U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–577 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY REFORM: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

(115–48) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Captain Tim Canoll, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International ....... 5 

Audrey Powers, Deputy General Counsel, Blue Origin ........................................ 5 

Caryn Schenewerk, Senior Counsel and Director, Space Flight Policy, SpaceX 5 

Kelly Garehime, Associate General Counsel—Regulatory Affairs, United 

Launch Alliance, LLC .......................................................................................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Captain Tim Canoll ................................................................................................. 38 

Audrey Powers ......................................................................................................... 63 

Caryn Schenewerk ................................................................................................... 69 

Kelly Garehime ........................................................................................................ 76 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

White paper by Air Line Pilots Association, International, ‘‘Addressing the 

Challenges to Aviation from Evolving Space Transportation,’’ June 2018, 

submitted by Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington ............................................................................................. 85 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 31577.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 31577.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 31577.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 31577.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 31577.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 31577.006
(1) 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY REFORM: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess 

at any time. 

I would like to thank you all for being here today. We will be 

hearing from representatives of the commercial space transportation industry and other airspace users on the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s regulatory reform efforts. 

This is the fourth subcommittee hearing we have held over the 

past two Congresses that touched on commercial space transportation issues. Over that time, we have come to know and understand the commercial space transportation industry better, just as 

you have come to know us a little bit better. 

These past 2 years have been ones of tremendous growth for the 

industry. There have been more FAA-licensed launches in the first 

half of 2018 than there were in all of 2016. Blue Origin and SpaceX 

continue to push the boundaries of launch vehicle reusability, while 

driving down the price of a launch. ULA [United Launch Alliance] 

continues to deliver highly reliable launch services to the Federal 

Government and commercial partners. And the industry has a 

number of exciting new vehicles under development, including 

those that will soon be used to transport huge amounts of cargo 

and the first passengers into commercial space. And Rick assures 

me he is going to be on that first run. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I have only scratched the surface when it comes 

to the tremendous game-changing innovation that is occurring in 

this industry. We are poised to reap the benefits of these investments that you have made. 

I am particularly impressed by the job that the FAA’s Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation, or AST, has done in enabling 

the industry’s success. Facing an unprecedented rise in the volume 

2 

and complexity of commercial launches, AST has managed to meet 

its statutory deadlines for each and every launch license or permit. 

But AST cannot rest on its laurels, and neither can we. As this 

industry grows and evolves, we must ensure that our regulatory 

structure keeps pace. Every doubling of licensed launches cannot 

mean a doubling of AST staff or budgetary resources. What is 

needed is a more streamlined regulatory approach that reduces 

complication, duplication, and uncertainty, while preserving safety 

and leveraging the expertise of the commercial space transportation sector. 

FAA and AST are moving at breakneck speed to achieve the 

deadline imposed by Space Policy Directive-2, something that we 

all hope that they are able to achieve. But we also want to continue 

the discussion on launch and other commercial space transportation regulatory reform. 

As launch cadences increase, the impact on other National Airspace System—or NAS—users could increase, as well. FAA is currently working on different procedures and technologies that can 

integrate commercial space operations into the NAS, rather than 

merely accommodating them. 

One of those technologies, the Space Data Integrator, should 

allow the automated release of airspace back to other users once 

a launch vehicle has passed by. Much of the work on SDI is being 

conducted at the FAA’s flagship Technical Center in my district in 

Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, which, if anyone is not sure, 

is at the Atlantic City International Airport. 

We look forward to hearing from our more traditional airspace 

users on additional ways to ensure safety in the NAS. 

I would now like to recognize Mr. Larsen for any opening remarks. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling today’s 

hearing on commercial space transportation. 

It has been 2 years since the subcommittee convened a hearing 

on commercial space. And since that time, the U.S. has experienced 

tremendous growth and innovation in the industry. The economic 

footprint of this segment of the aerospace industry is significant. 

According to the FAA, the U.S. space industry represents about 

$158 billion, which is just shy of half of the global space economy, 

estimated at $345 billion, according to 2016 figures. 

The U.S. is not alone, however—it is not the only nation making 

significant advances in commercial space. Last year I visited the 

Paris Air Show, where the role of commercial space itself was prevalent, as well, and companies across Europe represented at the 

show appeared to be thriving. And New Zealand itself is developing 

its own space industry. So it is critical that we ensure the U.S. and 

its companies remain competitive on the international stage in 

commercial space, just as we have done that in traditional aviation 

for decades. 

Commercial space transportation has opened the door to a wide 

host of new applications for satellite services and space research. 

Some companies are inching closer to providing personal space 

flight. So this is not only exciting from a national perspective, but 

from a local one, as well. This growth supports more than 200,000 

aerospace jobs across the Nation. 

3 

And, notably, more than 136,000 folks who make up the aerospace workforce call Washington State home. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington State employs aerospace engineers at 5.7 times the national average, and has the highest density of aerospace engineers in the U.S. Snohomish County, which 

is part of the district I represent, is home to the State’s second 

largest concentration of aerospace jobs, with more than 43,000— 

nearly 44,000 in aerospace manufacturing. And according to our 

State’s department of commerce, more than three dozen space-related companies are part of Washington State’s space cluster, including companies represented here today, like Blue Origin, 

SpaceX, Spaceflight Industries, Boeing, and, of course, many others. 

Pioneering innovative research and development in the State is 

driven by two world-class universities and national research lab 

and groundbreaking R&D teams. And in addition, we have companies that are NASA suppliers, as well, for the Orion, the Starliner, 

and SpaceX BFR spacecraft. So we have got a lot riding on commercial space in Washington State. 

And before I go further, I do want to take the opportunity to introduce one of our witnesses, Audrey Powers, who is here today to 

represent Blue Origin in Kent, Washington. Blue Origin supports 

a growing ecosystem of commercial space suppliers and manufacturing services in our State and the country and the world. So I 

would like to say welcome to Ms. Powers. 

I can barely see that far, I lost my glasses last year—on an airplane, by the way, a very appropriate place for me to lose my glasses. 

FAA reports launch licenses are on an upward trend, and are expected to continue over the next decade. So since the first FAA-licensed launch in 1989 there have been 278 licensed commercial 

space launches. Nearly one-quarter of these have occurred in the 

last 5 years, alone. And in fact, a record 23 FAA-licensed launches 

occurred last year. 

