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

73–603PDF 2011

AN OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE 

OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION’S 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 

Serial No. 112–70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Steven M. Palazzo, Chair, Subcommittee on 

Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Acting Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 11 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Capt. Wilbur C. Trafton (USN Ret.), Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24 

Discussion 31 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration ............................................................ 44 

Capt. Wilbur C. Trafton (USN Ret.), Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee .................................................................................. 53 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION’S 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steven Palazzo 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

RAYRURN HOtJSF mF!CE BU!LDING 

WASHINCTON DC 20515-6301 

(2011 721)~6371 

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

An Overview of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation's Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 

Tuesday, March 20,2012 

10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dr. George C. Nield 

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation 

Administration 

CAPT Wilbur C. Trafton, USN (Ret) 

Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 
3 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Office of Commercial Space Transportation 

Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request 

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

The purpose ofthe March 20 hearing is to review the Fiscal Year 2013 budget request submitted 

by the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (in FAA shorthand the office is referred 

to as 'AST) and to examine the office's roles and responsibilities as the commercial market is 

poised to expand. AST's FY2013 budget request seeks $16.700 million, a 2.6% increase over 

the FY2012 enacted level ($16.271 million). Based on industry provided launch manifests, AST 

forecasts 40 commercial launch and reentry operations in 2012, compared with only one licensed 

launch in FY20 II. More detail on the launch forecast will be discussed later. 

Witnesses 

Dr. George C. Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration 

Capt. Wilbur C. Trafton (USN Ret.), Chair, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory 

Committee (COMSTAC) 

FY2012 Budget Request 

FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) 

FYll Actual FY 12 Enacted FY 13 Request FYI2 vs. FY13 FY12 vs. FY13 

Change Percent Increase 

$15,021,000 $16,271,000 $16,700,000 +$429,000 +2.6% 

ASTs FYl3 budget request seeks $16.700 million, a 2.6% increase over the FY12 enacted 

budget. 

The FY13 budget justification states: "The increased activi(v levels in/he commercial space 

industry creates a jactor o(six increase in the corresponding number 0.( licenses evaluated and 

issued, environmental assessments, safety analyses, and safe~y inspections for AST stafl To meet 

1 
4 

these increased workload demands. AST will use the additional fimds to augment our existing 

stall by employing up to ten safety experts through contract mechanisms. This will allow AST to 

double the number olour stafl assigned to operational salety oversightlunction in ourfields 

offices. and also 10 increase the number ofsi1llullaneous safely analyses we can perlaI'm. " 

Background 

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial 

space launches and reentries, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites. Its 

mission statement is: "To ensure the protection of the public, property, and the national security 

and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry activities, 

and to cncourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space transportation." All space 

launches and reentries by U.S. citizcns except those conducted by the U.S. Government (or on its 

bchalf) require a license from AST. AST issued its first launch license in 1989 and since then 

has licensed 205 launches with no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant damage to the 

uninvolved public. 

In 1984 President Reagan signed an executive order designating the Department of 

Transportation as the lead federal agency for encouraging and facilitating commercial launch 

activities within the private sector. Eight months later Congress passed the Commercial Space 

Launch Act (P. L. 98- 575) which gave legislative authority to DOT's role as the principal 

oversight agency fiJr the regulation and licensing of commercial space transportation systems. 

Subsequently, DOT shifted the office to thc FAA. 

Congress last produced legislation dealing with commercial space transportation in the 108th 

Congress. Two bills were enacted: (l) "The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act", H.R. 

5382 (PL 108-492) was introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and expanded AST's authority to 

regulate commercial human space flight; (2) H.R. 2608 (PL 108-360) reauthorized the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation through FY 2009. 

More recently, on February 14, 2012 the President enacted the FAA Modcrnization and Reforn1 

Act of2012 (PL 112-95) that included a provision extending a moratorium on AST issuing 

regulations for commercial human spaceflight. (More on this will be discussed below.) 

Because commercial entities typically launch from military bases, AST works with both the Air 

Force and the commcrcial industry to develop common launch safety requirements at Air Forcc 

launch sites. AST also collaborates with the FAA to ensure that future commercial space 

transportation requirements are integrated into the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGcn). 

2 
5 

Licensing Activities 

There are three types oflaunches national security, civil, and commercial. The Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation regulates commercial launches; launches of NASA and DOD 

payloads do not require licenses. In 2010, AST licensed four commercial orbital launches 

compared to five licensed launches in 2009. For 2011 AST licensed just one commercial launch. 

No suborbital flights were conducted under FAA experimental permits in 20 I 0 or 2011. 

In 20 10 one reentry was conducted under an FAA reentry license. The Space Exploration 

Technologies Corp (SpaceX) Dragon Capsule successfully reentered the atmosphere and landed 

in the Pacific Ocean following its first NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation System 

(COTS) demonstration flight. It was the first reentry license ever granted by FAA. SpaceX 

anticipates flying its second COTS demonstration flight later this spring and Orbital Science 

Corporation (Orbital) also plans to fly its first COTS demonstration before the end of summer. 

Pending successful completion of the demonstration flights, both companies could begin regular 

ISS cargo resupply flights by year's end. 

Spaceports 

[n addition to licensing launches, AST also licenses the operation of commercial launch sites (or 

"spaceports"). Currently, there are eight non-federal FAA-licensed launch sites, listed below and 

highlighted on the following chart. 

• Spaceport Florida, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL 

• Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Spaceport, Wallops Island, 

VA 

• California Spaceport, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base, 

CA 

• Kodiak Launch Complex, 

Kodiak Island, AK 

• Mojave Air & Space Port, CA 

• Cecil Field Spaceport, 

Jacksonville, FL 

• Oklahoma Spaceport, Bums 

Flat,OK 

• Spaceport America, Las 

Cruces, NM 

U.S. Spaceports 

Commercial and Government Active and Proposed Launch Sites 

3 
6 

Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 

In 2004, SpaceShipOne successfully launched two suborbital flights from the Mojave, CA, 

airport within a two week time-span, winning the $10 million Ansari X-Prize. Space industry 

optimists believed then that suborbital flights carrying space tourists would quickly develop with 

several commercial companies entering the marketplace to offer routine suborbital flights. Later 

that year Congress passed H.R. 5382 (P.L. 108-492), the Commcrcial Space Launch 

Amendments Act of2004, authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to license and regulate 

commercial human space flight. 

Even though the Act extended regulatory new authorities to DOT (specifically to the Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation), it prohibited federal regulation of commercial human space 

flight companies - operating either suborbital or orbital commercial launch systems for eight 

years following enactment. 

The premise of the prohibition was rooted in the concern that the industry did not yet exist, thus 

DOT (and AST) had no relevant experience upon which to regulate industry practices. During 

this period, it was anticipated that space launch companies would expcriment with various 

designs and processes as they endeavored to dcvelop vchicles and demonstrate their safety and 

performance capabilities prior to offering licensed suborbital (or orbital) flights. Thc Act 

provided two cxceptions to the regulatory prohibition; AST could restrict or prohibit design 

features or operating practiccs that (1) resulted in a serious or fatal injury to crew or space flight 

participants, or (2) contributed to an unplanned event during a commercial human space flight 

that posed a high risk of causing a serious or fatal injury to crew or space flight participants. The 

eight year ban was due to expire on December 23,2012 but was extended to October 1,2015, as 

the companies that are developing these systems have experienced test flight delays. 

To date only one company, Virgin Galactic, is known to be actively testing a prototype suborbital commercial human spaceflight vehicle. SpaceShipTwo, a larger version of the Ansari xPrize winner, continues to undergo unpowered atmospheric testing in California. According to 

the company, hundreds of interested purchasers havc already placed down-payments with Virgin 

Galatic for the privilege of flying on their spacecraft once commercial flights get underway. 

NASA's Commercial Cargo and Crew Programs 

With the retirement of the Spaee Shuttle in 2011, NASA plans to rely on two companies -

Orbital and SpaceX - to provide cargo resupply services to the International Space Station. Each 

company has a contract through the middle part of this decade, and agency officials anticipate 

acquiring additional cargo services to service ISS to 2020. Under the current contracts, each 

company is obligated to launch two supply flights a year, and with regard to SpaceX, it would 

also bring materials back from ISS using their Dragon capsule to reenter the atmosphere and land 

4 
7 

at a pennitted site. For these resupply flights NASA is buying a servicc as though it were a 

traditional commercial customer, thus triggering coverage undcr AST's licensing regime. Once 

both companies are operating resupply flights on a routine basis, AST's regulatory workload will 

increase by four flights a year, plus two reentrics. 

NASA is also pursuing a longer tenn strategy to use a similar approach of buying launch services 

to ferry astronauts to and from thc International Space Station. NASA released an 

Announcement for Proposals on Feb. 7 inviting aerospace companies to submit bids by March 

23 to compete for funding under the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative. 

While the pro.[.,'fammatic timeline for CCiCap and actual follow-on contracts to deliver crew to 

ISS remain notional, this latest approach to stimulate potential "commercial crew" providers 

anticipates flights to the ISS as early as 2017. 

Non-NASA crewed flights would also require a new set of regulations be established and 

enforced by AST to ensure that the risk to non-governmental crew and passengers are 

minimized. NASA has vast experience in human spaceflight while AST has none. 

The AST FY13 budget justification states: "Operational safety oversight o/,hllman ,\paceflighl 

will require developing technical expertise in several new areas including environmental 

control, life support, and crew survivability. To date, AST's launch salety oversight experience 

and authority has been primarilvfoel/sed on unmanned launches ol satelliles into orbit using 

expendable launch vehicles. " 

FAA (AST) and NASA are in discussions now to establish how the two agencies will exercise 

oversight and insight into the design and operation of any commercial orbital and suborbital crew 

launch systems, their respective certification and regulation roles, as well as understanding the 

reentry performancc, landing sites, and recovery operations proposed by the companies. The 

goal is to minimize any overlap between the agencics. 

Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Tramportation 

In 1990, Congress granted authority to the FAA Administrator to make .[.,'fants to one or more 

colleges or universities to establish and operate several regional centers of air transportation 

excellence (PL 101 -508, Sec. 9209). Each center of excellence would be responsible for 50 

percent of the costs of establishing and operating the center of excellence, with the federal 

government responsible for the other 50 percent. 

The purpose of each Center of Excellence (COE) is to advance the state of transportation 

knowledge within a particular area of concentration. This is accomplished by providing both an 

educational and research component to enable the next generation in the field of transportation 

and by conducting high quality research to generate significant advances in transportation 

scicnce and technology. Furthermore, each COE is responsible for disseminating research results 

to enable technology transfer into the commercial sector where appropriate. 

5 
8 

In August 2010, the FAA established the COE for Commercial Space Transportation (COECST) led by New Mexico State University in Las Cruces to tackle research in areas such as 

space launch operations and traffic management; launch vehicle systems, payloads, technologies, 

and operations; commercial human space flight; and space commerce. Partner colleges and 

universities include: Stanford University in California, the Florida Institute of Technology in 

Melbourne, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, the Florida Center 

for Advanced Aero-Propulsion at Florida State University in Tallahassee, the University of 

Colorado at Boulder, and the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. 

The budget request for the COE-CST is S LO million. 

6 
9 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics 

will come to order. 

Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview 

of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.’’ In front of you are packets containing the written 

testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witness panel. At this time I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Welcome to today’s hearing on the President’s 2013 budget request for the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation. I 

want to thank our witnesses, Dr. George Nield and Captain Wilbur 

Trafton, for joining us. I know that many people put in a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and we appreciate you taking 

time from your busy schedules to appear before the Subcommittee. 

I also want to assure you that we greatly value your expertise and 

wisdom, and your testimony will benefit this Committee in the 

weeks and months ahead as we endeavor to better improve the 

policies that will guide our Nation’s evolving commercial space program. 

