FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

\+ + + + +

INTERNATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY FORUM

\"SAFETY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM\"

\+ + + + +

LUNCH SESSION

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2006

\+ + + + +

Westfields Marriott

17450 Conference Center Drive

Chantilly, Virginia 20151

ELON MUSK Guest Speaker, Chairman and

Chief Executive Officer, SpaceX

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1:09 p.m.

ADMINISTRATOR BLAKEY: \-- and he\'s going to talk to you about this and
I won\'t keep going through his track record because I know he will fill
it in, but he\'s been gracious enough to also say that he\'ll take
questions at the end which I have a feeling will work for this crowd
because when Elon sets his mind to doing things the happen and they tend
to happen in advance of the rest of us. Please welcome our featured
speaker, Elon Musk.

(Applause)

MR. MUSK: Well, thank you very much. I certainly hope I do remote
justice to those words. So, it\'s a pleasure to be with you today. It\'s
a rare honor when a rocket builder is invited to speak before an
aviation audience like this and I hope you find my words interesting. I
think, you know, one issue that really does unite the aviation and
rocket worlds is the question of safety and reliability. There\'s really
nothing more important than that. You know, although at SpaceX we\'re
focusing on changing the cost equation associated with space travel and
dramatically improving that cost equation, we\'re also focused before we
even address the question of cost, on the question of reliability
because until space approaches the level of reliability that we\'ve come
to expect in at least general aviation, it\'s not going to be something
that most people are willing to accept and do. So I thought perhaps one
place to just start here is talk about my car.

It\'s actually not the electric cart, but I have a car which is a
McLaren F1. It\'s almost airborne. (Laughter) To give you sort of a
comparison of the rocket and the car, we have a rocket called the
Falcon 1. It develops about almost 80,000 pounds of thrust at sea level,
a little more than that at vacuum. Three seconds after launch, the
rocket is actually going quite slowly. It\'s only doing about 50 air
miles an hour. The McLaren F1 is doing 60 miles an hour after three
seconds. The \-- the McLaren F-1 at about six seconds is doing 100 miles
an hour and the rocket is doing, you know, about 30 to 40 miles an hour.
How about when you get to the three-minute mark, they have changed a
little bit. The Falcon 1 rocket will do \-- it will be doing about Mach
10 after three minutes.

After 10 minutes it\'s doing Mach 25. And so that\'s definitely a new
regime of speed. So, I mean, it helps to illustrate just how different
space is from our normal perception of speed. You just don\'t see
anything terrestrially that goes remotely that fast. And in order to go
that fast, you have to input a heck of a lot of energy.

You know, typically, aviation things are about 10 times as hotter or
more expensive than say a car, a terrestrial thing, and I think you
basically jump up about another order of magnitude when you go to space
stuff. So let me talk about this whole question of where is space going,
you know. Are we at the dawn of something or are we not? I think we are.
I think we\'re really entering a new era of space exploration. A year
ago at this conference, I was part of a panel entitled Private Human
Space Flight. You Can\'t Be Serious, Can You? Well, even then and
certainly by now, I think the answer is emphatically, yes. In fact, last
year\'s conference \-- a year before last year\'s conference Space Ship
One from Burt Rutan captured the X Prize and actually, I helped fund the
X Price. I\'m a trustee of the X Price Foundation. So I was very glad to
see that prize awarded.

You know, this time the conference comes after a year in which the
future of space tourism has been brought even closer. I\'ll give you a
few examples. In June the Vega Group, looked at space prospects in
Europe, produced a report that said, \"Aside from issues of crowded
airspace and bad weather, there\'s no reason why Europe should not be
leading the private space flight industry\". This August Futron updated
an earlier study on space tourism. The participation level is expected
to be something like 13 to 15,000 people per year at the end of the next
decade going to space.

So and there\'s more. Vitron Atlantic announced plans to launch
passengers specifically to view the Northern Lights and there\'s some of
the Personal Space Flight Federation and Alliance of Developers in the
Private Commercial Space Industry came together to facilitate the growth
of a society for regular space travel for everyone. And that,
incidentally, is really the goal of SpaceX. Although we\'re starting off
with launch of satellites, our long-term goal is really to help make
space accessible to average citizens, to keep driving the cost lower and
the reliability higher, to a point where you could, if you wanted to,
buy a ticket to space.