It is also vital for our national security for this segment of the 

aerospace industry to remain strong and competitive. The promise 

of commercial space is endless, but safety still must remain the 

number-one priority. The President has directed the FAA to overhaul its launch license and reentry regulations in an aggressive, 1- 

year timeframe. 

We have heard from some stakeholders that FAA’s regulations 

were drafted 25 years ago and are, in fact, in desperate need of a 

rewrite. But we have also heard from folks who caution safety 

might be compromised if the FAA is forced to ‘‘streamline’’ its regulatory framework in just 12 months. 

It was just 4 months ago this subcommittee convened to discuss 

the state of aviation safety. I mentioned then—and it bears repeating now—the U.S. has the safest aviation system in the world. And 

any effort to reform regulations must not roll back safety requirements. We have to keep in mind that more than 21⁄2 million passengers fly through U.S. airspace each day. With an increasing 

number of space ports and launches on the horizon, we have to ensure our airspace remains safe. 

4 

This subcommittee’s job is to ensure the FAA has the authority 

and resources needed to make the system even safer. And maintaining our unparalleled safety through new integration into the 

system requires all aviation stakeholders be at the table. 

And that said, as well, I am pleased to have Captain Tim Canoll, 

from ALPA [Air Line Pilots Association, International] here with us 

this morning to discuss the potential effects that this booming industry is having on existing legacy aviation users. 

I also hope to learn from our other witnesses why and what reforms to the FAA’s commercial space regulations are needed, and 

whether there are concerns regarding the administration’s approach. 

It is too soon to know what the FAA will propose next year. And 

while flexibility is necessary so the industry can continue to grow, 

I trust the subcommittee will keep a close eye on any efforts that 

undercut safety. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would ask for unanimous consent that a 

white paper entitled, ‘‘Addressing the Challenges to Aviation from 

Evolving Space Transportation,’’ prepared by Air Line Pilots Association, International be entered into the record. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The white paper is on pages 85–99.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you, Rick. Let’s see, do we have Mr. 

DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I was a little 

late. I was at a caucus meeting, talking about the sea lions. Far 

from this subject. A terrestrial problem. 

Well, thank you for holding this hearing, the first in a couple of 

years. Obviously, there is incredible excitement in the potential for 

commercial development in space, and we want to maintain the 

U.S. lead in this area. 

We do also—as I believe I came in at the end of the ranking 

member’s remarks—want to be certain that we are moving forward 

in a way that doesn’t impinge on creativity and moving quickly, but 

also is as safe as possible. 

There used to be a dual mandate for the FAA that was left over 

from the old Civil Aeronautics Board, an immature industry. And 

it was that they were both to regulate and promote the industry. 

And for years on this committee I raised the issue that I thought 

that there was an inherent conflict. And, you know, person after 

person from the FAA marched in and said, no, there is no conflict, 

no problem. 

And then, in an FAA reauthorization one year, I tried to strip 

away the—I said it is a mature industry, you don’t need to promote 

it any more, you just need to regulate it and make sure it is safe, 

and I lost that amendment in the committee by a close vote. 

And then we had the—I think—I am trying to remember. I guess 

it was ValuJet, I think was the name of the crash. And we had already done the bill out of the House and done the bill out of the 

Senate, and I got a phone call saying, ‘‘Where would we put your 

5 

language into this bill,’’ realizing that, indeed, we had not been 

overseeing repair stations and subcontractors of repair stations and 

others adequately, and a lot of people died because of it. So, you 

know, we just need to move forward in a way that does not create 

problems. 

And another issue is we have the largest, most robust commercial aviation system in the world, and there are potentials for conflicts with space ports and commercial aviation. And we have to be 

very cognizant of that, as we move forward. I think there are some 

great places to put space ports. There are others that are in very 

heavily congested, heavily used commercial corridors, which means 

either that space port is going to have very limited opportunities 

for use, or we are going to be causing delays and disruptions of the 

already overloaded commercial system. So this needs to be approached with some significant thought and care, as we move forward. 

So I really welcome this committee holding this hearing to air 

these and other issues so we can maintain our leadership, but do 

it in a way that also maintains the best of safety, and also does 

not interfere with our very robust commercial aviation industry. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Peter. I thank our witnesses for 

being here today. And they are Captain Tim Canoll, the president 

of Air Line Pilots Association, International; Ms. Audrey Powers, 

deputy general counsel for Blue Origin; Ms. Caryn Schenewerk, 

senior counsel for SpaceX; and Ms. Kelly Garehime—I hope I got 

that right—associate general counsel for United Launch Alliance. 

Again, thank you for being here today. I ask unanimous consent 

that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing 

remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them for a followup response, and unanimous consent that the record remain 

open for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, 

the committee requests that you try your best to keep your oral remarks to 5 minutes. 

Captain, you are recognized to kick it off. 

TESTIMONY OF CAPTAIN TIM CANOLL, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE 

PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; AUDREY POWERS, 

DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, BLUE ORIGIN; CARYN 

SCHENEWERK, SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR, SPACE 

FLIGHT POLICY, SPACEX; AND KELLY GAREHIME, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL—REGULATORY AFFAIRS, UNITED 

LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC 

Mr. CANOLL. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member 

Larsen, and Ranking Member DeFazio, and the subcommittee for 

the opportunity to be here today. It is my privilege to represent 

6 

ALPA’s more than 60,000 pilots who fly for 34 U.S. and Canadian 

airlines. 

I want to say, thanks to this subcommittee’s leadership in encouraging collaboration among Government, industry, and airspace 

users, the U.S. airline industry is the safest mode of transportation 

the world has ever known. This safety record has helped make 

commercial aviation a significant economic driver in the United 

States. Safe flying simply equals a strong aviation industry and 

contributes to a solid economy. 

Airline pilots share this subcommittee’s commitment to safety. 

ALPA is the largest, nongovernmental aviation safety organization 

in the world. We feel certain—and the facts show—that having at 

least two fully qualified, well-trained, and adequately rested pilots 

in every airliner cockpit has made flying safer. ALPA believes that 

the spirit of collaboration this subcommittee helped foster in the 

U.S. airline industry will also allow aviation and space transportation to succeed together. 

The future growth of the aerospace industry, both aviation and 

commercial space transportation, relies on safe, dependable, and efficient access to the National Airspace System, air traffic management, and ground infrastructure. As the U.S. airline industry 

works to meet future passenger and shipper demand while space 

flight operations also increase, the aerospace industry must jointly 

create policies, regulations, and procedures to share resources efficiently and, most of all, safely. 

