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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–870 PDF 2005

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION: BEYOND THE X PRIZE

(109–2)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 9, 2005

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

VACANCY

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration ........ 8

Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, a Member of Congress from the State of New

York, Chairman, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....... 4

Douglass, John, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association ............

80

Gomez, Lou, Program Manager, Southwest Regional Spaceport, New Mexico .. 18

Kelly, Michael, Chairman, Reusable Launch Vehicle Working Group,

COMSTAC ............................................................................................................ 18

Whitehorn, Will, President, Virgin Galactic .......................................................... 18

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, of Nevada ........................................................................... 32

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 41

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 63

Tauscher, Hon. Ellen, of California ........................................................................ 67

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Blakey, Hon. Marion C ............................................................................................ 34

Douglass, John ......................................................................................................... 43

Gomez, Lou ............................................................................................................... 50

Kelly, Michael .......................................................................................................... 57

Whitehorn, Will ........................................................................................................ 72

(1)

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION:

BEYOND THE X PRIZE

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:08 p.m. in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon. I would like to call this hearing of the

Aviation Subcommittee to order.

We welcome the members attending. Unfortunately, today there

are a number of conflicting hearings and meetings. We are getting

a little bit of a late start and I apologize.

Today’s hearing is going to focus on commercial space transportation beyond the X Prize. The order of business will be, we will

hear my opening statement, and then the new Ranking Member’s

opening statement, and then we will hear from Mr. Boehlert, he

has another commitment. Then if any other members do have

statements, we would be glad to recognize you, if that is acceptable.

So with that, let me welcome everyone again and offer these opening remarks.

Today’s hearing launches a new era in commercial transportation

oversight. Just four short months ago, Scaled Composites’

SpaceShipOne became the first privately operated aircraft to

launch more than 62 miles into space and return safely twice in

two weeks with a pilot on board. That particular activity launched

a whole new era in space and passenger participation in commercial space travel.

This flight also altered our vision of what the aviation system of

the future will look like. We now see the possibilities, including the

development of space tourism. U.S. spaceports, rapid global transportation, and point-to-point commercial space flight services are

all possibilities.

Yet it was not long ago when this was not at all what we had

envisioned. In fact, prior to the early 1980s, there was no commercial space launch industry. Rather, we had private payloads that

were carried aboard government-owned launch vehicles. Then several events prompted development of a United States commercial

space transportation industry. First, the advent of international

competition with the creation of a European commercial launch

services organization. Second, an unaddressed demand for launch

services with the banning of commercial payloads, such as sat-
2

ellites, from flying aboard the Space Shuttle after the Challenger

disaster.

In 1984, Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Act

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

with Federal requirements. Around this same time licensing activities were consolidated in the Office of Commercial Space Transportation within the Department of Transportation. This office was

transferred to the FAA in 1995.

By the year 2002, the U.S. commercial space launch industry and

the services and industries that it enabled accounted for more than

$95 billion in economic activity. But up until October 2004, all commercial launches were conducted without a crew or passengers on

board.

Then the X Prize competition was announced to encourage the development of human commercial space flight. The $10 million X

Prize was claimed by Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne with a successful completion of a manned commercial space launch mission in

October of 2004. With this flight, the commercial space launch industry entered into the next phase of its development: manned

commercial space transportation, which raises new issues with regard to operations, impact analysis, and also infrastructure development.

In order to encourage further development of commercial space

transportation, many pushed for an expansion of FAA’s licensing

authority to include licensing space flights with crews and also

with passengers on board. Therefore, the Commercial Space

Launch Amendments Act passed Congress under suspension of the

rules at the end of the last session. This Act gives the FAA the authority to license launches carrying crew and space flight participants, otherwise known as passengers. This recent development

also brought the commercial space transportation sector under the

jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Obviously, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

views oversight of the commercial space launch industry from a

very unique perspective. Certainly, supporting this emerging industry is in the best interests of the United States, especially in light

of growing international competition.

At the same time, ensuring that the FAA fulfills its oversight responsibilities with regard to safety is also a number one priority,

and I know Administrator Blakey, who is with us today, takes this

all very seriously as well. As the industry grows and develops,

other issues will also require this Committee’s attention, including

international competition, and we see that now, Europe, China,

Russia, Ukraine, India, and Japan, they all offer commercial

launch services in competition with United States companies.

We also have issues of environmental impact analysis and mitigation, we have questions relating to application of labor laws, we

also have questions of security of the launch facilities, and finally,

the current and future impact of commercial space flights and commercial spaceports on our air traffic control system and the safe

and efficient use of navigable air space.

I am pleased to welcome today the Honorable Sherwood Boehlert,

who is Chairman of the Committee on Science and an active mem-
3

ber of this Committee, to share his views with us today. We are

also pleased to have the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Honorable Marion Blakey with us and we look

forward to her testimony. For the first time since the passage of

the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act at the end of the

108th Congress, Administrator Blakey will provide a public review

of the FAA’s role in providing safety oversight of the commercial

space transportation industry. We also welcome our other expert

witnesses and appreciate the time they have taken to be with us.

I would like to yield first, as I said, to our new Ranking Member

and again extend a warm welcome to Jerry Costello, who is one of

the most senior members of the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee. Welcome, and you are recognized.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want you to know

that I look forward to working with you and the other members of

this Subcommittee and the full Committee.

We have a full plate and a lot of challenging issues in front of

us. A few of those issues, the financial condition of the airline industry, the financial condition of the Aviation Trust Fund, the modernization of the ATC system, just a few issues, and then, of

course, we will have to deal in the coming days and weeks with the

President’s budget proposal which significantly cuts the Airport Improvement program and also funding for the ATC modernization

program. But those issues will be dealt with in another day.

Today we are here to address the issue of commercial space

transportation beyond the X Prize. I thank you for calling the hearing on this important topic today. I am familiar with this emerging

industry as a member of the Science Committee, working with

Chairman Boehlert and our other members on that Committee. I

also am familiar with the industry because the X Prize Foundation

is based in St. Louis, Missouri, directly across the river from my

congressional district. So I am very familiar with the X Prize Foundation and the program.

Many predict, as you stated, that commercial space tourism will

lead to regularly scheduled manned commercial space flights that

could generate upwards of $700 million a year in revenue in years

to come. As with any industry in its infancy, we must be certain

that it is receiving the proper Federal safety oversight without discouraging innovation and development.

I look forward to hearing from the FAA Administrator. I had an

opportunity to sit down with her earlier today and speak with her

concerning not only this issue but a number of other issues. But

I will look forward to hearing from the Administrator today concerning the FAA’s role in overseeing the commercial space industry

to ensure the safety of the uninvolved public as well as the crew

and space flight participants.

As you noted in your opening statement, commercial space

launch activities will have an impact on our air traffic control system as well as the environment. We must make certain that the

FAA has the proper tools that it needs to ensure the safety of the

flights for both aircraft and launch vehicles as well as to protect

the environment and other activities.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, there are several commercial spaceports currently under development that will be used to
4

support space tourism. This is a good time to examine the issues

associated with licensing these facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for calling the hearing today.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and look forward to

working with you.

Mr. MICA. Again I thank our Ranking Member and welcome him.

As I said, he is a senior member of the Transportation Committee.

And as I mentioned the outline of our procedure today, I am

going to recognize Mr. Boehlert, also a senior member of the Transportation Committee, but also Chair, a very important Chair in the

House, of the Committee on Science. We welcome your remarks at

this time, and then, as I said, we will go back to members on our

panel.

Welcome, and you are recognized, Mr. Boehlert.

TESTIMONY OF HON. SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, A MEMBER OF

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BOEHLERT. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, members of

the Subcommittee. I will be brief because you have got an impressive list of witnesses and I know you are anxious to hear what they

have to say, I am anxious to learn what they have to say also. We

are following this very, very carefully. I just want to use my time

to make four simple points regarding commercial human space

flight.

First, the issue is important. As I mentioned during the floor debate on the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments last year,

I am a convert to the cause. When our colleague Dana Rohrabacher

first started pressing the issue with me, I thought the notion of

commercial human space flight was, quite frankly, a distraction.

But further research by the Committee, not to mention further

developments like Burt Rutan’s flight to win the X Prize, have convinced me otherwise. We do not know yet what commercial space

flight might lead to, but we need to give this new industry a chance

to develop.

That brings me to my second point, which is this, if this new industry is to develop, if innovative technologies are to be pursued,

we need to strike the right balance in regulating the industry. The

law the President signed last year reflects a year of negotiation

that strikes the right balance—protecting the public without stifling the industry.

This is an infant industry. It is not the equivalent of today’s airline industry. The law fully protects uninvolved third parties and

requires extraordinary disclosures to immediate participants, and

it sets the industry on a path toward greater regulation as it develops. That is the right balance and it passed muster with Members

who are not exactly in the anti-regulatory camp in both chambers

of Congress. The final wording was worked out between my staff

and Senator Hollings’ staff.

Now we need to ensure that the FAA is implementing the law

properly, which is my third point. Our Committee is watching the

process like a hawk, as I know your Committee is. The law needs

to be implemented by the commercial space side of FAA in the bal-
5

anced manner intended. Obviously, the commercial aircraft side of

FAA can inform the process, but implementation is not a commercial aircraft venture.

