[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE COMMERCIAL SPACE LANDSCAPE:
INNOVATION, MARKET, AND POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-42
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-128PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
HON. KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas, Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
DON BEYER, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
KATIE HILL, California
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
C O N T E N T S
July 25, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Brian Babin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Bhavya Lal, Research Staff Member, IDA Science and Technology
Policy Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Ms. Carissa Christensen, Chief Executive Officer, Bryce Space and
Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Written Statement............................................ 23
Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Mr. Michael French, Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association
Oral Statement............................................... 45
Written Statement............................................ 47
Ms. Laura Montgomery, Proprietor, Ground Based Space Matters and
Professor, Catholic University's Columbus School of Law
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 57
Discussion....................................................... 69
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Bhavya Lal, Research Staff Member, IDA Science and Technology
Policy Institute............................................... 88
Ms. Carissa Christensen, Chief Executive Officer, Bryce Space and
Technology..................................................... 98
Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation.. 104
Mr. Michael French, Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace
Industries Association......................................... 121
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Letter submitted by Representative Kendra Horn, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 130
THE COMMERCIAL SPACE LANDSCAPE:
INNOVATION, MARKET, AND POLICY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kendra
Horn [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. This hearing will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to today's hearing
on ``The Commercial Space Landscape: Innovation, Market, and
Policy''. I especially want to thank our distinguished panel of
witnesses today, and express my gratitude for you being here.
From the Apollo program, and the 50th anniversary of Apollo
11 that we just celebrated, to the Viking landers on Mars, the
Landsat Earth observing satellites, and the Hubble Space
Telescope, the private space sector has been a trusted partner
in America's civil space program. While Federal Government has
taken the lead in R&D (research and development) investments,
design, development, testing, and construction of
infrastructure and facilities, it has looked to the aerospace
industry, and its skilled workforce, to implement the
government's mission requirements, and build many of the
spacecraft, instruments, vehicles, satellites, and systems that
the government has launched into space. This partnership has
worked well, and the Nation's successes in civil space owe much
to the partnership between government and industry.
Through these government investments, demonstrated
capabilities have led to flourishing segments of the commercial
space industry, and today the global space economy, including
government space budgets, is estimated to be around $350 to
$400 billion. Sectors within that global economy, such as
satellite television, satellite manufacturing, and ground
equipment and devices, like the chips in our smartphone that
enable navigation, produce annual revenues in the tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars. Congress and government
policies as well have supported the development of a commercial
space industry by setting the frameworks for regulating
segments of the industry. This Committee's Commercial Space
Launch Act of 1984 laid the initial regulatory framework to
enable the emergence of a commercial space launch industry, for
example. Other legislation provided a pathway for commercial
remote sensing licensing, and today the commercial space
industry is evolving.
With these changes have come innovative technologies and
operations, and potential new services and capabilities that
are infusing energy and excitement into the commercial space
industry. Private investors, venture capital, and other forms
of investment are also expressing interest, and investing in
the industry. According to one source, total investment in
startup space companies was at a record $3.2 billion in 2018,
up from about $2.5 billion in 2017. We are on the precipice of
what could be a groundbreaking shift in technologies and
services that affect our daily lives, whether through new
broadband communication services, or information products
derived from Earth remote sensing imagery. I'm excited about
the future of commercial space, and I want the commercial space
industry in the United States to succeed and to lead.
To ensure continued success, it is important that we, as a
Subcommittee with jurisdiction over commercial space, have a
clear view of where the industry is, and where the industry is
headed, the opportunities and challenges facing it, where and
how the government intersects with commercial space, and what
questions need to be answered as we carry out oversight of the
government as a user and enabler of commercial space
activities. So before we delve into any one issue or activity,
or segment of the industry specifically, we're starting today
with an overview of commercial space.
In short, today's hearing is intended to be a ``Commercial
Space 101,'' if you will, to guide us into prioritizing the key
issues and areas to examine as we look forward to subsequent
hearings on commercial space during the 116th Congress. We've
included a variety of voices on the panel, including those
representing the breadth and diversity of the industry, and I
look forward to your input today.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Horn follows:]
Good afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing on ``The
Commercial Space Landscape: Innovation, Market, and Policy.'' I
especially want to welcome our distinguished witnesses. Thank
you for being here.
From the Apollo program and the 50th anniversary of Apollo
11 that we just celebrated, to the Viking landers on Mars, the
Landsat Earth observing satellites, and the Hubble Space
Telescope, the private space sector has been a trusted partner
in America's civil space program. While the Federal Government
has taken the lead in R&D investments, design, development,
testing, and construction of infrastructure and facilities, it
has looked to the aerospace industry and its skilled workforce
to implement Government mission requirements and build many of
the spacecraft, instruments, vehicles, satellites, and systems
that the Government has launched into space. This partnership
has worked well, and the nation's successes in civil space owe
much to the partnership between the Government and industry.
Through these government investments, demonstrated
capabilities have led to flourishing segments of the commercial
space industry. Today the global space economy, including
government space budgets, is estimated to be around $350-400
billion. Sectors within that global economy, such as satellite
television, satellite manufacturing, and ground equipment and
devices-like the chips in our smartphone that enable
navigation-produce annual revenues in the tens to hundreds of
billions of dollars.
Congress and government policies, as well, have supported
the development of a commercial space industry by setting
frameworks for regulating segments of the industry. This
Committee's Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 laid the
initial regulatory framework to enable the emergence of a
commercial space launch industry, for example. Other
legislation provided a pathway for commercial remote sensing
licensing.
Today, the commercial space industry is evolving. With
these changes have come innovative technologies and operations
and potential new services and capabilities that are infusing
energyinto the commercial space industry. Private investors,
venture capital, and other forms of investment are also
expressing interest in the industry. According to one source,
total investment in start-up space companies was at a record
$3.2 billion in 2018, up from about $2.5 billion in 2017. We're
on the precipice of what could be a ground-breaking shift in
the technologies and services that affect our daily lives
whether through new broadband communications services or
information products derived from Earth remote sensing imagery.
I'm excited about the future of commercial space, and I
want the United States commercial space industry to succeed and
to lead. To ensure continued success, it's important that we,
as the Subcommittee with jurisdiction over commercial space,
have a clear view of where the industry is headed; the
opportunities and challenges facing it; where and how the
government intersects with commercial space; and what questions
need to be answered as we carry out oversight of the government
as a user and enabler of commercial space activities.
So before we delve into any one issue, activity, or segment
of the industry, we're starting with an overview of commercial
space. In short, today's hearing is intended to be a commercial
space 101 that will guide us in prioritizing the key issues and
areas to examine as we look forward to subsequent hearings on
commercial space during the 116th Congress. We've included a
variety of voices on the panel, including those representing
the breadth and diversity of the industry, and I look forward
to their input today.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, and the Chair now recognizes
Ranking Member Babin for his opening statement.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it, and I
want to say welcome, and thank you, to all our expert
witnesses. Our nation's history in space has always featured
partnerships with industry, from MacDonald Aircraft Corporation
building the Mercury and the Gemini capsules, to Grumman
building the Lunar Excursion Module for Apollo, or the United
Space Alliance operating the Space Shuttle fleet, contractors
and private sector have worked hand in hand with NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Administration) since the dawn of the
space age. The future will be no different. In order to ensure
that our Nation, government, military, industrial base, and
society will continue to benefit from the unique opportunities
that space affords, we must carefully craft a framework for the
future, and that's why I was very pleased to see the
Administration put forward Space Policy Directives (SPDs) 1, 2,
and 3. SPD 1 directed NASA to lead an innovative and
sustainable program of exploration with commercial and
international partners to enable human expansion across the
Solar System, and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and
opportunities. I applaud this goal.
Space exploration will require collaboration with the
private sector, just as it did 50 years ago, when Apollo 11
first landed on the Moon. As we chart a new course, NASA must
find the right balance of how it procures hardware and
services. If done correctly, NASA can leverage private sector
investments to enable national exploration goals. If done
poorly, public-private partnerships could end up simply as
corporate welfare. We must carefully guard against subjecting
our civil space enterprise to the uncertainty of the
marketplace. To paraphrase a former Secretary of the Treasury,
and Director of the National Economic Council, ``the government
is a poor venture capitalist.'' We must ensure that any
cooperation is based on sound market projections, and that the
private sector truly has skin in the game.
Turning to the other space policy directives related to
commercial space, SPDs 2 and 3 directed agencies to streamline
the regulation of private sector space activities, and provide
better space situational awareness to space operators. In
response to these directives, agencies are working to craft
rules to cut red tape, while also providing certainty to the
market, and meeting our domestic and international obligations.
Despite the best intentions of the Administration, the first
attempts by the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Commerce, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) all
seem to fall short, but this is not surprising. Regulatory path
is fraught with uncertainty, beholden to the whims of unelected
bureaucracies, and unresponsive to the needs of a rapidly
innovating field. But there are a multitude of other constructs
that can satisfy our obligations without stifling innovation,
or smothering the embers of creativity. Standard-setting
bodies, self-regulating organizations, carefully crafted
public-private partnerships, and many other solutions should
all be on the table.
How we craft space regulations is imperative to our future
in space. Other states stand willing to challenge U.S.
leadership in space through regulatory competition. In a global
environment, individuals and companies are free to shop for the
most attractive environment to claim as home. The implications
of this choice go far beyond national pride. When space
operators associate themselves with a particular nation, they
bring jobs, economic growth, and tax revenue. They attract the
best and brightest entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers, and
technicians, and they create an incubator for future success.
We cannot afford to scare these folks away to other nations,
that will gladly provide a flag of convenience for them.
Aside from the established commercial space industries like
communications, launch, and remote sensing, we must also
consider new and unique activities, such as space to space
remote sensing, commercial space-based signal collection, space
resource utilization, satellite servicing, and commercial
habitat services, amongst many others. None of these activities
were seriously envisioned 50 years ago, and so it stands to
reason that we have no idea what the next 50 years will have in
store for us. And how we structure partnerships between our
civil and commercial space sector, and how we will regulate our
private-sector activities, is one of the fundamental space
policy questions of our time. Whether or not our system of
values will be carried by the future pioneers of outer space
will very likely hinge on the degree to which America is able
to unleash the awesome power of freedom, liberty, and protect
against government overreach. I, for one, want to see the
future of humanity in outer space guided by the principles of
our great Nation.
