COMMERCIAL 

SPACE

FAA Should Examine 

How to Appropriately 

Regulate Space 

Support Vehicles

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2016

GAO-17-100

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-100, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2016

COMMERCIAL SPACE

FAA Should Examine How to Appropriately Regulate

Space Support Vehicles

What GAO Found

Company officials GAO interviewed identified potential uses for “space support 

vehicles”—which include a variety of aircraft from high-performance jets to 

balloons and the aircraft portion of a hybrid launch systems (a vehicle that 

contains elements of both an aircraft and a rocket-powered launch vehicle)—but 

the size of the market for these uses is unclear. Company officials said they plan 

to use space support vehicles to train spaceflight participants and to conduct 

research in reduced gravity environments. For example, some company officials

said they would like to use high-performance jets to train future spaceflight 

participants by exposing them to physiological and psychological effects

encountered in spaceflight. Other company officials said they would like to use 

space support vehicles to research how objects or people react in reduced 

gravity environments. It is difficult to know the size of the market for spaceflight 

training and research as GAO found no studies on these markets. However, 

stakeholders said they expect interest in research to increase.

Some company officials said the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 

regulatory framework presents a market challenge because companies cannot 

get FAA approval to use the aircraft they would like to use to carry passengers or 

cargo for compensation, thus limiting their ability to operate in the market. FAA’s 

Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) regulates aircraft that companies would like to 

use as space support vehicles by issuing standard and experimental certificates

that help ensure safety. While officials from two companies GAO interviewed 

have received standard aircraft certification for their space support vehicle, 

others said the standard certification process is lengthy and not designed for the 

type of vehicles they would like to use, such as unique, single-production aircraft 

or retired military jets. In addition, FAA regulations do not allow companies to 

receive compensation for carrying people or property on an aircraft operating 

under an experimental certificate. As a result, some of the companies we 

interviewed have training operations in other countries where they can receive 

payment for the activity. Further, FAA’s Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation (AST)—the office that regulates commercial space activities—is

only authorized to regulate commercial space activities, such as launches,

focusing on the safety of third parties. According to FAA officials, a statutory or 

regulatory change would be needed to allow companies to use space support 

vehicles that do not meet AVS’s standard certification requirements for 

compensation.

Stakeholders GAO interviewed have mixed views on how FAA should regulate 

space support vehicles; some companies believe the current regulatory 

approach is appropriate, while others believe the system should be changed in 

the face of new technology and commercial space development. While FAA has 

taken steps to assess the licensing and permitting process for hybrid launch 

vehicles, it has not assessed whether space support vehicles are needed and if it 

should propose changes that would accommodate all aircraft that could be used 

as space support vehicles. Thus, some U.S. company officials said they are 

delaying investments in space support vehicles, and therefore, it is uncertain if 

they will be able to use them to meet the future needs of the commercial space 

transportation industry. 

View GAO-17-100. For more information, 

contact Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. at (202) 

512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov

Why GAO Did This Study

As the commercial space

transportation industry has grown 

significantly in the last decade, a 

related industry has emerged that 

plans to complement the commercial 

space industry by using vehicles called 

space support vehicles to conduct 

space-related activities, but not launch 

into space.

The U.S. Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act of 2015 includes 

a provision for GAO to review the uses 

for space support vehicles and 

services and any barriers to their use.

This report addresses stakeholder 

views on (1) potential uses for space 

support vehicles, (2) challenges that 

companies may face when attempting 

to use these vehicles, and (3) how 

these vehicles should be regulated.

GAO reviewed prior GAO and industry 

reports, relevant laws and regulations, 

and interviewed officials on two 

proposals for regulating space support 

vehicles. GAO interviewed officials at 

FAA and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration and 37 legal 

experts and stakeholders from industry 

organizations, launch companies, 

space support companies, and 

spaceports—identified by agency and 

industry officials.

What GAO Recommends

The Secretary of the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) should direct the 

FAA Administrator to fully examine and 

document whether the FAA’s current 

regulatory framework is appropriate for 

space support vehicles and, if not, 

suggest legislative or regulatory 

changes, or both, as applicable. DOT 

provided technical comments; 

however, it did not comment on the 

recommendation at this time.
Page i GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Letter 1

Background 4

Stakeholders Identified Potential Uses for Space Support 

Vehicles, but the Size of the Market Is Unclear 8

FAA’s Current Statutory and Regulatory Framework Limits Market 

Development 13

Stakeholders Have Mixed Views on the Appropriate Approach for 

Regulating Space Support Vehicles; FAA Has Taken Some 

Steps to Assess Its Regulatory Framework 17

Conclusions 22

Recommendation 23

Agency Comments 23

Appendix I Commercial Space Transportation Industry Stakeholders Interviewed 25

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 27

Tables

Table 1: Options for Regulating Space Support Vehicles and

Related Considerations 17

Table 2: List of Stakeholders Interviewed 25

Figures

Figure 1: Virgin Galactic’s WhiteKnightTwo Carrying 

SpaceShipTwo 6

Figure 2: Examples of Space Support Vehicles 10

Figure 3: Example of an Aircraft Holding a Standard Certificate 

Being Used for Parabolic Flight 14

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Abbreviations

AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

AVS Office of Aviation Safety 

COMSTAC Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 

CSF Commercial Spaceflight Federation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FTE full-time equivalent 

LODA Letter of Deviation Authority 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 25, 2016

The Honorable John Thune

Chairman

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

Ranking Member

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

The U.S. commercial space industry has seen significant development in 

the past decade, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue by 

launching satellites and other payloads1 into space while working toward 

developing space tourism. More recently, a related industry has emerged 

that is planning to complement the commercial space industry primarily 

by using a variety of aircraft, from high-performance jets to balloons and 

hybrid launch vehicles,2 to conduct space-related activities but not launch 

into space.3 For example, these companies plan to use aircraft to test 

equipment bound for the international space station, conduct microgravity 

research, and train future space flight participants4 (or tourists) hoping to 

ride in future commercial launch vehicles.5

 1 Payloads are space probes, on-orbit vehicles, or spacecraft that can carry humans, 

animals, or cargo. 