We know the work to safely integrate commercial space transportation must succeed because space ports are, or plan to be, located 

near some of this country’s busiest airports and airspace. 

For example, an FAA study of a spacecraft launch and reentry 

at Cape Canaveral in 2013 found that airline flights around Jacksonville and Miami air traffic control centers were forced to fly as 

many as 23 minutes longer than on days without launch activity. 

Given the interest in increasing the number and scale of 

spaceflight launches, it is easy to extrapolate the tremendous effect 

that commercial space operations could have on the U.S. airline industry, as well as on its passengers, cargo shippers, and workers 

if integration isn’t managed correctly. 

ALPA has long embraced new technology and innovation. We 

have helped develop and implement some of the important safety 

systems on airliners flying today. ALPA’s experience with technology and operations in the national airspace makes it clear that 

a comprehensive plan is essential to safely and efficiently integrate 

commercial spaceflight and airline operations. Moreover, Congress 

must provide the FAA with adequate funding to develop and execute this plan. 

While the FAA is currently prevented from enacting commercial 

space transportation regulations until 2023, there is no reason why 

the FAA and our industries can’t get started now on a plan for safe 

integration. For the moment, commercial space operations must 

continue to take place in segregated airspace until we know we can 

maintain a high level of safety for all users following an integration. 

However, Congress can encourage the FAA to get started now on 

providing the more complex analysis, safety oversight, and air trafVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:54 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\6-26-2~1\31577.TXT JEAN
7 

fic control services that will be necessary for integration. Regulators can also act today to develop communication, navigation, and 

surveillance requirements. Regulations must ensure safety in space 

vehicle design and flightcrew qualification training and certification. 

All of this will require the FAA and all stakeholders involved in 

aviation and commercial space transportation to communicate and 

coordinate their efforts. ALPA pilots, who offer a deep bench in 

safety expertise, are ready to assist. 

It is an exciting time to be part of the aerospace industry. In just 

a few years, passenger and cargo aircraft will share the national 

airspace with space tourists and unmanned aerial system operators. With this subcommittee’s continued leadership, ALPA feels 

confident that the FAA and the aerospace industry can work together to achieve this high level of safety that Americans expect 

and, yes, demand from U.S. air transportation. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Captain. 

Ms. Powers? 

Ms. POWERS. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on commercial space transportation regulatory reform, a topic that Blue 

Origin has been heavily focused on for over 2 years. 

Blue Origin’s mission is to enable a future where millions of people live and work in space. This vision demands higher flight rates, 

lower cost access to space, and an unwavering attention to safety. 

This can only be achieved with full operational reusability of our 

launch vehicles. 

Our fully reusable New Shepard suborbital launch vehicle has 

flown to space and back eight times, achieving five of those flights 

with the same vehicle in less than 12 months. While the booster 

lands vertically on landing gear, our capsule separates from the 

booster in space, and offers 4 minutes of weightlessness before returning for a soft landing on Earth. New Shepard traverses the National Airspace System and exceeds 60,000 feet of altitude within 

90 seconds of lift-off, and the full flight duration is about 11 minutes. 

Blue Origin also is developing a next generation reusable orbital 

launch vehicle called New Glenn, which will launch people and payloads from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station to low Earth orbit 

and beyond. 

Reusable launch vehicles, or RLVs, vary widely in design and operation. Some, like New Shepard and New Glenn, launch and land 

vertically, allowing the booster stage to be reused. Others launch 

and land horizontally, while others are high-altitude balloons. 

Expendable launch vehicles, or ELVs, launch vertically, and their 

booster stage falls into the ocean, never to be used again. 

FAA regulates ELVs and RLVs differently. FAA’s ELV regulations are voluminous and prescriptive. ELV regulations identify 

risk limits that operators must meet, and they define how to design, test, and operate the launch vehicle to meet those risk limits. 

FAA promulgated these regulations by codifying Air Force requirements for launch vehicle operations at Federal ranges. This reguVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:54 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\6-26-2~1\31577.TXT JEAN
8 

latory approach was not designed for the cadence of operations or 

the new vehicle architectures realized in recent years. 

FAA developed an entirely separate set of regulations for reusable launch vehicles that are wholly different than FAA’s ELV regulations. Instead of FAA defining how to design, test, manufacture, 

and operate a vehicle, FAA conducts a performance-based review of 

the RLV operator’s system safety case. The operator identifies hazards and presents appropriate mitigation measures for those hazards. In short, the RLV regulations impose safety thresholds that 

an operator must meet, but the operator can choose any number 

of acceptable approaches to meet those thresholds. 

Blue Origin operates New Shepard at a private launch site under 

these RLV regulations. While they are outdated and could be improved to help increase launch cadence, the RLV regulations are 

the best approach to regulatory oversight that currently exist. They 

promote innovation without compromising safety. 

In the case of New Glenn, because it will launch from an Air 

Force facility, it must be authorized by both FAA and the Air 

Force. The Air Force has one set of requirements for all launch vehicles. They are the prescriptive requirements that FAA used for 

its ELV model. This means that reusable launch vehicle operators 

lose the benefit of FAA’s performance-based approach to regulating 

RLVs, because we must also meet the Air Force’s prescriptive requirements. 

Blue Origin welcomes the efforts by this administration, the National Space Council, FAA, and industry to develop one set of regulations applicable to all launch vehicles that are flexible, streamlined, and performance-based. The best path forward will use 

FAA’s current RLV regulations as a model. 

Space Policy Directive-2 specifically directs the Secretary of 

Transportation to replace prescriptive requirements with performance-based criteria. Blue Origin’s difficult situation at Cape Canaveral shows that this directive cannot be met without also addressing the Air Force’s prescriptive requirements. The administration 

recognized this need by directing that DoD and DOT and NASA coordinate to examine and minimize all existing U.S. Government requirements associated with activities at Federal ranges. 

The right solution to today’s overbearing regulatory environment 

is to review and reform all regulations and requirements applicable 

to launch activities. Blue Origin is eager to continue working with 

Congress, FAA, the Air Force, the National Space Council, and industry members to ensure that new regulations promote safety 

above all, while also supporting the expansion of commercial efforts 

and new technologies. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today, 

and for your attention to this important matter. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Ms. Powers. 

Ms. Schenewerk? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee today. I also 

want to thank the FAA for their hard work licensing and supporting the industry. On behalf of my more than 6,000 colleagues 

9 

at SpaceX, we appreciate your interest in modernizing regulations 

associated with the commercial space industry. 