The commercial space sector holds great promise, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that the
commercial space policies, laws, and regulations that we adopt
in the future will enable accomplishments just as amazing as
those that we celebrated just last week. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Babin follows:]
Our nation's history in space has always featured
partnerships with industry. From McDonnell Aircraft Corporation
building the Mercury and Gemini capsules, to Grumman building
the Lunar Excursion Module for Apollo, or the United Space
Alliance operating the Space Shuttle fleet, contractors and the
private sector have worked hand-in-hand with NASA since the
dawn of the space age. The future will be no different. In
order to ensure that our nation, government, military,
industrial base, and society will continue to benefit from the
unique opportunities that space affords, we must carefully
craft a framework for the future.
That is why I was pleased to see the Administration put
forward Space Policy Directives (SPD) 1, 2, and 3. SPD-1
directed NASA to ``lead an innovative and sustainable program
of exploration with commercial and international partners to
enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring
back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities.'' I applaud this
goal. Space exploration will require collaboration with the
private sector just as it did 50 years ago when Apollo 11 first
landed on the Moon. As we chart a new course, NASA must find
the right balance for how it procures hardware and services.
If done correctly, NASA can leverage private sector
investments to enable national exploration goals. If done
poorly, public-private partnerships could end up simply as
corporate welfare. We must carefully guard against subjecting
our civil space enterprise to the uncertainty of markets.
To paraphrase a former Secretary of the Treasury and
Director of the National Economic Council, the government is a
poor venture capitalist. We must ensure that any cooperation is
based on sound market projections, and that the private sector
truly has ``skin in the game.''
Turning to the other Space Policy Directives related to
commercial space, SPD 2 and 3 directed agencies to streamline
the regulation of private sector space activities, and provide
better space situational awareness to space operators. In
response to these directives, agencies are working to craft
rules to cut red-tape while also providing certainty to the
market and meeting our domestic and international obligations.
Despite the best intentions of theAdministration, the first
attempts by the Department of Transportation, the Department of
Commerce, and the Federal Communication Commission all seem to
fall short.
This is not surprising. The regulatory path is fraught with
uncertainty, beholden to the whims of unelected bureaucracies,
and unresponsive to the needs of a rapidly innovating field.
But there are a multitude of other constructs that can satisfy
our obligations without stifling innovation or smothering the
embers of creativity. Standards-setting bodies, self-regulating
organizations, carefully crafted public-private partnerships,
and many other solutions should all be on the table.
How we craft space regulations is imperative to our future
in space. Other states stand willing to challenge U.S.
leadership in space through regulatory competition. In a global
environment, individuals and companies are free to shop for the
most attractive environment to claim as ``home.'' The
implications of this choice go far beyond national pride. When
space operators associate themselves with a particular nation,
they bring jobs, economic growth, and tax revenue. They attract
the best and brightest entrepreneurs, scientists, engineers,
and technicians, and create an incubator for future success. We
cannot afford to scare these folks away to other nations that
will gladly provide a flag of convenience.
Aside from the established commercial space industries like
communications, launch, and remote sensing, we must also
consider new and unique activities such as space-to-space
remote sensing, commercial space-based signals collection,
space resource utilization, satellite servicing, and commercial
habitat services, amongst others. None of these activities were
seriously envisioned 50 years ago, so it stands to reason that
we have no idea what the next 50 years will have in store.
How we structure partnerships between our civil and
commercial space sector, and how will regulate our private
sector activities is one of the fundamental space policy
questions of our time. Whether or not our system of values will
be carried by the future pioneers of outer space will likely
hinge on the degree to which America is able to unleash the
awesome power of freedom and protect against government
overreach. I for one want to see the future of humanity in
outer space guided by the principles of our great nation. The
commercial space sector holds great promise. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to make sure the commercial space
policies, laws, and regulations we adopt in the future enable
accomplishments just as amazing as those we celebrated last
week.
Chairwoman Horn. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon, and thank you Chairwoman Horn for holding
this hearing on the "Commercial Space Landscape." I also want
to welcome our witnesses. It's good to have you here and we
appreciate your participation.
Since the 1980s, this Committee has been at the forefront
of guiding the evolution of the commercial space industry. The
legislation it has put forward--and had enacted into law--has
been instrumental in providing the framework for what are now
robust and growing commercial space launch and space-based
remote sensing industries.
NASA Authorization Acts that this Committee has led have
encouraged and authorized government-commercial activities,
including the commercial resupply services that deliver cargo
and supplies to the International Space Station. In addition,
many of our government R&D investments have translated into
commercial opportunities. This is one of many positive outcomes
of our taxpayers' investments.
In short, I strongly support the future growth and success
of the United States commercial space industry. I also want
this Committee to continue to be on the cutting-edge of
enabling commercial space and providing carefully considered
policy guidance to support it. In the waning hours of the last
Congress, there were attempts to pass commercial space
legislation. That was a rushed effort and not the optimal way
to legislate on such important matters as the future of
commercial space. We need to get it right.
So I am pleased, Madame Chair, that you are holding this
overview hearing, because a lot is changing and we need to be
fully informed before developing policy. The Administration is
proposing new regulations for commercial space launch and
reentry, and also for commercial space-based remote sensing. We
need to understand those changes and any implications of them.
We also need to understand the government's role in commercial
space, the appropriate ways in which the government can
leverage commercial capabilities, and any associated risks to
the taxpayer.
In closing, I want to commend our commercial space
companies that are making such impressive progress. There's not
a week that goes by without reading about a significant
milestone in a commercial program, the deployment of a new
capability in space, or an innovative plan that is attracting
commercial investment.
Well, it's clear there is a lot to discuss today, and I
look forward to our witnesses' testimony. Thank you, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Ranking Member,
excuse me, and welcome, again, everyone. I will now introduce
our distinguished panel of witnesses, beginning Dr. Bhavya Lal.
Dr. Lal is a research staff member at the Institute for Defense
Analysis, Science, and Technology Policy Institute. There Dr.
Lal leads strategy, technology assessment, and policy studies,
and analysis for Federal space-oriented agencies. Dr. Lal
regularly serves on the National Academy of Science committees,
and is currently serving on the NOAA (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration) Advisory Committee on Commercial
Remote Sensing. Dr. Lal holds a bachelor's degree and master's
degree in nuclear engineering from MIT, and a master's degree
from MIT's Technology and Policy Program, and a doctoral degree
in Public Policy and Public Administration from George
Washington University. Welcome, Dr. Lal.
Our next witness is Carissa Christensen. Ms. Christensen is
the founder and CEO of Bryce Space and Technology, an analytics
and engineering firm with expertise in space, cyber, and
advanced R&D. She sits on the board of the Aerospace Center for
Space Policy and Strategy, and serves on the National Research
Council's Space Technology Industry-Government-University
Roundtable advisory group to NASA. That is a mouthful. Ms.
Christensen holds a Public Policy Degree from Harvard
University. She also completed the general course in government
at the London School of Economics, and was a Douglas Scholar at
Rutgers University. Welcome, Ms. Christensen.
Our next witness is Mr. Eric Stallmer. Mr. Stallmer is the
President of the Commercial Space Flight Federation (CSF), a
trade organization dedicated to promoting the development of
commercial space flight. He was recently appointed to the
National Space Council User Advisory Group. Before working at
CSF, Mr. Stallmer served as the Vice President of Government
Relations at Analytical Graphics, Inc., and Mr. Stallmer has a
bachelor's degree in political science and history from Mount
Saint Mary College, and a master's degree in public
administration from George Mason University. Welcome, Mr.
Stallmer.
Our next witness is Mr. Mike French. Mr. French is the Vice
President for Space Systems at the Aerospace Industries
Association, or AIA, a trade association representing
manufacturers and suppliers of the U.S. aerospace industry. He
previously served as the Senior Vice President for Commercial
Space at Bryce Space and Technology. Mr. French held several
Federal Government positions, most recently serving as NASA's
Chief of Staff, where he received NASA's Distinguished Service
Medal for his service. Mr. French holds a bachelor of science
in business administration from the University of California
Berkeley, and a juris doctorate from Harvard Law School.
Welcome, Mr. French.
And our final witness today is Ms. Laura Montgomery. Ms.
Montgomery teaches space law at Catholic University Columbus
School of Law. She also writes and edits the law blog, Ground
Based Space Matters. Previously Ms. Montgomery spent over 2
decades with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), serving
as the manager of the Space Law Branch in the Office of Chief
Counsel and as the FAA's Senior Attorney for Commercial Space
Transportation. Ms. Montgomery received her bachelor degree
from the University of Virginia, and her law degree at the
University of Pennsylvania. Welcome, Ms. Montgomery.
And before we begin our testimony and questions, I will
take a moment to introduce a letter that has been submitted for
the record, we'll submit it into the record at this time, from
the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration on the NPR, the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. And we'll submit that to the record at
this time.
And now, as our witnesses, you should know you will each
have 5 minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written
testimony, of course, will be added into the record, and can be
more expansive, for the hearing. And when you have completed
your spoken testimony, we'll begin with questions. Each Member
will have 5 minutes to question the panel, and we will go in
the same order of introduction, so we'll start with Dr. Lal.
Dr. Lal, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. BHAVYA LAL,
RESEARCH STAFF MEMBER, IDA SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY INSTITUTE
Dr. Lal. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Babin, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. In my remarks, I would like to
address three questions. First, what is commercial space?
Second, what benefits does it bring? And third, how can the
government best leverage commercial space?
So what's commercial space? The term is used loosely, and
generally brought up in three different contexts. Some people
use it to describe commercial companies that are often, but not
always, startups. These companies put angel, or venture
funding, or their own resources, at risk to build space
systems. For others it refers to commercial approaches, which
are often fixed-price, milestone-based contracts typically used
in our market-based economy, but much less so by space
agencies. Yet others refer to it in the context of firms having
primarily private customers, or customers other than the U.S.
Government. Thus, in using the term commercial space, most
people are alluding either to innovative startups,
nontraditional contracting mechanisms, or non-governmental
customers.