I look forward to working with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, on which I also serve, to make sure we get

this right, and that is my fourth point. Our Committees share jurisdiction over the human portion of the commercial space flight industry. We must not allow disputes between our Committees to

magnify any rivalries within FAA or elsewhere. We need to move

together to implement a balanced and predictable regulatory regime quickly and effectively. The T&I Committee was helpful in

clearing the law for passage last year and I hope we can move forward in that same spirit.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me just say that this is a much

more complicated issue than it appears at first blush. We learned

that the hard way in a year of discussions with a small but fractious industry. But thanks to the new law, we now have a clear

blueprint to move forward in a way that will protect the public

while helping a new industry get on its feet. And that is something

that we all applaud. I look forward to working with you and this

entire panel as the new law is implemented. And I thank you for

the courtesy of this time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Boehlert. What we will do, you can

certainly join us on the panel as your schedule permits.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as you indicated at the outset, I

now run over to chair a hearing of the Science Committee. We are

dealing with a subject of some import to all of us involving CAFE

standards.

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well we thank you again for your input, and

we look forward to working with you and the Science Committee.

At this time, are there additional members that seek recognition?

Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions.

We had a discussion last fall on the House floor and we will resume the discussion.

Mr. MICA. If anyone has any opening remarks, we will revert

now to them.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may, Chairman Oberstar and

I have had discussions for 40 years on Capitol Hill, starting as staff

members and now as colleagues. I have the highest regard and respect for him and I always value his input.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I am glad you two are getting acquainted.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MICA. Mr. Oberstar, you are recognized. Thanks, Mr. Boehlert.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The issue before us is not the value of commercial

space travel, which has been well-documented, Chairman Boehlert

referenced it, Mr. Chairman, you referenced it in your opening remarks, as did Mr. Costello. The issue simply is safety of commercial passenger space travel.

In the debate that we had on the House floor—the very abbreviated debate in the context of the suspension authority which limits debate to 20 minutes a side, no amendments to be offered—we

explored this subject and heard the litany of remarks that are re-
6

peated in the testimony by witnesses today. Chairman Boehlert

began by saying we need to give this industry a chance to develop.

We do not want to stifle this industry, said another Member during floor debate, we do not want to stifle this industry with overburdensome regulation in its infancy. There was reference to killing the baby in its cradle. The FAA did not stifle jet travel in its

infancy. The whole jet industry emerged very successfully under

the watchful eye of the FAA. Nor did all composite general aviation

aircraft die in the cradle. Rather, it was nurtured to successful

launch under the watchful eye and the intense attention to safety

of the FAA.

All we are asking for, all that I was asking for, that a substantial

number of Members concurred with, is the FAA to take a safety

role for the passengers. The FAA’s statement today is a reference

to safety on the ground. If a launch vehicle blows up or falls from

space, we want to be sure that people and structures on the ground

are protected. We ought to worry about the people on the plane.

That is what safety is all about. That is what the whole history is

of the FAA safety, the premier safety agency in the world.

This legislation now in law, the statutory language sets up commercial space travel for what we in this Subcommittee over twenty

years have occasionally pointed to the FAA’s failures as being a

tombstone mentality: wait until someone dies, then regulate. I

think FAA has moved beyond that. This law now says you do not

do anything about safety for eight years or until somebody dies,

then do something. That is not safety. That is not being anticipatory. That is being reactive, and that is what offends me.

I proposed language, which, frankly, I thought was way too lenient, that would require the FAA in issuing licenses to establish

minimum standards to protect the health and safety of crews and

passengers, do not worry about the people on the ground, and require the FAA, in setting standards, to take into consideration, in

the language of the amendment I would have offered had we been

included in any of those preliminary discussions, ‘‘the inherently

risky nature of human space.’’ That is all. A caveat that, God forbid, we would never put in language today.

In defense of the pending bill, which is now a law, those who

were advocating it said, oh, well, everybody who travels in space

is going to have to sign a waiver saying that they give up any claim

and understand the risks they are engaging in. How many people

do you think would sign on to fly a Metroliner if they had to sign

such a waiver, a 19 passenger aircraft people are afraid to travel

on now? How many people do you think would sign up to fly on

a 747 if they had to sign that waiver today, knowingly sign this

waiver, you alone are responsible for yourself and you have no

claim? Nobody. That is nonsense.

This is not an attempt on my part to stifle human travel in space

for commercial purposes, but to give the FAA, the world’s premier

safety agency, a role in setting standards for safety of passengers

and crew. All FAA has now is to worry about people on the ground

and let those who want to fly sign their life away. That is not being

responsible and that is not carrying out your responsibilities to the

traveling public.
7

We will go through this hearing, we will hear what people have

to say, but I come back to the point we need at least a framework

of safety around commercial space travel. By no means would that

language stifle. In fact, had we the majority I would be writing

something much more safety oriented, but for the moment we will

deal with this. At least put this little framework around safety in

commercial space travel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Do other members seek recognition on the majority side? The minority side? Ms. Berkley?

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I want to welcome Mr. Costello as the new Ranking Member

of our Subcommittee.

Las Vegas is not only the entertainment capital of the world, but

north Las Vegas is the home of Bigelow Aerospace. The company’s

goal is to bring human space travel into commercial business.

Bigelow Aerospace, working in conjunction with NASA, is on the

cutting edge of space technology. In November of 2005, not many

months from now, the company will launch its Genesis spacecraft,

a third scaled version of its inflatable space habitat technology, and

will launch again in 2006. These inflatable test spacecraft will be

designed to last for several years in orbit.

Robert Bigelow, the company’s founder, is passionate about commercial space technology and is committed to producing technology

that is safe, reliable, user friendly, and economical. Mr. Bigelow is

providing me with a statement regarding the commercial space

travel and the FAA’s oversight duties, which I will submit for insertion in the record and I will provide our first witness a copy of

that also.

Mr. Chairman, this is exciting technology and we must strike a

balance between FAA’s oversight and private innovation. The oversight and regulation of commercial space travel must be sufficient

to ensure safety but must not stifle ingenuity.

I look forward to testimony of our witness, who I look forward

to hearing every time she comes, and learning more about this

issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Are there other members who seek recognition? Mr. Carnahan, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are

recognized, sir.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since this is my first

Subcommittee hearing, let me say, first, how happy I am to be here

to work with you, Ranking Member Costello, whose district is right

next to mine back in the St. Louis area, and everyone on this Aviation Subcommittee.

The economy of my home region in St. Louis has a long history

to the aviation industry. It was Charles Lindbergh and the Spirit

of St. Louis that won the $25,000 prize in 1927 for his historic

flight from New York to Paris. Lambert-St. Louis Airport has over

$5 billion economic impact to our St. Louis region. In addition, both

American Airlines and Boeing are major regional employers. Needless to say, issues under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee are

especially important to my area of the country and the people who

live there. I am honored to be here.

The U.S. commercial space transportation industry is at an exciting stage of innovation and development. Given the recent activity,
8

this hearing on the future of the industry and the FAA’s role regarding safety, oversight is very timely. I look forward to hearing

the testimony, and have a great day.

Mr. MICA. Any other members seek recognition at this time? If

not, I welcome members to submit statements for the record. We

will leave the record open for a period of, Mr. Costello moves ten

days?

Mr. COSTELLO. Ten days.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

We will now turn to our second panel. We have the Honorable

Marion Blakey, who is the Administrator of the Federal Aviation

Administration, here to testify. Welcome back. We are pleased to

see you and are anxious to hear your opinion and ideas on this important subject. You are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARION C. BLAKEY,

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Ms. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say how delighted I am to be here today. It is my pleasure to appear before

you for what I understand is the first hearing of the 109th Congress for this Subcommittee. I also want to congratulate the new

members of the Subcommittee, and of course the new Ranking

Member, Congressman Costello.

Secretary Mineta and I truly value our partnership to make our

nation’s aviation and space transportation systems the safest and

most efficient in the world, and that partnership is no more critical

than with this Committee. Lastly, I particularly appreciate Congressman Boehlert’s leadership and enthusiasm for commercial

space.

Commercial space transportation, a phrase that is relatively new

to our lexicon, brings us here today. The space you and I grew up

knowing dealt largely with final countdowns, and Jules Bergman.

Space was a place where you saw flickering black and white photographs, images with leaps of mankind. Not any more. America’s

love affair with space is vicarious no more. There is a bold new

group of people, astropreneurs, and their aim is to bring space

flight into everyone’s grasp.

But in the larger context, commercial space transportation is

much greater than the thrill private citizens will experience. It is

an important step for transportation and for humanity. It is a recipe that is going to lead to greater exploration, innovation, and

safety. Our job at the Department of Transportation is to enable

the development of human space flight industry while protecting

public safety. Given the pace at which this fledgling industry is developing, that is going to be a real challenge.

In many ways, the environment we are in is similar to the barnstorming days of early aviation. Those early fliers took great risk

as part of the deal. People who flew with the pioneers also flew because they loved the thrill, and it opened up a whole new world.

Just as we learned in aviation, increased experimentation and testing can and will lead to significant advances in safety.

