[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

STARSHIPS AND STRIPES FOREVER_AN EXAMINATION OF THE FAA'S ROLE IN THE
FUTURE OF SPACEFLIGHT

=======================================================================

(117-19)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

JUNE 16, 2021

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-249 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
Puerto Rico SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee GREG STANTON, Arizona
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana

Subcommittee on Aviation

RICK LARSEN, Washington, Chair
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DON YOUNG, Alaska ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
JOHN KATKO, New York NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin Georgia
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota JULIA BROWNLEY, California
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey MARK DeSAULNIER, California
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
NANCY MACE, South Carolina ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas GREG STANTON, Arizona
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
MICHELLE STEEL, California CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
District of Columbia
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Chair, Subcommittee on Aviation, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Hon. Brian Babin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 73
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 85
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 85

WITNESSES
Panel 1

Wayne R. Monteith, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, oral statement 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Heather Krause, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S.
Government Accountability Office, oral statement............... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21

Panel 2

Salvatore T. ``Tory'' Bruno, President and Chief Executive
Officer, United Launch Alliance, LLC, oral statement........... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Frank DiBello, President and Chief Executive Officer, Space
Florida, oral statement........................................ 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Captain Joseph G. DePete, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International, oral statement.................................. 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Mike Moses, President of Space Missions and Safety, Virgin
Galactic, oral statement....................................... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Karina Drees, President, Commercial Spaceflight
Federation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen....... 7
Statement of Nicole deSibour Rodgers, Executive Director, 200
Mile Gateway, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast... 86

APPENDIX

Questions to Wayne R. Monteith, Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, from:
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson................................... 95
Hon. Nikema Williams......................................... 99
Hon. Garret Graves........................................... 100
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Heather Krause,
Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government
Accountability Office.......................................... 101
Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Salvatore T. ``Tory'' Bruno,
President and Chief Executive Officer, United Launch Alliance,
LLC............................................................ 102
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Frank DiBello,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Space Florida........... 103
Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Captain Joseph G.
DePete, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International.. 104

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

June 14, 2021

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: Members, Subcommittee on Aviation
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Aviation
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Starships and Stripes
Forever--An Examination of the FAA's Role in the Future of
Spaceflight''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Aviation will meet on Wednesday, June
16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. EDT in Room 2167 of the Rayburn House
Office Building and virtually via Zoom for a hearing titled,
``Starships and Stripes Forever--An Examination of the FAA's
Role in the Future of Spaceflight.'' The hearing will explore
broadly the future of the U.S. commercial space transportation
industry, its rapid growth and expansion into human
spaceflight, and the role of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) in overseeing and regulating the industry.
The Subcommittee will receive testimony from representatives of
the FAA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), United
Launch Alliance, Space Florida, Air Line Pilots Association,
and Virgin Galactic. The FAA and GAO witnesses will testify on
the first panel, and the other witnesses on the second panel.

I. BACKGROUND

Commercial space transportation--through the use of orbital
and suborbital vehicles manufactured, owned, or operated by
private companies or other non-federal organizations--
transports objects such as satellites, scientific payloads,
other cargo, and passengers (referred to as spaceflight
participants) to, from, and throughout space.\1\ In 2018, when
the FAA's most recent annual commercial space compendium was
published, the size of the global space economy--private
industry revenues and government budgets--was estimated to be
about $345 billion.\2\ In 2016, the size of the U.S. space
industry alone was approximately $158 billion, which included
more than $110 billion in revenues generated by satellite
services, manufacturing, ground equipment, and launch services,
and approximately $48 billion spent by the U.S. Government on
space programs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Commercial Space Transportation: FAA Should Examine a
Range of Options to Support U.S. Launch Infrastructure, GAO-21-154 at 4
(Dec. 2020).
\2\ FAA, The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation:
2018 at 9-10 (Feb. 2018), https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_
Compendium.pdf.
\3\ FAA, The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation:
2018 at 9-10 (Feb. 2018), https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_
Compendium.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial space transportation services help fulfill many
government needs, including supplying the International Space
Station, deploying classified military and intelligence
payloads, and supporting reconnaissance and communications
capabilities.\4\ The commercial launch of satellites broadly
benefits society by providing a wide range of modern services,
from television and radio broadcast to high-speed Internet and
weather information, through the use of communications and
remote sensing satellites.\5\ Moreover, the commercial launch
technology is ever evolving; several private companies, most
notably SpaceX, have developed reusable launch vehicles capable
of being launched multiple times into space.\6\ This and other
advances promise to bring down the cost of building and
launching rockets, thereby reducing barriers to the expansion
of commercial activity in space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Morin, Wilson, Space Agenda 2021--Leveraging Commercial Space
for National Security, Aerospace Corporation--Ctr. for Space and Pol.
Strategy (Nov. 2020), https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2020-
11/Morin-Wilson_Leveraging_20201113.pdf.
\5\ FAA, Space--Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), https://
www.faa.gov/space/additional_information/faq/ (last visited June 8,
2021).
\6\ CNBC, SpaceX Pushes Reusing Rockets Further with Record Sixth
Landing of a Single Booster, Aug. 18, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/
08/18/spacex-reuses-and-lands-falcon-9-rocket-booster-for-record-6th-
time.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. INDUSTRY GROWTH

The FAA has indicated that the industry has grown steadily
over the last decade. In total, there have been 403 licensed
commercial space launches since the first launch in 1989, with
nearly one half of those occurring in the last ten years alone,
as depicted in the table below.\7\ This includes a record 39
licensed launches taking place just in the last year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ FAA, Commercial Space Data, https://www.faa.gov/data_research/
commercial_space_data/ (last visited June 5, 2021).
\8\ Id.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

This trend is expected to continue as the FAA already has
46 licensed launches scheduled for this fiscal year.\9\ This
amounts to a nearly 400 percent increase in FAA launch licenses
between 2015 and 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2021, the FAA's
commercial space transportation operating budget and staffing
levels have grown, from $17.8 million and 84 full-time
equivalents (FTEs) to $27.5 million and 117 FTEs.\10\ The FAA
has also adopted or plans to adopt numerous measures to
maximize its use of existing resources, including reorganizing
lines of business within its commercial space transportation
office, hiring more personnel, streamlining regulations and
processes, transitioning from a physical to an online
application system, and developing and incorporating newer,
more efficient technologies.\11\ The President's fiscal year
2022 budget request includes an increase of funding and
staffing levels to $32.47 million and 108 FTEs, although this
amount falls below the $64.5 million authorized for the FAA's
commercial space transportation activities under the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO, Commercial Space Transportation: Improvements to FAA's
Workforce Planning Needed to Prepare for the Industry's Anticipated
Growth, GAO-19-437 at 8 (May 2019); information received from the FAA,
email on file with Committee.
\11\ Id.
\12\ See FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 98-575), Sec.
113(b); 49 U.S.C. Sec. 106(k)(2)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. THE FAA'S ROLE IN COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The FAA, under delegation by the Secretary of
Transportation, exercises oversight of the commercial space
transportation industry by authorizing commercial launches and
imposing narrowly-tailored requirements or regulations to
protect ``the public, property, and the national security and
foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial
launch or reentry activities.'' In addition, as part of its
mission, the FAA is mandated to ``encourage, facilitate, and
promote U.S. commercial space transportation.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)
is the focal point in the Executive Branch for authorization of
a proposed commercial space launch. Consistent with its
mission, AST regulates commercial space transportation by:
Licensing commercial launches and reentries within
the United States and those conducted by U.S. citizens anywhere
in the world;
Licensing non-federal launch and reentry sites (or
``commercial spaceports'') operated within the United States or
by the U.S. anywhere in the world; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-575), 51
U.S.C. Sec. 50904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granting experimental permits for the launch of
suborbital launch vehicles for research and development; \15\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50906.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuing safety approvals for essentially all
elements used in licensed or permitted launch and reentry
activities, including launch and reentry vehicles, safety
systems, processes, services, or personnel.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See FAA Presentation to Committee Staff, Introduction to the
Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) at the FAA (Mar. 13,
2017). See also The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space
Transportation: 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. LAUNCH LICENSES

The FAA may issue a launch license \17\ to the private
operator of a proposed commercial space launch if the FAA
concludes that the proposed launch would not jeopardize public
health and safety or U.S. national security or foreign policy
interests, or would be inconsistent with U.S. obligations under
international law.\18\ The FAA recently published a new rule to
streamline and replace numerous old regulations.\19\ In doing
so, the FAA seeks to allow launch providers the ability be more
flexible by: encompassing more types of launch and reentry
operations; requiring only a single license for all types of
commercial spaceflight launch and reentry operations; and
adopting a performance standard over a prescriptive
standard.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 14 C.F.R. Sec. 415.3.
\18\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 415.21; 415.31(a); 415.51.
\19\ FAA, Fact Sheet--Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing
Requirements (SLR2) Rule (Oct. 15, 2020), https://www.faa.gov/news/
fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=25400.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. SPACEPORT LICENSES

While many commercial space launches occur at federal
launch ranges (such as Cape Canaveral Space Force Station) that
the FAA does not regulate, the FAA does issue licenses to
nonfederal operators of launch and reentry sites, or
``commercial spaceports.'' \21\ There are also different kinds
of launch ranges depending on type of launch vehicles intended
to be supported, with some limited in size, and others limited
on whether they takeoff horizontally (via runway) or vertically
(via launch pad). There are currently 19 nominal launch and
reentry sites in the United States, of which 12 are non-
federal.\22\ In interviewing launch providers about U.S.
spaceport capabilities and capacity, a GAO report from December
2020 found that a majority of launch providers feel that the
current ``U.S. space transportation infrastructure [is]
generally sufficient [to meet] current requirements.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ FAA, Fact Sheet--Commercial Space Transportation Activities
(June 19, 2020), https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/
news_story.cfm?newsId=19074.
\22\ GAO-21-154 at 7-11.
\23\ Id.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

C. EXPERIMENTAL PERMITS

The FAA also may issue a permit to the operator of an
experimental space vehicle. Under this permit, the operator may
launch a reusable suborbital rocket and return the vehicle to
Earth, if the proposed operation is necessary for:
(1)``[r]esearch and development to test new design
concepts, new equipment, or new operating techniques,'' for
crew training purposes; or
(2)to show that the operator complies with the requirements
above for obtaining a license.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 437.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. LIABILITY DETERMINATIONS AND INDEMNIFICATION

The operator of a licensed launch and reentry activity must
obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial
responsibility sufficient to compensate for the ``maximum
probable loss'' from claims by (1) a third party for death,
bodily injury, or property damage or loss, and (2) the U.S.
Government against a person for damage or loss to government
property resulting from the licensed activity.\25\ The FAA
performs an analysis to determine the maximum probable loss,
although commercial spaceflight operators are not required to
obtain insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility of
more than $500 million for third-party claims and $100 million
for U.S. Government claims for property damage.\26\ Federal law
requires the U.S. Government to indemnify insured operators for
third-party claims exceeding the $500 million insurance
requirement, up to $1.5 billion, although to date such
indemnification has not been necessary.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 51 U.S.C. 50914(a).
\26\ Id. at (a)(3).
\27\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50915(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. SAFETY APPROVALS AND OVERSIGHT

In addition to the functions described above, the FAA may
issue safety approvals for many elements used in licensed or
permitted launch and reentry activities, including launch and
reentry vehicles, safety systems, processes, services, or
personnel.\28\ The FAA also conducts pre-application
consultations, safety inspections and oversight (i.e.,
compliance monitoring for FAA-issued licenses and permits),
environmental reviews, rulemakings, research, and
infrastructure development.\29\ Licensee and permit holders
must allow the FAA to place an observer at launch, reentry,
production facility, or assembly sites.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50903; 14 C.F.R Sec. 414.
\29\ FAA, Workload Metrics, Presentation, at 3, on Dec. 12, 2017,
on file with Committee.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. PAYLOAD REVIEW

In general, the FAA is not responsible for licensing or
otherwise reviewing the payload of a commercial launch if the
payload is a communications satellite licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission, a commercial remote sensing
satellite licensed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), or owned or operated by the U.S.
Government.\31\ If a payload does not fall into any of those
categories, the FAA will conduct a payload review to ensure, in
coordination with other federal agencies, that the cargo will
not ``jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of
property, or national security or foreign policy interest of
the United States.'' \32\ Most recently, the FAA denied a
payload review for a Momentus space tug intended to deploy cube
satellites because of concerns raised by the Department of
Defense (DoD) relating to the company's foreign ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 450.43.
\32\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50904(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE

A. LEARNING PERIOD_MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN FAA REGULATORY ACTIVITY

Although the FAA regulates the commercial space
transportation industry to ensure the safety of the general
public, Congress has established a ``learning period'' for the
industry, which generally prohibits the FAA from proposing
regulations for launch vehicle design features or operating
practices as they relate to launch vehicle passenger or crew
safety.\33\ The FAA may, however, issue regulations in response
to either (1) a serious or fatal injury to a person aboard a
commercial spacecraft or (2) an event that posed a high risk of
such an injury.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50905(c)(2)(C)-(D), (9).
\34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intent of this moratorium is for the FAA to refrain
from imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the nascent
commercial human spaceflight industry. The learning period was
last extended in 2015 and expires at the end of fiscal year
2023, which coincides with the expiration of the current FAA
reauthorization law.\35\ Over the next year, several companies
are expected to be commercially carrying crew and passengers to
space, which raises the question of whether Congress should
extend the learning period, let it expire, or find an
alternative regulatory framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Compendium 2018, at 89. See U.S. Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act, Pub. L. 114-90, Sec. 111 (2015). Before enactment
of the legislation, the moratorium would have ended in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the moratorium, the FAA is working with the
commercial space transportation industry to facilitate the
development of voluntary industry consensus standards.\36\ Much
of this work occurs through ASTM Committee F47 on Commercial
Spaceflight, which has published four consensus standards and
is working on more than ten additional standards.\37\ When the
learning period expires, the FAA is required to take these or
other consensus standards into account when developing any
subsequent regulation.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50905(c)(3).
\37\ ASTM Intl., Committee F47 on Commercial Spaceflight, https://
www.astm.org/COMMITTEE/F47.htm.
\38\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50905(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. DUAL MANDATE

In addition to regulating the safety of the U.S. commercial
space transportation industry, the FAA is also required to
``encourage, facilitate, and promote'' the industry.\39\ The
FAA operated under a similar ``dual mandate'' with respect to
civil aviation from its inception in 1958 until 1996, when the
ValuJet flight 592 accident prompted Congress to eliminate the
FAA's statutory duty to ``promote'' as well as regulate the
civil aviation industry.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Commercial Space Launch Act, Pub. L. 98-575 (1984).
\40\ Federal Aviation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-264, Sec. 401
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, AND MISSION
AUTHORIZATION

Presently, the DoD is responsible for providing space
situational awareness services and information, meaning the
tracking of space objects and warning satellite operators when
the possibility of a collision exists.\41\ Collisions between
objects in space pose a threat to human spaceflight safety and
the continued operation of satellites due to severe debris
pollution. For example, in 2009, the collision of an active and
inactive satellite in orbit occurred at 26,000 mph and created
almost 2,000 pieces of debris, all of which pose a potential
threat to another satellite.\42\ To prevent similar collisions
and provide other future services, there is widespread
agreement that space situational awareness services for
civilian satellites should be performed by a civilian
agency.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2274.
\42\ Weeden, 2009 Iridium-Cosmos Collision Fact Sheet, Secure World
Foundation (Nov. 10, 2010), https://swfound.org/media/6575/
swf_iridium_cosmos_collision_fact_sheet_
updated_2012.pdf.
\43\ See Space Situational Awareness: Examining Key Issues and the
Changing Landscape: Hearing before Comm. on Sci., Space and Tech.,
Subcomm. on Space and Aeronautics, 116th Cong. 3 (2020) (statement of
Dr. Brian Weeden) at https://swfound.org/media/206932/
weeden_house_ssa_testimony_written_feb2020.pdf; Sorge, Ailor,
Muelhaupt, Space Agenda 2021--Space Traffic Management: the Challenge
of Large Constellations, Orbital Debris, and the Rapid Changes in Space
Operations, Aerospace Corporation--Ctr. for Space and Pol. Strategy
(Sept. 2020), available at https://aerospace.org/sites/default/files/
2020-09/Sorge_STM_
20200915.pdf; Dominguez et al., Space Traffic Management: Assessment of
the Feasibility, Expected Effectiveness, and Funding Implications of a
Transfer of Space Traffic Management Functions, Natl. Acad. of Public
Admin. (Aug. 2020), https://napawash.org/academy-studies/united-states-
department-of-commerce-office-of-space-commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space debris is not just a concern in orbit; an accident
involving a spacecraft during launch or reentry or a reentering
satellite could present a serious risk to users of the National
Airspace System (NAS) as well as people on the ground. One of
the most visible examples is the wreckage of the Space Shuttle
Columbia, which broke apart during reentry on February 1, 2003.
Parts of the shuttle were scattered through East Texas,
Louisiana, and Arkansas, with one piece of wreckage--an 800-
pound main engine piece--hitting the ground at nearly 1,400
miles per hour, and another 600-pound engine component
impacting the ground with enough force to create a six-foot
crater.\44\ Most recently, in May 2021, a Chinese Long-March-5b
vehicle re-entered the atmosphere. The nearly 40,000-pound
vehicle was one of the largest ever to re-enter the Earth's
atmosphere on an uncontrolled basis and predicting its incoming
flight path was near impossible. Pieces of it eventually
crashed in the Indian Ocean.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board, Vol. I (Aug. 2003), at 46-47, available
at http://s3.amazonaws.com/akamai.netstorage/anon.nasa-global/CAIB/
CAIB_lowres_full.pdf.
\45\ Saphora Smith, Debris from China's Long March 5B Rocket
Crashes Back to Earth in Indian Ocean, NBC News Digital (May 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the FAA can close a portion of the U.S. airspace and
evacuate the surrounding airspace to ensure safety from debris
during a licensed launch or controlled reentry, it is more
difficult to take appropriate actions with respect to
uncontrolled orbital or suborbital objects. Reentering debris
can pose a significant hazard to aircraft because fragments can
fall through the airspace over considerable distances and at
different rates. This creates the risk to an aircraft operating
in the debris field.\46\ This has led previous administrations
and some experts to call for new requirements and mission
authorizations to be placed on launch licenses to further weigh
other considerations, such as orbit saturation and
disposal.\47\ Others have called for a civilian agency-led
warning system, where the federal government would be able to
better track and predict the trajectories of orbital debris and
develop the capabilities for a civilian agency to manage and
disseminate such data.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ William Ailor, Large Constellation Disposal Hazards, The
Aerospace Corporation (Jan. 2020).
\47\ Letter from J. Holdren, Dir. Of Office of Sci. & Tech. Pol.,
to Chairman Thune and Chairman Smith (Apr. 4, 2016).
\48\ Ailor, Wilde, Requirements for Warning Aircraft of Reentering
Debris, 3rd Int'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Space Safety (Oct. 21,
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2018, President Trump issued Space Policy
Directive-3 (SPD-3), which designated the Department of
Commerce's Office of Space Commerce as the lead civilian agency
for the provision of space situational awareness services, the
establishment of a space traffic management framework, and the
reduction of orbital debris through preemptive and proactive
means.\49\ No mention was made of tracking reentering space
debris to protect NAS users or people on the ground.\50\ In
2020, the National Academy of Public Administration contracted
with NOAA to review the Office of Space Commerce and issued a
report recommending that the office conduct the civilian space
situational awareness mission.\51\ Although a pilot program for
such activities was funded in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021, no legislation authorizing the Department of
Commerce to provide space situational awareness services has
been enacted by Congress.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Presidential Memoranda, Space Policy Directive-3, National
Space Traffic Management Policy (June 18, 2018).
\50\ Id.
\51\ Dominguez et al., Space Traffic Management: Assessment of the
Feasibility, Expected Effectiveness, and Funding Implications of a
Transfer of Space Traffic Management Functions, Natl. Acad. of Public
Admin. (Aug. 2020), https://napawash.org/academy-studies/united-states-
department-of-commerce-office-of-space-commerce.
\52\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. 116-260 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the issuance of SPD-3 by the previous
Administration, some have argued that the FAA is better suited
for providing civilian space situational awareness services.
The FAA has studied the issue with the DoD for years.\53\ Most
recently, on September 6, 2016, the Department of
Transportation transmitted a report outlining the dangers of
space debris to both existing space assets in orbit and those
within atmosphere; the FAA's expertise and existing
relationships that would aid the agency in exceling at managing
and relaying space situational awareness data; and the
legislative approval and authorizations needed to do so.\54\
Some experts have pointed out that the preexisting relationship
between launch providers and a safety agency is crucial, as it
also fulfills a long desired state of streamlined federal
requirements regulated by as few differing agencies as
possible.\55\ Ultimately, the DoD is able and willing to work
with whatever civil agency Congress entrusts with this mission;
while testifying before the Committee on Armed Services in
2018, Air Force General John Hyten said, ``We need a civil
agency that is doing that role. Commerce makes sense.
Transportation makes sense. That is a political decision.''
\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Hitchens, Will FAA Or Commerce Track Civil Satellites?
Congress Must Decide--And Soon, Breaking Def. (May 15, 2019), https://
breakingdefense.com/2019/05/will-faa-or-commerce-track-civil-
satellites-congress-must-decide-and-soon/.
\54\ DOT, Report on Processing and Releasing Safety-Related Space
Situational Awareness Data (Apr. 2016).
\55\ Lal, Picard, Weeden, Presentation--Approached to Civil Space
Situational Awareness (SAA), FAA Industry Day--Sci. and Tech. Pol.
Inst. (Oct. 25, 2016), https://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/
5_science_and_technology_policy_institute_
study.pdf.
\56\ Space Situational Awareness: Whole of Government Perspectives
on Roles and Responsibilities: Joint Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Strategic Forces of the Comm. on Armed Services Meeting Jointly with
Subcomm. on Space of the Comm. on Sci., Space, and Tech., 115th Cong.
17 (2018) (statement of Air Force Gen. John Hyten), available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115hhrg33386/pdf/CHRG-
115hhrg33386.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2021, Aviation Subcommittee Ranking Member
Garret Graves and Chair Rick Larsen introduced H.R. 2624, the
Aerospace Debris Safety Act, which directs the FAA to carry out
a program to provide space situational awareness services,
including a public catalog of space objects and emergency
conjunction notifications for in-orbit space objects. It also
directs the FAA to develop a system capable of tracking
reentering space debris and using that space situational
awareness data to restrict airspace or warn aircraft that may
be at risk of being impacted by such debris.

D. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

Human spaceflight is inherently risky. Insofar as a trained
and competent crew will reduce the risk of injury and damage to
people and property on the ground, the FAA imposes requirements
for the qualifications and training of mission crewmembers.\57\
For example, launch vehicle pilots must have an FAA pilot
certificate with an instrument rating and must have received
vehicle and mission-specific training for each phase of
flight.\58\ A crewmember must also receive training ``in
procedures that direct the vehicle away from the public in the
event the flight crew abandons the vehicle during flight'' and
``[a]bort scenarios,'' and generally, a crewmember must
demonstrate the ability ``to safely carry out his or her duties
so that the vehicle will not harm the public.'' \59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 460.5(c).
\58\ Foust, Virgin Galactic pilots join an exclusive club with FAA
astronaut wings, SpaceNews (Feb. 10, 2019), https://spacenews.com/
virgin-galactic-pilots-join-an-exclusive-club-with-faa-astronaut-
wings/.
\59\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 460.5(a)(2)(i), (b), (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. SPACEPORT INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Although commercial spaceports that are co-located with
airports may receive federal support for airport-related
infrastructure projects through the FAA's Airport Improvement
Program (AIP), there is no currently funded federal grant
program dedicated to supporting commercial spaceports. Between
2010 and 2020, the FAA awarded 10 AIP grants to two airports
that also have a launch site operator license, including for
infrastructure that may support both airport and space
transportation operations.\60\ Between 2010 and 2012, the FAA
awarded $1.5 million in Space Transportation Infrastructure
Matching grants to seven spaceports, although the program has
not received funding since that time.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ GAO-21-154 at 18.
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2020, the Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) recommended to the FAA that the
federal government create a program for funding improvements at
spaceports.\62\ A COMSTAC working group suggested that such a
program, run by the FAA's Office of Spaceports, should be for
capital improvements only, give priority to spaceport projects
that secure state or local investment, and positively weigh
existing launch activity at a spaceport in the grant award
process.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Letter from James A Hatt, Designated Federal Official COMSTAC,
to Charity Weeden, Chair COMSTAC (Oct. 9, 2020) (regarding
recommendations put forth by COMSTAC during the September 2020
meeting), available at https://www.faa.gov/space/
additional_information/comstac/media/
Sept_2020_AST_DFO_Response_to_COMSTAC.pdf
\63\ Office of Spaceports Recommendation, COMSTAC (Sept. 14, 2020),
available at https://www.faa.gov/space/additional_information/comstac/
media/COMSTAC_IIWG_Spaceport_
Funding_white_paper_14_Sept_2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTEGRATION

The FAA has the statutory responsibility for ensuring the
safe and efficient use of the NAS. In the case of commercial
space launches, the FAA establishes a hazard area each time
there is a scheduled launch to segregate aircraft from the
airspace needed for the launch.\64\ The size of this hazard
area is calculated prior to the launch due to the complexities
involved, using variables like vehicle size, trajectory, and
history.\65\ Specifically, the risk to life outside of a hazard
area must be equal to or less than a one-in-a-million or less
chance that a piece of debris from a failed space launch
vehicle would result in an injury to an individual member of
the public.\66\ Moreover, the hazard area must also be closed
for a predetermined amount of time, as each launch has too many
dynamic variables for it to integrate in real time with the
FAA's existing air traffic control system.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ FAA, Airspace Integration, https://www.faa.gov/space/
airspace_integration/ (last visited June 4, 2021).
\65\ GAO-19-437 at 34.
\66\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 415.35.
\67\ GAO-19-437 at 34-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the hazard areas tend to be closed for the entirety
of a launch window, regardless of whether a launch has been
delayed or, in some cases, has already occurred, inefficiencies
and delays may propagate for other users of the NAS who must be
rerouted around said hazard area.\68\ In fiscal year 2017, the
FAA estimated that 1,200 commercial flights were directly
affected by licensed launches, which resulted in an additional
39,000 miles flown, with a majority of these flights being
directed around Cape Canaveral.\69\ Although it is exceedingly
rare, the FAA has previously denied a launch license due to the
proposed timeframe being a ``time of unusually congested
airspace.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ FAA, Airspace Integration, https://www.faa.gov/space/
airspace_integration/ (last visited June 4, 2021).
\69\ GAO-19-437 at 36.
\70\ Id. at 37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA, working with stakeholders, is engaged in efforts
to resolve these inefficiencies and better integrate commercial
space launches into the NAS. For instance, in February 2018,
the FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to solicit
recommendations on Airspace Access Priorities to minimize
disruption by moving from space launch accommodation to
integration.\71\ In May 2020, the FAA also published a
Commercial Space Integration into the National Airspace System
(CSINAS) Concept of Operations (ConOps).\72\ The ConOps
describes the vision for future commercial space transportation
operations, with an emphasis on managing the greater
integration of launch and reentry vehicles as they transition
through the NAS.\73\ The FAA is also working on the technology
needed to develop ``time-based procedures and operator mission
triggers'' to more adaptively and reactively regulate the
airspace around launches.\74\ This includes new Space Data
Integrator capabilities, which will receive and distribute
launch and reentry data for initial use within the NAS and
allow for improved situational awareness and airspace
management decision making.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ FAA, Airspace Access Priorities Aviation Rulemaking Committee
Charter, Feb. 12, 2018.
\72\ FAA, Commercial Space Integration into the National Airspace
System Concept of Operations (May 2020), https://www.faa.gov/space/
airspace_integration/media/Final_CSINAS_
ConOps.pdf.
\73\ Airspace Integration, supra note 65.
\74\ Id.
\75\ FAA, Fact Sheet--The Space Data Integrator (SDI), (Oct. 16,
2020), https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/
news_story.cfm?newsId=23476.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. REGULATORY REFORM

In February 2018, the newly-revived National Space Council
(NSC) recommended, among other things, that the FAA's launch
and reentry licensing standards be streamlined within one
year.\76\ On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed Space Policy
Directive-2, instructing the Secretary of Transportation to
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking revising FAA launch and
reentry regulations by February 1, 2019.\77\ The directive
required the Secretary to consider requiring a single license
for all types of commercial space transportation launch and
reentry operations, as well as replacing prescriptive
regulations with performance-based criteria.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ William Harwood, National Space Council Acts to Streamline
Regulatory Hurdles, SpaceFlight Now (Feb. 22, 2018), https://
spaceflightnow.com/2018/02/22/national-space-council-acts-to-
streamline-regulatory-hurdles/.
\77\ Presidential Memoranda, Space Policy Directive-2, Streamlining
Regulations on Commercial Use of Space (May 24, 2018), https://
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/space-policy-
directive-2-streamlining-regulations-commercial-use-space/.
\78\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Space Policy Directive-2, the FAA
accelerated its efforts and chartered the Streamlined Launch
and Reentry Licensing Requirements Aviation Rulemaking
Committee on March 8, 2018, in order to provide a forum for
aviation stakeholders to provide input and recommendations.\79\
The FAA issued a final rule streamlining its launch and reentry
licensing requirements on October 15, 2020.\80\ Overall, the
final rule consolidated and revised multiple FAA regulations
and applied a single set of licensing and safety requirements
across various types of operations and vehicles, such as
requiring a single license for all types of commercial
spaceflight launch and reentry operations.\81\ In doing so,
Parts 415, 417, 431, and 435 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, which were predominantly prescriptive, were
combined into a single performance-based rule, Part 450.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ FAA, Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
Aviation Rulemaking Committee Charter, Feb. 12, 2018.
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id.
\82\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the publication of Part 450, additional steps
remain to fully implement the streamlined launch and reentry
regulations. Many launch providers continue to operate under
legacy licenses and have yet to transition to a license issued
under Part 450. One reason for this is because full
implementation of Part 450 will depend upon the FAA's
publication of advisory circulars (ACs) that detail possible
means of compliance with the regulation and other necessary
guidance. To date, the FAA has only issued three ACs, although
it plans to issue additional ACs over the next two years.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See FAA, Part 450: Means of Compliance Table, https://
www.faa.gov/space/streamlined_licensing_process/media/
Part_450_Means_of_Compliance_Table_with_dates.pdf (last visited June
11, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESSES

PANEL 1

Wayne R. Monteith, Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration
Heather Krause, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
Government Accountability Office

PANEL 2

Salvatore T. ``Tory'' Bruno, President and Chief
Executive Officer, United Launch Alliance
Frank DiBello, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Space Florida
Captain Joe DePete, President, Air Line Pilots
Association
Mike Moses, President of Space Missions and Safety,
Virgin Galactic

STARSHIPS AND STRIPES FOREVER--AN EXAMINATION OF THE FAA'S ROLE IN THE
FUTURE OF SPACEFLIGHT

----------

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2021

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Rick
Larsen (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Mr. Larsen, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Kahele, Mr.
Garamendi, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Mast, Mr.
Perry, Dr. Babin, Mr. Gimenez, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Payne, Ms.
Norton, Dr. Van Drew, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Brown, Mr. Johnson of
Georgia, Mr. Katko, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mrs. Steel, Ms. Williams of
Georgia, Ms. Davids, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Burchett, and Mr.
Balderson.
Mr. Larsen. The subcommittee will come to order.
First off, I ask unanimous consent that the chair be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, please keep your microphone muted unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request the Member mute their microphone.
A reminder as well: to insert a document into the record,
please have staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
So good afternoon and I want to welcome today's witnesses
joining the Aviation Subcommittee's hearing titled ``Starships
and Stripes Forever--An Examination of the FAA's Role in the
Future of Spaceflight.''
Earlier this year, NASA celebrated 60 years since Astronaut
Alan Shepard made the first U.S. piloted spaceflight in the
Mercury Freedom 7 spacecraft, and since then space launches in
the National Airspace System, or NAS, have increased.
Rigorous subcommittee oversight work helps guarantee U.S.
aviation and aerospace remains the global gold standard in
safety by identifying current and anticipated concerns, and
identifying how Congress, the FAA, and industry and labor
stakeholders can work together to address these issues.
The first panel today are representatives of the FAA and
Government Accountability Office. They will discuss the status
of Federal regulation and the oversight of the commercial space
industry, necessary improvements, and the hurdles the FAA faces
in carrying out its mission to provide the safest and most
efficient aviation system in the world.
The second panel will help the subcommittee better
understand how the industry navigates the current regulatory
landscape for commercial spaceflight and what is needed in the
future.
As chair and as a Member of Congress, I have also made
improving diversity in the U.S. aerospace industry a priority.
It is important the subcommittee hearings have diverse
backgrounds, views, and perspectives at the table. However, in
many cases, the U.S. transportation workforce lacks the
diversity that reflects the true diversity of this country, a
problem that extends to commercial space. So, unfortunately, it
is not any different in the commercial space sector.
A recent survey of the aerospace and defense industry found
that the number of women in the industry is around 24 percent,
while only 6 percent of respondents identified as a person of
color, and just less than 8 percent identified as Hispanic or
Latino. As the industry works to increase the diversity of its
workforce, I also expect to hear from the second panel today
how they plan to address this. Until then, we will continue to
work with stakeholders to find new ways for underrepresented
groups to participate in the discussion and this industry.
The first panel today is the FAA and GAO.
Once the exclusive purview of the Federal Government, space
launches in the U.S. are now a growing commercial industry.
With this evolving dynamic has come an accompanying change in
the role of the Federal Government. FAA is now tasked with
overseeing not only the NAS and launches that may impact the
NAS, but also regulations related to launch and spaceport
licensing and safety regulations.
Mr. Wayne Monteith, FAA's Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, is here today to discuss these
issues, as well as FAA's vision for this industry.
Ms. Heather Krause, the Director of Physical Infrastructure
at the GAO, is also here today, and Ms. Krause will provide
GAO's research that has been done on this topic, as well as
recommendations for both the FAA and the industry.
[Mr. Larsen's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Chair, Subcommittee on Aviation
Good afternoon and welcome to today's witnesses joining the
Aviation Subcommittee's hearing titled ``Starships and Stripes
Forever--An Examination of the FAA's Role in the Future of
Spaceflight.''
This is an overdue discussion on the future of the U.S. launch and
spaceflight industry and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
role in oversight of the industry.
Earlier this year, NASA celebrated 60 years since astronaut Alan
Shepard made the first U.S. piloted spaceflight in the Mercury Freedom
7 spacecraft.
Since then, space launches in the National Airspace System (NAS)
has skyrocketed.
The rigorous oversight work done by this subcommittee helps
guarantee U.S. aviation and aerospace remains the global gold standard
in safety by identifying issues of concern--current and anticipated--
and how Congress, the FAA, and industry and labor stakeholders can work
together to address these issues.
On our first panel are representatives from the FAA and the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to discuss the status of federal
regulation and oversight of the commercial space industry, necessary
improvements and the hurdles the FAA faces in carrying out its mission
to provide the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.
The second panel of witnesses will help the subcommittee better
understand how the industry navigates the current regulatory landscape
for commercial spaceflight and what is needed in the future.
One aspect I would like to make note of is that of diversity.
As Chair and as a Member of Congress, I have made improving
diversity in the U.S. aerospace industry a priority.
It is important subcommittee hearings have diverse backgrounds,
views and perspectives at the table.
However, in many cases, the U.S. transportation workforce lacks the
diversity that reflects the true diversity of this country.
Unfortunately, the aerospace sector is no different. A recent
survey of the Aerospace and Defense industry found that the number of
women in the industry is around 24 percent, while only 6 percent of
respondents identified as a Person of Color and just less than 8
percent identified as Hispanic or Latino.
As the industry works to increase the diversity of its workforce, I
look forward to the day when it is similarly reflected in its
leadership.
Until then, I will continue to work with stakeholders to find new
ways for underrepresented groups to participate in the discussion and
this industry.
Once the exclusive purview of the federal government, space
launches in the United States are a growing commercial industry.
With this evolving dynamic has come an accompanying change in the
role of the federal government.
FAA is now tasked with overseeing not only the NAS and launches
that may impact the NAS, but also regulations related to launch and
spaceport licensing and safety regulations.
I am pleased to have Mr. Wayne R. Monteith, FAA's Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, here today to
discuss these issues as well as FAA's vision for this industry.
I am also glad to have Ms. Heather Krause, Director of Physical
Infrastructure at the GAO here today.
Ms. Krause will provide a wealth of knowledge on GAO's research
done on this topic, as well as recommendations for both FAA and the
industry.
The space launches that will be discussed in this hearing occur at
various kinds of launch facilities--whether vertical or horizontal--and
are designed to meet different commercial needs--such as launching a
GPS satellite into GEO stationary orbit or a new telescope to explore
space.
With that in mind, this subcommittee must consider the depth and
breadth of the industry being regulated.
One perspective that must be heard is that of existing legacy
launch service providers. Their experience surrounding long standing
safety requirements and existing standards is extremely helpful in this
conversation.
That is why I am pleased to have Mr. Salvatore ``Tory'' Bruno,
President and CEO of United Launch Alliance (ULA) here today.
Mr. Bruno will be able to share insights as to the relationship
between ULA and the FAA, and what is needed for the future of the
commercial space industry.
I look forward to hearing more about what is needed from the FAA to
support effective, yet efficient launch and spaceport licensing is
vital to the success of the industry.
Also important in this discussion is what infrastructure
investments are needed to continue the safe operation and continued
growth of the commercial space industry.
I look forward to hearing from Mr. Frank DiBello, President and CEO
of Space Florida, for his evaluation of the present and future of FAA
launch and spaceport regulations.
FAA is still tasked with maintaining and safeguarding the NAS, in
addition to its work on commercial space launches.
Recent figures indicate that the airline industry and passenger
travel are rebounding from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screened 2 million
travelers at airport checkpoints on Friday, June 11--the most since
March 2020.
Consequently, it is important to ask how to fully and safely
integrate growing airspace operations, like commercial space launches,
with existing airspace users.
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) is a thought leader in this
area. I am glad to welcome Captain Joe DePete, President of ALPA, to
hear that perspective.
The perspective of new entrants into the commercial space
operations field also play a key role in this discussion.
Companies still in the prototyping or design phase of operations
view the regulatory landscape in a different light.
I am happy to welcome Mr. Mike Moses, President of Space Missions
and Safety of Virgin Galactic, to hear their unique priorities.
As nascent operations and technologies are integrated into the
complex national airspace system, the safety of all who fly and those
on the ground remain the top priority.
Congress, the Biden administration and the commercial space
industry and workforce must work together as we embark on the next
chapter of U.S. aerospace.
Thank you again to today's witnesses. I look forward to our
discussion.

