Tito, Chairman, Inspiration Mars Foundation........... 112
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement of Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology..................................................... 118
Submitted statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.... 119
COMMERCIAL SPACE
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Science
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven
Palazzo [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.003
Chairman Palazzo. The Subcommittee on Space will come to
order. Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing titled
``Commercial Space.'' In front of you are packets containing
the written testimony, biographies, and required Truth in
Testimony disclosures for today's witnesses. I recognize myself
for five minutes for an opening statement.
The Commercial Space Launch Act was passed nearly 30 years
ago and was the turning point for the growth of the commercial
space sector in our economy. The advent of the commercial space
industry brought with it advances in space launch:
communications; entertainment; position, navigation, and timing
technology; weather monitoring; remote sensing; space tourism;
science experimentation; and expanded human spaceflight.
The latest data available suggests the economic impact of
the commercial space industry is approximately $208 billion.
Congress has provided the Federal Government with various
mechanisms to leverage the private sector, such as the
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Program and the
Commercial Crew Program, FAA experimental permits, human
spaceflight regulation moratorium, prize authority, and various
public-private partnership authorities.
As Congress continues to look for ways to maintain the
United States' preeminence in space and grow our economy, it is
clear that the promise of the commercial space industry
warrants additional attention.
We must ensure that export controls and International
Trafficking in Arms Regulations are rational and productive. We
need to provide stable, certain, and competitive regulatory
environments at the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Federal Communications Commission, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration that facilitate domestic investment.
There is no question that our commercial partners have a
valuable role to play in our Nation's space flight and
exploration in the coming years. But there will be trade-offs.
We must continue to weigh whether potential cost-savings
come at the expense of overall capabilities, robustness, or
safety. We must also recognize there are core, fundamental
operations that will still need to be maintained by the Federal
Government.
The witnesses before us today represent a variety of
perspectives on the commercial space industry, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony. We are also pleased to have
or will have the Majority Whip, Representative Kevin McCarthy,
with us today. Representative McCarthy, along with
Representative Bill Posey, introduced H.R. 3038, the Suborbital
and Orbital Advancement and Regulatory Streamlining Act or
SOARS Act.
The Committee appreciates their leadership and willingness
to work with us in developing policies that can grow our
economy. Next year we hope to take up a comprehensive
commercial space bill to address these issues, as well as many
others.
The commercial space industry has been invaluable to our
successes in the past, and the future continues to look very
bright. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle as well as with industry stakeholders to
come up with common-sense policies that can help put people
back to work, retain our skilled aerospace workforce, and
protect our industrial base.
Finally I would like to address the perennial elephant in
the room, commercial launch liability. This provision, which is
so important to keeping our launch industry competitive in the
international market, is set to expire once again at the end of
the year. The NASA Authorization Act that passed this Committee
over the summer included an extension for five years.
While I would have liked to see a long-term extension, it
appears as though we have reached an agreement with the
minority to only extend the provision for one year and take the
issue up more thoroughly next year as part of a larger
Commercial Space Launch Act.
I look forward to sponsoring this extension, along with
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Ranking Member
Edwards. I hope we can discharge the bill and pass it under
suspension of the rules on the House floor very shortly.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee on Space Chairman Steven Palazzo
The Commercial Space Launch Act was passed nearly thirty years ago
and was the turning point for the growth of the commercial space sector
in our economy. The advent of the commercial space industry brought
with it advances in space launch: communications; entertainment;
position, navigation, and timing technology; weather monitoring; remote
sensing; space tourism; science experimentation; and expanded human
spaceflight.
The latest data available suggests the economic impact of the
commercial space industry is approximately $208.3 billion. Congress has
provided the Federal government with various mechanisms to leverage the
private sector, such as the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
Program and the Commercial Crew Program, FAA experimental permits,
human spaceflight regulation moratorium, prize authority, and various
public-private partnership authorities.
As Congress continues to look for ways to maintain the United
States' preeminence in space and grow our economy, it is clear that the
promise of the commercial space industry warrants additional attention.
We must ensure that export controls and International Trafficking
in Arms Regulations (ITAR) are rational and productive. We need to
provide stable, certain, and competitive regulatory environments at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) that facilitate domestic investment.
There is no question that our commercial partners have a valuable
role to play in our nation's space flight and exploration in the coming
years. But there will be trade-offs.
We must continue to weigh whether potential cost-savings come at
the expense of overall capabilities, robustness, or safety. We must
also recognize there are core, fundamental operations that will still
need to be maintained by the federal government.
The witnesses before us today represent a variety of perspectives
on the commercial space industry and I look forward to hearing their
testimony. We are also pleased to have the Majority Whip,
Representative Kevin McCarthy, with us today. Representative McCarthy,
along with Representative Bill Posey, introduced H.R. 3038, the
Suborbital and Orbital Advancement and Regulatory Streamlining Act or
SOARS Act.
The Committee appreciates their leadership and willingness to work
with us in developing policies that can grow our economy. Next year we
hope to take up a comprehensive commercial space bill to address these
issues, as well as many others.
The commercial space industry has been invaluable to our successes
in the past, and the future continues to look very bright. I look
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as
well as with industry stakeholders to come up with common-sense
policies that can help put people back to work, retain our skilled
aerospace workforce, and protect our industrial base.
Finally I would like to address the perennial elephant in the
room--commercial launch liability. This provision, which is so
important to keeping our launch industry competitive in the
international market, is set to expire once again at the end of the
year. The NASA Authorization Act that passed this Committee over the
summer included an extension for five years.
While I would have liked to see a long term extension, it appears
as though we have reached an agreement with the minority to only extend
the provision for one year and take the issue up more thoroughly next
year as part of a larger Commercial Space Launch Act. I look forward to
sponsoring this extension, along with Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and Ranking Member Edwards. I hope we can discharge the bill
and pass it under suspension of the rules on the House floor very
shortly.
Chairman Palazzo. With that yield the remainder of my time
to my friend from Florida, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Over a half-
century ago Congress established the Federal Aviation
Administration with the mission of ensuring the safety of the
flying public. Today the FAA requires that new experimental
vehicles designed to probe the fringes of outer space be as
safe as a commercial airliner. Had the same stringency been
applied to the automobile, Henry Ford's Model T might have
never made it onto the streets. That is the situation that our
country's space pioneers are faced with today.
Under current U.S. law, the experimental launch vehicles
and experimental aircraft supporting them can be designed,
built, and flown by our most innovative companies. But they
can't charge for their services. Representative Kevin McCarthy
and I introduced H.R. 3038, the SOARS Act, to change that.
There is a private company at the Kennedy Space Center
which NASA hired and the FAA licensed to conduct astronaut
training and payload testing. I should say was licensed. Two
years ago the FAA decided they made a mistake in allowing the
company to fly their FAA-defined ``experimental'' aircraft in
support of NASA's launch activities and so the FAA grounded
them. Now, obviously that was very bad news for the company,
and that was a 100 percent safety record at NASA. It defies
common sense that a long-standing NASA partner can be
arbitrarily grounded by the FAA. We need to fix the problem by
updating our laws so our space innovators have the freedom they
need to innovate and regulators, such as the FAA, have the
appropriate amount of flexibility to strike the right balance.
Congressman McCarthy and I believe this bill will do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Posey. With that I yield
to the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding today's hearing on commercial space, and welcome to our
witnesses. Subcommittee Ranking Member Donna Edwards will join
us shortly, and she asked me to take her place until then.
Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member also asked that her
opening statement be included for the record.
Ms. Bonamici. As many of the Committee Members have stated,
on several occasions, we see a strong link between the space
program and the inspiration it provides to our younger
generation through various STEM activities. Commercial space is
an important component of that inspiration and a key source of
jobs and innovation.
The commercial satellite industry has experienced strong
and steady growth over several years. I hope to hear today
about what factors have contributed to such growth and how
other commercial space ventures might learn from their
successes.
The audacious proposal from Mr. Tito and the
entrepreneurial spirit overflowing at Mr. Witt's Mojave Space
Port demonstrate that America's yearning for deep space
exploration and thirst for innovation are alive and well. But
maintaining such enthusiasm requires a well-oiled partnership
between the Federal Government, states, private industry and
academia.
Thankfully there are many indications to show that this
partnership is alive and well. Just yesterday the first high
school developed CubeSat was launched along with other payloads
aboard the Air Force's ORS-3 mission on a Minotaur 1 rocket
from NASA's Wallop Facility. The Thomas Jefferson High School's
CubeSat, known as TJ3Sat is a joint project between the high
school and industry partners to design and build the CubeSat to
increase interest in aerospace technology.
And a few weeks ago, I was pleased to see, from my home
state the Oregon Space Grant Consortium, which promotes STEM
education through cooperative and interdisciplinary programs
while recruiting and training NASA's next diverse workforce
announced its 2013-2014 scholarship recipients. This
consortium, part of the National Space Grant College and
Fellowship Program, is a statewide network of universities,
colleges, museums, educators, researchers, students and science
professionals. Each of the scholarship recipients has expressed
an interest in seeking a future in the aerospace, science or
education community and has attained the highest level of
academic achievement.
Our partnerships among government, industry, states and
academia need to match their goals, dedication and high
achievement with challenging and engaging work.