But that kind of progress takes both time and experience. It was

more than 20 years after the Wright brothers’ first flight before

Government regulations concerning aviation were put into place,
9

and I will tell you, they were relatively primitive and simple at

that point. Safer designs and operations were the eventual result,

and continents, once separated by months long voyages, would suddenly be only a few hours apart.

Space flight, I think, is following a similar path. Since the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act in 1984, there have been

168 licensed launches, and the uninvolved public has experienced

no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage. That

is an impressive safety record.

I would like to compliment the FAA’s Associate Administrator for

Commercial Space Transportation, Patti Grace Smith, who is sitting here behind me, and her team, and the entrepreneurs who

have worked so hard to get this endeavor off the ground. Believe

me, I think it has been a lonely enterprise part of that time, but

their work has definitely paid off. I also want to emphasize the

FAA’s commitment to this endeavor. We will continue to draw on

our long experience and our very formidable resources to advance

commercial space transportation.

The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 establishes a framework, a phased approach, if you will, for the emergence of this mode of transportation. It is a streamlined permitting

process, similar to aviation’s experimental airworthiness certificate

which, as you know, allows aircraft designers and manufacturers

to test new ideas as they come along. As this critical phase evolves

to a point where license determination is warranted, our safety review of the vehicle’s operations will be more in-depth and certainly

more comprehensive.

The Commercial Space law of 2004 also allows the FAA to oversee space tourism entrepreneurs without hampering our ability to

enforce public safety. For piloted vehicles, the FAA treats the crew

as part of the flight safety system. This means that the FAA protects the crew, not for its own sake, but for the protection of people

on the ground.

In short, those on board will receive more protection because of

the FAA’s concerns for the safety of the uninvolved public. The law

calls for this approach and calls this approach acceptable for what

they consider, we consider, ultra hazardous activity. Passengers on

early flights will be engaging at their own risk in an activity that

is comparable to extreme sports, such as mountain climbing.

As with any ultra hazardous pioneering activities, there is an unfortunate likelihood that lives may be lost. During this period,

though, the FAA and the industry will gain significant operating

experience and will be in a better position to determine what

standards should be required.

To date, America has made tremendous strides. The $10 million

Ansari X Prize was awarded to the crew of Scaled Composites’

SpaceShipOne. Pilots Brian Binnie and Mike Melville joined forces

with Burt Rutan and Paul Allen to make aerospace history with

the first private manned vehicle to reach space. The infrastructure

to make it happen is also well underway. We have licensed and

regulated launch sites in California, Florida, Virginia, and Alaska.

A fifth site in California’s Mojave Desert is the Nation’s first inland

location to receive a license. And you will be pleased to know that
10

we are in discussions with Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas

about their license applications as well.

So, as you can see, the short view is exciting and a risky picture.

However, it is the longer view that will not only drive this industry

forward, it will create transportation advances for all. What might

now be viewed as adventure or sport for the barnstormer and the

risk-taker is what leads to yet one more giant step for mankind.

The advent of greater access to space, more efficient travel,

greater opportunities for exploration, and the chance at expanding

the limits of human experience are there for the taking. What is

more, we are realizing that they are well within our grasp. And

that, history tells us, means it is going to happen much sooner

than we think.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I complete my remarks. I look forward

to any questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I have a couple of quick questions and

then will defer to other members.

First, Ms. Blakey, does the FAA have all of the tools and authority that you feel are needed to ensure the safety of the so-called uninvolved public?

Ms. BLAKEY. I think we have a good range of tools. Again, when

you look at the safety record to date, 168 launches with no blemish

on safety, I think it tells us that the license system has been working well, and it is a robust system. In addition to that of course,

the new Act also gives us additional tools. So at this point and this

stage, I would stress, in the industry’s development, I think we are

all right.

Mr. MICA. Good. The second question is really two parts. First,

I spoke a little bit about the impact of commercial space flights and

commercial spaceports on the air traffic control system. And within

our sort of range, that is something I would like to know what

problems you anticipate and how we handle that.

The second thing, once you get outside of our airspace, what

steps are we now taking as far as international agreements and

such, or where do we hang our future as far as participation in

outer space, which we do not control, with other countries? So, a

two-part question.

Ms. BLAKEY. I am not sure I can see far enough into the future

for the second part to be very definitive. But what I do see right

now is that the current system in terms of air traffic control is

working very well. Within the corporate culture of FAA, it is obviously very easy for us to pull together and ensure that there is

close coordination at the very earliest stage of any projected

launch. It is working well.

We essentially control that airspace, issue notams to pilots, put

in place TFRs, and to date, I will say it has occurred without any

hiccups. We have also a pretty good blueprint for this as we see

more and more of these kinds of launches. Reusable launch vehicles are coming into use, not only going up but coming back down

and entering the airspace as gliders often with characteristics of

airplanes. I think we will be able to use that blueprint that we

have worked very hard on to make sure that it really does not

cause disruption in the system.
11

In terms of international activities, what we see there, of course,

is that right now we have got some countries that have put all of

their resources--I don’t mean to say all--they have put significant

resources from the national standpoint behind launches. So the

concept of private and commercial is very different there than it is

here. It is essentially a national enterprise there. And they have

had some real success.

But I will say that we have a lot of pride given that we have also

seen in recent years the growth here again in some of the launches.

We have had success there. So, it is a mixed picture and certainly

issues of authority, jurisdiction, et cetera, are ones that we will be

working with a time goes on. The United States has never had any

difficulty so far in staking out outer space, and I would anticipate

we could continue that.

Mr. MICA. Before I get to my other question, it is interesting, and

Mr. Oberstar might be interested in this, I thank everybody for

their cooperation on this Capetown Treaty, where, we do not pass

treaties, but where we modified Federal law to create a registry so

we could participate in that registry. I never realized when we did

it that not only did it apply to airplanes and airplane engines, but

also to spacecraft.

So, for once we are sort of ahead of the game, at least in the commercial pecking order and financing and lien and title of this

equipment. Usually, if you can finance it in the private sector, you

can sell it. So we may be a little bit ahead of the game from that

standpoint. Just an aside.

The last question that I have is, would you anticipate that we

would have a minimum age for space flight, because you have to

give I guess informed consent under the legislation? How would

you handle the age question?

Ms. BLAKEY. I think the requirements of any kind of sensible informed consent regime would prevent people under the age probably of 18, which seems to be the consensus on that, from being

able to enter into this kind of risky venture. So I think we will be

covering that fairly clearly in those guidelines.

Mr. MICA. That is interesting. In 25 years they are going to come

back and dig up the testimony of Administrator Blakey on February 9, 2005, that said no one under 18 should fly in space. I wonder how that will be received?

Ms. BLAKEY. Hopefully, in 25 years the risk factors will be dramatically different and it will be commonplace, if that is the case.

On your point about the international arena, too, I was remiss

in not saying that in a way we are also ahead of the game in the

area of reusable launch vehicles. Because of the X Prize and now

the X Prize Cup coming to New Mexico, we are seeing a lot of

international innovators and entrepreneurs and companies wanting

to come to this country to set up for that industry. So I think we

are actually serving as a catalyst in a way that is going to be very

exciting.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Blakey,

let me ask you for the record to detail what the FAA licensing procedures are especially when it comes to regarding safety and the
12

environment. What does an applicant have to go through to apply

for and be granted a space launch operation?

Ms. BLAKEY. There are five essential elements that we analyze,

and there is a great deal of depth in each one of these, but I would

simply tick off the fact that, first, we have to be satisfied that there

are no policy issues involved with a particular launch. This has to

do with national security and broad issues. The second is the payload. That has to be something that is appropriate and again without significant hazard, and so the payload issues have to be satisfied.

The most intensive and robust of course is the third factor, and

that is, if you satisfy the first two, we examine whether it is going

to be a safe launch. There we have a good bit of depth because we

really look at it from the standpoint of system safety and do a tremendous amount of analysis therefore of all of the parameters of

that flight. It goes to whether or not, in terms of looking at risk,

looking at the hazards, and mitigation of those, has that been satisfactorily done. One has to look at the operating parameters. Often

we have to require changes from an operational standpoint so that,

for example, there is not a trajectory that might put the uninvolved

public at risk.

And then, of course, we also look at the broad issue of whether

this is an acceptable level of risk in terms of commonly understood

standards. We have a very high requirement there as well. So with

all of that in mind, there are two other factors in a launch license,

and those go to the issues of environmental concerns, and then financial responsibility. We ask is this launch viable?

Mr. COSTELLO. You mentioned on page two of your testimony,

and I will not go through the whole paragraph, but you say, ‘‘As

you may know, commercial space launches are inherently dangerous and risky operations,’’ and I think we all acknowledge that.

You also indicate further in your testimony that since 1989 the

FAA has classified 10 percent of its 168 licensed launches as failures. I wonder, if 10 percent of the 168 launches that were licensed

were classified as failures, what is the definition of a failure?

Ms. BLAKEY. The definition of a failure is a launch that had to

be aborted, that it had anomalies in it, or there were problems that

did not justify it proceeding. That would be a failure. It is very different of course from an accident where, again, you do have injury,

loss of property, or, in the worst case, loss of life.

