U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–802 PDF 2009

COMMERCIAL SPACE 

TRANSPORTATION 

(111–78) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

December 2, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio, Vice Chair 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Dillingham, Dr. Gerald, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 4 

Greason, Jeffrey, CEO, XCOR Aerospace and Vice President, Commercial 

Spaceflight Federation ......................................................................................... 4 

Nield, George C., Associate Administrator, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration ...................................................... 4 

Stevens, J.P., Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. ............................................................................................. 4 

Testwuide, James A., Chairman, The Great Lakes Aerospace Science and 

Education Center at Spaceport Sheboygan, Wisconsin, testifying on Behalf 

of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority, accompanied by Mark C. Hanna, 

Vice President, Wisconsin Aerospace Authority ................................................ 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 21 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 27 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 31 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 32 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Dillingham, Dr. Gerald ........................................................................................... 41 

Greason, Jeffrey ....................................................................................................... 61 

Nield, George C. ....................................................................................................... 67 

Stevens, J.P. ............................................................................................................. 81 

Testwuide, James A. ................................................................................................ 86 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 53802.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 53802.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 53802.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 53802.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 53802.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 53802.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 53802.007
(1) 

HEARING ON COMMERCIAL SPACE 

TRANSPORTATION 

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry F. 

Costello [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Subcommittee will come to order and the 

Chair will ask all Members, staff, and everyone to turn electronic 

devices off or on vibrate. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony regarding 

commercial space transportation. I welcome all of our witnesses 

here today. 

I will give a brief opening statement and then recognize the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Petri, for any remarks he would like to 

make or an opening statement. 

I welcome everyone here to the Subcommittee hearing on commercial space transportation. It has been almost five years since 

this Subcommittee’s last hearing on the topic, so it is important 

that we get an update from the FAA Safety Oversight on how the 

industry is evolving to ensure that the FAA has the proper resources. 

I am very familiar with the emerging commercial space transportation industry, not only from my work on the House Science and 

Technology Committee, but also because the X Prize Foundation, 

which is well known for designing and managing public competitions for aviation and space, is located in St. Louis, Missouri, 

across the river from my congressional district. 

Though commercial space transportation tourism has not led to 

regularly scheduled manned commercial spaceflights yet, Virgin 

Galactic is ready to unveil its eight seat SpaceShipTwo by the end 

of the month. Some Members of this Subcommittee saw its launch 

vehicle, WhiteKnightTwo, debut at the Oshkosh Air Show this past 

July. 

One factor playing into the future of the commercial space transportation industry is the expectation that the U.S. Space Shuttle 

fleet will retire in 2010. The United States will be without vehicles 

to transport cargo and people for at least five years before the next 

U.S. launch vehicle will be operational. The reality is that the 

United States may have to rely on other countries to facilitate this 

2 

travel unless commercial space transportation is able to fill the 

gap. 

Congress passed several laws to allow commercial space transportation to develop, so we must ensure that the industry has proper Federal safety oversight. 

Since 1989, approximately 10 percent of launches have failed. 

But in the last eight years this number has improved to 3 percent. 

As the number of launches is expected to increase with commercial 

space tourism and the potential use of commercial space launch vehicles by NASA, the FAA must have the proper resources to ensure 

that new technologies and programs evolve safely. 

I look forward to hearing from the FAA Associate Administrator 

for Commercial Space Transportation about the FAA’s role in overseeing the commercial space industry to ensure the safety of the 

public, as well as the crew and spaceflight participants. 

Commercial space transportation is also likely to have an impact 

on our air traffic control system, especially as the United States 

implements the next generation air transportation system. Today’s 

low number of yearly launches allows the ATC to adjust the national airspace system to accommodate launch and reentry. For instance, if a commercial space transportation vehicle missed its reentry window, the ATC could briefly shut down the affected airspace. However, if the launch is increased in the future, civil aviation traffic may not allow the ATC the same flexibility and may require additional protocols incorporated in NextGen to keep the airspace safe. 

As we implement NextGen, it is important to consider all space 

transportation issues that might impact the airspace. In addition 

to the impact on our ATC, the environment and our communities 

will be affected by increased commercial space tourism. Congress 

must guarantee that FAA has the tools it needs to ensure the safety of flight for both aircraft and launch vehicles, as well as to protect the environment from these activities. Currently, there are 

seven licensed spaceports in the United States; six federally 

launched sites and eight proposed spaceports in different degrees 

of development. Environmental impact such as noise and greenhouse gas emissions will play a role in commercial spaceports just 

as they do at U.S. airports and communities. 

It is important for this Subcommittee to examine the issues associated with licensing these facilities and the role these facilities 

have in the United States. 

With that, I welcome our witnesses here today and look forward 

to hearing their testimony. 

Before I recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, 

Mr. Petri, for his remarks or opening statement, I ask unanimous 

consent to allow two weeks for all Members to revise and extend 

their remarks and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials by Members and witnesses. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Petri for his comments or his 

opening statement. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. I requested this hearing because, although it rarely dominates the headlines, man’s commercial space transportation 

3 

represents the future of cargo and passenger transportation in the 

United States and, in fact, around our globe. 

A little more than five years ago, Scaled Composites 

SpaceShipOne became the first private spacecraft to launch more 

than 62 miles into space and return safely twice in two weeks with 

a pilot onboard. With this flight, the commercial space launch industry, formally focused on delivery if payloads into outer space, 

entered the next phase of its development, manned commercial 

space transportation. 

The SpaceShipOne launches altered our vision of what the aviation system of the future will entail, including the development of 

space tourism, U.S. spaceports, rapid global transportation, and 

point-to-point commercial spaceflight services. It also raised new 

issues with regard to safe operations, impact analysis, and infrastructure development. 

In 1984, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Act, 

which sought to encourage the development of the emerging commercial space launch industry and to facilitate compliance with 

Federal safety requirements. This Act gave FAA the authority to 

license commercial launches carrying crew and spaceflight participants or passengers. The Office of Commercial Spaceflight Transportation within the FAA oversees the safety of the commercial 

space launch industry through licensing and permitting activities. 

Though there were only four commercial space launches in 2009, 

I suspect a lot of behind the scenes activity has gone into the goal 

of making manned commercial space transportation both routine 

and safe. Given that the last hearing on commercial space transportation held by this Subcommittee was, as you pointed out, Mr. 

Chairman, in 2005, I am very interested to get an update today on 

this important transportation sector. 