Mr. Larsen. In the interests of time, because we have
votes, I will wait on discussing the second panel until we get
to the second panel.
And with that, I will now call on the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Garret Graves, for an opening statement.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Chair Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, and
I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, for many years, the commercial space
transportation industry more than earned the moniker
``nascent.'' In fact, in 2011, the FAA licensed only one single
commercial space launch, but in the past few years, it has been
transformative. Nearly half of the more than 400 space launches
licensed by the FAA have occurred since 2011. FAA now routinely
licenses one launch a week or more. Three American companies
will be taking passengers into space just this year, with a
fourth set to join next year. In 2011, there were just over
1,000 active satellites in orbit. Now there are more than
3,300.
What used to be a science project is now a thriving
transportation industry that transports passengers and hundreds
of billions of dollars' worth of cargo to and from space.
As this industry continues to advance, it is important that
we explore steps we should take to lay the foundation for the
next decade of growth. The committee's number one priority is
safety. While spaceflight is an inherently risky endeavor, we
all know that there is no future for commercial space
transportation unless launch vehicles are safe.
Although the FAA has a perfect public safety record for
commercial space launches, a statutory learning period has
restricted the issuance of launch vehicle crew and passenger
safety regulations. This period of time, much like the early
barnstorming days of aviation, has allowed time to work through
the complexities of commercial space transportation and develop
consensus standards.
After a slow start, the consensus standards work is
gathering momentum. This policy has been very successful in
promoting both growth and safety. The learning period expires
in September of 2023, and Congress will need to decide whether
to extend the learning period, let it lapse, or find an
alternative policy solution.
It is an important question, and I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses on this issue.
Adequate resources for the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, AST, and leveraging expertise of the private
sector are also important issues. While launch cadences have
increased by more than 400 percent over the last 5 years, AST
staffing has increased by only 15 percent.
General Monteith recently led AST through a reorganization,
and completely revamped the FAA's launch and reentry
regulations. We should take a hard look at ensuring AST is as
efficient as possible, that it has access to industry
expertise, and that FAA resources don't hold the commercial
space transportation industry back.
The increased launch cadences are also challenging our
limited airspace resources. We must ensure that the FAA
develops the tools and equipment necessary to safely integrate
commercial space transportation launches into our National
Airspace System.
But we cannot focus solely on the safety of our airspace at
launch; we must also consider its safety when the objects
return from space. That is why Chair Larsen and I recently
introduced the Aerospace Debris Safety Act, which directs the
FAA to establish a system to track reentering space debris,
block affected airspace, and warn aircraft when such debris may
pose a hazard. Even small satellites reentering the atmosphere
can create debris clouds through which aircraft may fly. The
bill also directs the DOT to provide space situational
awareness data and services to ensure commercial space
transportation safety on-orbit and to prevent the potential
catastrophic collisions of satellites and debris.
Just this weekend, the G7 recognized the growing issue of
space debris and the need for a collaborative approach for
space traffic management. Although some have proposed to place
these authorities in a different agency, I believe that the FAA
is the right agency for the job.
Finally, I am excited to announce I have reintroduced the
21st Century Aerospace Infrastructure Act, which provides
infrastructure improvement grants for commercial spaceports.
These grants will represent an important Federal contribution
to the capital needs of our national spaceport system and
leverage State, local, and private investment in these assets.
Addressing these issues and others is critical to ensuring
that we maintain our leadership in aerospace. I look forward to
continuing to work on bipartisan solutions to these questions.
[Mr. Graves of Louisiana's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Aviation
Thank you, Chair Larsen, and I also want to thank our witnesses for
being here today.
For many years, the commercial space transportation industry more
than earned the moniker of ``nascent.'' In fact, in 2011 the FAA
licensed only one single commercial space launch.
But the last few years have been transformative. Nearly half of the
more than 400 space launches licensed by the FAA have occurred since
2011. The FAA now routinely licenses a launch a week or more. Three
American companies will be taking passengers into space just this year,
with a fourth set to join them next year. In 2011, there were just over
1,000 active satellites in orbit; now there are more than 3,300.
What used to be a science project is now a thriving transportation
industry that transports passengers and hundreds of billions of
dollars' worth of cargo to, from, and within outer space. As this
industry continues to advance, it is important that we explore what
steps we should take to lay a foundation for the next decade of growth.
This Committee's number one priority is safety. While spaceflight
is an inherently risky endeavor, we all know that there is no future
for commercial space transportation unless launch vehicles are safe.
Although the FAA has a perfect public safety record for commercial
launches, a statutory learning period has restricted the issuance of
launch vehicle crew and passenger safety regulations. This period of
time, much like the early barnstorming days of aviation, has allowed
time to work through the complexities of commercial space
transportation and develop consensus standards.
After a slow start, the consensus standards work is gathering
momentum. This policy has been very successful in promoting both growth
and safety. The learning period expires in September 2023, and Congress
will need to decide whether to extend the learning period, let it
lapse, or find an alternative policy solution. This is an important
question, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this
issue.
Adequate resourcing of the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation (AST) and leveraging the expertise of the private sector
are also important issues. While launch cadences have increased by more
than 400 percent over the last 5 years, AST's staffing has increased by
only 15 percent.
General Monteith recently led AST through a reorganization and
completed a revamp of the FAA's launch and reentry regulations. We
should take a hard look at ensuring that AST is as efficient as
possible, that it has access to industry expertise, and that FAA
resources don't hold the commercial space transportation industry back.
The increased launch cadences are also challenging our limited
airspace resources. We must ensure that FAA develops the tools and
equipment necessary to safely integrate commercial space transportation
launches into our National Airspace System.
But we cannot focus solely on the safety of our airspace at launch;
we must also consider its safety when objects return from space. That
is why Chair Larsen and I recently introduced the Aerospace Debris
Safety Act, which directs the FAA to establish a system to track
reentering space debris, block affected airspace, and warn aircraft
when such debris may pose a hazard. Even small satellites reentering
the atmosphere can create debris clouds through which aircraft may fly.
The bill also directs the DOT to provide space situational awareness
data and services to ensure commercial space transportation safety on-
orbit and to prevent the potentially catastrophic collisions of
satellites and debris.
Just this weekend, the G7 recognized the growing issue of space
debris and the need for a collaborative approach for space traffic
management. Although some have proposed to place these authorities in a
different agency, I believe that the FAA is the right agency for the
job.
Finally, I'm excited to announce that I have reintroduced the 21st
Century Aerospace Infrastructure Act, which provides infrastructure
improvement grants to commercial spaceports. These grants will
represent an important Federal contribution to the capital needs of our
national spaceport system and leverage state, local, and private
investment in these assets.
Addressing these issues and others is critical to ensuring that we
maintain our leadership in aerospace. I look forward to continuing to
work on bipartisan solutions to these questions.

Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you again, Chairman Larsen,
and I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Ranking Member Graves.
Before I turn to the chair of the full committee, I would
ask unanimous consent that the written statement prepared by
the Commercial Spaceflight Federation be entered into the
hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Statement of Karina Drees, President, Commercial Spaceflight
Federation, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Rick Larsen
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
of the Committee, thank you for accepting the Commercial Spaceflight
Federation (CSF)'s submission of our members' views on the role of the
FAA in the future of the U.S. commercial space industry.
Founded in 2006, CSF is focused on laying the foundation for a
sustainable space economy and democratizing access to space for
scientists, students, civilians, and businesses. CSF members are
responsible for the creation of thousands of high-tech U.S. jobs driven
by billions of dollars in investment. Through the promotion of
technology innovation, CSF members are guiding the expansion of Earth's
economic sphere, bolstering U.S. leadership in aerospace, and inspiring
America's next generation of engineers, scientists, and explorers.
Commercial spaceflight is achieving the goals set for it by
bipartisan leaders in Congress and prior Presidential Administrations.
Those public servants had faith that American entrepreneurship and
ingenuity could succeed in dramatically improving the safety,
reliability, capability, and affordability of access to and return from
space.
In 2021 we can see that this faith was well-placed. Our industry
has reclaimed the overwhelming share of the global launch market. U.S.
spacecraft aboard U.S. launch vehicles successfully resupply the
International Space Station (ISS) with crew and cargo, filling a vacuum
left by the Space Shuttle fleet's retirement a decade ago.
New market entrants with smaller launch vehicle designs are
allowing climate-measuring and Earth observation spacecraft to
supplement NOAA and NASA scientific observatories to help us understand
and protect our environment. A range of new telecommunications
satellites are providing better and more affordable services, including
broadband for underserved and rural markets in the United States.
Scientific experiments built by middle-schoolers and by post-graduate
researchers are flying to the edge of space on suborbital reusable
vehicles. And the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's latest Mars lander was
able to flight-prove its approach and landing sensor package and
software using a reusable launch vehicle.
Notably, two decades after Dennis Tito's flight to the ISS and
nearly 17 years after Scaled Composites won the Ansari X-Prize, self-
funded citizen explorers will fly commercially to both Earth orbit and
on suborbital vehicles. The long-awaited era of personal spaceflight
has finally arrived.
These achievements were enabled by the stable legal and regulatory
regimes first put in place by Congress in the Commercial Space Launch
Act of 1984 (CSLA) and updated regularly thereafter. CSF, in fact,
recently published a white paper on the topic that elaborates on this
regime and why it should be continued so that the benefits of growth
and advancement in spaceflight can continue. But one core assumption of
the CSLA and U.S. space policy has always been that space
transportation, while being a nascent transportation mode, is
dramatically different and distinct from aviation.
I. Space Transportation is not Aviation
The first FAA Associate Administrator for Commercial Space
Transportation (AST), the late Patti Grace Smith, was fond of saying
that the FAA was one agency operating under two laws. The air side, or
Title 49, of FAA manages the system of airports and airspace, and of
course regulates all participants in aviation, from passengers to
pilots to operators with one Cessna and airlines with several hundred
jets. The much smaller space side of FAA, guided by Chapter 509 of
Title 51, ensures the safety of the uninvolved public and their
property, protects national policy goals, and enables industry growth
by providing guidance, licenses, experimental permits, and promotional
support including R&D.
Aviation is a common carrier industry with well over a century of
technological development and 95 years of federal safety regulation.
Much has changed since the dawn of aviation regulations, but the
industry's safety record continues to improve while providing Americans
with unprecedented mobility through safe, affordable travel.
Commercial space enjoyed its first licensed launch just three
decades ago. The industry's shift beyond government contractor status
was initiated a mere two decades ago, thanks in large part to the Air
Force and NASA procuring launch services, rather than owning and
operating the physical hardware.\1\ Today, new competing systems with
diverse technologies and capabilities are maturing and in development,
offering cheaper and faster access to space for both commercial
customers and taxpayer-funded federal users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This allowed industry to innovate far beyond the heritage of
ICBMs that became the first generation of expendable launch vehicles in
the late 1950s and 1960s and influenced designs into the 1990s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. How FAA can help the future of spaceflight
While aviation safety must continue to be the priority of FAA,
there are many additional public services that FAA leadership and the
Office of the Secretary can and should provide to continue the progress
of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry.
First and foremost is providing more resources to AST, both
increased funding and the authority to hire more high-talent staff. AST
employs a mere 100 of the 45,000 total FAA employees as it continues to
wrestle with the dramatic growth in licensed and permitted
spaceflights, and the need to simultaneously reform its public safety
and related regulations so they are clearer for industry to understand,
are technology-agnostic and performance-based instead of prescriptive,
and also more straightforward and efficient to administer. CSF
recommends an increase of nearly $5 million more than the FY2022
request to at least $37 million for AST Operations.
Second, DOT and FAA should provide AST with maximum flexibility in
hiring both entry-level and mid-career engineers in addition to other
technical experts who are fluent in the ``NewSpace'' paradigm of
iterative design, test, operation and evolution of space systems.
Furthermore, AST should be funded enough to enable a significant
fraction of its employees to spend up to a year in industry to better
understand the state of the art and its continuing advancement, or
otherwise undertake frequent extensive training, site visits, and other
enrichment opportunities regarding current industry technical practice.
AST staff must be able to confidently assess the public safety of
commercial space operations based on actual substance, and not rely
solely on paperwork compliance.
Third, the Secretary should be encouraged to make full use of the
authority granted by this subcommittee in the enacted FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 to expedite the formal aerospace rulemaking
process when appropriate and to work with both government and industry
partners through a variety of interactive, transparent, and
participatory mechanisms that are fully allowed under a broad
interpretation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The goal should
always be to try to create a consensus rulemaking to achieve the public
goal at stake, and only rely on an entirely formal process if informal
means fail. This is vital considering the need to streamline the
remaining 14 CFR 400 et seq. now that Part 450 has been published. A
significant amount of guidance documentation for Part 450 must be
produced to allow for flexible means of compliance of this and other
rules. There is no reason why industry cannot help AST draft that
guidance.
Fourth, FAA should heed the advice it requested from a prior
Aviation Rulemaking Committee regarding the issues around better
integrating more frequent launches from and reentries to more
geographic locations into its management of the National Airspace
System. Specifically, the aviation and space transportation industries
collectively told the FAA two years ago to invest in tools, which would
give En Route controllers real time information about a launch event,
including its dynamically changing hazard area, so they could steer air
traffic around that event, preserving both passenger safety and
efficient air and space operations. Unfortunately, the new FY2022 FAA
F&E request cuts this funding and delays any investment decision until
late next year. Correcting this should be a priority for Administrator
Dickson, rather than solely Mr. Monteith.
Fifth, the U.S. space industry is exceedingly dependent on
modernized infrastructure, particularly that which supports safe
operation and more frequent usage. Unlike the early decades of
aviation, when the Federal government provided significant funding for
the nation's emerging airspace system without charging corresponding
user fees, no such program exists for commercial space transportation,
and the burden of creating either public spaceports or private launch
and reentry sites has been borne entirely by industry and state-and-
local governments. There is an authorized program in law, but it needs
updating and actual appropriations, and we would appreciate this
committee's support of a strong appropriation in FY2022, or the
inclusion of space transportation infrastructure in the final
infrastructure legislation that provides resources to DOT and the FAA.
Sixth, the FAA should continue its technical support of industry's
development of consensus standards. Of the 89 recommended best
practices to improve safety, provided by the FAA as prescribed in the
2015 CSLA, industry will have published or be in the process of
drafting standards addressing a significant majority of those topics by
the end of 2021. Additionally, compared to other similarly young
industries, the commercial space industry is on par if not slightly
ahead when it comes to creating safety standards. CSF hopes that the
FAA can continue to help industry fashion standards as quickly and
thoroughly as possible.
III. Conclusion
This year promises to be yet another breakthrough in U.S.
commercial space transportation achievement. The future beyond looks
just as bright, with significant benefits for our economy, our
scientific, civil space, and environmental enterprises, and our
national security. Soon nearly anyone who really wants will be able to
fly themselves, an experiment, or a business idea into space. It is
CSF's mission to democratize access to space for everyone, and 2021
will be a seminal year in that vital endeavor.
appendix a
U.S. Regulation of Commercial Space Transportation
Introduction--the Commercial Space Launch Act
Summary:
The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 as amended (51 USC
50901 et seq) is the primary law guiding federal oversight, regulation,
and promotion of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. The
law mandates that the Secretary of Transportation ensure that all
launch and reentry activities shall protect public safety and safety of
property and support U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests, and that the Secretary shall issue licenses to U.S.
applicants who show that they do and will continue to meet those four
canonical requirements. The proven success of this law--a growing and
technologically dynamic U.S. industry with no public loss of life or
significant property loss after 340 licensed commercial launches--has
been recognized by other nation.
Background:
The first successful commercial launch took place in 1982, but the
attempt required obtaining permission from approximately 40 federal,
state, and local government organizations. Two years later Congress
enacted the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 to create an enabling
federal licensing regime under the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The law requires that the Secretary, or her designee, protect the
general public and their property, as well as ensure that the proposed
launch is consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests, but then mandates that any applicant who meets (and
continues to meet) those requirements shall be issued a license to
conduct a launch. The policy and regulatory framework are therefore
consciously promotional in character: it encourages Americans to risk
their money and sometimes their own personal safety to design, build,
and launch commercial rockets into space.
The CSLA has been amended several times since 1984: to create a
third-party liability risk-sharing regime, to cover intact reentries of
launch vehicles or spacecraft, to license reusable launch vehicles,
including reusable suborbital rockets, and to expressly authorize
commercial human spaceflight. Meanwhile, many nations around the world
have copied the U.S.' legal and regulatory framework to foster their
own domestic space transportation industries, validating America's
approach.
The Secretary's authority and responsibility was delegated by
administrative action to the Federal Aviation Administration in 1996,
resulting in the creation of an Office of the Associate Administrator
for Commercial Space Transportation, which acts on behalf of the
Secretary, but Congress has never affirmed this delegation in statute,
other than authorization and appropriation of funding.
Key Points:
The Commercial Space Launch Act as amended has enabled both
early commercial launch vehicles derived from government-led systems,
and now new generations of launch and reentry systems, including fully
reusable vehicles, to enter the marketplace because developers enjoyed
a stable, predictable, and reasonably transparent regulatory
environment. Given the technical and economic challenges in rocket
science, this bounding of regulatory risk (while still protecting
American citizens and interests from harm) gives entrepreneurs and
investors' confidence that they will get permission to fly.
Critical to the regulatory regime's enabling nature is its
exclusive focus on protecting the uninvolved public and their property,
as well as essential national policy interests (such as treaty
obligations). Commercial space transportation has never been regulated
with the goal of the success of the mission. Indeed, space
transportation continues to be seen as a dangerous and risky activity,
i.e., not a common carrier mode of transportation with an expectation
of safety and success for those who choose to participate in the
activity. Indeed, space transportation customers regularly buy
insurance to cover the cost of building and launching a replacement
payload. Market forces therefore reward more reliable (as well as more
economical) space transportation offerings. In the case of human
spaceflight, the law requires the fully informed consent of all
``spaceflight participants'', and expressly limits regulation for their
safety to demonstrated hazards, while enabling the Secretary to promote
higher levels of occupant safety via guidance and information-sharing.
The CSLA as a legal framework continues to enjoy broad
approval from industry and other stakeholders and bipartisan support in
Congress. While the law has been updated several times, its fundamental
approach has remained consistent for nearly four decades. Importantly,
the law has remained agnostic about technical approach, allowing for
significant innovation, new market entries, and robust industry
competition. The FAA's regulations, on the other hand, have come in for
more criticism, especially in recent years, for being overly
prescriptive and internally inconsistent. (See CSF white paper on
Streamlining Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements.)
appendix b
The Commercial Spaceflight Federation's (CSF) FY 2022 Transportation,
House and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations Priority Requests
Agency: Federal Aviation Administration
Account: Operations
Commercial Space Transportation

FY22 CSF Request: $37M / FY21 Enacted: $27.56M / FY22 PBR: $32.47M

Justification: FAA/AST continues to face a rapidly growing
workload, with an unprecedented number of licensed launches and
reentries, both by established firms and new market entrants. AST must
conduct public safety and related analyses of increasingly frequent and
more diverse launch and reentry activities even as it continues to
implement the newly published Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing
Requirements rulemaking (and careful transition of heritage launch/
reentry operators to that new regime), as well as carry out other
public-safety-related responsibilities. Finally, as industry continues
to innovate with new vehicle designs, component technologies, and
operating concepts, AST personnel would greatly benefit from more
direct exposure and training opportunities regarding industry state of
the art, using educational partnerships with industry and universities.
Requested Report Language: The Committee recommends an increase in
Commercial Space funding within FAA operations expressly for the
purpose of efficiently and expeditiously processing operator
applications for licenses and experimental permits to support the
increasing cadence of commercial space launches and reentries. The
Committee further recommends that the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation continue to focus on its public safety mission, instead
of planning for or pursuing uncertain future regulatory authorities.
Finally, the Committee directs the Office to use some of the increase
in funding above the President's request to provide its licensing staff
with a range of training opportunities in industry state of the art
technologies and practices.

Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grants

FY22 CSF Request: $60M / FY21 Enacted: $0 / FY22 PBR: N/A

Justification: While first authorized long ago, this program has
not been regularly funded in Presidential Requests, largely because
high matching requirements make it less attractive than other federally
funded transportation grant programs. But the growing number of diverse
space transportation companies entering the marketplace is already
taxing existing federal and non-federal infrastructure. It is hoped
that this appropriation will stimulate the Department to begin to meet
this growing national need to support commercial space transportation
activities, many of which are in direct service of DOD, NASA, and other
important federal customers.
Requested Bill Language: Sec. xxx. For the $60 million appropriated
within FAA Operations for the program authorized in 51USC511, the
Secretary may waive the limitations of section (b) of that chapter for
project grants only for launch or reentry operators and launch or
reentry site operators, and instead require that at least 10 per cent
of the total cost of the project will be paid by other sources.
Requested Report Language: The Committee recognizes that non-
federal spaceport infrastructure will require additional investment in
the coming years to match projected launch and reentry demand, and so
the Committee provides $60,000,000 for the STIM-grant program, which
was created to provide matching grants for infrastructure projects at
launch or reentry sites. Given the budget pressure on state and local
governments as well as private industry considering the COVID-19
pandemic, the Committee is proposing an Administrative Provision in the
bill to reduce the matching funds requirement to just 10% for Fiscal
Year 2022. This will enable federal funds to be used on space
transportation infrastructure projects which support the national
interest while also broadly supporting economic recovery.

Account: Facilities & Equipment
ATC En Route Programs--Commercial Space Integration

FY22 CSF Request: $16M / FY21 Enacted: $11M / $6.5M PBR

Justification: The FAA's Airspace Aviation Rulemaking Committee
report completed in 2019 strongly recommended that FAA implement
existing tools for sending real time hazard area information for a
launch or reentry event via ERAM to en route controllers, allowing them
to steer air traffic around the space transportation events and
minimizing disruption to both aviation and space transportation.
Unfortunately, so far, the NEXGEN organization has only implemented the
Space Data Integrator to provide basic launch/reentry vehicle data to
the FAA Command Center. The FY22 PBR indicates that FAA only plans to
make an investment decision about further tool implementation in June
of 2022, three years after the FAA's rulemaking committee told FAA to
focus on integrating hazard data into ERAM.
Requested Report Language: The Committee repeats its direction that
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation work with the NEXTGEN
program to accelerate the further demonstration and operational
approval of tools to transmit real time hazard area data to en route
flight controllers to allow for dynamic management of air traffic
around space launch and reentry activities and includes $15m for Real
Time Hazard Area Infusion.

Account: Research, Engineering, and Development
Research, Engineering, and Development

FY22 CSF Request: $6M / FY21 Enacted: $5.84M / FY22 PBR $5.75M

Justification: The FY2021 Conference Statement of Managers referred
to a need to begin preparing for a potential expiration of limits on
FAA's authority to regulate occupant safety, but this change is
speculative, and it would not mandate regulation. Importantly,
protecting the uninvolved public will remain a statutorily mandated
paramount priority for FAA licensing of all space transportation
activities. Furthermore, Congress directed in the Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015, and FAA agrees, that they should
first focus on promoting occupant safety by facilitating the
development of industry consensus standards based on the new design
features, innovative technologies, and operating practices of the
emergent commercial human space flight industry. The recommended
request below would invest directly in the consensus standards effort
identified by FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
as the agreed-on industry consensus choice for human spaceflight
standards-writing.
Requested Report Language: The Committee recommends that the Office
of Commercial Space Transportation focus its promotion of human
spaceflight occupant safety on supporting industry-led consensus
standards development efforts and directs the Office to use at least
$1m of its RE&D request for an innovative public-private partnership
for this purpose.

Mr. Larsen. With that, I will recognize the chair of the
full committee, Representative DeFazio of Oregon.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
ranking member for calling today's hearing to hear from the FAA
and stakeholders on the Government's regulation of industry in
the future of commercial space.
This is an important and growing sector, but there are
three main points that I hope we can move through and hear
meaningful conversation about during today's hearing. I want to
hear from each witness their view on these three things: The
imperative for better integration of launches and reentries
into the air traffic system; the significant need for
thoughtful regulation of this blooming largely unregulated
industry; and the commitment to reducing the environmental
damage associated with rocket launches.
We don't have any real recent statistics, but in December
of 2018, 1,400 commercial flights containing many thousands of
Americans were detoured 70,000 miles because of a launch. And
in the future, with more and more launches, I would expect that
we are going to see more and more delays. And I am not in favor
of telling people in America who are traveling for pleasure or
for work or family emergency, whatever reason they are on a
commercial airplane, ah, sorry, your flight is going to be
delayed, or, um, you are going to be 1\1/2\ hours late and miss
your connection because some millionaire/billionaire is going
to experience 15 minutes of weightlessness. That is not right,
and I want to see that that does not happen.
I will give the FAA credit for being conservative in
determining how much airspace to block off and how long. Safety
is never subject to negotiation and compromise, and the FAA has
rightly given these initial commercial space operations a wide
berth to protect the safety of aircraft and flight.
However, I understand that in May 2020, the FAA finally
published the long overdue ``Concept of Operations'' that
details the vision to better integrate launch and reentry
vehicles as they transition through the air traffic control
system. I further understand the FAA is working on a system
called the Space Data Integrator that will allow for more
narrowly tailored airspace closures and designations,
essentially real time, minimizing disruptions caused by
commercial space activity. I am going to expect an update on
that today, and I hope that the timeline is very short.
Second, it is time to end the FAA's dual mandate. I dealt
with this when I was first a member of this committee. I sat in
hearing after hearing and raised concerns about the idea that
the FAA was the regulator and also the promoter of commercial
aviation, something left over from the Civil Aeronautics Board,
left over from the dawn of the aviation era in the United
States.
I said, well, it is a mature industry, and I think it is a
problem that you are regulating and promoting. And witness
after witness from the FAA said, ah, no problem, no problem.
And then in the year of ValuJet, I tried again to strip out
the promotion authority. My amendment was not approved. Then we
were in conference. ValuJet went down. And I wasn't on the
conference because I was pre-junior, but I got a call saying,
hey, you know that amendment you had, that thing, where did we
put it in the bill?
And this was the old days. If it wasn't in our bill and it
wasn't in the Senate bill, you put it in the bill. And I said,
well, it is not conferenceable, it wasn't in either bill. And
they were, like, don't worry about that. And they stuck it in
the bill, and we stripped away their promotional authority.
I intend to soon introduce legislation to do that. NASA can
promote commercial space. The Commerce Department can promote
it, whomever. The private sector can promote it themselves. It
is not up to the FAA to promote commercial space and regulate
it at the same time in the interests of public health and
safety.
I also have a concern that Congress, with the agreement of
successive administrations and the industry, has prohibited the
FAA from regulating the design or operation of launch vehicles
to protect the health and safety of passengers. We had a
learning period, which was extended to 2023, and that means,
despite commercial human spaceflight and space tours and soon
expected to become emerging markets, the FAA's hands will be
tied. They won't be able to regulate for the safety of the
flying public. I even have serious concerns that some parts of
the industry are talking about yet another extension of the
moratorium.
And, then, finally, the issue of the environment. I want to
talk about black carbon, other environmental effects of rocket
launches. Black carbon is soot, primarily emitted from
kerosene-fueled rocket engines like SpaceX Falcon 9 or United
Launch Alliance's Atlas V, and can have a particularly
detrimental effect on the Earth's upper ozone layer. These
emissions remain in the stratosphere for 3 to 5 years, so the
destructive effects aren't short term. At the moment they are
only 1 percent of the depletion of the ozone. But the industry
is growing, and it is estimated to grow tenfold in the coming
years. So does that mean it will deplete 10 times as much of
the ozone layer?
And then also, commercial space launch vehicles emit a
stunning amount of carbon dioxide. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy
rocket burns 400 metric tons of kerosene and emits more carbon
dioxide in a few minutes than an average car would in two
centuries of driving.
Now, other vehicles are less intrusive on the environment
because they don't require rockets to leave the atmosphere. One
flight of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo launch, a vehicle
designed to launch customers to the low stratum of space, is
only expected to produce about the same amount of carbon
dioxide as for a business seat returning from London, and
Virgin Galactic's president of space missions and safety, Mr.
Mike Moses, is here today, so perhaps he can speak a little
more about the environmental advantages of this type of launch
vehicle.
But, more broadly, I want to hear from our industry
stakeholders on what the companies are doing to address the
environmental effects of space operations, because they have to
be addressed and anticipated in the future.
These are my chief concerns about the trajectory of this
growing industry, and I am really looking forward to this
hearing to enlighten us on a path forward on some of these
issues.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, for calling
today's hearing to hear from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
and stakeholders on the growing commercial space industry and the
government's regulation of that industry, or lack thereof.
I will make just three main points, and I would like to hear the
witnesses' views on each of these: the imperative for better
integration of launches and reentries into the air traffic system; the
significant need for thoughtful regulation of this blossoming, largely-
unregulated industry; and a commitment to reducing the environmental
damage associated with rocket launches.
First, I want to hear what the FAA and the industry are doing to
minimize the disruption to the air traffic system associated with
commercial space launches and reentries. In fiscal year 2017 alone, the
FAA re-routed 1,200 flights, adding in the aggregate 39,000 track miles
to their routes, just to accommodate the commercial space industry's
needs.
I will give the FAA credit for being so conservative when
determining how much airspace to block off and for how long. Of course,
safety is never subject to negotiation or compromise, and the FAA has
rightly given commercial space operations a wide berth to protect the
safety of aircraft in flight.
However, I understand that in May 2020, the FAA finally published
the long overdue ``concept of operations'' that details the vision to
better integrate launch and reentry vehicles as they transition through
the air traffic control system. I also understand that the FAA is
working on a system called the Space Data Integrator that will allow
for more narrowly tailored airspace closures and designations of hazard
areas, minimizing the disruptions caused by commercial space activity.
I would like an update from our government witnesses on the status of
deployment of those initiatives so we can ensure that millionaires and
billionaires flying to space for a photo-op in the future won't
inconvenience thousands if not millions of airline passengers.
Second, it's time to end the FAA's ``dual mandate'' of both
regulating and promoting the commercial space industry. It is an
anachronism, a paradox, and no serious safety regulator can regulate
and promote at the same time. A regulator regulates. The FAA used to
have a similar dual mandate to promote and regulate the airline
industry. I recognized for years that the FAA's promotion and
regulation of an industry could not coexist, and I tried for years to
convince my colleagues in Congress to repeal the promotion authority.
Tragically in 1996, ValuJet flight 592 went down in the Everglades, and
only after that horrible tragedy were my efforts vindicated, and I
championed a provision in the FAA reauthorization that year that ended
the dual mandate with respect to the aviation industry.
I intend to introduce legislation soon that ends the FAA's dual
mandate with respect to commercial space transportation. It's time for
the FAA to assume the role of a thoughtful, unbiased regulator, and
leave promotion of the industry to others.
I would also note that Congress, with the agreement of successive
presidential administrations and the industry, has prohibited the FAA
from regulating the design or operation of launch vehicles to protect
the health and safety of passengers and crew on board space vehicles.
In 2015, the moratorium--or ``learning period''--on FAA regulation was
extended to 2023. That means that despite commercial human spaceflight
and space tourism soon expected to become emerging markets, the FAA's
hands will be tied: the agency will be unable to fully regulate for the
safety of those who participate.
I have serious reservations and concerns about the discussion in
some parts of the industry to extend the moratorium yet again.
Finally, I want to talk about black carbon and other environmental
effects of rocket launches. Black carbon is soot primarily emitted from
kerosene-fueled rocket engines like SpaceX's Falcon 9 or United Launch
Alliance's Atlas V and can have particularly deleterious effects on the
earth's ozone layer. These emissions remain in the upper stratosphere
for 3 to 5 years, so the destructive effects aren't short-term.
Although I recognize that rocket launches are currently responsible
for only 1 percent of the total ozone depletion attributed to human
causes, each percentage point adds up, and the industry is growing and
by some estimates may expand by tenfold in the coming years.
Similarly, some commercial space launch vehicles emit a stunning
amount of carbon dioxide. For instance, a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket
burns about 400 metric tons of kerosene and emits more carbon dioxide
in a few minutes than an average car would in more than two centuries.
Other vehicles are less intrusive on the environment because they
don't require rockets to leave the atmosphere. For example, one flight
of a Virgin Galactic SpaceShip2 Launch--a vehicle that is designed to
launch customers to the low stratum of space--is expected to produce
the same amount of carbon dioxide as a business class seat returning
from London to New York on a commercial airliner. Virgin Galactic's
president of space missions and safety, Mr. Mike Moses, is with us
today, so perhaps he can speak more to the environmental advantages of
this type of launch vehicle.
More broadly, I want to hear today from our industry stakeholders
on what their companies are doing to address the environmental effects
of commercial space operations. Because those effects must be
addressed, and now.
These are my chief concerns about the trajectory of this growing
industry. It's time for the FAA to minimize the disruption caused by
launches and reentries, for the regulator to regulate, and for
Congress, the executive branch, and the industry to address the
measurable--and increasing--environmental effects of space launches.
Again, I thank Chair Larsen and Ranking Member Graves for holding
today's hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. DeFazio. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And I will welcome the witnesses of the first panel: Again,
Mr. Wayne Monteith, Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation at the FAA; and Ms. Heather Krause,
Director of Physical Infrastructure of the Government
Accountability Office. Thanks for joining us today, and we look
forward to your testimony.
And without objection, our witnesses' full statements will
be included in the record. Since that is the case, the
subcommittee requests you limit your oral testimony to 5
minutes.
I will first recognize Mr. Monteith for 5 minutes.
Mr. Monteith.