Mr. COSTELLO. In response to the Chairman’s question about the

FAA’s authority, flexibility to either regulate or to address the

issue of safety, to Mr. Oberstar’s point, obviously the legislation addresses the people who are on the ground, not the crew or the passengers. I wonder, the same question, do you believe that the FAA

has the authority under the existing legislation and the flexibility,

when you say that safety is the number three and the primary concern in the five criteria, do you have the flexibility and the authority that you need now to make certain to the best that the Agency

can that the crew and the passenger is safe as well as the people

on the ground?

Ms. BLAKEY. I believe that the license process, which, as I say,

is highly detailed and involves not only the kind of scrutiny I just

detailed, but involves oversight and monitoring throughout the
13

launch itself, is a very robust one and allows us a great deal of latitude in ensuring a sound performance.

What I would be reluctant to see us do is to try to stipulate at

this stage in the industry, design standards or operating requirements. That really would have to be then one size fits all for operations that we do not even know what they are yet and the vehicles

are not yet invented and made. I think that is where we would find

it difficult to engage. But the concept of ensuring a sound performance from a safety standpoint under the launch regime through licensing and now permitting, I think will work.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Do other members seek recognition for

questions? Mrs. Kelly?

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two questions. I question the licensing process. Everybody here probably

knows this, but I would like to know how long that licensing process takes and I would like to know what the cost is.

Ms. BLAKEY. All right. Under the new legislation, we need to

have a license completed in 180 days. The permit process, which

again is new and is now envisioned, is 120 days. Now there is a

great deal of work that goes on before you formally enter into the

process and our staff engages very heavily in consultations and the

kind of discussion that gives a common view when the application

is formally made.

That said, the cost? I would be very hard pressed to conjecture

that. The next panel that is coming up I suspect could give you

some solid examples from their own direct experiences in the private sector. I cannot tell you. However, the law is also relatively

new and the cost differs I think significantly whether you are talking about the vast majority of launches so far which involve expendable launch vehicles versus the new reusable launch vehicles.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Additional questions? Ms. Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. I apologize for being late. I had three meetings

at the same time. Maybe this has been explored, and if it has been,

I apologize, but I am very concerned about safety in this commercial flight trips. I wonder in the licensing if you have standards for

the safety of the vehicle?

Ms. BLAKEY. We look very closely at the safety of the proposed

vehicle in terms of its operating parameters, in terms of some of

the critical safety systems, engines, for example. Propulsion is one

of the things that we certainly focus on in great detail. We try to

understand why the design is set up the way it is, what its performance envelope is, and then we try to make sure that it will,

in fact, deliver without a high degree of risk to the public on whatever the proposed flight path is.

So there is a lot of work that goes into that without our trying

to anticipate what a vehicle should be or should look like. That is

what we want to allow the industry itself to come forward with.

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. In terms of the pilots, do they need the same

criteria or knowledge base as a regular pilot, or will there be extra

training?
14

Ms. BLAKEY. At this point, I think again we are going to be looking at this case-by-case. Now I will tell you, it would be hard to

find folks more experienced than Mike Melville and Brian Binnie,

and they are our first two space pilots, if you will. But I think what

you are likely to see, and it’s certainly our expectation, would be

that the people who are at the controls will be highly experienced,

many with test pilot experience and other things that are analogous in terms of their aviation experience as they step up. We have

not set particular certificates that are required yet.

Ms. JOHNSON. One last question. Are these flights without liability?

Ms. BLAKEY. No, there is definite liability involved. What I think

is a sensible approach that we have taken so far, and it is continued under this legislation, divides that liability. There is essentially risk-sharing here, if you will. We require an operator that

comes forward for a launch license to take out the first $500 million of insurance. So they have to step up to the table. The government now indemnifies that launch for an additional $1.5 billion.

And should there be a catastrophic event that would go past that

cumulative total of $2 billion, then the responsibility reverts back

to the operator.

Ms. JOHNSON. I said that was the last, but one more. What do

you have to do to beef up your staff to accommodate the additional

expertise for this?

Ms. BLAKEY. The expertise on our staff?

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes.

Ms. BLAKEY. You know, we have a broad range of scientists and

engineers, people who come to this from the standpoint of missile

experience with early launches and the development of the missile

industry, as well as people whose experience is long and strong in

aviation. I think that kind of cross-section of experience is what we

will look to enhance and increase with people coming to it from an

air traffic control standpoint as this whole industry moves forward.

I hope we will be able to attract some people from the industry to

join us so that, again, the partnership is as strong as it can be.

Ms. JOHNSON. So the workload at this point is not heavy enough

to require additional bodies and minds?

Ms. BLAKEY. We are adding some staff now and we are hoping

to have the kind of workload that would call for adding to the staff

on an incremental basis. But I would return to one point, and that

is, we have a very strong corporate partnership in our support for

commercial space. We have everything from the medical research

capabilities of CAMI out in Oklahoma City, we have the tech center that can do interesting and important research that can support this, as well as all of the expertise that comes to it from the

aviation safety and air traffic control side, and our airport regulators.

So, with all of that, it is not just the Office of Commercial Space.

They are the lead, they are the ones who have the authority, but

they draw on this expertise in a corporate partnership. We have

got an integrated product team now that brings all those people together to support the office.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
15

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Other members with questions who seek

recognition? Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Administrator Blakey, thank you for your distinguished presence

among us. You always shed light and bring grasp and understanding of aviation issues to our Committee and to the public, the aviation community. I realize this is a little difficult position for you to

be in, addressing safety and passenger space travel. I read with

some great interest your statement at Page 6, ‘‘government requirements for building or designing an aircraft date from 1926.’’

Do you remember who it was that initiated those regulations?

Ms. BLAKEY. I can tell you what they were but I cannot tell you

who. Perhaps you could. I will bet you can.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. It was an Assistant Secretary of Commerce

who was slapped down by the industry and by the Secretary of

Commerce and his White House for having the audacity to suggest

that the government should regulate air travel, the safety of air

travel. You will stifle this industry, they said.

And in the 1920s aircraft had the bad habit of losing a wing in

flight, losing an engine in flight. So this Assistant Secretary of

Commerce pulled his horns in and bided his time and he became

Secretary of Commerce, and then he launched the regulations. Herbert Hoover—Hoover insisted on the regulation of safety in aviation less for protecting those who would travel than for advancing

the cause of commercial aviation. ‘‘If we do not make it safe,’’ he

said, ‘‘people will not use it.’’

So now we are at the dawn of another era 80 years later. As

President, Hoover insisted pressing the agenda on safety. He is not

given much credit for it, as something else happened along the way

to obscure his presidency. But I will always give him credit for that

vision of what was needed in the service of industry and, incidentally, service of safety for the traveling public. Now safety is

imbedded in our mind and heart and the fabric of the FAA.

As I said, it is the premier agency and other aviation agencies

take their lead from the FAA and other countries of the world look

to the FAA. Brazil would not approve an Embraer aircraft until the

FAA first had certified it. Airbus, for all of its competition with

Boeing, knows it cannot put an aircraft in the air—I remember a

meeting with Airbus in Toulouse when the president, Jean Pierson,

said, ‘‘It is extremely important for us that the FAA accepts our design, because when it does we can sell this airplane anywhere in

the world.’’ All right. Now, with that background, give me an example of a safety regulation that would stifle this industry.

Ms. BLAKEY. I think the concern about a regulation that would

be prescriptive is that we are not anticipating some of the kinds

of innovation, some of the kinds of operations that could be, should

be explored and could be, in fact, the real making of this industry.

We have only had—

Mr. OBERSTAR. What would you do, what would FAA do that you

would sign off on that would stifle this industry from the standpoint of safety?

Ms. BLAKEY. We would certainly try not to. But I think the concern is we do not know enough to set out a regulatory regime yet
16

for operations and for the design of vehicles that we do not know

what they are yet.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you think it is a good idea to wait until there

is a crash and a fatality to issue such regulations?

Ms. BLAKEY. We will not wait until there is a crash. One of the

things that I really do believe—

Mr. OBERSTAR. But you are prohibited from doing anything until

that by the law.

Ms. BLAKEY. The licensing regime and the permitting regime

gives us great latitude.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You know, I disagree with you. FAA has the skill,

the expertise, the understanding of aerodynamics and design to be

able to look at a vehicle and say, you know, consider the context

of the language that I offered, ‘‘inherently risky nature of space

travel’’ and say this is inherently risky, but this is really crazy, you

ought not to do this.

Ms. BLAKEY. I think the license regime, I think the permitting

process gives us great latitude to do that. One thing I will stress,

and I very much appreciate the confidence that your remarks signify in the FAA, the FAA has a long and important reputation for

ensuring safety that we will not compromise in any way. That will

continue. And the vehicles under which we can do it currently I

think allow for us to do that job and do it very well. It will be on

a tailored basis, it will be on the basis of each one of these as they

come to us because we cannot anticipate what they will look like.

But you can believe me, we will oversee safety.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You said in your testimony that you will regulate

safety to protect people on the ground. That would in my mind indicate that the FAA would look at a design and a structure and,

if it found a design feature that was flawed, likely to cause a crash,

and your engineers know what they are looking at when they look

at conventional aircraft and say, you cannot do that, that if it were

likely to cause a crash over a populated area, you would intervene.