So in fact, let me talk a bit about my own company, so you can see some
sort of concrete examples here of the pace of progress. And here I\'ll
connect up to the \-- so this is roughly four years ago. (Laughter) As
you can see, we were just starting out. That\'s after we cleaned the
place. Two years after that we were on the launch pad at Vandenberg with
a qualification unit. That\'s a launch pad at Vandenberg in the bottom
right is part of our control center. Then we did a static test of
hold-down firing of the main engine, Vandenberg.

Here is a commercial. And then we did our first countdown of the Falcon
1 rocket in November of last year. That\'s on our launch \-- we launched
from a small Island in the Pacific in the Marshall Islands. And so when
I run into people at a cocktail party and they ask me, \"What do you
do\", it\'s \-- you know, I say, \"I launch rockets\". They say, \"Well,
where do you launch them\"? \"I launch them from a small Island in the
Pacific\". It\'s not very credible. (Laughter) And I sort of feel as
though I should be stroking a white cat at the same time (laughter).

So to give you some sense of where things are headed \-- now, I should
point out that Space X is kind of in a different league from most of the
things you\'ll read about when it comes to space flight. There\'s
suborbital space flight where people are kind of going up to about 60
miles and then falling back down and then there\'s orbital space flight
and the type of technologies involved are quite different. It\'s much,
much harder to get to orbit than it is to do suborbital flight. To give
you an example, or to put that into sort of mathematical terms, the
suborbital flight of Burt Rutan, they got to about Mach 3-1/2. Now,
that\'s a big deal in the aviation world, but to get to orbit, you need
to get to at least Mach 25, and that doesn\'t quite describe the scale
of difficulty because if you look at in energy terms, the energy scale
is the square of the velocity, so it\'s non-linear in how difficult it
is to increase your velocity.

So in order to figure out a direct comparison, you take 3-1/2 squared
through 10 units of energy, versus 25 squared, 625 units of energy. So
it\'s about a 60 to one energy ratio between orbit and sub-orbit, just
to give you some frame of reference. But this is what SpaceX is doing.
We\'re starting off with that little rocket on the left and then what we
have under development is our Falcon 9 vehicle. And Falcon 9 is \-- if
this was an aircraft, this would be a 747 class aircraft. In fact, the
basic Falcon line has three times the lift-off thrust of a 747. The
Falcon Line S-9, the Falcon line heavy, has almost 10 times the lift-off
thrust of a 747. We\'ve got a bunch of launch contracts and whatnot.
That\'s kind of what the Falcon 9 looks like with our capsule on top,
our Dragon spacecraft, that little guy on top there. These are some of
the technologies that we\'re using. We\'re using something similar to
what the Eclipse Jet is using, the friction stir welding and that\'s
helping us reduce some of the costs. And that\'s more of what our
spacecraft looks like. That\'s what it looks like on part of the
International Space Station. And that\'s the whole concept of operation.
Basically, it lifts off, goes into a parking orbit, docks with the space
station and then re-enters like a blunt body re-entry, kind of like
Apollo and lands in the ocean.

We could make it land on land, too, but there\'s much more ocean than
land, so we thought we\'d pick the ocean. Oh, actually, there\'s one
thing I should show. So this is a launch we did earlier this year, our
first test launch. Didn\'t get to orbit this time but we have another
test launch coming up in January.

(Video playing)

So as I said, we did our first test launch earlier this year. We learned
a lot, tested a lot of systems. This particular launch didn\'t quite get
to orbit but we have another test launch coming up in January. And then
several more launches that follow that. But, you know, we do consider it
a success because of the amount of data we were able to gather on the
vehicle systems and I think we\'re very optimistic about the next
launch. The rocket business is really a tough business. I guess,
there\'s a reason there\'s an idiomatic expression associated with
rocket science, as I\'ve learned first-hand. But in any event, we\'ll
get there, it\'s just a question of when.

So talking about another concrete example, you may have read about the
Bigelow sub-scale space station that was actually quite successful. They
launched on a Russian rocket, a sub-scale version of their eventual
manned space station. And Robert Bigelow actually has plans to have a
space station, a commercial space station up there that has a volume
potentially greater than that of the International Space Station and
with the success of his small space station, I think it\'s looking very
likely that he\'s really going to do. So if you\'re at all interested in
seeing pictures of space from his little space station, just go to
BigelowAirSpace.com and it\'s really quite fascinating. It\'s got some
bugs in there, I think, as well.