As the industry grows and develops, other issues will require this 

Committee’s attention, including, first, the impact of commercial 

space launches on the management of the air traffic control system; 

second, the role of the FAA in spaceport development; third, the 

impact of legal liability on investment opportunities in commercial 

space transportation; and, fourth, the best approach to ensuring 

the highest level of safety of commercial space launches. 

Some have predicted that within two to three years commercial 

space tourism could really take off here in the United States. If 

this prediction proves to be accurate, we will witness a major development in human transportation, and it is vitally important that 

the FAA and the Congress are prepared. 

I am happy to introduce Mr. Jim Testwuide and Mr. Mark 

Hanna of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority. I appreciate that 

they are here to share the views of the spaceport community. The 

Wisconsin Aerospace Authority was established several years ago 

through legislation passed by the Wisconsin State legislature, 

signed into law by the governor to support the development of the 

space industry in our particular State. Mr. Testwuide will share 

with us the experience of the ongoing effort to develop spaceport 

Sheboygan, which is located in my congressional district, as well as 

other spaceports around the Country. 

Welcome, as well, to Mark Hanna of the Authority, who has devoted much time and effort to this project. 

4 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their participation, 

and I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the Ranking Member for his comments 

and for his opening statement. 

Now the Chair will introduce the witnesses here today to testify. 

The first witness will be Dr. George Nield, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation with the 

FAA; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director, Physical Infrastructure 

Issues, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office, who has 

testified before this Subcommittee probably more times than he 

would like to, but he has been with us many times; Mr. J.P. Stevens is the Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace Industries 

Association of America; Mr. Jeffrey Greason, CEO, XCOR Aerospace and Vice Chairman, Commercial Spaceflight Federation; and 

Mr. James Testwuide, who is the Chairman of The Great Lakes 

Aerospace Science and Education Center, and he will be testifying 

on behalf of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority; and he is accompanied, but I understand will not offer testimony, but may be here 

to answer questions, if we have questions, by Mr. Mark Hanna, 

who is the Vice Chair of the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority. 

Gentlemen, we appreciate your appearance here today and we 

look forward to hearing your testimony. I would remind our witnesses that we would ask you to summarize your statement in five 

minutes or so, and we want you to know that your full statement 

will appear in the record. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes Dr. George Nield. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE C. NIELD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; GERALD 

DILLINGHAM, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; J.P. 

STEVENS, VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS, AEROSPACE 

INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.; JEFFREY 

GREASON, CEO, XCOR AEROSPACE AND VICE PRESIDENT, 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION; AND JAMES A. 

TESTWUIDE, CHAIRMAN, THE GREAT LAKES AEROSPACE 

SCIENCE AND EDUCATION CENTER AT SPACEPORT SHEBOYGAN, WISCONSIN, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE WISCONSIN AEROSPACE AUTHORITY, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK 

C. HANNA, VICE PRESIDENT, WISCONSIN AEROSPACE AUTHORITY 

Mr. NIELD. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this 

hearing to update you on the activities of the Federal Aviation Administration related to commercial space transportation. This 

morning I would like to briefly summarize the history, mission, and 

recent accomplishments of the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation and to highlight some of the challenges we will be 

facing in the years ahead. 

The Office was established through an Executive Order and passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act back in 1984. Originally, 

it was located in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. 

5 

However, in November of 1995, it was transferred to the FAA, 

where today it is one of the four lines of business, along with aviation safety, airports, and the air traffic organization. 

Our most critical mission is ensuring public safety during commercial launch and reentry activities. We do this in a number of 

ways. First, we issue launch licenses, experimental permits, and 

safety approvals. Since the Office was established, there have been 

200 licensed launches, with the most recent being an Atlas 5 from 

Cape Canaveral just last week. During all of those launches, there 

have not been any accidents resulting in fatalities, serious injuries, 

or significant property damage to the uninvolved public. 

Our Office also issues licenses for the operation of launch sites 

or spaceports. Since 1996, we have issued launch site operator licenses for seven spaceports, with several others having been proposed. 

We also develop and issue regulations that are designed to ensure that commercial launch and reentry activities are conducted 

safely. 

Finally, we perform safety inspections in conjunction with all licensed and permitted launches to see to it that operations are conducted in accordance with those regulations. 

Shortly after the X Prize winning flights of SpaceShipOne, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 

2004, which gave the FAA additional responsibilities for regulating 

commercial human spaceflight. Consistent with that legislation, 

our implementing regulations make clear that individuals participating in human spaceflight will encounter an elevated level of risk 

and, therefore, must be fully informed of that risk and acknowledge 

it before climbing aboard the rocket. 

In the five years since adoption of the Commercial Space Launch 

Amendments Act, the commercial space industry has come a long 

way. At the same time, it is clear that the future will be filled with 

challenges. For example, NASA is currently in the process of retiring the Space Shuttle, with just five more launches on the schedule. 

After the Shuttle’s retirement, commercial launches licensed by 

the FAA will be a key part of the plan for delivery of equipment 

and supplies to the International Space Station. In fact, we are currently working very closely with both Orbital Sciences Corporation 

and Space X, the companies that have been selected by NASA to 

perform these resupply activities, on their planned operations. 

A second key challenge involves the start of commercial human 

spaceflight, and specifically suborbital space tourism. Today, our office is working with a number of different companies, each of which 

is in the process of designing, building, and testing rocket-powered 

vehicles capable of carrying people to the edge of space. We know 

that not all of the companies engaged in this effort will be successful. Some will encounter technical difficulties; others will have financial challenges. But I am quite sure that it will not be long before we will be seeing test flights of a variety of reusable launch 

vehicle concepts. 

As Congress has pointed out, space transportation is inherently 

risky. At the FAA, safety, helping to safeguard the public during 

spaceflight operations, is at the very core of our mission, something 

6 

that shapes our days and guides our work. This is an exciting time 

for commercial space transportation and we are committed to doing 

our part to enable safe and successful operations by the industry. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. At the appropriate 

time, I would be pleased to answer any questions that the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Nield. 

The Chair now recognizes Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Petri, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me back to appear before the Subcommittee again. 

In October 2006, following the completion of a study done at the 

request of this Committee, we made several recommendations to 

FAA and proposed the matter for congressional consideration regarding the commercial space launch industry. My testimony today 

updates the status of those recommendations and looks forward to 

some key emerging issues. 

Regarding our recommendations, based on the forecast in 2006 

of potentially significant growth in the commercial space launch industry, especially the development of spaceports and space tourism, 

we made three recommendations: first, FAA should develop a strategic assessment to determine whether it had enough staff with the 

right skills to handle the expected workload; second, FAA should 

be proactive, rather than reactive, in considering how to regulate 

the safety of space tourism; and, third, we recommended that FAA 

and the Department of Commerce develop a Memorandum of Understanding that would clearly delineate their respective promotional roles for this industry. We also asked the Congress to consider whether it wanted to revisit the existing mandate for FAA to 

regulate the safety of the industry, as well as promote it. 