Ms. BLAKEY. Absolutely. We would not grant a permit or license.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So why would you not intervene in a design flaw

that is likely to endanger lives of passengers aboard an aircraft

that is going to the edge of space?

Ms. BLAKEY. The two things are inexorably linked.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you are prohibited from doing that under

the law.

Ms. BLAKEY. I think what we are concerned about—

Mr. OBERSTAR. But given the authority, you could do that, could

you not, in a way that would not stifle the advancement of science?

Ms. BLAKEY. I think the protection of the uninvolved public goes

a long way toward protecting those who are in the craft itself.

What I will say though—

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you think a simple waiver of responsibility is

sufficient to protect people?

Ms. BLAKEY. I think it informs them. And I think as adults who

want to engage in risky exploration, and that is what this is. This

is not transportation and I think it is a mistake to make analogies

to transportation, people are not using it to get from here to there.

This is not routine, this is much more comparable to climbing

Mount Everest than it is to anything else.
17

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think you and the others miss the point. Experimentation with human lives, we do not allow that in the laboratories of the Food and Drug Administration or of the National Cancer Institute. Why should we allow it on space travel?

Ms. BLAKEY. We do not prohibit all sorts of risky sport activity,

all sorts of risky exploration. In fact, this country thrives on it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, I think you miss the point. Your agency is

the premier agency for safety. You ought to accept the responsibility and not be abdicating that responsibility.

Ms. BLAKEY. The FAA, believe me, will always step up on safety.

And I think as we look at this over time, we are going to see that

the authority we have is flexible enough to address most of the concerns we can anticipate. There will be some none of us will be able

to anticipate.

Mr. OBERSTAR. What you are saying to me, though, in roundabout fashion, is that we are not able to conjure up regulations you

would issue at this time that would stifle the advancement of this

technology to launch people in commercial passenger travel in

space.

Ms. BLAKEY. I think that what we think is that we have the authority we need currently as far as we can see. And let me also just

say this. This legislation is brand new, passed December, as you

point out. We are working with it ourselves. Over time, if we find

that it is hamstringing us, if it is causing problems that we can see

from a safety standpoint, believe me, we will be the first to stick

up our hand, no question about it. But at this point, from what we

can see, I think we believe we can make this work.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I have great lung power, but I will not hold

my breath that long.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. Are there any further questions for this witness?

[No response.]

Mr. MICA. I thank you, Ms. Blakey, for being with us and for

your testimony today. Sort of an exciting launch of our Subcommittee hearings and actually a new era. And given my gene pool, I do

not think I will be here in 2030, but I have asked Holly to check

out your testimony in 2030 in light of some 25 years.

Ms. BLAKEY. I hope we will both be around to check that out.

Mr. MICA. We thank you and we will excuse you at this time.

We now call our third panel, our last panel, and thank them for

being patient. We have four witnesses here.

First, we have Mr. John Douglass, president and CEO of Aerospace Industries Association; we also have Michael Kelly, who is

chairman of the Reusable Launch Vehicle Working Group,

COMSTAC; we have Mr. Lou Gomez, program manager of the

Southwest Regional Spaceport in New Mexico; and then finally,

Mr. Will Whitehorn, president of Virgin Galactic. I would like to

welcome all of our witnesses. If you have any lengthy statements

or information you would like to be made part of the record of this

hearing, just request so through the Chair.

We will recognize first and welcome back Mr. John Douglass

with the Aerospace Industries Association. Welcome, sir, and you

are recognized.
18

TESTIMONY OF JOHN DOUGLASS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL KELLY, CHAIRMAN, REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE WORKING GROUP,

COMSTAC; LOU GOMEZ, PROGRAM MANAGER, SOUTHWEST

REGIONAL SPACEPORT, NEW MEXICO; WILL WHITEHORN,

PRESIDENT, VIRGIN GALACTIC

Mr. DOUGLASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by

thanking you for having this hearing. This is an important subject

and I appreciate the fact that you and Mr. Costello are taking the

time to do this. With your permission, sir, I would like to enter my

written statement into the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, your entire statement will be made

part of the record.

Mr. DOUGLASS. What I am going to try to do is very quickly summarize some points that were in my statement. I have also made

a couple of notes from listening to the discussion that has gone on

before and I will just try and add a few comments that might be

helpful to the Committee relative to the discussions that went before me.

The first thing I think to point out that needs to be pointed out

is that while this commercial space part of the aerospace industry

is a very important and vital part, it is still a very small part of

our overall aerospace industry in the United States. In 2004, we

had total sales of about $160 billion, $38 billion of it were in space

related products, $20 of those $38 billion were done by the Department of Defense, $16 billion were done by NASA, and $2 billion

were done in the commercial sector. So, $2 billion out of $160 billion.

But it is a part of our future that we hold to be very important,

and it is also very tightly laced into what we do as a society on

a day to day basis. More and more of our communications, of our

banking information and so on is going through commercial space

products.

To the discussion that went on before, it is important to note

that of all of the launches that were mentioned in the previous testimony, only one of those launches involved humans. All the rest

were non-rated systems. And it is likely that for a considerable period into the future the preponderance of commercial space

launches are going to be unpopulated launches, and that is an important thing to remember as you look at the regulation of this

whole part of the industry.

It is also important to note the dependence of our economy and

our national security on commercial space. That is a growing dependence and it is a dependence that is vital both to our national

security and to our economic security. It is also important, Mr.

Chairman, to note that this part of our industry, just like the aircraft production base, tends to be a cyclic part of our production.

As you are I am sure aware, when commercial satellites were

first begun to be launched, they had fairly short lifespans, they had

to be launched again in fairly small increments of time. Today, we

can put commercial space systems into orbit that can last ten, fifteen years, fairly long periods of time. And what happens is the

market tends to get saturated, then there will be a few lean years,

then opportunities again open up.
19

It is also important to note in that context, in the beginning of

this part of the space industry, the United States was pretty much

the sole provider of commercial launch services to anybody in the

world that wanted to go into a commercial space endeavor. Because

of the entry of other nations into this arena, we are now at about

50 percent of the global market.

It is important for us to recognize that we do not want to see the

U.S. market share of this part of our industry decline further.

Today, in the commercial space arena we have, in addition to the

United States, we have the Russians, we have the Chinese, we

have the Indians, we have the Brazilians, and probably our biggest

competitor is, of course, the EU nations.

I want to also knit a couple of things together about the discussion that went on before. One of the things that our industry is

most concerned about for the future is the development of a new

air traffic control system for our atmospheric traffic of the future.

It is very likely that a significant portion of that system is going

to be a space-based system.

We certainly do not want to tie the Administrator’s hands in how

that is constructed. It could be a space-based system that was

shared with the Department of Defense, it could be one that is an

FAA operated network of its own, Chairman Blakey or whoever

comes after her may want to have their own constellation, but it

could be a commercial constellation which provided space-based imagery to our system, and we certainly would not want to rule that

out.

To the discussion about the safety issues that were mentioned

earlier, it is too bad that Mr. Oberstar had to leave because I

frankly would be interested in his response to our long-range vision

of how this should operate. The key issue that we see today, sir,

is that we want the system that eventually evolves for commercial

space travel to as closely as possible mimic the system that we

have for atmospheric air travel.

In other words, we would like to see a series of certificates established, a type certificate for the system that would be the launch

system, and an operator’s certificate for operating that system.

Now you could imagine, sir, if we had to get a separate license

every time an airplane took off in the United States, it would be

a gillion licenses, and we cannot do that. That is why we have a

type certificate and an operator’s certificate.

And eventually, we are going to get into a regime where the

number of commercial space launches will be so numerous that we

will not be able to do that mission on a mission-by-mission basis,

we will have to have these type certificates. The sooner we can

move to that regime, the better that industry would like it.

I think my time is up, sir. I would be glad to answer any questions along any of these subjects.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We will defer questions until we have

heard from the other panelists.

I will now recognize Michael Kelly, Chairman of Reusable

Launch Vehicles Working Group. Welcome, and you are recognized,

sir.

Mr. KELLY. Thank you very much. I will greatly abbreviate my

comments, which are twofold in their focus. The first is to tell you
20

the direction that we believe that the emerging private commercial

space transportation industry is taking, and this is hereafter referred to as the industry, and then on how the industry has

planned to address the issues left open by the Commercial Space

Launch Amendments Act of 2004.

Now for the first time since it began many, many years ago, this

industry actually is emerging. But we have a long way to go before

there is such a thing as an ongoing, revenue-producing industry

and even the smallest of stumbles could add years of delay.

The main thing that has happened over the past couple of years

in the way of establishing a market for this industry has been the

recognition that personal space flight, the conveyance of paying

passengers into space, is now the only reasonable market that will

sustain initial development of private space transportation systems. Burt Rutan demonstrating his reusable space ship, Richard

Branson stepping forward and establishing a credible operating

company, and the market being demonstrated by two paying passengers having flown into space on Russian launchers have all

brought this into focus as being a real market and the one that is

going to sustain the industry.

Now, the government has kept pace with this. The Commercial

Space Launch Amendments Act was the first piece of legislation

ever to address human passenger space flight. It continued to provide for the safety of the uninvolved public, but it does not preempt

the right of space flyers to take their own informed risks, and I

highly commend the Congress for recognizing individual rights.