So there\'s actually, I think, a confluence of interest in space
exploration. If you look, there\'s obviously myself, there\'s Robert
Bigelow. There are also people like Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of
Amazon. He\'s got a \-- he\'s got a spacecraft development company.
He\'s quite serious about it. There\'s guys like John Carmack, who \--
founder of ID Software who wrote \"Quake and Doom\". There\'s Paul
Allen, who, you know, he was the co-founder of Microsoft and who funded
SpaceShip 1 and I think there\'s companies like Rockeplane Kistler. I
think we really are going to see a significant groundswell of interest
in capital and entrepreneurs entering the space business.

So and there\'s also I think a change in the way that the government is
viewing space development. The recent NASA Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services contract is a really good example. In the past
NASA has always driven the development of new launch vehicles,
particularly manned spacecraft, but recently, they decided that they\'re
going to put out a contract to service the space station commercially,
which is a huge change. And they\'ve allocated \$500 million, conducted
a large, you know, a major competition this year, selected two winners.
We were one winner. The company by the name of Rocketplane Kistler was
the other. And NASA is very serious about having the space station be
serviced by US commercial companies after the space shuttle retired in
2010. So if things work out well, SpaceX will actually be the company
that replaces the space shuttle in taking cargo and crew to the
International Space Station.

Actually, I\'ve got a little video here. There\'s no sound for this
video but this is our Dragon spacecraft approaching the International
Space Station. This is a true physics simulation, very much speeded up
though. There\'s a much longer version on our website if you\'re
interested. So I think the advent of space really can and is happening
really fast. It certainly happened fast in aviation. The Wright Brothers
flew in 1903. Fifteen years later, mainly driven by World War I, the
world had produced over 200,000 aircraft and a few more figures. In 1926
some 5800 passengers flew on short routes in the United States so that
was 23 years after the first flight. By 1938, however, the number had
risen to 1.2 million. By 1952, it was 25 million, by 1981, 265 million.
So it\'s jumping up in orders of magnitude.

And in 2001, nearly 1.7 million passengers flew in this country per day,
more than flew in all of 1938. So I think it\'s really one can expect a
dramatic increase in the amount of space activity. So and obviously,
safety is going to require an even greater focus over time. I know there
are legitimate concerns about rockets. When the Congress approved the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 it put language into it
that said, \"Space transportation is inherently risky, we have to
recognize that\". And the future of the commercial space flight industry
will depend on its ability to continue to improve its safety
performance. Just as at the beginning of aviation, things were very
unsafe. You were really taking your live into your hands if you jumped
into one of those planes.

And I think that\'s true also in the space business. And it\'s going to
take a little while for us to really iron out all the issues and figure
out how to make it as safe as aviation is today. I think it will get
there but it\'s important to bear in mind that there will be this risky
phase. There will be accidents, and there will be errors and all that
but if we don\'t make some allowance for that, we will not make
progress. It\'s unfortunately an unnecessary part of the whole
development of a new technology base and a new industry.

So some serious questions to be addressed, for example, when a rocket is
launched, should the surrounding airspace be shut down and for how long?
How do you define surrounding? How long is long? Do you restrict
launches to certain locations at certain times? What about weather
waivers? How far should launches occur from populated areas? As they
stand now, launches are reasonably distant from population centers but
if you start having lots of launches, that becomes extremely difficult
to maintain. The launch sites we call remote now would attract support
personnel, more air traffic bringing more customers and ground-bound
tourists to watch. So something that starts off being remote, may not be
remote for very long. I could, and I\'m sure you could come up with a
substantial list of issues and unaddressed questions about space and
airspace and outer space. And those are all good questions and we\'re
going to need to solve them over time and it\'s going to be a tough
process.

But I think if we\'re a country that wants to be the leader in space
exploration, we\'ve got to march down that path and keep going even if
there are setbacks and issues. So it\'s not going to be easy but I do
think it\'s possible. So my message today is just really, you know,
rockets are on the way. They\'re already here to some degree, but I
think within 10 years, we\'re going to see the whole nature of the space
transportation game change, and I\'m optimistic that the United States,
just as it led the future in aviation, will lead the future in space.
So, thank you.

(Applause)

I\'m happy to take any questions that you might have.