TESTIMONY OF WAYNE R. MONTEITH, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; AND HEATHER KRAUSE, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. Monteith. Thank you, sir.
Chair Larsen, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and
Ranking Member Graves, thank you for the opportunity to discuss
commercial space regulation.
What was once called the final frontier is now well within
our reach. We thank the committee for its willingness to usher
in this exciting sector of transportation that, quite frankly,
was almost unimaginable. The future is here, and with our focus
on safety and technology, we are indeed turning science fiction
into real science, albeit rocket science.
The commercial space transportation industry in the United
States is thriving at an unprecedented rate. The numbers are
clear and unambiguous. This year, we will see an increase in
licensed launches of over 400 percent in just the last 5 years.
What that really means is we have gone from averaging one FAA-
licensed launch about every 5 weeks to currently one launch
about every 5 days.
As regulators, our focus is on all aspects of this
burgeoning industry, but especially on safety. We view
ourselves as a gateway, not a hurdle, a conduit for safe
progress, not redtape that keeps progress sitting on the launch
pad.
In 2018, we started an intensive process to streamline our
launch reentry regulations so we could create an environment to
enable economic growth and innovation; minimize uncertainty;
protect safety, security, and foreign policy interests; and be
a leader in the commercial space transportation sector.
To these ends, we published the final rule to streamline
our primary launch and reentry regulations to a single
performance-based part to better fit today's fast evolving and
growing commercial space transportation industry. We are
currently developing and publishing advisory circulars to
provide operators with additional guidance on how to meet the
requirements of this new rule. This guidance includes safety
procedures and practices for minimizing hazards and enhancing
safety. Through these proactive efforts, we seek to put real
action to the Department's mission of developing the safest,
most efficient, and modern transportation system in the world.
And we continually analyze the regulatory needs of the
industry for both public safety and an optimized regulatory
framework. To that end, we are currently considering
regulations for orbital debris mitigation during launch and
reentry operations. This evaluation will include considerations
of the risk to people on the ground and inform the risk to
commercial aviation.
We are not alone in looking to the future. The Commercial
Space Transportation Advisory Committee, COMSTAC, has
recommended we specifically consider revising the rules
regarding financial responsibility, so we will take a hard look
at part 440.
This review will help ensure the public has the appropriate
protections while also evaluating whether or not the rule has
kept pace with industry. It will make sure the industry has
clarity and flexibility to achieve the regulatory performance
objectives without undue burden.
Spaceports are, in many ways, the front door to this
industry, and we want U.S. leadership in space and on the
ground. Without the proper infrastructure, commercial space
won't have the foundation to make the jump from being a great
idea to being the consistent, well-established mode of
transportation we all know it can be. Spaceports aren't just
for takeoffs and touchdowns. They are also economic and
technology hubs just waiting to become a success story.
We have taken action to share information broadly on the
capabilities of U.S. spaceports. Our web-based spaceport
directory outlines U.S. spaceport infrastructure and
capabilities and the services provided by FAA-licensed
spaceports, Federal launch ranges, and private commercial
spaceports. We are literally putting spaceports on the map.
The FAA also considers integrating commercial space
operations into the National Airspace System a top priority. We
are actively working on solutions to the issue of how
commercial space will continue to grow alongside commercial and
general aviation and drones. For example, we continue to
develop and implement the Space Data Integrator. This safety-
based technology, which will automate the current manual
processes, will enable the FAA to track, in real time, a space
mission's progress as it flies through the airspace. When
deployed, this technology will enable the FAA to better manage
the airspace that must be closed to other users, and more
quickly release airspace restrictions as a mission progresses;
in other words, fully integrating commercial space
transportation into the NAS.
In short, we are on the fast track to safely integrate
commercial space into the system while enabling continued U.S.
leadership in this transportation sector. We will continue to
assess our entire regulatory framework in light of the
industry's innovation and growth and look forward to working
with Congress and industry to strike the appropriate regulatory
balance; in other words, the right regulations of the right
scope at the right time.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my testimony, and I will be glad
to answer any questions from the committee.
[Mr. Monteith's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Wayne R. Monteith, Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
Chair Larsen, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Ranking Member
Graves, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
meet with you today to discuss the topic of commercial space
regulation. Commercial space activity is in the midst of a significant
surge. The growth of the industry presents new challenges and
opportunities as the technology evolves, and the number of industry
participants expands. The FAA is committed to keeping pace with the
growth of commercial space transportation, while prioritizing safety
and ensuring access for all users of the National Airspace System
(NAS).
Commercial Space Overview
The FAA, through the Office of Commercial Space Transportation
(AST), licenses and permits the launch and reentry of commercial space
vehicles consistent with public health and safety, safety of property,
and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States. The mission AST carries out includes the responsibility to
encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space
transportation. These statutory objectives provide a framework that has
resulted in an impressive safety record for a rapidly growing industry.
The FAA has licensed or permitted over 450 launches and reentries, none
of which has led to any fatalities, serious injuries, or significant
property damage to members of the public.
The commercial space industry in the United States is dynamic,
growing, and evolving. To illustrate recent growth, during each of the
fiscal years (FY) 2018 through 2020, the FAA licensed an average of
over 30 launches/reentries of commercial space vehicles. For FY 2021,
we have already licensed 48 launches/reentries and expect significant
growth in commercial launch activity beyond what we experienced over
the last several years. Or, put another way, a decade ago the FAA
licensed just a single launch in 2011. Five years ago, in 2016, the FAA
licensed 11 launches, or about one per month. This calendar year, the
FAA is averaging more than one licensed launch per week. As the
industry continues to expand, the FAA has intensified its efforts to
fulfill its commercial space mission, maintaining the highest level of
safety without stifling industry growth.
A Streamlined Commercial Space Regulatory Framework
In 2018, the FAA began its work to streamline launch and reentry
regulations to create an environment that promotes economic growth,
minimizes uncertainty, protects safety, security, and foreign policy
interests, and facilitates American leadership in space commerce. At
that time, the existing commercial space regulatory framework was based
largely on Federal launch standards that were developed in the 1990s or
earlier, and were often overly prescriptive and a hindrance to
innovation. Further, the rules were neither streamlined, nor
consolidated. That regulatory structure may have satisfied the
commercial space needs then, but the industry has changed substantially
and continues to evolve. After two and a half years of focused work,
the FAA published a final rule on December 10, 2020, that consolidated,
updated, and streamlined all launch and reentry regulations into a
single performance-based part--14 CFR part 450--to better fit today's
fast-evolving commercial space transportation industry.\1\ Part 450
includes regulations applicable to all launch and reentry vehicles,
whether they have reusable components or not--a change from the prior
framework. The updated regulations align with the goals of creating an
environment that does not hinder industry innovation and importantly,
enhances safety objectives without prescribing specific solutions. The
commercial space industry provided extensive input during the public
comment period for part 450, and we are pleased that initial reactions
to the rule have been consistently positive. Additionally, after the
rule was released, the FAA held a 3-day workshop and offered one-on-one
meetings with companies to familiarize them with the final rule. Each
operator who took advantage of these meetings conveyed that they were
pleased with the final rule and appreciated our outreach efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/10/2020-
22042/streamlined-launch-and-reentry-license-requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the launch and reentry regulations have been published for
several months and became effective on March 21, 2021, our engagement
with industry on the requirements of the rules continues. AST has
issued some advisory circulars to provide additional guidance on how to
meet the requirements of part 450, and is developing more. We continue
to engage with operators on specific aspects of part 450 compliance
during pre-application consultations. Many of the advisory circulars
that we anticipate issuing will provide detailed guidance for the
industry on recommended safety procedures and practices for minimizing
hazards. We expect that there will be launches licensed under part 450
in the near future.
Other Regulatory Considerations
We are constantly analyzing the regulatory needs of the industry
for both public safety reasons and to ensure that the commercial space
regulatory framework is performance-based and does not inhibit the
health and success of the industry. In support of that effort, the FAA
is revising the regulations applicable to orbital debris mitigation for
launch and reentry operations. As part of this work, we are evaluating
appropriate national and international standards for orbital debris
mitigation including evaluating the safety risks of uncontrolled
reentries of space objects. These evaluations will include
considerations of the risks to both commercial aviation and people on
the ground.
Additionally, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory
Committee (COMSTAC) has recommended that part 440--Financial
Responsibility--be reviewed and considered for revision. As part of our
continuous review of the sufficiency of our commercial space
regulations, we anticipate that a comprehensive analysis of this part
would ensure that the right regulations with the right scope are in
effect at the right time. Such a review would help to ensure that the
public has the appropriate protections and that industry has clarity
and flexibility to achieve the regulatory performance objectives
without unnecessary burdens.
Part of AST's responsibility is also to monitor commercial space
transportation licensees to ensure they adhere to the conditions of
their licenses and comply with the applicable regulatory and statutory
requirements. In this regard, the FAA has broad authority to suspend or
revoke a license, and impose civil penalties if necessary. The FAA
takes our oversight responsibilities seriously to ensure licensees are
in full compliance.
Office of Spaceports
Keeping up with an industry that is evolving rapidly is a
challenge. The pace at which the commercial space industry continues to
change has resulted in an increase in both the complexity and the
volume of the workload for AST. Some of that complexity has required us
to make structural changes to better execute our mission. As this
Committee knows, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 required us to
identify within AST a centralized policy office to support launch and
reentry sites and to generally support improvement of spaceports. In
response to that mandate, the Office of Spaceports was officially
established in March 2020, and is functioning today. AST is committed
to removing barriers to competitiveness for spaceports and to helping
ensure that the United States leads the world in space infrastructure.
The operation of the first non-Federal spaceport was licensed by the
FAA in 1994, and there are currently 12 non-Federal spaceports across
the United States licensed for launch or reentry operations. A
spaceport license is valid for 5 years and is renewable. While the FAA
considers many factors when reviewing an application for a spaceport
license, two of the most important are public safety and environmental
impact. The FAA carries out a thorough and rigorous application review
process to make sure we issue a license consistent with our mandate to
protect public health and safety, safety of property, and the foreign
policy and national security interests of the United States.
We recognize that spaceports have significant potential to become
important economic hubs. For example, of the 47 FAA licensed launches
this fiscal year, six have occurred at FAA licensed spaceports. As a
result, the Office of Spaceports has taken action to share information
on the capabilities of U.S. spaceports broadly. For example, in October
2020, we published a web-based spaceport directory outlining U.S.
spaceport infrastructure and capabilities and the services provided by
FAA licensed spaceports, Federal launch ranges, and private commercial
spaceports. This directory documents the capabilities of our nation's
network of spaceports for the commercial space transportation industry,
as well as U.S. government space users, and may help to serve as a tool
for the Office of Spaceports to identify future needs.
The Office of Spaceports is putting spaceports on the map.
Spaceports or ``Space Launch Activity Areas'' are denoted as rocket
symbols on aeronautical sectional charts increasing aviator awareness
of launch or reentry activities in their area. The Office of Spaceports
is also in the process of publishing additional instructional
information about Space Launch Activity Areas in the FAA Airman's
Information Manual that will encourage aviators to check notices to
airmen in these areas for additional launch or reentry specific
information. These efforts help to integrate space and aviation
activities and increase overall safety of the NAS.
The Office of Spaceports also facilitates FAA review and approval
of space-related activities at FAA licensed spaceports to enable a
stronger commercial space transportation industry. These activities
include rocket engine testing, flight corridor development for
supersonic, hypersonic, and suborbital space activities, and beta
testing of new space launch platforms for future use by the commercial
space transportation industry. Further, the Office of Spaceports works
to facilitate commercial support for launches from Federal launch
locations. Finally, the Office of Spaceports is evaluating whether the
FAA's spaceport regulations (part 420 and 433) for launch and reentry
sites should also be updated.
Integration of Commercial Space into the NAS
Of the many challenges AST faces, integration of commercial space
into the NAS is a top priority. Commercial space operations are
currently treated as ``special cases'' in which air traffic controllers
block off large sections of airspace for extended periods of time for a
single launch. Although this process is currently manageable, it is
unsustainable in the long run given the expected growth in commercial
space launches. Moreover, the current process, while effective, is
resource intensive and inefficient. Launch teams voluntarily provide
real-time information concerning the status of a launch or reentry
vehicle either over the telephone or over an internet connection. Under
these limitations, launch teams can only support one mission at a time.
In AST, we are actively working on solutions to address how
commercial space will grow within the NAS alongside commercial and
general aviation. Our vision of spaceport operations is that they
should be able to operate either co-located with airports or in close
proximity to them. To this end, we are working on multiple initiatives.
We worked with the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic
City, New Jersey to build the agency's first dedicated commercial space
integration lab for developing and prototyping technologies that will
be leveraged towards enhancing commercial space operation awareness to
better manage the NAS. Additionally, AST continues its work with the
FAA's Air Traffic Organization on the Space Data Integrator technology.
This safety-based technology, which will automate the current manual
processes, will enable the FAA to track a space mission's progress as
it flies through the airspace. When deployed, this technology will
enable the FAA to better manage the airspace that must be closed to
other users and more quickly implement and release airspace
restrictions as a mission progresses. At the FAA, we recognize that our
role is not just limited to the safety of the airspace--but to ensure
equal access to it as well. We are fully engaged in balancing the needs
of all airspace users--including traditional manned aircraft, drones,
commercial space transportation, and others.
Conclusion
In closing, the FAA is committed to effectively carrying out its
responsibilities for public safety and the health of the commercial
space transportation industry. We will continue to assess our entire
regulatory framework in light of the industry's growth and look forward
to working with Congress and industry to strike the appropriate
balance. This concludes my testimony, and I will be glad to answer any
questions from the Committee.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Monteith.
The Chair will now recognize Ms. Krause from the GAO for 5
minutes.
Ms. Krause. Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Members Graves and Graves, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss today's commercial
space transportation industry and FAA's role.
Since FAA first assumed regulatory responsibility in 1995,
this industry has experienced substantial growth, especially in
the more recent years. Over time, commercial launch providers
have made hundreds of launches involving carrying astronauts
and supplies to and from the International Space Station, and
delivering thousands of satellites that support global
television, high-speed internet, weather forecasts, and much
more.
In 2020, FAA oversaw a record number of launches and
reentries. These operations are forecasted to grow as new space
applications emerge, such as human space tourism, and demand
continues to increase for services that depend on space
transportation.
My testimony today is based on our work since 2006 on FAA's
efforts to respond to the changing commercial space
transportation environment. It focuses on three areas: One,
FAA's efforts to update regulations; two, challenges FAA faces
regulating an industry that continues to grow and evolve; and,
three, steps FAA has taken to help ensure it is positioned to
respond to industry changes.
First, industry developments have necessitated that FAA
review and update its regulations. Most recently, FAA focused
on its launch and reentry licensing regulations, consolidating
multiple regulations and replacing prescriptive requirements
with a performance-based regulatory framework to help better
accommodate industry changes. Given that focus, FAA placed on
hold revisions to other regulations, including those related to
site operator licensing, which has been in place since 2000,
and financial responsibility, which ensures a balance of risk
between the Federal Government and launch companies, and
contain key elements not updated since 1988. FAA plans to
prioritize and review these regulations following its licensing
efforts, which aligns with the recommended priorities of its
industry advisory committee.
As FAA adapts its regulations, it also faces ongoing
oversight challenges. One key challenge we previously
identified is whether and when to regulate the safety of crew
and spaceflight participants. While companies have announced
plans to take tourists to space within the next several years,
FAA is prohibited by statute from regulating current passenger
safety before 2023, except in response to events that caused or
posed a risk with serious or fatal injury.
In its February 2019 report to Congress, FAA concluded that
no commercial human spaceflight activities had advanced to a
stage that would necessitate a new safety framework. However,
in anticipation of the moratorium expiring, FAA has taken some
steps, including working with industry, to develop and
disseminate human spaceflight best practices.
In addition, the rise of space tourism may require
reexamination of FAA's dual role of overseeing the safety of
commercial space launches and promoting the industry. A 2008
statutorily mandated report concluded that there was no
compelling reason to remove FAA's promotional role through
2012, but recommended that DOT periodically review its dual
role, specifically for safety and promotion of human
spaceflight. Given the time passed since the last examination
and the moratorium on regulating spaceflight safety is due to
expire, such a review may be warranted.
Finally, FAA has taken some steps to help the agency keep
pace with industry changes. For example, in response to
recommendations we made in 2015 and 2019, FAA assessed its
workforce to identify skills and competencies that are needed
and is improving its workload projections to better account for
the full range of its regulatory activities. Such efforts are
critical for ensuring FAA strategically aligns its workforce
with evolving industry demands.
FAA has also made progress in developing procedures,
technologies, and industry coordination to reduce
inefficiencies and safely integrating commercial space users
into the National Airspace System. These efforts are promising,
but full and efficient integration of all users of the National
Airspace System is years away and will require continued work
and focus.
In closing, the commercial space transportation industry
provides services that are essential to many aspects of
Government, business, and society, and these services are
expected to increase. FAA's role is fundamental to the
continued safe growth of the industry. It is critical for FAA
to maintain progress, and ensure its efforts anticipate and
respond to industry changes.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to answering
your questions.
[Ms. Krause's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Heather Krause, Director, Physical
Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Commercial Space Transportation
faa continues to update regulations and faces challenges to overseeing
an evolving industry
What GAO Found
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently updated and
streamlined its launch and reentry licensing regulations but has made
less progress on other key commercial space transportation regulations.
The new licensing regulations, issued in December 2020, replaced
prescriptive requirements--in which a certain technology or action was
required--with a performance-based regulatory framework, which provides
applicants flexibility in how they achieve required outcomes, such as a
specific level of safety. Given its focus on the licensing regulations,
FAA placed on hold revisions to other regulations governing commercial
space transportation--revisions which, according to FAA officials, are
warranted given the industry's evolution. For example, FAA has not yet
begun to revise its financial responsibility regulations, which require
launch companies conducting FAA-licensed launches to purchase insurance
to cover damage to third parties in case of a launch mishap. According
to FAA officials, revising these regulations is their next planned
rulemaking and when finalized, will respond to GAO's recommendations to
improve FAA's methodologies for evaluating and calculating potential
third-party losses from launch and reentry mishaps and help ensure the
federal government is not exposed to greater liability than expected.
FAA also faces ongoing challenges regulating an evolving industry.
In particular, as GAO previously reported, FAA continues to face the
challenge of whether and when to regulate the safety of crew and
spaceflight participants. While some companies have announced plans to
take tourists to space within the next several years, FAA is prohibited
by statute from regulating crew and passenger safety before 2023,
except in response to events that caused or posed a risk of serious or
fatal injury. However, FAA has taken some steps in anticipation of the
expiration of the statutory moratorium, such as working with its
industry advisory committee to develop and disseminate human
spaceflight best practices.
FAA also has taken some steps to help the agency keep pace with
changes in the industry. For example, in response to recommendations
GAO made in 2019, FAA recently assessed its workforce to identify
skills and competencies that are needed among its workforce and is
working to improve its workload projections to better account for the
full range of its regulatory activities and the timeline of its
licensing process. Such efforts are critical for ensuring FAA can
better anticipate and respond to the growing and evolving commercial
space industry and FAA's emerging workforce needs.
__________
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on developments in
the commercial space transportation industry and the Federal Aviation
Administration's (FAA) oversight. Since 1995, when FAA first assumed
regulatory responsibility for commercial launch companies and operators
of launch sites, the industry has experienced substantial growth and
evolution.\1\ Over the years, commercial launch providers have made
more than 400 launches and reentries carrying astronauts and supplies
to and from the International Space Station and delivering thousands of
satellites to space that support global television, high-speed
Internet, weather forecasts, and much more. Globally, commercial launch
providers generated an estimated $5 billion in revenue in 2019, up from
about $2.4 billion in 2012. FAA has licensed an increasing number of
launches since 2015--an average increase of 41 percent year-over-year
as of December 2020.\2\ In addition, FAA reports that the number of
unique commercial launch providers holding, modifying, or potentially
seeking an FAA license has increased from 23 in August 2015 to 39 in
June 2021. FAA and the commercial space transportation industry itself
forecast continued growth and evolution as new space applications
continue to emerge, such as human space tourism, and demand continues
to increase for large constellations of small satellites that depend on
space transportation services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-575, 98
Stat. 3055, established commercial space launch responsibilities with
the Department of Transportation, which were subsequently transferred
to FAA.
\2\ According to FAA officials and several industry stakeholders,
the on-going Coronavirus 2019 global pandemic has had minimal effect on
the commercial space transportation industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today focuses on (1) FAA's efforts to update
regulations governing commercial space transportation, (2) challenges
FAA faces regulating an industry that continues to grow and evolve, and
(3) steps FAA has taken to help ensure it is positioned to meet the
needs of the evolving industry. This statement is based largely on our
work since 2006 on industry developments and challenges faced by
FAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, for example, GAO, Commercial Space Launches: FAA Needs
Continued Planning and Monitoring to Oversee the Safety of the Emerging
Space Tourism Industry, GAO-07-16 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2006);
Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Launch Industry
Developments Present Multiple Challenges, GAO-15-706 (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 25, 2015); Commercial Space Launch Insurance: FAA Needs to Fully
Address Mandated Requirements, GAO-18-57 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16,
2018); and Commercial Space Transportation: Improvements to FAA's
Workforce Planning Needed to Prepare for the Industry's Anticipated
Growth, GAO-19-437 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conduct our prior work, we reviewed relevant statutes and
regulations. We also reviewed FAA documents on its oversight of the
commercial space transportation industry and interviewed officials from
the responsible FAA organizations, most notably the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST). In addition, we interviewed a
range of industry stakeholders to discuss the industry's growth and
evolution, as well as to obtain their perspectives on FAA's oversight.
More detailed information on our objectives, scope, and methodology can
be found in each of the reports.
For this statement, in June 2021, we interviewed FAA officials
about recent FAA actions, including those to address the
recommendations in our prior reports, as well as developments in the
industry. We also reviewed applicable FAA regulations and documents
produced by FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC)--a group of industry members and others who provide FAA with
information, advice, and recommendations related to commercial space
transportation.
We conducted the work on which this testimony is based in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on audit objectives. We believe the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
Space transportation is the movement of objects, such as satellites
and vehicles carrying cargo, scientific payloads, or passengers, to or
from space. In the United States, commercial space transportation is
carried out using orbital and suborbital launch vehicles owned and
operated by private companies referred to as commercial launch
providers.\4\ A site operator is the entity that hosts the launch (or
reentry, or both) of the launch vehicle from its launch site. Almost
all launch site operators are either commercial launch providers or
state or municipal government entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Orbital launch vehicles are those launched with enough velocity
to achieve orbit around the Earth. Suborbital launch vehicles are those
that reach space but do not have sufficient velocity to achieve orbit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Within FAA, AST is responsible for regulating the U.S. commercial
space transportation industry to oversee and coordinate the conduct of
commercial launch and reentry operations, and to protect the public
health and safety, safety of property, and national security and
foreign policy interests of the United States. AST conducts its
oversight mainly by licensing or permitting commercial launch and
reentry vehicle operations and non-federal launch sites, as well as
conducting safety inspections of licensed launch providers and site
operators. AST is also charged with encouraging, facilitating, and
promoting the industry.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 401.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, to assist in the development of the commercial space
launch industry, the federal government shares liability risks for
losses from damages to third parties or federal property. AST is
responsible for determining maximum probable loss (MPL), which is the
greatest dollar amount of loss for bodily injury or property damage
that is reasonably expected to result from a licensed or permitted
activity. This MPL determination forms the basis for financial
responsibility requirements AST issues in a license or permit order.\6\
The federal government is potentially liable for damages above the MPL,
subject to appropriation, up to $3.36 billion in 2021 (the equivalent
to $1.5 billion in 1988).\7\ Anything above this amount is the
responsibility of the launch or reentry licensee, which may seek
additional insurance but is not required to under federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As part of a launch license, FAA requires launch companies to
purchase insurance to cover losses to third parties or damage or loss
to U.S. government property in the event of a commercial launch or
reentry accident. 51 U.S.C Sec. 50914; 14 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 440.5,
440.9. FAA calculates the insurance amount to reflect the maximum
probable loss that is reasonably expected to occur because of a mishap
that results in (1) third-party damage, including deaths and injuries
on the ground and damage to property caused by anything that resulted
from a launch or reentry, and (2) damage to government property. 14
C.F.R.Sec. 440.7.
\7\ Since 1988, the federal government has sought to assist in the
development of the commercial space launch industry by sharing
liability risks for accidents leading to damages to third parties or
federal property and personnel. This risk-sharing arrangement requires
that commercial launch providers purchase insurance against claims by
third parties and for loss or damage to federal property and personnel
up to a maximum probable loss (MPL) amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AST's workforce size and operations budget has increased over
recent years (about 34 percent and 66 percent, respectively, since
2016) to help accommodate growth in the industry and AST's workload
(see table 1). DOT is also requesting an increase of almost $5 million
for AST's FY2022 operations budget to support the anticipated growth
within the commercial space transportation industry.

Table 1: Office of Commercial Space Transportation Staffing and
Operations Budget Fiscal Years 2015-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations
Fiscal year Full time budget (in
permanent millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015........................................... 81 $16.61
2016........................................... 106 $17.80
2017........................................... 106 $19.83
2018........................................... 97 $19.70
2019........................................... 108 $24.95
2020........................................... 108 $26.04
2021........................................... 109 $27.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\Source: GAO presentation of Federal Aviation Administration data / GAO-
21-105268

Industry Trends
In addition to the increasing number and frequency of launch and
reentry operations, industry developments, according to FAA officials,
necessitate that FAA amend its regulations and adjust its workforce
skills and competencies. For example, more commercial providers are
introducing reusable elements into the design of their vehicles where
one part or all of the launch vehicle returns to a runway or landing
pad. AST found that these new vehicles rendered some parts of its
regulations on reusable launch vehicles-originally established in 2000-
obsolete, and required revisions to portions of its launch vehicle
licensing regulations.\8\ In addition, companies are developing new
technologies, such as autonomous flight safety systems, which allow the
flight of a launch vehicle that is off course to be aborted \9\ without
humans taking action, and new launch vehicle propulsion systems, which,
according to FAA officials, require specific AST workforce skills or
expertise to evaluate certain launch license applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 14 C.F.R. pt. 431 addresses the requirements for obtaining a
reusable launch vehicle mission license. The FAA amended its
regulations to establish these operational requirements in November,
2000. Commercial Space Transportation Reusable Launch Vehicle and
Reentry Licensing Regulations, 65 Fed. Reg. 56,618 (Sept. 19, 2000).
\9\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. 401.7 states that ``[f]light abort means the
process to limit or restrict the hazards to public safety, and the
safety of property, presented by a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle,
including any payload, while in flight by initiating and accomplishing
a controlled ending to vehicle flight.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have previously reported that commercial launch providers have
also been testing reusable suborbital launch vehicles intended for
human space tourism, which are now expected to launch soon.\10\ These
vehicles include horizontal hybrid suborbital launch vehicles, such as
Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, and vertical reusable suborbital launch
vehicles, such as Blue Origin's New Shepard. Blue Origin recently
announced that its first flight with a commercial customer is scheduled
for July 2021, and Virgin Galactic is planning to launch its first
commercial customers in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In May 2020, for the first time since NASA's space shuttle was
retired in 2011, astronauts were launched from U.S. soil to the
International Space Station. While not an FAA-licensed launch, NASA
coordinated with FAA. NASA also has plans to partner with a private
launch company to fly tourists to the International Space Station
planned for later 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the number of launches and reentries continues to grow, the
number of operators of launch and reentry sites that FAA has licensed
to host commercial launches has also increased. In 2006, FAA had
licensed six launch site operators. By December 2020, FAA had licensed
site operators for 12 U.S. launch sites, with nine additional entities
seeking licenses for 11 prospective U.S. launch sites. As we reported
in 2020, despite the increase in the number of licensed site operators,
the majority of FAA-licensed commercial launch operations take place at
seven sites that do not require an FAA site operator license; that is,
at exclusive-use launch sites where a single company conducts launches
either at its privately owned and operated site or at an exclusive-use
launch complex that is on or co-located with a federal range. FAA
officials told us that exclusive-use launch sites do not require a site
operator license, as public safety requirements are met through that
single launch provider's launch license.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO, Commercial Space Transportation: FAA Should Examine a
Range of Options to Support U.S. Launch Infrastructure, GAO-21-154
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Recently Streamlined Its Launch and Reentry Regulations but Less
Progress Has Been Made on Other Key Commercial Space Transportation
Regulations
FAA Issued a Final Rule for Launch and Reentry Licensing in December
2020
In response to a May 2018 Presidential Directive,\12\ AST
accelerated its approach to updating its launch and reentry licensing
regulations and issued a final rule in December 2020 that streamlined
those regulations in two key ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In May 2018, a Presidential Directive was issued that
addressed both the timing and content of FAA's regulatory updates. The
directive contained a deadline to publish a proposed regulation for
public comment by February 1, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule consolidated multiple regulatory parts to create a
single licensing regime for all types of commercial space flight launch
and reentry operations.
The rule replaced prescriptive requirements--in which a
certain technology or action is required--with a performance-based
regulatory framework, which provides applicants flexibility in how they
achieve required outcomes, such as a specific level of safety.

With few exceptions the final rule's requirements are in
effect,\13\ though FAA is still finalizing most of its guidance
materials, the purpose of which is to provide transparency and help
licensing applicants understand the new requirements. As of June 8,
2021, all new applicants for a launch or reentry license will be
required to meet the requirements in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Streamlined Launch and Reentry License Requirements, 86 Fed.
Reg. 13,448 (Mar. 9, 2021). Companies holding an active launch or
reentry license at the time the final rule was issued will be
considered in compliance with the rule and may continue to operate
until their current license expires, for up to 5 years from the
effective date of the rule. Streamlined Launch and Reentry License
Requirements, 85 Fed. Reg. 79,566, 79,569 (Dec. 10, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 2021, AST had held some industry workshops on the new
requirements and had finalized three of the nearly two dozen total
advisory circulars (i.e., guidance documents) that it plans to issue by
the end of 2022.\14\ FAA officials told us that they also meet
individually with license applicants to provide guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In June 2021, FAA officials told us that 10 advisory circulars
are undergoing internal review and that they plan to issue them in
September 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Has Plans to Update Other Key Commercial Space Transportation
Regulations
Financial Responsibility Regulations
To date, FAA has made little progress in improving its methodology
for calculating potential third-party losses from launch and reentry
mishaps and updating its related financial responsibility
regulations.\15\ The federal government's shared liability risk for
licensed operations is an important element to promote the commercial
space launch industry as the government bears a portion of the risk for
third-party damages and losses to government property and government
personnel resulting from potential space launch accidents. In 2012, we
made one recommendation for FAA to address weaknesses in that
methodology, which FAA subsequently addressed.\16\ However, subsequent
recommendations we made related to the methodology have not been
addressed. In November 2015, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act (CSLCA) was enacted, which required FAA to evaluate
its MPL methodology and report the results of that evaluation to two
committees of Congress.\17\ In 2017, we reported that FAA had not
updated the value the MPL assigned to a casualty--a key component of
the MPL methodology--since 1988, and recommended FAA do so, which the
agency has yet to address.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 14 C.F.R. pt 440 establishes financial responsibility and
allocation of risk requirements for any launch or reentry authorized by
a license or permit issued by FAA.
\16\ GAO, Commercial Space Launches: FAA Should Update How It
Assesses Federal Liability Risk, GAO-12-899 (Washington, D.C., Jul. 30,
2012).
\17\ U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Pub. L. No.
114-90, Sec. 102(b), 129 Stat. 704, 705 (2015).
\18\ GAO, Commercial Space Launch Insurance: Weakness in FAA's
Insurance Calculation May Expose the Federal Government to Excess Risk,
GAO-17-366 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, we again reported on several weaknesses in FAA's
evaluation and MPL methodology and made four additional recommendations
to FAA to address these weaknesses.\19\ For example, we found that FAA
had not updated or reviewed the appropriateness of the probability
threshold that determines the balance of risk between launch providers
and the federal government since the 1990s. As of June 2021, FAA has
not yet addressed our recommendations. By not resolving these issues,
FAA lacks assurance that launch companies are purchasing the
appropriate amount of insurance and that the federal government is not
exposed to greater liability than expected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO-18-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA continues to postpone its efforts to address these issues while
it focuses its resources on its streamlined launch and reentry
licensing rulemaking. While FAA agreed with our recommendations in 2017
and 2018, FAA officials told us in June 2021 that to fully address the
recommendations they need to undertake a financial responsibility
rulemaking. FAA officials said updating the financial responsibility
regulations is the next new rulemaking effort they plan to begin. This
approach is consistent with COMSTAC's recommendation that FAA
prioritize supporting the industry's transition to, and compliance
with, the streamlined launch and reentry licensing regulations first,
followed by updating the regulations governing financial
responsibility. FAA tasked COMSTAC with recommending improvements to
the financial responsibility regulations by fall 2021.
Launch Site Operator Licensing Regulations
FAA officials told us in December 2020 that they recognize that the
site operator licensing regulations,\20\ which have been in place since
2000, need to be reviewed and potentially amended to ensure that they
are appropriate for the current state of the commercial space
transportation industry.\21\ We also reported at that time that
industry stakeholders had differing views on FAA's existing launch site
operator licensing regulations. For instance, some stakeholders told us
that FAA was using its limited resources to review license applications
for sites that may not be desirable to current launch providers because
the proposed sites were too close to populated areas, which could
result in higher MPLs and make the launches more expensive than at
other sites. Other stakeholders disagreed, stating that sites with FAA-
licensed operators not currently hosting launches may nonetheless be
suitable for future operations, such as human transportation, depending
on the market's evolution. An industry rulemaking committee convened by
FAA also raised concerns that the site operator licensing regulations
do not adequately consider a site's proximity to congested airspace or
noise effects on communities.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 14 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 420, 433.
\21\ GAO-21-154.
\22\ In December 2020, we reviewed issues related to space
transportation infrastructure and made a recommendation that FAA should
examine a range of potential options to support space transportation
infrastructure and that this examination include a discussion of trade-
offs. GAO-21-154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA officials in June 2021 confirmed that they plan to initiate the
site operator licensing rulemaking after they complete their efforts
related to the streamlined launch and reentry licensing rulemaking and
update the financial responsibility regulations, which aligns with
COMSTAC's recommended rulemaking priorities for FAA.
Orbital Debris Mitigation Regulations
In 2013, FAA began efforts to revise its launch and reentry
licensing regulations governing the steps a launch provider must take
to prevent launch vehicle stages that are ``expended'' or discharged
from the vehicle as it gains altitude and speed from generating
dangerous orbital debris. FAA officials told us they put this effort on
hold when they began working with other agencies to update the U.S.
Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices, which they
completed in 2019. FAA officials told us they plan to align their own
regulations with those practices under a separate rule to be finalized
in the next few years.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ While FAA regulates the mitigation of orbital debris for
launch vehicles and intact re-entry, many stakeholders have recently
raised concerns about potential orbital debris from growing
constellations of small satellites and that the U.S. approach to
tracking increasing numbers of satellites and other space objects is
limited in its ability to address current and future risks, such as
catastrophic collisions. For instance, while 52 small satellites were
launched globally in 2012, 389 were launched in 2019, increasing the
potential of a satellite to collide with another space object and
create debris. The Federal Communications Commission and the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration also possess regulatory authority to
mitigate such debris for non-government entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Faces Ongoing Challenges Regulating an Evolving Industry
Compliance Oversight and Enforcement Approaches
Industry growth may present challenges to AST's approach to
overseeing compliance and enforcement. AST oversees launch and reentry
operators' compliance with applicable laws, including licensing
regulations, and the terms of the license or permit. It does so mainly
through safety inspections before, during, and after FAA-regulated
operations that can impact public safety and the safety of property. In
2015, FAA shifted its agency-wide enforcement policy to emphasize
collaboration with industry participants and use of compliance actions,
such as counseling or training, to address violations.\24\ AST is also
party to a 2000 memorandum of agreement with the National
Transportation and Safety Board and a 2021 memorandum of agreement with
NASA, both covering issues related to public and human spaceflight
safety for commercial space transportation activities, including
efforts in accident investigations. In light of the growing number and
diversification of launch and reentry operations and locations, AST's
approach to overseeing compliance and enforcement may warrant
review.\25\ We plan to begin a requested review of safety oversight of
commercial space activities later in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ FAA also continues to use more punitive enforcement actions,
including assessing civil penalties and suspending a person's or
entity's certificate, when it finds that a commercial space operator is
not in compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. We have
previously reported on issues related to FAA's enforcement policy. See
GAO, Aviation Safety: Actions Needed to Evaluate Changes to FAA's
Enforcement Policy on Safety Standards, GAO-20-642 (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 18, 2020.
\25\ For example, in December 2020, a commercial launch provider
launched an uncrewed spacecraft for a test flight from its private site
after AST denied the company a safety waiver that would have allowed it
to exceed the maximum public risk allowed by regulations. Shortly after
landing, the launch vehicle exploded, with damage limited to the test
site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation of Safety for Human Spaceflight Participants
As we previously reported, FAA continues to face the challenge of
whether and when to regulate the safety of crew and spaceflight
participants, such as space tourists.\26\ While several companies have
announced plans to take tourists to space within the next several
years, FAA is prohibited by law from regulating crew and passenger
safety before 2023, except in response to events that either caused a
serious or fatal injury or contributed to an unplanned event during a
commercial human space flight that posed a high risk of causing a
serious or fatal injury.\27\ To date, one fatal accident occurred in
2014 involving a crew member of a spaceflight undertaken by a private
company and licensed by FAA. According to FAA officials, FAA could
promulgate regulations if such an event occurred, but under the
moratorium, it would be limited to the design feature that caused the
accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ GAO-07-16; GAO-15-706; and GAO, Commercial Space: Industry
Developments and FAA Challenges, GAO-16-765T (Washington, D.C.: Jun.
22, 2016).
\27\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50905(c)(2)(C)-(D). This moratorium was
established in statute in 2004 and set to expire in 2012, to allow the
industry grow. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act,
enacted in November 2015, extended the moratorium to October 1, 2023.
Pub. L. No. 114-90, Sec. 111, 129 Stat. at 709-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA is required to periodically report to specified congressional
committees on metrics that could indicate FAA's and the industry's
readiness to transition to a safety framework that may include
regulating crew, government astronauts, and spaceflight participant
safety.\28\ In the most recent report, submitted to Congress in
February 2019, FAA concluded that no commercial human spaceflight
activities had advanced to a stage that would necessitate a new safety
framework. FAA's next and final report is due by March 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50905 (c)(6)-(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA has taken some other steps in anticipation of the expiration of
the moratorium. For example, in 2014, FAA published a document
providing a compilation of performance-based recommended practices for
commercial human spaceflight. FAA also tasked COMSTAC to formulate
human spaceflight best practices to guide the industry. In September
2020, COMSTAC determined that published voluntary standards for
commercial human spaceflight safety were in minimal use by the U.S.
commercial industry and that the development of such standards, as in
other industries, has been slow. COMSTAC recommended FAA evaluate
several of the standards as potential inputs to future regulations and
guidance. COMSTAC also recommended that FAA form an industry rulemaking
committee to help focus industry efforts on voluntary standards
development, apply relevant lessons learned, and to inform future
spaceflight safety regulations. In June 2021, FAA officials told us
that they plan to implement COMSTAC's recommendations when they begin
their rulemaking effort assuming the moratorium expires.
FAA Has Taken Some Actions to Keep Pace with Industry
AST Is Improving Its Workforce Planning to Meet Its Own and Industry's
Evolving Needs
AST has made strides in more strategically aligning its workforce
with evolving industry demands. With the anticipated continued growth
and development of new technologies and types of launches and
supporting infrastructure, it is vital that AST ensure that the size,
composition, and skills of its workforce are aligned with its projected
workload, both the amount and type of work. In response to a
recommendation we made in 2015, AST took steps to better understand how
it uses its staff resources, including developing indicators for
workload activities, such as inspections and consultations with
potential applicants, in addition to the number of launches
licensed.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ GAO-15-706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AST has taken additional steps to more strategically plan for its
future workforce needs since 2015, including some in response to four
recommendations we made in 2019.\30\ For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ GAO-19-437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AST recently assessed the workforce to identify skills and
competencies that are currently needed among its workforce as well as
specific competency areas that may be needed in the future to meet
AST's growing and evolving workload, which addressed one of our
recommendations. Using that information, AST officials told us that
they developed strategies to address skill gaps, which include training
and development for its current workforce, and enhancing collaboration
with other FAA offices and the space industry to gain insight into the
latest advances and changes in commercial space transportation.
Since 2015, AST also has improved its workload projections
to better account for the full range of its regulatory activities and
the timeline of its licensing process. In June 2021, officials told us
that they extended their current 2-year workload projections out to 5-
years, to better anticipate and respond to emerging workforce needs.
Officials also told us that by summer of 2021, they plan to finalize a
more robust set of metrics for the entire office's workload to help AST
determine its appropriate workforce size and composition, which would
address an additional recommendation.

While AST has taken steps to strategically plan for its future
workforce needs, continuing its efforts to strategically plan for its
workforce needs will help position FAA to meet the needs of the
evolving industry.
FAA is Taking Interim Steps to Reduce Inefficiencies in the National
Airspace System, but Full Integration Is Still Years Away
The continuing growth in the number of launches places a premium on
FAA's ability to safely and efficiently integrate commercial space
users into the National Airspace System. However, we reported in 2019,
that both FAA officials and selected industry stakeholders said FAA's
current approach is inefficient.\31\ FAA officials, for example, told
us in 2019 that when a space launch occurs, they have closed the
airspace in the surrounding area to commercial airlines and other
airspace users for longer than may have been needed and included a
larger area of airspace to ensure public safety. The resulting
inefficiencies have included flight delays for airlines and
difficulties for launch providers to secure launch windows--the period
of time in which the launch or reentry is expected to occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ GAO-19-437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since our 2019 report, FAA has made progress in its development of
procedures, technologies, and industry coordination that are designed
to reduce some of the inefficiencies experienced to date. For example:
In May 2020, FAA updated its prior 2014 Concept of
Operations for commercial space integration. The 2020 update describes
the document as a high-level, long-term vision to help guide FAA in
integrating space launches into the National Airspace System.
FAA reported that in October 2020, it began using data-
driven air traffic control procedures for Atlantic Route air traffic
around Cape Canaveral, Florida, where more than 80 percent of the 2020
FAA-licensed launches from U.S. launch sites occurred. According to FAA
officials, these procedures help air traffic control coordinate when to
implement and release the airspace closure to other uses, ultimately
reducing aircraft delays and reroutes caused by space launches.
In June 2021, FAA officials told us they the agency plans
to begin implementing a technology that it developed called the Space
Data Integrator, which is able to receive real-time data on a launch
vehicle's position and movement to improve situational awareness of
launch activities in the airspace. FAA officials told us other
technologies planned for implementation in the coming years may enable
air traffic control to calculate a dynamic hazard area for a launch,
rather than the static hazard areas that result in larger, longer
airspace closures.
FAA officials told us that in summer 2021, they plan to
stand up its first of a planned series of collaborative decision-making
committees to establish a forum in which commercial space, aviation,
and airport representatives can work together to improve how commercial
space transportation activities are integrated into the National
Airspace System. The first committee will focus on data-sharing,
including how to standardize and formalize data and make it available
to more airspace users.