So today I hope I get to hear our witnesses discuss their
views on the state of the U.S. space workforce, how important
STEM activities are to cultivating the skills that commercial
space companies need, and what it will take to build the type
of workforce that will eventually lead to our U.S. commercial
space activities into the next century. Let us keep their
inspiration alive by finding greater opportunities for
partnership.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, again for holding this
hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Suzanne Bonamici
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on
``Commercial Space,'' and welcome to our witnesses. Subcommittee
Ranking Member Donna Edwards will join us shortly. She has asked me to
take her place until then. Mr. Chairman, the Ranking Member also asked
that her opening statement be included for the record.
As many of the Committee Members have stated on several occasions,
we see a strong link between the space program and the inspiration it
provides to our younger generation through various STEM activities.
Commercial space is an important component of that inspiration and a
key source of jobs and innovation.
The commercial satellite industry has experienced strong and steady
growth over several years. I hope to hear today about what factors have
contributed to such growth and how other commercial space ventures
might learn from their success.
The audacious proposal from Mr. Tito and the entrepreneurial spirit
overflowing at Mr. Witt's Mojave Spaceport demonstrate that America's
yearning for deep space exploration and thirst for innovation are alive
and well. But maintaining such enthusiasm requires a well-oiled
partnership between the federal government, states, private industry,
and academia.
Thankfully, there are many indications to show that this
partnership is alive and well. Just yesterday, the first high school-
developed cubesat was launched along with other payloads aboard the Air
Force's ORS-3 mission on a Minotaur 1 rocket from NASA's Wallops
facility.
The Thomas Jefferson High School's cubesat, known as TJ3SAT is a
joint project between the High School and industry partners to design
and build a CubeSat to increase interest in aerospace technology.
And a few weeks ago, I was pleased to see the Oregon Space Grant
Consortium, which promotes STEM education through cooperative and
interdisciplinary programs while recruiting and training NASA's next
diverse workforce, announce its 2013-14 Scholarship Recipients. The
Consortium, part of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship
Program, is a state-wide network of universities, colleges, museums,
educators, researchers, students, and science professionals. Each of
the scholarship recipients has expressed an interest in seeking a
future in the aerospace, science, or education community and has
attained the highest level of academic achievement.
Our partnerships among government, industry, states, and academia
need to match their goals, dedication, and high achievement with
challenging and engaging work.
So today I hope to hear our witnesses discuss their views on the
state of the U.S. space workforce; how important STEM activities are to
cultivating the skills that commercial space companies need; and what
it will take to build the type of workforce that will eventually lead
our U.S. commercial space activities into the next century. Let's keep
their inspiration alive by finding greater opportunities for
partnership.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. I now recognize
the Chairman of the Full Committee for a statement.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you,
too, for having this hearing today. And I want to thank our
witnesses for being here as well to share their expertise on
this subject.
It is appropriate, and I know he will be here momentarily,
to have Representative McCarthy join us today to discuss his
bill, H.R. 3038, the SOARS Act. This legislation seeks to
streamline the regulatory process. It also amends parts of the
Commercial Space Launch Act to provide clarity regarding new
systems and how they are defined. Reducing red tape for our
space entrepreneurs is a necessary step to ensuring their
continued growth.
The commercial space industry offers improvements to the
quality of life for every person on the planet. The discoveries
and applications that have come from space technology number in
the hundreds. The storied past of American ingenuity and
exceptionalism is filled with examples of entrepreneurs who
pushed the boundaries of the possible. The commercial space
industry relies on this same creative spirit.
America has always been a Nation of innovators and
explorers. We continue to remain on the forefront of new
discoveries and technologies. This industry could yield results
that blur the lines between science fiction and science fact.
Students of tomorrow could go to college to study a whole new
field that resulted from the development of private space
exploration.
Perhaps in the next 20 years we will see new technologies
and business models that result in private space laboratories.
For example, advances in the suborbital space industry could
yield the potential to send a package or people from New York
to Hong Kong in a matter of minutes. The applications of this
type of travel are limitless.
And Mr. Chairman, I know you are going to more formally
introduce our witnesses in just a minute, but I want to mention
a couple of items about them as well.
One of our witnesses today is Mr. Dennis Tito, Chairman of
the Inspiration Mars Foundation. This foundation is the type of
private space endeavor we should encourage. Their mission to
send humans to orbit Mars in eight years or less, using mostly
existing technology, might well catch the public's imagination.
We are also pleased to have Mr. Stuart Witt, CEO of the
Mojave Air and Space Port and a former test pilot and Top Gun
with us today as well. There are exciting things happening in
the Mojave Desert, and I have been there myself. The work of
private companies and the space port add great value to our
Nation's space assets.
Our final witness represents an often-overlooked part of
the commercial space industry that has actually been around for
a long time. Patricia Cooper is the President of the Satellite
Industry Association, and the commercial satellite industry
provides many of our modern conveniences and we are grateful
for her perspective as well.
I look forward to today's hearing and to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop policies that
encourage the growth of the commercial space industry.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the time, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Thank you Chairman Palazzo for holding this hearing. And I thank
the witnesses for being here to share their expertise on this
topic.It's appropriate to have Representative McCarthy join us today to
discuss his bill, H.R. 3038, the SOARS Act. This legislation seeks to
streamline the regulatory process.
It also amends parts of the Commercial Space Launch Act to provide
clarity regarding new systems and how they are defined. Reducing red
tape for our space entrepreneurs is a necessary step to ensuring their
continued growth.
The commercial space industry offers improvements to the quality of
life for every person on the planet. The discoveries and applications
that have come from space technology number in the hundreds.
The storied past of American ingenuity and exceptionalism is filled
with examples of entrepreneurs who pushed the boundaries of the
possible. The commercial space industry relies on this same creative
spirit.
America has always been a nation of innovators and explorers. We
continue to remain on the forefront of new discoveries and
technologies.
This industry could yield results that blur the lines between
science fiction and science fact. Students of tomorrow could go to
college to study a whole new field that resulted from the development
of private space exploration.
Perhaps in the next 20 years we will see new technologies and
business models that result in private space laboratories.
For example, advances in the suborbital space industry could yield
the potential to send a package--or people--from New York to Hong Kong
in a matter of minutes. The applications of this type of travel are
limitless.
One of our witnesses today is Mr. Dennis Tito, Chairman of the
Inspiration Mars Foundation. This foundation is the type of private
space endeavor we should encourage. Their mission to send humans to
orbit Mars in eight years or less, using mostly existing technology,
might well catch the public's imagination.
We are also pleased to have Mr. Stuart Witt, CEO of the Mojave Air
and Space Port. There are exciting things happening in the Mojave
Desert. The work of private companies and the space port add great
value to our nation's space assets.
Our final witness represents an often overlooked part of the
commercial space industry that has actually been around for a long
time. Ms. Patricia Cooper is the President of the Satellite Industry
Association. The commercial satellite industry provides many of our
modern conveniences and we are grateful for her perspective as well.
I look forward to today's hearing and to working with my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to develop policies that encourage the
growth of the commercial space industry.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Chairman Smith. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Chairman, may I asked to be recognized
just for a second more? I want to apologize to the witnesses
and express my regret that another committee that I serve on is
having a mark-up, and I am going to have to leave soon for that
mark-up so regret I won't be able to be here the whole time.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Chairman Smith. At this time
we are just going to take a brief respite as we await the
Majority Whip's arrival.
[Recess.]
Chairman Palazzo. At this time I would like to introduce
our first witness, The Honorable Kevin McCarthy, the Majority
Whip of the House of Representatives and the Representative
from California's 23rd District. Mr. McCarthy, your spoken
testimony is limited to five minutes. Your written testimony
will be included in the record of the hearing. I now recognize
our first witness, Mr. McCarthy for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KEVIN MCCARTHY, MAJORITY WHIP,
A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Hon. McCarthy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important hearing today and for allowing me the
opportunity to testify in support of commercial space and the
Suborbital and Orbital Advancement and Regulatory Streamlining,
the SOARS Act. I want to also thank Congressman Posey for
working with me to introduce this important legislation and his
support for commercial space.
America is built on a strong heritage of exploration,
discovery, and innovation. From President Thomas Jefferson's
commissioning of the Lewis and Clark Expedition to exploring
the American West, to the Transcontinental Railway linking east
and west together, to the public-private partnership that
helped the airline industry grow to become a safe mode of
travel all over the world, to the internet, which has generated
as much economic growth in 15 years as the Industrial
Revolution did in 50.
Space, like the internet before the dot-com boom of the
1990s, was originally a government-run enterprise. Many believe
that the commercial spaceflight is poised to have its own dot-
com moment in the near future. NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo
program alone has already created thousands of high-quality
jobs here in America, including many at the NASA Dryden Flight
Research Center, which I represent. My district is also home to
Mojave Air and Space Port where many commercial spaceflight
companies have located to research, develop, and test their
hardware that will soon take Americans back to space.
This is why I support the commercial spaceflight industry:
the creation of thousands of good paying jobs on U.S. soil and
the continuation of America's legacy in space exploration and
innovative technologies. Think about this: Over the last 50
years, about 500 humans have been to space. With the commercial
space market, the number could double over the next ten years
with the government only serving as a customer. The next U.S.
astronauts to fly to space on American rockets will do so
because of this new model.
The use of innovative public-private partnerships offers
the government new ways of solving problems. A study shows
these partnerships benefit the taxpayer, by providing space
services at nearly 1/10 the cost of traditional contracting
methods, getting results for less money, getting innovation,
growth, and risk-sharing in the private sector. As NASA leads
continued exploration missions and related technology
development, entrepreneurs will follow, spending their own
money and creating new industries.