FEMALE PARTICIPANT: When can we go?

MR. MUSK: Well, it depends on what you want to do. If you want to do a
suborbital flight, I\'m told that Virgin Atlantic will be offering those
around the end of the decade so around about \-- I think about three
years or so, is that about right, \`09, so, yeah, three years, exactly
for suborbital. To get to orbit, we\'re anticipating that we will start
transporting NASA astronauts around either late 2010 or 2011 and shortly
thereafter we will be offering private transportation as well.

Currently if you want to go to orbit, you go to the space station, you
have to buy a ride from the Russians. In fact, most of the people buying
those rides are Americans. It\'s very unfortunate, and so we\'re
definitely going to change that situation. And now, that\'s \-- there\'s
a pretty significant difference in cost there. A suborbital flight you
could get, which is still pretty expensive, but I think initially
they\'re going to go for about \$200,000.00. An orbital flight, we think
will probably initially be several million dollars, 8 or \$9 million,
maybe 10, but you\'ve got to start somewhere. (Laughter) Poor
consolation but the biggest single factor is reusability. How good can
we make the reusability and currently the only rocket in the world
that\'s even slightly reusable is the space shuttle and the reusability
cost is so great that a lot of people think that maybe we \-- you know,
shouldn\'t be trying to reuse them.

So as \-- but I\'m confident that we can make reusability work, and so
over time, I think we can get that cost lower and lower. The long-term
Holy Grail type situation, I think, is can we lower the cost of
transport so that if you wanted to \-- I mean, this is really Holy Grail
stuff here, I mean, far out there, can we lower the cost of
transportation to Mars to a point where if you sold everything on earth
and you owned a house of California was one of those things (laughter),
could you move to Mars? In other words, could you move to Mars for about
you know, a couple million dollars. That\'s you know, super-far out
there and all that, but I think that\'s the objective I have in mind,
you know, in the really long-term because I think that\'s \-- if you
look at what are important things on a really long time scale, on an
almost geological time scale, those things that are important to life
itself, not just to the parochial concerns of humanity, there was single
cellular life, multi-cellular life, you know, in the oceans and then
crawled out of the oceans onto the land. That was a big one.

And even, you know, you had Mammalian life and you know, it\'s about 10
major events on that scale, but I think on the scale would also put the
extension of life to another planet. I think that\'s one of the most
important things that life should aspire to, both for defensive reasons
and for you know, reasons of expansion of the scope and scale of the
human experience and you know, there\'s some possibility that we can do
ourselves in, although I\'m actually reasonably optimistic that we
won\'t.

Steve Wallace (FAA): Thank you for an interesting presentation and a
wonderful explanation of the physics. I\'m kind of the safety
scorekeeper for the FAA and I also had the opportunity to work on the
Columbia accident investigation so I\'m struck by the \-- you\'ve
explained the physics wonderfully \-- by the difference of the risks
involved and note that the \-- I think the best rocket scientists in the
world have launched the space shuttle 115 times and lost two. And if you
applied that rate to commercial aviation in the United States, that
would be 500 total loss aircraft accidents every day, every day.

So my question is two parts. One is, how do you \-- how do you expect to
achieve anything close to an acceptable accident rate and it kind of
leads to the second part of my question which is do we view this as
transportation? We are a gathering here of transportation professionals
and transportation is the life blood of commerce in our country and our
world.

MR. MUSK: Absolutely.

Mr. Wallace: Do we view it that way or do we view it as exploration or
do we view it as inter-galactic bungie jumping. I mean, is it just sort
of (laughter) \--

MR. MUSK: That sounds like a lot of fun.

Mr. Wallace: Is it thrill-seeking? I mean, are we trying to set the
expectations of safety in the context of transportation?

MR. MUSK: Sure, absolutely. Well, I do think it\'s \-- we\'re not there
in terms of considering it to be a transportation record. So I think
from the perspective of a private individual buying a trip, orbital or
suborbital, it\'s really in the vein of an adventure sport and a pretty
risky one at that, you know, the climbing of Mt. Everest, doing, you
know, exotic stunt flying or something like that, but it\'s really \-- I
mean, we\'re kind of \-- from a safety standpoint, you know, where they
were in the first few years of aviation where people were \-- you know,
they weren\'t sure if the plane would work, and they\'d fly and discover
that it didn\'t and that would be the end of them.