That does not mean that safety of space flyers is not a serious

issue. This is the other half of the equation. And if it is not addressed in legislation, how is it to be ensured? This is the foremost

concern of the industry.

And in order to answer the question of how we ensure the safety

of flight, both out of a concern for human life and also for the

health of the industry which would be severely damaged by unsafe

operations, a group of industry leaders met earlier this year in January to discuss an industry solution for ensuring the safety of

space flyers. They developed a plan to establish a federally-recognized Industry Consensus Standards Organization. The primary

purpose of this would be to formulate industry Consensus Standards that would ensure the safety of space flyers. Any time industry Consensus Standards exist, they take the place of Federal regulations.

Such standards are prevalent in the United States. The best example, and I use this for a specific reason, is Underwriters Laboratories. Not only electrical devices, but almost every hazardous device sold in this country carries a UL stamp of approval. This is

an independent organization whose stamp of approval carries the

weight of over a century of experience and gives a device both market acceptance and a limit to liability for the manufacturer, that

people, while they do not have to get that stamp of approval,

should do nothing else. We believe the same stamp of approval will

provide the same level of safety and protection for both passengers

and manufacturers and operators of space ships.

Of course there is only one way to ensure perfect safety, and that

is not to engage in an activity. If the Government regulates the
21

safety aspects of space flyers themselves, we think this would be

tantamount to prohibiting personal space flight as an activity.

There is no experience base on which to formulate regulations that

are similar to the ones that FAA has used for years. The only people who are gaining the experience that can be applied quickly and

in the time required to support this industry are the people who

are in it themselves. That is why we advocate an Industry Standards group, and independent one, rather than a Federal regulatory

agency.

Congress has shown its commitment to guaranteeing the freedom

of this industry to grow as a commercial enterprise and maintaining that course is I think something we as an industry would like

to see happen. We are certainly stepping up to our part of the job

by taking responsibility for the freedom that we do have to trade

value for value with people, selling them a service to convey them

into space with the informed consent that they have that this is a

risky operation.

That concludes my oral arguments. I have a much longer written

statement that I am sure you have questions about.

Mr. MICA. We will be glad to put the entire statement in the

record if you would like to submit it. We thank you for your testimony.

We will hear now from Mr. Lou Gomez, program manager of

Southwest Regional Spaceport, New Mexico. Welcome, sir, and you

are recognized.

Mr. GOMEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Committee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to brief the

Committee on the status of the New Mexico Spaceport development

efforts. I will be briefing you on what we have done so far and what

our plans are, what our progress is. Before I get started, I want

to thank the FAA, particularly Administrator Marion Blakey and

Associate Administrator Patti Smith for their continuing support

for our program.

Some of our program highlights in the developing our spaceport.

From 1994 to 1996, we completed feasibility studies for an inland

spaceport. From 1966 to 1967, we conducted environmental studies

and submitted initial license application to the FAA. In 1998, we

submitted a Statement of Qualifications to Lockheed Martin to host

the VentureStar program. The Lockheed Martin folks told us that

our proposal was top rated. In 2003, we submitted a proposal to the

X Prize Foundation to host the X Prize Cup. And in 2004, New

Mexico was selected to host the X Prize Cup.

New Mexico has several advantages, including low population

density, uncongested airspace, altitude advantages, excellent

weather, and State support, both political and popular.

This chart here shows the population density of the United

States. As you take a look at that red circle there, you will see

where the spaceport is located. Of course, you can see that we have

very, very low population density and this feeds back into the safety problems that you were discussing earlier, because one of the

things you have to satisfy is the FAA requirement for flight safety

and being able to meet their expected casualty rates. So you can

see that helps us tremendously in that area.
22

The next chart shows the air traffic throughout the United

States. Again, if you take a look at that red circle, you will see that

the spaceport is located in an area where there is hardly any air

traffic. The reason for that is we are adjacent to the Army’s White

Sands Missile Range and they have controlled airspace and that

limits the air traffic through that area.

The next chart is a chart that we put together using VentureStar

vehicle performance data. We actually put this in our proposal to

Lockheed Martin. What we did is we took their vehicle performance data, put together this chart, and it basically shows that by

launching from New Mexico, we are at an altitude of 4300 feet and

our latitude is 38.2, you can pick up almost 3,000 pounds of payload to orbit by launching from New Mexico versus some of the

other sites in the United States.

We have excellent weather. Southern New Mexico’s benign climate is amenable to year-round outdoor work. Major weather disturbances such as hurricanes and tornadoes are rare, and we have

no salt air corrosion.

The Southwest Regional Spaceport is located in southern New

Mexico in Sierra County, between Las Cruces and Truth or Consequences. It is shown there on the map as the Southwest Regional

Spaceport. Also shown there to the right in green is the White

Sands Missile Range and that is what helps us in our controlled

air space.

Since winning the X Prize Cup, New Mexico has been working

to develop the program and required infrastructure. The drawing

I am about to show you is a conceptual layout that includes runways, launch/landing pads, propellant storage areas, vehicle assembly buildings, office and control buildings. If you look at that chart,

this is an actual view of the Southwest Regional Spaceport itself.

The buildings are conceptual, but the land itself is where the

spaceport will be located. As you can see, there is very, very low

population density, it is flat, so that helps our flight safety situation.

As far as issues and concerns, we believe that commercial space

is an emerging industry that has the potential for significant positive impact on the U.S. economy. We ask Congress and the regulatory agencies to take a careful approach to legislation and regulation of this industry to ensure that unintended negative effects do

not occur.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, this concludes my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions

you might have.

Mr. MICA. Again, I thank you.

We will now hear from Mr. Will Whitehorn, who is president of

Virgin Galactic. We appreciate your patience. Welcome, and you

are recognized, sir.

Mr. WHITEHORN. Thank you very much, Chairman. I will not repeat the statement which I have brought forward today. I will just

make a few comments to endorse those that my colleagues have

made already.

This is a fledgling industry. It is an industry which, in terms of

passenger carrying, is in its infancy, an infancy which began last

year with the first flights of SpaceShipOne. We, as a group of com-
23

panies involved in the airline industry worldwide, we have three

airlines operating around the world, one of which flies into many

cities in the U.S.A., we take safety extremely seriously at Virgin

Group and we would not be entering this industry unless we had

a safety culture to bring to it.

One of the reasons that Burt Rutan and Paul Allen have been

very keen to work with Virgin on the second phase of the

SpaceShipOne project, we call it SpaceShipTwo, one of the reasons

they have been keen to work with us is because of the culture we

bring of being involved in the civil aviation industry.

Virgin has been operating in that industry now for nearly 30

years and we actually have a unique record worldwide in that we

have never lost a single passenger in an accident, despite operating

around the world over 120 aircraft. We have also been for nearly

ten years now in the rail industry in the U.K., where we have introduced the most modern fleet of trains in the United Kingdom.

We carry 50 million passengers a year in that industry. We have

never lost a single person in an accident.

Now we intend to bring this culture to this industry right from

the word go. But we would not enable ourselves to raise the funds

to develop this business and order the spaceships necessary to create a space industry which would eventually lead to a wider commercialization of space and cheap economical and safe satellite

launching, and eventually space exploration, this could not be

achieved if it was stifled at birth as an industry by a regulatory

structure which was designed for a mature industry. So we endorse

the way that Congress has passed an Act which does allow an investment to take place in this industry.

That does not mean to say that as an operator working with a

manufacturer, Burt Rutan Scaled Composites, we will not make

safety the highest priority. We intend to build the spacecraft, which

I have just been in the Mojave Desert contracting to have built, the

first five spacecraft, we will build them beyond what we would regard as a certification of aircraft in the United States, that we will

take the choices as to how we do that and we will work with the

FAA to ensure that they consider the decisions that we have taken

in the circumstances of the knowledge that we have at this time

to be the best ones. Not every decision that is taken in these early

years will be the right one. But it will be taken in the best and

informed way by the parties. Mistakes may be made, but they will

be learned from.

But given that we have had 1,800 people who have now approached us wishing to fly in the early years, and given that they

read like a textbook of Hollywood, Congress itself, international

stardom, we are hardly likely to launch space flights which will kill

these people. It will not be our intention to operate in anything but

the safest way possible.

We have put our brand on the line by going into this industry.

But our $120 million initial investment in buying the technology

from Paul Allen, and $100 million on building the first five spaceships with Burt Rutan is an investment we are making in the

United States. We intend to operate in the United States and we

intend to build our second and third operations after Mojave in

maybe places like New Mexico, Florida, or other parts of the USA
24

where spaceports are developed. We are intending to do that and

invest in building a U.S. company because we believe the regulatory environment for doing it is the right one and the right decisions have been taken to encourage this fledgling industry.

I personally see it much more in terms of Wilbur and Orville

Wright. If we see Burt Rutan as being like the Wright Brothers in

this industry and what we have had before is what existed before

aircraft were developed in the early 1900s, before we had an industry which was based upon transporting people across the Atlantic

in large ships, large ships which were heavily regulated in their

construction by the late 19th century, in fact, so regulated that

they built the world’s safest ever ship called the Titanic and look

what happened there. That was the most regulated industry of its

time in the world.