SpaceX’s mission is to dramatically improve the reliability, safety, and affordability of space transportation. Since 2010 we have 

successfully launched our Falcon 9 rocket 55 times. And earlier 

this year, we successfully conducted the inaugural mission of the 

Falcon Heavy rocket. 

Our diverse set of launch customers include NASA, DoD, and the 

broader national security space community, as well as commercial 

satellite operators and allied international governments. Commercially, SpaceX is the largest launch services provider in the world, 

with more than 100 missions on manifest representing $12 billion 

in signed contracts. 

Having entered the commercial satellite launch market in 2012, 

SpaceX has restored the U.S. as a market leader, reversing a troubling trend in American competitiveness. The rapid pace of innovation in the U.S. commercial space industry is redefining access to 

space for commercial and Government customers. It is also advancing technology, growing the economy, and creating new jobs. Given 

ground-breaking technological advances like rocket reusability and 

the expanding scope of commercial space activities, regulatory reform is both timely and necessary. 

Despite a record year for U.S. launches, it is important to keep 

in perspective that space launch continues to be a relatively small 

user of the national airspace, compared to commercial aviation. 

While the FAA supports more than 42,000 commercial airline 

flights per day, in 2017 there were only 23 U.S.-licensed launches; 

17 of those were SpaceX. 

When we launch, we are in the NAS very briefly. Falcon 9 

crosses 60,000 feet in a quick 90 seconds. After stage separation, 

the rocket reenters the NAS for roughly 1 minute prior to landing. 

It is worth noting that commercial space and commercial aviation are symbiotic. Many of the satellites we launch are key enabling technologies for our aviation colleagues. For example, GPS 

satellites, weather satellites, and communication satellites that 

provide in-flight connectivity. 

Nevertheless, FAA launch licensing regulations, designed decades ago, are outdated and unnecessarily onerous. They are not reflective of new technologies such as reusable rockets and autonomous flight safety systems. For the U.S. to stay at the leading edge 

of space innovation, we must reform these regulations in a way 

that preserves public safety and accommodates innovation. We 

must also optimize use of the NAS. 

I have submitted a detailed written statement with SpaceX’s recommendations, but I would like to highlight a few key initiatives. 

First, SpaceX strongly supports the direction contained in Space 

Directive 2, which calls for the Secretary of Transportation to review regulations governing launch and reentry. We support the direction to require a single license for all types of commercial space 

launch and reentry operations, and we strongly support replacing 

outdated, prescriptive requirements with a performance-based regulatory regime for all launch types. 

The transition to performance-based regulations is crucial and 

consistent with sound regulatory policy. I want to emphasize that 

10 

SpaceX is not seeking any change to weaken safety requirements. 

Rather, we are encouraging the adoption of new tools and processes 

to make licensing more efficient for both the FAA and launch operators. A performance-based system will enable new technologies 

that will improve safety. 

Second, FAA regulation should allow launch providers to receive 

a single license for multiple launch sites without the need to obtain 

a separate license per site. Currently, we have two launch sites in 

Florida: one at NASA’s KSC [Kennedy Space Center] and one at 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Falcon 9 frequently launches 

from both sites, which are roughly 3 miles apart. Yet if we change 

sites prior to the mission, we have to undertake a license modification process. That is not a practical situation. 

In addition, FAA and U.S. Air Force range requirements should 

be harmonized to end conflicting and confusing differences. These 

changes are about process, and will help the industry better 

achieve safety objectives. 

Finally, commercial space launch needs to be better integrated 

into the national airspace. SpaceX is committed to working with 

the FAA and commercial airline operators to achieve this goal. Current FAA operations do not use real-time information regarding the 

actual position and trajectory of the launch vehicle. In addition, debris propagation software used today results in larger volumes of 

airspace being closed for longer periods of time than is necessary. 

We encourage this committee to accelerate FAA’s adoption of new 

analytical tracking and display tools that will better integrate 

space and aviation users of the NAS. 

SpaceX is honored to be part of the ongoing process of regulatory 

reform, and looks forward to continuing the collaborative effort 

with the FAA, industry, and Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to share our 

views with the committee. 

I look forward to any questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Garehime, you are recognized. 

Ms. GAREHIME. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf 

of United Launch Alliance to discuss regulatory reform and safety. 

ULA is the most successful commercial launch company. Since 

we formed in 2006 we have launched 128 missions with 100 percent mission success. No other launch company matches that 

record. ULA is the only launch provider certified to meet all national security space requirements. For more than a decade we 

have launched nearly every major national security asset and 

NASA mission to orbit. GPS, secure communications, weather forecasting, tracking and data relays, and missile warning satellites 

are among the many payloads ULA has delivered to space. 

ULA builds and launches the Atlas and Delta families of rockets 

which trace their heritage back to the dawn of the space age. John 

Glenn made his historic trip into orbit aboard an Atlas in 1962, 

and astronauts will be flying on Atlas V aboard Boeing’s Starliner 

to the International Space Station as part of NASA’s commercial 

11 

crew program. The Atlas and Delta family of rockets have enabled 

science missions to every planet in the solar system. 

We are also working to take commercial companies to distant 

destinations. Astrobotic, a commercial lunar logistics company in 

Pittsburgh, recently selected ULA to launch their Peregrine lander 

to the surface of the moon. This will mark the first launch of a 

commercial vehicle to the lunar surface from the United States. 

Eighteen of our one hundred and twenty-eight missions to date 

have been commercially licensed through the FAA. Our commercial 

customers cannot afford launch mishaps or significant delays. And 

one of ULA’s key differentiators is our ability to launch quickly and 

on time. 

In 2016 we unveiled RapidLaunch, which allows customers to go 

from contract to launch in as little as 3 months. This offering 

would not be possible without help from the FAA. And we have 

successfully worked with the FAA in the past on accelerated 

timelines. 

When Orbital ATK needed ULA to launch the OA–7 cargo mission to the International Space Station, the requested launch date 

was within the FAA’s allotted 180 days for review of a new license 

application. Thanks to our relationship with the FAA and its familiarity with the Atlas V, they expedited their review and we successfully launched the mission less than 6 months after going on contract. 

In the past, FAA AST has lacked adequate resources. But Congress acted to rectify that. I would like to thank this committee in 

particular for its work on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, 

which increases AST’s authorized budget to more than $33 million 

in 2019, and continues increases in future years. 