The second question is, what benefit does commercial space
bring? Commercial style contracts, such as the one mentioned
above, as well as private investors with skin in the game, as
Representative Babin said, incentivize two kinds of behaviors,
rapid development, and a focus on cost reduction. As a result,
the most important benefit commercial space brings is lower
cost, although at times this is at the expense of performance
and reliability. Given the potential for cost savings,
commercial approaches are not just being considered in the
launch sector, where cost savings have been well documented,
but also in other sectors that actually used to be considered
the sole province of the government. Examples include SSA, or
space situational awareness, space nuclear power, on-orbit
servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, and even deep space
science.
Commercial space has brought more than cost savings into
the space sector. In some cases, commercial capabilities have
surpassed, or are entirely complementary to government ones.
Commercial companies have leveraged innovations such as
miniaturization, satellite mass production, and use of
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components to produce capable,
lightweight satellites. These satellites can be simultaneously
deployed, meaning that many hundreds can be launched and
operated, and provide 'round-the-clock simultaneous multi-point
imagery of any place on Earth, or in space, for scientific
national security and commercial purposes. This coverage is
obviously impractical with traditional satellites.
My last point on this question is that, despite the high
levels of innovation and cost-effectiveness, if you draw the
system boundaries around space-based activities, the principle
customers of commercial space today, and in the near term, are
governments, not private, and there are only a handful of
exceptions, such as satellite communication and satellite TV,
that are paid for by private entities. Lack of demand in the
private sector constrains robust development and growth in the
commercial space sector.
The final question is, how can the government best leverage
commercial space? Our research has shown that government
purchases of products and services from commercial companies,
or using commercial approaches, has the twin benefit of
reducing cost, accelerating the development of many government
space programs, as well as fostering the growth of the space
sector, and promoting the industrialization of space. In light
of potential government benefits and commercial needs, we have
two recommendations. First, at a conceptual level, space
agencies should design mission plans and architectures that are
sufficiently flexible, such that when commercial capabilities
reach adequate readiness levels, they can be incorporated in
these missions and architectures. For example, several
companies are exploring water extraction systems on the Moon,
and other companies are investing in technologies and systems
related to space-based propellant depots and tugs in low-Earth
orbit (LEO). NASA should have architectures in place so, when
these capabilities are commercially available, the government
can quickly transition their operations to exploit them.
Second, and more concretely, space agencies should
consider, as a norm, rather than as an exception, fixed-price,
milestone-based contracts when purchasing space goods and
services. In some cases, a cost-plus contract is necessary and
appropriate, for example, for certain high-risk developmental
items. But more often than not fixed-price contracts suffice,
and allow companies to propose their own innovative solutions.
The overarching question, therefore, when considering
commercial solutions that must be asked is, would we consider
accepting, in cases where it makes sense, an 80 percent
solution at half the cost, and double the speed? I'd be happy
to expand on any of these points. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lal follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Dr. Lal. Ms. Christensen?
TESTIMONY OF CARISSA CHRISTENSEN,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
BRYCE SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Christensen. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here to discuss the commercial space landscape.
I've provided independent analysis of space activities for more
than 3 decades, and I've built my career and my business on the
principle that evidence-based objectivity and rigor are
critical to effective decisionmaking, and I'm pleased to share
my analysis with the Committee. Today I'll talk about three
elements of commercial space activities: The current commercial
space economy, recent investment in emerging space ventures,
and the important implications of this innovation for
government.
The commercial space economy has existed for decades,
dominated by well-established satellite operators providing
television, Internet, and many other services. Launch and
satellite manufacturing enabled those services. Considering key
industry sectors, as well as government space budgets, the
value of the global space economy is about $360 billion. A
quarter of that is government space budgets, and half of that
is the U.S. The remaining global space economy, more than $275
billion in 2018, is dominated by revenues from satellite
services and related products. Two large markets, direct to
home satellite television and location and mapping based on the
U.S. Global Positioning System and other navigation satellites,
are by far the biggest contributors to total industry revenue
at about $100 billion each. Satellite service revenues overall
have been growing at about the rate as the global economy,
roughly 2 to 3 percent. The outlook for established services is
fairly stable. I'll talk in a moment about innovative satellite
startups. In general my expectation is that those startups will
tend to augment, rather than replace, current capabilities.
Looking toward the future, emerging space businesses seek
to expand the commercial landscape. Today we're seeing
unprecedented numbers of new space businesses, enabled by three
factors. In particular: Very small satellites, new markets,
from satellite services to in orbit activities, and new
investors. Billionaire super-angel investors and venture
capital firms have invested between $2 and $3 billion a year
since 2015 in emerging space ventures, with the majority
invested in U.S. companies. While a few companies, SpaceX, Blue
Origin, and OneWeb, account for a substantial portion of this
investment, it has resulted in more than 250 new space firms.
Venture investment is relatively new to the space industry.
These investors bring risk tolerance that allows ventures to
pursue unproven business plans in riskier markets. Generally,
more than three-quarters of venture-funded firms fail.
Regardless of the success or failure, I want to note that
capital being directed to technology and capability development
today may result in valuable outcomes for the government and
industry. Looking at these new businesses, they include
broadband satellite service providers, launch companies,
companies seeking to operate in low-Earth orbit, and many
others.
New companies in low-Earth orbit seek to offer a variety of
services, including manufacturing, transportation, and so on.
Based on today's demand signals, these businesses have a
limited customer base. The most promising markets are human
accommodations, especially for government astronauts, and on-
orbit servicing, assembly, and manufacturing. The exploration
activities of the U.S. Government and its partners will have a
significant effect on most LEO businesses. These new firms
create both opportunities and challenges for the government.
The government is a longstanding customer of commercial space
capabilities, and helps facilitate today's commercial space
markets. The government has an opportunity to leverage emerging
commercial space companies to help it do more, and spend less.
However, the price of leveraging this investor-funded dynamic
innovation is uncertainty. The government must carefully
consider how to take best advantage of this opportunity, while
assuring long-term access to mission-critical services.
I appreciate the opportunity to share my analysis and
findings, and I very much look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Christensen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ms. Christensen. Mr. Stallmer?
TESTIMONY OF ERIC W. STALLMER,
PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
Mr. Stallmer. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting the Commercial Space Flight Federation back to discuss
the progress of the U.S. commercial space industry. From the
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 through today, this
Committee has steadfastly supported the unleashing of American
free enterprise to develop the economic opportunities of space.
Every major commercial space policy law was born here, in this
room, and we hope you understand how vital the bipartisanship
work that this Committee, and the House, has been to our
industry's growing success.
The United States is undergoing a Renaissance in space led
by commercial enterprise. Since 2009, investors have supported
over 476 private space companies, with over $22 billion in
private capital. In my written statement, I outlined several of
the commercial space industry's recent major milestones, which
sets the stage for even greater accomplishments. As NASA
continues to drive the frontier onward with groundbreaking
research, the commercial sector is making space affordable and
accessible. We are in the defining moments of a new era of
space exploration and development, and it's critical that we
work together to improve our policy environment to ensure
continued U.S. leadership in space.
Accordingly, I offer the following recommendations. We need
to streamline our Federal regulations. We compliment the FAA
for getting the proposed rule out fairly, delayed only by the
government shutdown. Fairly quickly, I should say.
Unfortunately, instead of one giant leap forward, the FAA seems
to have taken only a cautious half step toward regulatory
regime needed by the growing and diverse new space
transportation providers and their many users. The 580-page
NPRM, plus over 1,000 pages of supporting documents, is very
complex, and frequently confusing. Its preamble cites many of
the right goals, but the proposed regulations do not deliver on
them. Most current or prospective FAA space licensees have
determined that the NPRM, in some ways, are worse than today's
obsolete rules.
The NPRM is not adequately performance-based, like it was
intended. It adds new burdens and cost, it's confusing, and
relies on missing documents. It lacks the flexibility to allow
for innovation. It's anti-competitive in many ways, creating
new burdens to entry for users. And it attempts to fix things
that were not broken, and add even more burden to the users.
That is why all the license applicants in the Commercial Space
Flight Federation, including our largest spaceports, plus
several other entrepreneurial companies, all want DOT
(Department of Transportation) and FAA, using the--all the--
using the many available mechanisms for active industry
interaction, to develop and publish a supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. We appreciate the Administration's
eagerness to reform the FAA's obsolete rules, but we really
need to get this right. The companies that are growing,
innovating, and improving America's access to space are
requesting major revisions to this NPRM. So that--the FAA must
take the time to engage with everyone, including the newest
members of our industry, so the agency can craft rules for the
future.
We also must expand on NASA's use of COTS-like partnerships
with the commercial industry for human exploration. By even
most conservative analysis, the COTS commercial cargo public-
private partnership saved NASA hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why? Commercial space is underpinned by pay-for-performance,
fixed-price contracts, agile and creative development teams,
greater flexibility and risk tolerance, private capital
investment, and more and more intensive innovation.
This is not CSF's opinion, but the conclusion of numerous
independent reviews of program. For example, in 2014 a report
praised the COTS ISS (International Space Station) cargo
public-private partnership, and I quote, ``because these were
partnerships, not traditional contracts. NASA leveraged its
$800 million COTS budget with partner funds. This resulted in
two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles, and two automated
cargo spacecraft, and demonstrated the efficiency of such
partnerships.'' A 2017 cost analysis review was more direct.
The COTS development, and later operation commercial resupply
services, are significant advances in affordability by any
measure. Simply put, this approach works.
Last week we celebrated the historic achievements of our
Nation a half century ago as we came together for a common goal
in space, and it's right, and it's natural, to honor our past,
but we should also be proud and excitement about the
advancements we are achieving today, and what we can accomplish
together tomorrow if we build a true partnership between
government, including Congress, and the American people and
their enterprise.
Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, thank you for your
invitation and attention. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stallmer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Stallmer. Mr. French?