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation, known as AST, 

has successfully licensed over 200 launches since 1984 without loss 

of life, serious injury or property damage to the general public, 

which is a notable record in this inherently risky business. AST’s 

mission is to ensure the protection of the public, property, and the 

national security and foreign policy interests of the United States 

during commercial launch or reentry activities. 

Currently, AST has 14 active launch licenses and eight spaceport 

licenses, and is working with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences for the 

upcoming NASA COTS and Commercial Resupply Services missions. Additionally, AST is coordinating with NASA for licensing 

the Suborbital Flight Opportunities Program as well as working toward the day when commercial crew demonstration flights will 

begin. 

The AST budget proposal for fiscal year 2013 includes a two percent increase, which is intended to allow AST to double the number 

of staff in field offices in anticipation of potentially up to 40 launch 

and reentry operations in 2013. This significant increase reflects 

several launches for ISS cargo resupply, and long-anticipated 

flights in the suborbital tourism market. 

The recently passed FAA reauthorization bill includes an extension of the regulatory moratorium on commercial human 

spaceflight systems to October 2015. It is my hope that FAA will 

use this time to engage with industry stakeholders on its regulatory approach and licensing standards to prepare the path forward for a proposed rulemaking. It is also critical that a delineation of roles and responsibilities among FAA’s various offices be 

clearly articulated to ensure that industry won’t be hindered by duplication or ambiguous requirements. 

With these developments in mind, I do have some concerns with 

NASA’s use of Space Act Agreements inasmuch as they cannot impose safety requirements on program participants. And considering 

that FAA will not be able to promulgate human spaceflight regulations for several years, I realize that AST has a significant amount 

of work ahead as it endeavors to align its regulatory approach with 
10 

evolving industry approaches to safety, all the while having to comply with the moratorium. We will be closely monitoring the collaboration between FAA and NASA in this area to ensure these agencies avoid conflicting or duplication of responsibilities while balancing authority for commercial space operations on NASA missions. 

I am pleased to note that AST is working closely with range 

partners at the Wallops Flight Facility, the U.S. Air Force at the 

Eastern and Western Ranges, and NASA offices at Johnson Space 

Center and Kennedy. These relationships help accomplish our national objectives to further NASA priorities with commercial space 

industry support. 

AST also carries the dual mission to encourage, facilitate and 

promote the U.S. commercial space transportation industry. While 

I trust that safety is the highest priority for this agency, I would 

like to better understand how AST balances this dual mission. This 

is especially important when evaluating the responsibility that AST 

shares with the Aviation Safety branch of the FAA on newly developed hybrid vehicles that will share the National Airspace System 

with transport and general aviation aircraft. 

The AST budget also proposes funding for the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation. Described as a costsharing partnership of academia, industry and government entities 

focusing on research of primary interest to AST and U.S. commercial space industry, the Center of Excellence is a consortium of 

eight universities. While it has been funded for the past two years 

from the FAA’s R&D account, AST now plans to include this $1 

million operation to its base budget. I am happy to see this office 

engage with the best and brightest minds in our universities, and 

I look forward to learning more about research projects, outcomes 

and contributions the consortium is achieving to help advance the 

role of commercial space. 

As I close, I would like to commend Dr. Nield and his agency on 

AST’s impressive safety record. While I understand that AST’s core 

business operations focus on maintaining this record, there are numerous challenges ahead as the industry anticipates a period of 

high growth. Keeping in mind interagency coordination, budgets, 

the vagueness of the marketplace, and an eager emergent industry, 

the upcoming years are sure to offer exciting innovations as we 

work to maintain U.S. leadership in space. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Palazzo follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN STEVEN M. PALAZZO

Good morning and welcome to today’s hearing on the President’s 2013 budget request for the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation. I want to thank our 

witnesses, Dr. George Nield and Cpt. Wilbur Trafton, for joining us. I know that 

many people put in a lot of effort preparing for these hearings, and we appreciate 

you taking time from your busy schedules to appear before the Subcommittee. I also 

want to assure you that we greatly value your expertise and wisdom, and your testimony will benefit this Committee in the weeks and months ahead as we endeavor 

to better improve the policies that will guide our nation’s evolving commercial space 

program. 

The Office of Commercial Space Transportation, known as AST, has successfully 

licensed over 200 launches since 1984 without loss of life, serious injury or property 

damage to the general public, which is a notable record in this inherently risky 

business. AST’s mission is to ensure the protection of the public, property, and the 
11 

national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch or reentry activities. 

Currently AST has 14 active launch licenses and eight spaceport licenses, and is 

working with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences for the upcoming NASA COTS and Commercial Resupply Services missions. Additionally, AST is coordinating with NASA 

for licensing the Suborbital Flight Opportunities Program as well as working toward 

the day when commercial crew demonstration flights will begin. 

The AST budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2013 includes a 2% increase, which is 

intended to allow AST to double the number of staff in field offices in anticipation 

of potentially up to 40 launch and reentry operations in 2013. This significant increase reflects several launches for ISS cargo resupply, and long- anticipated flights 

in the suborbital tourism market. 

The recently passed FAA reauthorization bill includes an extension of the regulatory moratorium on commercial human spaceflight systems to October 2015. It is 

my hope that FAA will use this time to engage with industry stakeholders on its 

regulatory approach and licensing standards to prepare the path forward for a proposed rulemaking. It is also critical that a delineation of roles and responsibilities 

among FAA’s various offices be clearly articulated to ensure that industry won’t be 

hindered by duplicative or ambiguous requirements. 

With these developments in mind, I do have some concerns with NASA’s use of 

Space Act Agreements inasmuch as they cannot impose safety requirements on program participants. And considering that FAA will not be able to promulgate human 

spaceflight regulations for several years, I realize that AST has a significant amount 

of work ahead as it endeavors to align its regulatory approach with evolving industry approaches to safety, all the while having to comply with the moratorium. We 

will be closely monitoring the collaboration between FAA and NASA in this area to 

ensure these agencies avoid conflicting or duplicative responsibilities while balancing authority for commercial space operations on NASA missions. 

I am pleased to note that AST is working closely with range partners at the Wallops Flight Facility, the US Air Force at the Eastern and Western Ranges, and 

NASA offices at Johnson Space Center and Kennedy. These relationships help accomplish our national objectives to further NASA priorities with commercial space 

industry support. 

AST also carries the dual mission to ‘‘encourage, facilitate and promote’’ the U.S. 

commercial space transportation industry. While I trust that safety is the highest 

priority for this agency, I would like to better understand how AST balances this 

dual mission. This is especially important when evaluating the responsibility that 

AST shares with the Aviation Safety branch of the FAA on newly developed hybrid 

vehicles that will share the National Airspace System with transport and general 

aviation aircraft. 

The AST budget also proposes funding for the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation. Described as a cost sharing partnership of academia, industry and government entities focusing on research of primary interest to AST and 

US commercial space industry, the Center of Excellence is a consortium of eight universities. While it has been funded for the past two years from the FAA’s RE&D 

account, AST now plans to include this 1 million dollar operation to its base budget. 

I am happy to see this office engage with the best and brightest minds in our universities, and I look forward to learning more about research projects, outcomes and 

contributions the consortium is achieving to help advance the role of commercial 

space. 

As I close, I’d like to commend Dr. Nield on AST’s impressive safety record. While 

I understand that their core business operations focus on maintaining this record, 

there are numerous challenges ahead as the industry anticipates a period of high 

growth. Keeping in mind interagency coordination, budgets, the vagaries of the marketplace, and an eager emergent industry, the upcoming years are sure to offer exciting innovations as we work to maintain US leadership in space. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Jerry Costello, for his opening statement. 

Chairman PALAZZO. I now recognize our Ranking Member, Jerry 

Costello, for his opening statement. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I 

thank you for holding today’s hearing to review the fiscal year 2013 

budget request for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. 

The successful growth of commercial human spaceflight activities 

can open new opportunities for commercial space. However, real-
12 

izing and sustaining the promise of that industry will require close 

attention to safety. 

As Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Subcommittee on Aviation, I have a great appreciation, I think, for the expectations of the flying public. The public 

needs a clear understanding of the risks involved with commercial 

space transportation, and it will need to be convinced those risks 

are being effectively managed. 

AST will be at the center of establishing those expectations, as 

it will have a critical role in ensuring the safety of would-be space 

tourists, and potentially even of NASA astronauts or other 

spaceflight participants. 

Although commercial human spaceflight vehicles are in varying 

stages of design and development, important policy questions have 

yet to be resolved. To name a few: How will safety regulations be 

developed? Two, will the government extend liability protection to 

the new industry? Three, how will the safety of commercial operations on orbit be managed? And is AST’s role as both a regulator 

and promoter of the commercial spaceflight industry, is that an appropriate role for the agency? 

Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the first of many discussions that 

Congress and the FAA and key stakeholders will have to address 

these important policy issues. I look forward to hearing from the 

Associate Administrator on the challenges facing the AST and what 

actions, if any, are needed to help address those challenges. 

In addition, I am interested in hearing the perspectives on AST’s 

roles and responsibilities, especially in light of his past experience 

in leading NASA’s human spaceflight activities. I am very interested in hearing Captain Trafton’s perspective on these issues. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding the time to me and I look 

forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses, and certainly I 

have some questions for them after their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ACTING RANKING MEMBER JERRY F. COSTELLO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing to review the Fiscal Year 

2013 (FY13) budget request for the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Office 

of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). 

The successful growth of commercial human spaceflight activities can open new 

opportunities for commercial space, and I think we all hope for a vibrant future for 

the industry. 

However, realizing and sustaining the promise of that industry will require close 

attention to safety. 

As Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on 

Aviation, I have a good appreciation of the expectations of the flying public. 

The public needs a clear understanding of the risks involved with commercial 

space transportation, and it will need to be convinced those risks are being effectively managed. 

FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation—AST—will be at the center of 

establishing those expectations, as it will have a critical role in ensuring the safety 

of would-be space tourists, and potentially even of NASA astronauts or other 

spaceflight participants. 

Although commercial human spaceflight vehicles are in varying stages of design 

and development, important policy questions have yet to be resolved. To name a 

few: 

How will safety regulations be developed? 

• Will the Government extend liability and indemnification protection to the new 

industry? 
13 

• How will the safety of commercial operations on-orbit be managed? 

• Is AST’s role as both a regulator and promoter of the commercial spaceflight industry still appropriate? 

Mr. Chairman, I hope this is the first of many discussions that Congress, the 

FAA, and key stakeholders will have to address these important policy issues. 

I look forward to hearing from Associate Administrator Nield on the challenges 

facing the AST and what actions, if any, are needed to help address those challenges. 

In addition, I am interested in hearing Mr. Trafton’s perspectives on AST’s roles 

and responsibilities, especially in light of his past experience in leading NASA’s 

human spaceflight activities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Costello. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 

At this time I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses, and 

then we will proceed to hear from each of them in order. 

Our first witness is Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator 

for Commercial Space Transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration. Dr. Nield is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and has over 30 years of aerospace experience with the Air 

Force, NASA and in private industry. Dr. Nield came to FAA from 

the Orbital Sciences Corporation, where he served as Senior Scientist for the Advanced Programs Group. 

Next, we will hear from retired United States Navy Captain Wilbur Trafton, who is Chairman of the Commercial Space Advisory 

Committee. Captain Trafton is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He served 26 years in the Navy, flying combat missions in 

Southeast Asia and serving in command positions. He also has extensive experience in industry and served as Associate Administrator for Spaceflight at NASA. Captain, thank you for joining us 

this morning. 