However, it is up to us as legislators to ensure our
current regulatory environment is appropriate for the needs of
the 21st Century and to make sure safety is paramount in the
commercial spaceflight industry's endeavors. This is why I
introduced H.R. 3038 to ensure that the U.S. commercial
spaceflight industry has a clear path ahead as it continues to
innovate and generate high-quality American manufacturing jobs.
A robust commercial space industry will also help attract
students to the STEM fields of education by inspiring the next
generation to literally reach for the stars.
The goal of this bill is to streamline the regulatory
process for commercial spacecraft, ensuring that Americans
remain a leader in commercial spaceflight, while providing the
Secretary of Transportation the necessary tools to help the
industry operate safely. The commercial spaceflight industry is
one of our newest, fastest-growing, and most innovative
industries, and I am proud that the Dryden Flight Research
Center and the Mojave Air and Space Port are leading the way.
And if we take the right steps, we won't be just launching
rockets, we will be launching new careers, new industries, and
new economic opportunities. Whenever I visit these facilities--
and I will tell you, when you hear from Stu Witt later--I go to
Mojave Air more than any place else in my district because it
is innovative, it is fast-moving and it is ever-changing. It is
not just changing for California and the United States. It is
changing the world. And we are doing it in a private-public
partnership that has been seen no other place.
So the real possibilities will continue to grow. Again, you
will hear from Mojave's Executive Director, Stu Witt, who is
also testifying today. But this legislation, along with
Congressman Posey is very simple. It is streamlining to make
sure we keep the safety but also maintain the growth and the
leadership for America in spaceflight.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify today,
and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Hon. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.006
Chairman Palazzo. I thank Mr. McCarthy for his valuable
testimony. The witness is excused, and we will move to our
second panel.
Hon. McCarthy. Thank you.
Chairman Palazzo. Our first witness is Ms. Patricia Cooper,
President of the Satellite Industry Association. Our second
witness is Mr. Stuart Witt, CEO and General Manager of the
Mojave Air and Space Port, and our third witness is Mr. Dennis
Tito, Chairman of the Inspiration Mars Foundation.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which Members of the Committee have
five minutes each to ask questions. Your written testimony will
be included in the record of the hearing.
I now recognize our first witness, Ms. Cooper, for five
minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MS. PATRICIA COOPER, PRESIDENT,
SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Ms. Cooper. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the Satellite Industry
Association to testify today on Commercial Space.
As the President of SIA, I am pleased to represent here the
unified voice of the Nation's satellite industry including
satellite operators, manufacturers, launch companies and
service and ground equipment providers.
Our sector pioneered the commercialization of space. Just
over 50 years ago, Telstar 1 was launched as the first
privately owned satellite. Today, fleets of satellites ring the
globe, owned and operated by private companies from around the
world.
For the past 16 years, SIA has been tracking our sector's
performance in an annual State of the Satellite Industry
Report. Our most recent report, issued in October, showed
global satellite industry revenues of nearly $190 billion last
year, more than 60 percent of the world's entire space sector.
The United States represents just under 45 percent of the
global satellite industry, and U.S. satellite companies employ
more than 225,000 Americans across all sectors.
Commercial satellites are used to deliver services to every
ZIP code in the United States and every continent. Satellite
services directly for consumers are the engine driving
industry's overall growth. Satellite TV services alone earned
nearly $90 billion in global revenue last year, joined with
satellite radio, satellite broadband and new services like in-
flight broadband for airline passengers.
Satellites also deliver hundreds of channels of media and
broadcasting content everywhere as seen in the iconic tagline
live via satellite and the ubiquitous satellite news truck.
Behind the scenes we also link far-flung businesses, extend
cellular and telecom networks, power emergency communications
for first responders and military communications for national
security, and capture the Earth with remote-sensing imagery
used for everything from agriculture to humanitarian assistance
and Google Earth.
Satellites are an instant infrastructure that is reliably
available every day, everywhere around the world, and we look
to governments to maintain certain policy and market conditions
to sustain our industry and pave the way for our growth and
ongoing innovation.
I would like to highlight here four key aspects that drive
the way we think about government policies. First, the
satellite industry has particularly long business horizons.
Satellite orders are typically placed two years before they are
launched, and once on orbit last about 15 years.
While economic and competitive conditions shift, satellite
companies thrive with consistent regulatory and business
environments. We look for swift and effective licensing for
satellites and ground terminals and stable regulatory fees.
Dramatic changes in government regulations and policies simply
put at risk the hundreds of millions of dollars required to
finance the manufacture, launch and operation of a commercial
satellite.
Second, the satellite industry is inherently international.
We serve entire continents or hemispheres, and U.S. satellite
manufacturers compete in a dynamic global marketplace. As a
result, international policies and fair trade rules are
essential. Congress recently took an important step to support
U.S. satellite exports when it passed the 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act which permits needed updates to the U.S.
export controls on satellite technologies. These reforms, which
are now being implemented by the Executive Branch, will assist
the long-term competitiveness of U.S. satellite manufacturers,
and for that we offer our appreciation.
Third, the satellite industry relies on radio frequency
spectrum. Not only is spectrum used to fly our satellites but
it is the lifeblood of the vast array of communication services
provided via satellite. Without spectrum satellites simply
would not function.
The telecommunications industry is currently being consumed
by a debate over how to allocate spectrum, and satellite
frequencies are among those targeted for sharing or wholesale
repurposing. The satellite industry has long supported
efficient and sensible satellite spectrum policies, but changes
require respect for existing critical services and an
understanding of the demands of communicating with spacecraft
tens of thousands of miles away. Shifts in spectrum policy must
be careful, objective and fact-driven to avert serious
implications for satellite systems.
Finally, the satellite industry is keenly focused on
managing risk. Satellites must be robust enough to navigate a
technically challenging launch campaign and survive the harsh
environments of outer space. We have close ties with the
financial and insurance industries that allow us to mitigate
these unique risks and meet the high, up-front costs of these
satellite projects. While most financing is provided by the
private sector and rightfully so, governments around the world
have also stepped in to provide export credit financing for
international sales of satellites. SIA encourages Congress to
continue to support a strong U.S. Export/Import Bank to allow
U.S. manufacturers to compete internationally.
Finally, governments have offered indemnification against
lawsuits resulting from catastrophic launch failures. Although
this protection has never been drawn upon, the U.S. Government
should offer safeguards comparable to other leading space-
faring nations. SIA strongly supports extending this regime for
a minimum of ten years if not permanently.
In our more than 50 years of experience the satellite
industry has harnessed the power of space to serve national
security, connect every corner of the globe and deliver
entertainment to people on every continent. We fly 1/3 of the
satellites on orbit and have posted ten percent average annual
growth over the past decade, sustaining a robust worldwide
space economy. The satellite industry is proud to lead the way
for the safe, successful and sustained commercialization of
space.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
this concludes my testimony. On behalf of the members of the
Satellite Industry Association, thank you for the opportunity
to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.016
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Ms. Cooper. I now recognize
our next witness, Mr. Witt.
TESTIMONY OF MR. STUART WITT,
CEO AND GENERAL MANAGER,
MOJAVE AIR AND SPACE PORT
Mr. Witt. Chairman Palazzo, Representative Bonamici,
Chairman Smith, Mr. McCarthy, Members of the Subcommittee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity of addressing you this
morning and the invitation to Congress.
My name is Stuart Witt, and I am the CEO of the Mojave Air
and Space Port located in southeast Kern County, California.
Today our topic is America's commercial space industry, and my
message to you from the high desert is that American engineers
and entrepreneurs in Mojave and other places across this great
Nation are successfully revolutionizing America's future in
space. My story today is 100% a good news story that didn't
just happen. This Committee enacted into law a Commercial Space
Launch Amendments Act in 2004 sponsored by Mr. Rohrabacher that
created an informed consent regime for commercial human space
flight. By giving us permission to take risks, you enabled us
to create a new industry which is freeing up NASA and others to
pioneer deep space exploration.
I personally want to thank Committee Members Takano, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Bridenstine and Chairman Smith who have made
visits to Mojave on multiple occasions and witnessed firsthand
the private sector innovations I am addressing today.
Chairman Palazzo has requested my attention to four
specific questions which I will answer in summary here, but I
have gone into far greater detail in my written testimony.
Question number one. Please summarize the work underway by
commercial space companies at Mojave Air and Space Port. There
is enormous interest in what we offer. Many have asked me, how
did I manage to attract firms to Mojave over the past 12 years
doing orbital research, suborbital research and development,
deep space propulsion system development, and specifically
demonstrated by entrepreneurs and high net-worth investors. My
response is simple. In a word, I offer permission. We don't
advertise. We just deliver, just as our tenants deliver. We set
reasonable constraints, provide value-added services to test
operators and allow the developers to conduct and manage their
own programs with remarkable results. What sounds incredibly
simple is actually in practice somewhat complex and very
rigorous. But again, the results speak for themselves.
Mojave Air and Space Port currently has 17 firms engaged in
commercial space research leading to production of manned and
unmanned space systems with 19 separate rocket test sites.
Mojave now hosts 156 separate business contracts employing
nearly 3,000 professionals. Specific emphasis is centered on
green, non-toxic, liquid and hybrid rocket propulsion systems.
Privately funded complete launch systems to orbit and suborbit
and components for such systems are in development for
commercial and government clients.
Question number two. The potential future suborbital space
market? To your question, Mr. Chairman, Mojave is far more than
suborbital. Mojave entered this game in the orbital market and
found a way to back in to the suborbital market. I view this
discussion similar to the discussion the world had about steam
175 years ago. Obviously investors knew it had potential, but
they didn't know the answer to the basic question you ask.