FAA has generally been responsive to our recommendations. FAA 

has added technical staff to the Office of the Commercial Space 

Transportation and developed an MOU with Commerce. FAA has 

also taken steps towards being proactive in safety regulations, but 

has been somewhat limited because of the relatively low level of activity in the industry. For example, since 2006, the annual number 

of FAA licensed commercial launches has dropped off, from a high 

of 22 in 1998 to a total of only 20 in the last three years, none of 

which were manned. New spaceport development has also been 

limited. Overall, we believe that FAA has taken reasonable steps 

to ensure that it can fulfill its current safety oversight role. 

Turning to the near future, senior FAA officials are predicting 

significant increases in the number of commercial launches in the 

relative short term and NASA plans to sponsor commercial 

launches after it retires the Space Shuttle sometime in 2010. As 

the space launch industry expands, Congress, FAA, and other 

stakeholders will need to actively address several issues: first, if 

the industry expands as predicted, a reassessment of FAA’s need 

for regulatory resources and expertise would be appropriate; second, FAA will also need to ensure that its current regulations on 

licensing and safety requirements will also be suitable for spaceport operations and for launches from NASA facilities; third, FAA 

must continue to be proactive in developing safety indicators for 

the space tourism industry. 

7 

Regarding our earlier request to Congress, we see no need for 

Congress to step in at this time to require separation of FAA’s regulatory and promotional activities. However, we would caution that 

FAA and Congress must continue to guard against any potential 

conflict of interest between FAA and the space launch industry 

such as those that were recently raised about FAA and some elements of the airline industry. 

With regard to emerging issues, international competition is one 

such issue. High launch costs and export controls affect the ability 

of U.S. companies to sell their services and products abroad. Many 

of the industry experts we spoke with pointed to the continuation 

of Federal indemnification and a review of the current export licensing requirements as examples of the kinds of Federal involvement needed to support the industry’s growth and competitiveness. 

Another emerging issue in the international arena will be to develop and harmonize safety standards and regulations, particularly 

those concerning space tourism flights. U.S. leadership in developing standards could boost U.S. R&D and manufacturing outputs, 

as well as support future joint ventures. 

Another key emerging issue that was identified by the Chairman 

and the Ranking Minority Member in their opening statements is 

the integration of space transportation into NextGen. Among the 

issues to be considered are accommodating spacecraft that are traveling to and from space through the National Airspace System, determining controller workload and crew rest requirements for space 

operations, and assessing potential environmental impacts. 

Finally, an overarching issue with implications for U.S. space 

launch industry is lack of a comprehensive space launch strategy. 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, such a strategy 

could leverage resources from various agencies to address such 

shared challenges as the diminishing space industrial base, the 

scarcity of available technical workforce, and reduced funding levels. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Stevens. 

Mr. STEVENS. Good morning, Chairman Costello, Ranking Member Petri, Members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

AIA is the largest aerospace trade association in the United 

States. We represent almost 300 manufacturing companies that 

provide over 631,000 highly skilled jobs and indirectly support another 2 million middle-class jobs and 30,000 suppliers from all 50 

States. 

I want to start off by saying we appreciate the efforts of Congress 

to keep our commercial, civil, and national security space programs 

healthy. We take comfort that Congress recognizes that space has 

become a part of our daily lives and virtually every part of the U.S. 

economy is touched by their applications. We would also like to 

take this opportunity to commend the FAA’s Office of Commercial 

Space Transportation, which has been open to productive discussion on commercial space issues. Their Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee includes a wide range of industry experts who provide information, advice, and recommendations to the 

8 

FAA Administrator on a regular basis. They also host the Annual 

Commercial Space Transportation Conference, which industry has 

found to be an excellent venue for sharing information and expressing our concerns. 

AIA believes FAA has struck the right balance on a very difficult 

issue. On one side of the balance is the need to safeguard the participants of human spaceflight and the general public; on the other 

side is the need to provide flexibility so that this industry can grow 

and become viable. Keep in mind that with the success of 

SpaceShipOne in 2004, there have only been three manned commercial spaceflights to date. We believe the FAA presently has a 

sound framework in place and understands that, as this new industry evolves, the regulations must also evolve. 

There are also outside events that could accelerate the FAA’s role 

in licensing and oversight. As you are aware, the Augustine Committee recently provided the Administration with a series of options regarding NASA’s future direction. They include continuing 

with the program of record, what is called the Constellation Program, and operations that could have commercial space companies 

flying astronauts to the International Space Station. As Dr. Nield 

mentioned, the Space Shuttle is also slated to retire after five more 

flights and the FAA is preparing for commercial cargo flights to the 

Station. 

There are some other commercial space issues that concern us. 

As space launch capabilities have been developed by other nations, 

our share has decreased significantly. For example, in 2008, only 

6 of the 28 commercial launches were conducted by U.S. companies. 

Also, with every other nation with commercial space launch capabilities provides their companies with some form of government indemnification against third-party liability. 

Our program expires in 29 days. We believe loss of indemnification could drive even more launch business overseas and could impact the launches of U.S. civil and national security payloads. The 

current regime provides no funds and it requires congressional approval for any payment, so continuing to indemnify commercial 

launches incurs no additional expense to the U.S. taxpayers. The 

House recently voted to extend indemnification to the end of 2012, 

and we hope the Senate will do the same. 

Our space industrial base designs, builds, and supports all our 

space systems. We need to keep this base healthy and competitive. 

While AIA believes it is important to protect critical U.S. capabilities, many export control policies are counterproductive for our industry. While we must keep sensitive technologies out of the wrong 

hands, we must also facilitate trade with our friends and allies in 

a timely manner. Barriers to the export competitiveness of U.S. 

companies have prompted numerous countries to develop their own 

aerospace capabilities. Without a cutting-edge space industrial 

base, our Government could be forced to rely on foreign suppliers 

for key components, and I don’t think we want that to happen. 

AIA members believe that most important long-term issues facing our industry is having a trained technical workforce for the future. Currently, we graduate just 74,000 engineers a year. Further, 

many of those students are foreign nationals who return home 

shortly after graduating, which drops the number of domestically 

9 

employable engineers to less than 60,000 per year. In comparison, 

India and China respectively graduate 6 and 10 times more engineering students than we do each year. 