The progress FAA has made is promising, but full and efficient
integration of all users of the National Airspace System is years away
and will require continued work and focus.
FAA Has a Dual Role of Industry Promotion and Safety
The industry's evolution, particularly with respect to the rise in
space tourism, may require a reexamination of FAA's dual role of
overseeing the safety of commercial space launches while also promoting
the industry. In 2006 and 2009, we stated that FAA's dual role could
give rise to a potential conflict of interest as the space tourism
sector develops, but found no evidence that FAA's promotional
activities--such as sponsoring an annual industry conference and
publishing industry studies--conflicted with its safety regulatory role
at that time.\32\ A 2008 statutorily required DOT-commissioned report
similarly concluded that there was no compelling reason to remove FAA's
promotional role in the near term (through 2012), but recommended that
DOT periodically review its dual role specifically for safety and
promotion of human space flight.\33\ We again emphasized in 2009 that
FAA and Congress must remain vigilant that an inappropriate
relationship between FAA and the commercial space launch industry does
not occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ GAO-07-16 and GAO, Commercial Space Transportation:
Development of the Commercial Space Launch Industry Presents Safety
Oversight Challenges for FAA and Raises Issues Affecting Federal Roles,
GAO-10-286T (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2, 2009).
\33\ Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.
108-492, Sec. 3, 118 Stat. 3974, 3982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2021, FAA officials told us that while they agree that a
reassessment may be appropriate in time, they do not think such an
assessment is currently warranted. They also explained that promoting
the industry was in their view related to their role in ensuring that
industry participants understand relevant regulatory requirements and
that FAA takes regulatory and other actions consistent with the still-
developing nature of the industry. Nonetheless, given that 13 years
have passed since DOT last examined its dual role and that the
moratorium on DOT regulating the safety of crew and spaceflight
participants is due to expire in 2023, a reexamination of DOT's dual
role may be warranted as the industry continues to evolve.
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Susan
Zimmerman (Assistant Director), Gretchen Snoey (Analyst-in-Charge),
Catherine Colwell, Camilo Flores, Joshua Garties, Delwen Jones, Maureen
Luna Long, Maria Mercado, Josh Ormond, Patrick Ward, and Elizabeth
Wood.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Ms. Krause. I appreciate that very
much.
And now we will turn to Member questions for panel 1. And
with that, the Chair recognizes the chair of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Monteith, and I mentioned it in my opening remarks, we
had heard, I think, first at a hearing in 2016 about the
development of the Space Data Integrator. It is now 2021. And
yet, the officials have told the GAO that they still plan to
begin implementing this technology.
Can you give me a timeline for where this is in
development, and when we can expect it?
Mr. Monteith. Sure, I can give you a little bit of an
overview of it, but not a specific timeframe.
One of the things that I did when I joined the FAA a little
over 2 years ago was took this program, which had been
developed by my organization, and had not made a whole lot of
progress, and asked our Chief Operating Officer, Teri Bristol,
to take this task on.
She has, and we have seen tremendous growth or progress in
the development of the system, so much so that we expect in the
next few months to have the first operational test of it.
Now, the system has been operating in a shadow mode, and we
expect, like I said, in the next few months, to have the first
operational test, and we will be taking live data, ingesting it
into our system, with the goal of reducing the airspace that
must be segregated, and really integrate commercial space into
the system.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I think that is absolutely critical as we
are going to have more and more launches, and we don't want to
be diverting and delaying flights for people who can't afford
$500,000 for a ticket.
And, Ms. Krause, as I mentioned at the beginning, I
stripped away FAA's dual mandate for commercial aircraft.
Unfortunately, it took a horrible tragedy for people to admit
that it was a problem and accept my amendment. And you did
state that a reexamination dual role may be warranted as the
industry continues to evolve.
Could you just elaborate a little bit on why you think we
need to reexamine?
Ms. Krause. Yes. The last review, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, was in 2008, where DOT concluded that there
was no compelling reason to remove the promotional role from
FAA through 2012. It also--that report recommended that they
periodically review the promotional role and safety role,
particularly as it relates to human spaceflight. And, so, given
the time that has passed since that review and developments in
the industry, as well as the moratorium expiring, another
review may be warranted.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And the FAA hasn't revisited this in that
interim period?
Ms. Krause. Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Is that correct, Mr. Monteith, that you
haven't revisited this as was recommended that you should
periodically look at it?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, I don't believe we have formally
revisited it, but we do pay attention to this.
Mr. DeFazio. Uh-huh.
Mr. Monteith. We look at our ``encourage, facilitate,
promote.'' Everything is based on safety, safety standards, and
cooperation and coordination with the industry. And we don't
really do promotion in the form of marketing.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. But the concern is, like when the FAA
starts talking about Boeing as a customer, and we find undue
influence over the inspectors, and we find managers overruling
people who found critical problems with the MAX and
subsequently people died.
It is a creep that can happen. And it is just--you know,
they are not customers. The commercial aviation industry is a
regulated entity, and we will have to be watching commercial
space very closely.
And, finally, the chair and I wrote a letter on March 25
regarding the SpaceX launching without authorization. What has
SpaceX done to deal with the operational concerns you had, and,
essentially, the cultural issues that you flagged? Are you
satisfied that they are now fully compliant and they are
cleaning things up?
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir, I am. And we would not have cleared
them to start flight operations again, had I not been confident
that they had modified their procedures effectively and
addressed the safety culture issues that we saw during the
events of Starship Serial No. 8 or SN8.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. The Chair recognizes Mr. Graves of Louisiana
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Monteith, for several years now, Congress has had a
lot of discussion about which civil agency should be
responsible for the provision of space situational awareness
services. We haven't come to a decision yet, and I am curious
of your thoughts in response, and if you think the FAA would be
able to execute that mission if Congress decided that it should
be a responsibility?
Mr. Monteith. Sure. Great question.
From my perspective, the most important thing is that
whichever civil agency is tasked with this responsibility, it
is done right, and so that likely means that a change in
statute and a sufficient budget to get the job done. If
Congress were to decide that this is a responsibility for the
Department of Transportation, I am confident that the FAA would
step up to the plate and we could accomplish the mission.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
Another question for you. Another concern we have, as I
covered in the opening statement, was the reentry of space
debris. If that mission--and then, of course, the impact on
airspace and aircraft--if that mission were ultimately given to
the FAA, do you think that AST and the Air Traffic Organization
would be capable of working together to accomplish that
mission, or administer it?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, if Congress did task us with that
mission, I am confident that while it is difficult, that with
the appropriate authorization and appropriation, we would get
it done. And I can tell you the relationship that we have with
the Air Traffic Organization, there is no daylight between Teri
Bristol and I on how we consider the safety of the NAS and
integrating commercial space into the NAS. We are full partners
with the Air Traffic Organization.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
With the bulk of part 450 rulemaking behind us, there are a
lot of other commercial space transportation regulations that
may need similar revisiting, may be outdated or overly
burdensome.
Are there any of them that come to mind for you in terms of
ones that you think deserve revisiting or would be a priority?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, we are evaluating that. As I mentioned
in my opening statement, we are ready to press forward with the
orbital debris rule, which really concerns upper stages and
debris coming off of upper stages. Secondly, we want to take a
real hard look at part 440, financial responsibility, as
recommended by COMSTAC. And then we also know that we do need
to look at our spaceport regulations, which really have not
kept up with the state of the industry.
But as a regulator, I think it is important for us to
continually look at these and not wait 20 years to repromulgate
a regulation that has grown stale.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
As you know, in 2018, the committee provided the Secretary
with the authority to create aerospace rulemaking committees.
Will the FAA consider asking the Secretary to convene an ARC
for commercial space transportation rulemakings to help the FAA
develop proposed rules?
Mr. Monteith. In a word sir, yes. I think it is critical
that we have full industry involvement as we develop these
regulations, and a full public comment period so we can have
the best, most effective, and efficient regulations that we can
possibly develop.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thanks.
Last one for you, General, and I appreciate your answers.
As I covered in my opening statement, there has been--
during the commercial human spaceflight learning period,
industry is supposed to be working towards sort of a consensus
on safety standards. As I said, the momentum appears to be
moving in the right direction.
Where do you think the focus over the next 24 months or so
should be for those efforts?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, you know, I understand why the learning
period was established when it was; but as was previously
mentioned, with three companies likely flying commercial
spaceflight participants this year, and a fourth next year, I
think the landscape is changing, and I think it is important
that we relook at some of those restrictions or, in this case,
the moratorium.
I also think that even with no change there, we still need
to continue pressing forward to develop those consensus
standards and to refresh our guidelines for commercial human
spaceflight.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes, and the first
question is for Ms. Krause.
The FAA has taken steps to reduce inefficiencies in the
NAS. In your testimony, you say this progress is promising but
full integration is years away. In your opinion, has the
progress made by FAA been sufficient? And what are the hurdles
to that?
Ms. Krause. Back in 2019, we had done a review looking at
integration efforts and certainly heard from both industry and
FAA an acknowledgment that their current approach was creating
inefficiencies. I think since we have done that work, FAA has
taken a number of steps, both on the procedural and developing
technologies, as well as starting to work through some bodies
to do additional industry coordination, and those are what I
mean in terms of ``promising.'' Those are the types of things
that are needed to really get us closer and move towards more
full integration in the NAS.
Mr. Larsen. So the FAA has given you a date of this summer,
I guess, which is just a few days away, to stand up the first
of a series of committees to establish a forum for integration
of the NAS with commercial space activities. What is an
appropriate timeline for other needed committees or activities
in this area?
Ms. Krause. That is a timeline that would have to be worked
closely with both FAA and sort of the industry in figuring out
all of the different components that need to come together. It
is a complex issue to work through, and technologies and
systems need to be further developed so that there is better
data to be able to assess risk and look at opportunities to
further create efficiencies as well as safely integrating
different aircraft in the NAS.
Mr. Larsen. And then as well, can you be clearer--it is in
your written testimony, I wasn't quite sure from your oral
testimony, about the FAA's role prior to 2023 in looking at the
safety of crew and spaceflight participants? Should they get
some work done now in the event of action? Are they not allowed
to take action before then? Can you be clearer about that?
Ms. Krause. Sure, absolutely.
I think the regulations allow them to respond to issues
where if there is an accident or a mishap, they can look at the
issue of the design that caused that. There are also things
that the FAA can do and is doing in terms of working with
industry to develop best practices that they can disseminate
amongst the industry as well as was discussed, consensus
standards, that I think will really help inform where things
might head should the moratorium expire.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Mr. Monteith, the FAA is responsible for clearing the NAS
for military and other Government launches. Is there anything
different you are expecting with commercial launches in terms
of either process or--I guess, mainly process? Are there
lessons to be learned from that that will be applied
specifically to commercial launches?
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir, there will. And it will actually
be--it can be applied in both directions. And even though Space
Data Integrator is just getting ready to do the first
operational test, the Air Traffic Organization has already been
leaning forward and implementing concepts like time-based
launch procedures. We know there are specific events during a
launch countdown that trigger timelines to launch.
Using that information, the ATO can adjust the airspace
that is restricted and reduce the amount of restricted airspace
and the time that it is actually restricted.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Before I turn to Mr. Perry, I just want to let folks know
we are supposed to have our first votes between 2:40 and 2:50,
or something along those lines, and there are going to be
several votes. I am still trying to determine whether we should
just plow through this or recess; but when I decide, I will let
you know.
So with that, I will turn to Mr. Perry for 5 minutes from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Monteith, the Biden administration has requested a
nearly $5 million increase in the budget for the operations
account of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. What
is your plan to prioritize these funds towards licensing
efforts to ensure that the office is in compliance with the
statutory time limits for launch licensing in the Commercial
Space Launch Act?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, I appreciate the question.
We have taken a look at every function that we have in the
office to maximize our efficiency and effectiveness. We are
hiring to our full authorized level this year. For the first
time in the history of the office, we have actually been able
to sustain over 100 full-time employees, and our efforts are
geared primarily toward that licensing effort.
We have been very successful thus far, but as we have
identified earlier, just since this time last year, our launch
cadence has doubled in just 1 year, and, so, we have got a lot
of work ahead of us, and we are being proactive, as proactive
as we can, to lead turn this problem so we do not become the
impediment to industry.
Mr. Perry. Well, then on--yes, just stay with me here.
On a similar note, what efforts have you taken to date to
ensure compliance with the statutory requirements related to
timely and responsive license review and approvals? And what
are the office's future plans to improve timeliness and
responsiveness?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, if I understand the question correctly,
it is a 180-day statutory requirement to have a license
evaluated once it is determined to be complete. And I can only
think of currently, I believe, one license where that did not
occur, and that had to do with the environmental review
process.
Mr. Perry. OK. All right.
And continuing on, the Trump administration required the
Department of Transportation to rewrite the launch and reentry
rules after nearly two decades of almost no modification. The
industry is moving quickly and innovating at a speed to which
the Federal Government, quite honestly, is probably
unaccustomed, including developing unique and untraditional
launch systems.
How is the FAA working with the industry to ensure that the
new part 450 will accommodate innovation and advancement
without hindering the industry?
Mr. Monteith. Thank you, sir.
First and foremost, part 450 was written to be performance-
based as opposed to prescriptive, which it was in the past,
which really put a damper on innovation. We have worked with
industry on part 450. The feedback we have gotten from
industry, we have got a full 3-day workshop on the new 450
itself, got very positive feedback, and that workshop was with
industry. We have also done the same thing, a 1-day workshop
with the international partners, and we are working with
industry as we develop--right now, it is 27 advisory circulars
that will help guide them through and provide a means of
compliance for specific parts of part 450.
Mr. Perry. So, in keeping kind of with that theme, what do
you think needs to be done to facilitate further mutually
beneficial cooperation between the agency and industry? Do you
feel that there are any barriers hindering those efforts?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, I don't believe there are barriers. We
have open and honest communication with our industry partners,
and the industry companies know that I am always available to
take their calls and talk to them and discuss any concerns they
have about either the way we conduct business or the regulatory
way ahead.
Mr. Perry. Well, sir, thank you for your service. I notice
that you commanded the 45th Space Wing in Florida. During your
time there, you oversaw the very first rocket landing, which
has since occurred more than 80 times. A reusable rocket, as
well as other industry-led innovative technologies and launch
systems, continue to drive down the cost of space access
delivering tangible benefits to the American consumer, the
economy, and our national security.
Give me a background. Can you elaborate in the short time
we have left on the importance of these innovations in
supporting our national security and economic circumstances?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, if we want to stay the world leader in
this transportation sector, innovation is critical, just like
STEM is, and diversity is as well. I oversaw the first 23
booster landings, and I can tell you personally it is a game
changer.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Perry.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Payne from New
Jersey for 5 minutes.
Representative Payne.
Mr. Payne. Mr. Chairman, if I could yield and come back at
a later time?
Mr. Larsen. All right. It is possible, but you might want
to take this opportunity now just in terms of--if not, we will
go to Mr. Brown.
All right. We will go to Mr. Brown from Maryland for 5
minutes.
Mr. Brown?
You are on mute, Mr. Brown.
Representative Brown, you are on mute.
[Pause.]
OK. Representative Payne, you have 5 minutes right now if
you want them.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you for having this hearing and
I wanted to ask--can you hear me?
Mr. Larsen. You are good, you are good.
Mr. Payne. I am sorry.
Mr. Monteith, commercial space exploration is the next
frontier of American discovery, but it is our responsibility to
ensure that it is conducted with safety at the forefront. FAA
and NASA have regulations and norms developed over decades to
ensure safe and orderly operations. Commercial spaceflight is
the only sector in its second decade of operations, and we must
make sure that this safety culture can overcome the move-fast-
and-break-things mantra of startups.
Based on the FAA and NASA approach to safety, how do we
instill those values in the commercial space transportation?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, that is a great question.
And from my perspective, these companies, while they are
trying to go quick, they are safe. At the heart of their
business, they are concerned about safety. If we get any
inkling that they are not concerned about safety, that is when
we step in.
The FAA has licensed 404 launches, commercial launches
since our inception, and we have never had a fatality or
casualty or serious injury to the uninvolved public. And that
doesn't mean things haven't gone wrong. About 15 percent of our
flights we declare a mishap; in other words, something didn't
quite go wrong. Some of them, sometimes it is an engine that is
not working quite right. Sometimes it is very spectacular that
you will see across the internet. But what every single one of
those mishaps has in common is they failed safely and nobody
was injured.
So safety, as my Administrator says, is our North Star, and
we stay laser focused, my entire team, on the safety of what is
inherently a dangerous operation every single day, sir.
Mr. Payne. I, like other members on this committee,
represent a district that contains a major airport. How does
the FAA plan to deal with an increasing number of space
launches to avoid major service disruptions and safety concerns
related to air travel?
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir. We work hand in hand with our
counterparts, and I meet personally with my peers, both the
Chief Operating Officer and the head of airports, as we work
through these. We also have our teams. Anytime a license
application or a concept for a launch operator comes in, we
work throughout that entire process with our counterparts
within the FAA to make sure that, to the extent that we can,
that these operations are integrated and at the foundation,
they are always, always, always safe.
So, for instance, you would not expect to see an operation,
say, in the middle of the country that is launching Saturn V-
type rockets.
Mr. Payne. All right.
Mr. Monteith. Because we are working together to ensure
that that doesn't happen.
Mr. Payne. Excellent.
Ms. Krause, to develop eventual regulation of commercial
space transportation, Federal agencies will need relevant
information and studies of pertinent issues. What areas in
commercial space transportation need further investigation and
evaluation? And how can Congress help in these efforts?
Ms. Krause. Thanks for the question.
One area we have looked at in the past is FAA's workforce
and AST's efforts to make sure that they have the skills in
place. That is an area to continue to have attention on, and I
know FAA continues to evolve and monitor and kind of ongoing
analysis of how their workforce is ready. So, that is something
to really pay attention to, because you need the skills in
place in order to carry out, respond to, and adapt to changes
in the industry.
I also mentioned it may warrant another review of the dual
mandate as the industry develops, and particularly as the human
spaceflight industry continues to develop.
Mr. Payne. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience, and I yield
back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Payne.
We are going to try to keep going here, and if
Representative Steel is available for questions.
Representative Steel?
[Pause.]
And Representative Balderson. Is Representative Balderson
available?
[Pause.]
All right. I am going to ask the ranking member unanimous
consent--we do have a few folks on this side of the aisle who
are here for questions, can I get them started? I know it is
out of order. So that is an OK from the ranking member?
So I will go with Mr. Kahele.
Mr. Kahele. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to our witnesses
today for participating in this very important conversation.
I guess my question would be for Mr. Monteith. Similar to
the previous question, maybe mine will touch more on the
regulatory framework. On page 6 in your testimony, you
described commercial space operations as currently being
treated as a special case in which air traffic controllers
block off large sections of airspace for extended periods of
time for a single launch.
As the number of commercial space operation grows
exponentially, maybe explain a little differently than your
previous explanation about the next steps for the FAA in terms
of the regulatory framework. I know from your testimony, 14 CFR
part 450 was adopted. But how do you see the integration of
commercial spaceflight and the regulatory aspect of it and that
evolution, to integrate it into the National Airspace System?
When I look at this, I think of the challenges that we had
and still have in integrating unmanned aircraft systems into
the National Airspace System. So could you discuss a little bit
of your thoughts on that aspect?
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir. And I appreciate the question.
As I stated in my oral testimony, integration of commercial
space into the NAS is a top priority for the FAA, and with the
development of the Space Data Integrator, it is more about
technology and capability than it is about a new regulatory
framework.
As we started this journey, the amount of time it took
between when we realized a rocket had a mishap or a
catastrophic anomaly, to when we could actually get commands to
the flight deck, took historically 14 to 18 minutes, which is
why we had to separate, or segregate, the very large swath of
airspace for a significant amount of time.
When SDI is completely implemented, right now the goal is,
because we are using a machine to a machine as opposed to
manual inputs, that goal will be less than 1 minute which
really, at that point, gets you to where you are truly
integrating the airspace for these complementary operations.
Mr. Kahele. What do you think, as the commercial space
operations and industry grows, obviously, there are more
preferred and desired locations for space launches, typically
Florida--Cape Canaveral and California--Vandenberg. Are there
other areas of the country that we are looking for an increase
in commercial space launches, or are there areas that we can
fairly say this is where it would be most highly concentrated
and, therefore, affecting the commercial aircraft activity in
those areas?
Mr. Monteith. Yes, sir. You know, there are more optimal
locations to have a spaceport at. Of course, being on the coast
is one because of down range debris, closer to the Equator, so
you use the rotation of the Earth as an energy boost to get
into geosynchronous orbit where our communication satellites
are, our big ones are. So there are certainly optimal places.
Right now, we are not at capacity, but at some point with
these locations that you mentioned, we will be at capacity.
Right now, we currently have 12 FAA-licensed spaceports. I
believe five are actively conducting launch operations, so we
have seven that are still waiting for launch operators to come
to their facilities.
But I see this industry is, if anything, accelerating
versus going down, which I believe it will be even more
critical to take a look at our spaceport infrastructure to
ensure that it can handle the growth, and that we can remain a
global leader in this transportation sector, sir.
Mr. Kahele. If one of those licenses does not exist of
those 12 licensees, do you--and how do you foresee Hawaii
playing a role in commercial space launch future activities?
Mr. Monteith. Well, sir, since I grew up on Oahu, I would
love to see a spaceport in Hawaii just personally, but there
are opportunities, of course, all consistent with safety and
our environmental regulations, that would allow us to put,
particularly on areas with plenty of coast like Hawaii has,
could potentially support a spaceport operation.
Mr. Kahele. All right. Thank you so much. Mahalo.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
And the Chair calls on Mr. Garamendi for 5 minutes.
I would note--just a heads-up--although there are 4 minutes
and 30 seconds left in the vote, a total of 56 people total
have voted.
So, Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two sets of questions. One is, who pays for all this, the
commercial space operators or the taxpayers? I am going to let
that one hang there. I don't think that the answer is going to
be found in this hearing, but I think it needs to be out there.
This is going to become much more expensive as more and more
spaceflights occur.
Secondly, this is an issue, Mr. Chairman, that you and I
may know a little bit about, or maybe we don't know enough
about it. In 2018, General Hayden said that space awareness,
that is, what is going on in space, space junk, space
satellites, all that, could be handled by a nondefense
Government agency.
More recently, in fact, it has been in the last 3 or 4--
within the last 3 months, this issue has come back. And the
last I heard from the military is maybe not. Maybe the
Department of Defense needs to stay on top of this issue for a
whole variety of reasons, many of which you and I have heard on
the Armed Services Committee.
I think this issue remains unresolved, despite President
Trump's 2018 directive. I would like to see more discussion
about this. I would like to hear from the Department of Defense
as they view this matter and the more recent Space Command and
Space Force that now exists. So I am going to let it go at
that.
These are two questions that are out there. If any of the
witnesses have an answer, good. Otherwise, you and I are going
to leave and vote.
Did I see the chairman leaving? He ran away, did he?
If either of the witnesses want to respond, who pays, and
does this space situational awareness reside in the Department
of Defense or Congress?
Mr. Monteith. Sir, having done that mission when I was in
the Air Force, I can tell you, while I was in, the discussions
made perfect sense that some of this could definitely be
offloaded to a civil organization.
The Department of Defense will still continue to get
exquisite space situational awareness data. The issue is
whether or not they can ingest all of the commercially
available data that is out there right now, because of the
restrictions on what their systems also do from a defense
perspective.
On the civil side, you can ingest all of that data and
provide more accurate location of where satellites are so that
you can start walking down a path where you can better have
collision avoidance for these objects on orbit.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Stanton [presiding]. Thank you very much.
Are there any of our GOP colleagues logged on at this
point? My understanding is there is not, but I want to ask to
confirm. Any Republican Members available to ask questions?
All right. If not, I will proceed with my own questions
then, and this is a continuation of some questions that were
asked earlier by Chairman DeFazio. These are for Associate
Administrator Monteith and Ms. Krause.
Through its licensing authorities, the FAA is required to
ensure and protect public health and safety, national security,
and foreign policy interests of the United States. Yet, at the
same time, the FAA is required to encourage, facilitate, and
promote the commercial space transportation industry. And so
this creates a dual mandate for the organization.
So following up on Chairman DeFazio's questions, I want to
hear each of your own individual views about this dual mandate
and how this dual mandate best serves or can it serve the
interests of the Federal Government, commercial space launch
industry, and, most importantly, the American people.
Mr. Monteith. Sir, if you would like me to start, what I
would say--and we take both of those mandates seriously, but
for me, it is an if/then. If the first is accomplished, we are
able to do the second, because everything evolves around
safety.
And so when we encourage and facilitate this industry,
really, from my perspective, it is more about facilitation. It
is ensuring that we have got the right regulations or the right
scope at the right time to ensure safety, while also allowing
these companies to innovate and grow and continue to lead on
the global stage.
We don't do, quite frankly, a whole lot of encouraging. And
for promotion, it is all about promoting safety standards and
consensus standards and working with industry for that, as
opposed to what would traditionally be considered potentially
marketing, which we really don't do.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Ms. Krause, could I get your answer on the issue of the
dual mandate that is currently in place?
Ms. Krause. Sure. I mean, we have previously emphasized
that it is important that both FAA and Congress remain
vigilant, ensuring that there is no inappropriate role between
FAA and the commercial space industry. As I had mentioned
earlier, the last review of looking at the dual role was back
in 2008, where it concluded that there was no compelling reason
to separate out the promotional role from FAA for 2012.
But, really, given the changes that there have been in the
industry, as well as the moratorium expiring and the
recommendation coming out of that report to periodically review
this, we think that taking another look at this issue may be
warranted.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
Over the last decade, there has been a steady growth in the
industry in the number of launches licensed by the FAA. Just 5
years ago, there were nine launches. Last year, there was a
record 39, representing a nearly 400-percent increase since
2015. This year, 39 launches have been licensed to date, and we
are only midway through the year. In addition to the increase
in launch licenses, the number of launch companies, especially
for small satellites, is growing.
I want to ask each of you about workforce issues associated
with this exponential growth in the industry. Is the FAA
workforce keeping pace with this growth, and what has been the
overall impact on the FAA's operations and licensing activities
in light of this fast growth? And that is for either witness.
Mr. Monteith. Sir, so far, we have been able to keep up,
but it is a challenge. I can tell you from the skill sets that
we need that are mostly STEM-related, we are just one of many
organizations that are looking for the same small pool of
talented individuals.
Of course, you have got industry that frequently can offer
more compensation. And on the Government side, while it is
great and exciting to be a regulator, I have to compete against
NASA, the Air Force, and now the U.S. Space Force.
But with all that said, what we offer is the ability for
folks to come in and learn the entire industry. And then either
they will stay with us for 20 or 30 years or potentially go to
industry and take our safety foundation with them and the
understanding of why regulations are important.
But as we continue to grow, I see this as becoming a
greater and greater challenge for all of us if we cannot solve
the problem we have with not enough folks in STEM.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Monteith.
Ms. Krause, any thoughts about workforce issues as it
relates to the growth in this industry?
Ms. Krause. Yes, that is an issue we have looked at closely
and have identified some opportunities for FAA to more
strategically manage its workforce and be in a position to
respond to changes in the industry. The FAA has responded to
those recommendations and continues to work on them. Things
like having a better sense of the time that their staff is
using and what kind of time is being spent on different
activities as well as the skills and competencies that are
needed.
But, we are looking for FAA to really follow through on the
other recommendations, which is understanding workload metrics,
projections, so that they can get these people on board and
trained up and ready to respond to changes in the industry.
Mr. Stanton. I want to thank both of our panelists in the
first panel for your important testimony here today. Your
contribution to today's discussion has been very informative
and very helpful.
Because votes have been called, we have an eight-vote
series right now, some of our colleagues were not able to ask
questions of the first panel. So, as a result, the committee is
going to stand in recess until 5 minutes after the end of the
last vote series today. We hope it is around 5:15, and at that
point, we will call upon the second panel.
I apologize. I have been told that my colleague,
Congressman DeSaulnier, is on and ready to ask questions of our
first panel. I appreciate that. And at that point, we will
stand in recess.
Congressman.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I am fine, Mr. Chairman. If you want to go
to recess, I can wait. Whatever is more convenient for you and
the staff.
Mr. Stanton. The issue would be, if we recess, we are going
to release these two witnesses.
Mr. DeSaulnier. OK.
Mr. Stanton. So if you want to ask questions of these
witnesses, do it now. And then, otherwise, we can hold off till
the second panel later.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I will hold off till the second panel.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Congressman.
We stand in recess until 5 minutes after the end of the
last vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Larsen [presiding]. I call the committee back in from
recess to continue the hearing on FAA's important role,
critical role in commercial space launch.
We are going to move to the second panel, and I am going
to--just a heads-up. We are between a series of votes, so we
have a little bit of time right now for this work, and we will
go until the next round of votes is called. But we have a
little bit of time. I just want to let folks know that.
So I would note that space launches can be vertical or
horizontal. They are designed to meet different commercial
needs, such as launching a GPS satellite into geostationary
orbit or a new telescope to explore space. With that in mind,
this subcommittee must consider the depth and the breadth of
the industry being regulated.
Launch providers who have been in the business for some
time have developed longstanding safety requirements and use
existing standards, and that knowledge will be extremely
helpful.
That is why I am pleased to have on this panel Mr.
Salvatore Bruno, the president and CEO of ULA, or United Launch
Alliance. And I look forward to hearing from Mr. Bruno about
what is needed from the FAA to support effective yet efficient
launch and spaceport licensing and how vital that is to the
success of the industry.
Mr. Frank DiBello, president and CEO of Space Florida, is
on the panel, and we will hear from him. I would like to hear
from him his evaluation of the present and future of FAA launch
and spaceport regulations.
Recent figures indicate that the airline industry and
passenger travel are rebounding from the COVID-19 pandemic. So
consequently, it is important to ask how to fully and safely
integrate growing airspace operations, like commercial space
launch, with existing airspace users. I am glad, therefore, to
welcome Captain Joe DePete of the Air Line Pilots Association
to hear that perspective.
And the perspective of new entrants into the commercial
space operations field also play a key role in this discussion.
I am happy to welcome Mr. Mike Moses, the president of Space
Missions and Safety of Virgin Galactic, to hear their unique
priorities.
So as nascent operations and technologies are integrated
into the complex National Airspace System, the safety of all
who fly and those on the ground remain a top priority. This
Congress, this administration, the industry, and the workforce
must work together to move forward as we embark on the next
chapter of U.S. airspace.
And I would note, before I go to the witnesses, that this
committee takes this oversight very seriously. We do not
believe that we have jurisdiction over space, but you have to
travel through airspace to get to space, what I like to think
of as our space to get to space. And so this is why this
hearing is so critically important to hear about the FAA's role
and to hear about how the industry is working with the FAA and
what needs to be better to ensure that the controlled airspace
and the National Airspace System is controlled in a safe manner
that facilitates the industry.
That was, for the record, the conclusion of my opening
statement from previously. And so I want to just move now to
the panelists, and the first panelist will be Mr. Bruno of
United Launch Alliance.
Mr. Bruno, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF SALVATORE T. ``TORY'' BRUNO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC; FRANK DiBELLO,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPACE FLORIDA; CAPTAIN
JOSEPH G. DePETE, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
INTERNATIONAL; AND MIKE MOSES, PRESIDENT OF SPACE MISSIONS AND
SAFETY, VIRGIN GALACTIC

Mr. Bruno. Thank you.
Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Members Graves,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity
to speak on a matter of vital importance to our Nation: the
FAA's role in promoting U.S. commercial space transportation,
ensuring public safety, and protecting the national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States.
I am privileged to represent United Launch Alliance's
talented and dedicated team of women and men who are at the
forefront of our industry. As president and CEO of ULA, it is
my responsibility to be laser-focused on providing reliable,
affordable, and especially safe space transportation services.
Having an unmatched record of 100 percent mission success
across 144 launches for the Department of Defense, NASA, and
commercial customers, ULA occupies a unique position and
perspective in U.S. space transportation. Today, these missions
launch on our Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, and soon, we will
debut the innovative Vulcan Centaur.
U.S. leadership in space can only be maintained with an
increasingly successful domestic commercial space
transportation industry. That fact underscores the truly
enormous importance of the FAA's licensing of launch, reentry,
and spaceports, while protecting national security and public
safety. It is important to recognize that safety is as much in
the interest of the commercial space transportation industry as
it is in the interest of the general public.
Any loss of life, damage to property, or environmental
degradation caused by space launches, reentries, or spaceport
activities could harm our entire industry by reducing public
and political confidence, which could lead to increased
restrictions and related costs. This, in turn, would have an
adverse impact on the commercial space and our overall national
interest, as space transportation would become more constrained
and expensive.
I am happy to report that the ULA safety record remains
impeccable. The recent streamlining of launch and reentry
regulations is a landmark example of how the FAA has
contributed to the advancement of U.S. commercial space
transportation, while maintaining safety as paramount and
protecting our national security and foreign policy interests.
In order to maintain the integrity of the licensing
process, we need effective enforcement. It may not be obvious,
but the FAA has never denied an operational launch license. If
the FAA has a concern with a ULA license, they promptly let us
know, and we make sure the issue is resolved well in advance of
launch.
These regulations exist for a reason. Space launch is not
as easy as we make it look. These are incredibly complex
machines of enormous destructive potential. Industry is
naturally going to trend towards pushing the boundaries, so it
is vital that Congress provides FAA the support it needs to
conduct effective oversight and enforcement of the licensing
process. Responsible operators will comply with FAA regulations
and licenses. Those who do not should face enforcement and
impactful consequences.
Other issues the FAA will play a role in addressing include
human spaceflight safety, the integration of the National
Airspace System, the protection of the orbital regime, and the
protection of air traffic from an increase in reentering space
debris. I address these topics further in my written testimony.
In closing, I wish to express my appreciation for your
focus on the FAA and U.S. commercial space transportation. Your
dedicated attention to this vitally important matter is
indispensable to ensuring the continued support of Congress for
the FAA and our industry.
Again, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I look
forward to answering all of your questions.
[Mr. Bruno's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Salvatore T. ``Tory'' Bruno, President and Chief
Executive Officer, United Launch Alliance, LLC
Introduction
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Subcommittee--thank you for this opportunity to speak on a matter of
vital importance to our nation--the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) role in promoting U.S. commercial space transportation, ensuring
public safety, and protecting the national security and foreign policy
interests of the United States. I am privileged to represent United
Launch Alliance's (ULA) talented and dedicated team of women and men,
who are at the forefront of our industry. As President and CEO of ULA,
it is my responsibility to be laser-focused on providing reliable,
affordable, and safe space transportation services.
To develop our launchers and deliver payloads to space, ULA
maintains major assets across the United States. We staff employees at
facilities in Denver and Pueblo, Colorado, Decatur, Alabama, and
Harlingen, Texas where we conduct sophisticated launch vehicle
engineering, testing, manufacturing, assembly, and integration. At Cape
Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Space Force
Base in California, we conduct payload integration and launch
operations. I am extremely proud of ULA's dedicated workforce. Many of
our employees are represented by the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.
ULA also partners with thousands of suppliers across the country in
nearly every state. By working with these suppliers--many of which are
small businesses--ULA plays a critical role in assuring a highly
productive and competitive U.S. space industrial base.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Mission Success
Having an unmatched record of 100 percent mission success across
144 launches for the Department of Defense, NASA, and commercial
customers, ULA occupies a unique position in U.S. space transportation.
Since its formation in 2006, ULA has launched satellites for GPS,
communications, weather forecasting, Earth science, planetary
exploration, missile warning, and intelligence, among other purposes
that are critically important to our nation. Today, these missions
launch on our Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, and soon we will debut the
innovative Vulcan Centaur.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

ULA remains the only launch provider capable of meeting all
national security launch needs. For many years, the Department of
Defense has entrusted ULA with delivering its most important national
security payloads to space. The United States Space Force's recent
selection of ULA as the nation's ``best value'' provider, chosen to
launch 60 percent of all national security payloads from 2022-2027,
reaffirms ULA's trusted position.
ULA's Atlas, Delta, and heritage rockets have enabled NASA science
missions to travel to every planet in the Solar System, the Sun, and
beyond. In 1962, when John Glenn became the first U.S. astronaut to
orbit the Earth, he rode aboard an Atlas rocket. Today, ULA's rockets
send cargo to the International Space Station as part of the Commercial
Cargo program and will soon carry our American astronauts there aboard
Starliner as part of the Commercial Crew program. It is worth noting
that launches in support of Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew are
FAA licensed launches.
Every single successful U.S. mission to Mars has arrived safely
thanks to a ride from ULA's Atlas, Delta, and heritage rockets. With
the benefit of ULA's launch services, NASA's Perseverance and Ingenuity
are achieving major technical breakthroughs and making exciting new
discoveries on Mars. In doing so, NASA is inspiring America's youth to
pursue science, technology, engineering, and math--collectively known
as STEM--and demonstrating that the United States remains the global
leader of space exploration, outpacing China's aggressive space
program, which is a major component of the Chinese Communist Party's
ambition to supplant U.S. global leadership and replace democracy with
authoritarianism as the global model for governance.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