TESTIMONY OF MIKE FRENCH,
VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS,
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION
Mr. French. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member Babin, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. The Aerospace Industries
Association (AIA) represents nearly 340 companies at the heart
of the American economy. The aerospace industry generates
nearly $930 billion in economic output, and nearly $90 billion
in trade surplus, the largest of any U.S. sector. Our industry
is supported by more than 2.5 million American workers, and our
members have partnered with NASA since its beginning. But today
our eyes are firmly fixed on the future. This year AIA released
a report entitled, ``What's Next for Aerospace and Defense: A
Vision for 2050.'' This report paints a picture of the
innovations that will drive the way we move, connect, explore,
and defend our interests 30 years from now, and many of these
technologies will depend on an effective partnership between
government and the commercial space industry.
As Dr. Lal said, there's been much discussion about
commercial space, but the term is often inconsistently applied.
The commercial space industry is not a new phenomenon. It is
part of a $360 billion economy that's existed for decades.
Commercial space companies range from established, publicly
traded companies, to large private companies, to startups that
are still developing their business plans. For example, NASA's
commercial crew and cargo partners are the Boeing Corporation,
Northrup Grumman, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and SpaceX. In an
important trend, these large public space companies are now
among the most active venture capital investors in space
startups.
In deciding how to partner with this diverse set of actors,
government has a variety of different tools and approaches it
can use, depending on where the market is. For example, NASA
took a new approach in the commercial cargo and crew programs,
creating what I'll call a public investment, private service,
or PIPS model. Under PIPS, NASA subsidized the creation of
commercial service by being the primary customer, while
requiring investment from its commercial partners. NASA
determined the PIPS model was viable for commercial cargo and
crew because of the existence of the multibillion-dollar
commercial launch industry.
Over the last few weeks, NASA announced its intent to use
the PIPS model for the Artemis Program's human lunar lander.
This is a new extension of the model, and it presents three
primary risks that I wanted to raise with you today. First,
there's no established market offering for this--for NASA to
buy here. The capability of landing humans on the Moon will
require a great deal of development before it can be provided
to NASA as a service. Second, requiring companies to invest
internal funds in a nascent market may prevent firms that
otherwise are highly capable, especially small and mid-sized
firms, from being able to compete. Third, purchasing services
will require a clear outline of government versus industry
responsibilities, as was required in the cargo and crew
programs, but this would be more complex, as this will take
place within an entirely new program operating deeper in space.
These risks will require NASA to make a robust assessment of
where the proposals it receives meet technical and schedule
requirements, and limit default. It also requires NASA to
clearly delineate these government/industry responsibilities,
which may require NASA to change its approach in some areas. We
urge NASA to consider industry's feedback to help mitigate
these risks as it proceeds.
Moving forward, Congress can provide direction on these
approaches as it considers NASA's next authorization and
appropriation bills. Of course, Congress' actions are not
limited to procurement policy. One essential component to
commercial growth worth noting is reliable, interference-free
spectrum. A viable commercial space landscape requires a
comprehensive approach to our Nation's future spectrum policy
that ensures adequate and globally harmonized spectrum. As
government looks to meet its future space requirements,
Congress should continue to be an active ally to commercial
space, whether through passing a multi-year NASA authorization,
ensuring we have the most talented workforce, or deciding the
best procurement strategies. Regardless, the commercial space
industry is primed to partner with government and meet the next
set of space challenges, from the continued support of U.S.
national security space to returning to the Moon, and on to
Mars. I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. French. Ms. Montgomery?
TESTIMONY OF LAURA MONTGOMERY,
PROPRIETOR, GROUND BASED SPACE MATTERS,
AND PROFESSOR, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY'S COLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW
Ms. Montgomery. Thank you. Chairwoman Horn, Ranking Member
Babin, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me to participate today. Three regulatory agencies
oversee U.S. commercial space activities. The FAA authorizes
and regulates commercial space transportation, launch, and re-
entry, but does not have authority on orbit. The FCC oversees
communication satellites, and NOAA regulates remote sensing
satellites. In response to Administration calls for
streamlining, the three agencies have issued Notices of
Proposed Rulemaking to fix their regulations. They have made
good attempts, but the FAA and FCC have also taken the
opportunity to impose new regulations, not all of which are
clearly within the authority granted to them by Congress.
The FAA, for one, proposes to ask payload operators, whom
Congress neither told it to license nor regulate, whether they
encrypt their transmissions. But is this request for
information actually a disguised requirement? Although Congress
has given the FAA some authority over payloads, in that the FAA
may stop a launch for payload concerns, Congress has otherwise
been clear that it has not provided the FAA the authority to
regulate payloads.
The FCC also issued an NPRM to modify its orbital debris
regulations. In stark contrast to Congress' financial risk
approach for space transportation, the FCC proposes that
satellite operators indemnify the U.S. Government against
damage claims. If Congress has not said that the satellite
industry must protect the U.S. Government, one might ask,
first, how the FCC thinks it has the authority to do so, and
second, why it has chosen a different path for a related space
industry? Because it is the legislative branch, Congress has
the ability to choose a different path for satellites. The FCC
does not.
There are three controversial provisions of the Outer Space
Treaty that Congress could interpret in favor of incentivizing
private commerce. It is my own view that interpretations that
incentivize are the right ones. The first involves the
regulation of private entities in space. Article 6 of the
treaty says that the activities of non-governmental entities in
outer space shall require authorization and continuing
supervision by the appropriate state party. The FAA has
indicated that it may deny a private entity access to space if
the private entity's activities are not federally regulated.
This part of the treaty is not, however, self-executing,
which means that it does not create an obligation on the
private sector until Congress says so by passing legislation.
The treaty does not say that either all or any particular
activity must be authorized, which leaves decisions regarding
what activities require regulation to the member states. And,
in the United States, those decisions are up to Congress, not
the FAA. The FAA's position ignores the Supreme Court in
Medellin vs. Texas, where the Court held that not even the
president could enforce a non-self-executing treaty. The FAA
should thus not claim the power to use the treaty to deny a
non-governmental entity access to space.
Next come property rights. The treaty bars national
appropriation in outer space. This creates legal uncertainty
for the private sector. For U.S. companies, Congress resolved
half the uncertainty by recognizing private claims to extracted
resources back in 2015. Property rights in land are less
certain. Many interpret the Outer Space Treaties as barriers to
private property under different theories. A careful reading,
however, shows that contrary theories may better reflect what
the treaties actually say.
Finally, the Outer Space Treaty admonishes states parties
to avoid harmful contamination of outer space. There are two
questions at issue here. First, does the admonition apply to
non-governmental entities? Does the treaty--and second, does
the treaty's harmful contamination mean the same thing as
NASA's planetary protection policy, under which spacecraft
undergo expensive sterilization procedures? First, the treaty
limits this requirement, like many others, to States' parties
to governments and their emissions. When the drafters of the
treaty intended a requirement to not--apply to non-governmental
entities, they said so. Here they did not. Next, although the
treaty warns against harmful contamination, NASA's planetary
protection policy would avoid almost all contamination in order
to preserve its ability to study other worlds in their natural
states. NASA thus not only avoids what the ordinary person
might consider harmful, but microbial contamination as well.
NASA is being a good science steward, but it is a NASA policy,
and not the law.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Montgomery follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ms. Montgomery, and thank you
to all of our witnesses. We will now begin with questions, and
I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
This is clearly an important issue. There are many
questions that we need to answer, and, to all of the panelists,
thank you for being here. Your testimonies have raised a number
of important issues, including streamlining regulations,
understanding the uncertainties and risks, and considering
contracting and procurement options, the role of innovation,
emerging markets and services, and we could go on. And one of
the purposes of this hearing today is stage-setting, to
identify the types of challenges and opportunities that we need
to tackle as the space industry moves into really a new
generation. And it's important that we have full insight into
what these issues are to delve deeper.
So, as we want the industry to succeed, and we want to get
it right from the regulatory, and from our role as an oversight
committee, I'd like to hear from all of witnesses, very
briefly, your top two priorities unto what the Subcommittee
looks at to delving further into the commercial space
activities and issues. So I'll just start, and we'll go down.
Dr. Lal?
Dr. Lal. Sure. I would say that the top two priorities
ought to be looking at alternative mechanisms of contracting
with commercial entities--many small companies, startups, do
not have the ability to have the background for the kind of
contract that are traditionally used--and the second one is to
understand that there may not be, at least in the near term,
private markets, and therefore there is more supported needed
from the government to support emerging commercial companies.
Ms. Christensen. I would say, first, working with startup
and early stage companies in an effective way, and finding a
path to manage the business uncertainty they face with the
technology and capability innovation that they bring to the
table that the government can generate value from, and second,
more broadly, thinking about leveraging the commercial
investment that we see today across space markets.
Mr. Stallmer. I think in the near term the most challenging
regulatory hurdle we have in front of us right now is this
NPRM, as we're looking at how the launch industry is regulated,
and the effort to streamline this. The current rule, as it's
proposed, it really causes a lot of barriers to the innovative
companies that are entering the launch market. When you look at
the global space economy, launch is only a small part of it,
but really is a critical part to enable the success of this
whole great commercial--global space marketplace. And I'd also
agree with Dr. Lal on the contracting mechanisms, and how we
procure services. I look to the model of the commercial off the
shelf products--or--with the COTS regime that we've used in the
past, leveraging the private sector with that type of
investment, and--having--both parties have skin in the game. I
think that's really critical.
Mr. French. The first one I would have is the Committee
looking at a multi-year NASA authorization, and through that,
being able to provide guidance on many of these issues,
including the purpose and mission that NASA should have between
its national programs and the purchase of services. I'd say a
second one would be, as I mentioned in my oral testimony,
spectrum. I mean, spectrum is the invisible nervous system of
space, and without it we can't talk to our satellites, and they
can't talk back to us. Thank you.
Ms. Montgomery. Looking at it from a legal perspective, I
think my interests and priorities would be more long term, in
terms of encouraging investment, and regulatory certainty going
forward, for the private community. And in that regard, I would
strongly recommend that Congress set to rest concerns that the
executive branch has the ability to usurp Congress's
legislative role by denying private actors access to space
under Article 6 of the treaty. The second one I would strongly
urge you all to consider is setting forth some sort of criteria
by which we would be able to recognize private actors' ability
to own land on celestial bodies, whether through principles of
adverse possession, or otherwise. I think it is something that
Congress wants to take into account for long-term purposes.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you all. So, with the little time we
have left, Ms. Christensen, I want to focus on a piece of your
testimony. You noted that the price of leveraging investor-
funded dynamic innovation is uncertainty. And, in terms of the
government's mission--and, Mr. French, you also commented on
the need for a detailed assessment, and clear pre-defined
determination of government versus industry responsibilities.