2 Such vehicles contain elements of both aircraft and rocket powered vehicles.

3 Some companies would like to conduct space support activities through ground based 

means. These will be discussed later in the report.

4 Federal law currently defines a “space flight participant” as “an individual, who is not 

crew or a government astronaut, carried within a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.” 51 

U.S.C. § 50902 (20).

5 Some participation by such “space tourists” has occurred in other countries. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Due to an interest in identifying the best way to regulate and at the same 

time develop a space support industry, the U.S. Commercial Space 

Launch Competitiveness Act6 includes a provision for us to look at the 

use of space support services and vehicles and any barriers to their use.7

There is, however, neither a regulatory nor a statutory definition nor an 

agreed-upon industry definition of space support services or space 

support vehicles. We use the term “space support vehicles” to refer to 

aircraft used in support of commercial space activities, but not as part of a 

launch.8 This report discusses stakeholders’ views on:

• potential uses for space support vehicles in the commercial space 

industry,

• challenges companies face as they attempt to use space support

vehicles, and

• approaches for regulating space support vehicles.

To address all of the objectives, we interviewed commercial spaceindustry stakeholders, including officials from the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA)9 Offices of Commercial Space Transportation and 

Aviation Safety and the Congressional Research Service as well as 37 

commercial space-industry stakeholders, including representatives of 13 

launch companies, 9 space support service providers, and 5 

spaceports.10 We attended a Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 

Committee (COMSTAC) meeting and interviewed industry organizations 

 6 Pub. L. No. 114-90, § 116, 129 Stat. 704, 717 (2015).

7 For the purpose of this report and after conversations with stakeholders in industry and 

within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—the agency that regulates commercial 

space transportation and civil aviation—we are grouping these disparate activities under 

the heading of the “commercial space-support industry.” This term encompasses 

activities: (1) currently undertaken by the private sector, (2) in the planning and 

development stages, and (3) private industry would like to undertake but are currently 

prohibited from conducting.

8 Launch activities are covered under 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509.

9 The Federal Aviation Administration is within the Department of Transportation.

10 Spaceports are sites used for commercial space launches. Space support companies 

include companies that would like to use aircraft for space support activities such as 

training and carrying scientific payloads.
Page 3 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

including the Commercial Spaceflight Federation11 and the Aerospace 

Industries Association. We also conducted a site visit to Florida, which we 

selected based on the location of commercial space companies, and met 

with officials from Space Florida,12 a spaceport, and a space supportservice provider. We identified stakeholders by asking for a list of 

potential stakeholders from FAA’s Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation and the Commercial Spaceflight Federation as well by 

identifying stakeholders from our previous work on commercial space. We 

contacted these stakeholders and identified additional stakeholders 

through a snowball technique in which stakeholders identified additional 

contacts during interviews. We approached all companies and individuals 

on the list and scheduled interviews with interviewees who responded.13

The results of these interviews are non-generalizable. For a full list of 

stakeholders we interviewed, see appendix I.

To identify the commercial space industry’s potential uses for space 

support vehicles,14 we also reviewed prior GAO reports on commercial 

space issues, FAA’s Annual Compendium of Commercial Space 

Transportation, a National Research Council report requested by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) related to 

astronaut training,15 and industry reports on the commercial space 

market. We interviewed officials from NASA to learn about astronauts’

training techniques that would inform spaceflight participants’ training 

techniques. To identify challenges that companies face when attempting 

to use space support vehicles, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations 

and interviewed three individuals who teach at institutions of higher 

education and whom we interviewed through an Internet search on 

 11 The Commercial Spaceflight Federation is an organization that represents the 

commercial space industry. There are two levels of membership. Executive Members 

include commercial spaceflight developers, operators, and spaceports. Associate 

Members include suppliers supporting commercial spaceflight, with recent members 

including suppliers of mission support services and suppliers of training, medical and lifesupport products and services.

12 Space Florida is an aerospace economic development agency for the state of Florida.

13 In one case, a stakeholder responded in writing to questions and a formal interview was

not conducted. In addition, 14 did not respond or declined our request for an interview.

14 When we asked companies about their plans for space support vehicles, some had 

business plans, but these were proprietary and not shared with us. 

15 National Research Council, Preparing for the High Frontier: The Role and Training of 

NASA Astronauts in the Post-Space Shuttle Era, (Washington, D.C.: 2011).
Page 4 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

academic space-law programs and from prior work to obtain perspectives 

on the legal issues involved with space support vehicles. To obtain 

stakeholder views on how space support vehicles should be regulated, 

we interviewed FAA officials on their developing proposal on the 

regulation of hybrid launch vehicles used in non-launch and non-reentry 

activities and Commercial Space Federation officials on their thoughts on 

the regulation of space support vehicles. We also reviewed the Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government16 to identify how internal 

control systems should address changing conditions and compared 

pertinent standards with FAA’s efforts to adapt its regulations to changing 

technology and business plans in the commercial space support sector.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 through 

November 2016 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 our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Although little is known about the emerging space support vehicle 

industry, the U.S. commercial space-launch industry generated $617 

million in revenue in 2015 and has experienced significant growth in the 

past half-decade. FAA reported that its licensed launches have increased 

60 percent and industry revenue has increased 471 percent since 2012. 