Thanks again to everybody here, and as our witnesses should 

know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. After all 

witnesses have spoken, Members of the Committee will have five 

minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize as our first witness, Dr. George Nield, to present 

his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE C. NIELD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE 

TRANSPORTATION OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. NIELD. Chairman Palazzo, Ranking Member Costello and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me 

to meet with you today to update you on the ongoing activities in 

commercial space transportation by the Federal Aviation Administration and on some of the recent developments in the industry. 

With NASA’s retirement of the space shuttle, we are undergoing 

a historic change in the U.S. space program. The final mission of 

Atlantis in July of last year left many wondering about the future 

of space transportation in this country. While it is certainly true 

that the launch marked the end of an era, it also represented the 

beginning of what I am confident will be an exciting future for our 

Nation in space. Today, I would like to give you my perspective on 
14 

that future and to highlight some of the ways that the FAA and 

the commercial space transportation industry are dealing with the 

challenges that we will be facing in the years ahead. 

The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation has a twofold mission: to ensure public safety during commercial launch and 

reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate and promote commercial space transportation. To carry out our safety responsibilities, we develop and issue regulations, grant licenses, permits and 

safety approvals, and conduct safety inspections during each and 

every licensed or permitted launch. 

We are also responsible for licensing the operation of launch and 

reentry sites, or spaceports, as they are popularly known. Since 

1996, we have licensed the operation of eight different spaceports 

around the country. 

I am very proud of the men and women who work in our office 

and of our outstanding safety record. Since 1989, we have licensed 

205 launches without any loss of life, serious injuries or significant 

property damage to the general public. 

Currently, as you know, the United States must rely on other nations to deliver supplies to our astronauts onboard the International Space Station. Over the next several months, two different 

American companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation, are 

planning to demonstrate their ability to take on that responsibility. 

Those missions will be licensed by the FAA. And we are working 

with both companies and with NASA to ensure their success. 

While it may well be several years before we see U.S. rockets 

carrying people again all the way to orbit, there is plenty of work 

going on right now that is aimed at ending our reliance on foreign 

entities to transport crew members to and from the International 

Space Station. American companies are eager to show that they 

can do the job as part of the Commercial Crew Development program. The FAA is working directly with the interested companies 

and with NASA to ensure public safety during those launches 

whenever they take place. 

Suborbital space tourism represents another important segment 

of the industry. Several companies are currently in the process of 

designing, building and testing vehicles that will be capable of carrying people up to the edge of space with maximum altitudes in excess of 100 kilometers. Based on market studies, we expect to see 

this type of activity result in a billion-dollar industry within the 

next 10 years. 

To support these and other activities, the President’s fiscal year 

2013 budget request for our office is $16.7 million, which provides 

for the equivalent of 73 full-time employees. Our fiscal year 2013 

request represents an increase of $429,000 over our fiscal year 

2012 enacted budget. 

Based on industry launch manifests and planned flight test programs, we are forecasting a significant increase in launch and reentry operations in 2013. We are also performing initial safety 

analyses for some of the new launch systems that are planned to 

be operational next year. The FAA stands ready to support our future in commercial space transportation. With your help and leadership, that future will not only inspire the Nation, it will also cre-
15 

ate new jobs, produce new technologies and expand our reach into 

the universe. 

Again, I am honored by this opportunity to come before you 

today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Nield follows:] 
16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE NIELD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
17 

responsibilities, we develop and issue regulations; grant licenses, pennits, and safety approvals; 

and conduct safety inspections during every licensed or pennitted launch. 

We are also responsible for licensing the operation oflaunch and reentry sites or "spaceports," as 

they are popularly known. Since 1996 we have licensed the operation ofthe California Spaceport 

at Vandenberg Air Force Base; Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; the MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia; Mojave Air and Space Port in 

California; Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska; the Oklahoma Spaceport in 

Bums Flat, Oklahoma; Spaceport America near Las Cruces, New Mexico; and Cecil Field in 

Jacksonville, Florida. 

I am very proud of the men and women who work in AST and our outstanding safety record. 

Since 1989, we have licensed 205 commercial launches without any loss oflife, serious injuries, 

or significant property damage to the general public. We conduct safety inspections to ensure 

licensees and permittees are adhering to regulatory requirements. Inspections include at least 

one annual inspection at commercial launch site operations and at least one inspection oflaunch 

operations at time of flight. In addition to inspections, AST activities in support of Department 

of Transportation safety goals include granting licenses, experimental permits, and safety 

approvals, developing and issuing regulations, performing accident investigation and prevention 

activities, and supporting federal range operations and related aircraft traffic management. 

Safety inspection is an AST core function that involves the monitoring of all licensed and 

permitted commercial space transportation activities. These activities include those conducted by 

the licensee/pennittee, its contractors, and subcontractors. All AST safety inspectors are 

2 
18 

credentialed and carry their credentials during inspections. These inspectors use approved safety 

inspection plans, templates, and checklists to conduct and document inspections. A safety 

inspection encompasses more than flight activities alone. Inspectors also monitor and participate 

in mission dress rehearsals, safe and arm checks, flight tennination system installation and 

checkout, accident investigation, and other activities related to public safety. The program is 

built upon a firm foundation comprised of written documentation developed by AST. 

Inspections are coordinated with other relevant and appropriate Agencies. 

Licensing is an AST core function that fulfills statutory mandates and regulatory requirements 

that are designed to ensure public health and safety, safety of property, and compliance with U.S. 

foreign policy and national security requirements. Licensing includes policy and payload 

reviews to ensure that the proposed activity does not adversely affect U.S. foreign policy or 

national security interests. 

Looking forward, one of the most significant impacts of the Shuttle retirement is tIl-at cUlTently, 

the U.S. must rely On other nations to deliver supplies to our astronauts onboard the Intemational 

Space Station. Over the next several months, two different American companies, SpaceX and 

Orbital Sciences Corporation, are plamling to demonstrate their ability to take on that 

responsibility. Those missions will be licensed by the FAA, and we are working closely with 

both companies, and with NASA, to ensure their success. 

While it may well be several years before we see U.S. rockets cmyingpeopJe all the way to 

orbit, there is plenty of work going on right now that is aimed at ending our reliance on foreign 

3 
19 

interests to transport crewmembers to and from the International Space Station. American 

companies are eager to show that they can do the job as part of the Commercial Crew 

Development Program. The FAA is working directly with these companies, and with NASA, to 

ensure public safety during those launches, when they take place. Over the next few years, we 

expect to see several abort tests being conducted, followed by uncrewed demonstration launches 

of the vehicles being designed for the commercial crew mission. 

The FAA is also actively engaged in collaborative planning for suborbital operations. As part of 

the Flight Opportunities Program, NASA recently awarded contracts to seven different 

companies six of which are developing reusable launch vehicles that are capable of carrying 

various science or technology payloads on suborbital missions. Once the program gets 

underway, NASA hopes to be able to conduct those missions, under FAA licenses, as often as 

once per week, depending on payload demand for flights and flight opportunities program and 

funding level. 

Space tourism represents another important segment of the industry. Several companies are 

currently designing, developing, and testing vehicles that will be capable of carrying people up to 

the edge of space, with maximum altitudes in excess of 100 kilometers. Based on market 

studies, we expect to see this type of activity result in a billion dollar industry within the next 10 

years. 

States and local agencies are also continuing to approach our office with proposals for the 

development of commercial spaceports, with tenants ranging from NASA, to the military, to 

4 
20 

private industry. These groups recognize the potential for jobs and economic development that 

could result from growth in our nation's aerospace activities. 

The President's FY 2013 budget request for FAA AST is $16.7 million and provides for 73 fulltime employees (FTEs). Our FY 2013 request represents an increase of $429,000 over the FY 

2012 enacted budget. The request includes $15.7 million for core business operations. It also 

includes $1 million for industry-based research and development and science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education through the Center of Excellence for 

Conunercial Space Transportation. The Center of Excellence was established to encourage the 

teaming of resources and capabilities from academia, industry, and government to focus on 

research areas of primary interest to the FAA and to the U.S. conunercial space transportation 

industry. 

AST is currently administering 14 active launch and reentry licenses for lannches of Pegasus, 

Taurus (now called Antares), Atlas V, Delta IV, Delta II and Falcon 9. There are currently eight 

active licenses. for lannch site operations and tvvo license an1endments submitted for significant 

launch site license modifications. Based on industry launch manifests and plmmed flight test 

programs, AST forecasts a significant increase in laUl1ch m1d reentry operations in 2013. Tllis 

forecasted increase reflects a higher flight rate by experienced lannch operators Ul1der multilaUl1ch operator's licenses from existing spacepOlis and laUl1ch sites, and new launch licenses and 

pe1111its for newly-developed launch systems and proposed conunercial spaceports. AST is 

already perfonning initial safety analyses for some of the new launch systems plal111ed to be 

operational in 2013. 

5 
21 

The greater activity levels in the commercial space transportation industry will result in 

significant increases in the corresponding munber oflicenses evaluated and issued, 

environmental assessments, safety analyses, and safety inspections for our office. To meet these 

increased workload demands, AST is planning to employ several additional flight safety and 

operations experts. This will allow us to double the number of our staff assigned to operational 

safety oversight functions in our field offices at Cape Canaveral in Florida; in Houston, Texas; 

Mojave and Vandenberg AFB, California; and Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. It will also 

allow us to increase the number of simultaneous safety analyses we can perform. 

We will also be collaborating within the FAA to ensure commercial space transportation 

requirements and operating characteristics are effectively captured within the evolving NextGen 

system requirements and that commercial spaceflight operations (both orbital and suborbital) are 

safely integrated with the National Airspace System (NAS). 

AST's FY 2013 request also provides for focused operations to address the emergence of 

commercial human spaceflight and related technological and infrastructure needs. Operational 

safety oversight of human spaceflight will require developing technical expertise in several new 

areas including environmental control, life support, and crew survivability. To date, AST's 

launch safety oversight experience and authority has been primarily focused on uncrewed 

launches of satellites into orbit using expendable launch vehicles. Regulatory standards 

governing human spaceflight will evolve as the industry matures so that regulations neither stifle. 

technology development nor exposed crew or spaceflight participants to avoidable risks. In 

accordance with the new FAA reauthorization language, the FAA will continue to work with 

6 
22 

industry to explore these areas, but will refrain from proposing regulations to protect persons on 

board during the learning period until October 1, 2015. 

The FAA stands ready to support our national interest in the future of commercial space 

transportation. Space exploration is a great American story. Our history in space has been 

dynamic, often innovative, sometimes tragic, but always courageous and ultimately triumphant. 

And with your help and leadership, that great American story will not only continue to unfold in 

our favor; but it will also create new jobs, produce new technologies, and expand our reach into 

the deep unknown of the universe. Again, I am honored by this opportunity to come before you 

today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

7 
23 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Dr. Nield. 

I now recognize Captain Trafton for five minutes to present his 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN WILBUR C. TRAFTON, USN (RET.), 

CHAIRMAN, COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

Captain TRAFTON. Thank you, Chairman Palazzo, Congressman 

Costello and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to participate in this hearing today regarding the FAA AST 

budget request for 2013. 

I am here in my role as Chairman of the Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory Committee, as you know. COMSTAC provides information, advice and recommendations to the Administrator of the FAA within the Department of Transportation on critical matters concerning the U.S. commercial space transportation 

industry. 

COMSTAC membership is made up of senior executives from the 

commercial space transportation industry, representatives from the 

satellite industry, both manufacturers and users, state and local 

government officials, representatives from firms providing insurance, financial and legal services for commercial space activities, 

and representatives from academia, space advocacy organizations 

and industry organizations. We meet twice a year in May and October in Washington, D.C., in a public forum. The primary goals of 

this Committee are to evaluate economic, technological and institutional developments relating to the U.S. commercial transportation 

industry, provide a forum for the discussion of problems involving 

the relationship between industry activities and government requirements, make recommendations to the Administrator on issues 

and approaches for federal policies and programs regarding the industry. 