ULA has been participating in multiple Aviation Rulemaking 

Committees, or ARCs, and continues to engage Congress and the 

administration on safe, commonsense regulatory reform. The President, National Space Council, Congress, Department of Commerce, 

and the FAA should be applauded for their efforts to empower 

America’s space industry. 

In my written testimony I have provided several recommendations that, if implemented, would increase efficiency without sacrificing safety. 

In the launch business, when something goes wrong it impacts 

everyone. A worst-case scenario would be loss of life resulting from 

a commercial space launch. The FAA is doing an excellent job ensuring public safety in today’s regulatory environment, and we 

urge all parties to remain focused on safety. Space launch is not 

the same as driving a car or flying a plane. A launch accident that 

damages a launch facility could significantly delay or even halt the 

Government’s ability to get critical life-saving assets to space. 

I want to thank this committee for taking an interest in this 

topic, and making sure that licensing and regulatory reform are 

done properly. It is critical to ensuring the United States remains 

the world leader in space. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear today, and I look forward 

to answering any questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Mr. Larsen? 

12 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to first start 

with a couple of questions about the process of the rulemaking. 

I will start with you, Captain. As we sit here today, do you believe that the process in this 1-year timeframe is open enough? Is 

it transparent enough? Are you and other—I guess the term is legacy users, someone was using—was talking about legacy users of 

the NAS—do you feel that you have enough both insight and input 

into the 1-year rulemaking process? 

Mr. CANOLL. So I have been called worse than legacy. It does fit, 

though. 

So safety is always paramount. And we are never in favor of any 

time restrictions or deadline that could impact safety. That being 

said, if the FAA strives with this committee’s oversight to include 

all stakeholders, there are advancements that could be made to 

streamline the current process of licensing and permitting. And as 

it impacts my members, that would also streamline, hopefully, the 

establishment and the reduction of the amount of airspace required 

for these launches. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Am I hearing in your answer that FAA is not 

including folks? 

Mr. CANOLL. So we see—and I think my panel is going to probably agree—that more collaboration between my part of the industry and their part of the industry is something we could all use. 

And that is not something we are waiting for the FAA to do for us; 

we are organizing ourselves on the aviation side right now, in 

hopes that we can have our collective positions all set up for when 

we get a chance to integrate and talk with these operators in a 

more detailed manner. The FAA can’t do this by themselves, they 

are going to have to use all of us to go forward here. 

And again, to the deadline, any deadline is something that 

should never violate the actual safety rule. If you are not ready, 

safety-wise, deadline or not, you shouldn’t do it. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. So, Ms. Powers, when we dealt with some 

streamlining on the part 23 regs for general aviation, it took a lot 

longer than 1 year when we attempted that, when the FAA attempted that. We did step in a few years ago to kind of push the 

FAA along, but it wasn’t—it took a lot longer than 1 year, and that 

was for general aviation. 

Do you think the 1-year timeframe, as aggressive as it is, and as 

supportive as a lot of us would want to be of it, is that realistic? 

Ms. POWERS. So I have heard stories of that part 23 rulemaking, 

and I am not familiar with it specifically. But we also in the commercial space industry have seen lengthy rulemaking timelines for 

regulations in the past that have been updated. 

I acknowledge that the 1-year timeline is very, very aggressive. 

I think that the formation of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

at the beginning of the process was very important for FAA to collect information from industry members. We were very happy to be 

involved in that effort. 

We look forward to engaging with the FAA again on this matter, 

and I think it is important to understand that the 1-year deadline, 

although very accelerated, the result of that is an NPRM—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

13 

Ms. POWERS [continuing]. A notice of proposed rulemaking. So 

there is potential for lengthy comment periods and reviews and 

back-and-forths, and interim rulemaking after that point. So I 

think that it is left to be determined how long the actual process 

will take in its entirety. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, thanks. 

Ms. Schenewerk, this is a technological question. So it is not that 

you wouldn’t understand it; I may not understand my asking of it. 

Is there a technological difference between an ELV and RLV with 

regards to the performance-based versus the prescriptive-based 

regulation? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right. So I am a lawyer, not an engineer, but 

I appreciate the question. 

If you don’t mind, though, I would like to address one of your 

prior questions related to the regulatory—— 

Mr. LARSEN. So can you get back to me on that question, though? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Certainly. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So in that regard, the technical difference 

would be your ability to recover the rocket. But that is not something that drives the regulatory approach to it. An ELV would be 

a Falcon 9 if we threw the first booster away. The Falcon 9 becomes a reusable rocket when we land that first-stage booster instead of throwing it away after the mission. 

And so it is an increase in the technological capability of the vehicle and the operator, but that is not something that can’t be accommodated by a performance-based regulatory approach. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. There is not a reason why an ELV should take 

a prescriptive approach, and the same rocket, doing a more advanced operation, could operate under a performance-based system. 

They can both operate that way. 

One of the important things, I think, about the regulatory reform 

undertaking that is occurring is that it is not addressing the level 

of safety applied to our vehicles or our operations. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So we are not talking about a regulatory 

change, a deregulation of the industry in that manner. We are talking about the application of a performance-based system, where 

you set the level of safety—one that we are not advocating for 

changing—and then you allow operators to have flexibility with regard to the technology that they use and the operational constraints that they use to achieve that level of safety. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, OK. So my time is up. And I will have other 

questions if we have a second round. But thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the panel. 

I guess to everybody on the panel, first of all, I guess you talked 

about all the launches you have had, successful launches. I assume 

that is mostly for putting satellites up. Is that correct? That is 

where your revenue stream is? 

Ms. GAREHIME. Is the question to me? 

14 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, it doesn’t matter. 

Ms. GAREHIME. Yes, sure. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK, yes. 

Ms. GAREHIME. We put all different types of payloads up: GPS, 

secure communications, weather forecasting, tracking and data relays, missile warning satellites. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. What is the tipping point or—I guess for commercial human space flight to be economically viable, what is kind 

of the timeline you anticipate? 

Ms. GAREHIME. So we are on contract for a commercial crew 

launch under the commercial crew program, and we expect to bring 

astronauts to space in the near future. 

Mr. GIBBS. Go ahead. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. An exciting opportunity for SpaceX is our commercial crew contract with NASA to carry astronauts to the International Space Station. 

We are also working towards private passenger carriage, and we 

have folks very interested in that, and in fact, a contract to undertake that activity. 

And I think that one of the important parts of our approach to 

the industry is that we leverage the Falcon 9 launch vehicle for 

both commercial satellites, as you indicated, satellite carriage, 

cargo carriage to the International Space Station—we are up to 

about 15 missions with that—and that carries the Dragon spacecraft that we also manufacture in-house for astronaut carriage, or 

any other carriage beyond NASA’s needs. 