ULA has many commercial customers who rely on ULA to successfully
place satellites in orbit. These commercial launches represent major
investments and business opportunities that yield essential services
and generate economic growth, as well as augment capabilities of our
dedicated national security and civil space assets. Our upcoming
launches will support numerous commercial customers serving various
markets. ULA's upcoming first flight of Vulcan Centaur will carry the
first American commercial vehicle to the lunar surface as part of
NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. In addition to
science payloads, the vehicle will carry the STEM projects of American
and international students.
As Vulcan nears operation, ULA is beginning the transition from
Atlas V and Delta IV. Vulcan incorporates important technical
innovations--many tested on our existing vehicles to optimize
development--which enables ULA to meet its goal of offering launches at
a significantly lower cost, while maintaining maximum reliability,
thereby expanding opportunities for the commercial development of
space. More than thirty Vulcan launches are already on our launch
manifest.
Commercial Space Launch Licensing
Though sometimes overlooked, the success of U.S. commercial space
transportation has become integral to that of our civil and national
security space programs. In a geopolitical environment characterized by
a renewed competition for global power, the United States cannot afford
to relinquish its leadership position in space. That leadership can
only be maintained with an increasingly successful domestic space
transportation industry. That fact underscores the enormous importance
of the FAA's licensing of launch, reentry, and spaceports, while
protecting national security and public safety.
When conducting space launches for commercial customers, ULA seeks
a license from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation
(AST). The Atlas V and Delta IV rockets were both commercially
developed in the late 1990s to rely on a burgeoning commercial market.
In fact, at the time it was assumed U.S. government launches would make
up a tiny minority of the launch manifest. Because of this, our launch
operators are experts on the licensing process. When the FAA began work
on a major update to the licensing process in 2018, ULA played an
integral role in providing industry feedback on how to streamline
existing rules in a way that would ignite the commercial launch
industry while maintaining safety as the number one priority of the
agency.
The future success of the U.S. commercial space transportation
industry depends upon the efficiency and effectiveness of FAA
licensing. I applaud the organization for rising to the challenge by
finding ways to reduce regulatory burdens and their attendant costs, in
addition to assigning the highest priority to safety and protecting
national interests.
It is important to recognize that safety is as much in the interest
of the commercial space transportation industry as it is in the
interest of the general public. Any loss of life, damage to property,
or environmental degradation caused by space launches, reentries, or
spaceport activities could harm our entire industry by reducing public
and political confidence, which would lead to increased restrictions
and related costs. This, in turn, would have an adverse impact on
commercial space and our overall national interest as space
transportation becomes more constrained and expensive. I am happy to
report that the ULA safety record remains impeccable.
The success of our industry can be clearly measured by the increase
in licensed space operations. In 2011, there was only one licensed
commercial space launch, while in 2020 that number grew to 39. Beyond
evincing our industry's success, this measure emphasizes the need for
regulators to adapt. The FAA responded boldly to the need for a
constructive, forward-leaning approach to the escalating demand for
launch and reentry licenses. The organization's streamlining of launch
and reentry regulations is a landmark example of how the FAA has
contributed to the advancement of U.S. commercial space transportation,
while maintaining safety as paramount, and protecting our national
security and foreign policy interests. This followed reorganizing FAA/
AST along functional lines to increase accountability, retool internal
processes for effectiveness and efficiency, and hire additional staff
with the right skills to meet future demands.
In a world marked by economic competition, changing climate, health
emergencies, and international political, military, and intelligence
challenges, the new FAA regulations (Part 450) enable our industry to
adopt innovations that will catalyze growing contributions to the
economy, environment, health, safety, and security of the United
States. These Part 450 regulations include flexible, performance-based
criteria in place of the formerly cumbersome, prescriptive
requirements. ULA participated actively in the regulatory process and
we are gratified that the company's comments, along with those of other
thoughtful stakeholders, were well received by the FAA.
In order to maintain the integrity of the licensing process, we
need effective enforcement. It may not be obvious, but the FAA has
never denied an operational launch license. If the FAA has a problem or
concern with a ULA license, they promptly flag the issue, and we make
sure the issue is resolved well in advance of launch. These regulations
exist for a reason; space launch is not as easy as we make it look.
Industry is naturally going to trend towards pushing the boundaries, so
it is vital that Congress provides FAA the support it needs to conduct
effective oversight and enforcement of the licensing process.
Responsible operators will comply with FAA regulations and licenses.
Those who do not should face enforcement and impactful consequences.
Integrating Spaceflight into the National Airspace System
The FAA has encouraged commercial space transportation and air
transportation to work together in the interest of a safe and efficient
National Airspace System (NAS). Despite grappling with the challenges
posed by NAS' multiple uses, the progress already made is noteworthy.
With this kind of record at the FAA, it is incumbent upon the
commercial space transportation industry not only to comply fully with
regulations, orders, and guidance, but also to cooperate actively with
the FAA and to accord its talented, dedicated, and hardworking women
and men the respect and appreciation they so greatly deserve.
As we look forward to the not-so-distant future, the FAA's rising
challenges are inevitable. Commercial launches and reentries will
continue to increase in frequency and complexity, and numerous
spaceports will be added, which will occupy an ever-widening expanse of
the NAS. The emergence of commercial human spaceflight will entail new
risks and opportunities, requiring the FAA's close attention. Likewise,
the FAA will have to weigh carefully the environmental factors on land
and in air, sea, and space, which attend the growth of commercial space
transportation.
Protecting Earth Orbit--A Natural Resource
There has been much attention devoted, especially lately, to the
sustainability of the orbital regime; and rightly so. The advent of
vast constellations of satellites in Low Earth Orbit has brought new
opportunities to daily life here on earth, but has raised concerns
about the increased risks of collisions and consequent debris. This
could threaten the safety of astronauts and space objects. Moreover, it
could further complicate the transit of launch vehicles and payloads,
the safe disposal of rocket stages, and even render the affected orbits
unusable for decades. The physical density of certain mega-
constellations, along with autonomous, unpredictable, and undisclosed
repositioning of spacecraft, could make certain orbital altitudes too
crowded for use by other spacecraft and limit the practical launch
access to fly through these shells to adjacent orbits.
On the other side of the equation, the benefits of satellite
constellations are evident, and there are promising technologies for
on-orbit satellite servicing and active removal of dead spacecraft and
other orbital debris. However, those capabilities may not be sufficient
to adequately address the impending problems, at least not for the
foreseeable future. As a launch provider, we have a vested interest in
protecting the orbital regime so we can continue launching responsible
customers to space. One way ULA remains proactive on this front is by
safely disposing of our second stage rockets by placing them in a
graveyard orbit or conducting a controlled reentry where most of the
stage disintegrates over the remote, deep ocean.
In accordance with its statutory mandate, the FCC has strongly
promoted the deployment of mega-constellations, with a focus on their
benefits. The attention of other government organizations to the
potentially negative impacts of mega-constellations is a welcome
development, and I hope and expect that the FAA will lend its
expertise. I would argue the FAA has a statutory role in this matter
due to its charge to protect national security and national airspace
users from reentering debris. We can't put national security satellites
into orbit if we can't get there in one piece.
Foreign governments and multilateral organizations also have
important roles to play. The United States does not have a monopoly on
satellite constellations, and accordingly, the existing international
rules of conduct for space activities must be revisited and new ones
considered for this burgeoning area. I note that China plans to deploy
13,000 satellites in LEO and is providing robust funding and other
government support to bring that about. Considering these
circumstances, it is profoundly in the interest of the U.S. government
to lead the way in confronting these issues with the invaluable work of
the FAA.
Enabling Regulatory Success
When addressing the roles and responsibilities of the FAA, its
relationship with commercial space transportation stakeholders, and the
performance of its missions, it is important to recognize the
outstanding contributions of the Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee--COMSTAC. ULA is represented on the Committee, so I
take a special interest in its accomplishments and ongoing projects,
from which the FAA, industry, and the public all benefit.
But, most important of all to the success of the FAA in regulating
and promoting U.S. commercial space transportation is the foundational
role of Congress. U.S. commercialization of space transportation has
been possible only because Congress has remained committed to ensuring
that our nation enjoys the countless, vitally important benefits
enabled by this fast-growing industry, while maintaining safety as the
highest priority and protecting our national security and foreign
policy. The increased demand for licensing of launch, reentry, and
spaceports must be matched by augmented administrative resources if
commercial space transportation is to continue its rapid advance in the
national interest. Accordingly, I, like others in the industry,
strongly support the Fiscal Year 2022 budget request for increased
funding for FAA/AST.
In closing, I wish to express my appreciation for your focus on the
FAA and U.S. commercial space transportation. Your dedicated attention
to this vitally important matter is indispensable to ensuring the
continued support of Congress for the FAA and our industry. Again,
thank you for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to answering
your questions.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much.
Now, the Chair will recognize Mr. Frank DiBello, president
and CEO of Space Florida. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DiBello. Chairman Larsen, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Graves, and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this invitation. I am honored to share a Florida
perspective on a topic of great importance to our State and to
the Nation's leadership in space transportation.
Space Florida is a public corporation and independent
special district established to strengthen Florida's leadership
in aerospace research, investment, exploration, and commerce.
We actively support development of space transportation assets
at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport and at other designated
spaceport territories in the State.
Florida hosts 4 of the 12 licensed commercial spaceports,
and since 1989, has hosted over half of all FAA-licensed
launches. Of the 31 licensed launches so far this year, nearly
60 percent were launched from privately developed or operated
facilities at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport, which includes the
Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
Since January, launches from the Cape have demonstrated a
cargo-lifting capability of over 400 metric tons to orbit.
Further, 50 or more launches a year from Florida will soon
become the norm, and future projections far exceed that number.
Years ago, Florida recognized its future and designated
space transportation a distinct element of its strategic
intermodal system. Space transportation is critical to our
economy. Yet we recognize it is still an emerging industry and
requires care in allowing new systems entering the market to
operate within a flexible regulatory framework. The FAA must
continue to develop and maintain this framework to support U.S.
industry growth in the face of global competition.
With Florida's launch activity and busy air traffic
corridors along our coast, we urge continued and increased FAA
effort in technology and airspace management development to
advance safe and efficient integration of space transportation
with commercial aviation.
Florida is already providing an operational environment
where industry and FAA can develop and mature improvements to
future systems and procedures.
It is also worth noting that thanks in major part to more
than $1.5 billion in commercial spaceport investment by Florida
and its industry partners, we now have a landscape of new and
redeveloped launch and landing capability on sites once used
solely for Government systems.
States have a clear role to play in the evolution of U.S.
space transportation capability. National Space Transportation
Policy directs Federal agencies to provide access to launch
ranges, purchase U.S. space transportation services, and
refrain from activities that preclude, discourage, or compete
with U.S. commercial space providers.
These policies foster renewal and growth in America's space
launch capability, but vital supporting ground infrastructure
has not kept up at the same pace and is essential for future
spaceport operations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation should embrace space
transportation as yet another modal element that is critical to
the economic and security well-being of the Nation, and ensure
that these categories of supporting ground infrastructure are
included in the Nation's infrastructure investment planning.
We urge Congress to authorize and fund a program aimed at
enabling America's space transportation leadership. Such a
program should be funded on a recurring basis and provide
assistance to sites with demonstrated need by operational
activity or market demand to advance objectives of national
strategy.
In 2018, the FAA chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
to provide input on streamlined regulations for commercial
space transportation. Space Florida was honored to participate.
While our industry continues to evaluate how the revised
regulations will affect operations, there still remains much to
be done.
We recognize that the FAA must adapt and grow its workforce
to meet evolutionary regulatory changes. I want to commend the
progress made by Associate Administrator Monteith in
reorganizing and staffing to respond to these rapidly growing
industry needs.
In this context, we believe FAA should focus on protection
of the uninvolved public, people, and property, outside the
controlled boundaries of a Federal, State, or private launch
site. Launch site operators could assume greater responsibility
for regulating activities of spaceport personnel both directly
and not directly participating in the licensed activity,
allowing greater FAA attention to the public outside the
spaceport fence line.
Continued U.S. leadership depends on a regulatory structure
that achieves public safety, while remaining flexible, to
enable new technologies and operational approaches that advance
U.S. capabilities.
I urge this committee to ensure that FAA engages in this
unique industry in future rulemaking early and often, so that
companies most knowledgeable about risks and the technologies
involved can help inform development of FAA rules that both
regulators and operators will live and succeed by.
Thank you again for the opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
[Mr. DiBello's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Frank DiBello, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Space Florida
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify before you
today. I am honored to appear alongside my esteemed industry
colleagues, to share with you a Florida perspective on this topic of
crucial importance to our nation's leadership in space transportation.
I applaud your leadership and willingness to examine a broad range of
issues regarding the role of the FAA in regulating and enabling space
transportation, and the importance of smart investments by all in
growing the U.S. space transportation infrastructure to compete
successfully in this global enterprise--an enterprise exceeding $400
Billion in annual revenues.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Space Report 2020: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space
Activity, Space Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Space Florida is a public corporation and Independent Special
District of the State of Florida, established by an act of the Florida
Legislature in 2006 to strengthen Florida's position as a global leader
in aerospace research, investment, exploration, and commerce \2\. To
that end, it is the intent of the Legislature that Space Florida serve
as the single point of contact for state aerospace-related activities
with federal and state agencies, the military, and the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Chapter 331, Part II Florida Statutes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Florida's aerospace industry development organization, we are
committed to attracting and expanding the next generation of space
industry businesses. Our team fosters the growth of a sustainable and
world-leading aerospace industry in Florida, and supports the
development of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport and other spaceport
territories around the state. We accomplish this mission by
implementing strategies and utilizing financial and other development
tools designed to foster the growth of Florida's aerospace industry:
Developing a master plan for growth and development of the
Cape Canaveral Spaceport, and a statewide spaceports systems plan to
guide development of a network of commercial spaceports and the
supporting freight, logistics and supply chain infrastructure around
Florida
Partnering with NASA and the U.S. Space Force to make
underutilized federal assets or assets no longer needed for mission
purposes at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station
available to commercial customers of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Supporting infrastructure development to enable growth of
commercial space companies at the Florida spaceports, aided by Florida
Department of Transportation's Spaceport Improvement Program
infrastructure funding
Providing appropriate financing structures to enable growth
of aerospace companies around Florida by constructing new facilities
and acquiring machinery and equipment
Increasing capital sources available to growing Florida
aerospace companies through capital acceleration events conducted with
the Florida Venture Forum and other financial institutions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Map of Cape Canaveral Spaceport tenants, with Space Coast Regional
Spaceport and Cecil Spaceport inset

Florida's Place in 21st Century Commercial Space Transportation and the
FAA's Role
Florida was where the nation entered the global commercial market
for space transportation, beginning with the Government's launching of
the earliest commercial telecommunications satellites. In 1998,
Spaceport Florida's Cape Canaveral Spaceport launch site was used for
the first launch from an FAA-licensed, state-operated site.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation database of
licensed launches; 2017 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, Florida hosts four of the FAA's 12 licensed commercial
spaceports \4\ and a corresponding majority of the launch licensing
demand on the FAA. Of the licensed U.S. launches thus far this year,
nearly 60% lifted off from privately developed and operated facilities
at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport \5\, the state's statutory designation
of the territory comprised of the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station
and the Kennedy Space Center \6\. Since the beginning of the FAA launch
licensing program in 1989, Florida has accounted for more than half of
this launch activity \7\. Landings are also becoming commonplace,
adding to the activity at the spaceport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FAA Office of Spaceports
\5\ FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation database of
licensed launches
\6\ Chapter 331, Sec. 304 (1), Part II Florida Statutes
\7\ FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation database of
licensed launches
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be apparent then why Florida designated space
transportation as a distinct modal element of its statewide Strategic
Intermodal System, almost two decades ago. Space transportation is
critical to our state and our country's inter-connected networks of
air, maritime, and surface transportation. Just over the past six
months, launches from the Cape have demonstrated a capability of
lifting nearly 400 metric tons \8\ of cargo into space. This may not
seem like a lot of freight to the experts who are familiar with the
metrics of U.S. seaport shipping, domestic air freight movement, or the
volume of cargo hauled across our National Highway System. But this
concentration of space launch capacity, all enabled by a growing fleet
of commercially owned and operated U.S. launch providers, is unmatched
anywhere else on the planet. It offers America a significant advantage
as the international competition for economic and military dominance in
space accelerates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 45th Space Launch Delta manifest; commercial launch provider
vehicle payload capacity
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The launch cadence has increased dramatically over the last few
years, with 20 launches in the last six months and 24 additional
launches projected by the end of the year. 50+ launches a year for
Florida will become the norm, with future projections far exceeding
that number \9\. Yet, this is still an emerging industry, and requires
care in allowing new systems entering the market to operate with a
flexible regulatory framework. Accordingly, the FAA's challenge in
effectively applying this framework and meeting an increasing cadence
is placing new demands on its human and technical resources. Further,
despite the efforts of the FAA and the other installation owners at the
U.S. Eastern Range, not all overlapping and duplicative rule sets have
been eliminated. While these streamlining efforts are continuing, as
long as duplication and overlap continues, there will be an unnecessary
burden on all parties, burden that does nothing to enhance public
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 45th Space Launch Delta launch data and forecast
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Florida's increasing share of FAA licensing activity, coupled
with the heavily-used domestic and international air traffic corridors
along our coast, Space Florida urges an increased FAA effort in
technology development and deployment to advance the safe and efficient
integration of routine space transportation with commercial aviation.
Florida is already providing an operational environment where industry
working with FAA can identify and mature improvements to existing
systems and procedures. We are eager to support further FAA focus in
this area.
Commercial Space Transportation Infrastructure: Role of USDOT and the
FAA
The final Space Shuttle launch took place 10 years ago this July.
In the past decade, there have been more launches of commercially owned
and operated launch vehicles than there were Space Shuttle launches
during that 30-year program. This commercial success has been enabled
by more than $1.5 Billion in commercial spaceport investment by Florida
and its industry partners \10\. This investment has produced a
landscape of new and redeveloped launch complexes on sites once used
for Government systems. It has also brought new manufacturing and
support facilities operated by or for the commercial providers and
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Florida Department of Transportation/Space Florida rollup of
34 major projects funded with over $312 million from Florida's
Spaceport Improvement Program combined with over $1.26 billion in
private contribution from industry participants in the program since
July 2011 (FY 2012). Does not include more than $450 million in Space
Florida-facilitated private financing for commercial spaceport
investments prior to the end of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Canaveral Spaceport has emerged as the world's busiest
commercial spaceport. This success validates the wisdom of a national
space policy that promotes the participation of state governments to
facilitate private sector investment and operation of space
transportation infrastructure. States are powerful tools, with unique
capabilities not found in federal agencies. To meet the challenge of
assuring US leadership in the commercial marketplace, in exploration,
and in national security space, this nation must bring all of its
capacity to the contest. The metrics of commercial launch activity in
Florida highlight the space mission outcomes of that policy: more than
two dozen missions to the International Space Station, including the
return of U.S. human spaceflight from American soil; hundreds of
satellites serving global user markets for telecommunications,
navigation, and other services; and new capabilities and services in
support of NASA, U.S. Space Force, and international demand for space
access.
The 2013 National Space Transportation Policy, which remains in
place, directs federal agencies to facilitate access to the launch
property on its ranges, purchase and use U.S. commercial space
transportation capabilities and services, and refrain from activities
that preclude, discourage, or compete with U.S. commercial space
transportation activities \11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Space Transportation Policy, 2013. Accessed through
the Department of Commerce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these policies have been very successful in renewing
America's space launch capacity with commercial capabilities, the
common use infrastructure that is vital to connecting these
capabilities to the required support infrastructure has not kept up at
the Cape and other locations around the country. Much of the property
is still owned and operated in large measure by the Government, or by
other public entities. The US Government should consider enabling the
private partnership redevelopment of infrastructure at individual sites
it no longer needs, upkeep of aging road and utility networks, and
development of increased commodities and services needed for these
commercial providers.
It is time for a strategic and effective infrastructure policy and
program to grow the nation's commercial space transportation system.
The U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA should embrace space
transportation as another modal element critical to the well-being of
the nation's economy by including space transportation in the nation's
infrastructure investments.
Space Florida was a successful applicant for a USDOT $90 million
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant to enable the
replacement of NASA's failing 1964 bridge over the Indian River \12\, a
primary surface transportation route used to transport both freight and
people to the entire Cape Canaveral Spaceport. Florida's Department of
Transportation and Space Florida are providing the non-federal match
for this new asset as well as a connector highway to Space Florida's
space commerce park located on NASA property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ INFRA Grant Award, announced July 25, 2019 by the US
Department of Transportation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We join with many of our colleagues in the commercial space
transportation industry--licensed commercial spaceports and operators,
including those using their own private sites--in calling on the
Congress to authorize and fund an infrastructure program aimed at
enabling America's space transportation leadership. We believe such a
program should be adequately funded on a recurring annual basis,
prioritize grant funding for sites where there is a demonstrated need
by operational activity or clear market demand, and advance the
objectives of a national strategy. Florida has employed such approaches
in its own Spaceport Improvement Program. We would be happy to lend our
experience and discuss this further with the Committee if helpful.
In reviewing the GAO report on commercial space transportation
infrastructure \13\, we agree with its findings that a broader
consideration of approaches and funding sources other than those
existing programs initially identified by the FAA is not only
appropriate and timely, but necessary for the U.S. to sustain its
leadership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Commercial Space Transportation: FAA Should Examine a Range of
Options to Support U.S. Launch Infrastructure, GAO report 21-154,
released December 22, 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why FAA's Role in Assuring Public Safety for People and Property Must
Be Retooled
Just as we concur with the GAO's findings regarding the FAA's need
to find new approaches to enabling infrastructure, we also concur with
its findings that the FAA must adapt and grow its workforce to meet the
challenges of a dynamic and rapidly expanding space industry. I want to
acknowledge the progress that has been made by Associate Administrator
Monteith in reorganizing and staffing to respond to these challenges.
It is no easy task he has. We know that the successful implementation
of new performance-based rules, and the ongoing revolution in emerging
space technologies require the right people with the right skills doing
the right jobs in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
The Federal Aviation Administration chartered the Streamlined
Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) in 2018 to provide a forum to discuss current and potential
future regulations setting forth procedures and requirements for
commercial space transportation launch and reentry licensing for the
FAA's consideration. The FAA tasked the ARC to develop recommendations
for a performance-based regulatory approach in which the regulations
state safety objectives to be achieved, and leave design or operational
solutions up to the applicant. Space Florida was honored to participate
in this activity. Along with the rest of our industry, we are
continuing to evaluate how the new Part 450 regulations will affect our
ability to increase the operational density (geographic proximity) and
intensity (frequency of operational activity) of space transportation
operations at the Cape. We are keenly aware that the FAA's elaboration
on how spaceports and operators may meet the new regulations through
acceptable means of compliance will depend on the content of many
Advisory Circulars which still need to be produced.
We continue to believe, as do many of the commercial operators we
served on the ARC with, that the FAA should focus its public safety
efforts on protection of people and property outside the controlled
boundaries of a federal, state, or private launch site and redefine its
safety role when it comes to regulating the activities of personnel
that are not directly participating in a licensed activity, such as
neighboring operators, or others on a space launch facility. That would
mean a greater role and responsibility for the site operators to
mitigate hazard risks to their employees and vendors.
The competitiveness of the U.S. in the international rivalry for
space dominance depends on ensuring a regulatory structure that
achieves its focus on public safety, while retaining the flexibility to
enable new technologies and operational approaches to advance U.S.
space transportation capabilities. Rulemaking is a lengthy process with
long-lasting consequences. It is imperative to hear from all involved
stakeholders to ensure we can get it right. For all future rulemaking
and associated regulatory processes, I urge this Committee to ensure
that the FAA engages with this unique industry early and often, so that
the companies most knowledgeable about the risks and technologies
involved can do their best to help inform the development of the FAA
rules that all, regulators as well as operators, will have to live by.
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
look forward to your questions.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much, Mr. DiBello.
I now turn to Captain Joe DePete, president of the Air Line
Pilots Association, International.
Captain, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DePete. Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member
Graves and members of the subcommittee. I am Captain Joe
DePete, president of the Air Line Pilots Association,
International, which represents more than 59,000 pilots who fly
for 35 airlines.
Now, let me make clear that ALPA supports a safe
integration of new and expanding users of the national
airspace, including commercial spaceflight operations. As the
world's largest nongovernmental aviation safety organization,
we are equally committed to ensuring that new entrants do not
create new risks.
U.S. air transportation is the safest in the world, and
this subcommittee's leadership is among the reasons why.
Another reason is the highly unionized U.S. aviation workforce
that has put safety first over the past century of flight.
As ALPA celebrates our 90th anniversary, we recognize our
responsibility to share the lessons pilots have learned and
make certain that the United States continues to put safety
first in the national airspace, a critical component of U.S.
transportation infrastructure.
The FAA forecasts an increase in U.S. launch activities by
as much as 100 percent by 2025. In response, the FAA must build
upon a pattern of collaboration by the aviation and aerospace
sectors.
For years, ALPA has facilitated data sharing between the
aviation and aerospace industries. For example, ALPA and the
Commercial Spaceflight Federation held a 2019 symposium that
culminated in a joint statement affirming that both sectors
would work towards a common goal. ALPA believes, now more than
ever, that the FAA, industry, and labor can work together to
create a national space integration strategy.
In 2018, ALPA issued a white paper that called for such a
strategy to include establishing a proactive, risk-predictive
safety culture in spaceflight operations through safety
management systems for manufacturing, operations, and spaceport
licensing; creating commercial astronaut licensing and training
standard that align with those of other professionals who
operate in the national airspace; and developing orbital debris
reentry standards for planned and unplanned reentries that
could affect public safety.
To that end, I would like to state ALPA's support for the
Aerospace Debris Safety Act. A national strategy will enable
all airspace users to create a shared mental model for the
future. In the meantime, the FAA can enhance collaboration,
without additional funding or authorization, by creating an
advisory structure that brings together commercial space,
drone, and aviation operators, which all use the airspace but
currently provide input separately.
By creating a national integration strategy, the FAA will
also reduce emissions. We urge the FAA to renew and review
launch and mission standards and consider lower emission fuels.
As the United States continues to segregate rather than
integrate commercial space, we needlessly increase emissions
during launches by forcing aircraft to fly around segregated
airspace or wait until it reopens. Right now, airline pilots
already face operational issues involving spaceflight, as
recently demonstrated by uncontrolled space debris reentry
events.
We believe the FAA must take actions, including
establishing launch planning and recovery standards, creating
standards to make certain that very large pieces of space
debris reenter at a predefined location and time, and requiring
notification of pilots, airlines, and controllers not directly
involved in a space launch about the risk level changes in that
airspace.
ALPA recognizes that uncontrolled space debris reentry is,
of course, a global safety issue, and we recently sent a letter
to the ICAO Secretary General, calling for international
actions to be taken.
As we consider the promise but also the challenges of
increased spaceflight, the aviation and aerospace sectors have
a proven model to follow to ensure safety. Through the
Commercial Aviation Safety Team, labor, airlines,
manufacturers, industry, and the FAA have collaborated to
address risk in aviation with remarkable success. A similar
data-driven, risk-based construct will help create a proactive
safety culture for commercial spaceflight as well.
Thank you for the subcommittee's recognition of the crucial
role airline pilots play in maintaining the safety of air
transportation as we continue to drive the U.S. public health
and economic recovery, keep supply chains open, and safely
transport our passengers.
Thank you very much for the opportunity today.
[Mr. DePete's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Captain Joseph G. DePete, President, Air Line
Pilots Association, International
On behalf of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA),
I want to thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, for
inviting me to testify on the very important role that the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has in the future of spaceflight. My name
is Captain Joe DePete, and I serve as the president of ALPA. ALPA is
the largest airline pilot union in the world, as well as the largest
nongovernmental aviation safety organization in the world, with a
history of safety advocacy spanning more than 90 years.
ALPA's focus on spaceflight operational integration has been
ongoing for more than five years and our primary focus is on ensuring
that no new risks to airline operations are introduced by space
operations. Based on recent events, there is a lot of work that needs
to be done very quickly by the FAA in cooperation with other parts of
government to ensure that the skies occupied by airline traffic remain
safe, as the frequency of commercial space operations continue to
climb.
Collaboration with Commercial Space Industry
ALPA is a tremendous supporter of our Nation's commercial space
industry. I am proud of the role that we have had in increasing
collaboration that has occurred between the space and airline industry
stakeholders. ALPA has worked particularly hard to reach across the
aisle and engage in meaningful discussions with the commercial space
industry members represented by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation
(CSF). We have also worked to bring other aviation industry
representatives into the discussion. Our interactions were brought onto
a more public stage in October of 2019, when ALPA and the CSF jointly
held a 1-day symposium called Safe Skies for All: Introducing
Spaceflight Into Our Skies. The culmination of that day was a joint
statement on the need to collaborate and work as two separate
industries towards a common goal. We said:

ALPA and CSF vow to continue to work together to improve the
commercial aviation and space community's understanding of each
other's technologies, operations, and constraints; to explore
potential solutions to conflicting demands for airspace; and to
advocate for optimized use of airspace around launch and
reentry activities. We agree that the status quo cannot
continue and the private sector must help the FAA innovate to
minimize any negative impacts of the growing commercial
aviation and space industries. As leaders of our respective
industries, ALPA and CSF have taken cooperative action to solve
these problems. We're working with colleagues and other key
stakeholders to improve how we operate today, as well as
advocating for investments in new air traffic control tools
that will better optimize airspace while preserving safety as
we enjoy future growth in both air and space transportation.

It is with this continued spirit of collaboration that I sit here
today and share with you, our thoughts on the FAA's role in the future
of commercial spaceflight.
Space Launch Activities Forecast to Rise
During the 2020 global pandemic, the FAA continued to approve
commercial space launches, most of which depart and fly over oceanic
airspace. However, domestic sub-orbital launches are expected to
commence in the near future and each launch will require the FAA to
protect large swaths of airspace just in case a space operation fails
to achieve its planned operation.
The rate of rocket launch activities is accelerating. Worldwide,
the number of space launches increased by 54%, from 74 launches in 2010
to 114 launches in calendar year 2020 \1\. This trend is expected to
continue through the 2020s, with the FAA Office of Commercial Space
forecasting a further increase between 36% to 100% in the U.S. alone by
the fiscal year 2025. Industry estimates are even higher with a fiscal
year 2025 growth of 177% over 2020 \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html
\2\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/
media/Commercial_Space.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to discuss three areas with you today. From an airline
pilot perspective, they are the three most pressing safety issues that
need to be addressed by the FAA. I believe that it is very important
that the FAA take both strategic and tactical leadership actions on
these critical safety concerns.
A Systematic Space Integration Strategy Is [Still] Needed
In our 2018 white paper, Addressing the Challenges to Aviation from
Evolving Space Transportation, we highlighted the numerous challenges
that the tremendous growth in commercial space operations will present
to the nation, including space operator approval, spaceport licensing,
regulations for spacecraft crew and participants, spacecraft design
standards, and other critical areas. It is ALPA's belief that the
number of commercial space launches and recoveries will rapidly
escalate in the next ten years, and that the U.S. will lead by example
in successful commercial space operations that are safely-integrated
with the commercial aviation industry. Our carefully chosen words at
that time still ring true today:

The FAA needs a comprehensive plan to integrate commercial
space operations and avoid major disruptions for the other
users of the NAS as the demand for access to the NAS for
commercial space operations increases. As commercial space
operations increase, and as the commercial space operations
locations continue to expand . . . [there is a need] to reduce
NAS impacts while maintaining a high level of safety. At some
point, segregation of commercial aviation operations from
commercial space operations will not be a viable solution.

In the years that have passed since ALPA penned those words, we
have seen some progress in the most publicly visible ``pain point'' for
the traveling public: launch induced delays. We have seen the space
industry and the FAA work to create systems and procedures to better
disseminate information for air traffic controllers and airline
operations centers, and we have seen a high degree of launch vehicle
performance and reliability as American astronauts have resumed their
travel on American rockets. All of these positive steps are evidence of
continuous improvements of spaceflight accommodation. However, ALPA has
not seen any of the much needed steps by the FAA, to start the
integration process. We believe that now more than ever, a
comprehensive strategy is needed, so that we do not lose sight of the
ultimate goal. Areas that must be addressed in this strategy, include:
A comprehensive system safety performance framework
including both hardware and software standards designed for normal and
non-normal operations.
Safety Management System for manufacturing, operations, and
spaceport licensing.
A comprehensive plan for airspace management coordination
tools and capabilities
Orbital debris reentry standards as well as a comprehensive
plan for when orbital debris may impact aviation operations.
Astronaut licensing, training and recurrency standards
associated with the operation in the National Airspace System

We are concerned that without a strategy, safety risks may either
be under-rated or unidentified altogether. However, it is important to
note that we are not asking the FAA to regulate the Commercial Space
industry as if they are starting from square one or to dramatically
impose severe constraints. The industry is very successful at what they
do, and each successful rocket launch proves this point. Instead, we
are encouraging all stakeholders to jointly develop and define a goal
for the future and then ensure that each decision point made along the
way is consistent with that envisioned operational future. If we do not
have a common goal in mind, and if it is not a shared goal, then we
cannot create a shared mental model of the various strategies that we
can collectively and individually use to reach the envisioned level of
safety with full operational integration.
Creating a Shared Mental Model on Integration
There is another aspect of strategic thinking that I know the FAA
can immediately implement, without any funding or authorization:
Establish an overarching integration advisory structure. I realize that
we are discussing the topic of space operations today. However, I
believe that the FAA needs to hear from the breadth of our Nation's
airspace operators from a single vantage point on integration of all
types of aircraft and spacecraft. I also believe that the aviation and
space segments need to create a ``shared mental model'' where there is
broad agreement on how the airspace will be used in the future. But we
cannot create a shared mental model if we do not get all of the players
together, along with the FAA, at the same table.
It strikes me as odd that the FAA's various operational advisory
committees do not interact with each other. They are by definition,
segregated. This segregation into narrow focus areas includes
commercial space, drones and aviation. Each industry segment has their
respective advisory committee including the Commercial Space
Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), the Drone Advisory
Committee (DAC), and the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC). However
these segregated committees never interact, or step back to see how
their needs affect other airspace operators. We need de-segregation of
the airspace user community.
If the FAA were to establish a broader integration committee, it
would also mean that they should cross-pollinate the commercial space
industry into mainstream aviation industry advisory committees. I will
forever remember my first visit to the Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting in the gallery as a member of the
public. At that meeting I took the opportunity to share my belief that
we are stronger working together than we are working independently. I
shared my passion for a proactive safety risk mitigation philosophy
instead of the reactive or forensic based safety advancement model. I
was able to share the facts about how much safer the airline industry
has become with proactive, data-driven safety risk analysis. I was very
excited when multiple COMSTAC members engaged in a discussion that was
neither scheduled nor scripted. We took the time to collaborate and
began developing a common understanding of each industries airspace
needs and safety requirements. That left a very distinct feeling of
hope and optimism that someday we will all be working together to
achieve incredible results that are mutually beneficial to all
Americans now matter what their airspace needs would be.
In my time serving as ALPA president and before that, as First Vice
President and National Safety Coordinator I have had the privilege of
serving on numerous Federal Advisory Committees and I fully support an
integrated group of stakeholders who jointly need to be tasked by the
FAA to provide valuable feedback on important safety and operational
topics relevant to all airspace users. It's our recommendation that the
FAA:
Identify a means by which to obtain an integrated set of
industry recommendations on how to successfully achieve future
operations.
Review the structure of the current committees and find a
way to develop recommendations with an underlying assumption that the
FAA will continue to oversee the operations of all aircraft and
spacecraft in the National Airspace System (NAS), which will continue
to be a national resource to be shared by all.
Seek input on a consensus based strategic plan with a
target date for commercial space integration that allows the Commercial
Space operators to ``file and fly'' without segregation / sterilization
of airspace areas.

I believe that these strategic steps are the right steps for the
FAA to take in support of the future of our country and our country's
airspace system.
Focus on Environmental Impact
It should not need to be said, that there is critical work to be
done immediately to limit the environmental impact from commercial
space operations. While the focus on environmental impact may not have
been considered a significant concern in the past when space operations
were less frequent, the increased frequency of the launches today
dictates a necessity to address the environmental impacts associated
with commercial space launches. Many rocket launches utilize fossil
fuels, and the carbon emissions from a rocket launch are easily
measurable. They can be reduced through an increased focus on
environmental impacts. With rocket launches combined with the added
fuel burn required by aircraft due to flight diversions around airspace
designated for rocket launches, the total impact of space operations
should be recognized and address as part of the FAA's focus going
forward. Developing alternative fuel strategies in addition to
developing and implementing the Commercial Space integration strategy
as quickly as possible is critical. We must not allow any airspace user
to be given a ``hall pass'' on this important topic.
Near-Term Concerns
In addition to the strategic activities that we believe the FAA
should be fostering, I would also like to take a few minutes and
highlight real-world examples of operational issues that airline pilots
must contend with today, that have not been an issue until relatively
recently.
Uncontrolled Rocket Re-Entry Events
Two recent uncontrolled and unscheduled space debris re-entry
events have exposed a troubling trend. The events include a March 25,
2021 Space-X Falcon 9 second stage re-entry over the Northwestern
United States and Southwestern Canada, and a Long March CZ-5B-Y1 rocket
on May 9, 2021, in the Indian Ocean. In the span of just 45 days, many
tons of rocket components have re-entered the atmosphere as out-of-
control space debris, putting many lives at risk. This includes those
lives that were in-flight on airline aircraft and were likely unaware
of the potential danger that they might encounter. Only after the re-
entry had occurred, did the real safety threat become much more
obvious.
In the case of the Space-X re-entry, we know that the second stage
did not have sufficient propellant left to have a controlled de-orbit,
and therefore Space-X lost control of the booster, which was left
orbiting the earth for weeks (not hours or days) before its re-entry.
There was ample time to evaluate and plan for any potential risks
resulting from the unplanned re-entry. Despite the second stage design
to minimize debris, several components did survive re-entry and
impacted the ground.
In the days following the March 25 re-entry, several pieces of the
Space-X second stage were recovered, and some of them reportedly
weighed upwards of 300 pounds (136.7 kg). We are unaware of any
warnings or cautions issued by Space X, or either of the Air Navigation
Service Providers (ANSPs) in the U.S. or Canada, once it was known that
the re-entry could occur in continental U.S. and Canadian airspace. We
are also unaware of any warnings issued by public safety agencies to
generally alert the global aviation community in advance of the event.
The second re-entry event involved a Long March CZ-5B-Y1 rocket,
which was among the 10 largest pieces of human-made space debris to
ever re-enter the earth's atmosphere. The rocket booster re-entered
over the Indian Ocean approximately 50 minutes earlier than the final
prediction provided by The Aerospace Corporation. If it had re-entered
15 minutes later than predicted, it would have occurred over central
Florida. If re-entry had occurred 105 minutes later than predicted, it
would have been over Washington, DC, and much of the continental U.S.
in the moments before that.
In May 2020, a similar Long March CZ-5B-Y1 rocket also re-entered
the atmosphere and like the Space-X Falcon 9, some of the booster
components fell all the way to the ground, within the Republic of Cote
d'Ivoire. Publicly available news reports indicate that another CZ-5B-
Y1 booster will be used in the near future, and a re-entry event like
the May 9 event will occur again.
Publicly, news agencies and experts report that this rocket booster
is not equipped with the capability to ensure that its re-entry can be
controlled, or even accurately predicted.
The airline industry long ago realized that the ``big sky theory''
was not an acceptable collision risk mitigation strategy, and yet there
seems to be an ongoing view that the ``big sky theory'' is an
acceptable risk for space debris re-entry. The problem becomes even
more apparent when looking at the forecast for increased future
launches.
Thus, the two uncontrolled re-entry events and the risk they pose
to aviation are noteworthy, given the strong safety record the airline
industry in the U.S. has worked so hard to achieve. Although neither
event created an aviation or ground-related casualty, several issues
have been identified by ALPA that we believe are a global threat to
aviation safety and need to be addressed by the FAA.
The need for standards for launch planning and recovery, as
well as risk mitigation, should unplanned events occur during the
launch and recovery.
The need for standards for space debris that at a minimum,
includes ``design for demise'' requirements, as well as vehicle design
requirements to ensure that very large pieces of space debris are
controllable enough to ensure that the re-entry occurs at a pre-defined
location and time.
The FAA and their government agency partners need to
greatly increase information dissemination before and during re-entry
events, so that aviation operations have adequate advance notice, as
well as ongoing updates on the re-entry data as it becomes available.
Even if there are ``design to demise'' plans in place, the risk of an
unanticipated space debris reentry needs to be communicated. If
necessary, the FAA air traffic control should direct pilots away from
possible areas at risk to collisions from components that are falling
through the airspace, during the re-entry.

It is important to recognize that this is not just an issue that we
must face as a Nation, it is a global issue. Therefore, last month I
sent an urgent letter of request to the ICAO Secretary General with
many of these same facts and concerns, and I asked the Secretary
General to begin work immediately to address the global risks to
passengers and flight crews from space debris reentry. I continue to
anxiously wait for a response. A copy of the letter is included at the
end of my statement.
Elevated Levels of Risk in the Vicinity of Space Operations
As discussed earlier, prior to each rocket launch, the FAA air
traffic controllers work to clear the airspace in the vicinity of the
launch pad and under the rocket's planned flight path to orbit. The
airspace is also sterilized for any of the boosters that return to
earth, as part of the rocket operation. The size and duration of the
airspace is relative to the size and complexity of each rocket launch
operation.
The FAA has recently implemented an airspace risk mitigation
procedure called Acceptable Level of Risk (ALR) \3\. In the simplest of
terms, ALR reduces the volume of airspace that is segregated based on
the results of mathematical risk analysis, which shows that risks of
exposure to a rocket mishap is acceptable based on the time an aircraft
will operate in areas of higher risk and potentially be exposed to
rocket debris. While this is not a secret policy change, the FAA does
not sufficiently notify pilots, airlines, or controllers not directly
involved in a space launch of these changes in risk levels of airspace
near the rocket launches, rocket reentry, launch trajectory zones, or
of off-nominal events. Additionally, the FAA does not provide pilots or
dispatchers with maps, coordinates or other details about the ALR
airspace zones in which there is a reduced level of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For a description of the FAA ALR see the document at the
following web link: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management/media/2018-04-27-
FAASRMGuidance-ALR_signed_508.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPA has raised questions and have expressed concerns on numerous
occasions, about the lack of information disseminated to line pilots
about ALR operations, and the increased level of risk that pilots are
being asked to accept, most of the time unbeknown to them. ALPA
believes operators of the NAS (pilots and controllers) need to be
provided with ALR related information prior to every flight that will
be exposed to ALR operations, and we believe that the FAA needs to
publish clear guidance on the ALR operations so that pilots can make an
informed decision about their flight's exposure to the ALR airspace
area. ALPA recommends that the FAA:
Develop and distribute educational materials, as well as
update the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) explaining the ALR
concept, the risks that the FAA has identified when operating in the
ALR airspace and describe the type of air traffic control services
available to pilots should the need arise. The FAA should also include
instructions on how pilots can elect to avoid the ALR airspace if they
prefer.
For each rocket launch that utilizes ALR airspace risk
mitigation procedures, publish Notices to Airmen with graphical
depictions and information that can be displayed on a map, of the ALR
airspace area that includes relevant navigation airways and waypoints,
so that pilots, dispatchers, and airlines can evaluate the risks to
their flight, by understanding the size, location and duration of the
time they are operating in ALR airspace.
Ensure that air traffic controllers have adequate tools and
capabilities to provide flight crews with air traffic services for all
operations in the vicinity of rocket launches, reentries, and during
off-nominal events.