So what can be done to draw more students into science and engineering? Well, I believe one is expanding human spaceflight. 

However, the industry that inspires our youth needs to be present 

and vibrant if we expect them to major in a stem discipline and become a part of our workforce. 

In conclusion, our commercial space industry is at a critical juncture; however, commercial spaceflights that will carry humans into 

space is on the horizon. However, this market is competitive, our 

share is small, and we have a lot of work to do to ensure that this 

new industry has the opportunity to grow and compete in a global 

marketplace. 

I thank the Committee for their time and attention. I look forward to answering any of your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you, Mr. Stevens, and now recognizes Mr. Greason. 

Mr. GREASON. Thank you. Thank you all for the opportunity to 

testify before this Committee on the state of the U.S. commercial 

space transportation industry. As noted, I am speaking today both 

as CEO of XCOR and as Vice Chairman of Commercial Spaceflight 

Federation. 

In the five years since Congress passed the Commercial Space 

Launch Amendments Act, the clear and flexible regulatory regime 

from that bipartisan act has boosted the confidence of investors, entrepreneurs, and customers. The United States is now seen as a 

leader in this field because of the support of regulatory climate. 

That has encouraged development of several suborbital reusable 

vehicles to address scientific research in education markets, as well 

as spaceflight participants. Also, there have been investments in 

commercial spacecraft for carriage of cargo and humans to and 

from earth orbit using expendable launch vehicles. 

I believe AST has done a good job implementing the statute, both 

in new regulations and through developing their skills to work with 

these new kinds of vehicles. I particularly want to praise the Office’s placement of technical staff out in the field, where they can 

closely observe, develop, and test activities of industry. 

In spite of advances in engineering and modeling, no one can 

predict what the safest designs, technologies, or operating approaches for commercial spacecraft will be. To learn them, we must 

fly. And after a suitable flight test program, building up the thousands of flights needed to learn what techniques work the best 

means flying for revenue. The purpose of disclosing our safety 

record through informed consent, as called for in the Act, is to force 

companies to compete with each other to improve safety as quickly 

as possible. This regulatory regime grows out of the twin missions 

of AST to promote the industry, while protecting the uninvolved 

public, ,the only workable approach at this stage of development. 

At the present time, questions of safety are foremost in the 

minds of potential customers, both participants and payload developers. To achieve a viable industry, we must innovate in safety. 

That means achieving a superior record to what has been done in 

the past. Innovation requires change, and to achieve superior safeVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:56 Mar 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53802 JASON
10 

ty in the future, we have to try new safety technologies and practices. The reality is that some of those changes will be improvements and some will not, and without the freedom to try, we can’t 

improve. 

This need to find a better, safer way to operate is what motivates 

the industry, and the best way for the FAA to promote the industry 

is to aid us in identifying best practices and encouraging their swift 

adoption. That makes it critical that we and the FAA collaborate 

and share knowledge freely. I can’t state strongly enough that at 

the present time the industry faces irresistible economic pressure 

to strive for the safest possible operation that is economically 

achievable, and the FAA’s mandate to promote the growth of the 

industry is therefore a mandate to foster continuous safety improvement. 

There is simply no conflict today between regulation and promotion, and there will not be the chance for conflict until industry 

has a demonstrated safety record in which multiple operators have 

shown themselves safe enough that customers stop shopping for 

safety and come to expect it as a given. We are certainly not at 

that point today and don’t expect to be for many years. 

Space vehicles transition through the airspace for launch and reentry. Historically, space launches were so infrequent that you 

cleared all the air traffic away from their launch. That is not how 

suborbital reusable launch vehicles will operate; a spaceflight will 

become one of many users of the shared airspace in the remote regions where we fly. In Mojave, we have recently been demonstrating elements of that airspace coordination with XCOR’s recent rocket-powered aircraft operations. 

Looking to the future for objects in orbit, space traffic management is a very complicated issue. Orbital space is inherently a global domain and the physics of the environment make it very different from air traffic. That is an area where there is a lot of policy 

development at the national and international level that is required, and what agencies of the U.S. Government will wind up 

playing what roles in the eventual system is far from clear. 

Any discussion of issues facing the commercial space industry 

would be incomplete without repeating the need to reform U.S. export control practices. I will not belabor the problems that others 

have alluded to, but experience shows that, regardless of the intent, the actual effect is to ensure that bright aerospace engineers 

educated here go to work overseas and that foreign investors invest 

in foreign competitors instead of U.S. companies. 

While commercial spaceflight, human spaceflight, and the vehicles that produce it are still in their early days, we can already see 

opportunities for industry to provide services needed by the Department of Defense and NASA. The market of serving these needs will 

stimulate further development of the industry, as well as strengthens the Nation’s space capabilities. 

Four promising areas include small satellite launch, suborbital 

research payloads, transport of NASA astronauts to the International Space Station, and launch a propellant to orbit for exploration missions. The combined promise of these various markets 

strengthens my belief in a bright future for the commercial space 

11 

transportation industry operating within a stable regulatory and 

policy framework. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks you for your testimony and now 

recognizes Mr. Testwuide. 

Mr. TESTWUIDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Petri, and Subcommittee. 

I would like to first state that the FAA AST has successfully executed its mission as far as we can tell. FAA integrates years of experience in aviation and airport operation into its commercial 

spaceflight oversight. The commercial space community must be 

self-constraining with expert and experiential-based mentoring 

from the FAA and others, providing guidelines for licensing and 

achieving safety and environmental goals. 

The U.S. needs to maintain its competitive edge and develop an 

economically sustainable commercial space model. Industry, State 

governments, and the FAA need to identify and mentor the licensing of operators. Spaceport assets need to be identified, and implementation plans and viability studies need to be completed. Spaceport and vehicle developer/operators need to continue the current 

collaborative environment among themselves and the FAA. 

The nurturing of spaceport assets provides efficient growth. Efficiencies of a multiuse facility can be utilized. Horizontal takeoff 

space planes can coexist at conventional airports with proper attributes. Identification of current assets that can be utilized by 

both conventional aviation and space activities can dramatically reduce costs of the creation of space infrastructure and spaceport creation. The earlier the potential spaceport identifies the goal of 

launch licensing, the sooner a spaceport development plan can be 

created and, with that plan, the spaceport has greater potential for 

savings through cooperative multiuse infrastructure planning. 