So I think it is a matter of holistic approach to launch, which has 

both the capability to launch satellites and the capability to carry 

humans, and the fact that those are integrated together. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now, you said we are still the leader in the world. 

Are our competition—I suppose China or Russia would be the two 

key ones—what is going on, compared to us, what we’re doing? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Yes, so it is a great question. So when SpaceX 

entered the launch services market, the orbital commercial satellite 

launch services market, in 2012, the United States had, essentially, 

zero percent of that market. So we have recaptured 60 percent of 

that market share. And you are exactly right, that that is away 

from the Russians, also the Europeans, the Chinese, and the Indians. 

Mr. GIBBS. Anybody else want to comment on that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. What do you see—do you concur with that, that we 

are—what you see our vulnerabilities are to not be the leader in 

this effort? 

Ms. GAREHIME. So we are moving towards more commercial businesses, absolutely, coming back to the U.S. Our Atlas and Delta 

rockets were originally designed to support the commercial market. 

That market never materialized, and our focus turned to Government missions, and 100 percent mission success. 

We are now transitioning to be a much more key player in the 

commercial market, and are developing a new rocket, the Vulcan 

Centaur rocket. We expect that to really help us become a larger 

key player in that market. 

Mr. GIBBS. And those are the reusable vehicles, rockets, right? 

15 

Ms. GAREHIME. The Vulcan Centaur is an expendable launch vehicle. We are looking at reusability at the component level. So we 

would look at SMART [Sensible, Modular, Autonomous Return 

Technology] reuse, which would be reusing the most expensive 

component on the rocket, which is the engine. 

We are also looking at reusing our upper stage, so that means 

once the upper stage gets up into orbit, usually you would dispose 

of it, either put it into a graveyard orbit or deorbit the upper stage. 

What we are looking at through our ACES technology would be 

leaving the upper stage in orbit, and reusing it up in space. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. If I may add to that, the Falcon 9 first stage 

is entirely reusable. We have launched and landed the Falcon 9 

twenty-five times. We have reused 13 of those boosters. Our most 

recent version of the Falcon 9 is the Falcon 9 Block 5 and it is now 

flying. We look to be able to use Block 5 at least 10 times with 

minor inspection following, and with at least 10 reuses of a firststage booster. 

That is part of the reason why SpaceX has been able to recapture 

60 percent market share. Because we are able to have a highly reliable rocket as a result of that reusability. It means that you can 

test it, you can fly it, you can look at it again, then you can fly it 

again, and so you can keep getting really good data on the performance of your vehicle. And it also contributes, of course, to the safety 

of the vehicle. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

I am out of time; I yield back. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The ranking member 

of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Captain Canoll, the whole process for space port approval, you 

have concerns about that. I recently met, I won’t say who it was, 

but people raising concerns about the proximity of a proposed space 

port that does not have an operator, which is a build-it-and-theywill-come proximate to Denver International Airport, and the potential for interference with operations there. 

How do you think this process should work better? 

Mr. CANOLL. So you articulated both concerns from our perspectives. One is the proximity issue either to highly congested airspace, or a heavily used airport. The segregated airspace methodology, which is the only one available to us today to deconflict 

space travel and aviation, would order of magnitude be more difficult at some of the locations like the one in Denver being considered. 

The process currently has it as a two-stage process, where a 

space port is authorized, and then the operator at the space port 

is done in a separate authorization. It is hard for ALPA to comment on one or the other, without seeing the full picture concept. 

If you are going to launch from this space port, what kind of operations are they? Are they RLA? Are there EVAs? What kind of 

rocket will be launched? Is it traditional aircraft launched to high 

altitude? 

So our inability to match the two to one issue is where we are 

running into problems with giving good comments to the FAA as 

they consider these. 

16 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Now, the segregated airspace, obviously, is an 

issue. And Ms. Schenewerk implied that you envision a time where 

we could either dramatically shrink that, or maybe do real-time, 

more like air traffic control. 

So I would like you to briefly comment, and then Captain Canoll 

to comment on whatever you say. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. So 

what we see today is that when a rocket launches—and our rocket 

launches, just to provide some context, are from coastal areas, because we launch in an orbital trajectory. We are achieving orbit in 

about 90 seconds through the—— 

Mr. WOODALL. Miss, could I ask you to pull that microphone just 

a little bit closer? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Is that a little better? 

Mr. WOODALL. You can move that whole box closer. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Here we go, OK. Oh, thank you. So as I noted, 

we are through the NAS in about 60 seconds, if everything goes as 

planned. 

So the hazard area that is imposed upon us is a keep-out zone. 

And that keep-out zone is applied in multidimensions, right? So it 

is to people on the ground, it is to aircraft in the air, and to mariners at sea. And we launch over the water so as to maintain that 

risk level, so that we are not putting public at risk, so it is nonpopulated areas. That is why we don’t currently undertake orbital 

launches from the center of the country. 

So right now, when an air traffic controller is on station during 

a launch, what they see is that keep-out zone, that large box hazard area keep-out zone. What they don’t see is the launch vehicle 

actually moving across their scope in that very quick timeframe, 

and clearing the area. And that results in that keep-out zone being 

imposed for at least an hour, usually, before launch and hours postlaunch, because it is not dynamic. 

So what we would like to see is, some IT tools that can better 

model the debris dispersion that could occur if you were to have a 

bad day with the vehicle, based on that day’s weather, whether it 

is wind direction or air density, and that specific vehicle and that 

specific trajectory, so that we could see when it moves through it 

quickly and successfully, we can open the airspace dynamically, instead of having phone calls and big boxes blocking space. 

This is essentially an IT solution. It is modeling capabilities and 

data integration capabilities. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Captain Canoll, what do you think of that impression? 

Mr. CANOLL. Absolutely correct. Caryn got it exactly right. The 

real-time feedback is something that they are using now in very 

small instances. It needs to be on every launch. 

But the ultimate goal, if we are going to meet the anticipated cadence, is full integration. And there is one larger issue in full integration that we have to work together through as a team, and that 

is the allowable risk. 

Right now we model in the traditional aviation 10 to the minus 

9, so catastrophic mishaps, 1 in 1 billion. The space, commercial 

17 

space, is modeling at 1 to the minus 6, 1 in 1 million. Well, that 

is a big difference, that is 10,000 times bigger. So we have to work 

through that. It is completely doable, it is completely doable, but 

it is going to take starting now, and money, and oversight. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Anybody else want to comment on that particular point? 