The commercial space industry represents the spirit and roots of 

America, exploration and entrepreneurship. The commercial industry plays an important role in stimulating investment in infrastructure and creating opportunity, jobs and ultimately a U.S. capability, increasing value to the U.S. taxpayer. This role is increasingly important as commercial space passenger travel emerges as 

a new business. 

I am not going to read the rest of the statement. I thought the 

questions that were asked of me in the invitation letter, are right 

on the mark, and I have answered them as you can see to the best 

of my ability, and the Committee’s ability. 

A few wrap-up remarks. Commercial space is here to stay. There 

are those, particularly some astronauts, who don’t agree with that, 

and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I found it interesting on 

60 Minutes Sunday night that they only chose two astronauts who 

don’t like commercial space and didn’t choose a couple who feel the 

other way. Some areas requiring immediate action, and this is from 

COMSTAC, and I will be prepared to answer your questions and 

discuss these with you: cooperation with NASA, regulations, cargo 

missions, crew missions, who regulates, who operates, AST resources, does AST have the resources to handle the workload that 

is coming, and there is an increase in workload coming, indem-
24 

nification, it has to be extended at least for a year. On balance, 

that is the best thing for the industry, for the country, and we at 

COMSTAC would just like to get that behind us as soon as possible. 

On-orbit authority I understand where the Committee is coming 

from but everybody in the room needs to understand that once onorbit authority is given, AST isn’t going to be able to suddenly step 

up with regulations, policies. It is going to be several years before 

AST is up to speed in regulating the industry. 

Export controls need some work, and I am prepared to discuss 

that. 

I think that the entrepreneurs that are working the suborbital 

world are doing a great thing for our country, and I will say the 

United States, Russia, China and SpaceX, if you watched the other 

night, think about that. Three countries and one U.S. company 

have put a capsule up and then brought it back to Earth. 

That completes my remarks, sir, and I am ready to answer your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Captain Trafton follows:] 
25 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPT. WILBUR C. TRAFTON (USN RET.), CHAIRMAN, 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
26 

Responses to Questions 

1) How would you rote FAA/AST's effectiveness os 0 regulotor of the commerciollaunch industry, and 

do you believe they hove sufficient resources to carry out their role? 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is the 

U.S. government organization responsible for regulating the safe operations of the U.S. commercial 

space transportation industry and facilitating its international competitiveness. FAA/ AST has 

effectively regulated the commercial space industry for 28 years. FAA/ AST, through its charter, is 

designated to exercise this regulatory authority, having licensed or permitted over 200 launches 

since 1989 and, as of 2010 licensed eight spaceports in seven states. No bodily injury or property 

damage to third parties has occurred as a result of these licensed and permitted activities. Its 

licensing responsibilities include expendable and reusable orbital launch vehicles and suborbital 

launch vehicles. 

FAA/AST is also an effective advocate for the commercial space industry. Its unique charter allows 

them to facilitate and promote the advancement of the industry. For example, the office just held 

the 15th annual Commercial Space Transportation Conference, an annual event that brings together 

diverse stakeholders in the space community to discuss and collaborate on important issues facing 

the industry and government agencies. 

FAA/ AST synthesizes the best practices of NASA, the Air Force, the aviation industry, and the space 

industry and is the most capable and well-staffed organization to fulfill its regulatory and advocacy 

roles. FAA/ AST should remain funded and resourced accordingly. 

2) Looking forword the next five years, what do you consider to be the biggest challenges FAA/AST 

must canfront in order to adapt to a changing industry? How confident are you that ASTwi/l be able 

to meet them? 

The biggest challenge, and opportunity, facing FAA/AST is continuing to fulfill it's regulatory and 

promotion role as the industry evolves to include commercial passenger space travel. This requires 

an open and ongoing dialogue with industry players as well as with NASA (see question 3). 

To ensure an open dialogue on safety, especially passenger safety, there needs to be a transparent 

exchange of data between industry and government, such that industry can be as aware as possible 

of lessons learned that can help it be safer. COMSTAC has encouraged the FAA to develop a process 

for disclosing pertinent data from reported safety-critical anomalies, mishaps, incidents, and 

precursors, where relevant to current and future operations. Such a process needs to protect 

proprietary data and comply with relevant export control policies while still fostering the continuous 

safety improvement of the industry. This is an important step in the dialogue between industry and 

government prior to any rUle-making. FAA/ AST has accepted this recommendation. 

Testimony of Will Trafton March 20, 2012 Page 2 
27 

Another challenge is continuing to ensuring stability of the space launch industry via support of 

indemnification. The current space launch indemnification regime expires on December 31, 2012. 

As previously stated in reports by COMSTAC and The Aerospace Corporation, indemnification 

provides critical support for the U.s. launch industry. As an example, foreign launch operators have 

benefit of indemnification and this affords them a competitive advantage. COMSTAC has 

consistently recommended renewal and extension of this regime and again encourages the regime 

to continue. This issue needs to be addressed prior to the end of this year. 

Counterproductive export control regulations continue to damage the U,S:s ability to compete 

internationally and are resulting in thousands of jobs being sent overseas. Moreover, these 

obsolete regulations are actually making America less safe by eliminating critical domestic aerospace 

capabilities and preventing the government from focusing scarce resources on technologies that 

really do require enhanced protection. COMSTAC has consistently expressed its views that export 

control reform is needed. 

FAA/ AST is positioned to meet these challenges and will continue to have input from industry 

through COMSTAC. 

3) NASA Is implementing a pragram to stand up a new commercial crew launch industry ta serve 

agency needs, as well as foster development of a purely commercial market. In your view, how well 

are FAA/ASTand NASA working together to ensure a workable regulatory framework? 

FAA/AST and NASA have been actively collaborating for many years to ensure U.S. government 

coordination and communication on space launches and to incorporate best practices in the 

industry. NASA is not a regulatory agency, nor does it want to be a regulatory agency. FAAjAST's 

charter assigns this role to FAAjAST, and they have effectively and safely executed this mandate for 

28 years. 

Collaborative discussions between NASA and FAA! AST, specifically on commercial crew, have been 

taking place for over a year, and include activities such as rotational assignments between the two 

agencies and support of definitions for crew and participant safety and for safety certification 

requirements development. Both agencies are working to ensure compatibility between NASA 

requirements and FAA regulations. 

Commercial crew is new territory for the entire industry, and the most important point is for 

FAAjAST and NASA to continue the dialogue on creating a workable regulatory framework. This will 

take time and input from many stakeholders, induding industry. 

In July 2010, COMSTAC submitted two recommendations to FAAjAST on this subject, as a result of 

input and deliberations from the May 2010 COMSTAC public meeting: 

Testimony of Wi!! Trafton March 20, 2012 Page 3 
28 

1) Support for "Commercial Crew" 

The COMSTAC strongly supports the proposed Commerciol Crew Development Progrom as 

contained in the FY2011 President's Budget Request for the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administrotion (NASA) to accelerate the development of commercial human spaceflight 

capabilities for access to low Earth orbit and to tronsition to private industry the tronsport of 

crew and logistics to the International Space Station. Working with the private sector, NASA con 

enable the development of safe, reliable commercial human spaceflight capabilities that will 

meet U.s. government needs, allow NASA to focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and 

reap significant economic and other benefits to the nation's space industrial base. 

2) FAA Licensing of Commercial Human Spaceflight Activities 

A single, consistent regulatory and licensing regime for both government and non-government 

customers is critical to the long-term success of commercial human spaceflight providers and to 

enable the development of new customers and markets for private human spaceflight 

copabilities. The COMSTAC strongly supports FAA licensing of commercial human spaceflight 

activities, including those commercial activities conducted for the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA), as consistent with current proctice under the Commercial Orbital 

Transportation System (COTS) and Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) programs. Any customer, 

including NASA, can impose additional safety requirements and approval processes by contract. 

These recommendations remain valid. 

Testimony of Will Trahon March 20, 2012 Page 4 
29 

About COMSTAC 

COMSTAC provides information, advice, and recommendations to the Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT) on matters concerning 

the u.s. commercial space transportation industry. 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headq ua rters offices/ ast/advisory com m ittee/ 

The Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) was established in 1984. Since 

that time, COMSTAC has prOVided information, advice, and recommendations to the Department of 

Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration on the critical matters 

facing the u.S. commercial space transportation industry. This has allowed the FAA/AST to playa key 

role in the development of US aerospace programs. The economic, technical, and institutional expertise 

provided by COMSTAC members has been invaluable to the FAA/AST's work in developing effective 

regulations that ensure safety during commercial launch operations and policies that support 

international competitiveness for the industry. 

COMSTAC utilizes working groups, which provide information, reports, and recommendations to the full 

Committee for adoption. COMSTAC has four working groups: Operations, Systems, Business/Legal, and 

Export Control. The Committee also establishes ad hoc working groups and special task groups to 

address specific issues as needed. 

COMSTAC is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. 92-463; implemented through 41 

CFR Parts 101-6 and 102-3, Federal Advisory Committee Management; Final Rule; DOT Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 1110.30C, Committee Management; and the COMSTAC Charter, DOT/FAA Order 

1110.124F. 

The primary goals of COMSTAC are to: 

Evaluate economic, technological and institutional developments relating to the u.s. 

commercial space transportation industry. 

Provide a forum for the discussion of problems involving the relationship between industry 

activities and government requirements. 

Make recommendations to the Administrator on issues and approaches for Federal policies and 

programs regarding the industry. 

COMSTAC membership is made up of senior executives from the commercial space transportation 

industry; representatives from the satellite industry, both manufacturers and users; state and local 

government officials; representatives from firms providing insurance, financial and legal services for 

commercial space activities; and representatives from academia, space advocacy organizations, and 

industry associations. 

COMSTAC meets twice per year, in May and October, in Washington DC, in a public forum. 

Testimony of Will Trafton March 20, 2012 Page 5 
30 

Biography of CAPT Wilbur C. Trafton, USN (Ret) 

Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) 

Mr. Trafton is President of Will Trafton & Associates LLC, an aerospace consulting firm. Previously he 

served as Executive Vice President of Rocketplane Kistler after the merger of Rockeplane and Kistler 

Aerospace Corporation. At Kistler Aerospace Corporation he held the position of President and Chief 

Operating Officer. Prior to joining Kistler, Mr. Trafton was Vice President / General Manager of Boeing 

Expendable Launch Systems and President of Boeing Launch Services. He served as Chairman of the 

Board and President of Sea Launch Company, LLC. He was also President of International Launch 

Services. Mr. Trafton is a former Associate Administrator for Space Flight at NASA Headquarters in 

Washington DC, where he was responsible for planning, budgeting and execution of the Space Shuttle 

Program, and the Deep Space Network. He was also responsible for four NASA centers; Johnson Space 

Center in Houston, Texas, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, 

Alabama, and Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. In 1997 Mr. Trafton was selected for Presidential 

Rank of Meritorious Executive. He was also awarded two NASA Outstanding Leadership Medals. Prior 

to joining NASA Mr. Trafton was President of Micro Research Industries, a software development 

company. 

Mr. Trafton retired from the United States Navy as a Captain after 26 years of service. He is a decorated 

combat veteran, having flown 85 combat missions from the aircraft carrier Shangri-la in the Vietnam 

War. He also served as Commanding Officer of the fast combat support ship Seattle in Desert Storm. He 

was awarded the Bronze Star for his duty in Desert Storm. He held a number of high level positions in 

the areas of operations, acquisition of weapons systems, and international affairs, including Squadron 

Commanding Officer, and advisor to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has over 3000 flight hours 

and 700 carrier landings. 

A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, he received a Master's Degree in Operations Research and 

Systems Analysis from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is also a graduate 

of the Defense Systems Management College in Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. 