And, in considering public investment, and the private service
model for procurement for government missions and certain
elements, especially those that might involve human safety,
what are the guard rails that we can put in place to
appropriately manage these risks, and how can we ensure that
the government aligns its decisions in leveraging innovative
capabilities with the potential risk to the taxpayer, and to
mission assurance, as well as human risk? And we have very
little time left, so I'll let you both briefly answer that.
Ms. Christensen. Very quickly, implementing acquisition
processes and partnering mechanisms that recognize, and
specifically address, the business uncertainty associated with
early-stage companies will help the government benefit while
managing risk.
Mr. French. And I'd say it starts with what does the
government want out of the program, and what is that--what is
its--what is the core priority? And then, from there,
optimizing around that, instead of--when you have multiple
goals, you can sometimes lose sight of a primary risk, such as
human safety.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you. I now yield to my distinguished
colleague, the Ranking Member, Mr. Babin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it. Mr.
Stallmer, Chairwoman Horn entered into the record the Coalition
for Deep Space Exploration's letter supporting the FAA's NPRM
for commercial space launch and re-entry. However, your
testimony highlights several issues with the FAA's proposed
regulations. From your perspective, would these regulations
advance U.S. leadership in commercial space, or set us back?
And if they would set us back, do you see a viable path to
fixing that?
Mr. Stallmer. I think the regulations, as they're currently
written in this draft, would definitely set us back. It's not--
it's--it tends to be more of the status quo. In a dynamic
environment, where innovation is occurring with new launch
entrants, it creates more burdens for a lot of these new
entrants, and especially in different categories. These rules
are primarily written for expendable launch vehicles, you know,
which is more the legacy of the launch industry. It doesn't
take into account capture/carry hybrid reusable vehicles. So I
think there's a path forward with recommendations that we've
made that could benefit all the launch providers.
Mr. Babin. I got you. They need to be modernized a little
bit for----
Mr. Stallmer. I think updated----
Mr. Babin [continuing]. Usable----
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. With the changing times.
Mr. Babin. OK. All right. Thank you. And, Ms. Montgomery?
The U.S. Senate recently passed legislation to protect the
Apollo landing site. A companion bill was introduced in the
House to commemorate Apollo 11. The bill would regulate private
sector activity based on NASA policies without following the
Administrative Procedures Act. It would also direct the
Administration to negotiation an international agreement to
protect the sites. This is a very laudable goal, but is this
the best way to conserve the sites?
India recently launched a lander to the south pole of the
Moon, and, if all goes well, presumably they would want to
protect their first landing site. Could this bill set a
precedent that precludes U.S. exploration of the lunar south
pole, for instance, where there's billions of tons of water,
and serve as a back door way of ``staking a claim'' to regions
on the Moon? Your comments?
Ms. Montgomery. This is an issue that has only been
something I've recently thought about, so these are more recent
thoughts. One concern I would have about the way the bill works
is that internationally there may be some concern that attempts
to set up an exclusion zone could constitute national
appropriation, and so I don't know where the thinking is on
that, but it would certainly be something to explore as a
possible concern under the Outer Space Treaty, because the--
Article 2 does bar national appropriation. Second, I would
worry about whether it allows for emergency landings, because
it--some of those policies may not allow that. My third concern
with it is that both bills provide that the NASA policy would
apply, and NASA is not a regulatory agency, and--so it is not--
the policies have been written without going through the notice
and comment period.
Mr. Babin. All right, thank you. And, Mr. French, the
Department of Defense developed the Atlas and Delta launch
vehicles with 75, 80 percent of funding coming from the
contractors, and only 20 to 25 percent coming from the
taxpayer. NASA developed the commercial cargo program by
sharing their development costs with SpaceX and Orbital
Sciences 50/50. SpaceX and Boeing currently receive 90 percent
of their development funding for the Commercial Crew Program
from the taxpayer. NASA recently announced that the lunar
landers will also be funded by the taxpayer at least 90
percent. The rationale for the early partnerships was that
contractor could also sell to other customers, which would
lower the government's cost.
The success of such an approach is dependent upon the
potential market outside of the U.S. Government. There appears
to be a market for robotic landers, but is there a market
outside of NASA for human-rated lunar landers that could defray
the cost of the government, and justify a public-private
partnership at this point?
Mr. French. Thank you, sir. There is--there's no current
market in this area, unlike the case of the multibillion dollar
commercial launch market, and so it raises that risk of are you
possibly excluding some pretty capable companies if you're
requiring to put money in an area where they don't--aren't able
to realize return in a 5 to 7 year period where they have to
make those decisions.
Mr. Babin. OK. Thank you very much. And I am expired, so
I'll yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Horn. Well, it looks like you're still here, but
your time is up, so--don't go anywhere.
Mr. Babin. All right.
Chairwoman Horn. We like having you around. Mr. Crist,
you're recognized 5 minutes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all of you for
being here today. Maybe sort of an out-of-the-box question, but
who are the three largest players in commercial space today?
For any of you, or all of you to answer. Since this is 101.
Dr. Lal. Well, I think, again, if you go by the
definitions, and, again, as Mike French said, you know,
Lockheed-Martin's, you know, can be considered no less
commercial than SpaceX, or Blue Origin. But if you were to
define commercial space as, you know, newer companies that are
using more fixed-price type contracts with the government, I
would say SpaceX, Blue Origin, Planet, maybe some of the bigger
commercial companies. Though, obviously, as I said, Lockheed,
Boeing, Northrup are commercial as well.
Mr. Crist. Right.
Ms. Christensen. So I'll add to that the very sizable
satellite operators such as, SES, IntelSat. AT&T operates
direct-to-home television capabilities. Those are very
substantial commercial companies operating in space. Thinking
about human space flight, and--on-orbit activities, there, just
as Dr. Lal said, the major companies, Lockheed-Martin and
Boeing, Northrup Grumman. And looking at the venture-funded
firms, the companies that have specifically had in their
history this new kind of investment financing, I would say that
the largest is SpaceX by far. That's a very widely accepted
unicorn, a company with more than a billion dollars in
valuation. They're well over 30 billion at this point in
valuation, a privately held company. Blue Origin, and then the
satellite startup OneWeb, which has received very substantial
investment, several billion dollars to design and deploy a
global broadband satellite constellation using small
satellites.
Mr. Stallmer. And I would concur at a lot of the, you know,
if you look at the different segments, you know, from the
commercial satellite to commercial launch, you know, what--we
often talk about SpaceX, and what Blue Origin's doing, and
Virgin Galactic, and Sierra Nevada Corporation. And certainly,
you know, companies that are involved with these--the
commercial cargo and the commercial crew, you know, they view
themselves as well as commercial companies. So there's many
different definitions to what a commercial company is. And I
won't rank order of them, because I have 85 of them. I think
they're all great.
Mr. Crist. You ought to know it better than anybody.
Mr. French. You know, in my view, I'd look at, you know,
first I'd say does the company have an active business----
Mr. Crist. Right.
Mr. French [continuing]. Dealing with the commercial sector
outside the U.S. Government, and then, if you meet that
threshold, then how big is it? How much is its revenues? Does
it have profit? Many of these companies don't have profit. And
in that case, it's Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Northrup
Grumman with those criteria.
Mr. Crist. And, Ms. Montgomery, I might have a little
different question for you, if you don't mind. You touched on
the treaty, and how we handle, I guess, property that's in
space. And could you elaborate, and sort of explain to us what
this treaty is, who the parties to it are, how it has authority
to exist?
Ms. Montgomery. Sure. Back in 1967 the major spacefaring
nations, principally the United States and the USSR, signed the
Outer Space Treaty, and it is something that has been signed by
most countries, including all of the major spacefaring nations.
So that includes Russia----
Mr. Crist. India, China----
Ms. Montgomery. Right, India, China, Australia, U.K.,
everyone. It has a provision in it, under Article 2, that bars
national appropriation, and I always emphasize that national,
because a lot of people take different parts of the treaty and
say, well, if this treaty bars governments from appropriating,
it must also bar private actors from appropriating outer space.
So I disagree with all that, and I've laid out all the theories
in my written testimony, but you probably don't want me to----
Mr. Crist. Why do you disagree with that?
Ms. Montgomery. Well, first of all, just a plain reading of
the text says national appropriation, and I am not a nation-
state, so if I could get up there and establish some adverse
possession, maybe I'd have a claim.
Mr. Crist. Like homesteading?
Ms. Montgomery. Sure, exactly. And I think that it would be
useful for the United States to look at some form of
homesteading in order to be in accordance with the treaty----
Mr. Crist. Well, we did it for the United States.
Ms. Montgomery. Right. I've seen some clever theories
presented, one of which is that you would recognize adverse
possession rights of a person or company of any nationality,
and that that should accommodate certain concerns under the
treaties. So, you know, we look at property rights in outer
space in two ways. One is extracted resources, like mining, you
know, pulling fishes from the sea, taking platinum group
minerals from the craters of the Moon, or water, which might be
more valuable.
And that, I think, the United States has settled
domestically, and Luxembourg has copied the United States by
saying, we're going to recognize the rights of people who
commit their labor and extract resources from the Moon or
asteroids. Where the uncertainty still remains is on terrain.
This is a long-term concern, but I think that, with the advent
of venture capital, and people willing to take risks, I think
they might be willing to take more risks with their money if
they think that they can get a return, if they can mortgage and
put up for collateral any land that they obtain, alienate, you
know, sell it, transfer it, lease it. All of these things are
valuable abilities, rights, that probably will help incentivize
a lot of activity. And we can look at our own history to see
how private property has led to prosperity. I think the same
would hold going into the future.
Mr. Crist. With the Chair's indulgence, just a quick
question, because my time is up, but the 1967 treaty, was that
ratified by the Congress?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, by the Senate. Yes.