Case study of Spaceport Sheboygan. We have restricted airspace 

over low population density safety zone, Lake Michigan; currently 

used by the Coast Guard and the Air National Guard approximately 30 days a year; previously, has received numerous FAA 

waivers to launch rockets up to 35 miles, or 200,000 feet; home of 

Great Lakes Aerospace Science and Education Center; close proximity to an active airport allowing flight profile similar to other 

tourist profiles of other spaceports; exclusive tourist destination, 

the American Club at Kohler, already attracting visitors of that 

class; close proximity to Wisconsin’s Experimental Aircraft Association. 

We have created the Wisconsin Aerospace Authority, whose mission is to promote, stimulate, and facilitate aerospace-related educational and economic opportunities, capabilities, and activities 

within our State, including the development of Spaceport Sheboygan. 

And point-to-point suborbital transportation is on the horizon. 

Eventually, suborbital spaceflight will evolve to include point-topoint transportation opportunities. Suborbital velocities outside the 

friction of the atmosphere bring the entire world within a two hour 

flight. Spaceports that start as space tourism centers will eventually become regional suborbital hubs. 

12 

Wisconsin is trying to do its part. Wisconsin is doing its part to 

capitalize on the opportunity presented by the restricted airspace 

to help our Nation participate in the next global transportation revolution. We ask that the Committee and Subcommittee support approaches, actions, and licensing processes currently used by the 

FAA. We at Wisconsin Aerospace Authority and Spaceport Sheboygan look forward to engaging in the next steps with the FAA. 

We also ask the Committee to consider reintroducing Federal 

funding for initial spaceport development planning. This type of 

seed capital can assure the proper design of the spaceport from its 

inception. With early recognition, the effective utilization of existing attributes, the spaceport can utilize its capital more effectively. 

Early and thorough planning reduces risks—the risk to the environment, the economic risk to the operator and its community—it 

increases the safety of the uninvolved public and the operators; and 

it increases the long-term economic viability and sustainability of 

the space transportation industry in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And the Chair thanks you. 

Dr. Nield, we will start with you. Let me ask you. As you know, 

our Subcommittee usually deals with certification of aircraft, and 

since commercial space transportation is not certified, but it is licensed, can you walk us through the process of the licensing process with the FAA? 

Mr. NIELD. Certainly. The launch licensing process actually involves five separate reviews. We conduct a policy review to ensure 

that the intended activity is consistent with our national policy and 

foreign policy objectives; we look at the payload involved to ensure 

that there is nothing unusual or inappropriate concerning the purpose of the launch. Of course, the most important review is the 

safety review, where we are looking at possible hazards involved 

and how they can be mitigated. 

We also conduct an environmental review in compliance with 

NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. There is, finally, a 

financial responsibility review, which involves the analysis of the 

maximum probable loss—not the worst case, but the most likely 

bad day during a launch, and that information is used by us to establish the insurance requirements for the launch operators. 

So with those reviews complete, that allows us to make a determination on the issuance of a launch license. We have 180 days, 

through our statute, in order to come up with that determination. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Greason, would you like to comment as to your experience 

in dealing with the licensing process? 

Mr. GREASON. I think I would characterize it as we and the FAA 

together, both us as an operator and us in the industry, are still 

working out together exactly how to handle these new class of vehicles. Every new vehicle right now, of the reusable category, that 

comes to the FAA is essentially the first of its kind, because we 

don’t have standardization in the industry at about how we are 

going to approach these problems. 

13 

Given that, it is a collaborative process and it takes time. But I 

also think it is a value-added process; it is very—any honest engineer appreciates having someone knowledgeable looking over their 

shoulder and asking tough question, so it is a challenging process 

sometimes to get through, but I think it is a worthwhile one. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Dr. Dillingham, you state in your testimony that the FAA needs 

to develop safety indicators and collect data to help determine 

when to begin regulating crew and passenger safety. I wonder if 

you might elaborate on that. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As was mentioned 

by some of the witnesses, and also as a result of the legislation that 

said FAA shouldn’t start to regulate until after 2012, the points 

that we wanted to make is that due to the relatively low activity 

in the industry, FAA has not been able to actually do the kind of 

collection of safety data that it has done or has done in the aviation 

area. 

The point that we wanted to make was that FAA should continue 

to be proactive in this area, doing the things that it is currently 

doing like taking lessons learned and sharing information. Those 

are some preliminary steps that they can continue to take. But as 

soon as is feasible, when the experience base is there, they should 

in fact be collecting safety indicators so that they can be proactive 

in developing needed regulations, as opposed to reactive. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Stevens, you indicate in your testimony that there are issues 

that the FAA obviously needs to look at surrounding integrated 

commercial spaceflight into the air traffic control system. I wonder 

if you might elaborate on some of those issues. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I think I would add to what I said in my testimony by saying that it is a complex issue and, as we look at 

NextGen moving forward, we need to take into account all those 

issues and, as we develop that policy, make sure they are incorporated into it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Greason or Mr. Testwuide, any specifics that 

you would like to add? 

Mr. TESTWUIDE. I would like to amplify and extend some of the 

things that Mr. Dillingham was saying about the need for tracking 

safety indicators. I think it is a misconception of the state of the 

current Act, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, that 

the FAA is currently constrained from regulating. Instead, they are 

constrained only to regulate for the safety of the participants where 

there is data, in the sense of a series of incidents or an accident, 

that shows that there is a problem that needs regulating. 

And I, wearing my hat as a member of the industry trade association, couldn’t be more in favor of that. In fact, if anything, I completely agree we need to work together very hard to make sure that 

we have as much advanced data as possible so that we can spot 

trends and take action, whatever action might be, as early as we 

can; and that is a collaborative thing between us and the FAA. 

Mr. GREASON. And I would just like to reiterate what Mr. Stevens said about education and encouraging our youth. I firmly believe that the space program had a very large bias in creating a 

large number of engineers 20, 30 years ago, and I think if we can 

14 

engage the youth today in our further exploration of space, we can 

reinvigorate the education on the stem situation and get our Country back in a more engineering and scientific methodology in education. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Dr. Nield, the senior FAA officials in the past 

have predicted that commercial airspace transportation, the industry, will expand not 200 to 300 annual launches. Not only a question for you, but a question for others on the panel, if you would 

like to answer it. How soon do you think that we would begin to 

see increases and reach the level of 200 launches a year? 

Mr. NIELD. Well, that is an excellent question. Of course, it is 

hard to predict the future, but as I look at the kinds of activities 

that we are likely to see, I anticipate three different kinds. We will 

see a continuation of the current expendable launches of telecommunication satellites and so forth that we have had for a number of years, and that will continue on into the indefinite future. 

We will also see, shortly, with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, a new kind of commercial activity designed to take cargo to the 

International Space Station. I believe that activity will be on the 

order of six to eight launches per year and will start in the next 

couple of years. 