Testimony of Wi!! Trafton March 20, 2012 Page 6 
31 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, Captain Trafton. I thank the 

panel for their testimony, reminding Members that Committee 

rules limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair will at this point 

open the round of questions. The Chair recognizes himself five minutes. 

Dr. Nield, this is actually a three-part question. What will be 

AST’s approach to regulating orbital and suborbital crew launch 

systems? How will AST’s regulatory regime differ from requirements NASA imposes on launch systems that may be contracted to 

carry NASA astronauts? And finally, will AST’s approach distinguish between orbital and suborbital launch systems or will it be 

the same basic set of requirements? And I will go back to the first 

question, the first part. What will be AST’s approach to regulating 

orbital and suborbital crew launch systems? 

Dr. NIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our approach for overseeing the launches that we have coming up consists of looking at 

both the impact on public safety and the impact on crew members 

and spaceflight participants. In terms of the public safety, we have 

our regulatory framework in place today. We have a good safety 

record. We have a licensing and permitting scheme that we believe 

has done a good job of ensuring their continued safety. What is 

new, as you point out, is carrying people onboard these rockets, 

and we have some very top-level regulations which Congress asked 

us to develop following the Commercial Spaceflight Amendments 

Act of 2004. However, in conjunction with that legislation and the 

recent FAA authorization, we were asked to hold off on additional 

regulations that were designed to ensure the safety of crew members or spaceflight participants until, as you mentioned, October 1, 

2015. 

So our approach at this point is to continue to work with industry, with NASA and with other key stakeholders to understand 

what kinds of things would make sense for a regulatory environment so that when the learning period is over, when we have 

gained additional experience in these types of flights. Then we 

would be prepared to put in place a regulatory system that is rational, would maximize our safety and would not be a burden to 

the industry. 

In terms of what is different with NASA, NASA is free to impose 

whatever requirements it believes are appropriate for its NASA astronauts, and it can do that through the contracts that it has with 

industry. Our focus today is on public safety. We want to work with 

NASA, though, to make sure that none of our requirements are either conflicting or otherwise confusing the requirements that 

NASA wants to put in place. That will be very important to ensure 

that the government is consistent with its requirements. 

In terms of the differences between orbital and suborbital, our 

basic approach is the same but because those environments are so 

different, I think we have the opportunity to be a little bit more 

methodical with suborbital space flight. That is a lot more like aircraft flight test where you are expanding the envelope, you can 

take it flight by flight, step by step in terms of the speeds, the altitudes and the amount of time that the crew and spaceflight participants are exposed to the hazards of space is relatively short. For 

orbital flights, once you have left the pad, you are going and it is 
32 

probably going to be days or even weeks that you are exposed to 

that harsh environment. So I think it will be very important that 

we have a good sense of requirements as we come up on orbital 

spaceflight. The suborbital flight, I think the framework that Congress has put in place with informed consent and a step-by-step evolutionary process will be very adequate. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Dr. Nield, this question is also for you. On 

March 9, 2012, just 11 days ago, your office published in the Federal Register a request for proposals for the Space Transportation 

Infrastructure Matching Grants program. How would your office 

fund grant applications given there is no funding identified in fiscal 

year 2012? 

Dr. NIELD. I believe that the spaceport matching grants program 

is a very effective program. We have given $500,000 in each of two 

years in 2010 and 2011. The first year was specifically at the direction of the Congress. Last year and potentially this year, if we give 

out those grant funds, it would be basically taking out of our hide 

in terms of the amount that we already have available. But we 

think that the FAA has a very great model in terms of the Airport 

Improvement Grant program that is very successful in helping our 

national infrastructure to be modernized and fully equipped to 

meet our needs for aviation transportation. As we move forward 

with commercial space transportation, we think similar models— 

where you have matching grants, some federal funding and some 

from local or private entities—would enable us to maximize safety 

and help the national infrastructure to be prepared for the future. 

Unfortunately, in the current tough economic times, we have to 

prioritize all of our activities, and so looking forward, you will notice that we are not asking for funding in 2013 for the grants program. We think it would make sense to continue to look at that in 

the future to see if that is something that we are able to accommodate, but we would not be able to give out grants in 2013, according to our current plans. 

Chairman PALAZZO. But just to finish up, on the documentation 

that I am looking at, there is no money set aside for spaceport 

grants in 2012. So we are putting out a proposal for applications 

but there is no money available, or do you have money that has 

not been used from prior periods? 

Dr. NIELD. So to answer that, in the Federal Register notice, we 

warned people that we may not be able to have funds available. 

However, we are carefully managing our resources this year as we 

go through the year to see if we might be able to have some small 

amount available. 

Chairman PALAZZO. And were the funds available, in your view, 

would space transportation grants take priority over your other 

regulatory and safety responsibilities? 

Dr. NIELD. I would have to say safety is number one, but the 

grants can be very important in terms of helping the industry to 

be safe and mature going forward. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Okay. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. Costello? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Captain Trafton, in your opinion, is the AST budget request for 

fiscal year 2013 adequate to carry out their mission? 
33 

Captain TRAFTON. Mr. Costello, yes, sir, I think it is. As I mentioned, we see a tremendous workload coming for AST. When one 

looks at the suborbital and orbital flights on the horizon, and yes, 

I know, that the numbers aren’t there if you look back, but if you 

look forward, they certainly are there, and some companies are 

talking about flying 30 times a year, and when you put that package together and you look at all the pre-license issue work that 

needs to be done to lay the groundwork and the meetings and then 

finally issue the license and then follow the license, issuing a license isn’t the end of their activity. So I think it is extremely important that AST be funded to perform their regulatory role and I 

absolutely think that their budget request for 2013 is justified. 

Mr. COSTELLO. In your opinion, what should AST’s priorities be 

for fiscal year 2013? 

Captain TRAFTON. Well, Dr. Nield has already said it. The priority is safety always. The work with NASA, the collaboration with 

NASA is extremely important, and I have to say in the interest of 

full disclosure, I sit on the NASA Commercial Space Committee, 

and it has gotten very interesting. We never have a meeting on this 

committee or that committee that we don’t talk about the relationship between NASA and the FAA, and it is interesting that we are 

of one opinion on both sides. The FAA will be the regulatory agency 

for crew and cargo missions, suborbital and orbital. Yes, we need 

to work the hard details with NASA but that is a given from these 

two committees. 

Again, just looking forward, I can count 40 flights right on the 

horizon, five traditional ELVs, five cargo to ISS, 20 suborbital research and 10 Virgin Galactic, for example, tourism flights. So 

there’s 40 right on the horizon. So I think they need to be plussed 

up. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Dr. Nield, you made mention that in the FAA reauthorization, in 

the Act that was passed recently, the reauthorization, it postpones 

AST’s ability to regulate until October of 2015, but there is a statement, of course, that is attached to that that does not prohibit AST 

from moving forward. So I guess my question is, what is AST doing 

at the present time regarding the authority that the reauthorization bill gives you? 

Dr. NIELD. So we are still looking at that legislation and discussing it with our counsel to understand exactly what we can and 

cannot do. We very much appreciate the guidance from Congress 

that encourages us to work with industry because we believe that 

is very important to getting these regulations correct. 

In terms of what we are doing right now, frankly, we are going 

through line by line all of the extensive requirements that NASA 

has developed for its own human rating requirement set, and we 

are looking at which of those would be applicable to non-NASA 

missions and we are going through for each discipline and trying 

to understand what would that look like if we weren’t supporting 

NASA for the International Space Station. So that is a work in 

progress. 

The worst thing that could happen, I think, would be for us to 

just sit back and when an accident occurs if we would scramble 

around and try to put some regulations in place. That is not the 
34 

right solution. So it is very important that we work with all the 

stakeholders—industry, NASA and the other interested parties— 

now to start developing what that regulatory framework would look 

like, and when it is right, then we will be ready to go forward. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Finally, Captain Trafton, you make mention in your statement 

about recommendations for government and industry to share information and transparency, how important it is. I am pleased to 

hear you say that NASA and the FAA are working close together. 

On my other hat with the Subcommittee on Aviation of Transportation and Infrastructure, we had a problem when it came to trying 

to get agencies to work together concerning NextGen, and not always did we have the cooperation not only of the agencies working 

together but of the stakeholders working together. So I guess my 

question to you is, do you have a model in mind for a system to 

exchange data between the governmental agencies and industry? 

Captain TRAFTON. No, sir. The short answer is no, I don’t have 

a model in mind. We have discussed this subject at length within 

the COMSTAC. It is clear to us that there has to be an exchange 

of safety information. AST has a lot of safety background, experience, information that they can share as does NASA. So we know 

it is there. We know they need to share it. We have talked about 

in our recommendations to Dr. Nield but we don’t have a model 

yet. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, I hope sooner rather than later that there 

is a model that is developed, and as I said, I think as far as transparency and governmental agencies working together with private 

industry concerning NextGen, we had some bumps in the road 

early on but I think many of those have been worked out. So I hope 

we don’t repeat that regarding this program. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brooks from 

Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Nield, I am looking at Committee staff notes, and they say 

‘‘AST issued its first launch license in 1989 and since then has licensed 205 launches with no fatalities, serious injuries or significant damage to the uninvolved public.’’ Is that an accurate statement? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes, it is, Mr. Brooks. 

Mr. BROOKS. And then they also give me notes that state that 

‘‘During the previous year, only one launch license was issued.’’ Is 

that correct? 

Dr. NIELD. It depends on how you count the events and what fiscal years you are talking about. For example, this hearing is designed to look at the fiscal years, so if we look at the last fiscal 

year, 2011, then we had actually five launches of which three were 

licensed and two were permitted. So we have all those numbers 

available and can answer which particular question that you had 

in mind. 

Mr. BROOKS. And if I understand it correctly, your budget request assumes dramatic growth in the launch rate during the coming fiscal year, noting that up to 40 launches and reentries could 

occur. Is that a fair characterization by Committee staff? 
35 

Dr. NIELD. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. BROOKS. What is it that causes you to believe that we would 

have a jump of, say, five launches and two or three licenses up to 

as many as 40? 

Dr. NIELD. The factors that go into that assessment are that this 

is a new and growing industry. If you look at the last 25 years, almost all the launches were for the same basic purpose: to launch 

a satellite such as a telecommunications satellite into orbit. And 

the level of business for that part of the industry is continuing 

today and we expect it will continue going forward without much 

change. But there are several new segments that we see just on the 

horizon that we think will greatly increase the activity, and so 

those include the commercial cargo flights to the space station to 

support NASA. That is something we have never had before. NASA 

has contracts for $3–1/2 billion for those two companies to provide 

those 20 flights over the next few years, so we know that is going 

to start soon, probably this year. We have the commercial cargo 

flights, again in support of NASA. We also have the suborbital activities both for scientific research and for space tourism. And all 

of those segments are starting. We have got companies actually 

making designs, building hardware, assembling things and conducting tests. So exactly when those launches will start is hard to 

predict but it looks very, very clear that it is going to be in the next 

one to two years. So that is the basis for our projections. 

Mr. BROOKS. With respect to fiscal year 2012, how many 

launches have already occurred that required oversight by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation? 

Dr. NIELD. None so far. 

Mr. BROOKS. So that would be none over the past five months? 

Dr. NIELD. That is correct. 

Mr. BROOKS. And we have seven more months in this fiscal year. 

How many launches are currently on the calendar with set dates? 