Along came the changes that took place in 1903 when two brothers built an aircraft that managed to fly and the rapid development

of that industry which created an industry through both the First

World War and beyond it, which then got to maturity level by 1926

which deserved regulation. It was regulated in the United Kingdom

first. In fact, the FAA in the United States was modelled on the

CAA in the U.K., which is the world’s oldest regulatory structure

for aircraft design. That development was not right at the beginning. The FAA was not created by Herbert Hoover to kill an industry. It was there to create a standard for it.

Now we have learned from those lessons in the aviation industry

today and we believe that, working with the FAA, the new industry

that is forming can create those standards of the future. As they

develop, they can be introduced. And if this industry gets it wrong

and the FAA gets it wrong, Congress will be the first people down

the throats of this industry, and I will not have a brand worth its

name. So we do not intend for that to happen. Thank you very

much.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I thank all of our panelists for their testimony. A couple of questions now.

Mr. Douglass, what do you believe that the FAA’s role should be

in providing safety oversight of commercial space transportation industry?

Mr. DOUGLASS. I think eventually it needs to be pretty much the

same that it is for airplanes, sir. When you think about what is

happening today in I guess the term would be human-rated commercial space systems, we are probably inventing some new terminology here because this is such a new thing, many of the scientific

things that are taking place have already been pioneered by the

government in various ways.

For example, this remarkable achievement of SpaceShipOne, as

remarkable as it is, was achieved almost 40 years ago by NASA

and Alan Shepard’s first suborbital flight. So our government and

our industry knows a lot more about this kind of stuff than let us

say the government and the industry did during the first 10 or 20

years after the Wright Brothers flew their airplanes. Everybody

was learning it together in those days.

In this instance, you have a situation where the government has

invested in this and has made a number of wonderful achievements

in space, and now the commercial industry is following down that
25

path. So we do know a lot more. And I think there is a role there

for the FAA but it should be as close as possible to the way they

regulate air traffic.

Mr. MICA. The U.S. has lost quite a bit of business in the commercial space launch industry. As far as U.S. commercial space

transportation industry, how do you see that competition evolving?

Now Mr. Whitehorn is pretty optimistic. He felt that within our

regulatory environment, et cetera, that they could launch their

project within the United States. Do you think we will lose to the

international arena if we get too bogged down in regulating and

sort of protecting the industry against itself?

Mr. DOUGLASS. We certainly have to be mindful of what is going

on in other parts of the world and we need to have a regulatory

regime here in the United States that recognizes that this is going

to end up being a global phenomena. The Russians already, as you

know, are using their government systems to take people up to

space for a very large amount of money. So one could argue in a

sense the Russians are already ahead of us in this.

I think, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, people do not really know how big this market is going to be. I find what some of

my colleagues have said today interesting and courageous and it is

wonderful that people are willing to put a lot of money into investing this. But I just cannot sit here today and tell you that this is

absolutely going to happen. And I have a lot of confidence, frankly,

in this Committee and confidence in Administrator Blakey and Secretary Mineta to walk the balance that you need, to regulate when

you need to, but to give latitude when you need to. I think we have

struck a pretty good balance so far.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Gomez, have you given Ms. Blakey a request for

AIP funding for your project?

Mr. GOMEZ. Yes, we have.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I thought you would appreciate that one.

Mr. Kelly, you seem to think that there will be some inevitable

problems and possibly accidents or something to set this program

back. Somewhere I thought I heard you say that we might anticipate some of these possible eventualities, such as we have developed with our aviation experience and the development of our commercial passenger aviation system. And by the same token, I

thought I heard you also say that, basically, we should stay out of

the Government regulation of commercial space transportation industry. How do you reconcile those?

Mr. KELLY. Good question.

Mr. MICA. Maybe I took something out of context.

Mr. KELLY. No, no, no. Actually, it is a very good question because I want to distinguish among three different things. One is,

first of all, the regulation that is now in place for ensuring the safety of the uninvolved public. That is not only an appropriate function of Government, Government is the only entity that can do this.

It has consequences that go far beyond simply the reckless actions

of someone flying too close to a population area. There are international aspects, treaty, national security issues, et cetera. Only

the Government can or should regulate these things. And it is

doing a very good job. AST does this through its launch licensing

process.
26

The second area—I think Administration Blakey made an excellent remark—in the early days of personal space flight, this is not

transportation, this is an adventure activity. That is what the first

flights are going to be like. People are going to be taking risks not

in the way they would getting on a bus or on an airplane or a

train.

I am impressed with the safety record you have because rail

travel historically has been the most dangerous of anything. Quite

an achievement. They are going to be getting on something that

they know is dangerous, that is all there is to it. It is a risky business. And the farther and faster you go, the more risky it gets.

There will be fatalities. Nobody wants them. It is something that

the industry and the passengers are just going to have to deal

with. But they will.

The industry is going to pose itself to get experience as quickly

as it can and disseminate it among the developers and operators

as quickly as they can. It happens now in all other industries and

this one is no exception. And so for the phase of the exploratory

and adventure part of this industry, I do not think that you can

have anything else but a self-regulated industry.

Now when it goes into the mode of having what would be a common carrier regular transportation system, I think that is a gray

area. I think that FAA has done a very good job at ensuring passenger safety, there is no question about that. I am not sure that

it has done the best possible job only because Government, by its

very nature, takes longer to introduce safety innovations than industry does.

That is not a criticism at all. They do provide a high level of safety, there is no question about it, whether it is as high as it could

be is another question. However, the industry to some extent supersedes this anyway. Boeing, for example, has a certification regime that incorporates the FARs as a subset. Theirs is actually

much more stringent than the Federal Aviation Agency. That is not

true of everybody, but it certainly true of some companies.

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your testimonies. I thank all of our

witnesses.

Mr. Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Kelly, I was going

to ask you my first question and it was the last question that the

Chairman just asked, because I was kind of confused as to what

the Government’s role in your view should be as far as regulation

and safety.

And I was going to ask you, if you were saying in your testimony,

as I read it here, that the industry has higher standards, in many

cases far superior to the Government, and it says in terms of actual

safety, ‘‘industry standards are likely to be superior to Government

regulations,’’ and I understand the point that you are making, but

I was going to ask you to kind of clarify what you think the Government’s role should be and what you think the private sector’s

role should be. So I am glad that you clarified that.

Mr. Douglass, you made the point, in answer to Chairman Mica’s

question of what the FAA’s role should be, you said that ‘‘eventually’’ it should pretty much be the same as it is in aviation. I won-
27

der if you would clarify what you mean by that, when you say

‘‘eventually’’ it should be the same as aviation.

Mr. DOUGLASS. Well, sir, as you know, we are developing a new

air traffic control system for our country and the time frame that

we are looking at is all of the traffic that we expect between now

and 2025. I think it is reasonable to expect, now we are in 2005,

that is 20 years from now, that this part of our industry will have

developed to the point where there could potentially be many,

many of these launches.

And just as that air traffic control system is going to have to accommodate all kinds of new air-breathing vehicles, like we are

talking about air taxis, and remotely piloted air vehicles and so on,

it has got to also be able to accommodate both the launch and reentry from space if it is going to occur on a routine basis. We cannot have situations where we stop all the air traffic on the East

Coast every time we do a launch. We cannot have air traffic between Los Angeles and the East Coast stopped every time we

launch something out somewhere in New Mexico or Arizona or

wherever it is. We have got to have a seamless system that works

in a coordinated way.

And so, just looking towards that period of time into the future,

we think that eventually we ought to be able to have a system

where you could get a type certificate for the launch vehicle that

you were using and the reentry vehicle that you would come back

in and an operator’s certificate, just the way the FAA does today

where all of the things that Mr. Kelly and others have talked about

today are a part of the certification process as you get your type

certificate and your operator’s certificate, and then this would the

operate on a relatively seamless basis. We do not see it over the

long term as being feasible to get an individual license for every

single launch that would occur as these launches begin to become

numerous.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. KUHL. [Presiding.] Are there any other members asking

questions? Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I welcome this panel. I read your testimony last

night in preparation for today’s hearings and was very interested

in the various comments made.

Mr. Douglass, I have enormous respect for you and the leadership you have provided for the aerospace sector. You have been a

champion voice, a solid, thoughtful, constructive voice. You have all

pointed to the great advantages, commercial benefits of space travel and certainly of the tantalizing challenge to the human spirit of

space travel.

What I do not understand is the statement that you had in your

statement, Mr. Kelly, saying that ‘‘Federal regulation of space flyer

safety would almost be’’—you used the word almost—‘‘the equivalent of outlawing personal space flight.’’ What do you mean by

that? What do you mean by outlawing?

Mr. KELLY. The restrictions that one would have to place on safety provisions for passengers at this stage of our knowledge—

Mr. OBERSTAR. Give me an example.

Mr. KELLY. Sure, I will give you an example. Someone had

asked, and I believe it was you, asked earlier if the FAA would per-
28

mit a plane that did not meet structural safety factors to fly if it

was likely to fall apart over a city, and the answer was, no, and

it should not. If the Federal Government decided that it was going

to say, okay, passengers will not be safe unless spacecraft have aircraft structural factors of safety, knowing nothing else, that would

physically make impossible space travel. You cannot have—

Mr. OBERSTAR. But if you look at the language that I proposed

in the course of the debate last fall, with the caveat ‘‘taking into

consideration the inherently risky nature of space travel,’’ how can

that be the equivalent of outlawing personal space flight.