But the prime driver for the kinds of flight rates that you mentioned will, in all likelihood, be a result of suborbital space tourism 

and the commercial human space flight. I believe that within the 

next five years we will see several companies that are conducting 

regular and frequent launches up to the edge of space, and that 

will, of course, greatly change how we think about space transportation. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Stevens? 

Mr. STEVENS. I agree with Dr. Nield on all those accounts. The 

one thing I would bring up is that I am very concerned, as I mentioned in my testimony, that the number of commercial launches 

done by the United States is very low, and we need to really take 

a look at ITAR reform. As I mentioned, that is hurting our industry. And we definitely need to pass, get the Senate to approve indemnification before the end of this year. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Anyone else on the panel? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes, Dr. Dillingham. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. I think it is important to point out that, to the 

extent that the industry does expand, that FAA will need to match 

the resources and skill mix that will be needed to oversee that industry, collaboratively or otherwise. And I think it is important to 

note that, in addition to the pipeline not being what the pipeline 

should be for math and science, there is also the potential difficulty 

with FAA attracting those people, those kinds of skilled people to 

skew it to the agency. 

We recently issued a report that indicated that FAA had some 

work to do in order to make itself a place where those kinds of 

skills would be inclined to go to, and, to their credit, Administrator 

Babbitt has made that a focus, but this could take time, and FAA, 

right now, they are in fact able to match the size of the industry 

and its activity, but it is something that needs to be kept on the 

radar screen. 

15 

Mr. COSTELLO. Very good. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Petri. 

Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you all for your testimony. I, first of all, 

want to say that I am happy to hear, in Dr. Nield’s and other members of the panel’s testimony, somewhat of a measure of sensitivity 

to the relationship between a very high-tech, very emerging industry and what can be the deadening hand of government regulation. 

If we can protect ourselves from success if we are not careful. And 

yet, at the other hand, we do have some obligation to make sure 

that things are being done responsibly and risks are taken. 

I was sensitized to that myself at the EAA several years ago, 

when I was invited to have lunch with a giant in this field, Burt 

Routan, who was pleading with the FAA to classify SpaceShipOne 

as a spaceship, not as an airplane, because, if it had to go through 

certification for airplanes, it would have, he thought, had a very 

adverse effect on his long-term success. He has developed cuttingedge planes for the intelligence industry and defense industry for 

a generation, and very successfully. 

But he said the mentality of his team is to continually challenge 

the design and look for further ways to improve it; and if they suddenly had to switch to defending the design, that would have a psychologically deadening effect on innovation and, he thought, on 

safety, actually. And he has had a very wonderful safety record 

given what he has been attempting to do over the years. So this 

is an interesting balance and I am happy to hear that you are sensitive to that. 

Maybe one question for Mr. Testwuide. Working in a midwestern 

community on this whole cutting-edge industry, what is really in 

it at the end of the day for a local community or State that participates in this program? Could you discuss why people should be interested in and trying to participate in this whole effort? 

Mr. TESTWUIDE. Thank you, Mr. Petri. Yes. I think for a small 

town like Sheboygan, Wisconsin and a State that is not typically 

thought of as a cutting-edge technology State—I would have exception to that, but I don’t think in the general Nation people get 

much beyond bratwurst and cheese. I would say that there are lots 

of things that it brings, including, as I mentioned before, the awe 

of space travel to the midwest and to a local region. But the industrial impact of having regular spaceflights just for tourism, then 

possibly a midwest point-to-point hub, have long-term financial 

ramifications for the region, and I think that would be very good 

economically long-term. 

In the short-term, I think you get back to the psychological realization that we are on the cutting edge, that if you come from Wisconsin, you can go to Madison and get some very fancy engineering 

experience, if you choose to. You will be with, unfortunately, right 

now, an awful lot of foreigners, but I would love to see a lot more 

Badgers there becoming engineers and going to work for Mr. 

Greason and or the FAA and developing this area in the future. 

So I think there is a great opportunity and a missed opportunity 

by most of rural America, or central America, I should say, in the 

space world. We have recognized it because we have that asset out 

in Lake Michigan that is clearly a low population density area, a 

couple fishermen, and it is restricted and it has been used, so we 

16 

intend to capitalize on that asset and see if we can move forward 

with this prospect. 

Mr. PETRI. You mentioned cheese and bratwurst, and probably 

beer would be appropriate as well. 

Mr. TESTWUIDE. I think so. 

Mr. PETRI.—although it is not as much as it was. But I think 

people aren’t aware our biggest employer, at least for many years, 

has been General Electric, and part of that is making missile guidance systems. 

Mr. TESTWUIDE. Correct. 

Mr. PETRI. We had a tremendous industrial infrastructure for everything from lattice, making the big castings that are vital for the 

airplane industry, to many of the key components that support our 

Navy around the world. The subcontractors are very intense in our 

region. So we have nothing to apologize for in terms of contributing 

to the space effort in our part of the world. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member and now 

recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member, for having this hearing. 

I have been interested in this area since we had one citizen to 

go into space and came and gave his overview of what it meant. 

What I would like to ask Dr. Nield is you stated that the FAA identifies policies which may have an unintended adverse impact on 

commercial space transportation efforts. Could you go into that a 

little bit more? 

Mr. NIELD. Certainly. As part of our statutory charge, we are encouraged to work with other Government agencies to do exactly 

what you have described, and I think an excellent example of that 

would be our partnership with the United States Air Force on the 

eastern launch range. We have worked together for a number of 

years to try and develop common launch safety standards so that 

whether a rocket is being launched in order to put a defense satellite into orbit or for a commercial communications satellite, the 

basic safety standards would be the same. 

So that is not an issue of being hard or easy on safety, it is a 

question of can we come together and have common standards so 

that these launch providers do not have to keep a separate set of 

books depending on who the customer is for the launch. So that 

would be one example of the kinds of things that we are trying to 

do in order to streamline and make the system more effective. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Dillingham, were you intending to imply that the FAA would 

be prepared to handle this increased commercial launch activity 

after NASA retires the Space Shuttle? 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Yes, I think that FAA 

is taking the steps that will allow it to in fact handle the extra activities that will take place when the Space Shuttle is retired sometime in 2010. What I also meant to say is not only as NASA turns 

over those kinds of responsibilities, as the other part of the space 

launch industry expands, FAA will also need to expand its resources to be able to handle that. 

17 

Ms. JOHNSON. Has anyone given any thought to what it would 

cost just a regular American citizen who wants to pay to go into 

space for a vacation? 