So we\'ve got a long way to go because you\'re right. I mean, there are
a lot of smart people at NASA working really hard and the space shuttle
program, I think at this point is approaching, I don\'t know, 70, \$80
billion and despite all that money and all that time and all that hard
work, they\'ve lost two shuttles and that\'s pretty tough. So it\'s
really hard to improve but it\'s something we\'ve got to improve and I
think \-- you know, I think certain things would be really helpful like
having an escape system. You know, we used to have escape systems,
ironically, in the Apollo era and then we decided that the space shuttle
would be so safe that nobody would need an escape system.

So it\'s going to take a lot of time and effort to reduce the risk and I
think, even after all that, it\'s still going to be a heck of a lot
riskier than flight, air flight, particularly going to orbit because of
the enormous energy requirements. You know, the \-- with \-- it\'s only
barely possible for us to escape earth\'s gravity. If earth\'s gravity
was just a little greater, we would be unable to do it with current
technology. After the world \-- some of the world\'s smartest scientists
and engineers have done everything the can to reduce the mass fraction
of the vehicle and to make the inert mass of the vehicle as low as
possible, and to squeeze every tiny bit of efficiency they can out of
the engine, your typical rocket gets about two percent of its mass to
orbit. That\'s after you\'ve done all those things and after you\'ve
taken your safety margins to razor thin levels. So it\'s a tough game. I
don\'t know if I\'ve answered your question.

I mean, in terms of \-- there does have to be a clearly articulated
point to a lot of these things and for me, like I said earlier, the
point really is the extension of life beyond earth. I think that\'s the
point that justifies the risk. If we can work towards that goal of
establishing a self-sustaining civilization, I think the right place is
Mars. There\'s some people that think it\'s the moon. I think it becomes
very hard to make it self-sustaining on the moon but you can do it on
Mars.

But if we say, look, we think it\'s such an important goal for life to
be multi-planetary, that we\'re willing to take this risk, I think that
makes sense. No more questions.

MALE PARTICIPANT: Good afternoon, everybody. I am from the United Arab
Emirates. With respect to space vehicles, are there any rule that would
involve the third party insurance in case it crashes or landed in nearby
countries? Thank you, sir.

MR. MUSK: Sure. Actually, orbital launches, all commercial orbital
launches purchase third party insurance. And then that\'s up to a
certain limit which is called the maximum probable loss, and then
thereafter, it\'s covered by the US Government. Although really there\'s
been very \-- despite thousands of rocket launches, almost no third
party damage. Damage tends to occur to the rocket but not typically to
third parties.

Actually, it\'s worth making a point which is that a view from the
perspective of space, if you were to say calculate the actual square
footage of the earth that\'s occupied by people, versus the percentage
of the earth that is not occupied people, I mean, that actual physical
footprint of human beings, humans are almost non-existent. There\'s
almost \-- they\'re almost \-- the percentage of land mass or percentage
of area on earth by humans physically, by humans themselves, is just
almost nothing. It\'s almost impossible to hit someone from earth unless
you try really, really hard and even then you\'ll miss. So it\'s pretty
hard to hit people from space.

And even if you fly around the country and you look down, you know, how
many times \-- if you look down and say, \"Right now we\'re right over a
person\", versus right now we\'re not right over a person, you\'ll be
not over a person almost your entire flight. And that\'s \-- you know,
that doesn\'t count like Alaska and you know, the Pacific Ocean and all
that.

MR. CULBERTSON: Frank Culbertson, it sounds like you\'re proposing the
Big Sky theory being applied to the big ground and I don\'t think the
FAA is going to buy that any more, but and you\'re right about the
percentage, because you don\'t see much down here but you still have to
address that. And I think what was being asked about was the
relationship between where you\'re going and what you\'re trying to do
with what this organization is trying to do and what this conference is
trying to address, and I think it\'s important for people to understand
that there is a bridge between aviation and the leading edge of space
exploration that you\'re trying to do and I think the more you can do to
show how that bridge is being built and not that it\'s being ignored,
the more likely you are to get continued support in the country and both
from a safety standpoint and from a usability standpoint, because what
you are building, I believe, is the next transportation system. We need
some breakthroughs in technology to get us through the gravity well, but
it\'s this kind of work that will help us do that.

Do you see a way for what you and the other entrepreneurs are doing to
take what you\'re doing and move it back down the food chain, if you
will, to help take aviation into increased safety posture or to more
efficiency or higher speed in a way that will support both industries?