We’ve previously reported that the industry has experienced growth in the 

number and complexity of launches and growth in demand for space 

launches.17 Furthermore, the industry is developing new types of reusable 

launch vehicles, which could reduce launch costs.18

Components of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry 

include:

 16 Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).

17 GAO, Commercial Space: Industry Developments and FAA Challenges, GAO-16-765T 

(Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2016).

18 GAO, Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Launch Industry 

Developments Present Multiple Challenges, GAO-15-706 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25, 

2015).

Background
Page 5 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

• Launch Companies: These companies launch satellites or other 

payloads into space. Their clients include governments, other 

companies, and individuals. Currently, the industry is launching nonhuman payloads using rockets and has yet to launch space flight 

participants. At the same time, some launch companies are 

developing hybrid launch systems, which contain elements of both 

aircraft and rocket-powered vehicles.19 Companies we interviewed 

plan to use these vehicles—which take off as an aircraft and then 

launch the spacecraft once reaching a certain altitude—to launch nonhuman payloads and to transport spaceflight participants to space.20

For example, WhiteKnightTwo plans to carry Virgin Galactic’s 

SpaceShipTwo aircraft to an altitude of 50,000 feet where it will air 

launch SpaceShipTwo and the participants on board into space. 

According to representatives of launch companies we interviewed, 

while most of launch companies’ current activities are focused on 

launches, they may also use the aircraft component of a hybrid launch 

system for non-launch activities. For example, Virgin Galactic has also 

considered using WhiteKnightTwo to carry scientific payloads into 

conditions that would simulate spaceflight.

 19 Rockets are aircraft propelled by ejected expanding gases generated in the engine from 

self-contained propellants and not dependent on the intake of outside substances. It 

includes any part which becomes separated during the operation.

20 Some of these companies are also launching payloads in vertical rockets, which are not 

space support vehicles.
Page 6 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Figure 1: Virgin Galactic’s WhiteKnightTwo Carrying SpaceShipTwo

• Spaceports: Spaceports are FAA-licensed launch or reentry sites 

used for commercial space launches and reentries that are developed 

by private companies and/or states. Spaceports can be co-located 

with federal sites or commercial or general aviation airports. 

Spaceports generally include launch pads and runways as well as 

other infrastructure, such as hangar space, and services, such as 

emergency services to be used by commercial space companies. As 

of June 2016, there were 10 FAA-licensed nonfederal launch sites.

• Space Support Companies: This category includes companies whose 

business plans focus on training future spaceflight participants. This 

training simulates conditions encountered in space and can either be 
Page 7 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

accomplished on the ground using pools and centrifuges or in the air 

using aircraft, hence the interest of companies in the commercial 

space support vehicle industry. In addition to training, space support 

companies offer or plan to offer other services, such as carrying 

scientific payloads for micro gravity experiments and repositioning 

cargo from one location to another through the air.

FAA’s Office of Aviation Safety (AVS) oversees civil aviation activities in 

the United States. Thus, it regulates aircraft that may be used for space 

support activities. AVS is responsible for certifying the airworthiness of 

aircraft,21 pilots, mechanics, and others whose work affects the safety of 

those aircraft. When certifying aircraft, AVS inspectors review aircraft 

engines, propellers, parts, and equipment, including avionics, to provide a 

reasonable expectation of safety. In addition, AVS is responsible for 

certifying all operational and maintenance enterprises in domestic civil 

aviation. In fiscal year 2016, AVS had 7,246 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

employees and a budget of $1.26 billion.

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is the office within 

the FAA responsible for overseeing and coordinating the conduct of 

commercial launch and reentry operations and issuing and transferring 

licenses and permits authorizing such activities.22 Unlike AVS, AST has a 

dual mandate to (1) protect the public health and safety (people not 

participating in the launch, i.e., third parties), the safety of property, and 

national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during 

commercial launch and reentry activities and (2) encourage, facilitate, and 

promote U.S. commercial space transportation.23 The Commercial Space 

Launch Amendments Act of 200424 instructed the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) to promote the continuous improvement of the 

 21 49 U.S.C. § 44704(d).

22 The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-575, 98 Stat. 3055 (1984) 

designated the Department of Transportation (DOT) as the federal agency responsible for 

overseeing and coordinating the conduct of commercial launch operations, issuing and 

transferring commercial launch licenses authorizing such activities, and protecting the 

public health and safety, safety of property, and national security interests and foreign 

policy interests of the United States. The DOT delegated these responsibilities to the 

FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

23 51 U.S.C. § 50903.

24 Pub. L. No. 108-492, 118 Stat. 3974 (2004).
Page 8 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

safety of launch vehicles designed to carry humans.25 Prior to launch, 

space flight participants must provide written consent to participate.26 In 

fiscal year 2016, AST had 92 FTE employees and a budget of $17.8 

million.

Stakeholders identified spaceflight participant training as one potential 

use for space support vehicles. FAA regulations require only minimal 

training for spaceflight participation. Specifically, operators are required to 

train each space flight participant how to respond to emergency 

situations, such as smoke, fire, and the loss of cabin pressure.27

However, some companies are interested in providing training beyond the 

minimal requirements to potential space flight participants.

Stakeholders we interviewed disagreed on the best way to train future 

spaceflight participants. Some industry stakeholders (13 of 37) told us 

 25 Chapter 509 currently prohibits the FAA from issuing regulations governing the design 

or operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew and space flight 

participants until 2023, unless it does so in response to a serious or fatal injury, or an 

event that posed a high risk of causing a serious or fatal injury to crew, government 

astronauts, or space flight participants. 51 U.S.C. § 50905(c).

26 51 U.S.C. § 50905(b)(5)(C).