Today the majority of the world's power systems are based on
steam. We all know the investment in suborbital tourism. It is
in the press every day. But beyond that is an emerging new
interest being led by the world's high net-worth investors who
are visiting Mojave because they know investment in hypersonic,
high mach business travel, is ripe for suborbit. This is where
I see the needle moving, and my written testimony goes into far
greater detail on the subject.
Question three. The challenges and opportunities faced by
the suborbital space market. A. The industry needs regulatory
certainty, but the learning period restriction on
unsubstantiated safety regulations expires in less than two
years and the risk-sharing indemnification regime expires at
the end of next month. For regulatory certainty, extension of
both is required now.
The Administration's proposed changes to ITAR pose a
restriction to extending the peaceful exploration of space to a
thirsty world market seeking suborbit vehicles. ITAR as it
currently stands is more than a speed bump to expanding the
markets internationally.
Question four, your thoughts on H.R. 3038, the Suborbital
and Orbital Advancement and Regulatory Streamlining Act. I
strongly support two elements of H.R. 3038 contained in Section
2, but the third element, contained in Section 3, to me is
ambiguous and requires further discussion and clarity.
From my 44 years as a professional aviator, test pilot and
business executive if taken at current words, it may take the
FAA and the industry into that mysterious land of unintended
consequences if we don't spend just a little time and get it
right.
Again, I thank you for your invitation to present the good
news coming out of Mojave, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Witt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.024
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Witt. I now recognize our
final witness, Mr. Tito.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DENNIS TITO, CHAIRMAN,
INSPIRATION MARS FOUNDATION
Mr. Tito. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. I can't think of a better way to begin
today's discussion--
Chairman Palazzo. Your mike, please, if you can turn it on?
Mr. Tito. Thank you. I can't think of a better way to begin
today's discussion on the public-private ventures in space than
to propose one.
At the Inspiration Mars Foundation, we have designed the
architecture for a mission carrying two astronauts to the far
side of Mars and back. It would be a voyage of around 800
million miles around the Sun in 501 days. We propose to do this
in collaboration with NASA as a partner in a NASA mission in
the name of America and for the good of humanity. The endeavor
is not motivated by business desires but to inspire Americans
in a bold adventure in space that reinvigorates space
exploration. In fact, the capabilities developed through
private funding belong to NASA for this and future missions.
The partnership is a new model for a space mission. It is not
the model of traditional contracts or subsidies for vehicle
developments, although these models are imbedded in the NASA
programs to be leveraged for this mission. It is a
philanthropic partnership with government to augment resources
and achieve even greater goals than is possible otherwise.
Philanthropy has historically benefitted society beyond what
governments can afford or justify. What better use is there for
private funding than to challenge the imaginations of people
all over the world by providing the spark that invigorates the
space program to further human destiny, to learn more and
improve our civilization. Just as exciting times in the space
program have motivated young people to study math, science and
engineering in the past, benefitting all parts of U.S.
industry, this mission will surely provide that benefit.
No longer is a Mars flyby mission just one more theoretical
big idea. It can be done, not in a matter of decades, but in a
few years. Moreover, the mission might just show the way for a
new model for joint effort and financing. It would attract
significant private funding, while enabling NASA to do what it
does best, and to confirm that the United States is the
unquestioned leader in space.
The work of this Subcommittee has helped to prepare the way
with the 2010 authorization. That gave NASA the Space Launch
System, the Orion program, and new commercial capabilities. We
propose to combine all of these elements, as we have explained
in the Architecture Study Report released this week.
We can accomplish this flyby within a set launch schedule
using rockets, systems, hardware already in testing and meeting
established objectives that is a part of space policy for
sending people to explore Mars.
But if the technology, the rockets, and the systems are all
virtually there, why not move this mission to the here and now
and not wait until the '30s?
There is a compelling reason to do that--in a word,
opportunity. Every 15 years or so there is a rare planetary
alignment relying on the gravitational forces of Mars, Sun, and
Earth. An American spacecraft would have to be on its way in
the first days of 2018. Otherwise, we are looking at another 15
years before that alignment happens again.
If we need a Plan B, there is a mission 80 days longer that
flies behind Venus before going to Mars, being a unique
trajectory that could be flown in 2021. However by then,
another country, almost surely China, will have seen our missed
opportunity and taken the lead for themselves.
May I offer a frank word to the Subcommittee? The United
States will carry out a flyby mission or we will watch as
others do it. If America is ever going to do a flyby mission of
Mars then we are going to have to do it in 2018. Given the
Russian recognition and value of accomplishments in human space
exploration, they have announced that they will recommercialize
the Energia rocket and make that available. They also have
upgrades to their capabilities which would allow them to fly in
2017.
We feel it is our civic duty to bring this attention to the
executive and legislative branches of government.
In 2019, it will be 50 years since we landed on the Moon.
Let us hope that we can look back and say that we have
accomplished something in that 50 years. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman and the Subcommittee, and I would be happy to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tito follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.030
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you, Mr. Tito. I thank the
witnesses for being available for questioning today, reminding
Members that Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes.
The Chair will at this point open the round of questions. The
Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
The current third-party liability risk-sharing regime has
been in place for almost two decades. The purpose of this
regime was to assist a nascent industry that needed a backstop
for possible third-party claims in the event of an accident.
Please explain to the Committee why the indemnification regime
is still necessary and what reforms to the current regimes are
needed. Mr. Witt, Ms. Cooper, you briefly touched on this
topic. Will you please explain in detail or elaborate in
detail? Thank you. Ms. Cooper?
Ms. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Commercial Space
Launch Act risk management provision is absolutely essential
and an appropriate use for government in the view of the
members of the Satellite Industry Association. We strongly
recommend that it be renewed before it expires.
The government's role in safeguarding for launch services
is only at a very extraordinary circumstance. Under the FAA
rules and the rules set out under the Launch Act, launch
providers themselves are responsible for the bulk of damages
that might occur if the unthinkable were to happen. The FAA
sets a maximum probable loss limit of $500 million and expects
their licensees to take responsibility for those damages,
usually in the form of private launch insurance.
And I would note that those maximum probable losses cover
not only all parties involved in the launch, including third
parties, but also damages to U.S. Government property.
Damages in excess of that maximum probable loss limit of
$500 million up to a cap of $1.5 million are what are at stake
here in this launch liability provision. This was not just to
protect a nascent industry but to ensure that the risk of
launching a satellite or any other payload didn't require the
company to pretty much bet the company every time they
launched. This allowed the largest, most catastrophic damages
to be safeguarded by the government.
I would note that this is appropriate. I looked back a
little bit in 1988 when the first Commercial Space Launch Act
was passed. The environment today in the marketplace with not
only several commercial launch companies looking at launching
satellites but also the extraordinary proliferation of interest
and investment and exploration of commercial launch for other
purposes is an environment far more like the 1988 environment
than it was five years ago.
I would also note that international competition is far
more intense, and other governments, the hosts of those other
launch providers, offer comparable safeguards from significant
damage.
And finally, I would just note that the U.S. Government
itself carries liability that it has taken on under several
treaties, the Outer Space Treaty, the Space Liability Treaty,
and these are satisfied by the commercial space launch
indemnification provisions, and we certainly think that it is
an appropriate role for government and one that this Committee
we hope will support extending. Thank you.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Chair? I have to learn my protocols. Mr.
Chairman, this particular question to me is just foundational
of the right way to do business. There seems to be a perception
and then there is a reality, and the perception is that there
is no skin in the game on the part of the operators. And the
reality is, the way the law is written, there is $500 million
at stake to the operator, plus they play this little game every
day in Mojave called let us bet the company every time they
fly. There is certainly no motivation to fail. There is
certainly a motivation to be rigorous. But for a license
launch, when it comes down to actually launching, the FAA, the
Federal Government, makes the determination of the maximum
probable loss and caps it, and it is the operator that has to
find the insurance or post a bond if you will that they have
financial solvency to cover any losses up to that limit. For 20
years the government has not been placed at risk. If a program
that was put in place is working that well, I would look for
some compelling reason to change it. I think it should be
extended indefinitely. That is my opinion.
Chairman Palazzo. Thank you. Mr. Tito, in your testimony
you talk about a public-private partnership with NASA for a
deep space mission and that in contrast to past development
programs would be funded at least in part by private
investment. How much do you expect this mission to cost private
investors? Would those investors expect a return on their
investment or would they be considered donations? And do you
intend to ask for NASA for funding, and if so, how much do you
plan on asking for?
Mr. Tito. Well, this is a philanthropic effort, so you
would not consider any contribution an investment. Once a
mission was established and ongoing, I think there would be the
prospect of raising several hundred million dollars
philanthropically but not until we actually have a mission on
the manifest.
As far as overall cost over and above what NASA is already
spending on existing programs, I would say that it would be
less than $1 billion, and you subtract roughly $300 million
which I think could be raised philanthropically over the five-
year period between now and the end of the mission, it would
cost the government about $700 million or about a little over
$100 million a year.
Chairman Palazzo. Well, thank you. My time is expired. I
now recognize Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to the witnesses for your testimony. One of the things that
I have emphasized since joining the Subcommittee last year is
the importance of educating the public about the benefits of
space exploration and justifying the investment which, those of
us on this Subcommittee all believe in. And one of the things I
wanted to point out and thank you for, Mr. Witt, is in your
testimony talking about how there has been this spinoff
potential beyond aerospace, especially with the discoveries
being applied to, for example, conventional internal combustion
engines, and I think the more the public knows about benefits
beyond that in all-important leadership the more that we can
convince the public that these are wise investments in space.
So thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Ms. Cooper, the commercial satellite industry is one of the
first commercial space industries and has really seen
significant growth over the years. So as you consider the range
of activities and issues being discussed here today, can you
tell us from your experience what lessons have been learned
that could benefit the other emerging space enterprises?
Ms. Cooper. Thank you. I think the commercial satellite
industry in its origin has some similarities to other younger
space ventures in that there were assumptions of a government
role at the outset. There was an assumption that the idea of
launching a satellite and building one was too complex, too
costly, too risky for an individual company or country even to
undertake it.
As the experience grew and the confidence in the capability
on orbit grew and also as the idea of services and what was the
value of those satellites grew, companies naturally entered the
arena. I think that was a critical part for government
regulation to establish rules of the road for a competitive
environment, to allow enabling an environment, but also to
establish how those companies would be able to compete with
each other and for them what they needed.
For the commercial satellite industry, it is absolutely
orbital slots which is an international regime managed by the
International Telecommunications Union but also satellite
spectrum which is needed not only to manage the spacecraft but
also to deliver communication services.
That is probably our biggest challenge right now is that we
have become almost so ubiquitous and so relied upon that the
communications industry may forget that we are delivering these
services from 22,000 miles away and that there are significant
considerations when you figure out how you might be able to
share that spectrum.
I would also just note the other consideration is safety
and safety of flight. That is a genuine role for government
regulation, and I think the partnership between industry and
government is essential there to establish an understanding of
what is in space and an understanding of what the private and
government actors in space are doing for the safety of all in
space. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And for all of you, the
work that your organizations are performing calls for
innovation is certainly a highly skilled workforce to achieve
the goals in certainly a competitive environment. So how
important is the workforce to the growth of commercial space,
and from your perspective, what is the most important thing we
can do to ensure the future viability and sustainability of a
workforce that is prepared for this type of work? I will start
with Mr. Witt. Your thoughts on that?
Mr. Witt. Ms. Bonamici, that is a great question. That goes
right to my heart. The last ten years I have served--11 years
served on a college board, and I have learned a little bit
about the education process in America. But for the last 20
years in my businesses and in my current business, I have
required each one of my employees to spend four hours a year in
a classroom.
Ms. Bonamici. That is good.
Mr. Witt. And to a person. When I had my company here, when
my current--everybody said only four hours? And I said, just
curious, but how many did you do last year? And we all know the
answer to that, don't we? Zero. And to set a standard in your
own business and from your seats as Members of Congress, you
have the opportunity to speak to people all over this Nation
all the time. You all get invited for public events. People
listen to your words, your policy and your words. Make it part
of your daily speech to promote science and technology
nationwide in this Nation. Do the little things. When you walk
into a Masten space system and you--and I bring in teachers. We
brought in students, but we now found out, you know, teachers
in classrooms--I think I learned in our discussion at lunch one
day--they have all the kids. If we bring them in for an hour,
we have 100 kids and me for an hour. But these teachers have
the kids all year long. Bring the teachers in. Spend the day
with 30 teachers, and they have access to these kids for a
year. Show them the passion. Show them the people. Take them
into a Masten space systems and let them ask an engineer, if
you could talk to your science teacher today in high school,
what would you tell him? I remember that question specifically.
And the kid with the wrenches and the T-shirts building a
rocket says it would have been nice of you to come by my desk
every now and then, but you are always worried about the lowest
kid in the class or the brightest kid in the class. But
somewhere I was lost in the middle. Those are powerful things
to learn on the shop floor of a rocket factory.
But those are lessons we can extend, and you can extend in
all of your daily activities in lunch rooms. Make it the
standard that people make every employee that works for them
spend four hours a year in a classroom. My janitor, who is
trilingual, spends four hours a year in a classroom. There is a
job for every kid, and their job is important.
Ms. Bonamici. That is great. Thank you very much. I am
afraid I have run out of time. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thought I was going to be down the line
a bit. Well, thank you very much and appreciate the witnesses
and certainly appreciate the leadership of the Chairman on
this, making sure that we focus on this element of America's
space program. This element of America's space program is
playing an ever-increasingly vital role. I would like to first
of all give my regards to Dennis Tito here who years ago took
the initiative to show that one person could make a difference
and could inspire a whole Nation. It is one thing to have a
group of people working for the government, working together to
accomplish something. It is one thing for this guy to on his
own decide he is going to get something done and go out and do
it. And I remember the first time I met Mr. Tito. We went out
for dinner, and the waiter in the restaurant where we went
asked, ``Aren't you the guy who went into space?'' And talk
about inspiring people. I mean, this was--he was inspiring
regular Americans out there. Thanks for doing that, Dennis, and
not giving up on that job of inspiring people. I will hopefully
work with you on your project. I don't know if we can get it
done, but we will see what we can do. And it is inspiring to
see you doing this.
Ms. Cooper, I want to get to some really basics here. One
of the things that are limiting our ability to use space,
commercial space and otherwise, is orbital debris. At what
point, are we reaching a point now where we are going to have
to put the lid on what we are doing in space because of this
problem?
Ms. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. For the commercial
satellite industry we do not think that the orbital debris
environment is limiting our ability to deploy new satellites.
It does affect our operations. I will say that the commercial
satellite industry takes extremely seriously its
responsibilities to operate in space and to assist in the
larger question of debris.
I want to point to a private initiative that many of the
satellite operators have undertaken called the Space Data
Association in which a number of satellite companies have
pooled their resources to explain where they are in very
specific ephemeris data, also to share information about what
they see on orbit and also discuss EMI/RFI interference issues.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, that is the--
Ms. Cooper. They share that with the Strategic Command as
well.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, that is very commendable that this
is happening on a voluntary basis with your industry. I would
suggest, Mr. Chairman, that dealing with the ever-increasing
level of space debris might be one use of commercial space.
There might be commercial people, people who commercially would
like to go out and get the contract to dealing with space
debris. And rather than simply make this a government program,
it could be--we could look at it as a potential commercial
program.
And I would also like to--I mentioned--Mr. Tito, I would
like to mention Jim Muncy who is sitting back behind the panel
today who never got credit for enormous things that were
getting done in this Committee and in commercial space. Thank
you, Mr. Muncy.
One note about how--Mr. Tito mentioned the Chinese might be
doing things. I would suggest this, however. The Chinese get a
lot of their technology by stealing it, and I would hope that
we don't let thieves beat us to various important goals in
space. But I would also hope that we don't partner with
thieves. And until we see reform in China, we should not be
partnering in space ventures with the world's worst human
rights abuser.
Finally, Mr. Witt, what would you say--you know, you are
right there in the front. I just mentioned space debris. Could
you give us a couple of ideas of where commercial space--are we
going to have a ride between--are we going to be able to
deliver a FedEx package yesterday to Tokyo?
Mr. Witt. It is certainly in the possibility. I think one
of the Members have recently asked me what is the timeframe for
point-to-point suborbit travel, halfway around the world. Is it
five years, ten years, 50 years? I think the answer is it could
be in the ten-year regime. It is more likely going to be in the
out years, but we certainly ought to be thinking there now. It
is time for us to take the long view of the future and start
setting the stage for policies and planning for it today. This
is not revolutionary. This is frankly evolutionary. It is going
from props to jets. Now we are going from jets to faster jets
and air breathers and using a different band of the atmosphere.
But it is certainly possible. And I hope it happens in my
lifetime, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your
leadership, and let me just note on the last point that was
made that suborbital space and the development of that for the
benefit of mankind is being done basically through private
investment, and that is something that we can be very proud of,
that our innovators are capitalists. And Mr. Tito, by the way,
is the ultimate capitalist involved in this, that people are
putting their own resources to this and suborbital space could
change the very nature of transportation and again lead us to a
new era of humankind. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as a
child who grew up in the 1960s and early '70s in the heart of
the space race, obviously it captured our imagination. I think
everyone in this room who grew up in that era would love to see
that sense of curiosity, that sense of awe and wonder that
inspired multiple industries, inspired many of us to go into
science and inspired a generation.
The challenge I have right now is my one year in Congress.
And I will ask the members on the panel, could you in a
sentence clearly define what NASA's mission is today, what we
are trying to accomplish in a way that President Kennedy
clearly defined what we were aspiring to within a specific
timeframe and so forth. And, as a Member of the Space
Committee, I think I have a hard time. So I would ask you what
our mission is today, the one that inspires folks that has been
clearly articulated to the public?
Ms. Cooper. The commercial satellite industry is a little
bit adjacent to NASA, so I am going to yield to my colleagues
on the panel.
Mr. Bera. Okay.
Mr. Witt. Sir, it is outside my area of expertise, but I do
get asked that regularly, and my answer has not changed.
America deserves, expects and demands a forward-leaning, well-
funded, laser-focused national space agency, focused on the big
jobs, the big deals. Where the commercial industry should fill
gaps, we should fill the gaps and we should be allowed to fill
those gaps in earnest, and it is private enterprise. But we
deserve, expect and demand a forward-leaning, well-funded
laser-focused national space agency.
Mr. Bera. Mr. Tito?