Dr. NIELD. That is a great question. For industry, we don’t have 

publicly published launch dates the way we are used to seeing 

them for government operations, but as we talk to the various companies, I think it is quite possible we will get to 10 to 12 launches 

by the end of the year, and—— 

Mr. BROOKS. So you think we will have 10 to 12 launches over 

the next seven months? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BROOKS. Now, your budget, as I understand it, for fiscal year 

2011 was roughly $15 million. During that time frame, we have 

four or five launches, if I understand you correctly. And fiscal year 

2012 enacted is a little over $16 million, and if I understand it, you 

are now looking at eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, somewhere in that neighborhood, for the remainder of this fiscal year, although so far for 

the first five months we have had zero. And yet you are testifying 

that it is going to jump up to around 40, far more than historical 

averages, for fiscal year 2013, but you are having a requested only 

2.6 percent increase in your budget. How is that going to work 

where you have a 2.6 percent increase in your budget request but 

you are looking at four times as many launches as the historical 

average? 
36 

Dr. NIELD. It is going to be a significant challenge. The way we 

hope to accomplish that is by working efficiently, by using this time 

when we have had few launches to set up the organization, to do 

training, to develop policies, to be ready to go so that when the activity starts to build, we are prepared to do that. 

There are many different metrics that go into deciding how many 

resources we really need to accomplish the job. Launches is one of 

those but there are other things too—how many applications for licenses, how many for permits, how many field offices do we have, 

how many regulatory rulemaking activities are underway and so 

forth. So we have tried to develop a staffing model that will help 

us get a sense for that, and we are starting to use that to provide 

our request to the committee. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Dr. Nield, and if the chairman will excuse me, I have got a concurrent Armed Services Committee meeting. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Edwards from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

In a couple of iterations on this Subcommittee, I have had questions regarding liability and indemnification for commercial space 

launch, and so I want to focus on that for the time being. 

Dr. Nield, the government-industry shared liability and indemnification regime for commercial launch systems, whether that is 

unmanned satellite launches or ones that could carry passengers 

under the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, is set to expire on December 31st of this year. What, if any, changes to the 

regime are needed in light of the evolution of commercial space 

transportation? 

Dr. NIELD. That is an excellent question. With your permission, 

I would like to just talk a little bit about indemnification itself because—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just remember that I only have five minutes. 

Thank you, though. 

Dr. NIELD. Okay. This is a very important question. Perhaps we 

can discuss it in further questions. To get right to the issue that 

you are asking about, the recommendations that COMSTAC, for 

example, has made relating to indemnification are that we consider 

having it renewed for more than a few years, perhaps ten years or 

even making it permanent, and lifting the cap, which is currently 

$1–1/2 billion. So those are the specific changes that have been proposed that could improve the system but I think in general we definitely need to extend the regime, and there are a number of reasons for that which I would be happy to discuss further later. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just ask you that, and I apologize, I don’t 

mean to cut you off. We just get these time limits and it drives us 

crazy. I am curious as to where the liability should be because— 

let us just separate unmanned from missions that would carry 

crew. Isn’t it true that one part of that industry is fairly mature 

in terms of the technology? So why is it that on the commercial 

side, the taxpayers should basically enjoy pretty much all the risk 

and the companies engaged in the activity bear really not a lot of 

the risk? 
37 

Dr. NIELD. I would say that that would not be an accurate representation of the current situation. So if you go back to the terminology itself, the word ‘‘indemnification’’ really does not explain 

what the regime is that Congress has put in place. A more accurate 

assessment would be to call it a conditional payment of excess 

third-party claims. Now, briefly, what does that mean? It is conditional. Congress would have to appropriate funds after an accident 

before it would happen. It doesn’t happen automatically. It is third 

party, so we are not talking about a wealthy space tourist getting 

reimbursed or his heirs. We are talking about protecting the general public’s interest should they have damage or injury. And we 

are talking about excess payments. Our office does an assessment 

before each launch to develop a maximum probable loss, how much 

damage we think could happen during that launch. We set that as 

the amount of insurance that the company has to put in place and 

it is only if the accident exceeds that in terms of damage that this 

regime kicks in. 

So with that as the basis to understand it, do we need it? Yes, 

we think it is necessary for industry to be internationally competitive, and what is the cost to the taxpayer? Well, it has been in 

place since 1988. The cost has been zero. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But we are also entering a different environment 

for commercial launches too. It isn’t the environment that we have 

been in since 1988. I mean, that is the whole premise of the budget 

that we are putting in place looking forward, and Captain Trafton’s 

testimony and his belief is that there is a lot of fairly robust industry there, and so I guess although I understand the regime, my 

question just has much more to do with why is it that the industry 

itself fully doesn’t bear the responsibility to the public in the event 

of an accident? 

Dr. NIELD. I think it would be appropriate for Captain Trafton 

to respond, but my assessment is that this is a shared risk regime 

on purpose because of the high risk and the potential high damage 

that is involved. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Captain Trafton? 

Captain TRAFTON. Yes. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. First of all, as 

I stated earlier, COMSTAC would be perfectly happy if the Congress would extend indemnification for another year and then let 

us work the fine details, but we need it, and we need it to be competitive internationally. Everybody else has this. On balance, it is 

good for the United States, it is good for the U.S. industry, and it 

makes our industry competitive. And without it, our industry will 

suffer. Russia takes care of theirs. Europe takes care of theirs. 

China takes care of their launch providers. We need to do the 

same. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you, and also for the Subcommittee’s 

personal knowledge, we are going to be having a hearing on indemnification in late spring, the latter half of May, and we are hoping 

to have the GAO, who is conducting an extensive analysis of the 

market right now to be able to come be one of our witnesses. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 
38 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Just a little bit on 

limited liability, which is of course, I think, a very serious issue 

and should be discussed, but we should put this in perspective to 

new and developing industries as well as industries that we have. 

Certainly limited liability has been put in place for the nuclear industry, and we are about to step into a whole new era of nuclear 

power plants that are totally safe and will save our country. I 

mean, they will. But we would never have reached that stage if the 

early part of developing that industry if there wasn’t limited liability. Let me note, we have limited liability for aviation for our airlines, and the airlines in the development of the airline business. 

That too I think we can be proud that we have come so far so 

quickly in the field of aviation. 

And let us also note that if we don’t want the government to run 

everything, the government has limited liability, I mean, in everything it does, and, you know, correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t 

believe NASA can be sued, and it is part of the United States government. So if we don’t look at limited liability as something that 

is part of what we want to do to develop this new commercial industry, which will save the taxpayers enormous amounts of money, 

limited liability has to be part of that discussion. 

I was of course here and I am the author of the Commercial 

Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, and I would like to note 

that we created a moratorium that we have on new restrictions to 

the industry to give the industry eight years not only to develop 

and design, test and evaluate new systems but also to gain significant flight experience. In addition, we designed this learning period 

to give ample time for the FAA to understand these systems and 

create needed regulations based on real data, not on speculation. 

At that time, if we had gone right into it, we would have been creating regulations and setting down the ground rules for things we 

didn’t even know about yet because no one had ever done them. So 

what we need to do is to make sure that when we do get into this 

field, and I know there is an extension now of three more years, 

we haven’t progressed as much as we thought we were going to, 

but after 3 more years, let us make sure in these years we get the 

data we need to make sure that regulation that is justified and the 

structure that these private companies can operate under that we 

set up something that is workable, workable and safe, and if it is 

not safe, it is not workable. We know that. 

Just to get down to maybe things we might be doing, do you see 

NASA as a regulator of commercial launch systems, even in a situation when NASA is not the customer, doesn’t bear any relationship to the economic deal that is being made? 

Dr. NIELD. We are working very closely with NASA but in discussions with NASA leaders, NASA recognizes that they are not set 

up as a regulatory organization. That is the proper role for the 

FAA or similar agency. NASA has a lot of experience, a lot of expertise, and they are doing some great things, especially in exploration. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. NASA has the leading role to play in 

space exploration. NASA has a leading role to play in pushing us 

and pushing back the frontiers. I don’t see NASA as playing a leading role in regulating the economic activities of other entities in 
39 

space, and there is a significant difference between the regulatory 

mission of AST protecting the uninvolved public and the regulatory 

mission of most of the rest of FAA. So how does this influence your 

office and how it operates as compared to the rest of the FAA? 

Dr. NIELD. Like the rest of the FAA, we are focused on safety 

and we have a lot of experience and expertise that we can take advantage of in trying to apply to these new activities. What is different, though, about our industry is, it is a new industry. We don’t 

have 100 years’ worth of experience such that we have developed 

all the lessons learned, all the factors to look at, and we want as 

a Nation to encourage innovation, creativity, and to figure out how 

we can build safer, more reliable, more cost-effective vehicles in the 

future. So that is the balance that we want to try to achieve. Safety 

is number one, but let us allow some innovation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we have 

done what is right. Sometimes you look back and Congress has 

done exactly the wrong thing to achieve the goals that they have 

set out, but we are doing this in a very systematic way and within 

a few years we have seen this commercial space group expand and 

the amount of money coming in to space activities from the commercial side expand. So if we just keep on this very responsible approach, I think we will have a great new industry for this country 

and for the world that we will be proud of. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Adams from Florida. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back to, some of my colleagues were asking you 

questions, and I am trying to understand your rationale for what 

you believe is going to be, I believe you said 10 to 12 launches over 

the next seven months. Because in 2009 you issued five experimental licenses to suborbital companies. In 2010, you issued four, 

and you issued zero in 2011. Your written testimony to this Committee in May of 2011, you stated ‘‘In fiscal year 2012, we expect 

several dozen licensed or permitted launches. Although most of 

those missions will involve suborbital launches, it still would be 

quite a change.’’ Now, you said you are still expecting those several 

dozen, or now it is 10 to 12, so are you still expecting a dozen this 

year, launches this year? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. ADAMS. How many licenses are currently on track to issue 

this year, for this fiscal year 2012? 

Dr. NIELD. I don’t have the number of licenses at my fingertips. 

I think it is important to look at the launches and the licenses as 

separate events. We can certainly get you that information. 

Mrs. ADAMS. So you don’t know how many licenses are on track 

but you still believe seven to—10 to 12 over the next seven 

months? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes. 

Mrs. ADAMS. But you can’t quantify that with anything that you 

brought here today. Is that correct? Yes or no. I will move on to 

my other questions? 

Dr. NIELD. It is a subjective issue. I am happy to give you my 

best guess. 
40 

Mrs. ADAMS. I would like to see some actual figures, if you could. 

Dr. NIELD. We can get you that. 

Mrs. ADAMS. That would be great. You know, the mission statement of AST is partially to encourage, facilitate and promote U.S. 

commercial space transportation. However, your mandate is to ensure the protection of public safety and property as well. Necessarily, this includes regulating and investigating violations of 

regulations in the industry. I have concerns about AST being both 

a regulator and a promoter of the commercial space industry. Can 

you tell the Committee your strategy to mitigate the conflict between these two parts of your mission as the commercial market 

continues to mature? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes, I would be happy to. Safety is number one. That 

takes priority. We will never compromise safety. At the same time, 

in accordance with the guidance that Congress has given us, we 

are asked to encourage, facilitate and promote. So what does that 

mean? We do a number of different things. We try to collect and 

distribute information that we think is helpful to the industry, 

things like launch forecasts, economic impact assessments, various 

bits of information that we think could be a benefit to the companies that are actually working in the industry. We also put out documents or other reports that might be of interest to the industry. 

We hold pre-application consultations. We have workshops to help 

industry to understand our regulations and what we are expecting 

them to do when we license them. And then finally, we look at the 

environment in the interagency community working with NASA, 

working with the Congress, and to try to identify any particular obstacles to helping industry to be successful, and we think we can 

do all of those without compromising safety. So that is what we try 

to do. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Well, obviously, NASA has extensive experience in 

putting people and things up into space. It is what they have been 

doing for decades. So can you tell the Committee how AST plans 

to ensure that they are not stepping on NASA’s mission and what 

you are doing to ensure there are no overlaps between NASA safety 

guidelines under the Space Act Agreements during the CCDev and 

CCiCap programs and your safety requirements for licensure? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes. We work very closely with NASA. Some of the 

things we have done are to assign our employees. We have one in 

the Commercial Crew Program Office at the Kennedy Space Center. We have other people nearby at Patrick Air Force Base. We 

have two at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. We have regular telecons with our NASA counterparts, and as I mentioned, we 

are going through the NASA requirements right now to try to understand which things should directly apply and which things may 

not be applicable to the commercial activities. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Can you tell the Committee what AST is doing to 

work with the industry to ensure that everyone understands what 

you plan to do in the way of regulatory action? 