Ms. POWERS. Yes, sir. I would like to add a couple of things. 

I think it is very important that tool development be the focus, 

because we are smart enough to solve this problem. There are a lot 

of great people at AST and FAA working on this. I know that 

SpaceX and Blue Origin have worked on flowing telemetry through 

the SDI system that the chairman mentioned earlier to try to figure out how to get real-time telemetry to the air traffic controllers 

to minimize disruptions, so that everybody who needs to use the 

airspace can use the airspace. This is a very solvable problem. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

Indiana, Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman, I thank the witnesses. I am 

learning a lot this morning. 

How wide is the keep-out zone, again? Is that what you call it? 

Yes. How—in miles, nautical miles or statute, what is—what kind 

of area are we talking about? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right. So it is—the hazard area that is around 

the rocket launch, the trajectory—so, essentially, if you imagine 

that I was going to launch from where I am sitting today towards 

Mr. Mitchell’s placard there, then I would have an area of space 

that would travel with me that is closed along the way, that is a 

box around me. 

Mr. ROKITA. Hundreds and hundreds—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. It is essentially a bubble. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Of miles that is boxed out. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So the box travels out hundreds of miles, 

where the rocket—in the direction of the rocket’s trajectory. But its 

width is in the—maybe I have to get back to you on that one. But 

it is not thousands or hundreds of miles wide. It is more that it 

is hundreds of miles long with the trajectory of the rocket. 

Mr. ROKITA. So—and that accounts for debris, or not? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right. The goal of that is to account for the 

idea that—of debris propagation from that vehicle. So if you were 

to have an unintended disassembly, then where that debris would 

fall from that vehicle—— 

Mr. ROKITA. So, Captain, how is that different than a line of 

thunderstorms that you might have to get vectored around—— 

Mr. CANOLL. That is a—— 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. On any given day? 

Mr. CANOLL [continuing]. Great analogy, because it is the same 

essential thing, it is denying use of the airspace. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. 

Mr. CANOLL. We just don’t fly—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Which you deal with every day. 

Mr. CANOLL. We do deal with it every day. 

Mr. ROKITA. I dealt with it yesterday. 

18 

Mr. CANOLL. Yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. So we deal with it. And in fact, weather accounts 

for 72 percent of the delay in the system. 

Mr. CANOLL. Right—— 

Mr. ROKITA. As we learned from another debate on ATC privatization. 

Mr. CANOLL. The element being there we don’t have any control 

of where the thunderstorms are, that is a force of nature. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right, right. 

Mr. CANOLL. This is something we can manage together. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. But we also learned that there is 22 launches 

or something from SpaceX alone, versus the thousands of air flights 

a day, and that kind of thing. So certainly many more lines of 

thunderstorms in a given day and a week than any kind of space 

launch. 

Are the three of you—I am looking at the companies—do you 

consider yourselves direct competitors? Especially with your change 

in business plan a little bit. 

Ms. GAREHIME. We certainly see ourselves as a competitor with 

SpaceX. We partner with Blue Origin. We are working together on 

a new first-stage engine. We haven’t made a final decision on that 

yet. So we work with Blue Origin. But yes, we see SpaceX as a 

competitor. 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you guys like each other, generally? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. GAREHIME. We do. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Lovely people. 

Mr. ROKITA. There are so many opportunities that there is room 

for everybody. 

But on the other hand, Ms. Powers, you have 1,400 employees. 

Is that right? Or—yes, 1,400 employees, and they are all being 

paid, and you have investors. But you haven’t had a return on investment yet, have you? 

Ms. POWERS. So we have entered into a number of commercial 

contracts. As Kelly mentioned, we are engaged with ULA for sales 

of our BE–4 engine. We have a number of customers that are interested in our engine production programs, as well as our suborbital 

and orbital launch capabilities. 

So for—taking New Shepard as the example, our suborbital 

launch vehicle that flies at our west Texas launch site, we have a 

relationship with the NASA flight opportunities program, we fly a 

number of suborbital payloads on every flight of New Shepard. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK, thank you. 

Ms. POWERS. So we are generating some amount of revenue. 

Mr. ROKITA. I appreciate that. 

And Ms. Schenewerk, really quick, because I have some questions, if you wanted to add something there, you wanted to get a 

word in—OK. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. That is fine, no. 

Mr. ROKITA. So let’s talk about the relicensing process example 

that you brought up, and performance-based regulation. That is intriguing, about—to me it seems performance-based regulation requires you to have data, in terms of outcome. And then it is either 

failure or success, and that is how you measure performance based. 

19 

Go ahead. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Well, that depends on the performance metric 

that you set. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right? So in the case of this industry, we have 

a performance metric that is a level of safety. So can you protect 

the public to the 10 to the minus 6, which is the risk—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Which the captain brought up. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right, exactly, which is the flight safety analysis that occurs. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. But you have to fly a bird. You have to fly 

something to get your data, to see if you are meeting that metric 

or not, right? 

The other way of regulating is a prescriptive way. Don’t fly anything—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Unless it is done this way. So I get 

that. 

Does ALPA, Captain, believe in performance-based or not? 

Mr. CANOLL. Yes, we believe in performance-based risk analysis. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Mr. CANOLL. And prescriptive is needed in some areas, but performance-based works. 

Mr. ROKITA. Are you willing to partner with the—— 

Mr. CANOLL. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Mr. CANOLL. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROKITA. And then, with regard to NextGen or anything else 

the FAA is doing, do you find that the IT, Ms. Powers, that you 

all kind of referenced, is it being actively engaged in? I might have 

missed this in your testimony. Is it being actively engaged with in 

terms of NextGen or anything else the FAA is working on? 

Ms. POWERS. Right. So this is an important point. The FAA developed an Aviation Rulemaking Committee focused on—— 

Mr. ROKITA. OK, that is—— 

Ms. POWERS [continuing]. Integration of the NAS. And one of the 

things they are focusing on very heavily is the development of tools 

like NextGen, SDI, some of the things—— 

Mr. ROKITA. And, real quick, happy or not with that progress so 

far? 

Ms. POWERS. I think the progress is slow. I think they could be 

developed more quickly. I think the resources and budgetary constraints are hindering that process. 

Mr. ROKITA. Budgetary constraints, it is all about the monies. 

Ms. POWERS. In many cases. 