Mr. Crist. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Crist. And before I
recognize our next Member for questioning, I have a
presentation for Mr. Olson, who kindly pointed out in our last
hearing that we were rapidly approaching OU-Texas, and I think
you need some decoration for your office to prepare you, so----
Mr. Olson. Paybacks----
Chairwoman Horn. I know. You should be careful what you
start. He needs, you know, some good----
Mr. Olson. Boomer sooner.
Chairwoman Horn. Boomer--yes, boomer sooner. He needs
something to remind him of who's going to come out on top of
the Red River Rivalry. I'm not, but, you know, I am an Okie
through and through, so I can't allow, you know, my friend from
Texas to take over. Yes----
Mr. Weber. So, Madam Chair, apparently in this Committee
there's still space for fun.
Chairwoman Horn. Yes. I like it. Mr. Olson, you're
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. Hook 'em. Welcome to our five
witnesses. My district sits in the shadow of the Johnson Space
Center, the home of human space flight. In 2015, the FAA
approved the Houston Spaceport. It's a commercial launch port
being built in Texas 22, at Ellington Joint Reserve Base, right
there in my district. That's the base that most of the flight
training crafts at JSC, what they've done there, they've got
some military operations there, some helicopters, the Coast
Guard. They fly drones out of there with the Army. Last month
they announced their first phase of construction for the
spaceport, basically the infrastructure of the streets, the
water, the electricity. The City Council there in Houston has
approved $18.8 million this past October for that
infrastructure build.
Their vision is to launch microsatellites from the
spaceport there, help out with astronaut training, zero-G
training, get rid of the vomit comet, they call it, that bird
that just flies for about 30 seconds down they can't train.
This can make a lot more training. They actually want some
space tourism. Follow the flight that Alan Shepard, you know,
into space, sub-orbital, go up for 10 minutes, come back down,
fly over the Gulf of Mexico. It's a great operation. They've
got two tenants already there. They've got Intuitive Machines.
They've been selected by NASA to build what's called the Nova-
C. That's a vehicle that's going to the Moon by 2021, is the
current plan. They've also got Trumbull Unmanned, which builds
UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). As you know, those guys are
good for data collection, and they were great during Hurricane
Harvey to see levees, and people trapped real time.
And so my point is, in these companies there, got a lot of
companies in Houston, and all across the country, that are
making great strides on commercial spaceports like that, and
commercial space. We've proven that commercial flights to the
Space Station, cargo, are working, no doubt about that. I
expect crew flights, human flights, to the space station with
commercial vehicles will not be a problem sometime, Mr.
Stallmer, later this year. My question is, since we're doing
commercial rockets to the space station for cargo, and soon
crew, how about we turn over the space station to the
commercial sector? Is that a good idea? There's been challenges
we should know about? How about making it all private? The
space station, the vehicles that go up there, humans, cargo?
Mr. Stallmer. I certainly appreciate your endorsement of
that, and I think in time we may be there. I think NASA has
been an excellent partner on the space station. You see the
great work that the ISS National Labs have been doing, formerly
known as CASIS, on opening the commercial marketplace on the
International Space Station, what NanoRacks is doing, Made In
Space. So the commercialization of the space station is slowly
growing, and someday that may be the case, that they turn it
over to the commercial sector, and I think eventually we will
see routine commercial flights to the International Space
Station. So I'm very enthusiastic about the work that's being
done, but one thing we do need is the certainty that the space
station will be there so we can, you know, work to greater
commercialize it.
And as far as the operations going on, Houston and
Ellington Field, I think it's a model for what is going on in
other spaceports, the diversity of operations that they have
going on in bringing in these new customers. And we see this
with many--we--of the 12 spaceports that we have here in the
U.S., what they're doing, the diversity of bringing in a
variety of companies, and the testing that's going on, and the
flights that are going on. It's not just limited to the East
Coast and West Coast ranges, which are also doing fantastic
work.
Mr. Olson. I forgot to mention too, education. San Jacinto
College has set up operations there at the spaceport to train
future technicians to do the manufacturing, to run that
spaceport. So, again, private sector, private sector, private
sector. Another question for you, Mr. Stallmer, looks like
we've got low-Earth orbit pretty much settled for commercial. I
don't think that's a big problem. But how about beyond low-
Earth orbit, going to the Moon? I know that's a long way off,
but we've been preparing for commercial vehicles and commercial
crews to take us to the Moon, and maybe Mars, and make this
whole endeavor commercial?
Mr. Stallmer. NASA set out--has set out a great vision with
the Artemis Program about bringing--the next step going back to
the Moon, and I know that the commercial sector is going to
play a major role in landers, ascent vehicles, robotics, and
even with the gateway, as we go down that step. So I think the
role--and that partnership with NASA and the commercial sector
is going to enable us an affordable basis to do that, to
further our deep space exploration.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. I'm out of time. One further
question, can you sing ``The eyes of Texas are upon you''?
Mr. Stallmer. I am going to work on that one, Congressman.
Being a northeasterner, we don't do that.
Chairwoman Horn. The Chairwoman would suggest----
Mr. Olson. Or Texas fight----
Chairwoman Horn [continuing]. That's not the best idea.
Mr. Olson [continuing]. Texas fight?
Mr. Stallmer. Yes. Congressman Waltz will probably want me
to sing the VMI alma mater song at some point, so I've got a
lot of work to do in front of me on that one, but I appreciate
the challenge.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. That may be a slippery slope, I think. The
Chair recognizes Mr. Perlmutter. You're not going to start
singing, are you?
Mr. Perlmutter. Fight, CU, down the--no, I'm not.
Chairwoman Horn. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. So, Mr. Olson, it's so nice to have you
back on this Committee, I have to say that. It's very important
that you're on this Committee now, that's a whole other story.
So, Professor, I want to talk to you about space law for a
second, because I was a litigator for a long time. I did a lot
of real estate, securities, that kind of commercial litigation,
and I appreciate your comment about the potential for the
venture capital companies to want to invest some more, but I
guess I'm more concerned that there isn't a body of law. I
mean, you say adverse possession. I don't know if the Russians
have adverse possession, whether they consider that part of the
law, or, you know, exactly how you mortgage, you know, in
Japan. And whether or not the Space Treaty--and what I am
concerned about is whose body of law controls? Is it the law
the sea, is it something that in my opinion, we've really got a
lot of work to do on it if, in fact, we're going to try to
retire some of the risk. And I'd just like your comment, and
Mr. French you may comment on it too, if you will, and then
I've got some questions about going to Mars.
Ms. Montgomery. Well, I did read a marvelous article by a
professor from South Dakota, I think he was Simmons, who talked
about how the adverse possession can be viewed through a
Marxist lens. So perhaps it is possible for us to persuade the
Russians that adverse possession might be a tenable approach
for recognizing property rights in outer space.
But I think--one of the other points he made, and I think
it was a good one, was that this could all develop organically.
You know, one approach would be for you all to set up some
statutory criteria, but otherwise we could see cases in court
between two U.S. companies, and they go to court because they--
just finally gotten too close to each other, and they're
annoying each other, so now they want it resolved. And, if
they're U.S. companies, they'll go to a U.S. court.
Mr. Perlmutter. Does the Space Treaty----
Ms. Montgomery. Internationally----
Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Establish any kind of a
framework if there is conflict between, you know, two
individuals, or two countries, as to who has a claim, and that
the other guy's jumping the claim?
Ms. Montgomery. Not for claims, no. Mostly it's--if there's
conflicts internationally between countries, you have
diplomatic talks. But not for individuals, and I do not know--I
do not believe there's one for claims in land.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Just personally, you know, we passed
the Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015,
which I think gives a little bit, but, for me, I think we've
got just a lot more work to do, and I'm speaking as somebody
who had to go try these cases. You know, and that's where we
have a complete body of--or a pretty good body of law here in
the United States about who owns what, and who has certain
rights to those kinds of things.
Let me change the subject for a second, because, as you all
know, my goal on this Committee is to help continue to push us
to getting our astronauts on Mars by 2033, when the orbits
between the Earth and Mars are the closest. And so, to Dr. Lal,
to Mr. Stallmer, what kind of interest is there in the
commercial sector on a major mission of that sort? I personally
think it's got to be international in scope, and public-
private, and I hope to see NASA in the lead, but how do you see
this developing from the commercial sector?
Dr. Lal. So, about a year or so ago, at the mandate of this
Subcommittee, and at the request of NASA--wrote a report on
evaluating the prospects of getting to Mars by 2033, and we
found that that is not feasible, as you know----
Mr. Perlmutter. If we don't fund it.
Dr. Lal. Especially----
Mr. Perlmutter. That was one of the assumptions in there.
Dr. Lal. But to specifically answer your question, you
know, commercial entities would be just as happy to take the
money as anybody else. There's no, you know, there's no
pushback from commercial sources to get to Mars. The important
thing to mention is that some of the activities that need to
happen, you know, the linchpin of the Mars mission is the deep
space transport, the DST. It's a very complicated piece of
machinery. It needs to keep humans alive for 1,100 or more
days. It needs to have a power and propulsion system that it--
that can get it there and back, and it needs to have an--system
that is--that we do not have. It needs to have almost complete,
100 percent, recycling of air, oxygen, et cetera.
These are just very difficult things to do on fixed-priced
sorts of budgets, because they're high-risk, and cost-plus
contracts seem to be better for these----
Mr. Perlmutter. It's kind of a new venture?
Dr. Lal. Yes. I think----
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Stallmer?
Mr. Stallmer. I would say we can't get there if we don't
start soon. You know, 2033, you put a date out there, and we
work to that. There are technical challenges, but I can tell
you that I have two individuals that are quite passionate about
getting to the Moon and beyond, and are willing to back that
financially with their own personal net worth, and are
developing systems, and have that vision. But you have to build
that infrastructure as a stepping stone to that vision, and I
see that with the lunar program, with Artemis, and that's a
stepping stone onto Mars. But, as I said, we can't get there
until we start.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Perlmutter. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Waltz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Recently had the chance
to take my family down to the Cape for the amazing celebration
of Apollo. And, in conversations with my daughter and family,
they were astounded, as much as their dad talks about space,
and why we need to be there, they were astounded to learn that
the United States cannot send humans, we cannot send American
astronauts to space. And I think that's always worth repeating.
I think that our dependence on the Russian RD-180 is
unacceptable, Mr. Stallmer, and I sit on the Armed Services
Committee and see the national security implications of this
all the time.