Dr. NIELD. One of the prime things that we do is to work with 

our advisory committee, COMSTAC. We meet twice a year. We try 

to share our progress and invite their questions, comments or concerns so that we can address them in a quick and responsive way. 
41 

Chairman PALAZZO. Thank you. At this time we are going to 

move into a second round of questions. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Captain Trafton, let me ask you about the dual role that the AST 

has in both regulating and promoting the industry. As you know, 

for many years the FAA had the responsibility of promoting commercial aviation as well as regulating commercial airlines, and because of conflicts along the way, the Congress as a result of those 

conflicts decided to change the role of the FAA, and instead of promoting commercial aviation, which we felt that the airlines could 

do very well on their own, that we did not need—the Federal Government did not need to be promoting commercial aviation. For the 

airlines, we said that you should be a regulatory agency and 

changed their responsibility. Do you have a concern about the dual 

responsibility of the AST? 

Captain TRAFTON. Mr. Costello, at this time I don’t. I don’t see 

a conflict today in those two roles, and it is a fledgling industry, 

you heard. The industry I think can use the help from AST today. 

In fact, they sponsor in cooperation with AIAA an annual conference which was just held here in February, very well attended, 

great exchange of information. Both kinds of events are good for 

the industry. Now, down the road when the industry is more mature, absolutely, we should probably take a hard look at whether 

or not AST should be promoting commercial space. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Dr. Nield, more and more we hear about 

manmade orbital debris and the threat it poses to satellites, the 

International Space Station and to crewed capsules. Going forward, 

what can be done to prevent the creation of additional orbital debris? And I guess I will ask what measures, if any, are spaceferrying nations considering to eliminate the creation of orbital debris and to what degree has your office looked at this issue? 

Dr. NIELD. We have certainly looked at it. However, as you know, 

we actually do not have on-orbit authority today. Our Congressional authority is restricted to launch and reentry. However, because the on-orbit phase is while you are doing the mission, it is 

important to understand what is going on. There have been a number of international discussions about proposed guidelines of what 

altitudes are appropriate for various satellites, if there are certain 

lifetimes that should be enforced, but we currently do not have requirements in place today for our commercial providers along those 

lines. 

Some of the things that you can do would be to carefully select 

the orbits that you are planning to fly to. Once the mission is complete, you could look at either reentering the satellite or boosting 

it up to a higher altitude so that you are not clogging up that orbital altitude with debris and used-up satellites. 

Chairman PALAZZO. What about upper stages that are discarded 

upon launch? 

Dr. NIELD. That is a source of a significant amount of on-orbit 

objects right now. 

Chairman PALAZZO. Ms. Edwards, do you have a question? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 
42 

Dr. Nield, in your prepared statement, you note with regard to 

commercial human spaceflight that ‘‘Based on market studies we 

expect to see this type of activity result in a billion-dollar industry 

within the next 10 years.’’ Can you tell me what the basis is of 

your estimate and what percentage of that estimate involves purely 

private, non-government customers? 

Dr. NIELD. Yes. All of it involves non-government private customers. The basis for the figure is actually a study that was done 

by the Futron Corporation in recent years, and rather than just 

going down the street and asking who would like to fly in space, 

they did a careful assessment of potential customers who had the 

disposable income or the savings that would be able to afford these 

rather expensive tickets these days and how many of them would 

be interested in flying if such a vehicle were made available, and 

so that would form the basis for a lot of these projections, and I 

would point out that Virgin Galactic, which is one of the companies 

that is involved in this right now, already has almost 500 people 

who have put down either partial deposits or paid for a full ticket, 

and that has raised $60 million before the flights have even begun. 

Ms. EDWARDS. If part of the estimate is people who would like 

to come—we heard claims that the industry has been expected to 

begin operations within a few years, in the next several years, but 

some companies haven’t even begun test flights yet, so I am curious as to how we can have confidence that the industry is going 

to grow to the level that you indicated, and on top of that, are we 

going to be—do we have to move to a point where we have a huge 

regulatory structure in place to handle an industry that we don’t 

know really is going to mature in the kind of way that a new regulatory agency and body and oversight responsibilities would entail? 

Dr. NIELD. That will be a very big challenge, and we certainly 

want to work with the Congress as we make progress year by year 

in the industry to see do we have the right amount of resources, 

do we have the right level of regulatory oversight. Frankly, it is 

very hard to predict how many of these companies are going to be 

successful. We are dealing with a dozen companies right now that 

are planning to develop vehicles to be part of this industry but we 

know that all of them will not be successful. Some are going to run 

out of money. Some are going to find technical challenges. But 

there are enough good people and enough private funds and government programs that are investing in these areas that we are 

pretty confident that we are seeing the beginning of a significant 

upswing. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman PALAZZO. You are welcome. 

I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may 

have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to 

respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and statements from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(43) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
44 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. George Nield, Associate Administrator for 

Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 
45 

QUESTION 2: With regard to the regulatory moratorium extension included in the recentlyenacted FAA legislation, since your appearance before our Subcommittee on March 7, has 

FAA come to any further decisions on steps the agency can make prior to the moratorium '.I' 

1015 expiration? 

We plan to take the years through 2015 to dialogue with the commercial space transportation 

industry to exchange views and explore together the best ways to help new commercial human 

spaceflight activities be safe and successful. We believe that any future regulatory regime 

should be appropriately limited and targeted so as to enhance business growth. By working with 

the industry as well as NASA, we believe that a reasonable regulatory framework can be 

established. 

Thc FAA's ability to share its thoughts about a regulatory framework is limited. We cannot 

propose rules until 2015, and opportunities for external discussions about potential rulemaking 

are limited. Absent relief from Congress regarding the moratorium, the FAA has only one 

avenue to work with industry on a more meaningful level, and that is through the issuance of 

guidance. 

The issuancc of guidance by the FAA is a means to share best practices for achieving sate human 

spaceflight and exchange views with industry. Guidelines are not draft regulations; nor are they a 

substitute for a regulatory framework. Discussions with industry of proposed regulations would 

require a statntory change. 

QUESTION 3: Orbital debris has become a major source of risk to .~atellites, the 

International Space Station, and future human crewed and robotic space vehicles. From a 

regulatory perspective, what actions can FAA take to mitigate the creation of debris, as well as 

alleviate the existing threat? 

Orbital debris has reached a tipping point in how the world views orbital safety. As a regulatory 

agency overseeing space activities, the FAA has been a major contributor in the efforts to 

mitigate orbital debris creation. Our current debris mitigation regulation focuses on preventing 

the creation of ncw debris. Tbrough licensing support and analysis, the FAA oversees actions 

that launch operators must take to minimize the chance of an explosive breakup on-orbit. The 

currcnt regulations have been cffective at reducing thc debris created by launch vehicle accidents 

but have not addressed the issue of debris already on-orbit. Adding massive upper stages into 

the congested orbit.~ is a necessary part of space launch, but !,'feater regulatory actions can and 

are being taken to improve orbital safety. 

The level of global debris generation was fairly stable prior to a 2007 Chinese Anti-Satellite 

mission test. As a result of the destruction of the Chinese satellite and a collision between 

Iridium and Cosmos satellites the low Earth orbit debris population doublcd. The FAA believes 

stronger positive regulation is needed to provide for safer on-orbit operations. The state of 

technology for US commercial space launch is sufficient to require more positive debris 

mitigation practices that arc more closcly aligned with the US National Debris Mitigation 

Guidelines. The FAA is currently working to update its debris mitigation regulation to provide 

Page 2 of9 
46 

for better on-orbit safety without creating undue financial burdens on commercial launchers. 

These updated regulation eftorts include greater collision avoidance provisions, stricter 

requirements for the disposition of spent upper stages, and limits on the amount of debris created 

in launch operations. The FAA is conducting cost/benefit analyses for these regulatory changes. 

It is encouraging to note that most US launch providers have advanced their systems sufficiently 

to comply with stronger debris mitigation rules. These updated regulations also better align 

commercial activities with civil and military US space as well as international debris mitigation 

acti vi ti es. 

Alleviating the existing threat of debris is a difficult task. The major risk factor for generating 

on-orbit debris is the collision of large objects. Launch vehicle upper stages and satellites are the 

most massive, and therefore, the largest source of orbital debris risk. Debris removal 

technologies are still undevcloped, so the best strategy is to plan for removal while a vehicle is 

still actively controlled. The FAA's rulemaking is considering requiring that upper stages be 

removed from the densest orbital areas. Removing the objects with the largest mass reduces the 

probability of the existing debris fracturing into significantly more debris. 

QUESTION 4: In the event of all anomaly or accident during a suborbital flight. what role 

would the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) play in any ensuing investigation? 

Does NTSB have the same relationship with AST as it does with the civil commercial 

passenger airline industry? 

AST has established a strong working relationship with the NTSB to familiarize the NTSB with 

the particulars of commercial space flight activities while developing plans for managing a 

mishap investigation as well as training and preparing the commercial space industry for a 

mishap. The AST Mishap Program Manager works directly with the NTSB on a frequent basis. 

Both the FAA and NTSB, in coordination with NASA, USAF, and commercial space flight 

companies have exercised mishap scenarios on a frequent basis at both the eastern and western 

launch ranges in order to detennine roles and responsibilities in the event of a launch or reentry 

mishap. The NTSB will respond to a commercial space launch or reentry accident in a similar 

fashion to that in the commercial airline industry if the FAA declares an accident has occurred in 

accordance with established FAA regulatory definitions in 14 CFR part 400. These definitions 

for launch or recntry accident differ from the aviation regulations. There may be cases where the 

NTSB would choose not to lead a mishap investigation but would still have the authority to do 

so. The FAA is prepared to support an NTSB-led investigation or lead an investigation should 

the NTSB choose not to investigate. 

Page 3 of9 
47 

Questions from Ranking Member Jerry F. Costello 

QUESTION 1: To what extent does AST require additional expertise to prepare for licensing 

and potential regulations associated with commercial human spaceflight operations and what 

is AST's plan for acquiring that expertise? What is your timetable for securing this expertise? 

AST has experience in many areas of aerospace engineering, especially with regards to large 

expendable rockets. Many AST personnel also have an aviation background as pilots or flight 

instructors, which is helpful in assessing hybrid launch vehicle operations that involve 

aircraft/rocket combinations such as SpaceShip Two. Given the complexity and anticipated 

growth of human spaceflight (both suborbital and orbital), AST has concluded that additional 

expertise is required to provide public safety oversight and evaluation of human spaceflight 

operations, and eventually to develop regulations for occupant safety. Should additional 

resources be made available, AST's plan would be to recruit and/or contract hard-to-fill 

vacancies from the large pool of experienced enginecrs in Texas and Florida who are available as 

a result of the end of the Space Shuttle Program. Additionally, we plan to enhance in-house 

expertise through training, partnering and collaboration with NASA. Finally, wc plan to utilize 

the Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation to research specific human 

spaceflight topics to augment our staffs work. AST's timetable is dictated by available funding 

and by industry developments; because the first commercial human spaceflight activities are 

anticipated to begin in FY2013, the need is imminent. 

QUESTION 2: [n his prepared statement, Capt. Trafton stated: "there needs to be a 

tramparent exchange of data between industry and government, such that industry can be as 

aware as possible of lessons that can help it be safer. COMSTAC has encouraged the FAA to 

develop a process for disclosing pertinent data from reported safety-critical anomalies, 

mishaps, incidents, and precursors, where relevant to current and future operation.... This is 

an important step in the dialogue between industry and government prior to any rule-making. 