I often refer to ALPA members as ``front line workers.'' Whether
they are working day-in and day-out during a global pandemic and the
risks to their heath during their work day, or whether they are flying
in ALR airspace or in a portion of the sky where there is the potential
for rocket debris re-entering the atmosphere above them, airline pilots
are continuously focused on ensuring that their passengers, cabin crew
members, and cargo reach their destination safely. However, ALPA pilots
are not alone in this effort to achieve the highest levels of safety.
Instead, airline pilots rely on air traffic controllers, dispatchers
and our fellow crew members in the cabin to help us safely complete
each and every flight. The need for information dissemination across
all of these worker groups is critical, and until we have a solid
framework in place to ensure every user of the airspace is aware of the
risks of a space debris reentry, and understands ALR operations and
their expected roles, we believe that the FAA has important steps to
take immediately. We should not be allowing any airspace operator to be
unaware of either of these very important safety issues.
Conclusion
The level of safety that the traveling public has come to expect
cannot be maintained in the future world where rocket launches are
expected to be a frequent occurrence across our great nation, without a
strategy to get us there. It's a very important step to take. But while
we work on that strategy, we urgently need to work on the exchange and
dissemination of what I would consider to be mission-critical
operational information. The uncontrollable re-entry of a large piece
of space debris into the atmosphere over domestic airspace, and the ALR
airspace concept are two very appropriate examples of the type of
information that would be very beneficial to pilots who are striving to
complete their safety mission.
ALPA stands by as a committed, willing partner as we continue to
chart a path on these very important topics into the future. We
appreciate your recognition of the unique and critical role played by
pilots and all airline workers to safely maintain our air
transportation system, support our national economy, and position both
the aviation and the space industry for seamless operations in the
future. Along with these suggestions, please accept our offer to
provide the necessary personnel from ALPA to assist the FAA in these
activities. I firmly believe that the FAA is well-positioned to
immediately address the issues. I stand firm in the belief that through
collaboration and a common goal to achieve the highest possible safety
levels, that the space community and the aviation community can rise
above the challenges we are currently facing to the benefit of all
humanity. Thank you for your continued oversight of this very important
topic.
attachment
May 14, 2021.
Dr. Fang Liu,
Secretary General,
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 999 Robert-Bourassa
Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec H3C 5H7 Canada.
Dear Secretary-General Liu:
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), representing
the safety interests of over 59,000 professional airline pilots flying
for 35 airlines in the United States (U.S.) and Canada, has closely
monitored the rapid increase in global space operations. Our focus on
space flight operational integration has been ongoing for more than
five years and our concerns are primarily focused on ensuring that no
new risks to airline operations are introduced by space operations.
Based on recent events, we believe that there is a lot of work that
needs to be done very quickly and I ask that International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) take leadership on this critical safety
concern.
Two recent uncontrolled and unscheduled space debris re-entry
events have exposed a major risk. The events include a March 25, 2021
Space-X Falcon 9 second stage re-entry over the Northwestern United
States and Southwestern Canada, and a CZ-5B-Y1 rocket on May 9, 2021,
in the Indian Ocean. In the span of just 45 days, many tons of rocket
components have re-entered the atmosphere as out-of-control space
debris, putting many lives at risk. This includes those lives that were
in-flight on airline aircraft and were likely unaware of the potential
danger that they might encounter. Only after the re-entry had occurred,
did the real safety threat become much more obvious.
In the case of the Space-X re-entry, we know that the second stage
encountered a mechanical difficulty and was adrift, orbiting the earth
for weeks before its re-entry. There was ample time to evaluate and
plan for any potential risks resulting from the unplanned re-entry.
Despite the second stage design to minimize debris, several components
of the Falcon 9 did survive re-entry and impacted the ground.
In the days following the March 25 re-entry, several pieces of the
Space-X second stage were recovered, and some of them reportedly
weighed upwards of 300 pounds (136.7 kg). We are unaware of any
warnings or cautions issued by Space X, or either of the Air Navigation
Service Providers (ANSPs) in the U.S. or Canada, once it was known that
the re-entry would occur in continental U.S. and Canadian airspace. We
are also unaware of any warnings issued by public safety agencies to
generally alert the global aviation community in advance of the event.
The second re-entry event involved a CZ-5B-Y1 rocket, which was
among the 10 largest pieces of human-made space debris to re-enter the
earth's atmosphere. The rocket booster re-entered over the Indian Ocean
approximately 50 minutes earlier than the final prediction provided by
The Aerospace Corporation. If it had re-entered 15 minutes later than
predicted, it would have occurred over central Florida. If re-entry had
occurred 105 minutes later than predicted, it would have been over
Washington, DC, and much of the continental U.S. in the moments before
that.
In May 2020, a CZ-58-Y1 rocket also re-entered the atmosphere and
like the Space-X Falcon 9, some of the booster components fell all the
way to the ground, within the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire. Publicly
available news reports indicate that another CZ-5B-Y1 booster will be
used in the near future, and a re-entry event like the May 9 event will
occur again. Publicly, news agencies and experts report that this
rocket booster is not equipped with the capability to ensure that its
re-entry can be controlled, or even accurately predicted.
The airline industry long ago realized that the ``big sky theory''
was not an acceptable collision risk mitigation strategy, and yet there
seems to be an ongoing view that the ``big sky theory'' is an
acceptable level of risk for space debris re-entry. The problem becomes
even more apparent when looking at the forecast for future launches.
Worldwide, the number of space launches increased by 54%, from 74
launches in 2010 to 114 launches in 2020 \4\. This trend is expected to
continue through the 2020s, with The U.S. Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space forecasting a further
increase between 36% to 100% in the U.S. alone by the fiscal year 2025.
Industry estimates are even higher with a fiscal 2025 growth of 177%
over 2020 \5\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logyear.html
\5\ https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/
media/Commercial_Space.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the two uncontrolled re-entry events and the risk they pose
to aviation are noteworthy, given the strong global safety record the
global aviation industry has worked so hard to achieve. Although
neither event created an aviation-related casualty, several issues have
been identified by ALPA that we believe are a global threat to aviation
safety and need to be addressed by ICAO.
The need for globally accepted standards for launch
planning and recovery, as well as risk mitigation, should unplanned
events occur during the launch and recovery.
The need for globally accepted standards for space debris
that at a minimum, includes ``design for demise'' requirements, as well
as vehicle design requirements to ensure that very large pieces of
space debris are controllable enough to ensure that the re-entry occurs
at a pre-defined location and time.
States need to greatly increase information dissemination
before and during the re-entry events, so that aviation operations have
adequate advance notice, as well as ongoing updates on the re-entry
data as it becomes available. If necessary, actions by ANSPs should be
taken so that aircraft are cleared from possible areas at risk to
collisions from components that are falling through the airspace,
during the re-entry.

Along with these suggestions, please accept our offer to provide
the necessary personnel from ALPA to assist you in this activity. I
firmly believe that ICAO is in the best position to immediately address
this critical aviation safety issue. I stand firm in the belief that
through collaboration and a common goal to achieve the highest possible
safety levels, that the global aviation community can rise above the
challenges we are currently facing, to the benefit of all humanity. I
look forward to hearing from you soon.
Respectfully,
Capt. Joseph G. DePete,
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International.

cc:Captain Jack Netskar, President of IFALPA
cc:Mr. Juan Carlos Salazar, ICAO Secretary General Effective August 1,
2021
cc:Mr. Sean E. Doocey, U.S. Representative to ICAO

Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Captain DePete.
I now want to turn to Mike Moses, president of Virgin
Galactic.
Mr. Moses, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moses. Thank you, Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member
Graves, Chairman DeFazio, and members of the Aviation
Subcommittee and staff, for the opportunity to testify to you
all today.
I am the president of space missions and safety for Virgin
Galactic. I joined the company in 2011, following a career at
NASA, where I worked on the space shuttle program, starting at
Mission Control in Houston, and then eventually leading shuttle
processing activities from the Kennedy Space Center.
My tenure there at NASA gave me perspective, insight, and
experience for operations planning and safe execution of human
spaceflight, which is my top responsibility here at Virgin
Galactic.
Today, I would like to highlight the important policies
that apply to Virgin Galactic and the commercial spaceflight
industry that will help prioritize safety, while promoting
growth of the industry.
Virgin Galactic was founded as the world's first commercial
space line in 2004, with the ambitious mission of flying
private astronauts to space. Our mission is to open frequent
access to space, while safely delivering a transformative
spaceflight experience to our astronauts.
Our system consists of two vehicles that take off and land
on a runway rather than a launchpad. The mother ship is a
purpose-built jet aircraft with the job of carrying the
spaceship to a launch altitude at 50,000 feet. The spaceship
launches from there and transports six customers and scientific
research safely and routinely to space and back.
Our system is suborbital. So while we do not enter orbit
around the Earth, our astronauts will experience several
minutes of weightlessness as they float freely about the cabin,
taking in the amazing views of Earth.
We have had three spaceflights so far, most recently last
month. And our company's North Star is and always will be
safety, a mindset that we know is shared throughout the
commercial space sector and by my fellow panelists. In fact, we
are immensely proud that our latest flight to space from New
Mexico marks the 400th launch licensed by the FAA, maintaining
their perfect public safety record.
The U.S. is a global leader in commercial spaceflight, and
the industry has indeed seen significant growth in the past
decade. The success is intentional, made possible by the
leadership, decisionmaking, and action of the Congress and
Federal agencies. Policies such as the learning period,
informed consent, and risk-sharing liability regime have led
the way for this explosive growth, without compromising safety
or innovation. Now is the time to build on that solid
foundation to ensure continued success, particularly as we now
look to taking humans to space.
Commercial human spaceflight still is in its infancy. To
date, we have only had Virgin Galactic's three suborbital
missions and SpaceX's three human orbital Government missions
that have flown humans.
A major step in building upon the foundation was the part
450 regulations to streamline into a single licensing regime.
As Virgin Galactic and other companies work through these new
regulations, we need to have the FAA with the resources
required to continue its track record of excellent industry
support in order to address unforeseen issues that may arise
from this new regime quickly and in a manner that will not
impact their protection of public safety nor delay commercial
business.
On the safety front, the FAA regularly engages industry
through an advisory committee called COMSTAC. As a current
member of that committee myself, I am proud to share that we
work closely with the FAA on the development of voluntary
industry consensus standards, including those related to human
spaceflight. One such effort is via ASTM, who are actively
developing and publishing standards.
Together, the industry is constantly innovating safety
systems, designs, and operations. And while all this progress
is beneficial, as noted earlier, the industry still is in its
early days, and more time is needed to have informed
discussions on what regulatory framework should look like in
the future to support human spaceflight, looking beyond just
public safety. Extending the learning period would allow these
discussions to take place in Congress, in partnership with
industry and the FAA.
Finally, as this committee is definitely aware, efforts to
address our Nation's infrastructure and development and
maintenance are underway, and space must definitely be part of
that discussion. Protecting and improving that infrastructure
is critical to life in the 21st century.
This is an exciting time, not only for Virgin Galactic, but
for the entire industry, as we mark milestones towards human
spaceflight. The committee's tireless work and progress on
aviation and aerospace regulation is imperative and very much
appreciated. We often call out the innovation that is occurring
in spaceflight technology, but innovation can and should be
applied to the policies that shape the sector as well.
We look forward to continuing to work closely with all of
you in the pursuit of these highest levels of safety and
innovation. Thank you for the time, and I am happy to answer
questions during the Q&A.
[Mr. Moses' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mike Moses, President of Space Missions and
Safety, Virgin Galactic
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, members of the Aviation
Subcommittee and staff, and my fellow panelists, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony for this hearing, ``Starships and
Stripes Forever--An Examination of the FAA's Role in the Future of
Spaceflight.''
I am the President of Space Missions and Safety for Virgin
Galactic. I joined the company in 2011 following a career at NASA.
While at NASA I worked as a flight controller on the Shuttle program
and then later as a Flight Director at NASA Johnson Space Center where
I led teams of flight controllers in the planning, training, and
execution of space shuttle missions. Afterwards, I served at the
Kennedy Space Center as the Launch Integration Manager, leading the
space shuttle program activities for vehicle processing from landing
through launch. My tenure at NASA has given me the perspective,
insight, and experience for operations planning and safe execution of
human spaceflight which is my top responsibility at Virgin Galactic. I
am also proud to be currently serving as a member of COMSTAC, the
Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, which acts to
support the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the FAA
Administrator.
In my testimony today, I'd like to provide an overview of Virgin
Galactic, our accomplishments, and our future plans. In addition, I
will discuss current industry regulations, and the future needs of
those regulations to address continued growth and safety of the
industry, as well as its role in the global competitiveness our
industry faces. Specifically, I'll outline how the learning period
affects our sector, the needs of commercial space integration into the
airspace system, FAA licensing requirements, our space support
vehicles, and space infrastructure.
About Virgin Galactic
Virgin Galactic was founded as the world's first commercial
spaceline in 2004 with the ambitious goal of flying private astronauts
to space. Founded by Sir Richard Branson, we are a vertically
integrated U.S. aerospace company headquartered in California and New
Mexico with a mission of opening access to space to change the world
for good.
Our fleet is based on the historic SpaceShipOne vehicle--which was
the first private space vehicle to safely carry human beings into
space, which it did in 2004, claiming the Ansari X PRIZE. Virgin
Galactic's vehicles were designed with the intention of opening
frequent access to space and providing a transformational spaceflight
experience to our astronauts. Our system is suborbital--it allows our
astronauts to journey to space, beyond the Earth's atmosphere, and
experience several minutes of floating freely about the cabin, out of
your seat, experiencing zero-gravity and witnessing the incredible
views of Earth from space. Our suborbital spaceflight system consists
of two vehicles: Mothership (pictured in Figure 1) is a four-engine,
dual-fuselage jet aircraft capable of high-altitude heavy lift
missions. And our SpaceShip class of vehicles, which are suborbital
spaceplanes carried by the mothership and designed to transport people
and scientific research safely and routinely to suborbital space and
back.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 1: Mothership Carrier Aircraft, VMS EVE

Our current spaceship in flight test is SpaceShipTwo, VSS Unity
(shown in Figure 2). Our SpaceShips are flown by two experienced pilots
and can carry up to six spaceflight participants or about 1000 pounds
of science and technology research experiments to space altitudes where
they will have exposure to 3-4 minutes of a high-quality microgravity
environment. To date, we have flown to space three times from two
states, all of which carried NASA Flight Opportunities Program research
experiments on board. Virgin Galactic's spaceship is the only human-
rated, crew-piloted suborbital system in the world. We provide our
customers with a transformational experience to gaze down at our Earth
and take in all the inspiration that our planet can offer. In addition,
Virgin Galactic also provides spaceflights that can be used for
professional astronaut training, as well as research, education, and
other industrial applications to develop and test new applications and
technologies.

Figure 2: SpaceShipTwo, VSS Unity

On March 30, 2021, Virgin Galactic rolled out our second spaceship
and the flagship of the next generation of the SpaceShip fleet--
SpaceShip III, VSS Imagine (pictured in Figure 3). VSS Imagine was
manufactured in our Mojave, California, facility and will begin its
flight test program this summer from Spaceport America--our operational
headquarters in New Mexico--with powered flights following next year.
As VSS Imagine begins its test program, manufacturing will progress on
VSS Inspire, the second SpaceShip III vehicle, bringing the total
number of spaceships within the Virgin Galactic fleet to three. The
introduction of the SpaceShip III class of vehicles is an important
milestone in Virgin Galactic's multi-year effort that targets flying
400 flights per year, as these new vehicles were designed specifically
to increase performance and reduce the time needed between flights.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Figure 3: SpaceShip III, VSS Imagine

Industry Regulations
The commercial space industry has seen significant growth in the
past decade. The U.S.-based space sector is made up of companies with
private and public financial backing working on a myriad of missions
including human spaceflight, satellite constellations, and beyond Low-
Earth Orbit (LEO) operations, expanding the potential of exploration
once again with lunar missions, Mars landers and rovers, and recently
announced Venus missions. Many of these goals are through public-
private partnerships as well as through industry-driven ambitions.
The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, as amended and re-codified
at 51 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 50901-23, authorizes the Department of
Transportation to oversee, license, and regulate commercial launch and
reentry activities. In 1995, the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) was created after
the Secretary of Transportation delegated the authority to exercise
oversight responsibilities of these activities to the FAA
Administrator. FAA AST's regulatory authority over commercial launch
and reentry activities is prioritized to protecting public safety,
national security, and U.S. foreign policy interests. This regulatory
approach is necessary to encourage the emerging commercial space
industry while prioritizing the safety of the public. These principles
continue to be important for the development of the commercial space
industry today.
FAA Licensing
Space Policy Directive 2 (SPD-2), released in 2018, called for the
Executive Branch agencies to review existing regulations and ensure
rules are not duplicative while continuing to promote economic growth,
advance national security and foreign policy goals, and encourage U.S.
commercial space leadership. In response to SPD-2, the Department of
Transportation, through FAA AST, conducted a rulemaking effort on
launch and reentry licensing for commercial space transportation
vehicles. The new Part 450 regulations aimed to consolidate multiple
regulatory parts to create a single licensing regime for all types of
commercial spaceflight launch and reentry operations with the goal of
replacing prescriptive requirements with performance-based criteria.
Currently Virgin Galactic is operating under a Part 431 Operators
License, originally issued on July 26, 2016.
While Virgin Galactic supports these streamlined regulations--
moving toward performance-based metrics as opposed to prescriptive--it
should be noted that further evaluation of the regulations will occur
as new and existing launch operators update their licenses and there is
still work to be done. Specifically of concern to suborbital operators
like Virgin Galactic, the new Part 450 regulations combined previous
regulations and added an additional layer of intricacy typically seen
for larger, more complex systems used for orbital spaceflight. However,
the FAA has always been an important partner for industry and has shown
willingness to work with the commercial sector on issues that arise
during the licensing process as long as it does not compromise their
primary public safety objective. As Virgin Galactic and all launch
operators work through the new Part 450 regulations, we encourage the
FAA to continue its channel of open dialogue and discussion for
addressing inadvertent issues that may arise in a new regulatory regime
quickly and in a manner that does not delay or impact commercial
business.
The Learning Period
In the act of passing and re-authorizing the Commercial Space
Launch Act, Congress acknowledged that the current emergence of the
commercial human spaceflight industry is in a dynamic, iterative, and
development cycle, and is not yet ready for the full-scale regulation
that characterizes today's commercial air travel. Understanding that it
is impossible for regulators to create effective and efficient
regulations for diverse, innovative vehicles without sufficient data,
Congress created a regulatory learning period during which FAA may
regulate for the safety of the public, or in response to an incident.
The rationale was that ``FAA regulatory burdens on the relatively new
and rapidly evolving commercial space launch industry could slow
innovation, particularly when it remains to be clear which areas the
FAA should regulate.''
This learning period was initially enacted in 2004 to ensure that
industry had time to develop and create a sufficient database of
knowledge on which to base future commercial space regulations. Due to
the technical and economic challenges of spaceflight and the industry's
emphasis on safety, commercial space companies did not progress as
quickly as was once envisioned. Congress correctly acknowledged that
the learning period did not fully accomplish its intended purpose and
extended it--most recently with the Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act (CSLCA), which extended it to Oct. 1, 2023. Before
the learning period sunsets, Congress should work with industry to
determine if sufficient experience, data, and metrics are available to
define those areas most critical to regulate to meet Congress' public
policy objectives.
In Title 51 U.S.C. Sec. 50905(c)(6), Congress directed the FAA to
submit a report specifying key industry metrics that might indicate a
proper level of maturity for the commercial space industry to be fit
for regulation. Section 50905(c)(7) of that same legislation also
directed the FAA to submit another report every two years on ``the
commercial space activities most appropriate for regulatory action, if
any, and a proposed transition plan for such regulations.''
On October 20, 2017, the FAA submitted its first report to Congress
specifying the key metrics that may indicate the commercial space
sector's readiness for regulations. The FAA divided the indicators into
three sets. The first set of indicators looks to the industry's
readiness to enter a safety framework by focusing on the purpose for
which people are flying, the size and complexity of the industry, and
its safety. The second set are indicators of the industry's progress in
developing a safety framework and focuses on voluntary safety
reporting, voluntary consensus standards, and compliance. The final set
of indicators relate to the FAA's readiness to enter into a safety
framework and focuses on the FAA's authority and expertise.
There are several core premises that underlie the FAA's indicators:
1.The human spaceflight industry must continually improve its
safety performance.
2.The safety framework should grow and mature as the industry does.
3.As the purpose of space travel evolves from adventure, to
occupation, and on to transportation, the public's expectation of
safety increases.

Both the identified indicators and their underlying premises are in
line with Congress' intention, noted in 51 U.S.C. Sec. 509019(a)(15):

``[t]he regulatory standards governing human spaceflight must
evolve as the industry matures so that regulations neither
stifle technology development nor expose crew, government
astronauts, or spaceflight participants to avoidable risks as
the public comes to expect greater safety for crew, government
astronauts, and spaceflight participants from the industry.''

On February 26, 2019, the FAA submitted its reports on the
commercial human spaceflight activities most appropriate for regulatory
action. The FAA concluded in that report that ``[b]ased on the
readiness indicators provided in FAA's October 2017 report to Congress,
there are no commercial human spaceflight activities that are ready for
a new safety framework that may include regulatory action.'' In fact,
the FAA accurately recognized that ``[a]t this point in the commercial
human spaceflight industry's evolution, transition to a new safety
framework might stifle technology development.''
Since that report, there have been multiple exciting developments
in the commercial spaceflight industry, but industry has not quite
achieved the levels described in the indicators. On May 22, 2021,
Virgin Galactic's VSS Unity flew to space for the third time in total,
and the first from our operational headquarters at Spaceport America in
New Mexico. This made the Land of Enchantment the third state in the
history of the United States to send humans into space. With this
achievement, we are on the precipice of commercial service and it is
more important than ever that we focus on that mission. Until we have a
data set of additional successful flights, new regulations could be
unintentionally burdensome and potentially stifle development at this
critical juncture for companies such as ours.
Moreover, the size and complexity of the industry is still
maturing. For suborbital flights, the industry only has one horizontal
launch suborbital company, Virgin Galactic, and one vertical launch
suborbital company, Blue Origin. So far, Virgin Galactic has only had
three human suborbital flights to space, while Blue Origin plans to
have its first suborbital flight with humans in the coming months.
While new entrants with financial backing are joining the commercial
industry every year, the current very limited frequency of human
spaceflight is an indicator that the sector is still developing.
Most importantly, we also want to emphasize that the spaceflight
companies themselves hold a vested interest in safety and safe
performance. Virgin Galactic's North Star has been and always will be
safety--a mindset shared throughout the commercial space sector. Our
latest flight to space from New Mexico marked the 400th FAA-licensed
launch maintaining the FAA's perfect public safety record.
As a member of COMSTAC's Safety Working Group, I am proud to share
that we are working closely with the FAA regarding the development of
commercial spaceflight voluntary industry consensus standards. In
September 2020, COMSTAC's Safety Working Group made multiple
recommendations to COMSTAC regarding this topic, highlighting the
importance of this topic to everyone involved in our industry. We are
currently focused on soliciting industry feedback to update supporting
documents from FAA that industry will need upon conclusion of the
learning period. Some of this information is almost two decades old and
needs significant attention.
ASTM International is a leading standards development organization
with over 120 years of experience. They currently have upward of 12,500
published standards across a wide array of industries. ASTM's F47
Committee on Commercial Spaceflight was initiated a few years ago and
Virgin Galactic has been an active participant since the committee's
inception. F47 is comprised of a variety of experts from government,
industry, and academia. To date, they have published four standards,
one pending a vote, seven that will be up for ballot by the end of the
year, and five still under review. Out of the seventeen standards that
are currently published or under consideration, eleven are related to
human spaceflight standards.
Simultaneously, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, which has
over 70 member companies, has been working diligently to pursue ever-
higher levels of safety and share best practices and expertise
throughout the industry.
While all this progress has been beneficial, more time is needed to
increase the overall standards framework. Given the diversity of
vehicles and services within the industry, achieving helpful and
applicable standards requires significant resources and collaboration.
For human spaceflight alone, we have systems that launch vertically,
horizontally, and even balloons that slowly ascend high into the
atmosphere. With committees, advisory groups, and organizations
actively working with the FAA to establish commercial spaceflight
safety standards, the industry is constantly innovating safety systems,
designs, and operations. Continuing informed discussions about the
learning period is imperative to allow the industry and regulators to
develop a safety framework that will best protect the health and safety
of crew, government astronauts, and spaceflight participants while also
ensuring our industry is the global leader in commercial space. It is
without question that the learning period has enabled the commercial
space industry to innovate for safety more quickly than they would if
early regulations not based in industry data were in place. The
learning period has given FAA the opportunity to collaborate with
industry so that both FAA and industry are better able to achieve the
highest levels of safety. Therefore, Congress should continue to engage
with industry and the FAA to create a versatile regulatory framework
that will optimize safety standards and maintain our current high
levels of innovation.
Commercial Space Integration into Airspace
Our commercial base of operation in New Mexico is located within
White Sands Missile Range's restricted airspace, thus our impact on
airspace and air traffic during our launches is minimal.
While all commercial space launch vehicles are different,
commercial space operations are not currently a large user of the
National Airspace System (NAS), but these operations serve very
important functions in our nation's commerce, civil, and national
security priorities. Furthermore, because both their speed and their
direction of flight are so different from aircraft, rockets and
spaceplanes typically occupy the NAS for only a few minutes or even
seconds per flight, rather than lingering or passing through the
airspace for hours at a time. However, as the industry's launch cadence
increases, it drives the need for efficient and streamlined processes
for continued seamless integration into the airspace. This will require
investment in efficient, effective processes and technical tools such
as the Space Data Integrator and others. In addition, the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is key to coordinating
use of the NAS between all users. Programs developed to fix these
problems are available, however they must be prioritized, funded, and
integrated into the current system. Upgrades such as these will allow
the FAA to manage the interactions between space and aviation users of
the NAS in the most effective, efficient manner possible while
minimizing mutual impacts.
Space Support Vehicles
As mentioned earlier in this testimony, Virgin Galactic operates a
hybrid vehicle system, consisting of both an aircraft and spacecraft.
During operations when Virgin Galactic has no intent to launch, such as
pilot training flights on our Mothership or glide flights without a
rocket motor with our spaceship, we operate under a FAA-issued
Experimental Airworthiness Certificate. Our Mothership is a unique
aircraft that has an operating ceiling higher than typical commercial
airliners. While Mothership's primary purpose is to support the launch
of our SpaceShip, its unique capabilities have garnered interest from
both the civil and national security research community for alternative
uses. While Mothership provides a unique platform, developed as part of
a spaceflight system that is not accessible in typical commercial
services, we are currently unable to support these communities' R&D
without filing a petition for an exemption to the rule that restricts
carriage of property (experiments) from compensation or hire. In
addition to these research-related aviation activities, the Mothership
also can support multiple other roles related to spaceflight
activities, such as pilot and customer training and technology
demonstration. In 2018, the Commercial Space Support Vehicle Act was
passed as part of FAA Reauthorization bill which allows for Space
Support Vehicle flights for hire, if the flight relates to launch and
reentry purposes, such as training or technology development. We
recommend Congress continue to encourage the use of ``Space Support
Vehicles'' to allow for R&D only these unique vehicles are capable of.
International Competitiveness
The United States is the world leader in developing a thriving and
growing commercial space sector. As other countries' space programs
grow, so do their commercial space industries, and while we value our
partnerships with our space allies, it is also necessary for the United
States to remain a global leader. As we learned with airspace
requirements, when the United States sets standards, other countries
follow. The United States should set a precedent when creating a
regulatory environment that prioritizes safety, while encouraging,
facilitating, and promoting the growth of the nation's space industrial
base. The FAA should continue to engage internationally to create
streamlined regulatory environments that do not create burdensome and
duplicative requirements to operate overseas. This will encourage
growth and use of the U.S. space industry globally--with countries
utilizing the U.S. space sector instead of creating competing
industries.
Moreover, both the House and Senate introduced legislation to
compete internationally with countries who put billions of dollars into
their STEM education and fields in order to create a new generation of
technical thinkers and leaders. Virgin Galactic values our engineers,
mathematicians, scientists, and technical employees. We simply could
not do business without them and need a pipeline of future hires for
our business to be successful and to compete on a global scale.
Space and Spaceport Infrastructure
Improvements to our nation's infrastructure are currently under
negotiation by this committee and others in Congress as well as the
administration. We have observed proposed inclusion and improvement
projects across both public and private sectors. Many sectors include
traditional infrastructure: highways, bridges, dams; as well as new
designations of infrastructure: broadband access, childcare, and
schools. However, it is very important that space be included in
discussions regarding infrastructure as improvement resources and
programs are formulated. Protecting and improving space infrastructure
is critical to life in the 21st century and should be prioritized.
Having secure space infrastructure is a key enabler of military
operations, banking operations, GPS, and a host of applications and
services most Americans take for granted. Likewise, launch sites and
spaceports are key to maintaining and improving our space ecosystem.
The commercial space industry values its partnerships with entities in
increasingly diverse fields and markets that seek to access space and
who otherwise could not without the versatile vehicles, satellites,
launch facilities, and research capabilities offered by this industry.
To further support space infrastructure, we should consider
enhancing support for commercial spaceflight launch facilities to
ensure reliable and redundant access points to space. Airports benefit
greatly from Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, which are
awarded for the planning and development of public-use--and in some
cases, to private owners and entities--airports to improve runways and
facilities as they service the aviation industry and the American
economy. Spaceports have similar needs when it comes to maintaining and
improving infrastructure. Different from airports, however, modern U.S.
spaceports are ``flexible'' in that they support various vertical and
horizontal launch systems that require unique infrastructure elements.
However, spaceports are not eligible for AIP grants and there are
currently no other forms of federal transportation grant programs
available to them. Efforts to address this problem are ongoing and
include innovative new funding mechanisms such as that proposed by
Ranking Member Garret Graves last Congress (H.R. 7313).
Virgin Galactic supports the of inclusion of the space sector as
infrastructure and we look forward to continued discussions around
providing adequate support, as well as federal support for the launch
facility infrastructure needed to keep the United States competitive as
the global space economy continues to grow.
Conclusion
This is an exciting time for not only Virgin Galactic, but for the
entire industry as it continues to mark milestones in human
spaceflight. The Committee's tireless work and progress on aviation and
aerospace regulation is imperative and much appreciated by the public,
those of us in this room, our companies, and stakeholders. Thank you
for holding this important hearing and I look forward to working with
the Committee and to answer any questions.

Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank everyone for meeting the 5-minute
timeline or beating the 5-minute timeline as well.
We are going to go now to Member questions, and we are
going to start with kind of--going to reverse a little bit only
to do a little bit of makeup from the first panel and because I
ran out of Members to ask questions.
So I am going to first ask Representative Babin to be
recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. You are very kind. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate that.
I want to just say thank you very much to you folks for
allowing me to come in here and to speak. I have got a definite
vested interest in this from my district. But I want to say
thank you, to begin with, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member
Graves, for letting me join your hearing today.
I have a question that I would like to ask of Mr. Moses
from Virgin Galactic. So, Mike, if you are hearing, commercial
human spaceflight operates under a regime known as informed
consent. Spaceflight participants are made aware of the risky
nature of spaceflight and undertake the activity full knowing
those risks.
This is similar to skydiving, or BASE jumping, scuba
diving, paragliding, rock climbing, big wave surfing, back-
country skiing, and many other high-risk activities. And to
further understand these risks, Congress prohibited the FAA
from issuing commercial human spaceflight regulations so that
the community could gather data from flights to inform future
decisions.
The industry has not advanced as fast as it was assumed
when this learning period was implemented, which has led to
additional extensions to gather this necessary data. In the
meantime, the industry has made progress on developing
nonbinding consensus-based standards and best practices.
As you discussed a little bit, but also, can you further
discuss how Virgin Galactic integrates these standards and best
practices into your operations without the need for more
regulations? If you could answer that, please.
Mr. Moses. Sure thing, Representative Babin, I would be
happy to. So I think it is important to maybe start by
recognizing the framework that was originally built by the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act back in 2004 by Congress
itself is actually functioning exactly as designed. They
innovated and came up with the policies of informed consent, of
the learning period, and of other things. And the record has
shown that launches have been safe, innovation has been fast
and rapid, and things are progressing well. So I think it is
important to just recognize how well things are working.
So that doesn't mean we stagnate there. We need to keep
moving forward. I think the informed consent regime is an
excellent tool that allows us, in this nascent stage of
development, to be able to handle the risks that spaceflight
poses to customers and to others while protecting the
uninvolved public. And as a mechanism, it appears appropriate
for now.
Eventually, you would look to a stage where commercial
spaceflight transportation evolves to the scale of aviation,
commercial aviation, where an informed consent regime is
probably no longer necessary, but at this stage, I believe that
is fairly relevant.
Virgin Galactic definitely takes the lead by joining
industry with developing these standards that we are using, the
voluntary consensus standards. And I think one of our
challenges there is recognizing the diversity of types of
vehicles being used. You have balloon launches, vertical
launches, flyback boosters, horizontal launches, and space
planes.
And while regulating the outcome of a system is definitely
a performance-based regulation, definitely required, regulating
the means of how you got that outcome can really stifle that
development and kind of limit an operator from challenging
themselves to find new ways to achieve that same safety level.
So I think these standards being done by industry are very
valuable for now, and we need to continue to progress. I think
we are definitely seeing, just like we see an increase in
launch cadence, an increase in the maturity of those standards
and readiness to head towards regulation with some of them.
Dr. Babin. All right. Thank you very much. I really
appreciate that, Mike.
I have the distinct honor of serving as the ranking member
of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science,
Space, and Technology Committee. Before that, I was the
chairman of the subcommittee for 4 years. And I also represent
Johnson Space Center, the home of NASA's historic Mission
Control. Because of this, I am keenly aware of the fact that
the Department of Transportation plays a very important role in
enabling American leadership and innovative industries like the
commercial space launch industry.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has a long
history of conducting thorough oversight of AST and the overall
commercial space industry to ensure the safety of the
uninvolved public and the sustained American leadership in this
industry, just as this committee has a long and rich history of
aviation oversight.
Going forward, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee will play an important role in further enabling the
integration of commercial space activities into the National
Airspace System. Coordination by this committee with other
committees of jurisdiction will certainly ensure that our
Nation remains the leader in commercial space launch operations
going forward. I trust that we all share these goals and look
forward to coordinating efforts going forward.
And, with that, I would ask unanimous consent, Mr.
Chairman, to add this entire statement. I didn't have time to
read the entire statement. I want to introduce this for the
record, if you don't mind.
Mr. Larsen. Without objection.
[The information follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Brian Babin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
I have the distinct honor of serving as the Ranking Member of the
Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee. Before that, I was the Chair of the Subcommittee
for four years. I also represent the Johnson Space Center, home of
NASA's historic Mission Control Center. Because of this, I am keenly
aware of the fact that DoT plays an important role in enabling American
leadership in innovative industries like commercial space launch.
In 1984, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee leadership
drafted the Commercial Space Launch Act, which authorized the Secretary
of DoT to license private sector launch operations. Similarly, the
Commercial Space Act of 1998, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments
Act of 2004, and the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act
of 2015 reinforced and further fostered the growth of this industry.
While America's commercial space launch industry has demonstrated
robust, safe, and reliable capabilities for several decades, leadership
in the future will depend on innovation, adaptation, and evolution.
That is why Congress tasked the Department with the dual roles of both
regulating and promoting the industry, a tension that results in a
balanced and measured relationship between the public and private
sector.
It is also why Congress limited the Department's authority to
protecting the uninvolved public, and why it mandated a learning period
before promulgation of spaceflight participant regulations.
Independent advisory bodies have consistently recognized that space
launch is an inherently risky endeavor. The Columbia Accident
Investigation Board found that `` . . . all human spaceflight must be
viewed as a developmental activity. It is still far from a routine,
operational undertaking.'' While great strides have been made, and the
commercial launch of payloads appear to be increasingly more routine,
the commercial human spaceflight industry is still in its infancy.
Additional regulations at this point would stifle innovation;
export technology, talent, and tax dollars overseas; and undermine
American leadership in space, which is a critical domain for national
security in the future.
The FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST)
appropriately balances the goals of protecting the uninvolved public
and ensuring the vibrancy of the U.S. commercial launch industry. AST
has sufficient authority to fulfil its statutory direction to license
and permit launches and reentries without the need for expanded
regulations or the implementation of more draconian oversight
requirements on license and permit holders. AST's compliance monitoring
and enforcement is designed to modify licensee behavior to comply with
federal safety regulations.
AST also has various enforcement tools at its disposal to ensure
safety of the uninvolved public. Most notably, AST has the authority to
prohibit future launches and rescind licenses. Recent actions by AST
and licensees demonstrate the sufficiency of these existing compliance
and enforcement tools.
The Science Committee has a long history of conducting thorough
oversight of AST and the overall commercial space industry to ensure
the safety of the uninvolved public and sustained American leadership,
just as this Committee has a long history of aviation oversight. Going
forward, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will play an
important role in further enabling the integration of commercial space
activities into the National Airspace System.
Coordination by this Committee with other Committees of
jurisdiction will ensure that our nation remains the leader in
commercial space launch operations. I trust that we all share these
goals and look forward to coordinating efforts going forward.