So I know the Air Force is working in the right direction
with the Launch Service Agreement contracts to improve our
domestic capabilities. How can Congress help reduce this
dependency also on the civilian side?
Mr. Stallmer. The dependency on foreign launch vehicles, or
on innovation of developing newer technologies?
Mr. Waltz. Well, specifically on the Russian-made rocket
engines.
Mr. Stallmer. Well, I think we're moving beyond that. I
think there's a limitation on how many more Russian engines can
be used. But what I would focus on is the innovation that
you're seeing from several U.S. commercial companies on
building new technologies and new engines. The fact that we
were, for many years, dependent on a Russian engine for one of
our main rockets is--well, that's a political hot potato, but
what we are seeing right now--SpaceX, Blue Origin, Vector,
RocketLabs--kick me, because I probably can't name them all,
the new--Virgin, in Sierra Nevada, the new entrants that are
building new American technology, new engines that hasn't been
done in 20 years. I think that's a tremendous breakthrough, and
I think, with Congress' support, and the certainty on certain
regulations, we will continue this innovative growth on this
new technology.
Mr. Waltz. Please, just in the interest of time, send over
anything else for the record, and that's for all the panelists,
that Congress can help with to get government out of the way of
this innovation. We need to create a framework, and take the
approach of creating a framework, that emboldens innovation
from the private sector, and obviously within reason, and with
safety first, but that gets out of the way, and any way we can
be helpful, we stand ready to do so.
I have Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in my district.
They're doing incredible work on space situational awareness
and space traffic management. DOC, the Department of Commerce,
recently announced they are beginning to accept space
situational awareness data from DOD, Department of Defense, in
order to provide a commercial storefront for the private
sector, and our international partners. Commerce officials, to
my understanding, have been clear they don't want to be, so to
speak, a traffic cop in space. How do we, and this if for
anyone. Mr. Stallmer, I'll start with you, but how do we ensure
the transfer of this responsibility from DOD to Commerce is
done? And, again, without creating new levels of bureaucracy or
regulatory burden.
Mr. Stallmer. You have to leverage the commercial tools
that are out there on the marketplace right now. What satellite
companies are using for their own space situational awareness,
the space--what--the Space Data Association, what they're
using, the commercial products that are readily available at an
affordable cost. You don't need this long lead time
development. You just need to procure commercial products that
are existing on the market that everyone else in the world is
using.
Mr. Waltz. Are we doing that?
Mr. Stallmer. Some government agencies are doing that, and
I think some government agents could be a lot more efficient in
the way they procure commercial services.
Mr. Waltz. OK. Again, for the record, on which government
agencies, and which----
Mr. Stallmer. I'd be----
Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Specifically we can----
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. Be happy to provide you with
that list.
Mr. Waltz. Ms. Christensen, just in the time remaining,
Bryce issued a report on Volusia County, in my district, on
their commercial space supply chain characterization. So the
report stated that since 2000, over 250 venture capital firms
have invested nearly $14 billion in startup. The scale of this
investment will have generational consequences for Florida's
Space Triangle, the Cape, Daytona, Orlando. Can you describe
how the space industry will create jobs up and down the supply
chain, and those kind of spill-on effects across multiple
industries?
Ms. Christensen. I'm pleased to. The end products of the
space businesses that are being funded by venture capital are
often analytic services, communications technologies--
capabilities that support and enhance a wide range of other
businesses. For example, telecommunications services are
critical to any number of small businesses that rely on
flexibility and international access.
From those end users of downstream applications, jobs are
created all the way back up through the supply chain--
manufacturing, computing capabilities, test and evaluation,
engineering services, technologists. And then a whole range of
people and services that support companies in a growing
ecosystem that is not directly space related, but that creates
jobs for people in support industries, ranging from legal
services and consultants, to food service workers, and people
in communities that are seeing that growth.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. The Chair recognizes
Ms. Wexton for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Wexton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for yielding, and thank
you to the panelists for appearing today. I represent Virginia,
where we are proudly the home of Wallops Island, the MARS, the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport, and the aerospace industry is
very important to us. In particular, my district is home to
what was formerly Orbital, and is now Northrup Grumman, which
developed the Antares and Cygnus, Antares rocket and the Cygnus
capsule, for resupplying the International Space Station.
And it's a good example of--I think, Mr. French, in your
testimony you talked about the public investment, private
service model that we have seen in aerospace and commercial
space flight. And as we, as legislators, really have to plan
for the future, I guess the question I would have for you, Mr.
French, and for you, Ms. Christensen, and it's kind of a two-
part question. First, can you speak to the projections for the
frequency and pace of launches from spaceports in the next
decade, or couple decades? And, related to that, how can
spaceports better prepare for the future users, and ensure that
things will be successful for these businesses?
Mr. French. I'll start, and then I'll let Carissa give you
the real data. First off, on the partnership with Northrup
Grumman, then Orbital, is a great example of the right factors
in place. There was an existing launch market that NASA could
capitalize on, and make that partnership happen, and be
successful. And I think you're seeing similar things--Wallops,
I think, is doing a good job in thinking about that, as it
partners strategically with different government entities to
make it a sustainable launch site. So that's, sort of, I think
a very good strategy from the Wallops perspective.
Ms. Wexton. OK. And what do you foresee--is there anything
else that we can do better, or what do you foresee in terms of
the pace of launches coming out of spaceports in the future?
Mr. French. I think, from my perspective, the two that--
you've got quite a bit of, you know, future demand in those
programs you described. I think there's something like 65
launches planned with the NASA commercial crew and cargo
programs that Northrup Grumman is a part of. And then I think
you have a series of DOD launches that are likely expected,
given how important space has become on the national security
side.
Ms. Wexton. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Christensen. We are generally seeing--with regard to
projections for the frequency and pace of launches--we are
seeing increasing launches in recent years, and will likely in
the next few years. That said, launch is often cyclical,
particularly as we're seeing the launch of larger
constellations, which then will launch, have a pause, and then
need to be replenished. But in recent years, in the foreseeable
future, we're seeing growth.
With regard to how spaceports can better prepare, I would
note two things. One is building partnerships with launch
providers, which is clearly an area of great success for
Wallops, and the second is engaging with small satellite
operators, who will have different needs than satellite
operators that launch large satellites, with regard to on
facility services, integration, and so on.
Ms. Wexton. And is that because that's an emerging market
that hasn't gotten enough attention recently, or----
Ms. Christensen. Small satellite operators are the primary
satellite recipient of venture funds, and small satellite
startups and emerging firms are seeking to launch large
constellations of small satellites, and they are reaching the
point where they are ready to begin launching, and so those
deployment challenges will start to be more and more important.
Ms. Wexton. Very good. Thank you. And, Mr. Stallmer, I see
that you serve in a number of roles within the FAA's rulemaking
committees, including space launch and re-entry, and
spaceports, as well as FAA's Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee. And one of the concerns I have is that--you
may recall that at Wallops we had a pretty harrowing crash a
few years back, and there seems to be some variance in the
industry about how accident investigations are conducted for
these commercial launches, in terms of who conducts the
investigation, and whether the government--whether the industry
is going to self-investigate, or if NASA's going to lead, or
independently investigate. And so, as we look into these
issues, how can we ensure that there's transparency in the
safety process as we look to expand commercial space travel?
Mr. Stallmer. I think the best way for transparency is the
partnership between both parties, whether it's, you know, with
a government facility, a launch facility, and the launching
party. So if, for instance, with Orbital ATK, working closely
with NASA on the investigation that--I believe that happened in
October 2014----
Ms. Wexton. Um-hum.
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. To find--come to the accurate
conclusion in the quickest amount of time, but going through a
thorough investigation together, because I think you need the
expertise from both parties. Congresswoman, if you wouldn't
mind, as you brought up some of the issues that the ranges
have, especially at Wallops, and on these East Coast ranges----
Ms. Wexton. With the Chairwoman's indulgence, I don't mind
at all.
Mr. Stallmer. Because I think it's rather pertinent what--
some of the issues that the spaceports are dealing with is--and
the launch industry's dealing with, Wallops, and down on the
Cape, is the integration of our national air--the National
Airspace System, the NAS, and this is a finite resource that we
have, of the airspace. So whenever there's a space launch, we
need to coordinate with the aviation community. And this has
been a problem at Wallops in the past, which caused the delay
of one of the launch vehicles, and----
Ms. Wexton. I heard about it on the FAA side, too.
Mr. Stallmer. Yes. So that's one of the different
committees--unpaid committees that I'm working on. That's one
of the big issues that we are having, is working with the
aviation community, and the launch community, on how we can
effectively manage the National Airspace System. And thank you
for being my Congresswoman.
Ms. Wexton. You're very welcome, thanks. And with that,
I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Ms. Wexton. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Posey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for
holding this great meeting, and thank the panel for being here.
I had to step away for a few minutes. Secretary Chao was
announcing some grants that were approved, and one of them
happened to be something we've worked on for a couple years,
involved $90 million to access Kennedy Space Center. So, you
know, if we can't get there, if the bridge collapses, we don't
have a space center, so I had to step away for a few minutes,
and, you know, in Florida alone, the space industry impact
totals $19 billion, 130,000 jobs in our State, so it's really
big.
Space is important, but it's the commercial and civil space
working together that really drives it, as most of you already
know. Another driver is the Space Resource Utilization Act,
which I introduced with Representative Kilmer in 2015, which is
now law, and it allows for U.S. entities to retain the rights
of resources they extract from celestial bodies, like
asteroids, and it provides legal certainty for those who make
significant investments to pursue space-based resources, like
platinum, gold, and other high-value minerals. And I think of
it much as you would have the California Gold Rush, except this
is in space.
And I understand there was some discussion about that, as
to whether or not this legislation had any property rights
claiming in it. And let me assure absolutely, positively,
unequivocally, beyond any shadow of doubt it did not. It refers
only to resources, and so, you know, we don't lay claim to any
celestial bodies because of that particular legislation, and
let's just clear the air. Think that should be understood by
everyone.
Ms. Montgomery, in your testimony, you said that the Space
Resource Exploration and Utilization Act of 2015 resolved one
half of the uncertainty by recognizing private claims to
extract the resources. And would you say that this, then, has
helped developed the commercial industry to what we see today?