Mr. Tito. Well, in 1957 when the Soviets launched Sputnik,
that changed the world as far as I was concerned and put
America in the minds of a lot of people in the world as number
two technologically. And one of our responses was to form NASA
to lead our space program. And the role of NASA of course was
for scientific purposes, to develop technology like the
preceding firm NACA did for the aircraft industry. But the real
mission of NASA at the beginning as we all know was to win the
space race. And we did win it after ten years, and somehow we
don't have that drive that we had 50 years ago. And we may be
in a position of having Sputnik occur again. Sputnik will be in
flight to Mars by either China or Russia.
Mr. Bera. Well, would it be reasonable then to push the
administration as well as the NASA Administrator to perhaps
define manned space travel, human space travel, to Mars within
a certain timeframe as a mission that the public can grasp that
then within that context we could look at what is the role of
the private sector and commercial space travel to help us get
there, as well as what is the role of the Federal sector in
terms of NASA and the funds that we would have to appropriate?
But you know, again, I would challenge the administration as
well as the NASA Administrator to clearly define that because
then it makes our jobs a lot easier to say, okay, what
framework allows us to both take the public sector and the
private sector working together in an innovative way to go out
there, capture the public imagination?
Mr. Tito. Look, we are at a point where we have to make a
decision as a Nation. We can either make a decision to spend a
relatively small amount of additional funds to a very expensive
human exploration program now that does not have a mission and
make a mission out of it, and be the first to get to Mars, or
by not making a decision, we will be forfeiting that
opportunity.
Now in 2021, we could get to Mars, but we may not be the
only ones. It is an interesting mission. It is Venus and Mars,
and of course, we are proposing a man and a woman. That would
make a very interesting combination.
But I think we have to really look at this opportunity very
seriously and decide one way or another as to whether the
United States should pass on it or act on it.
Mr. Bera. Great. I think that is a great place to end. I
will yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. Just to add, you know, Mr. Bera asked the
same question a lot of us have been asking ourselves, and we
get asked it a lot. And I would just like to reiterate that is
one of the reasons why the NASA Authorization Act is so
important. It does establish a roadmap for NASA so we can come
up with a timeline, destinations and focus, laser-like focus
and back it up with our resources to achieve that objective.
At this time I recognize Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would just
really like to thank the panel. You know, I firmly believe we
do have an opportunity to advance rocket science and space
technology in the private sector in many cases apart from the
whimsical budgets of us politicians. And what you guys are
doing in that area is unique and special, and you are really
leading the way and I appreciate that very much.
What I would like to ask Mr. Witt, part of your testimony
you talked about ITAR, and some of the regulations that are
affecting the commercial space flight industry, maybe space
tourism. Would you share with us a little bit about how ITAR is
affecting the businesses and the industry at the Mojave Air and
Space Port?
Mr. Witt. Sure, Mr. Bridenstine. Did I get that right?
Mr. Bridenstine. Yes, sir.
Mr. Witt. ITAR. If you have a rocket and you have a human
attached to that rocket, you are born into ITAR. So you are
regulated by the International Treaty and Arms Regulations.
The developers at Mojave, let us just put a name to them,
Masten, XCOR and Virgin Galactic, all seek to make their
industry a worldwide industry. They want to take American
products and extend them around the globe. One of those
investors happens to be an international investor, Sir Richard
Branson. So isn't it ironic that an international investor
developing a system in the United States currently under
current law can't fly it outside the United States?
I believe we have grown up in a new day. There are new
products. We have agreements all around the world with nations
that want to explore space for peaceful purposes. Space tourism
is a great example. If I could choose a location where I would
like to fly, a suborbital space flight, I would like to fly
through the aurora borealis out of northern Sweden. It is fast.
Why not? Fly at night. Do something that no one else has done,
like Mr. Tito suggests.
This is what is possible. But unless we find some relief on
the ITAR regulations and really crack that can open and take a
look, I don't think we are going to be able to extend these
things internationally and we need to. It is good for American
business.
Mr. Bridenstine. When you think about the market for
whether it is space tourism or private space suborbital science
experiments and exploration, that market exists in large part
outside our own country, while it does exist in our own
country. Could you give maybe an example of how big that market
would be if we were able to take that market outside the United
States?
Mr. Witt. The Tauri Group is a great place to ask that
question. I am not an expert in that, but I do know the studies
are out there and the numbers exist. And I would recommend to
the Committee that you ask for that, maybe through the CSF.
But it is a market. Like Mr. Tito said, if we don't provide
the services, they are going to buy the services from providers
that are willing to provide the services. They are out there.
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Witt. I think we need to be in the game in all corners,
and I think if you are not trying to find relief--I totally
agree with Mr. Rohrabacher's comments. But ITAR is more than a
speed bump as currently written.
Mr. Bridenstine. When you think about investment in the
private space flight industry, we think about high net-worth
investors. Can you share, what is the resistance or is there
resistance to receiving investment from institutional
investors? Is it happening, is it slow to happen? Can you share
a little bit about that?
Mr. Witt. I don't have any examples of that currently. The
majority of my tenants are the high net-worth investor. Some
institutional investing is starting to show up. I have said for
years we will have an industry when we have an underwriter----
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Witt. --and we have Wall Street. We are starting to
show signs of both. But I think it took some successes and
namely by SpaceX, now Orbital Sciences, now Boeing. It is going
to take a new day, new players in the system showing enormous
successes to start drawing in the more institutional,
conventional investment. And I think it is beginning to happen.
Mr. Bridenstine. And of course, indemnification, which you
guys are very interested in is a key piece of attracting that
kind of institutional investor, is that correct?
Mr. Witt. It brings certainty to the game, absolutely. And
I think we look to the government to be a good partner. We
can't keep moving the goal posts or changing the rules. The
indemnification regime is sound policy. It has worked.
Mr. Bridenstine. Right.
Mr. Witt. And the operators have the skin in the game
first, and the government portion has never been used.
Mr. Bridenstine. Roger that. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask you a
little bit about commercial space activities and pop culture. I
know that you probably have saw that Lady Gaga was going to be
the first person to perform in space. I think that is going to
happen sometime in 2015, and I believe she is going to--I think
it is in conjunction with Richard Branson. I was just wondering
what you thought of pop culture and how maybe it can play a
role in sort of aiding or just getting people more interested
in what is going on in commercial space travel.
Mr. Witt. Is that for me, Mr. Veasey?
Mr. Veasey. Yes.
Mr. Witt. Okay. Lady Gaga. Okay. I got to admit, I didn't
know I was going to get this question in front of Congress.
I will tell you, I do have an answer for that. I think you
raise a valid question. When you talk about the totality of an
industry, industries usually come along with different things
like fashion, food, housing, all those certain elements are key
to commercial space. What will you take? What provisions do you
need? How long do you plan to be on this journey? What do you
wear? All these questions.
But the industry on the ground around that tends to mirror
trends. And I don't know anything about the Lady Gaga, Sir
Richard Branson thing you mentioned. It is a little out of
scope for Mojave. But I do know that fashion design and pop
culture--I mean, Rocket Man.
Mr. Veasey. Elton John.
Mr. Witt. Elton John.
Mr. Veasey. Right.
Mr. Witt. I mean, there you go. I play it every time we
launch a rocket. So it is certainly important to capture the
young people and to get them engaged. It certainly has a role,
and I think it is greater than just the pop culture. It is more
fashion, design, food, the whole industry.
Mr. Veasey. Do you think there is anything that NASA could
possibly learn as a--you know, because one of the things about
Richard Branson, like for instance even in commercial air
travel, if you go to his airline, whenever you are getting your
ticket at the kiosk, they are playing Red Hot Chili Peppers,
there is a different sort of a vibe. And obviously some of the
things that they are doing with pop culture and this Lady Gaga
flight is really interesting.
Do you think that is something that NASA can learn in order
to maybe inspire a lot of young people that may be interested
in space travel or may even maybe be able to sort of catapult
space travel to what it probably was like back in the 1970s and
early '80s for a lot of young people?
Mr. Witt. It is possible, but it is an engineering
organization, and engineers don't tend to think in terms of pop
culture. It doesn't come oozing out of them naturally. But
certainly NASA could use a dose of marketing skills that come
from the Branson organization. They are expert at that and
selling the brand and selling the concept. You would think that
the NASA experience that I grew up with and watched on TV that
brought me into this industry, it could use a jolt of
reinvention. And what I think you are really asking is what is
the value to the buying public? If you have a choice of buying
airlines--if you have ridden on a Virgin flight, they are
different, they are fun. That brings value to exchanging money
for your ticket. Maybe there is a value proposition that needs
to be revisited in the rebranding, rediscovery of the future
NASA.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, though I don't
know if I am going to be able to reach the heights of pop
culture sort of inquiry, but I guess I could embarrass my wife
and go, who is Lady Gaga?
But in all sincerity, okay, privatization, private
ventures, now the next question is on the financing, the access
to capital. When I look at much of what I see in the private
investments and what is going on in Mojave, I don't want to--
well, I am going to refer to it somewhat as vanity capital. You
know, some of the ventures are funded substantially with a
handful of high net-worth individuals, with great hopes and
dreams because it is their interest, their hobby. Where are we
going on the financing mechanisms where the investment side--
now, we know the satellite industry now has some terrific rates
of return. Where is the next level of investment where I see an
investment index that is where it is a more referred to as sort
of egalitarian investment mechanic? How far away? Please, give
me some concepts of where the money is going and coming from.