MR. MUSK: Well, I think where they could connect is if you want to do
really high speed, point to point transport, say, you know, the New York
to Tokyo type of thing. The only way to do that really fast is with a
rocket. So conceivably someone may develop some day a hybrid of an
airplane and a rocket that\'s capable of taking off from somewhere in
New York and landing in Tokyo that would basically go on a suborbital
trajectory through space and then re-enter Tokyo airspace or probably
off of Tokyo airspace I would mention but, you know, I think that would
be a really interesting and exciting thing. It would be a confluence of
aircraft and rockets. It would be an expensive trip, though.

MALE PARTICIPANT: Yes, I have a question. I\'m over here in the corner.
Right, I\'m actually with the Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
And as I remember from my youth, priorities and funding and familiarity
grounded the Apollo program. What does this human space flight or
commercial space transportation have to continue to do to win and
sustain the attention of the public?

MR. MUSK: Well, I think it\'s important to show how what we\'re doing
can matter to the general public in the long term and why it\'s relevant
to the country. You know, I think for awhile there when we were just
sort of setting up space shuttles and the space station, the general
public was \-- kind of got bored and kind of confused as to what exactly
we were doing and why we were doing it and what\'s new and interesting
and I think there really weren\'t very good answers to that.

But now on the government side we\'ve got, I think, a much more
interesting program of going back to the moon and then onto Mars. I
think \-- actually, I think, frankly, the public is more interested in
the onto Mars part, if you ask me because they\'ve seen the moon movie
and the remake is not as good as the original. So, but I think at least
the fact that we\'re going further than earth orbit is important to
garner public interest. And I think some of the polls that I\'ve seen
recently, public interest has perked up and things like on the
commercial side the Xprize and what Branson is doing and Burt Rutan and
all those guys, I think that\'s also creating public interest because
that seems like something that even though it\'s expensive at
\$200,000.00 a ticket, if that\'s \-- if your life\'s dream is to go to
space, hey, take out a second mortgage on your home and buy a ticket.
And there are people who want to do that. And then from a \-- you know
from a government regulatory standpoint, it\'s insuring that there\'s
this good balance between it being safe but also financially achievable
and actually, I think the FAA is doing a great job with that by the way.

All right, if there are no more questions, thank you.

(Applause)

ADMINISTRATOR BLAKEY: I know when to quit when we\'re ahead. When they
say the FAA is doing a good job, I think, yes, that\'s where we\'ve got
to stop it. But I do want to thank Elon for a tremendously provocative
interesting statement. You know, the speech in conferences today,
because I think in conferences like this where you do want to sort of
stretch your ideas about where we are going and what the challenges will
be and there\'s no question about that. Elon, I do have just a small
token to say thank you because we, at the FAA, are very, very grateful
for the tremendous intellectual energy and pursuit that\'s involved with
SpaceX and with the efforts you\'re making. Thank you again.

(Applause.)

MR. MUSK: Thank you very much.

ADMINISTRATOR BLAKEY: Roberto, I\'d also like to ask President Kobeh to
come up here because this morning I should have also said thank you with
one of these for his speech this morning. So I do want to also present
to Roberto Kobeh our thanks in the form of a plaque from the FAA. Thank
you.

(Applause.)

ADMINISTRATOR BLAKEY: Now, we have a few comments before we\'ll let
everyone get back to enjoying each other.

MR. SABATINI: Well, shagadelic, Elon. My money is on him but I\'ve
already got the second mortgage so, I\'m going to have to wait for
the-low cost rocket carriers to come on line. Listen, I\'m not going to
rush anybody out of here but just a couple of things. At 2:30 we\'re
going to start the afternoon session. We\'ve got down here on this floor
out to your right leaving the room is the Lincoln Room where we\'re were
going to have a safety management system model, and then upstairs we
broke the room down that we were in this morning into three areas for
the remaining three panels.

Again, that starts at 2:30. At 2:15 for folks that are interested and
for the media that are here today, the Administrator, Nick, Russ,
myself, a few others will be up at the RNAV RNP exhibit on the second
floor with some information about the second roadmap for RNP and some of
the RNAV progress. So look forward to seeing you. Just mingle, relax,
thanks again.

(Applause)

(Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., a brief recess was taken.)