Dr. Babin. OK. With that, I yield back. And I just want to
thank you again for your kindness.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes myself for 5 minutes for
questions.
First question is for Captain DePete. Captain DePete, how
long have you been a pilot?
Mr. DePete. I have been a pilot for 40 years, Mr. Chairman.
I started out in the Marine Corps and then in the commercial
airlines.
Mr. Larsen. And in commercial airlines, what is the highest
you have ever flown a commercial airplane?
Mr. DePete. Probably around 37,000 feet, 42,000 feet,
somewhere in that range.
Mr. Larsen. And how much higher than that does the FAA
control the airspace?
Mr. DePete. Well, the positive control airspace goes all
the way to 400, I believe.
Mr. Larsen. OK, OK. So about 40,000 feet.
So, in your testimony, you mentioned yourself as a pilot.
You mentioned air traffic control and air traffic controllers,
all these folks who are involved in the airspace currently, as
well, not just involved, but ensuring that it is operated
safely. Is that about right?
Mr. DePete. That is correct.
Mr. Larsen. So you also highlighted systemic space
integration strategy. And my opening comments for this
particular panel were about the airspace between the ground and
getting to space, the FAA does need to have a positive control
of that. And integrating these launches through that airspace
that is already being used is pretty critical, and it seems the
FAA has a role in that.
Mr. DePete. Absolutely.
Mr. Larsen. So getting back to Representative Babin's
statement about coordination between committees, I think is
absolutely right on, very critical, but also shows the need for
the committee here as well to ensure that the FAA's--and FAA's
safety mission--has a place in these discussions as we move
forward. Would you agree with that? Am I off base?
Mr. DePete. I would, sir. And I believe, you know--I have
got experience on the NAC and the DAC. I don't belong to the
COMSTAC. But I found it rather ironic that we are--you know,
our goal is to end segregation and enter into a time period in
the future where we have full integration, yet the individual
committees actually do their work relatively segregated. So it
is my----
Mr. Larsen. Can I just comment? I wrote a note from
Representative Babin's statement. That stovepipe, you know,
jurisdiction goes well past our time here in Congress,
Representative Babin, and probably we do need to sort that out.
So thank you, Captain.
I want to go to Mr. Bruno. Your testimony references the
update to the licensing process that the FAA began in 2018. And
you applaud the FAA for streamlining the rules.
How have these changes in rules directly impacted ULA
launches in terms of timing and frequency?
Mr. Bruno. Yes, I would like to acknowledge the
collaboration approach that the FAA has taken with industry.
They have, as has been mentioned before, shifted from a
prescriptive set of requirements to obtain a license to one
that is performance-based, and this has allowed us to achieve
the safety that they identify by different means, more
efficient and responsive to our customers' desires. Again, the
safety standards are [inaudible]. We have been given the
freedom to innovate to achieve it.
Mr. Larsen. Your testimony also makes mention of the
thousands of suppliers and partners that you partner with in
the U.S. And we have made and I have made support for the
aerospace workforce a priority for the subcommittee.
What can the subcommittee and DOT and FAA be doing to
encourage growth in this specific portion of the supply chain?
Mr. Bruno. That is a great question, sir. It takes many,
many people to design and build a rocket. We would like to see
as much of that content done domestically in the United States.
It protects us, not only in terms of our workforce and our
talent, but also in terms of our intellectual property, an
environment where China has shown significant aggression in
acquiring intellectual property, not only through what you
might think of as traditional means, through hacking or old-
fashioned espionage, but more often now through economic means,
by infiltrating the supply chain, by purchasing companies
outright or by investing in companies in order to achieve
influence and access to their intellectual property and ours.
So I would ask Congress to create a means for allowing it
to be more robust in keeping China out of that supply chain.
Mr. Larsen. OK. Finally, I have run out of time, but I am
going to just take a prerogative here. At the beginning of the
hearing several hours ago, in my opening statement, I mentioned
the importance of diversity in aviation, the diversity in
aerospace, and the diversity that we ought to be seeing in
commercial space as well.
In the future, this committee will be doing a hearing on
diversity in the aerospace workforce. And whether or not any of
you all are requested to be on the panel, I do want you all to
take a hard look at whether your company or representing
industry, or in the case of Space Florida, a public corporation
as you see yourselves, I want you all to take a hard look at
the actions you are taking to increase the diversity within the
aerospace workforce, especially as it applies to your portion
and commercial space, and offer that written testimony to the
committee so--again, if you are not on the panel itself.
And I hope you do take advantage of that opportunity. It is
critical. The demographics of the United States are changing,
and we need to change with it and we need to ensure an access
opportunity in these growing industries throughout the country,
and we need to do our part.
So, with that, I want to now recognize Representative
Graves of Louisiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question of Mr. Bruno.
Chairman Larsen and I recently introduced the Aerospace Debris
Safety Act, which tasks the FAA with various missions,
including tracking reentering space debris and working to
mitigate the risk to aircraft operating in potentially
hazardous airspace.
Have you seen the legislation, and can you offer any
feedback to us on that?
Mr. Bruno. I have, sir. And I want to commend your
leadership on this. This is an excellent first step.
What we want to appreciate is that we have talked about
overload debris and reentry for many years, but it was always
tomorrow's problem. With the implementation of our first mega-
constellation in LEO, I can tell you that that problem has
arrived today.
The quantity and frequency of orbital debris reentry in the
coming months and years will increase by at least a factor of
10. And so this legislation that asks the FAA to significantly
increase the precision and availability of tracking data will
allow us a very, very important tool in now space- and air-
integrated traffic management.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
Mr. Moses, you note in your testimony that you agree that
regulatory standards governing human spaceflight must evolve as
the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle
technology, innovation, development, nor expose the crews to
avoidable risk.
What do you believe is the best way to meet that objective?
Mr. Moses. Well, I think one of the things we have
recognized in our work with COMSTAC and industry is that trying
to acquire a one-size-fits-all set of standards or
implementation will prove to be very challenging for
implementation.
An example there is just within our own system. We use
horizontal stabilizers and vertical stabilizers like an
aircraft would, which don't exist on capsules or vertical
launch rockets. And so standards that apply to one don't
necessarily apply to another.
So step back for a second and find those common areas where
you do have that commonality. Propellant handling, ground
systems, environmental control systems, those are common across
most vehicles. So let's start with those standards, get
agreement on those, get industry sharing, industry reporting,
start with regulation there.
And so I think a ``one bite of the elephant at a time''
type of approach is the right way to get standards into the
mainstream.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you.
Mr. DiBello, in your testimony, you talk about commercial
spaceflight as effectively being a form of transportation. And
there is a line in your testimony where you say: ``Space
Florida urges an increased FAA effort in technology development
and deployment to advance the safe and efficient integration of
routine space transportation with commercial aviation.''
Could you comment on that a little bit and how you see that
relationship, I guess, evolving? As I mentioned in my opening
statement, you have just seen an extraordinary increase in the
number of commercial spaceflights.
Mr. DiBello. Certainly. We have seen both an increase in
the number of spaceflights, but, more broadly, as we look at
the horizon for the future, we are seeing an increase in the
types of platforms that will be flying. And commercial industry
is introducing and advancing technologies very rapidly and
adapting them very rapidly.
So what we are seeing with respect to integration in the
national airspace is that we need to take advantage of the
capabilities that can be put into the vehicles themselves to
know where they are and the increases in safety, the
diagnostics, knowing what is happening to the platform on the
fly so that many of those things can be fixed on the fly as
software fixes, and take advantage of those to inform what we
are doing as they transit the airspace.
The second is awareness and communications. We have the
capability today to significantly improve communications and
awareness of what is happening in spaceflight so that we can
effectively narrow the launch window, the time in which the
launch space has to be closed.
And there is no reason why--as an example, a vehicle gets
to 60,000 feet oftentimes in anywhere from 90 seconds to 2
minutes, but returning, it passes through the airspace in 60
seconds. So there is no reason in the world why we can't more
effectively integrate, use the data system, the space data
system that General Monteith is putting into place, and work
with much narrower windows to increase the volume of both
launches and the ease on the air traffic control system.
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Great. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Brown of Maryland
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
holding this hearing on this very important topic today. It has
been a long day, and I thank our participants, our panelists
for sticking in there with us.
Like you, Mr. Chairman, I too believe that Congress and,
more specifically, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, plays a critical role in the future of the emerging
commercial space industry as well as in ensuring our national
security. I also see the FAA playing a critical role in both of
those as well.
Mr. Bruno, you mentioned--so my question is for you--in
your written testimony that, and I quote from your written
testimony: ``Foreign governments and multilateral organizations
also have important roles to play. The United States does not
have a monopoly,'' you wrote, ``on satellite constellations,
and accordingly, the existing international rules of conduct
for space activities must be revisited and new ones considered
for this burgeoning area,'' and ``it is profoundly in the
interest of the U.S. Government to lead the way in confronting
these issues with the invaluable work of the FAA.''
Can you expand on the importance of the FAA's role in
international cooperation and protecting access to low Earth
orbit?
Mr. Bruno. Yes, sir, absolutely. It is important to
understand that space is a global commons. What any actor does
in space affects all of us. Satellites orbit the entire Earth.
They do not stay only over our airspace.
We are seeing the first large impacts of the new
proliferated LEO or mega-constellations that promise such great
benefits to us but also present these new challenges. For the
first time, we have a constellation on orbit which is
physically dense and will impact our launch access to orbits
that are just above or just adjacent to it.
China has also announced plans to place a similar
constellation in orbit which is several times larger. So not
only will we need to be concerned about our own industry and
our own operators behaving in a responsible fashion, we must
have agreements, international agreements and standards of
behavior that we all abide by, especially our peer competitors,
potential competitors like China as well as other countries.
I would also want to add, building on something Mr. DeFazio
introduced, that yes, we have seen a very large increase in
launch rate recently. I would want the committee to understand
that that increase is almost entirely due to lifting the
current mega-constellation which is now being populated in
orbit. And then each of those extra, if you will, launches
carry dozens and dozens of spacecraft.
So while we have a concern with air traffic during ascent,
we have a much more physically crowded region within what we
traditionally already call the congested space in LEO, which
will lead to a very high rate of deorbiting spacecraft in just
a handful of years as they begin to reach the end of their
life.
Mr. Brown. So, Mr. Bruno, as you consider how to best
protect the orbital environment, the orbital environment
through tools such as space situational awareness, two
questions: What are some of the factors you consider, and what
is the significance to national security in not having a robust
Federal Government presence?
Mr. Bruno. I will answer the second part first. We pass
through this lowest layer, this relatively dense now shell of
LEO spacecraft to carry our national security payloads to do
their vital work for the United States. If we can't lift them
to space, they can't do their work. It is literally that
simple.
And in terms of how we manage that problem, we will need to
manage the physical density of these constellations. We are
going to require more precise tracking that is near real time
of where the objects are. That will require cooperation from
the operators, because these spacecraft often have the ability
to autonomously move in their orbit to avoid colliding with one
another, which is a good thing, but we can't leave the Air
Force and Space Force to simply monitor and hope to notice the
movements and then later reposition where they think they are.
And then, finally, we really truly need these operators to
plan on controlled deorbits. It is not just the issue of how
many things are deorbiting through the airspace, it is also
important that they be controlled so that they do not reenter
in a way that can harm the public, but also so that they
reenter in a predictable way.
A controlled deorbit is steep, rapid, predictable, precise,
and known in advance. An uncontrolled deorbit is a wide-
sweeping arc that has great uncertainty all the way down to
impact. So we need those things, in cooperation, between
[inaudible].
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Bruno.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. The gentleman's time has expired.
We are going to go with Representative Van Drew. Is
Representative Van Drew up?
Yes. There you are. Representative Van Drew, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Van Drew. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for
appearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation to discuss the
exciting area of commercial space.
The United States has been leading space exploration since
the very beginning. Whether we were landing on the moon, or
building a global satellite, telecommunications network, our
country has accomplished incredible goals in space.
We find ourselves in a new era of American leadership in
space. American development of reusable rockets offers the
potential for far more efficient space exploration, and even
civilian passenger transportation. As this new industry grows,
we need to ensure that it is properly meshed with the existing
national airspace. Safety needs to be the absolute, the
absolute top priority in everything that we do.
In that line, I have several questions for Captain DePete
of the Air Line Pilots Association. First of all, if you had
just one recommendation on a single action that the FAA should
take in order to support space operations into the future, what
would that one action be?
Mr. DePete. Thank you for the question.
Without a doubt, that is an easy one for me. It would be to
pull together the individual committees of the NAC, the DAC,
and the COMSTAC that deal with the airspace users and meld them
into a single advisory integrated system.
Currently right now, much of the work is being done
segregated. There is very little topic matter being discussed
in those committees regarding commercial space, except in the
COMSTAC, and I think that would go a long way, because together
with that, I think it would lead towards more of a development
of a safety culture, which I think is the beginning to really
reaching full integration.
Dr. Van Drew. Well, thank you. And that sounds like a good
recommendation, by the way.
Does the FAA give pilots information about space debris
that may be entering the atmosphere above them as they are
actually flying through the air?
Mr. DePete. No, sir. And thank you for bringing that up.
Look, our number one priority of my members is safety. That
is what our union was founded on. They have the regulatory
responsibility and the professional duty to ensure the safe
conduct of a flight, and it is absolutely essential, they have
a need to know about the areas of risk that they enter.
Currently standing right now, other than NOTAMs, which is
another whole subject--I know Representative Stauber has a lot
to say about those as well, and so do we, but there isn't
really any kind of real-time information, and it is hard for a
pilot in command to make informed decisions without being aware
that he may be entering an airspace that is elevated in risk.
So, it would be very helpful. We really need to tackle that
problem.
Dr. Van Drew. Any sense why they don't do it?
Mr. DePete. Well, I will let the FAA----
Dr. Van Drew. Answer for themselves? Right?
Mr. DePete. Well, I just believe there is a lot of low-
hanging fruit out there that could be used right now help do
it. I know that the SDI was mentioned, the Space Data
Integrator recently, previously on the first panel, and one of
the frustrations that I have is that currently the data that
comes from the SDI, after many years, I mean, this is a known
problem, it has to be manually entered into the air traffic
controller's screen to enable them to do that, to pass the
information along to us. That needs to be automated. That is an
easy one. I think that is a pretty easy fix, and I think we
could fix that, and that would go a long way.
Dr. Van Drew. Good.
One more. I have heard you talk about safety management
systems for the airlines several times. Do commercial space
operators use safety management systems as well?
Mr. DePete. No, sir, but they absolutely should. And,
again, I don't think you can get there from here, unless you do
that, and if you really--if you are targeting full integration,
the thing about a safety management system is--I think we
should talk about safety culture first, because that is the
part that has--that is the foundation, and that is the way
safety is perceived, valued, and prioritized within an
organization from the top on down. And it empowers people to
report issues, to communicate freely about safety issues. It
affects the attitudes and the beliefs and the behaviors, and
that is the foundation for a safety management system, which is
a more formalized adoption through tools and procedures for a
structured safety program.
So without that, that is how the airlines got into the
situations where they are right now, and why our system is so
safe.
Dr. Van Drew. Good, which is what we want. Safety is number
one.
Mr. DePete. Yes, sir.
Dr. Van Drew. Captain, I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. DePete. Thank you.
Dr. Van Drew. And, Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Representative Van Drew.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Johnson of Georgia
for 5 minutes.
Representative Johnson, you are recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your
time and your testimony.
``The cosmos,'' as Carl Sagan once said, ``is all that is
or ever was or ever will be,'' end quote. Today, our curiosity
about the cosmos has led us to pursue human spaceflight, adding
to the lexicon words like ``spaceport'' and ``orbital debris.''
As we embark on this new frontier, we must prioritize safety,
equitable access, and diligently pursue limited environmental
impact.
Mr. DiBello, as the single point of contact for State
aerospace-related activities, Space Florida is, in many ways, a
gatekeeper to space industry businesses. Your testimony states
that part of your mission is to support infrastructure
development and enable growth of commercial space companies.
Has Space Florida made a concerted effort to engage
historically disadvantaged businesses? And, if so, what has
come of that engagement?
Mr. DiBello. Most certainly we have. And I can tell you
that we engage regularly, just as we lead with infrastructure
for the commercial companies, we also are concerned with the
whole ecosystem that supports the development of spaceport and
spaceport operations.
A key element of that is the workforce. So we put a lot of
effort into working with the State university system, the
community colleges, the technical trade schools, and ensure
that programs exist, whether they be curricular focused on
needed space skills, and, first of all, that they exist; and,
secondly, that they are really open to the variety of
constituencies that really want to work in the space field.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I think I would like to ask,
what steps will Space Florida take to ensure that minority-
owned and women-owned businesses are not disadvantaged in
accessing the enormous opportunity and resources that the new
commercial space industry presents?
Mr. DiBello. Well, I can tell you that the industry
recognizes that women and minorities oftentimes make up better
than 50 percent of the classes that we look at in the
universities, community colleges----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I am talking about
businesses.
Mr. DiBello. I understand.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I am talking about money now.
Mr. DiBello. Yes, but the businesses recognize that many of
those students are in the upper third of their class. So we
engage actively in building training facilities and
infrastructure that can, in fact, be industry-guided to attract
those students into their workforce, and give them a hand, a
direct hand on acquiring the kind of talent that they need----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Right. Thank you, sir. I want to
move on.
Mr. DiBello. It is in their best interest to do that.
Please.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I want to move on to my next
question. Thank you.
Mr. Moses, at NASA you played an integral role on spaceship
missions during ascent, orbit, and entry operations. As such,
you must have had an unparalleled insight into the experience
of astronauts, many of whom are changed by their travel to
space. One such change is a new-found appreciation that humans
are earthlings above all else.
Can you please speak to how the ability of everyday humans
to travel to space could allow us to reimagine ourselves beyond
racial, economic, and nationalistic divisions, and see one
another as, first and foremost, human?
Mr. Moses. Representative Johnson, that is an amazing
question. You have written one of the tenets of our company's
foundational values.
We really believe the opportunity to go see Earth from
space, witness no borders, no boundaries, the thin boundary of
the atmosphere, the fragility of the Earth's ecosystem, and
that we are all humans on one plant headed in one direction is
a really transformative experience. And the more people that
can experience that, they will bring back to their daily lives,
they will integrate that into their culture, their business
dealings, their education, and soon, we will become a space-
faring nation, a space-faring global economy, and a people that
will look past those differences and see the commonality.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK. I thank you for that answer.
Mr. Bruno, your testimony makes reference to the
geopolitical dynamics at play in the human spaceflight
industry.
How can the [inaudible] further bolster its presence in
spaceflight while mitigating and [inaudible] competition and
fostering collaboration?
Mr. Bruno. Sorry, sir, I lost your audio at about the word
``mitigate.''
Mr. Larsen. I am sorry. This is the chair, Mr. Johnson.
Your time has expired. But if you could get that question to
the committee, we can get it to Mr. Bruno for the record.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Steel of California
for 5 minutes.
Representative Steel, you are recognized.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member
Graves, and thank you for all of the witnesses staying late
today and joining us and really appreciate it.
Southern California and California as a whole has a long
history in aerospace and continues to be a leader in this
field. Today, as we look to the near future, my State and
private-sector entrepreneurs, businesses, and manufacturers in
aerospace are making great progress on the innovative
technologies that will continue to radically transform
commercial space travel.
The FAA plays an important role in encouraging,
facilitating, and promoting the commercial space transportation
industry, while ensuring safety through permitting and
licensing. I believe we must continue to work to take advantage
of the innovations being achieved by private-sector
entrepreneurs to lead us into the future of spaceflight by
ensuring efficiency in permitting, while also protecting the
safety of our communities and that the innovation in this field
will help advance the entire aviation industry.
My first question was, the Biden administration requested a
$5 million increase in the budget for the operational account
for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, but General
Monteith already answered that.
So I am going to go straight to the second question to all
of the panelists, how might commercial space research and
development be used to add ongoing aviation R&D, and enable
future high-speed aviation and transportation solutions and
means connecting between both learning and commercial space R&D
and regular traditional aviation, and how they can work
together where they can find the common ground to improve
across all types so we can make flights faster, and how are we
going to do this so that we work together?
Mr. Bruno. I will start, Representative Steel, by saying
that the FAA has already started on a track of very good and
productive collaboration with industry on solutions that are
performance-based, and that will be a significant enabler of
that activity.
There is one other point I would like to make relative to
General Monteith's earlier testimony on talented workforce,
where he talked about the need to have a close relationship
with industry and with universities so that there is adequate
talent within the FAA to do their mission. I would hope that
the committee would understand that this problem is more
difficult than simply STEM, and simply having engineers who
move into the aerospace profession, and some of them going into
the FAA. The safety discipline within rocketry is highly
specialized, highly narrow, and there is a limited number of
personnel across the industry and within the FAA who have those
skills that are not taught in the universities, but, rather,
taught in industry and at the FAA. And anything that Congress
can do to support the FAA's opportunity to develop and attract
that talent will benefit all of us.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you.
Mr. Moses. And, Representative Steel, I will be happy to
maybe address how the technology innovation between spaceflight
and aviation potentially marries in the future and highlight
what my fellow panelists and other members of the subcommittee
have highlighted, that the integration of the airspace into a
single common user, single common source, is highly critical
for that.
You can imagine a system--one of the reasons our company
pursues horizontal launch from aircraft is we see a much
simpler integration into the airspace for future transportation
of high-speed systems. And, so, getting those steps made now
for how airspace is deconflicted, times are kept short,
interactions are made very efficient, is critical for those
future innovations and technology developments for aviation.
Mr. DePete. I would like to----
Mr. DiBello. I would like to, if I may----
Mr. DePete. Go ahead.
Mr. DiBello [continuing]. Add to that if I can.
In response to the question, clearly, the industry has been
advancing technologies across the world. Space is hard, and as
we advance technologies which enable us to do things in space,
many of those do flow across a horizontal industry and infuse
themselves into what we know about aviation. But the big
advantage is the fact that space assets have become
increasingly more vital to management of not only our airspace,
but things in space to things in the air, things on the ground
and in our back pockets, that this integration that is
occurring and connectivity that is occurring and the amount of
data that are being gathered by the thousands of satellites
that are now up there and will be put up there will enable them
to have access to the data and the awareness and communications
mechanisms that it needs to fully integrate the space and air
together.
Mr. Larsen. The Representative's time has expired.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the panel for joining us today and thank
you for your patience. I won't apologize for Congress
exercising its basic constitutional duty of voting today. I
know it was inconvenient for you to wait around. But I guess
the payoff is the value of your testimony was very important,
is very important for us, as we continue to look at ensuring
the safe integration of commercial space into a very busy FAA-
controlled airspace.
So with that, again, I want to thank the panel and each of
the witnesses. I ask unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
them in writing. I also ask unanimous consent that the record
remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
the record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
And with that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Larsen and Ranking Member Graves, and thank you to
our witnesses for being here today.
I'm pleased the Chair has called this hearing to discuss FAA's
oversight of the commercial space transportation industry.
Although this sector has only existed since 1984, it has reshaped
our national economy and changed the way we think about the future of
transportation.
With 12 licensed commercial launch and reentry sites, 24 launch and
reentry licenses issued, and 46 authorized experimental launches
conducted just during Fiscal Year 2020 to 2021, this is an exciting
time of progress and innovation in this sector.
As commercial space transportation grows in frequency and diversity
of operations, it is critical that this committee continue to exercise
oversight over the FAA to ensure it is fulfilling its responsibilities
as the regulator and airspace manager.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how they think
FAA is doing when it comes to overseeing this expanding aerospace
sector, planning for safe and growing airspace integration, and what
lies ahead in maintaining our competitive advantage.
Thank you, Chair Larsen. I yield back.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Larsen and Ranking Member Graves
for holding today's hearing and assisting our committee to examine in
an in-depth manner the future of the U.S. commercial space
transportation industry, and the role of the FAA in overseeing and
regulating this rapidly expanding industry. I would also like to thank
our outstanding witnesses for testifying before us today.
Today's hearing is a topic of considerable interest as commercial
spaceflight is a growing sector of our nation's civil space activity.
Our discussion this afternoon is important in informing the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's oversight of the national
airspace system, given that both government and commercial spaceflight
must coordinate their flights through the national airspace system.
The FAA's role in the safe integration of new entrants into the
airspace system is of heightened importance. Commercial spaceflight
activities are expected to increase, along with those of aircraft
systems without a crew. In addition, urban air mobility and advanced
air mobility will also come online in the future. To that end, I'm
pleased that the FAA and NASA have a strong partnership on research and
development to facilitate the safe integration of these systems into
the airspace system.
Commercial spaceflight is a topic with which I am very familiar.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee that I chair has
jurisdiction and oversight over commercial space, commercial space
transportation, and the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation. I'm pleased that the legislation this committee passed
37 years ago with the ``Commercial Space Launch Act,'' and its many
updates and amendments, have led to the development of a safe, growing,
and successful commercial spaceflight industry. The statute includes
regulation of third-party safety and a shared government-industry
indemnification and liability regime.
Growth in commercial spaceflight is leading to opportunities and
challenges that the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will be
reviewing, particularly at this time given that commercial human
suborbital and orbital spaceflight are now on the verge of being
realized. With those developments, as chair of the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, I plan to lead the committee into taking an
active role in considering relevant policy on commercial human
spaceflight safety, and hope to partner and work in close collaboration
with my colleagues here today on the future of commercial spaceflight
policy and address some of the serious challenges, including safety and
others, that the industry faces as outlined by our witnesses today.

Statement of Nicole deSibour Rodgers, Executive Director, 200 Mile
Gateway, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian J. Mast
Chairman Larsen, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
of the Committee, thank you for accepting the 200 Mile Gateway's
submission of our views on the role of the FAA in the future of the
U.S. commercial space industry.
The 200 Mile Gateway is a not for profit organization promoting the
investments and infrastructure of the aerospace and defense industries
in the 200 Mile Gateway region that stretches from Jacksonville,
Florida to Charleston, South Carolina. This region is rich with
commercial space interest and history. Back in the 1960s, the world's
most powerful rocket motor was fired in Camden County on the proposed
site of Spaceport Camden (license expected this summer). Our region is
also home to Cecil Spaceport and is proximate to Cape Canaveral. We are
also home to fourteen military installations, more than 30 airports
(including 4 commercial airports), four major ports, two commercial
railroads and sit directly on the I-95 corridor.
As we look to the future of housing both a horizontal and a
vertical spaceport in our region and serving the larger commercial
space industry given our synergistic proximity to Cape Canaveral, we
share the Committee's interest in the role that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) must play in the future regulation and oversight
of the emerging and booming commercial space industry. We must be
forward thinking, responsible and innovative. The FAA must retake its
ownership over the regulation and management of commercial space in
order to be the responsible steward of both progress and the National
Air Space (NAS).
I: Stewardship of the National Air Space Requires Innovation Not Just
Increased Headcount:
One of the most important roles of the FAA oversight of commercial
space in the near term is NAS Integration and reducing the amount of
air space and duration that must be closed during each licensed launch.
I think we can all agree that the current model of air space closures
is not sustainable. FAA-licensed (FAA) launches cause a significant
impact to our aviation industry:
In FY 2017, about 1,200 commercial airline flights were
directly affected resulting in additional 39,000 miles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO Report 19-437, Improvements to FAA's Workforce Planning
Needed to Prepare for the Industry's Anticipated Growth, May 2019, p
34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single space launches resulted in 3,000 total minutes of
delay per launch.
Airlines currently estimate the delay cost to the airline
at $74.20 per minute \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Airlines for America. (2019). U.S. Passenger Delay Costs
[online]. Available at: https://www.airlines.org/dataset/u-s-passenger-
carrier-delay-costs (Accessed: 26 November 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The direct cost to airlines is $222,600 per launch.
Adding the additional cost of lost productivity time at $49
per hour there is another $245,000 in economic costs imposed on the
competing airspace users.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Tinoco, Janet K., et al. An Introduction to the Spaceport
Industry: Runaways to Space. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2020, pg
12.

The FAA must look at all options for addressing NAS Integration
with an open mind and, we, the 200 Mile Gateway, believe that merely
increasing headcount and funding is not the solution. Currently the FAA
is exploring two technology strategies for managing NAS Integration--
the Space Data Integrator (SDI) and Hazard Risk and Management (HRAM).
SDI follows old models of the way the FAA has always done things and
assumes the telemetry data analysis and vehicle tracking must be done
at the agency level thus justifying increased headcount. However, SDI
requires companies to feed significant amounts of raw proprietary data
to the FAA SDI during each launch so that the analysis can then be run.
By contrast, an HRAM model allows companies to protect the integrity of
their vehicle design data, be continually running analysis and feeding
HRAM information directly to the ATC and into the cockpit of every air
craft.
HRAM is a prototype tool to aid in improving the efficiency
of the National Airspace System around launch and reentry vehicle
operations.
The concept focuses on integrating Space Vehicle and
aircraft operations, rather than segregating them.
HRAM enables reactive separation (if pilots see a dangerous
situation they can avert) in the case of vehicle failure.
The tool is designed to automatically interface with other
systems: space vehicle data as input and air traffic systems as output.
It thus incorporates logic to appropriate process and
maintain state (common) knowledge of complex space missions during
flight.
Within seconds, the tool computes the hazard volumes
associated with a failure, accounting for potential lack of information
of failure response.
This allows real-time aircraft maneuvering to avoid an
actual debris field, instead of segregation from the area where a
debris field may occur.
II: FAA Must Innovate to Anticipate
Innovators in the commercial space industry have made reusability a
priority in the future of rocket development. The recent out of control
Chinese rocket that created panic in all those managing the worldwide
airspace further highlighted the need for the United States to lead on
innovative tools to predict and track both rogue and planned re-entries
to mitigate risk.
Fortunately, one of the tools already being examined for NAS
Integration can do just that. HRAM has the capacity to more accurately
and precisely predict reentry points allowing for more accurate air
space management and risk mitigation. We have included with this
testimony a video demonstration of HRAM's predictive capabilities. The
AST is stretched thin as it is and managing the anticipated increase in
scheduled launches plus adding the management of re-entry for each
launched rocket will far exceed current capabilities and capacity.
Leveraging HRAM technology will help improve efficiency and workload
management for AST, improve safety, mitigate risk, reduce the impact of
costly air space closures and ensure that the ATC, pilots and launch
operator all have the same information in real time.
Since 2012, licensed activities increased 1,000% and AST's
budget and staffing increased roughly 40 percent.
Moreover, we are now looking at another potential increase
of 100-500% in commercial launch activity by 2021 while our staff may
only increase about 20 percent.
Making this period even more interesting is the significant
uptick in the complexity and variability of proposed launch and reentry
vehicles.
We also expect a commercially viable human spaceflight
participant landscape involving space tourism that could lead to 100+
flights per year.
III: Promoting a Truly Private Sector Commercial Space Industry--FAA
Should License All Aspects of Commercial Space Launches
The second critical area that FAA must prioritize in order to
responsibly steward growth in the commercial space industry is to
reclaim oversight responsibility over launch and range operations. The
FAA must provide an avenue for private sector service providers to
enter that market by creating a regulatory licensing and vetting
protocol allowing for such companies to offer their services as an
alternative to the Air Force. The current system of commercial launches
being managed by the Air Force on an as-available capacity is
unsustainable and contrary to U.S.C. 51. As section 50501 of U.S.C. 51
states ``the availability of commercial launch services is essential
for the continued growth of the United States commercial space
sector.'' As the National Space Program continues its own growth
trajectory and the Air Force must prioritize its resources and efforts
there-in, the Air Force cannot be the only option for commercial
launches or it will stymie growth in that sector. Additionally,
providing a path for private sector launch operations ensures
compliance with section 509 of U.S.C. 51 (see appendix), enhances the
viability and attractiveness of the additional commercial spaceports
the FAA has and will license that are not co-located with Federal
Ranges. We also encourage this committee and the FAA to expand the use
of the ODA vetting and licensing process to the commercial space sector
to allow for vetted launch and range operators to support the AST in
meeting their 180 day launch license issuance requirements by
authorizing private sector review and approval of license applications
according to the stringent ODA process. We encourage the FAA to
incorporate the recommendations of the Department of Transportation
Inspector General's office with regards to future ODAs when
establishing a protocol for commercial space.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and Members of the Committee,
thank you, again, for the opportunity to share testimony with you on
the priorities for the FAA in commercial space. The 200 Mile Gateway is
excited and energized by the growth, innovation and opportunity in this
sector and the opportunity it provides for the companies, employees and
citizens in our region. The commercial space industry should be
appropriately regulated and licensed to be a vibrant private sector and
the FAA should look to innovative technology solutions and private
sector partnerships to improve safety and meet the demands of the
future rather than hold on to historic modus operandi. We look forward
to serving as a resource to the Committee, the FAA and the industry in
promoting opportunity and improvements in the commercial space sector.
Appendix:
HRAM Background and Demonstrations:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Legend
Yellow Icon--location of object at predicted reentry time
Orange Line--area of visibility at the predicted reentry time for a
ground observer
Blue Line--ground track uncertainty prior to predicted reentry time
(ticks at 5-minute intervals)
Yellow Line--ground track uncertainty after predicted reentry time
(ticks at 5-minute intervals)
White Line--day/night divider at predicted reentry time (Sun location
shown by White Icon)
Pink Icon--vicinity of eyewitness sighting
Note: Possible reentry locations lie anywhere along the blue and yellow
ground track

Long March 5-B HRAM Visualization 8 May (Post-Processed)
HRAM demonstration:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

FAA Historical and Predicted Growth in AST Operations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Commercial Spaceports not co-located with Federal Ranges:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spaceport State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Spaceport Complex................. Alaska
Colorado Air and Space Port............... Colorado
Space Florida Launch & Landing--Wilson.... Florida
Cecil Air and Space Port.................. Florida
Space Coast Regional Airport.............. Florida
Spaceport Camden (license pending)........ Georgia
Space America............................. New Mexico
Oklahoma Space Industry Development Oklahoma
Authority.
Houston Spaceport......................... Texas
Midland Spaceport......................... Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition of Organization Designated Authorizations:

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S.C.: CHAPTER 509_COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACTIVITIES
Amendments
Pub. L. 111-314, 4(d)(2), (3), Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3440, transferred
analysis for chapter 701 of Title 49, Transportation, and renumbered as
analysis for chapter 509 of this title and renumbered items 70101 to 70105,
70105a, 70106 to 70109, 70109a, and 70110 to 70121 as 50901 to 50923, respectively.
Pub. L. 108-492, 2(c)(26), Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 3982, added item 70105a.
Pub. L. 106-405 3(b), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1752, substituted ``Office of Commercial
Space Transportation'' for ``Authorization of appropriations'' in item 70119.
Pub. L. 106-391, title III, 322(d), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1598, added item 70109a.
Pub. L. 105-303, title I, 102(a)(1), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2846,
substituted ``launches, operations, and reentries'' for ``launches and operations'' in item
70104, ``launches, operation of launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries'' for ``
launches and operation of launch sites'' in item 70108, inserted ``or reentries'' after
``scheduled launches'' in item 70109, and added items 70120 and 70121.
Pub. L. 103-429, 6(78), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4388, made technical amendment to
chapter heading.

50901. Findings and purposes

(a) Findings._Congress finds that_
(1)the peaceful uses of outer space continue to be of great value and to offer
benefits to all mankind;
(2)private applications of space technology have achieved a significant level of
commercial and economic activity and offer the potential for growth in the future,
particularly in the United States;
(3)new and innovative equipment and services are being sought, produced, and offered by
entrepreneurs in telecommunications, information services, microgravity research, human
space flight, and remote sensing technologies;
(4)the private sector in the United States has the capability of developing and providing
private launching, reentry, and associated services that would complement the launching,
reentry, and associated capabilities of the United States Government;
5)the development of commercial launch vehicles, reentry vehicles, and associated
services would enable the United States to retain its competitive position internationally,
contributing to the national interest and economic well-being of the United States;
(6)providing launch services and reentry services by the private sector is consistent with
the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and would be
facilitated by stable, minimal, and appropriate regulatory guidelines that are fairly
and expeditiously applied;
(7)the United States should encourage private sector launches, reentries, and associated
services and, only to the extent necessary, regulate those launches, reentries, and
services to ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States and
to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States;
(8)space transportation, including the establishment and operation of launch sites,
reentry sites, and complementary facilities, the providing of launch services and
reentry services, the establishment of support facilities, and the providing of support
services, is an important element of the transportation system of the United States,
and in connection with the commerce of the United States there is a need to develop
a strong space transportation infrastructure with significant private sector involvement;
(9)the participation of State governments in encouraging and facilitating private sector
involvement in space-related activity, particularly through the establishment of a space
transportation-related infrastructure, including launch sites, reentry sites, complementary
facilities, and launch site and reentry site support facilities, is in the national interest
and is of significant public benefit;
(10)the goal of safely opening space to the American people and their private commercial,
scientific, and cultural enterprises should guide Federal space investments, policies,
and regulations;
(11)private industry has begun to develop commercial launch vehicles capable of carrying
human beings into space and greater private investment in these efforts will stimulate
the Nation's commercial space transportation industry as a whole;
(12)space transportation is inherently risky, and the future of the commercial human
space flight industry will depend on its ability to continually improve its safety
performance;
(13)a critical area of responsibility for the Department of Transportation is to
regulate the operations and safety of the emerging commercial human space flight
industry;
(14)the public interest is served by creating a clear legal, regulatory, and safety
regime for commercial human space flight;
and
(15)the regulatory standards governing human space flight must evolve as the
industry matures so that regulations neither stifle technology development nor
expose crew or space flight participants to avoidable risks as the public
comes to expect greater safety for crew and space flight participants from
the industry.
(b) Purposes._The purposes of this chapter are_
(1)to promote economic growth and entrepreneurial activity through use of the
space environment for peaceful purposes;
(2)to encourage the United States private sector to provide launch vehicles,
reentry vehicles, and associated services by_
(A)simplifying and expediting the issuance and transfer of commercial licenses;
(B)facilitating and encouraging the use of Government-developed space technology; and
(C)promoting the continuous improvement of the safety of launch vehicles designed
to carry humans, including through the issuance of regulations, to the extent
permitted by this chapter;
(3)to provide that the Secretary of Transportation is to oversee and coordinate
the conduct of commercial launch and reentry operations, issue permits and commercial
licenses and transfer commercial licenses authorizing those operations, and protect
the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and
foreign policy interests of the United States; and
(4)to facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space
transportation infrastructure, including the enhancement of United States launch
sites and launch-site support facilities, and development of reentry sites,
with Government, State, and private sector involvement, to support the full
range of United States space-related activities.