Mr. Tito. About ten years ago I actually did consider
making an investment in one of those organizations that you
referred to at Mojave, and somehow I just wasn't able to pencil
it together as an investment that would provide return on
investment given the risk involved. And one of the problems
with investing in space programs is that you have to develop a
business model, and the business model is how much are people
going to pay to participate in the sort of mission? And as you
know, there were seven people that paid to fly orbiting the
Earth on the Space Station with the Russians at a fairly high
price. And you know, that market is limited.
Mr. Schweikert. And maybe part of this is for Ms. Cooper.
We do now see I guess a series of very standardized structured
investments to finance communication satellites, satellites
that drive data. From your view of the world from the satellite
industry, is that the future for other types of financing
mechanisms?
Ms. Cooper. Thank you. Certainly the experience in the
commercial satellite industry is three parts, inspiration, the
creative aspects, which sometimes comes from governments or
countries or multilateral groups. But the satellite industry
certainly has had individual high net-worth investors, like
Rene Anselmo who founded PanAmSat, the first company I worked
at, ----
Mr. Schweikert. But literally--your third?
Ms. Cooper. And then you have to--if I may go then to the
second piece which is you have to show a certain technical
capability to deliver the service. And finally, you have to
close a business case to show how you are going to sustain what
is typically a high, up-front investment cost. That, at that
third phase, on a sustainable rate of return kind of approach
is where the more traditional investors respond.
Mr. Schweikert. Yeah, I mean, let us say it was this
afternoon, and we decided that I am putting money into a
satellite. My understanding is most satellite launches are
sponsored. It is, you know, we are a company. It is
communication. We need 40 percent of the bandwidth capacity.
The rest will be sold off. The ability to--do they sell
interest in that? Could I find an exchange or a broker or a
platform to buy and sell and finance that launch?
Ms. Cooper. I am not aware of any exchanges for the launch.
What I can say is that the commercial satellite piece of it----
Mr. Schweikert. And when I say that I mean the whole
package.
Ms. Cooper. The commercial satellite nowadays is almost--
the financial environments reward a satellite with an
established, pre-launch customer base. Often as much as 80
percent of the satellite's capability is booked pre-launch.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay.
Ms. Cooper. And then the excess of that is sold after
launch, after the satellite has been put in orbit over the
course of its 15-year lifespan. There are certainly satellites
that are speculative, that are built with a customer base to be
determined.
Mr. Schweikert. I would like to learn more about that
because a year ago I was approached by some folks that
literally wanted to set up--the closest thing I could refer to
it is like a REIT that would be based in financing, the
construction, the maintenance, the launch of the satellite and
you know, literally selling its bandwidth.
Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you very much to Ms. Bonamici for sitting
in for me earlier. I had a conflict. I really appreciate our
witnesses here today. Mr. Tito, it is good to see you again.
I want to reiterate, and I know my statements has been
submitted for the record, but I want to reiterate to Chairman
Palazzo my commitment to working with him and with the Chairman
and the Ranking Member for a clean one year extension of the
commercial launch indemnification provisions, and I hope that
over this next year we really will take to the task of doing
the kind of oversight hearings that we need to give the
commercial space industry, the kind of certainty that we need
with respect to indemnification, and we can only do that if we
get the FAA in here and get experts in so that we can look at
the future environment and climate with respect to commercial
activity. But I do support a clean one-year extension as we are
approaching that date of December 31.
To all of the panelists, I think that much of what we think
of as commercial space really involves a lot of significant
government contribution, and sometimes we don't hear that. And
in fact, the delineation between public and private appears
increasingly blurred. As somebody who came out of NASA, I think
it has always been a little blurred, and that is okay. But how
should Congress and its oversight role look at the role of
public-private relationships to ensure that both taxpayers and
commercial entities' interest are appropriately considered? And
then I would like each of you if you would give me an
indication as to whether you know how much in fact taxpayers
have contributed to the current commercial environment?
Ms. Cooper. For the commercial satellite sector, there is
not a taxpayer contribution. These are privately financed,
privately launched, privately operated satellites. Obviously
there is government regulatory regimes that license and oversee
those. It is my understanding at the FCC for example that those
license fees are cost-based in terms of the agencies.
Ms. Edwards. What about the technology that went into the
commercial satellite industry? Any idea of the contribution of
NASA or any of our agencies in terms of their contribution?
Ms. Cooper. I am not aware of any government programs to
develop commercial satellite technology. There certainly is an
interplay between the commercial satellite sector and the
broader space enterprise where products that are developed in
the NASA context may later be commercialized.
Ms. Edwards. Okay. Mr. Tito, in the Architecture Report
that is attached to your statement it says that, ``perhaps
several hundred million dollars in new Federal spending could
make this mission happen.'' Are you suggesting that the mission
couldn't be undertaken without additional NASA funding? And is
there evidence in the current fiscal environment that those
several hundred million dollars would be available?
Mr. Tito. Well, right now I don't see a lot of evidence
that money is available. We do have an opportunity in four
years, but we have an opportunity in eight years and a lot can
happen.
Ms. Edwards. So when you say several hundred million
dollars would be required from NASA. Is that $100 million? Is
it $900 million?
Mr. Tito. Well, I think initially we are talking about per
year basis, so it might be $100 to 200 million a year would be
needed to fund the dual use upper stage which the Nation needs
anyway to provide heavy lift capability. So that would be one
project that would have to take place.
Ms. Edwards. And that would require taxpayer support,
right?
Mr. Tito. Yes.
Ms. Edwards. Okay.
Mr. Tito. And it is already planned, but it is not funded
yet over the longer time period.
Ms. Edwards. And Mr. Witt, do you have an idea of how much
taxpayer support has gone into the commercial activities that
you are engaged in or that others of your partners are?
Mr. Witt. Well, Ms. Edwards, I can only speak to Mojave Air
and Space Port. We are a California special district, so we are
a quasi-government entity that can qualify for Federal grants
from the FAA and others. And I think I gave that to the
committee, and I could give you a number but the exact number
was submitted in my packet. But it was a good question, and we
did extend a runway and we bought a fire truck. So we are
talking in terms of a couple million dollars. But my
organization, if we don't make money, I don't pay my employees.
I don't get any operational funds from anyone. I have to run as
a business. And so there has been some public investment, but
in terms of my total operation, it is small.
Ms. Edwards. And I will close, Mr. Chairman. I guess the
point is--and I don't mind that and I really do understand the
point of the commercial space industry is to make money. But I
think sometimes the public gets confused as though somehow this
industry would just be off and going on its own without the
requisite support of technology and other kinds of development
and investment that the taxpayers made. And I think we get a
great benefit for the bargain, but I don't want to pretend that
we can engage in this activity without the hand of the taxpayer
in there helping it out. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Palazzo. I now recognize Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very
interesting hearing this morning, and bringing in Lady Gaga
just made it even more exciting for people to look forward to.
I have a question for Ms. Cooper. In your statement you
note the satellite industry association support for extending
the U.S. commercial launch indemnification regime which expires
at the end of this year. How in concrete terms would the
absence of the indemnification provisions affect the U.S.
commercial satellite industry in terms of price, market share
or revenues? And on what data do you base your conclusions?
Ms. Cooper. Thank you. I don't have any statistical surveys
for that question specifically. I will note that the commercial
satellite sector primarily has not been launched by U.S. launch
vehicles over the past five years certainly. Those launches are
primarily held by European or Russian satellite launch
operators. But there is a great deal of interest in the
emerging capabilities of new and existing satellite launch
providers for the United States. Absent the commercial launch
indemnification, we expect that the prices for launches would
have to incorporate additional risk assumed by the launch
providers, perhaps affecting the competitiveness of those U.S.
providers in that international launch community. I don't have
data on how much--that would be speculation. Thank you.
Ms. Wilson. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Witt, the SOARS Act seeks
to introduce a number of provisions to streamline commercial
space flight. I would like to understand from your perspective
what is missing from the existing law that needs fixing and how
in your view the SOARS Act would address those issues.
Mr. Witt. Okay, Ms. Wilson. The SOARS Act as presented has
two provisions I believe in Section 2 and one in Section 3, and
the two in Section 2 basically provide one-stop shopping for an
applicant seeking a license to operate and currently--almost
have to understand the FAA to understand the provision in the
law. But the way the FAA is organized, they have people that
manage air traffic control, they have people who fund airports,
they have people who license pilots in aircraft and
maintainers. And then they have people who license launches.
Well, we have a new day. Now we have airplanes, purpose-built
airplanes that are stage one that carry a rocket aloft and then
launch. So you have this hybrid. Where does it fit? And it
creates again some uncertainty in the current law because we
have new developments. And the law just aims to streamline that
in Section 2. The Section 3 provision, and it really is a great
provision, where commercial companies can provide training for
participants who choose to buy tickets to go to suborbit on
commercial lines. It is a mechanism for training these people
to make them aeronautically adaptable to the flight they are
about to take. If you can imagine being in a very confined
space with six colleagues for an hour to go to space, it
would--I think if you spend $250,000 or $100,000 for that
experience, it is reasonable from a business perspective to
assume that all of you had similar training before the
experience so you could handle it physiologically.
That is what provision three intends to allow. The question
I had in my testimony was does that belong under AVS at FAA or
does it belong under AST? When I reasoned myself through that
and spoke to the experts of which I am probably one with, I had
questions about it. I think we could, if we don't get it right
and I think it is a good measure--I just want to get it right
the first time where we are not going down the land of
unintended consequences because of how you work within the FAA.