Mr. KELLY. Once again, if you are formulating regulations with

no experience whatsoever, how do you do it? The FAA—

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, there was no experience in the 1920s.

Mr. KELLY. Oh, yes, there was 26 years of experience.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Sure, there were a lot of fatalities.

Mr. KELLY. That is exactly right, and—

Mr. OBERSTAR. And there was no experience with composites

when Cirrus began its plan to build an all composite general aviation aircraft but as an all composite aircraft. There were parts of

aircrafts built with composites, but not an all composite. They did

not know for sure whether the wings should go entirely through

the aircraft, or whether it should be joined somewhere in the midsection of the aircraft. Those matters were all worked out.

Mr. KELLY. It takes a long time to do that and this particular

industry is so capital intensive that we cannot afford to wait.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You cannot afford to thread safety into it?

Mr. KELLY. No, no, no. You can afford to thread safety into it,

you cannot afford to thread paranoia into it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. No one is talking about paranoia. Do you think

the FAA is paranoid? Hardly.

Mr. KELLY. No. I think that a responsible agency—

Mr. OBERSTAR. I do not think that is a defensible argument.

Mr. KELLY. A responsible agency that was charged with doing

something that no one can do would tend to err on the side of caution.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I do not think that we are talking about something that no one can do.

Mr. KELLY. No one can do it. There is no experience. There is no

precedent.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Whitehorn has had experience.

Mr. KELLY. No, no, no. There is no precedent for the safety of

flight of spaceships. No matter what—

Mr. OBERSTAR. I disagree with your premise. We have a body of

safety professionals in the Federal Aviation Administration who

understand how to move toward safety. We do not have zero fatality as a goal in commercial aviation, subspace commercial aviation.

It is a goal of reducing fatalities and reducing risk.

Mr. KELLY. That is another aspect of this, and that is I do not

think—I take that back. The Administrator recognized that this is

a risky operation, especially at the beginning, and it is. This is inherently a higher risk proposition than regular air transportation.

I disagree, however, that there is any experience base on which

to formulate regulations. The experience that you have from expendable launch vehicles, and the example of Alan Shepard’s flight
29

into space was cited, is completely inapplicable to reusable launch

vehicles, and, frankly, the experience that we have with airplanes

is as well. There is no overlap between the two.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I do not think that is a defense against incorporating safety in the design features of this vehicle.

Mr. Whitehorn, what safety concerns did you have in moving

ahead with your launch?

Mr. WHITEHORN. That is a very good question to ask because I

plan to be on one of the test flights, so I am taking this issue particularly seriously in a personal sense.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I should think so.

Mr. WHITEHORN. Our view of this issue at Virgin, which is a

company very experienced in dealing with regulatory authorities

both in the United Kingdom and in the United States on safety

issues, and where I think we have a very good track record in this

area, our view is that we should be building SpaceShipTwo, the

successor to SpaceShipOne, which will carry the first commercial

passengers affordably into space, our view is that we should be

building it above the current standards in aviation that exist at the

moment. But it is better that we spend our investment dollars on

doing that than going through bureaucratic processes at this stage

in the game which may not be the right ones.

You were asking earlier, you were asking Marion Blakey I think

the question what is it that you do not want to regulate, give me

an example, I think you asked her. I thought I would give you an

example of the kind of issues that one has to grapple with at this

stage where a light touch of regulation in the personal sense is

probably important.

Pressure suits is a good example. Pressure suits are worn by supersonic fighter pilots, they are worn in space, NASA astronauts

would wear them on a Shuttle mission, for example, they would

wear a pressure suit. However, if you were going to take space

tourists into space where you are not going to have years of experience of the individuals, it may be actually negative in the safety

sense and it may be counter-intuitive to design a pressure suit for

a commercial space tourist. It may be better to design the vehicle

that you are taking them in with a whole safety regime around the

vehicle.

The vehicle itself that goes into space becomes your lifeboat in

the event of an incident. You do not rely on the extraneous technologies that NASA has relied on which it has cobbled together in

its 40 years of experience, from oxygen to pressure suits, rather

than treating the vehicle itself as a safety lifeboat in its own right.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So you pressurize the vehicle, not the individual.

Mr. WHITEHORN. Not only pressurize the vehicle, but you think

of how you design their experience so that when they experience

the G-forces they do not need a pressure suit to be safe in that reentry. That is new and blue sky thinking where a very heavy regulatory regime at this stage would actually potentially force us away

from the safest thing to do once we have considered it.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You fear an FAA or a safety regulatory regime—

Mr. WHITEHORN. I have no fear of the FAA, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR.—that would come in and impose upon you some

regulation of this kind. That is not the way the FAA operates. They
30

work with the manufacturer in the development of new design aircraft, for example. If in your case—

Mr. WHITEHORN. Let me put it this way. There has been a lot

of experience built up in this industry—

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just a minute. If, in your case, you are convinced

that pressurizing the aircraft rather than the individual within the

aircraft is safe, do you think the FAA is going to say oh, no, I do

not think so. They are going to work with you to develop that idea.

Mr. WHITEHORN. Well, actually, we would be pressurizing the

craft anyway. We are talking about a pressure suit to protect you

against G-forces, not for breathability. But just let me give you an

example. The received wisdom as it would be laid down by NASA

would necessarily dictate that you cannot send somebody into space

experiencing these G-forces unless you put them in a pressure suit.

In fact, experience has told us that you can now design the entire

craft and the person’s position in the craft with the freedoms that

we would have to do that because of the nature of the beast that

we are creating, which is something to carry people into space for

the experience of the adventure. We may be able to design a craft

in a safer way by ignoring that received wisdom and experience at

this stage, that received wisdom and experience developed in a governmental program designed around an entire range of goals which

are not necessarily goals about safety. The Apollo space program

was not a program designed with safety as the first priority, it was

designed with getting to the Moon as the first priority.

Actually, as I said in the testimony, our project here, given the

nature of the worldwide business we operate and the brand we

have, safety is our first priority. It may not even be the FAA’s first

priority at this stage in the project. It may not even be the first

priority of other aspects of the industry, those who are creating

new star relaunchable vehicles for satellites. But for our company

coming into this business, working with Scaled Composites, safety

is our first priority.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Sure. So I do not understand your fear of a regulatory regime within which the FAA is a partner in the development of the safety and using its body of expertise over many decades to participate in the safety—

Mr. WHITEHORN. I think you will find, Congressman Oberstar,

that in nothing I have said today nor in my testimony have I experienced any fear of that sort. If the regulatory regime that had

been passed as a result of the Act going through Congress in 2004

had introduced different criteria, then we may well have worked

with those criteria.

But we are where we are and I am telling you what we are planning to do is to operate, in terms of the way we do things, to create

the safest possible experience for the greatest number of people.

We are working on the Benthamite principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number as this project goes forward and commercial space tourism leads to a new industry.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me just read to you the language of the bill,

which is the language that I discussed in the course debate on the

House floor last fall. ‘‘In carrying out responsibilities under this

provision, the Secretary shall ensure that each license approved includes minimum standards to protect the health and safety of
31

crews and space flight participants, taking into account the inherently risky nature of human flight.’’ What objection do you find to

that?

Mr. WHITEHORN. I do not find any objection to that.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Fine. Mr. Douglass, do you find any objection to

that?

Mr. DOUGLASS. Sir, I am uninformed by the debate that you all

had. But my sense of this is that I do not.

Mr. OBERSTAR. The only objection was the gentleman from California, my dear friend Mr. Rohrabacher, who said, you know, I

want to get this bill passed now and if we accepted that language

we might have to go back to conference with the Senate and work

it out, and we just do not have time to do it, it is the end of the

session. They did not involve our Committee in this process. We

could have had this language all done and included.

Mr. Kelly, do you find that language objectionable?

Mr. KELLY. I am sorry, could you repeat it?

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will be happy to do that. ‘‘The Secretary shall

ensure that each license approved includes minimum standards to

protect the health and safety of crews and space flight participants,

taking into account the inherently risky nature of human flight.’’

Mr. KELLY. Actually, I have no objection to that. In fact, it is part

of, or it should be part anyway, of an AST license to ensure the

crew safety with respect to their being part of the safety loop involving third party liability. No, I have no objection to that sort of

thing at all.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You are a wonderful panel. Thank you very

much. I appreciate your contribution.

[Laughter.]

Mr. WHITEHORN. And thank you for your enthusiasm, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. KUHL. Thank you, Congressman. Is there any other member

that wishes to question? I do not believe so.

On behalf of Chairman Mica, let me thank the members of Panel

III for coming and testifying. We found it very interesting and very,

very helpful in this process. So thank you again for coming. Your

participation is certainly appreciated.

Mr. Costello, any last comments?

Mr. COSTELLO. Just to thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. KUHL. Okay. And thank you, Administrator Blakey, we appreciate your attendance here.

And with that, the Subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74Æ