Ms. Montgomery. I would say it has been very helpful.
Mr. Posey. Great.
Ms. Montgomery. So----
Mr. Posey. You can pontificate longer, if you'd like.
Ms. Montgomery. OK. All right. I will. No, I think that it
has helped to put to rest a lot of uncertainty that the private
sector felt about whether it could legitimately claim rights in
the resources it worked to get. So, you know, the Moon Treaty
is out there. The United States hasn't signed it, but it
confuses people, and the ban on national appropriation also
confuses people, so I think that what Congress did in 2015
really cleared the air. It was helpful.
Mr. Posey. Yes. We, you know, we hear from some great
panelists on this Committee. I mean, I think this is the
greatest committee in the world, and here's some great,
interesting, learned people, and we were told one time they
think they've identified an asteroid with more platinum-based
deposits on it than have been mined from the history on Earth
during the entire history of man.
Ms. Montgomery. Wow.
Mr. Posey. I mean, that's a lot, and, you know, we know the
environmental damage this mining does, and we know if we can
pluck this stuff off an asteroid, you know, it's so much better
for everybody. You know, win/win/win/win situation. Mr.
Stallmer, would you say the law has helped develop the
commercial space industry in what we're seeing today?
Mr. Stallmer. Yes. Just--and I'll elaborate. I think your
leadership, and working with Congressman Kilmer, was really
breakthrough in space resources, and how we pursue that, and I
really think the long-term impact of that type of legislation,
we won't really see the benefits until years to come, but I
think it was very foresightful on that legislation, so I think
it will have a huge impact on the commercial industry.
Mr. Posey. Yes. I remember hearing Neil DeGrasse Tyson,
when we had him as a witness one time, he lectured in the
Jefferson Building, and he said, you know, space is the only
thing that we really spend money on, that Congress spends money
on, that doesn't benefit us here today, that's really in the
best interest of future generations. Like planting trees, the
shade from which you never expect to enjoy the shade. And I
think that's great, and I hope that helps energize and helps
interest more of our young people. Got 33 seconds left, if
anybody wants to weigh in on that.
Dr. Lal. We wrote a report recently, at NASA's request, on
asteroid mining, and step zero is knowing what the potential of
asteroids is, but then the steps one through seven, you know,
you--from prospecting to going--getting to the asteroid, to
mining it, to bringing things back, and there's a cost
associated with each. And the tradeoff that needs to be done is
how much would it cost to get there and bring the material
back, and if that number is a positive number. So that's
something to think about.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Time has expired.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Posey. I agree, I
think this is the greatest committee. Not only do we have space
for fun, Mr. Weber, but we're doing important work, and raising
important questions. So the Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for
5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for your indulgence
in letting me participate. Ms. Montgomery, I'm a little bit
fascinated by your testimony on space law. How long have you
been kind of in space law?
Ms. Montgomery. Going on 30 years. I was in private
practice, and did some satellite work, and then about 25 years
ago I joined the FAA, where I spent 22 years doing space law.
Mr. Weber. OK. And I notice----
Ms. Montgomery. Rockets.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. You talked about in 1967, there
were signatories to the treaty, and, of course, that would've
been under Nixon, and you said it was ratified by the Senate, I
believe?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes. Yes, it was.
Mr. Weber. OK. And you weren't even in elementary school at
that point, so I'm fascinated by your learned----
Ms. Montgomery. Sir, I was in elementary school.
Mr. Weber. Work with me here, I'm trying to help you.
Ms. Montgomery. But I have to be truthful.
Mr. Weber. Well, I appreciate that, as any good counselor
would.
Ms. Montgomery. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. And I'm reading about the case, where you're
talking about what kind of law would govern this. And the
reason I'm saying that is because we're going to talk about
some SpaceX stuff, and their failure. And you cite the case
Medellin vs. Texas from 2008, which I'm thoroughly familiar
with, because it was a Mexican national that raped and killed
two girls, and was sentenced to death, and I was going in as a
State legislator and nominee and was following that very
closely. And you talked about the ruling, where they said that
those kinds of treaties, because the Mexican government sued,
of course, wanted to make sure that his rights were violated,
he didn't get notified that he had the right to contact his
embassy, you know the case.
Ms. Montgomery. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. So, anyway, I'm kind of fascinated that you say
that that might apply to space treaties. Go ahead.
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, I would say it does, because in the
law you can have principles that will apply across industries,
or situations, if--even though they're all very different. So
although the treaty was ratified, that is different from
whether it is self-executing or not. And so when the Supreme
Court talked about the treaty at issue in the Medellin case----
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. It articulated the principle
that if a treaty has been signed onto and ratified, but the
entity in the U.S. Government that it obligates is the U.S.
Congress, then everyone has to wait for the U.S. Congress----
Mr. Weber. To act.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. To act----
Mr. Weber. Yes. That's right.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. By passing a law.
Mr. Weber. Right. And I agreed with that opinion, by the
way, just for the record.
Ms. Montgomery. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. But I want to fast forward. How many other
attorneys are there and you may not know this, where do they
teach space law? I notice you're from what college?
Ms. Montgomery. I teach at Catholic University's Columbus
School of----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. Law. There is also, sorry
Representative Brooks isn't here, Ole Miss----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Ms. Montgomery [continuing]. Has a space law course.
Nebraska has a space law curriculum. And then Georgetown and GW
also have space law classes. American University, space law
classes.
Mr. Weber. Right.
Ms. Montgomery. And McGill in Canada.
Mr. Weber. My fear is that we don't want those
international, indeed extraterrestrial, if you will, treaties
being applied down in the various and sundry states, and
hampering what commercial space exploration could do. And I'm
thinking about, is there a move to take that law, and to hold
countries and states accountable? Have you seen that at all?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, sir. When Moon Express went to the FAA
for a payload review, the FAA did grant it, but it said, in its
press release, that--we are concerned that they're not going to
be regulated, and it's good they're only there for 2 weeks,
otherwise, under Article 6, we would perhaps have had to say
no. And I would say that that is contrary to the Supreme
Court's articulation of how----
Mr. Weber. And you noted in one of your footnotes that one
of the Administrations took a different view of Article 6, one
of the preclusions. Was that the Obama Administration?
Ms. Montgomery. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. OK. That's what I gathered by the date. Let me
move forward here. I'm deeply concerned about the secrecy
surrounding the launch pad explosion that destroyed SpaceX's
Dragon capsule. Are you all familiar with that? I'm not getting
all head shakes. OK. As you know, there was an unmanned test at
Cape Canaveral, and it was recently revealed that a critical
parachute failure occurred during the Dragon test capsule in
April. You all are all aware of that? No? I'm not getting all
head shakes. OK. This was kept secret from the public.
So this mishap is especially distressing, given that NASA's
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel specifically directed that
parachute designs be finalized and proven before test flights
occur. Back to the counselor. Ms. Montgomery, this should be
governed by State law, Federal law? Does it fall under the
purview of the Space Treaty? What say you?
Ms. Montgomery. It is governed by the FAA regulation--the
Commercial Space Launch Act and the FAA regulations, in terms
of--I'm not really that familiar with the incident, but was it
for a commercial crew, or was----
Mr. Weber. It was unmanned, but yes, it was for a
commercial crew.
Ms. Montgomery. OK. So, as you may be aware, Congress told
the FAA that it could not regulate for the safety of persons on
board until 2023, that the industry is supposed to have the
same sort of barnstorming era that the aviation industry got in
the early days, so that--the FAA may be hampered in its ability
to look at that, I don't know. But I stress that I don't know
because I don't----
Mr. Weber. Well, I know Mr. Stallmer made a comment in his
remarks that the FAA had only gone halfway toward regulations,
I believe you said? Hadn't gone far enough? And I just want us
to be careful to know who's going to be controlling, who's
going to be regulating, and what law governs. You have a
comment? Madam Chair, if you'll indulge me? Mr. Stallmer?
Chairwoman Horn. Yes.
Mr. Stallmer. I--what I was referring to was--the halfway
as in this current NPRM on some of the regulatory----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Stallmer [continuing]. And the streamlining.
Mr. Weber. OK. I got you. Thank you, and I appreciate your
indulgence.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank----
Mr. Weber. I'll yield back.
Chairwoman Horn. Thank you, Mr. Weber, and thank you for
raising, I think, some very important questions. And thank you
to our panel. If it wasn't clear before we started, there are a
lot of issues that face us about commercial space, what exactly
that is, Dr. Lal, to your point, how we classify it, how we
quantify it, how we set the stage to encourage growth, but also
provide accountability and certainty moving forward, and
address the need for a legal framework, where one doesn't
necessarily exist in the regulatory environment, in order to
make all of these things possible.
Taking this away, we clearly have a lot to look at moving
forward. And I'll just sum it up with a few observations. There
are a few buckets that I think we need to look at. One is what
is the right level of oversight and investigation, and how we
can--and transparency. I think, to your point, Mr. Weber,
because that falls under a NASA contract, and how we look at
that, the regulatory framework, and all of the things that are
involved in that. And then what is commercial space? If 90
percent of a given program is a NASA program is funded by the
government, at what point does that become commercial, and
where do those issues enter in?
And the overall question is, where the markets have
developed, and the places where they exist independently of a
government customer. Again, going back, Dr. Lal, to your
initial testimony that, despite innovation, the principal
customer for many of these areas is still the government, which
we see--how to set the regulatory framework, how to create the
right balance, and how to properly define what is governmental,
with private industry being a part of that, and what is truly
commercial for the sake of commercial, and how we set the
stage?
So clearly a lot of issues that we have to tackle moving
forward, and sincerely appreciate your testimony, and your
engagement today, as well as all of our Committee. I think this
just goes back to the importance of the work that we're doing
here, and I think a very clear bipartisan concern for doing the
best we can to set this up to succeed in many ways. So thank
you for being here today, thank you for your attention, your
testimony, and--OK, wait, I've got to make sure I read the rest
of the thing. Before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to
thank our witnesses, and the record will remain open for 2
weeks for additional statements from the Members, and for any
additional questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. I
would say be prepared, we may have additional questions. And
the witnesses are excused, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]