I think you could leave it up to the Administrator or leave it
up to the Secretary of Transportation to solve it. I think they
will find a way to solve it within the Agency. But I think it
is a good provision. I just don't know if the way it is written
is clean.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
Mr. Witt. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wilson. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Palazzo. All right. At this time without objection
the Chair recognizes Mr. Takano for five minutes.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this
opportunity. Mr. Witt, I really did enjoy my visit to Space
Port. What you have there is a tremendous ecosystem of
entrepreneurs and researchers, and it calls to mind the early
days of Silicon Valley, and I wish you well in your enterprise.
Ms. Cooper, I am curious about your comments about the
spectrum. What are you specifically saying that needs to be
done? Do we need to preserve a certain part of that spectrum
for your industry? And tell me, is it not possible for your
industry to actually compete in an auction for the spectrum
vis-`-vis the communication companies?
Ms. Cooper. The commercial use of radio frequencies
spectrum is regulated by the FCC and coordinated
internationally with the International Telecommunications
Union. There are existing allocations for satellite services of
a variety of different ways. It is enormously complex. We have
a number of different swaths of the radio spectrum.
The issue today comes from this press towards trying to
find additional spectrum to allow new services, more broadband
to your mobile phone, more services throughout the
telecommunications world. And how can we share and make
efficient use of that spectrum. The concern that the satellite
industry has is that those ideas of collaborating and sharing
frequencies need to be thought of a little differently for
satellite services. We need very clean spectrum to communicate
so far away, and we file regularly at the FCC and engage
regularly with both--the FCC is the regulator of commercial
spectrum and NTIA at Commerce, the regulator of the Federal
spectrum--to make sure that if they are considering adding
another unlicensed user or co-primary or secondary user in the
frequencies we are already using, have invested in it and have
spacecraft, you know, spinning away for 15 years, that we can
continue to use that frequency not only with high reliability
but with the high level of quality that media customers,
broadband customers, U.S. military require.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. Mr. Witt, I also visited the
Dryden Space Center at Edwards along with my visit to you at
Space Port. What struck me there was the tremendous research
going on there. And you and I talked about the role of basic
scientific research or the partnership. I am concerned about
our country losing its preeminence or its exceptionalism in
research and development of new technologies. Would you support
more money available for aerospace research or that end of
NASA? People forget that NASA also has aeronautical as part of
its mission.
Mr. Witt. Mr. Takano, yes, in a short version. And we have
done something beyond that. David McBride, the Center Director
of NASA Dryden, and I were on a trip to Europe together. And we
decided we would do a home-on-home. We would actually trade
engineers for a year. An engineer from NASA Dryden would come
to work for me, and we would find a way to work in kind the
other way. So they found out there was a mechanism within NASA
to do that, and we are just completing that first year.
Mr. John Kelly worked with us at Mojave, and it was a way
that we thought was a fantastic way to share ideas, best
practices, to actually institutionalize some of these lessons
learned, the people's investment if you will, back to Mojave,
and with the other companies.
There is a lot that can be done in no atmospheric research
by the national space agency through Dryden, very much so. I
would very much support.
Mr. Takano. Real quick. Can anyone tell me, who indemnifies
the European launches since they are, so many of our
satellites--do we know if the European Union subsidizes those
or not? It would be interesting to find that out.
Also, I want to put a plug in for the wonderful simulator
experience I had, and I would love to see more opportunities
for young people to visit the Dryden Center and also
participate in some of their experimental flights. That would
be a great way to try to promote STEM education. I appreciate
the common interest that I share with my conservative friend,
Mr. Rohrabacher, and private space--in California. That is one
where you and I share a common interest. I yield back, sir.
Chairman Palazzo. The gentleman yields back. I want to
thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions. The Members of the Committee may
have additional questions for you, and we will ask you to
respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for
two weeks for additional comments and written questions from
Members. The witnesses are excused, and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Ms. Patricia Cooper
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.047
Responses by Mr. Stuart Witt
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.036
Responses by Mr. Dennis Tito
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6894.051
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted statement of Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Member, Subcommittee
on Space, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on
``Commercial Space,'' and welcome to our witnesses. In particular, I
know that we will be hearing from Representative McCarthy, and I look
forward to hearing his perspectives.
Now, before I go any further, I'd like to congratulate NASA, and
particularly NASA Goddard Space Flight Center near my District, as well
as the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of California
Berkeley, Lockheed Martin, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the United
Launch Alliance, and all those involved, on the successful launch of
the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution (MAVEN) mission. While not
strictly a ``commercial'' mission per se, it takes a dedicated team
including government, the private sector, and academia to accomplish
challenging missions such as MAVEN.
In fact, MAVEN, and its commercial partners, serves as an important
reminder that over 80 percent of NASA's entire budget is and has been
paid to commercial entities for products and services. And many ofthe
commercial space activities that are being discussed today, as well as
others, have and continue to rely on taxpayer investments, NASA
expertise and experience, and NASA infrastructure.
In addition, an important factor in the initiation of new
commercial space businesses is that NASA-developed technologies have
matured to a point that the private sector can begin to seek commercial
uses for them. So while I'm as excited as anyone about the potential
for growth in commercial space, whether it's in the satellite industry
and services, commercial cargo transportation, and commercial reusable
suborbital and orbital human spacetlight--oh, and I want to be one of
those private passengers--I don't want to perpetuate the misconception
that these are purely ``commercial'' endeavors.
There are significant taxpayer dollars associated with these
``commercial'' activities and there is much at stake for the Government
in the successful execution of these programs. As a result, we in
Congress need to carry out the oversight that is required to protect
the taxpayers' investments and the Government's contributions to these
efforts.
Yet another important Government role in commercial space is in
establishing regulations to ensure that commercial space programs are
carried out safely and that the uninvolved public is not harmed, should
an accident occur. In that regard, Congress has, over the past two
decades, enacted provisions to support a shared government-industry
third-party liability regime for commercial space launches. These
provisions expire at the end of this year. And I know that many
commercial space entities have an interest in the government-industry
liability regime for commercial space launch, since that regime is
active for any commercial FAA-licensed launch. That is the reason I am
puzzled, Mr. Chairman, as to why this hearing is not focused on the
pressing legislative issue of commercial space launch indemnification.
Furthermore, the legislation that is being discussed today, HR
3038--the SOARS Act--appears to deal with a number of FAA-related
aviation and space regulatory issues, yet FAA is not represented here
today. And I'm not aware that any of the witnesses who will testify are
regulatory experts or can discuss the details of how this legislation
would be implemented in practice or what the cost of its implementation
would be.
Mr. Chairman, my criticism should not be misconstrued. I share in
the excitement and promise of the commercial space activities being
discussed today and of the many innovative ideas and strengths that
commercial enterprises bring to our nation's space activities. I stand
ready to work with you, Mr. Chairman, through future hearings, to
examine the whole range of issues associated with commercial space.
These include, at a minimum, how to ensure the safety of human
spaceflight participants; whether the existing shared-risk third-party
liability regime requires adjustments; and how commercial space
accidents will be investigated. And, given the looming expiration of
the commercial space launch indemnification provisions, I am pleased to
join Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Space Subcommittee
Chairman Palazzo in introducing a clean one-year extension of the
provisions.
I hope that we can move the bill quickly to the floor after the
Thanksgiving break so that we can ensure that commercial space launches
have continued access to the existing protections while this Committee
conducts the necessary oversight of the issues associated with a
longer-term extension.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Submitted statement of Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology
Good morning. I would like to welcome each of our witnesses to
today's hearing.
The topic of today's hearing is an important one. About ten years
ago, this Committee held a hearing entitled ``Commercial Human
Spaceflight.'' Mr. Tito, who is on one of today's panels, testified at
that hearing. A lot has happened over the course of those ten years.
The International Space Station was completed and continues to show
great promise as an orbital laboratory. NASA is building the next deep
space exploration system of the future. With the Space Shuttle retired,
cargo resupply of the ISS is being turned over to two commercial
providers, albeit a success made possible with substantial NASA
financial investment and technical transfer. Today, constellations of
commercial satellites circle the Earth, performing a multitude of
critical functions. NASA and FAA are working together in anticipation
of future manned commercial orbital flights. And both entrepreneurs and
established companies are actively exploring a range of commercial
space opportunities.
So it is fitting that we begin a comprehensive examination of what
is needed to continue to grow commercial space. And I view today's
hearing as exactly that, hopefully just the beginning of a series of
hearings that will thoughtfully examine all facets of commercial space
prior to considering any legislation that will affect commercial space
for years to come.
Ten years ago, Mr. Tito expressed concern about the regulations
that might be imposed on the nascent commercial space industry. He was
clear to say that he was not looking to escape the regulations, but
rather wanted clarity on which government agency, and which set of
regulations, would oversee the then-new industry.
His questions are still valid today.
In addition, the fact that much of what we think of as commercial
space in reality involves such a significant governmental role, and the
fact that the lines between public and private may be becoming blurred
for some space activities, requires a clear understanding of the roles
and responsibilities envisioned for these future commercial space
endeavors.
And, the fact that we are staring at yet another expiration of the
risk sharing regime established in the Commercial Space Launch Act
Amendments should not and must not detract us from the greater goal of
examining this indemnification issue comprehensively. In the meantime,
I am pleased to join Chairman Smith, Space Subcommittee Ranking Member
Edwards, and Space Subcommittee Chair Palazzo in providing a clean,
one-year extension of these provisions, while the Subcommittee has an
opportunity to consider whether any changes are needed.
I look forward to this and future hearings to help us forge a clear
direction.