27 14 C.F.R. § 460.51.

Stakeholders 

Identified Potential 

Uses for Space 

Support Vehicles, but 

the Size of the Market 

Is Unclear

Industry Stakeholders 

Discussed Uses for Space 

Support Vehicles—

Spaceflight Participant 

Training and Research

Spaceflight Participant Training
Page 9 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

that future space flight participants will need to receive training in highperformance aircraft. Specifically, 4 of 9 space support companies, 3 of 

13 launch companies, 2 of 5 spaceports, and 4 of 10 other stakeholders 

argued that it is necessary for customers to fully understand what they will 

experience and the only way to replicate this is through training in highperformance jets. Stakeholders explained that factors that can be 

simulated in high performance jets but not through other means include 

the stress of a confined environment and exposure to the physiological 

and psychological effects of spaceflight. Further, four stakeholders said

this training is necessary to become acquainted with g-forces28 involved 

with spaceflight and that space support vehicles are best able to provide 

this training.29 NASA officials also stated that familiarization with and 

experiencing high-g environments while performing time critical 

communication is important preparation for spaceflight participants. See 

figure 2 for examples of space support vehicles, including highperformance jets (on left) and the modified Boeing 727 (on right). In 

addition, six stakeholders explained that due to the high cost of 

spaceflight, getting this experience would be important for someone who 

is considering space tourism. However, as discussed below this training 

currently is not available in the U.S.

On the other hand, 13 stakeholders report training can be accomplished 

through currently allowed means, including standard certified aircraft and 

ground based training. Five of 9 space support companies, 5 of 13 launch 

companies, and 3 of 10 other stakeholders reported that it is critical to 

expose future spaceflight participants to the conditions they will encounter 

in space, but these conditions can be replicated through means other 

than high-performance jets. Two space support companies said they 

provide ground-based training through centrifuges, pools, and instruction 

in space-related topics such as the physiological and psychological 

effects of space travel. One launch company reported to us that 

spaceflight participants will only need to know how they will react to 

microgravity but will not need to know how to accomplish tasks in 

microgravity. According to some stakeholders, this acclimation to 

microgravity can be accomplished through parabolic flight, centrifuges, 

 28 G-forces are a force on a body as a result of acceleration or gravity. One g is equivalent 

to the force of gravity on Earth’s surface.

29 While this issue was raised by stakeholders in some of our interviews, we did not 

discuss it in all interviews.
Page 10 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

and pools.30 One company is currently offering a microgravity experience 

in a Boeing 727 with an interior that has been modified to accommodate 

passengers to this activity, and another company has considered entering 

this market with a similar aircraft. Two of 13 launch companies reported 

they do not anticipate a high training burden for future customers and 

thus would probably not utilize aircraft training or centrifuges.

The remaining 12 of the 37 stakeholders we interviewed did not comment 

on this issue.

Figure 2: Examples of Space Support Vehicles

Further, stakeholders representing spaceports have proposed that 

spaceports are the proper place to host spaceflight participant training. 

Spaceport stakeholders we interviewed said that spaceports provide 

runways, launch pads, hangars, and other services such as emergency 

response services for commercial space-transportation companies. As 

mentioned above, representatives of two of the five spaceports we spoke 

to thought space flight training should be provided in high-performance 

jets. Two stakeholders we interviewed at spaceports also expressed 

 30 Zero G Corporation, which operates parabolic flights, describes the flights as “[b]efore 

starting a parabola, G-FORCE ONE flies level to the horizon at an altitude of 24,000 feet. 

The pilots then begins to pull up, gradually increasing the angle of the aircraft to about 45° 

to the horizon reaching an altitude of 32,000 feet. During this pull-up, passengers will feel 

the pull of 1.8 Gs. Next the plane is ‘pushed over’ to create the zero gravity segment of the 

parabola. For the next 20-30 seconds everything in the plane is weightless.”
Page 11 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

interest in hosting companies that provide spaceflight participant training 

and see it as a potential source of new revenue, either now or when the 

tourism industry evolves and sends customers into space. One spaceport 

operator we interviewed sees spaceflight participant training as 

economically beneficial for the communities surrounding spaceports.

In addition to spaceflight participant training, some stakeholders we spoke 

to identified microgravity research as a potential use for space support 

vehicles. Microgravity research uses reduced gravity to understand how 

objects or people will react in reduced gravity environments (such as 

orbit). Microgravity can be provided through parabolic flights. NASA 

officials told us microgravity flights are used to test equipment that will be 

sent into orbit, including for example exercise equipment and 3D printers. 

According to FAA, one company currently conducts microgravity research 

using a Boeing 727 with a standard airworthiness certificate. Other 

companies have proposed using retired military aircraft to fly scientific 

payloads for researchers.31

It is difficult to determine the size of the market for the use of space 

support vehicles for training because we have found no publicly available 

studies on the size of the spaceflight participant training market, and 

companies we interviewed told us they have not conducted their own 

market analysis. However, companies within the industry provided a wide 

range of estimates of the size of a potential training market. Estimates of 

the training market reported by stakeholders are often dependent on the 

size of the overall space tourism market and the training burden launch 

companies anticipate for their customers. One industry study that found 

that there are around 8,000 individuals with the money and inclination to 

take a space tourism flight by 2022.32 However, it’s not clear how many of 

these 8,000 individuals would choose to purchase training from training 

 31 In addition to the above uses, individual stakeholders proposed a variety of other 

potential uses for space support vehicles including advertising and marketing, 

repositioning of objects such as rockets and other vehicles, and as a drop vehicle for 

testing other aircraft.

32 Tauri Group, Suborbital Reusable Vehicles: A 10-Year Forecast of Market Demand, 

2012.