(Pub. L. 103-272, Sec. 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1330, Sec. 70101
of title 49; Pub. L. 105-303, title I, Sec. 102(a)(2), Oct. 28, 1998,
112 Stat. 2846; Pub. L. 108-492, Sec. 2(a), Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat.
3974; renumbered Sec. 70101 then Sec. 50901 of title 51, Pub. L. 111-
314, Sec. 4(d)(2), (3)(A), Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3440.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical and Revision Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source (Statutes
Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) at Large)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70101(a)........................ 49 App.: 2601..... Oct. 30, 1984,
Pub. L. 98-575,
Sec. Sec. 2, 3,
98 Stat. 3055;
Nov. 16, 1990,
Pub. L. 101-611,
Sec. 117(c), (d),
104 Stat. 3202.
70101(b)........................ 49 App.: 2602.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In subsection (a), before clause (1), the words ``and declares'' are
omitted as surplus.
In subsection (b), before clause (1), the word ``therefore'' is omitted
as surplus.

amendments
2010--Pub. L. 111-314 successively renumbered section 70101 of
title 49 and section 70101 of this title as this section.
2004--Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 108-492, Sec. 2(a)(1), inserted
``human space flight,'' after ``microgravity research,''.
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 108-492, Sec. 2(a)(2), struck out
``satellite'' after ``providing private'' and substituted
``capabilities of'' for ``services now available from''.
Subsec. (a)(10) to (15). Pub. L. 108-492, Sec. 2(a)(3)-(5), added
pars. (10) to (15).
Subsec. (b)(2)(C). Pub. L. 108-492, Sec. 2(a)(6), added subpar.
(C).
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 108-492, Sec. 2(a)(7), substituted ``issue
permits and commercial licenses and transfer'' for ``issue and
transfer''.
1998--Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(A), inserted
``microgravity research,'' after ``information services,''.
Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(B), inserted ``,
reentry,'' after ``launching'' in two places.
Subsec. (a)(5). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(C), inserted ``,
reentry vehicles,'' after ``launch vehicles''.
Subsec. (a)(6). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(D), inserted ``and
reentry services'' after ``launch services''.
Subsec. (a)(7). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(E), inserted ``,
reentries,'' after ``launches'' in two places.
Subsec. (a)(8). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(F), (G), inserted
``, reentry sites,'' after ``launch sites'' and ``and reentry
services'' after ``launch services''.
Subsec. (a)(9). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(H), (I), inserted
``reentry sites,'' after ``launch sites,'' and ``and reentry site''
after ``launch site''.
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(J), inserted ``,
reentry vehicles,'' after ``launch vehicles'' in introductory
provisions.
Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(K), struck out
``launch'' before ``licenses''.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(L), (M), inserted
``and reentry'' after ``conduct of commercial launch'' and struck out
``launch'' before ``licenses''.
Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 105-303, Sec. 102(a)(2)(N), inserted ``and
development of reentry sites,'' after ``launch-site support
facilities,''.
findings
Pub. L. 106-405, Sec. 2, Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1751, provided
that: ``The Congress finds that--
``(1)a robust United States space transportation industry is
vital to the Nation's economic well-being and national security;
``(2)enactment of a 5-year extension of the excess third party
claims payment provision of [former] chapter 701 of title 49, United
States Code [now 51 U.S.C. 50901 et seq.] (Commercial Space Launch
Activities), will have a beneficial impact on the international
competitiveness of the United States space transportation industry;
``(3)space transportation may evolve into airplane-style
operations;
``(4)during the next 3 years the Federal Government and the
private sector should analyze the liability risk-sharing regime to
determine its appropriateness and effectiveness, and, if needed,
develop and propose a new regime to Congress at least 2 years prior to
the expiration of the extension contained in this Act [see Tables for
classification];
``(5)the areas of responsibility of the Office of the Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation have significantly
increased as a result of--
``(A)the rapidly expanding commercial space transportation
industry and associated government licensing requirements;
``(B)regulatory activity as a result of the emerging commercial
reusable launch vehicle industry; and
``(C)the increased regulatory activity associated with
commercial operation of launch and reentry sites; and
``(6)the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation should continue to limit its promotional
activities to those which support its regulatory mission.''

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Wayne R. Monteith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal
Aviation Administration

Question 1. Mr. Monteith, this Subcommittee's role focuses on
managing the safe integration of commercial spaceflight through the
national airspace system. Ms. Krause's written statement notes, ``full
and efficient integration of all users of the National Airspace System
is years away and will require continued work and focus.'' How are you
working with the FAA on this integration and with which element of FAA
are you coordinating?
Answer. We have worked with the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical
Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey to build the agency's first
dedicated commercial space integration lab for developing and
prototyping technologies that will be leveraged towards enhancing
commercial space operation awareness to better manage the NAS.
Additionally, AST continues its work with the FAA's Air Traffic
Organization on the Space Data Integrator technology. This safety-based
technology, which has automated the previous manual processes, will
enable the FAA to monitor a space mission's progress as it flies
through the airspace. When deployed, this technology will enable the
FAA to better manage the airspace that must be closed to other users
and more quickly implement and release airspace restrictions as a
mission progresses.
In addition to the initiatives above, the FAA's Air Traffic
Organization is also working on two techniques to reduce the impact of
commercial space launches on aviation.
Time Based Launch Procedures (TBLP) have been implemented
for launch and reentry operations at Kennedy Space Center/Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station (KSC/CCAFS). TBLP utilizes existing Traffic
Flow Management procedures and processes to more efficiently manage
operations at KSC/CCAFS. Where appropriate, TBLP will be expanded to
other spaceports and federal ranges this year.
Dynamic Launch and Reentry Windows (DLRW) procedures have
been developed for KSC/CCAFS. DLRW utilizes mission triggers in launch
and reentry operator mission processes to gain further efficiencies in
addition to those afforded by TBLP. Where appropriate, DLRW will be
expanded to other spaceports and federal ranges this year.

Question 2. Mr. Monteith, Ms. Krause's written statement refers to
a 2021 memorandum of agreement with AST and NASA regarding public and
human spaceflight safety for commercial space transportation and also
accident investigations. I'd like to request a copy of this Memorandum
be sent to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to support
our oversight and policy work on AST, commercial spaceflight, and
commercial spaceflight accident investigation.
Answer. We have enclosed a copy of the memo with the responses to
these QFRs.

Question 3. Mr. Monteith, there has been mention by a few of the
witnesses here today about the necessity of ``the Federal Aviation
Administration growing its workforce'' to meet the rapidly expanding
industry needs, and I am wondering if, in conjunction with that need,
there has been discussion within the FAA about ensuring that minorities
will be included in this future labor force? Do you now or will you
reach out to HBCU's, particularly those that specialize in the STEM
fields, as partners?
Answer. Yes, there absolutely has been not only discussion, but
action at the FAA to reach out to HBCUs. The FAA fully supports
Presidential Executive Order #13779--The White House Initiative to
Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. The FAA HBCU Initiative Team has supported White House
HBCU Week for several years, last year hosting a virtual career fair
booth, and this year we are hosting a workshop on opportunities for
HBCUs at the FAA on September 8, 2021. And we plan to participate in
the Initiative's Career Fair on September 9, 2021.
The FAA HBCU Initiative Team is an agency-wide effort that supports
the workforce development needs of the FAA by attracting and retaining
a diverse and skilled workforce to proactively address transformative
technological challenges, in not just aviation and commercial space
transportation, but also drones, cybersecurity, and data evaluation. In
addition, the team is working to increase HBCU participation in grants,
research and college initiative programs in collaboration with the FAA.
We also have a robust corporate recruitment plan, which includes
specific outreach to eleven HBCUs based on STEM, Aviation, and
Aerospace program offerings. These efforts include: participation in
career fairs; building relationships with academic departments and
Career Centers; and outreach to diverse student organizations on
campus.
Since this past spring, we have focused efforts at the following
HBCUs:
1.Bowie State University
2.Delaware State University
3.Florida Memorial University
4.Johnson C. Smith University (Added mid-Spring; will be included
in Fall)
5.Hampton University
6.Howard University
7.Morgan State University
8.Norfolk State University
9.Tennessee State University
10.Texas Southern University
11.Tuskegee University

In addition, the FAA places a very high priority not only on
inspiring the aerospace workforce of the future, but on ensuring that
our workforce is one that is diverse and representative of our nation's
population. One of the four main goals of the FAA's Science Technology
Engineering and Math Aviation and Space Education (STEM AVSED)
corporate strategy is to ensure that all students, regardless of race,
gender, geographic location, physical disabilities, and financial
background have access to pathways to aerospace careers. As an example,
our Adopt-a-School program--that targets schools that have majority
underserved and/or underrepresented populations--will kick off this
school year and will introduce 4th grade students to various aerospace
careers and concepts, including commercial space.
Lastly, the FAA is looking forward receiving the report from the
Youth Access to American Jobs in Aviation Task Force, which will
include recommendations on how to ensure a more diverse aerospace
workforce moving into the future. We are certainly doing our part to
participate in this program, and I fully support its work.

__________
memo referenced in response to question 2:
Memorandum of Understanding Between the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration Regarding
Achievement of Mutual Goals in Commercial Space Activities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (``NASA'') and
the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA''), through this Memorandum
of Understanding (``MOU''), affirm their intent to continue their
longstanding partnership on mutually beneficial commercial space
activities in furtherance of U.S. national space policy and commercial
space transportation-related interests. In this MOU, NASA and the FAA
may be individually referred to as a ``Party'' and collectively
referred to as the ``Parties.''
I. Background
NASA and the FAA have enjoyed a successful and longstanding
relationship in support of both Parties' efforts to bring commercial
crew and cargo activities to fruition as well as bolstering the pace
and scope of American aerospace innovations. This cooperation was
highlighted by the successful Commercial Crew Program's demonstration
and operational missions to the International Space Station, which
greatly benefitted from several years of effective cooperation between
NASA and the FAA. The close partnership between NASA and the FAA has
afforded the Parties the opportunity to further other activities in
their respective mission areas based on experiences and lessons learned
through this partnership.
NASA and the FAA also have a strong existing relationship on
commercial suborbital spaceflight whereby NASA's Flight Opportunities
program relies on FAA licensing and regulations when fulfilling its
mission of facilitating rapid demonstration of promising technologies
for space exploration, discovery, and the expansion of space commerce
through suborbital testing with industry flight providers. NASA's
Flight Opportunities program also has provided test flights for FAA-
sponsored safety enabling technologies, in particular through the FAA's
Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation. Recently,
NASA and the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation collaborated
on developing the framework for flying NASA-sponsored spaceflight
participants on commercial suborbital flights, allowing researchers
from industry and academia to propose to fly with their NASA-sponsored
payloads for the first time. NASA is also collaborating with the FAA on
commercial suborbital spaceflight activities through the Commercial
Crew Program's Suborbital Crew (SubC) efforts to extend suborbital
space transportation capabilities for NASA astronauts and other NASA
personnel. NASA seeks to enter into public-private partnerships to
improve airspace, passenger, and crew safety while enhancing the
capabilities of commercial suborbital point-to-point spacecraft.
NASA and the FAA have complementary and interdependent interests in
(1) creating a robust commercial space industry to achieve safe,
reliable, and cost-effective access to space, and (2) enhancing the
competitiveness, safety, and affordability of American aerospace
capabilities including next-generation capabilities such as suborbital
spaceflight systems. Continuing this partnership is critical to
achieving the goals and objectives of multiple U.S. space policies,
including the 2020 National Space Policy and Space Policy Directives 1,
2, and 3.
II. Scope
This MOU is intended to support commercial space activities related
to the transport of government and non-government passengers, cargo,
and payloads for both orbital and suborbital missions in a safe, cost-
effective manner that avoids conflicting requirements and multiple sets
of standards. The MOU is also intended to advance U.S. Government and
commercial interests in developing a prosperous American commercial
space industry. In support of these goals, the Parties intend to
exchange knowledge and best practices and may pursue collaborative
commercial aerospace-related activities in a variety of areas
consistent with each Party's mission and applicable law.
Areas in which the Parties seek to work together to continue their
successful cooperation and pursue new collaborations include but are
not limited to:

Launch and Reentry Industry Framework

+Provide a stable framework between NASA requirements and FAA
regulations for the U.S. space launch industry, including human
spaceflight, that is transparent, avoids conflicting requirements and
multiple sets of standards, and encourages growth and innovation.
+Increase transparency during the license review process by
developing applicant guidance in the form of an Advisory Circular and
interagency standard operating procedures for when agencies may seek
additional information.
+Develop and foster best practices for spacecraft conjunction
assessment and on-orbit operations, including large constellations.
+Advance the interests of those supporting private astronaut
missions by collaborating to ensure consistency between NASA contract
or agreement requirements and FAA statutes and regulations.
+Advance the interests of U.S. commercial launch operators
responsible for transporting domestic and international partner
astronauts on suborbital crewed missions, as well as missions to low-
Earth orbit (``LEO,'' including to the International Space Station, and
future private sector free-flying platforms).

Medical

+Through their respective Chief Health and Medical Officer and
Federal Air Surgeon or their designees, seek to share de-identified
spaceflight clinical medical data, information, and knowledge on the
biomedical (physiological and pathological) effects of orbital and
suborbital spaceflight (long and short-duration) among occupants of
space vehicles and space habitats, including post-flight medical
aspects.

Safety

+Advance both public safety and human spaceflight safety.
+Coordinate on lessons learned from mishap investigations.
+Coordinate on an approach for sharing safety data with the
public to enhance understanding of the known risks of space.
Suborbital Spaceflight

+NASA seeks to work with and rely on FAA regulation and licensing
of commercial suborbital spaceflight transportation providers to
strategically invest in and facilitate rapid demonstration of promising
space technologies including point-to-point transportation, test and
qualify spaceflight hardware, and conduct human-tended microgravity
research, astronaut training, and human spaceflight activities.
+Seek out areas for collaborative research opportunities, jointly
and with academia or industry when practical, to advance technologies
and scientific knowledge that will benefit the commercial space
transportation industry.
+NASA and the FAA seek to advance the interests of a commercial
suborbital point-to-point pilot program with designated spaceports,
airspace design, sequencing, launch and landing windows, etc.

Individual Preparation for Human Spaceflight

+Collaborate on best practices for familiarization of
participants with spaceflight safety factors (individual, operational,
and environmental), individual evaluation/selection techniques, and
personal qualifications for orbital and suborbital flights.
III. Collaboration on Specific Activities
The roles and responsibilities of each Party for specific
activities will be documented in non-binding Joint Program Management
Plans at the program level if needed. Should both Parties agree to
enter into binding obligations in connection with the activities
described in this MOU, the Parties will negotiate and enter into
separate agreements, fully independent of this MOU, and as permitted by
and in accordance with law and the respective Parties' policies and
processes.
IV. Authority
The FAA is entering into this MOU under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(l) (6) and 106(m).
V. Points of Contact
The following personnel are designated as the Points of Contact
between the Parties in the performance of this MOU:

Technical Points of Contact

NASA

Philip McAlister
Director, Commercial Spaceflight Development Division
Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate
[Email and phone number omitted from published record]

Christopher Baker
Small Spacecraft Technology and Flight Opportunities Program Executive
Space Technology Mission Directorate
[Email and phone number omitted from published record]

FAA

Randy Repcheck
(A) Exec Dir, Office of Operational Safety
Office of Commercial Space Transportation, FAA
[Email and phone number omitted from published record]

Administrative Points of Contact

NASA

Jennifer Troxell
Senior Interagency Programs Specialist
Office of International and Interagency Relations
[Email and phone number omitted from published record]

FAA

Pam Underwood
Director, Office of Spaceports
FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation
[Email and phone number omitted from published record]
VI. Miscellaneous
A.NASA and FAA agree that the information and data exchanged in
furtherance of the activities under this MOU will be exchanged without
use and disclosure restrictions, unless required by law in accordance
with restrictive markings on the information or data. Each party shall
take appropriate measures to protect proprietary, privileged or
otherwise confidential information obtained as a result of its
activities under this MOU.
B.This MOU is strictly for the management and planning purposes of
each of the Parties.
C.This MOU does not support an obligation of funds, nor does it
constitute a binding commitment upon either Party or create any legal
rights or obligations for either Party.
D.Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted as limiting,
superseding, or otherwise affecting a Party from conducting normal
operations or making decisions in carrying out its mission and duties.
E.This MOU does not limit or restrict the Parties from
participating in similar activities or arrangements with other
entities.
F.Each Party shall be responsible for any and all expenses incurred
by that Party relating to this MOU, and neither Party will be
responsible for any expense incurred by the other Party unless
specifically agreed to in writing, separate from and independent of
this MOU.
G.Administration of this MOU and coordination of subsequent NASA-
FAA agreements for activities identified in section II of this MOU will
be the responsibility of the offices identified as the ``Administrative
Points of Contact'' in section V of this MOU.
H.Either Party may unilaterally terminate this MOU upon ninety (90)
calendar days written notice to the other Party.
I.This MOU becomes effective upon the date of the last signature
below (``Effective Date'') and shall remain in effect until either (a)
a Party decides to terminate its participation according to Section VI
(H) of this MOU, or (b) ten (10) calendar years from the Effective
Date, whichever comes first.
J.Any modification to this MOU will be executed in writing and
signed by an authorized representative of NASA and the FAA.
VII. Signatures
The respective authorized officials of each organization hereby
execute this MOU on the date set forth below.
James Bridenstine,
Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Date: January 4, 2021.
Steve Dickson,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
Date: January 4, 2021.

Questions from Hon. Nikema Williams to Wayne R. Monteith, Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration

Question 1. Everything I do in Congress is to give the people of
Georgia's Fifth District a seat at the table. As we discuss the
development of commercial space transportation, we need to center the
needs of our constituents in the conversation.
To start, I'd like to get more information on how more frequent
commercial space transportation can be harmonized with the transition
to a carbon-neutral economy.
Mr. Monteith, in what ways can the Federal Aviation Administration
provide leadership toward use of sustainable fuels in commercial space
transportation, and what environmental significance would this have as
commercial space transportation grows?
Answer. The FAA can provide leadership toward the use of
sustainable fuels by continuing to make informed decisions about the
potential environmental effects of: (1) issuing vehicle and launch site
operator licenses and permits, and (2) greenhouse gas emissions and air
quality. To that end, the FAA is supportive of this Administration's
efforts to provide guidance on assessing greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change effects in the National Environmental Policy Act
process.
The FAA also provides leadership in the development and use of
sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) that are replacements for kerosene jet
fuels. To the extent that commercial space providers are utilizing
kerosene as their energy source, FAA's ongoing efforts could be
leveraged to support sustainable fuels in commercial space. FAA
initiatives on SAF focus on:
Safety testing and evaluation of candidate SAFs in
partnership with industry to enable addition to the ASTM International
jet fuel specification which allows for commercial aviation use of the
fuel in turbine engines.
Analysis of environmental, economic and supply potential
through the FAA's ASCENT Center of Excellence University research
consortium to understand the opportunities to reduce costs and enable
expansion of supply.
Coordination among government, academic and aviation
industry stakeholders to address challenges and engage with the
emerging alternative jet fuels industry through FAA participation on a
federal SAF interagency working group and through FAA sponsorship of
the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative.

The FAA is committed to fulfilling directives from the President's
recent Executive Orders addressing climate change and environmental
justice.

Question 2. You also mentioned in your testimony that the Federal
Aviation Administration has a key role to play in ensuring equal access
to the airspace.
Can you tell us more about the Federal Aviation Administration's
goals to ensure the needs of users in the national airspace system are
safely and effectively balanced with those of the space industry? How
can achieving efficiency in balancing these needs serve everyday people
and their needs from the transportation system in general?
Answer. The FAA strives to reach the next level of safety and
efficiency and to demonstrate global leadership in how we safely
integrate new users and technologies into our aviation system. We are
currently working to integrate several new and innovative users into
our National Airspace System (NAS), commercial space, unmanned aircraft
systems, and advanced air mobility.
Integrating commercial space into the NAS safely and effectively is
how we can best ensure that the needs of all users of the NAS are met.
Commercial space operations are currently treated as ``special cases''
in which air traffic controllers block off sections of airspace for
extended periods of time for a single launch. Although this process is
currently manageable, it is unsustainable in the long run given the
expected growth in commercial space launches.
We are actively working on solutions to address how commercial
space will grow within the NAS alongside commercial, general aviation,
and other new entrants so that the flying public is inconvenienced as
little as possible, while also ensuring that the commercial space
industry and its jobs and missions do not flee overseas.
AST continues its work with the FAA's Air Traffic Organization on
the Space Data Integrator technology. This safety-based technology,
which has automated the previous manual processes, will enable the FAA
to monitor a space mission's progress as it flies through the airspace.
When deployed, this technology will enable the FAA to better manage the
airspace that must be closed to other users and more quickly implement
and release airspace restrictions as a mission progresses.
In addition, the FAA's Air Traffic Organization is also working on
two techniques to reduce the impact of commercial space launches on
aviation.
Time Based Launch Procedures (TBLP) have been implemented
for launch and reentry operations at Kennedy Space Center/Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station (KSC/CCAFS). TBLP utilizes existing Traffic
Flow Management procedures and processes to more efficiently manage
operations at KSC/CCAFS. Where appropriate, TBLP will be expanded to
other spaceports and federal ranges this year.
Dynamic Launch and Reentry Windows (DLRW) procedures have
been developed for KSC/CCAFS. DLRW utilizes mission triggers in launch
and reentry operator mission processes to gain further efficiencies in
addition to those afforded by TBLP. Where appropriate, DLRW will be
expanded to other spaceports and federal ranges this year.

At the FAA, we recognize that our role is not just limited to the
safety of the airspace--but to ensure equal access to it as well. We
are fully engaged in balancing the needs of all airspace users--
including traditional manned aircraft, drones, commercial space
transportation, and others.

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Wayne R. Monteith, Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration

Question 1. Gen. Monteith, a much-touted feature of the new launch
rules are the incremental review processes that allow applicants to
advance new concepts, critically important for companies advancing the
state of the art for space launch. How is implementation of this
incremental review going? Are there some good examples to point to of
this is opening new doors to innovation?
Answer. Incremental review allows FAA to make determinations
earlier in the licensing process, benefiting the industry by reducing
regulatory uncertainty and providing increased transparency with
incremental approvals ahead of a determination on the license in its
entirety.
The FAA accepted its first incremental review approach on June 3,
2021. FAA is working with several other applicants who have expressed
interest in submitting their application using incremental review. The
new streamlined launch and reentry rules allow an applicant to submit
an application for a safety review in modules using an incremental
approach approved by the FAA. An applicant must have its incremental
review approach approved by the FAA so that the FAA can ensure that the
modules can be reviewed independently and in a workable order under an
agreed time frame.
FAA designed the new launch and reentry rules to allow for
innovation in several ways. In addition to incremental review,
performance-based rules give industry greater flexibility to develop
new means of compliance that meet their objectives while maintaining
public safety. The new rules offer alternatives to flight abort and
flight safety analysis requirements based on demonstrated reliability,
use of equivalent level of safety for the measurement of a high
consequence event, and by allowing application process alternatives as
agreed to by the FAA.

Question 2. Gen. Monteith, the flexible approach taken by writing
performance-based new rules creates a lot of room for applicants to
bring forward innovative plans for safe launch to the FAA to evaluate
and render decision. What is the status of the advisory circulars that
help applicants understand what might be approved? How can stakeholders
weigh in on the content of these advisory circulars, both before and
after their publication?
Answer. The advisory circulars (AC) are being written and
coordinated as expeditiously as possible. Two ACs have been published,
with eight more projected to be published and available for stakeholder
use by 30 September 2021.
Stakeholders have several means to weigh in on the AC prior to
publication. The Common Standards Working Group (FAA, NASA, and USSF)
review and provide comments on all ACs prior to final review and
publication of each AC. All stakeholders can view the list of published
and planned ACs on the FAAs external website (https://www.faa.gov/
space/streamlined_licensing_process/media/Part_
450_Means_of_Compliance_Table_with_dates.pdf) and provide input to the
FAA on any of the ACs--either prepublication or after they are
published. After publication, the FAA seeks public comment on each
document and will issue an updated version if warranted based on
comments received. Each guidance document also contains a feedback form
with instructions on how to provide feedback at any time. At the end of
every published AC is this statement: ``If you find an error in this
AC, have recommendations for improving it, or have suggestions for new
items/subjects to be added, you may let us know by (1) emailing this
form to ASTApplications@faa.gov, or (2) faxing it to (202) 267-5450.''
We review and adjudicate all recommendations and will promptly issue a
revision to incorporate improvements, additions, or to correct errors.

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Heather Krause, Director,
Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Question 1. Ms. Krause, this Subcommittee's role focuses on
managing the safe integration of commercial spaceflight through the
national airspace system. Ms. Krause, in your written statement you
note, ``full and efficient integration of all users of the National
Airspace System is years away and will require continued work and
focus.'' How are you working with the FAA on this integration and with
which element of FAA are you coordinating?
Answer. Our 2019 report \1\--issued in response to the most recent
request we received to review these and other issues--identified
actions FAA was taking to increase efficiency of how launches are
integrated into the National Airspace System. In doing this work, we
found that various offices within FAA were supporting efforts that
included, but were not limited to, developing new technologies;
assessing potential changes to policies, procedures, and regulations;
and coordinating with aviation- and space-industry stakeholders. For
example, FAA's Air Traffic Organization, Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, Office of Airports, and Office of NextGen played a part
in identifying and developing steps--outlined in two internal FAA
documents--to help guide the development and implementation of its
actions related to integrating space launch and reentry operations. As
part of our 2019 report, we did not make any recommendations on FAA's
ongoing actions related to airspace integration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Commercial Space Transportation: Improvements to FAA's
Workforce Planning Needed to Prepare for the Industry's Anticipated
Growth, GAO-19-437 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that time, we obtained some updated information on FAA's
progress in making operational changes to increase efficiency. For
example, FAA reported that on June 30, 2021, it activated the use of
its Space Data Integrator (SDI) prototype that provides real-time
situational awareness of a launch vehicle, including position,
altitude, speed, and if the vehicle deviates from its expected launch
path. FAA reported that SDI allows FAA to safely reopen the airspace
more quickly and reduce the number of aircraft and other airspace users
affected by a launch or reentry. Although these developments are
promising, given the complexity of monitoring space launches through
the National Airspace System, it will be important for FAA to maintain
vigilant oversight of its SDI efforts to ensure the program's benefits
are realized in a timely manner.

Question 2. Ms. Krause, regarding launch licenses, your written
testimony stated that ``Industry growth may present challenges to AST's
approach to overseeing compliance and enforcement.'' What, in your
view, are the safety implications of these challenges?
Answer. AST's role as a regulator of commercial space launch
providers is fundamental to the continued safe growth of the industry.
With the anticipated continued growth and development of new
technologies and types of launches and supporting infrastructure, it is
vital that AST ensure that the size, composition, and skills of its
workforce are aligned with its projected workload, including the amount
and type of work. AST has made strides in more strategically aligning
its workforce with evolving industry demands. For example, in response
to one of the four recommendations we made in 2019, AST assessed its
workforce to identify skills and competencies that are currently needed
among its workforce as well as specific competency areas that may be
needed in the future and reported that it developed strategies to
address any workforce skills gaps.
It will be important for AST to follow through on its other planned
efforts in response to our recommendations to ensure it can oversee the
safe growth of the industry. For example, AST should continue:
1.developing workload metrics that encompass the whole office and
would allow AST to determine an appropriate workforce size and
composition; and
2.working with FAA's Office of Labor Analysis to extend AST's
workload projections to a 5-year time period and to include an approach
to address uncertainty.

AST's approach to overseeing compliance and enforcement mainly
consists of safety inspections before, during, and after FAA-regulated
operations that can impact public safety and the safety of property. In
light of the growing number and diversification of launch and reentry
operations and locations, AST's approach to overseeing compliance and
enforcement may warrant review. AST announced in July 2021, that it is
increasing its safety inspection staff and recently opened a field
office in Houston, Texas, to, according to the agency, allow it to more
effectively and efficiently monitor the on-going testing programs and
planned space tourism operations in Texas and New Mexico. We plan to
begin a review of FAA's safety oversight of commercial space activities
at the request of this committee later this year.

Questions from Hon. Garret Graves to Salvatore T. ``Tory'' Bruno,
President and Chief Executive Officer, United Launch Alliance, LLC

Question 1. Can you please describe how a launch window is
determined? Are there instances where reducing the launch window to
accommodate air traffic is possible? What are the downsides to reducing
a launch window?
Answer. Launch windows are determined directly by the orbital
destination of the spacecraft, not by the convenience of the launch
provider. Any given orbital destination dictates the targeted time of
day of the launch. This is a precise moment. The launch window, or span
of time before and after this instantaneous moment, is determined by
the physics of the destination orbit and the performance of the rocket.
The most common duration of a launch window is between 30 and 90
minutes. This span of time is essential in order to reliably launch on
any given day. Unlike an aircraft, a Space Launch Vehicle cannot fly
around or over thunderstorms. It cannot lift off if there is lightning
within several miles of the pad or cumulus clouds overhead because of
the catastrophic risk of a lightning strike to a rocket carrying
upwards of a million pounds of highly explosive propellants. Most
launches occur from the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, a location
infamous for its inconsistent weather. Additionally, a SLV is a very
complex, twenty to thirty story tall machine that must be loaded with
extremely cold cryogenic propellants, who's thermodynamic state is
precisely controlled by complex ground systems. Given the delicate and
complicated nature of these processes, along with the critical nature
of often unique payloads, it is not uncommon for a countdown to be
paused while an unexpected issue is safely worked through. When a
countdown is recycled due to weather or a technical issue, it typically
takes 15 to 20 minutes to recycle the count after resolution or
clearing of the skies. A significant curtailment of the available
launch window would leave a launch without an adequate opportunity to
work around weather or technical issues and result in frequent scrubs.
This will lead to multiple days of air traffic disruptions and millions
of dollars of expense as launch crews extend and propellants are lost.

Question 2. In your testimony, you talk about various forms of
reentry. Can you please describe the differences between controlled and
uncontrolled reentry of satellites or rocket bodies?
Answer. Because the reentry into the Earth's atmosphere of objects
that do not fully burn up in the process poses risks to human
populations, critical infrastructure, and the natural environment, it
is important to design, engineer, test, and operate those objects, so
as to ensure that their reentry is controlled to eliminate or minimize
those risks.
In a controlled reentry, a spacecraft or rocket stage is still
operable and will use thrust to position itself in a way that its
reentry is relatively planned and predictable. In most cases, these
reentries will take place over remote ocean areas. Saving fuel to
control a reentry incurs a cost on the operator, but it is a price
worth paying to protect the orbital environment and ensure our use of
space.
Uncontrolled reentries take place because an operator has lost
control of their spacecraft or rocket stage. Usually this is due to a
lack of fuel or some type of malfunction. In this scenario, the
spacecraft or rocket stage is at the mercy of gravity and could reenter
over a populated area, and it is very difficult to predict where the
reentry will occur until minutes ahead of time. We saw this recently
with the reentry of a Chinese Long March 5B. Uncontrolled reentries
propose a low but very real risk to people on the ground and users of
the National Airspace System. In some cases, uncontrolled reentries can
even pose risks to astronauts and the International Space Station
(ISS), particularly when we are dealing with low earth orbit satellites
positioned at a higher altitude than the ISS.

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Frank DiBello, President
and Chief Executive Officer, Space Florida

Question 1. Mr. DiBello, in your written testimony you ``call on
Congress to authorize and fund an infrastructure program aimed at
enabling America's space transportation leadership.'' What do you think
the necessary funding numbers should be, and do you believe there is
congressional or political receptivity to making this type of
investment and finding a source to pay for it?
Answer. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman Johnson. To
remain competitive in an increasingly contested global space market in
which China and others have become increasingly emboldened, the US must
invest in our space transportation infrastructure. Tomorrow, the House
Space Subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled, ``Enabling Mission
Success From the Ground Up: Addressing NASA's Urgent Infrastructure
Needs'' (emphasis added). Beyond federal assets, we know that the
availability of state, local, and privately-operated launch and reentry
sites across our nation make the US space transportation system
stronger and better able to adapt to industry innovation and changing
global markets, and offer the US government new opportunities for
meeting its space lift needs.
In the State of Florida, space has long been designated as a mode
of transportation, which has allowed our organization to partner with
private capital markets to invest in infrastructure improvements at the
Cape and elsewhere around the state. However, the network of commercial
and privately-operated spaceports extends across our country, beyond
Florida to Texas, California, New Mexico, Alaska, Oklahoma, and
Colorado. Our engagement with our colleagues in this emerging U.S.
spaceport system convinces us there is broad political receptivity to
making investments in these non-federal assets that strengthen our
nation's leadership in the exploration and practical use of space.
The aviation industry began with significant and intentional
government support before the marketplace was mature enough to generate
revenue to support airport improvements. Space Florida is aware that
this is a sensitive topic for some, and we feel strongly that all
stakeholders should be consulted to find the best way forward. Whatever
the solution decided upon by stakeholders, the importance of timely
investment in space infrastructure cannot be overstated.

Questions from Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson to Captain Joseph G. DePete,
President, Air Line Pilots Association, International

Question 1. Captain Joseph G. DePete, your testimony details
serious concerns about safety, not only for pilots but for the millions
of people in our nation and throughout the world. You mention, among
other concerns, examples of various pieces of out of control, falling
debris, some of which weigh tens of thousands of pounds and are moving
at very, very fast speeds. So, I am wondering, in your communications
with the FAA, private sector industry leaders, and in your recent
letter to the International Civil Aviation Organization's Secretary
General, Dr. Fang Liu listing your concerns, what kinds of responses
have you received? Do the stakeholders seem to be taking safety
concerns seriously and do you believe they have plans to confront these
very serious safety issues in their future work?
Answer. Thank you for your follow-up questions regarding our
testimony on the Subcommittee on Aviation hearing, ``Starships and
Stripes Forever--An Examination of the FAA's Role in the Future of
Spaceflight''. I am writing this letter in response to those questions.
Communications with the FAA, Aviation Stakeholders and the Commercial
Space Industry.
ALPA regularly attends several FAA and private sector industry
venues such as the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC). This committee, established under the authority of the
Department of Transportation (DOT), provides information, advice, and
recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation through the Federal
Aviation Administration. ALPA attends the COMSTAC as a member of the
public.
There does not appear to be adequate representation or a broad
official voice for the traditional aviation industry on the COMSTAC,
with the exception of Airlines for America (A4A). The COMSTAC primarily
focuses on the regulatory requirements to gain access to the National
Airspace System (NAS) as well as the system requirements for commercial
space vehicles.
ALPA also participates on FAA Safety Risk Management (SRM) Panels
for operational issues impacting the NAS, including commercial space
launch. Previously, ALPA and industry stakeholders held positions as
voting panel members on SRM panels. The FAA's decision several years
ago to exclude external stakeholders as voting panel members has
reduced the voice and opinions of stakeholders external to the FAA
significantly. Without an active vote, traditional aviation
stakeholders' recommendations are heard but often discounted by the
voting panel members. Our concerns have been echoed by other aviation
stakeholders, both in the detail of how FAA manages launch and recovery
operations, as well as the higher level concerns about participation on
Safety Panels.
FAA and commercial space committees and workgroups often lack
transparency. The majority of the FAA commercial space committees or
workgroups are internal groups within FAA Lines of Business (LOB) or
FAA and the commercial space private sector which ALPA does not have
access to. Proprietary information is usually cited as the reason
provided to external stakeholders for exclusion from the ongoing
dialogue between the FAA and the commercial space operators.
ICAO industry response (Dr. Fang Liu)
On May 14, 2021, I sent a letter to ICAO secretary general Dr. Fang
Liu calling attention to the threat posed by the reentry of debris from
orbit as commercial space operations continue to grow in frequency
and--in recent months, two uncontrolled reentries of rockets.
In the letter, I urged ICAO to work with the United Nations to
develop global standards for launch planning and recovery, to promote
standards for vehicles that are designed to burn up entirely upon
reentry, to work with national regulators and air navigation service
providers to provide timely warning of any reentry, and to have
procedures to route aircraft away from potential reentry hazards.
Dr. Fang Liu, ICAO Secretary General, responded to my letter
assuring me that ``the primary objective of ICAO remains the safety of
international civil aviation''. Dr. Liu highlighted ICAO's involvement
with civil aviation authorities, air navigation service providers, and
inter-governmental organizations in accordance with Assembly Resolution
A40-26 and the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Space. However, the
response lacked detail how ICAO provides specific guidance that
prevents future events like those that I highlighted in my testimony.
Are stakeholders taking safety concerns seriously.
While the commercial space industry and FAA state that safety is a
priority, we are concerned that their response to commercial space
transportation safety is inadequate. There still seems to be the
consensus that the ``big sky'' theory is acceptable. What I mean is
that there is a small likelihood of a collision between rocket debris
and an air carrier aircraft, simply because there is so much airspace.
Many believe the risk is acceptably small. However airline operations
abandoned this belief long ago after several mid-air collisions, and
Congress has required all commercial airliners to carry equipment to
avoid a mid-air collision for nearly 30 years \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Regulatory History section, https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/11/01/01-27340/collision-
avoidance-systems
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 9, 2020 SpaceX tested their Serial Number 8 (SN8)
Starship prototype at their Boca Chica, Texas facility--which was
conducted in violation of its launch license issued by the FAA \2\.
Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and the company's Chief Executive Officer
(CEO), admonished the FAA (via Tweet) as hindering progress of the
commercial space industry. As you may be aware, the spacecraft exploded
during the landing sequence, spreading debris into the air and
surrounding community. I'm sure you would agree that this was a serious
violation of safety and undermined FAA's authority in this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://spacenews.com/spacex-violated-launch-license-in-
starship-sn8-launch/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant element in the discussion on the level of safety of
commercial space operations, is that Commercial Space uses a different
safety standard than aviation. In commercial space there is an
``expected casualty'' limit for an uninvolved member of the public
should be no greater than 1 in 10,000 flights, with a risk to any
individual not exceeding 1 in 1 million. In contrast, aviation's target
level of safety is that a fatality should not occur more often than 1
in 1 billion, or 1000 times more stringent.
If commercial space were isolated and had no impacts on aviation,
this might be acceptable. The problem is that commercial space and
aviation operations share the same limited resource, the national
airspace.
In an attempt to reconcile this difference, the FAA has introduced
increased risk to traditional NAS stakeholders under the Acceptable
level of Risk (ALR) concept. The concept initially managed the
increased risk through exposure to potential falling debris based on a
space vehicle's trajectory. The concept was recently revised and now
allows the aircraft to operate along the same trajectory/flight path of
the space vehicle. In the event of a debris generating event,
commercial airline aircraft will have to rely on ATC procedures and
capability to clear the impacted airspace before falling debris reaches
the aircraft.
The FAA currently does not plan to notify aircraft of the
possibility of debris hazard under this new concept, and therefore
pilots and operators will be unable to take action on their own to
avoid this additional risk.
Plans to confront safety issues in their future work:
The FAA has started to focus more on integration of space
operations as evidenced by the May 2020 space integration Concept of
Operation. The FAA envisions real-time analysis and data sharing
between commercial space operators and the FAA because the FAA will
have telemetry information from the spacecraft which will allow them to
calculate hazard areas in real-time as the spaceflight progresses. FAA
would clear aircraft from the airspace that will be used by the
spacecraft, as well as the immediate surrounding area where a
spacecraft mishap would result in a serious hazard.
If a spacecraft mishap occurs, the immediate surrounding area would
already be clear of aircraft. The FAA would then take actions in real
time to move aircraft using real-time calculations away from where
spacecraft debris would fall. This capability is predicated on reliable
and real-time communications of spacecraft telemetry.
It is further assumed in the FAA Concept of Operations that
airworthiness standards would be issued by the FAA, allowing the
reliability of spacecraft to also be taken into consideration. Without
the airworthiness standards for the spacecraft to help reduce the
likelihood of catastrophic events, it is unlikely that integration of
commercial space operations can be achieved.
ALPA is ready and willing to assist the FAA as it evolves the
management of space launches, so that a single level of safety can be
provided at all times.