FAAIAST has accepted this recommendation." What is the status of FAAIAST's 

implementation of COMSTAC's recommendation? 

a. Do you have a model in mind for a ~ystem to exchange lessons learned data between 

government and industry? 

AST shares the industry'S view that ongoing sharing such infornlation is vital to the growth of a 

safe industry. AST has already established a Commercial Space Transportation Lessons Learned 

(CSTLL) page on our website. Industry is encouraged to enter lessons learned on the site, and 

the infonnation is then available to anyone who needs it. 

The result has been less than satisfactory for several reasons, the most significant of which are: 

1) the effort required by industry to enter data, and 2) the reluctance of most companies to share 

proprietary infonnation (particularly "negative" infonnation). The industry has expressed a 

desire for AST to collect the data, remove anything proprietary from it, and sharc it with 

industry. 

Page 4 of9 
48 

AST is consolidating all of its databases (historical government, commercial, and current 

commercial) fllr safety trend analysis purposes. With some additional resources, we could post 

the information in the eSTLL. However, we do not currently have any way to "sanitize" the 

information in a way that would satisfy proprietary concerns. We have studied the aviation 

industry's model, but have been unable to find a way to apply it to the eSTLL. The problcm is 

that the commercial space transportation industry is very small, and each company is aware of 

the technical approach of all the othcrs. Giving cnough tcchnical information on a problem to be 

worthwhile automatically identifies the source. 

This is not a problcm AST can solve unilaterally. We will continue to work with the eOMSTAe 

to attempt to identify a solution. 

QUESTION 3: The safety of occupants of commercial human spaceflight systems is treated 

at the present time through "informed consent", where those occupants acknowledge that 

risks are associated with their travel. 

a. With operational suborbital flights expected to begin carrying humans in the nearfuture, 

is informed consent still appropriate? Ifso,for how long? 

Informed consent is appropriate at least until the FAA can regulate the safety of commercial 

human spaceflight systems, and likely beyond. Human spaceflight will continue to be a 

hazardous activity for the f()reseeable future, even with a regulatory agency overseeing its 

safety. Over time the level of safety and reliability achieved through experience, 

technological advances and regulations may be similar to common fonns of public 

transportation such that informed consent is not necessary. That safety level is not likely in 

the foreseeable future. 

b. Does informed consent cover any medical risks to spaceflight participants and, if not, !tow 

are those risks communicated? 

Yes. Under 14 eFR § 460.45, an operator must inform each space flight participant in 

writing about the risks of the launch and reentry, including each known hazard and risk that 

could result in a serious injury, death, disability, or total or partial loss of physical and mental 

function. This would include medical risks. 

c. What do you consider to be reasonable alternatives to informed consent? 

Once industry reaches a level of safety and reliability commensurate with common forms of 

public transportation, informed consent may no longer be necessary. 

Page 5 of9 
49 

QUESTION 4: No single Federal agency has been granted the authority to regulate the 

safety of commercial.~paceflight operations that take place in space and on-orbit. 

a. What does the absence of a designated authority mean for the future of u.s. commercial 

human spaceflight? 

With the help of NASA's investment in commercial human spaceflight, U.S. industry plans to 

transport private individuals to Earth orbit in the near future. One U.S. company, Bigelow 

Aerospace, is planning to operate a private space station in Earth orbit sometime this decade. 

The launch and reentry of private individuals to Earth orbit would require a license from the 

FAA. Although launch and reentry are particularly hazardous aspects of human space flight, 

many hazards still exist for crew and space flight participants during the on-orbit phase of flight. 

This is particularly true during rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (or berthing) with 

another orbiting object. 

Having federal oversight of the safety of occupants of commercial human spacecraft may 

enhance the safety of those occupants and should create a financial risk environment that will 

allow industry to succeed. Including the on-orbit phase in this oversight is necessary to secure 

these benefits. 

Without a single agency responsible for human space flight, the various interests and 

responsibilities of many federal agencies and departments may result in conflicting requirements 

whieh could result in jurisdictional disagreements that have the potential to be a bottleneck for 

the industry. 

b. What are the implications of expanding or /lot expanding ASPs authorities to include 

regulating the safety of on-orbit operations? 

Besidcs the effect on human space flight discussed above, unmanned space flight is also affected 

by the lack of on-orbit authority. Commercial vehicles will transit to and berth with the ISS and 

then return to Earth in 2012. Other on-orbit transportation vehicles such as space tugs and 

orbital debris removal vehicles have also been proposed by the private sector. 

The orbital debris environment continues to worsen and there is much international activity 

directed at ensuring the long term sustainability of space. We believe that: 

1) All government and private operators of spacecraft should follow common sense debris 

mitigation measures; 

2) The government should oversee private spacecraft operators to ensure those common 

sense debris mitigation measures are followed; and 

3) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration are appropriate agencies to oversee private communications 

and remote sensing, respectively, but the FAA should oversee the transportation 

functions of private spacecraft. 

Page 6 of9 
50 

Currently, the only government oversight of cargo transportation vehicles outside the vicinity of 

the ISS is by the FCC, which oversees communications. Expanding the FAA's authority to 

include regulating the safety of on-orbit operations of private cargo transport vehicles would 

close the current gap between launch and reentry and would allow the FAA to evaluate the safety 

of on-orbit activities. If a hazard was identified, the FAA would work with a license applicant to 

determine appropriate mitigation measures to minimize debris generation due to nonnal 

operations, explosions, and collisions. The FAA is sensitive to the potential cost and 

competitiveness impacts of any debris mitigation requirements and would not regulate ahead of 

international norms. Additionally, a single Federal agency would then be responsible for 

coordinating and overseeing the safety of spacecraft through all phases of execution, enhancing 

the efficiency of the process. 

QUESTION 5: NASA was originally set to pursue traditional contracts for the design of 

integrated commercial crew transportation systems but recently switched to using Space Act 

Agreements. 

a. What will be the implications of NASA's decision to use Space Act Agreements versus 

contracts on AST's re~ponsibilities and activities for eventually regulating the commercial 

orbital human spaceflight systems? 

It is the FAA's understanding that NASA has determined that, under Space Act Agreements, 

NASA may not direct test activities performed by its commercial providers. Therefore, any 

rocket-powered test milestones performed under a Space Act Agreement must be licensed Of 

permitted by AST. AST considers this an opportunity to partner with NASA and to begin to 

address key issues related to commercial orbital human spaceflight systems. It is not expected 

that any of these milestone t1ights will have occupants in the near term. These efforts will 

provide a learning period for AST prior to issuing occupant safety regulations. 

b. Under those circumstances, how does AST propose to gather sufficient data and 

information 011 specific crew systems to be able to carry out your licensing responsibilities? 

AST's licensing of unmanned launch systems provides AST infonnation on vehicles. 

Additionally, because the crew is part of a flight safety system necessary for public safety, the 

FAA must obtain infonnation regarding crew systems in order to ensure the safety of the general 

public. This will provide an additional source of data. Finally, AST plans to add expertise 

through recmitment, training, collaboration with NASA, and the use of the Center of Excellence. 

Page 70f9 
51 

QUESTION 6: What would be the rationale for having the U.S. government extend thirdparty shared liability protection to the commercial human spaceflight industry, especially 

when the safety of commercial human spaceflight ~ystems will not be regulated until at least 

October, l015? Are there any examples of similar U.S. government protections provided for 

other adventure and entertainment industries? 

The rationale for having the U.S. government extend third-party shared liability protection to the 

commercial human spaceflight industry is thc same as for the broadcr commercial space 

transportation industry. Without this protection, U.S. launch operators would be exposed to 

unlimited third party liability in excess of insurance arising from licensed launch activities. U.S. 

launch operators are reluctant to expose themselves to such liability, and it is the FAA's 

understanding that the capacity is not always availablc. 

14 CFR Chapter 509's risk allocation regime is the best option for the U.S. government, the U.S. 

taxpayer, and the U.S. eommerciallaunch services industry now and for the foreseeable future. 

Private insurance markets are still not able to provide full liability coverage to the commercial 

launch industry. Risk-sharing schemes are also standard practice internationally 

The FAA notes that Chapter 509 charges it to protect the public, or, as characterized in the 

financial responsibility context, third parties. Accordingly, for purposes of public safety, the 

FAA may oversee the safety of commercial human space flight systems under current law. The 

FAA is limited in its ability to oversee the safety of those on board. They are not considered 

third parties See 14 CFR 440.1 (definition of "third party"). 

To the extent this question seeks to ascertain whether there is a justification for limiting liability 

between a launch operator and a space flight participant, there may be cause. Liability exposure 

and the related litigation impose serious costs on industries. Costs include not only direct costs, 

settlement costs, and an inability to recoup costs associated with non-meritorious claims, but the 

inefficient reallocation of resources from productivity to defense of claims. 

Liability protection for commercial entities flying space flight participants in the form ofliability 

limitations or caps may serve useful purposes. Liability limitation could foster the development 

of the commercial space transportation industry through lower costs for insurance and liability 

exposure, increased market entry, and the increased availability of private capital, all of which 

are benefits related to increased certainty. For the United States, liability limitation could foster 

space-related economic activity and cmployment and enhance the international competitiveness 

of its industries. Just as importantly, it would support the Federal government's need for 

affordable access to low earth orbit. 

Research shows that useful industries have suffered large-scale economic harm as a result of 

liability litigation. For example, the general aviation industry saw its annual sales drop from 

18,000 in 1978 to 928 in 1994, with 100,000 jobs lost as a result of litigation exposure. The 

number of vaccine manufacturers plunged from 25 in 1967 to 3 by the mid-1980s, again as a 

result ofliability losses. Congress responded to these unfortunate developmcnts with thc 

General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 and the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. 

One is a statute of repose, the other a no-fault compensation program. Other federal statutes 

limiting liability in one fonn or another include the Communications Decency Act, the Lawful 

Page 8 of9 
52 

Commerce in Arms Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Price Anderson Act for 

nuclear power, and the Amtrak Ref()rm and Accountability Act of 1997, 

The examples given above are not for adventure and entertainment industries, However, it is 

inaccurate to characterize the commercial spaceflight industry solely as an adventure or 

entertainment industry, Much of the commercial market for commercial human spaceflight 

includes flying pcoplc and payloads in space for research and development. 

Page 9 of9 
53 

Responses by Capt. Wilbur C. Trafton (USN Ret.), 

Chairman, Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 
54 

transportation and more focused on research and exploration beyond Earth orbit, NASA will 

work even more closeZv with the commercial space industry, and with FAAIAST, to achieve 

NASA's own mission goals. The recent l'v!emorandwl1 of Understanding, between NASA and 

FAAIAST, underlines hoth the agencies' shared spirit of cooperation and their progress in 

defining a concrete framework o/collaborative roles. 

3. What infonnation do you believe Congress needs in order to have confidence in FAAIAST's 

readiness to issue regulations on the safety of humans on sub-orbital and orbital commercial 

human spaceflight systems? 

FAAIASTwill be well-suited to provide all the information Congress needs to obtain, in order to 

haveji"! confidence in the agency's ability to effectively manage expansion of its human 

spaceflight reguiato/y role. In general, AST must demonstrate in-depth knowledge of industry 

viewpoints on key issues. Clearly, the agency's intensive, ongoing communication with industlY 

will ensure that ASTwill possess this knowledge. In addition, AST must demonstrate precise 

understanding of technical vehicle design and operational issues. Without a doubt, the agency 

will have such knowledge. AST's staff'are highZv skilled projessionals with unparalleled 

experience, gained through studying commercial space/light systems in great detail when 

considering companies' license and permit applications. 
55 

Æ