Research on the Effects of 

Zero Gravity

Data on the Size of the 

Space Support Market Is 

Virtually Non Existent

Spaceflight Participant Training
Page 12 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

providers, and the number would likely depend on whether launch 

companies require training for passengers, how intensive the training will 

be, and whether they will contract for this training or offer it in house.

Further, studies of the tourism market that we identified are dated and 

may not reflect current industry conditions.

According to stakeholders we interviewed, there are no studies available 

on the research market; however, they said that research is a growing 

segment of the space support market. One stakeholder reported that the 

research market is the most robust commercial space market that 

currently exists. It is unclear how many aircraft operators are currently 

supplying aircraft services for research, but five stakeholders we 

interviewed expressed interest in using their aircraft to carry scientific 

payloads for researchers. Based on our interviews, the main customers 

for this service include universities, the government, and private sector 

organizations.

Research
Page 13 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Two of the companies that we interviewed obtained standard aircraft 

certification from FAA for aircraft that could be classified as space support 

vehicles. However, as representatives from one company explained, the 

certification process was lengthy and expensive.33 One of the companies 

received certification to operate parabolic flights using a retrofitted Boeing 

727. These flights provide a weightlessness experience that could be 

used for spaceflight participant training (see fig 3). A company 

representative told us that the certification process took 18 months and 

cost millions of dollars. The other company uses a certified aircraft to 

move its rocket that would be used in a launch from one place to another. 

While two companies were able to obtain standard aircraft certification for 

what could be considered space support vehicles, other stakeholders said 

that the aircraft certification process may not be economically feasible for 

companies due to the cost of meeting the requirements. For example, 

representatives of one company said they have considered acquiring a 

high-performance jet for spaceflight participant training, but that the 

market for spaceflight participant training would not support the 

investment needed to purchase the aircraft and go through the current 

AVS certification process.

 33 In 2010, we found that while the certification process generally worked well, some 

industry stakeholders have had negative experiences that have led to costly delays. For 

example, one aviation representative said that his company incurred a delay over 5 years 

and lost millions of dollars when attempting to obtain FAA certification. GAO, Aviation 

Safety: Certification and Approval Processes Are Generally Viewed as Working Well, but 

Better Evaluative Information Needed to Improve Efficiency, GAO-11-14 (Washington, 

D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010).

FAA’s Current 

Statutory and 

Regulatory

Framework Limits 

Market Development

FAA’s Standard Aircraft 

Certification Process Is 

Intended to Ensure 

Passenger Safety; 

However, Companies Said 

They Face Challenges 

Because the Process is 

Lengthy and Costly
Page 14 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Figure 3: Example of an Aircraft Holding a Standard Certificate Being Used for 

Parabolic Flight

In addition, FAA’s standard aircraft-certification process is not well suited 

for the types of aircraft that space support companies would like to use. 

As mentioned earlier, AVS regulates the safety of aircraft by certifying 

aircraft to provide a reasonable expectation of safety. According to FAA 

officials, aircraft manufacturers are typically set up to work with FAA on 

the certification process, which is an on-going process as the aircraft are 

designed and built. The process is not designed for single-production 

aircraft like those launch companies are developing or retired military jets 

that companies would like to use for spaceflight participant training.34

Further, if an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate is modified 

or used for another purpose than its original purpose, including for space 

support, FAA regulations for the standard aircraft certification process 

require documentation of all modifications that demonstrates that these 

modifications comply with applicable regulations.

 34 FAA’s Advisory Circular 21-13 established a process for certifying military aircraft for 

civilian use. However, according to an FAA official, this process applies to aircraft, such as 

cargo planes, that have both a military and civil version and not the type of aircraft that 

companies would like to use as space support vehicles.
Page 15 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

AVS allows certain aircraft to fly under an experimental certificate, but 

companies are prohibited from operating these aircraft for carrying 

persons or property for compensation and hire—meaning companies 

cannot receive money for carrying passengers or cargo.35 Operators can 

apply for experimental certificates for unique aircraft that have not been 

approved under the AVS certification process. Experimental certificates 

can be issued for:

• research and development;

• showing compliance with regulations;

• crew training;

• exhibition (such as air shows or movie production);

• air racing; and

• conducting market surveys.

FAA has provided experimental certificates for some vehicles that could 

be used for space support services. For example, experimental 

certificates have been issued for aircraft that are part of a hybrid launch 

vehicle system for testing and further aircraft development. However, 

because current regulations do not allow the owners of these 

experimentally certified vehicles to carry persons or property for 

compensation, companies are not allowed to use experimentally certified 

aircraft for space flight participant training or to transport cargo on a 

hybrid launch system.

The restriction on using experimentally certified aircraft to carry persons 

or property for compensation has limited some companies’ ability to 

operate in the space-support services market. Three stakeholders we 

interviewed said they would like to operate space support vehicles, but 

are having a difficult time securing funding from investors because of 

market uncertainty and not knowing if they will be allowed to operate 

them. In addition, some of the companies we interviewed have training 

operations in other countries because they are not allowed to operate 

specific aircraft in the United States under current laws and regulations. 

Further, one company we interviewed has a spaceflight-participant 

training program that received a safety approval from AST but does not 

own a vehicle for the training. Company representatives said that they do 

 35 14 C.F.R. §91.319(a)(2).

Companies Are Prohibited 

from Receiving 

Compensation under 

Experimental Certificates
Page 16 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

not want to invest in a space support vehicle until they know if they will be 

allowed to operate it.

Allowing companies to use experimentally certified aircraft for 

compensation or hire would require a regulatory change. Some of the 

stakeholders that we interviewed said that a Letter of Deviation Authority 

(LODA) from an experimental certification may be an option to be able to 

operate for compensation or hire, but FAA officials we interviewed said 

that LODAs only apply to pilot training and cannot be used for spaceflight 

participant training.