Mr. GREASON. For suborbital flights, which is the area where 

commercial human spaceflight is likely to start, different providers 

are charging different prices. The high-end mark is at about 

$200,000 right now. I think the lower announced price is about 

$90,000 or $95,000. But everyone expects that, as with all other 

areas of high technology, once you enter into service and there is 

more than one company operating, there will be a great deal of 

competitive pressure on those prices and they will come down 

home, we all hope, fairly quickly. 

Ms. JOHNSON. One final question. There had been a couple of delegations to my office asking about space to put a launch pad for 

a commercial space visits. Is that still in action? I haven’t heard 

from them for a while now. Anywhere. It doesn’t have to be Texas, 

although that is the premier place to do it. 

Mr. NIELD. We would be happy to work with your staff to arrange those types of tours. We know they are very inspirational to 

those who take part. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and would say 

that I think Illinois would be a perfect location. I think Mr. Petri 

thinks that Wisconsin would be a good location as well. He suggests maybe we can do a Committee trip to space. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Altmire. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start with Dr. Dillingham. The Chairman asked Dr. 

Nield a question about the 200 to 300 annual launches that were 

expected, and in your testimony, Dr. Dillingham, you state that if 

senior FAA official predictions are correct, that that is the number. 

A reassessment of FAA’s resources in areas of expertise would at 

that point be appropriate. I was wondering if you could expand 

upon what you meant by that. 

Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Altmire. I predicated that by 

saying if those numbers turn out to be, as we all have said this 

morning, this is an industry in its very beginning stages and it is 

not clear how this is all going to play out in terms of this is very 

technical, this is new, and we have had predictions before. You will 

recall when we talked about the very light jet industry, there were 

going to be thousands in the skies in the next few years. It hasn’t 

turned out to be that way. So to the extent that we do get this expansion, then, again, we would say FAA needs to expand as well 

in order to carry out its mission. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. 

Mr. Stevens, in your testimony, you describe some important 

issues facing the future of U.S. space policy, such as funding U.S. 

reusable launch vehicles versus relying on commercial space transportation. I was wondering if you could expand upon what you 

meant by that. 

Mr. STEVENS. Could you ask that question—— 

18 

Mr. ALTMIRE. The difference between the two, the funding of 

U.S. reusable launch vehicles versus relying on commercial space 

transportation. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I think the issue is, when you are talking 

about the Government program or the Constellation Program to 

supply the International Space Station and the competition that is 

going on with the commercial companies, what we believe is that 

there is no competition, that they are two different programs. In 

fact, the Constellation Program is designed to take us out of low 

earth orbit, and that is where we need to head. The commercial 

companies will pick up the slack and take care of all the logistical 

requirements of supplying the International Station. 

Why I think this is a great way to do business is that, if we get 

to that point where that is happening, we will have at least two 

different rocket systems, United States rocket systems, to supply 

our International Space Station, and we won’t be in the situation 

we are today by paying $50 million per U.S. astronaut to send 

them up on a Russian vehicle. 

And something that I read today was also that we will be paying—because we have an agreement with other countries—European and Japanese astronauts, we will be paying for them too. So 

I don’t see any sort of competition among the both; they are two 

separate programs, they both overlap and they both, I think, will 

be very supportive of keeping the United States in the position that 

it needs to be in the future. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. 

Mr. Greason, in response to the last questioner, you talked about 

suborbital would be the place where we would start, but then perhaps more thereafter. Can you explain with regard to the duration 

of the flight and when you say we may go beyond suborbital, what 

are we talking about? What are we looking at? 

Mr. GREASON. Suborbital flights, because we are all using the 

same physics, we are all using the same air, it can take some time 

to reach the point where you turn on the rocket engine; that varies 

by system. But once you turn on the rocket engine, the flight typically lasts about half an hour from that point, most of that being 

coming back home through the atmosphere. 

There certainly are roadmaps out there and technological plans 

out there—my own company is among them—for how these systems will evolve over timed orbital systems, where you can talk 

about days or weeks or longer. The likely progress is that suborbital human service will begin—that you will begin a small volume of commercial human spaceflight with capsules on expendable 

rockets, where commercial and Government customers might both 

be users of the same system; and that it will take some time beyond that for fully reusable orbital systems to come along which 

will take us to a whole new level. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Nield states in his testimony that the Air Force and the FAA 

and NTSB have a Memorandum of Understanding regarding comVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:56 Mar 24, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53802 JASON
19 

mercial space accidents and incidents. I notice also that Mr. Stevens states that, as space launch capabilities have been developed 

by other nations, U.S. commercial launches have decreased significantly, mainly because they have government indemnification. 

What recommendations do you have for improving the competitiveness of the commercial space travel with respect to indemnification? Do you think this is a policy that we should continue? 

Mr. NIELD. Yes. As was previously mentioned by Mr. Stevens 

and others, we believe that the action by the House to extend the 

current indemnification process is very appropriate. We certainly 

encourage the Senate to act on that. However, in the long term, we 

think there is merit to looking at a more extended period, to allow 

companies to do long-range strategic planning, investment and so 

forth, knowing with some certainty what indemnification regime 

they would be subject to. So that would be an excellent example of 

what the Government could do in order to provide some certainty 

and support for the industry. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. At the space launch sites—I guess there are several of them between NASA and the military, Cape Canaveral, et 

cetera—how do they work with the commercial launch, the vehicles, in the sense to promote the most expeditious trajectory, one 

that is not going to damage satellites or hurt any of our military/ 

commercial capabilities to communications? 

Mr. NIELD. We work very well together. Again, I mentioned the 

partnership with the Air Force. We have an office at Patrick Air 

Force Base to have a person on the scene and interact on a daily 

basis with the range there so that we understand the issues. I 

mentioned the common safety standards. 

We also have an excellent relationship with NASA. And that will 

become even more important as the Shuttle is retired and various 

commercial rockets are considered by NASA for their use as well. 

So I think, in general, the Government agencies involved work very 

well together and we are all looking to industry to try and understand how they can bring their capabilities to the table to support 

our national interests. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Do you find that our international competitors— 

I know China is very aggressive in trying to put an astronaut on 

the moon. Do you find that there is a lot of international competitiveness in relaying—in addition to that question, do you think 

that we can do a better job of promoting more engineers into the 

field? 

Mr. NIELD. Certainly workforce is a key issue for the entire industry. We need to pay attention to that and that is something that 

you cannot fix immediately; it is a long-term process to have people 

studying the math and science and engineering early in their educational process. 