As described previously, AST issues licenses and permits for commercial 

space launches. This process includes issuing experimental permits for 

the development of hybrid vehicles that are connected with a launch 

activity. When the aircraft component of a hybrid launch vehicle is used in 

non-launch operations, companies must go through AVS’s certification 

process to obtain an experimental certificate and operate under aviation 

regulations. When hybrid launch vehicles are being developed for launch 

activities, companies operate under commercial space regulations, and 

FAA may issue an experimental permit or a license. Similar to 

experimental certificates, companies with experimental permits are 

prohibited from carrying property or human beings for compensation and 

hire, according to statute. While companies can perform activities, such 

as conducting test flights, they may not use hybrid launch vehicles to 

receive compensation for carrying persons or property. For example, 

companies would not be able to receive compensation for carrying a 

researcher. When issuing experimental permits, AST’s process focuses 

on minimizing risks to ensure the safety of third parties. As discussed 

below, FAA is developing a report that would help address this issue 

specifically for hybrid launch vehicles used in non-launch non-reentry 

operations.

Experimental Permits Only 

Apply to Launches
Page 17 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Through our discussions with FAA and interviews with stakeholders, we 

identified potential options for regulating space support vehicles (see 

table 1). One of these options is to keep in place the current process 

using standard airworthiness certificates for regulating aircraft that 

companies would like to use for space support vehicles. Other options 

would require statutory and/or regulatory changes to allow for the 

operation of space support vehicles. Each of these regulatory options 

raises issues to be considered.

Table 1: Options for Regulating Space Support Vehicles and Related Considerations

Process for Regulating Space 

Support Vehicles

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office

Statutory and Regulatory 

Change Required

Considerations

Keep current process of issuing 

standard certificates for aircraft

Aviation Safety (AVS) No statutory or regulatory change 

needed

• Process is intended to provide a 

reasonable expectation of safety 

for the aircraft.

• Some companies currently provide 

space support services under this 

process.

• Process is not designed for 

uniquely produced aircraft.

• Military aircraft that companies 

would like to use for space support 

services are unlikely to be 

approved.

Stakeholders Have 

Mixed Views on the 

Appropriate Approach 

for Regulating Space 

Support Vehicles; 

FAA Has Taken Some 

Steps to Assess Its 

Regulatory 

Framework

Some Options for 

Regulating Space Support 

Vehicles Would Require 

Statutory or Regulatory 

Changes
Page 18 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Process for Regulating Space 

Support Vehicles

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office

Statutory and Regulatory 

Change Required

Considerations

Revise experimental certificate for 

aircraft to allow companies to 

receive compensation for space 

support services

AVS • Regulatory change needed 

to allow for compensation

• Statutory or regulatory 

change needed to define 

what space support services 

or activities would be allowed

• Need to determine if providing a 

reasonable expectation of safety 

for the aircraft would still be 

applicable.

• Regulatory change allowing for 

compensation may apply to 

activities other than support 

activities unless the change is 

limited to those activities.

Make AST responsible for 

oversight of non-launch flight of 

space support vehicles related to 

commercial space transportation

Commercial Space 

Transportation (AST)

• Statutory and regulatory 

changes needed

• To make AST responsible for 

overseeing space support 

vehicles

• To allow for compensation

• To define services allowed, 

i.e., how to determine if an 

activity is related to 

commercial space 

transportation

• To define the circumstances 

under which these services 

can be allowed

• May increase AST’s workload.

• May focus on hybrid vehicles. 

Other aircraft may not be covered.

• Could streamline regulatory 

process for some companies 

because they would be dealing 

with one entity within FAA.

• Could change the safety 

expectations to an informed 

consent regime as is currently in 

effect for commercial space 

transportation.a

Source: GAO analysis. | GAO-17-100.

a

51 U.S.C. § 50905(b)(5)(A)-(C) requires that spaceflight participants be informed of the risks 

involved, and 51 U.S.C. § 50914(b) requires spaceflight participants, among other things, to sign a 

reciprocal waiver of claims (also called a cross waiver) with the federal government—which means 

that the spaceflight participant agrees not to seek claims against the federal government if an 

accident occurs.

When asked what changes, if any, should be made to FAA’s current 

regulatory process to oversee aircraft that might provide support services 

for the commercial space transportation industry, stakeholders had mixed 

views. Twenty-five of the 37 stakeholders expressed some opinion about 

changing the regulatory process. While 11 of these 25 stakeholders did 

not see a problem with the current approach for space support vehicles, 

14 of 25 expressed an interest in a change.

Eleven of the 25 stakeholders who expressed an opinion said that the 

current regulatory process under AVS is the best approach for regulating 

space support vehicles. These stakeholders prefer the currently 

regulatory approach for the following reasons:

• They said that the AVS certification process could best protect 

participants and third parties from potential safety risks. They said that 

Options and Related 

Considerations for 

Regulating Space Support 

Vehicles
Page 19 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

the technical expertise for ensuring that aircraft are safe for 

participants is within AVS.

• Some of the proposed space support activities—such as using retired 

military jets to provide spaceflight participant training—are not 

legitimate space activities but are in fact recreational aviation activities 

and should therefore be regulated along with other aviation activities.

• Some stakeholders said that the current AVS system is preferable 

because AST is overburdened, and its staff needs to focus on other 

commercial space activities, such as issuing launch licenses.36

• Some stakeholders would like these activities to remain under AVS to 

keep them separate from commercial space launch activities, 

especially in the public eye. For example, three stakeholders we 

interviewed were worried that a crash involving a space support 

vehicle might negatively impact the entire commercial space 

transportation industry. Two stakeholders expressed concern that 

moving space support vehicles to AST would place these activities 

under the informed consent regime.37 Thus, accidents might impact 

the safety numbers38 and mar the image and thus of attractiveness of 

the future commercial space tourism industry.

Other stakeholders we interviewed believe that AST would be a 

preferable FAA office to provide regulatory oversight to AVS. Specifically, 

6 of the 25 stakeholders that expressed an opinion said that space 

support vehicles should be regulated under AST, citing the following 

reasons:

• Two stakeholders interviewed said that AST staff are familiar with the 

commercial space transportation industry and are therefore in the best 

 36 In 2015, we found that FAA requested additional staff to keep pace with the rapid 

growth of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. We also found that FAA did 

not have certain workload metrics regarding its oversight activities, and thus 

recommended that FAA provide more detailed information in its budget submissions on its 

workload. GAO-15-706. In a 2016 testimony statement, we noted that FAA was continuing 

to develop this information; however, the recommendation has not yet been fully 

addressed. GAO-16-765T.

37 51 U.S.C. §§ 50905(b)(5)(A)-(C) and 50914 require that spaceflight participants be 

informed of the risks involved and sign a reciprocal waiver of claims (also called a cross 

waiver) with the federal government—which means that the party agrees not to seek 

claims against the federal government if an accident occurs.

38 According to FAA officials, FAA has recently issued draft guidance that says that these 

accident numbers would only reflect launch activities.
Page 20 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

position to determine if a certain vehicle is necessary for commercial 

space transportation activities.

• Five stakeholders interviewed said that they are already working with 

AST for other purposes, such as obtaining launch licenses, and would 

prefer to continue working with one office to streamline the process.

• Two of the stakeholders who preferred AST cited the office’s statutory 

informed-consent regime, which instead of prohibiting certain 

commercial space transportation activities, ensures that participants 

are made aware of the activity’s potential risks.

In addition, some stakeholders were interested in a combined approach. 

Specifically, 6 of the 13 launch companies that we interviewed said that 

all space support vehicles should be regulated by AVS, except hybrid 

launch vehicles, which they would prefer to be regulated by AST. See 

discussion below on FAA’s proposal on the regulation of the aircraft 

portion of a hybrid launch system, when it is operating as a space support 

vehicle. Two stakeholders said that companies should have the choice to 

work with AVS or AST.

Further, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) has been 

discussing with its membership how space support vehicles should be 

regulated. CSF’s discussion is focusing primarily on the use of 

experimental aircraft, such as former military jets, for compensation and 

hire. CSF representatives indicated that some of its members’ view is that 

Congress should direct the Administrator of FAA to authorize spaceflight 

training flights through rulemaking, but these flights should remain under 

AVS. However, they noted that if a company has gone through the 

current difficult certification process for a certain capability, such as using 

a standard certified aircraft to provide periods of microgravity through a 

series of parabolic maneuvers, then companies should not need to use 

an exemption to replicate this service. Further, to help minimize safety 

risks if space support vehicle flights were to be authorized, these 

representatives said that they should begin and end at a spaceport. In 

addition, passengers should be notified that the aircraft are not certified 

as safe under AVS’s aircraft rules and are not licensed as space 

transportation—essentially an informed consent regime. According to 

CSF representatives, a benefit of this approach is that it should enable 

new capabilities that cannot exist within the current legal and regulatory 

framework while helping minimize safety risks.
Page 21 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

According to FAA officials, the commercial space transportation industry 

is evolving and AST and AVS have worked with companies individually to 

determine how they can legally operate within the current regulatory 

system. However, FAA officials acknowledge that this issue is potentially 

growing as more companies try to figure out how to cost-effectively 

provide what they see as a potential market—supporting commercial 

space transportation. Federal internal control standards state that 

conditions affecting an agency, such as FAA, and its environment 

continually change and that these changing conditions often prompt new 

risks or changes to existing risks that need to be assessed.39 FAA has 

taken steps to assess the licensing and permitting process for hybrid 

launch vehicles; however, it has not assessed whether space support 

vehicles are needed to meet the potential research, training, and other 

needs of the commercial space transportation industry, and if it should 

propose changes that would accommodate all aircraft that could be used 

as space support vehicles.

FAA officials said that their views on non-launch and non-reentry 

operations of hybrid launch vehicles will be expressed in their report that 

was mandated under the U.S. Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act.40 However, this report only focuses on one type of 

vehicle—hybrid launch vehicles.41 As we described previously, hybrid 

launch systems contain elements of both aircraft and rocket-powered 

vehicles. These vehicles take off horizontally and then launch the 

spacecraft once reaching a certain altitude. Currently, the portion of a 

hybrid launch system that can operate like an aircraft is regulated as 

 39GAO-14-704G. 

40 The U.S Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Pub. L. No 114-90, §105, 

129 Stat. 704, 707 (2015). Section 105 required FAA to report within 120 days of the date 

of enactment on November 25, 2015, on approaches for streamlining the licensing and 

permitting process of launch vehicles, reentry vehicles, or components of launch or 

reentry vehicles, to enable non-launch flight operations related to space transportation. 

According to FAA officials, they did not include other types of vehicles in their proposal 

because Section 116 of this Act required GAO to gather information about the challenges 

faced by companies that would like to use space support vehicles, including those other 

than hybrid launch vehicles used in non-launch, non-reentry operations. According to FAA 

officials, FAA is waiting to see the results of our report before fully assessing their current 

regulatory framework.