In terms of the international relationships, it is interesting because there certainly is a competitive environment in terms of the 

prices that are being offered by other nations to launch rockets into 

space. Many of those countries subsidize their programs and they 

make it very difficult for our companies to compete. 

But in terms of the suborbital space tourism industry, I think it 

is generally acknowledged that the United States is in the lead in 

that particular area for a number of reasons. We tend to have a 

20 

much more innovative population and corporate culture that is trying these new and different ideas with advanced technologies, so 

we have seen more developments, more planning, more testing in 

this Country than anywhere else. 

I have also been told, as I participate in international conferences, that our regulatory regime that Congress has put in place 

in this Country is something that is envied, frankly, to enable us 

to concentrate on protecting public safety while allowing the acceptance of risk during some of these more dangerous activities. 

That is something that is not universally shared, and the companies in other countries, frankly, would love to have a level playing 

field, as they describe it, in terms of how they treat those things. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. One last question to the panel. Right now this 

seems as if it is a millionaire’s or a billionaire’s endeavor. Do you 

anticipate that the average Bob and Betty Buckeye from Ohio 

might someday climb in a rocket ship? And how far away do you 

think that is? 

Mr. GREASON. Anybody who buys a cell phone or a computer or 

a flat screen TV to put on their wall ought to be very thankful that 

there are all these high net worth early adopters who paid to bring 

the volume up and the technology to the point where everybody 

else can use it. I don’t think spaceflight is ever going to be, even 

suborbital spaceflight, is ever going to be quite as cheap as air 

travel is today. 

But I can easily see it getting down to the point where, at some 

point in the future, and, no, I am not going to predict how soon 

that is because it is too many steps ahead. But I can see it getting 

down to the price of a cruise; and that is not something that is reserved for billionaires. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I haven’t been on a cruise yet, sir. 

Mr. GREASON. I haven’t either, but I understand that they do 

quite well. 

Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Any other Members have additional questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. COSTELLO. If not, let me thank the witnesses for testifying 

here today. This has been a very productive and useful hearing. 

Our number one priority in this Subcommittee is safety and, as 

space transportation and tourism increases in the future, we want 

to make certain that the FAA has the resources to go forward to 

ensure that space transportation and tourism in fact goes forward 

and is as safe as it possibly can be. 

So we will be monitoring the activities in space transportation, 

working closely with the FAA and, when necessary, we will be 

holding additional hearings and providing aggressive oversight. So 

we thank you for your testimony today and the Subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

21 


Insert offset folio 8 here 53802.008
22 


Insert offset folio 9 here 53802.009
23 


Insert offset folio 10 here 53802.010
24 


Insert offset folio 11 here 53802.011
25 


Insert offset folio 12 here 53802.012
26 


Insert offset folio 13 here 53802.013
27 


Insert offset folio 14 here 53802.014
28 


Insert offset folio 15 here 53802.015
29 


Insert offset folio 16 here 53802.016
30 


Insert offset folio 17 here 53802.017
31 


Insert offset folio 18 here 53802.018
32 


Insert offset folio 19 here 53802.019
33 


Insert offset folio 20 here 53802.020
34 


Insert offset folio 21 here 53802.021
35 


Insert offset folio 22 here 53802.022
36 


Insert offset folio 23 here 53802.023
37 


Insert offset folio 24 here 53802.024
38 


Insert offset folio 25 here 53802.025
39 


Insert offset folio 26 here 53802.026
40 


Insert offset folio 27 here 53802.027
41 


Insert offset folio 28 here 53802.028
42 


Insert offset folio 29 here 53802.029
43 


Insert offset folio 30 here 53802.030
44 


Insert offset folio 31 here 53802.031
45 


Insert offset folio 32 here 53802.032
46 


Insert offset folio 33 here 53802.033
47 


Insert offset folio 34 here 53802.034
48 


Insert offset folio 35 here 53802.035
49 


Insert offset folio 36 here 53802.036
50 


Insert offset folio 37 here 53802.037
51 


Insert offset folio 38 here 53802.038
52 


Insert offset folio 39 here 53802.039
53 


Insert offset folio 40 here 53802.040
54 


Insert offset folio 41 here 53802.041
55 


Insert offset folio 42 here 53802.042
56 


Insert offset folio 43 here 53802.043
57 


Insert offset folio 44 here 53802.044
58 


Insert offset folio 45 here 53802.045
59 


Insert offset folio 46 here 53802.046
60 


Insert offset folio 47 here 53802.047
61 


Insert offset folio 48 here 53802.048
62 


Insert offset folio 49 here 53802.049
63 


Insert offset folio 50 here 53802.050
64 


Insert offset folio 51 here 53802.051
65 


Insert offset folio 52 here 53802.052
66 


Insert offset folio 53 here 53802.053
67 


Insert offset folio 54 here 53802.054
68 


Insert offset folio 55 here 53802.055
69 


Insert offset folio 56 here 53802.056
70 


Insert offset folio 57 here 53802.057
71 


Insert offset folio 58 here 53802.058
72 


Insert offset folio 59 here 53802.059
73 


Insert offset folio 60 here 53802.060
74 


Insert offset folio 61 here 53802.061
75 


Insert offset folio 62 here 53802.062
76 


Insert offset folio 63 here 53802.063
77 


Insert offset folio 64 here 53802.064
78 


Insert offset folio 65 here 53802.065
79 


Insert offset folio 66 here 53802.066
80 


Insert offset folio 67 here 53802.067
81 


Insert offset folio 68 here 53802.068
82 


Insert offset folio 69 here 53802.069
83 


Insert offset folio 70 here 53802.070
84 


Insert offset folio 71 here 53802.071
85 


Insert offset folio 72 here 53802.072
86 


Insert offset folio 73 here 53802.073
87 


Insert offset folio 74 here 53802.074
88 


Insert offset folio 75 here 53802.075
89 


Insert offset folio 76 here 53802.076
90 


Insert offset folio 77 here 53802.077
91 


Insert offset folio 78 here 53802.078
92 


Insert offset folio 79 here 53802.079
93 


Insert offset folio 80 here 53802.080
94 


Insert offset folio 81 here 53802.081
95 


Insert offset folio 82 here 53802.082
96 


Insert offset folio 83 here 53802.083
97 


Insert offset folio 84 here 53802.084
98 


Insert offset folio 85 here 53802.085
99 


Insert offset folio 86 here 53802.086
100 


Insert offset folio 87 here 53802.087
101 


Insert offset folio 88 here 53802.088
102 


Insert offset folio 89 here 53802.089
103 


Insert offset folio 90 here 53802.090
104 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 91 here 53802.091