41 According to FAA officials, FAA considers a hybrid launch vehicle to be a launch or 

reentry vehicle that may also be used for non-launch, non-reentry operations. FAA defines 

hybrid launch system as a launch vehicle, including a suborbital rocket, which may be 

comprised of two or more components, at least one of which is an aircraft and can operate 

as an aircraft when not engaged in a launch.

FAA Is Assessing the 

Licensing and Permitting 

Process for Some Space 

Support Vehicles
Page 22 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

aircraft by AVS through experimental certificates when it is not engaged 

in a launch.

42

While the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act required 

FAA to report on approaches for streamlining the licensing and permitting 

process of non-launch, non-reentry operations of hybrid launch vehicles 

related to space transportation, it did not require FAA to develop a 

proposed regulatory framework. Although Congress did not require FAA 

to develop a regulatory framework for vehicles that could be used in 

support of space activities, federal internal control standards43 state that 

federal agencies should identify, analyze, and respond to significant 

changes that could impact the internal control system—the mechanism by 

which an entity’s oversight provides reasonable assurance that the 

agency’s objectives will be achieved. Further, they state that conditions 

affecting an agency, such as FAA, and its environment continually 

change and that these changing conditions often prompt new risks or 

changes to existing risks that need to be assessed and addressed. While 

FAA has taken steps to handle the safety issues of these vehicles on an 

individual basis and is assessing approaches for streamlining the 

licensing and permitting process of hybrid launch vehicles, it has not 

examined how its regulatory framework should change, if at all, to 

address the potential growth and related risks in the use of space support 

vehicles. Thus, some stakeholders we spoke to are delaying investments 

in space support vehicles.

The U.S. commercial space-transportation industry has seen significant 

development in the past decade. As the industry evolves, companies are 

considering how to provide additional services to support the industry’s 

needs. While some companies are using certified aircraft to provide 

space support services such as spaceflight participant training, other 

companies would like to use vehicles such as retired military jets and 

hybrid launch vehicles to provide such services. FAA’s current regulatory 

framework applies to aircraft; however, the aircraft that some companies 

would like to use to provide space support services do not fit into this 

framework. As stakeholders recognized, a change in regulatory regimes 

may impact safety and streamline the regulatory process. For example, 

while FAA’s current regulations help ensure passenger safety, they also 

 42 14 C.F.R. §91.319.

43 GAO-14-704G.

Conclusions
Page 23 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

prevent some companies from providing space support services. While 

FAA has started considering this issue, especially for hybrid launch 

systems, it has not determined if space support vehicles are needed to 

meet the potential research, training, and other needs of the commercial 

space industry nor fully examined its current regulations as they relate to 

space support vehicles and determined and documented the results of its 

assessment. Since FAA has not conducted a comprehensive assessment 

of how space support activities fit under its aviation or commercial space 

transportation regulatory regimes, officials from some U.S. companies 

told us they are delaying investments in space support vehicles. As a 

result, it is uncertain if companies will be able to use space support 

vehicles for potentially useful spaceflight participant training and research 

services to meet the future needs of the commercial space-transportation 

industry.

To respond to changes in the aviation and commercial spacetransportation industries, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Transportation direct the FAA Administrator to fully examine and 

document whether the current regulatory framework is appropriate for 

aircraft that could be considered space support vehicles, and if not, 

suggest legislation or develop regulatory changes, or both, as applicable.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for 

review and comment. DOT is not providing comments on the 

recommendation at this time, but will provide a detailed response to the 

recommendation within 60 days of the final report’s issuance. DOT

provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as 

appropriate.

In addition, to verify information, we provided a draft of this report to 

NASA for review and comment. NASA provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Transportation, 

the Administrator of the FAA, and the Administrator of NASA, as well as 

appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. In 

addition this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Recommendation

Agency Comments
Page 24 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix II.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Commercial Space Transportation 

Industry Stakeholders Interviewed

Page 25 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Table 2: List of Stakeholders Interviewed

Industry category Organization/individual interviewed

Launch Companies 10 Tanker

Agile Aerospace

Blue Origin

CubeCab

Firefly Space Systems

Intuitive Machines

Orbital ATK

Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems

SpaceX

Vulcan Aerospace

World View Enterprises

XCOR Aerospace

Space Support Companies IA Space

Integrated Spaceflight Services

International Flight Test Institute

NASTAR

National Test Pilot School

Space Adventures

Starfighters Aerospace

Waypoint 2 Space

Zero G Corporation

Spaceports Cecil Field

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport

Oklahoma Air and Space Port

Space Florida

Titusville-Cocoa Airport Authority

Industry Organizations Aerospace Industries Association

Commercial Spaceflight Federation

National Association of Spaceports

The Tauri Group

Appendix I: Commercial Space 

Transportation Industry Stakeholders 

Interviewed
Appendix I: Commercial Space Transportation 

Industry Stakeholders Interviewed

Page 26 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Industry category Organization/individual interviewed

Individuals Dr. Frans von der Dunk, Harvey & Susan 

Perlman Alumni and Othmer Professor of 

Space Law, Nebraska College of Law, 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Dr. Henry Hertzfeld, Research Professor of 

Space Policy and International Affairs, Space 

Policy Institute, George Washington University

Dr. Justin Karl, Assistant Professor, College of 

Aviation, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Michael Lopez-Alegria, Principal, MLA Space

Oscar Garcia, Chairman & CEO, InterFlight 

Global Corporation

Dr. Ruth Stilwell, Adjunct Professor, Norwich 

University

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-100.
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 27 GAO-17-100 Commercial Space

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834, or dillinghamg@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Cathy Colwell (Assistant 

Director), Stephanie Purcell (Analyst in Charge), Namita BhatiaSabharwal, Dave Hooper, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Amy Rosewarne, and 

Travis Schwartz made key contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100663)
Pa 28

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.