Mr. ROKITA. There is a lot of money out there. 

Ms. POWERS. There is. 

Mr. ROKITA. Captain, do you feel the same way? 

Mr. CANOLL. I won’t comment on the pace, I just want to make 

sure we do it in an order that doesn’t violate any of the safety 

rules, and we got to fire out how to reconcile the difference in the 

safety 10 to the minus 6, 10 to the minus 9th when we get to that 

final end stage. We can do it. 

20 

Mr. ROKITA. So it is a little bit of a tango on what the performance metric will be. 

Mr. CANOLL. Correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Mr. CANOLL. Correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK, fair enough. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from 

the District of Columbia, Ms. Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank these witnesses. 

This is exciting to hear of the rapid growth of commercial space in 

the transportation industry. And I don’t—nobody wanted to slow it 

down. But I would like to hear you elaborate on this 1-year timeframe for streamlining regulations. 

Now, I have been on this committee for a long time. I have never 

seen regulations done within 1 year. And, of course, Congress gets 

impatient with it, but here—and I go—because perhaps you elaborated more, Ms. Garehime, perhaps more than others, although 

Captain Canoll has spoken of it, as well. And your testimony has 

a headline that says ‘‘Safety Must Remain the Top Priority,’’ and 

I think everybody on this committee would agree with it. 

You indicate that—and I am looking directly at your testimony— 

you cite Atlas and Delta vehicles that apparently have considerable 

experience in launching. But you said during the—here I am 

quoting you—‘‘During the regulation streamlining process, it has 

often seemed that the stakeholders being given the reins by Government to drive the conversation include companies that are very 

new to the launch market or have yet to fly anything in space. 

These companies may not understand how challenging it is to reliably and safely launch to space.’’ 

So I would like to hear your comments on these twin goals, 

streamline regulations and make sure you do it safely, to ask you 

whether you think this can be accomplished. And, indeed, any comments you have would, I think, educate the committee we hold the 

industry accountable. 

Ms. GAREHIME. Thank you for the opportunity. You are right, 

Atlas and Delta are launch vehicles with 100 percent mission success, and we think we have the most experience in this realm. We 

are the most reliable launch provider. 

We think, with regard to the ARC process, it has been a very 

beneficial process. We have a lot of collaboration among industry, 

and we all agree—at least through the ARC process—that the regulations should move to a performance-based approach. 

One thing that you mentioned was the timeline. So we have concerns that the timeline is so aggressive and now the ARC has provided its comments to the FAA and the FAA is off writing the regulations, and we understand at this point there won’t be collaboration between the ARC and the FAA until the notice of proposed 

rulemaking comes out. So we have some concerns there—— 

Ms. NORTON. So what does that do to the timeline? 

Ms. GAREHIME. What does that do to the timeline? Well, it probably—you would have to ask the FAA, but it probably makes it 

easier for the FAA to meet their deadlines without the collaboraVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:54 Sep 25, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\6-26-2~1\31577.TXT JEAN
21 

tion, because if the ARC and the FAA were working together, that 

may delay the process with industry input. 

But if we wait until the notice of proposed rulemaking comes out 

for industry input through the ARC, our concern at ULA is that 

the regulations don’t necessarily address the input that we provided through the ARC. 

Ms. NORTON. Captain Canoll, you mentioned safety, and I can 

understand that pilots always think of safety first. But that may 

not mean everybody in the industry does. And I wonder what you 

think of this timeline. And if something must be sacrificed, what 

would you sacrifice? 

Mr. CANOLL. So, as I mentioned before, that safety is going to always take precedence over any timeline that is established. There 

is just no way to avoid that. The FAA needs time to do their safety 

data analysis so that they propose rules that they are comfortable 

meet the safety standard, be it in the segregated airspace or in integrated airspace. 

There is just no variance on that. Whether we are sitting on the 

end of the runway, deciding if it is safe to take off now with the 

weather that is on our departure path, again, whether it is a scheduled operation with 300 people sitting behind you, you always default to the safest course. And if the safest course means we are 

not going to make the 12-month deadline, well then, we are just 

not going to make the 12-month deadline. 

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate that understanding. I assume it goes for the entire panel. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, General Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, folks, for your 

involvement today. I know we are talking about rules and the regulatory process, but I want to kind of look at it from a macro sense. 

And I lament that we have—I think at some point we were—at 

least in my mind—losing in this global competitive space market. 

And I think we have regained a fair amount, but I just want to 

kind of—that is how I want to kind of fashion my remarks, or my 

questions. 

You folks are on the forefront of commercial space operation. I 

am just wondering how is the U.S. space sector faring regarding 

our competition, globally? Are we doing better? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Well, so, sir, we are doing better at this point, 

in the sense that if there is 100 percent available, and we are capturing 60 percent, that is a lot better than we were doing 6, 8, 10 

years ago. 

You are right. At one point in the 1980s we had 100 percent of 

that market, and we ceded it. 

Mr. PERRY. Right. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. And now we are recapturing it. And I think 

that is a source of pride, especially at SpaceX, but particularly for 

the Nation. 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, I think it is a source of pride for the Nation. And 

I think us folks in Congress want to make sure we don’t get in the 

way, right? We don’t want regulations to get in the way. But as the 

Delegate from Washington said, if you are in aviation, it is all 

22 

about safety. I mean that is just paramount, right? Nobody wants 

to, as you said—what was that, an unintended—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Disassembly. 

Mr. PERRY. Disassembly? That is a fascinating way of putting 

that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERRY. That is interesting. But anyhow, so in that vein, we 

still want to deliver our astronauts to space. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Right. 

Mr. PERRY. What is—but you have a vehicle that is ready to go, 

according—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Correct, we are—— 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. To your testimony, right? So what is 

the—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. We are very excited and honored to be 

partnered with NASA in the commercial crew program to deliver 

NASA astronauts to the International Space Station from U.S. soil 

for the first time since 2011. That vehicle, the Dragon spacecraft, 

the crew version, on the Falcon 9 Block 5—have been built, and 

will be certified to meet NASA’s requirements. That is a very specific, very high intensity—— 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. High, intense—very intense level of requirements to meet NASA’s safety standards. 

Mr. PERRY. And what is the timeline? What can our—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So our first demonstration mission under the 

commercial crew program without crew is later this summer. And 

the second mission is supposed to be in December. And that is with 

two astronauts on board. 

Mr. PERRY. And that will go to the International Space Station, 

or that—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Correct. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. We will do a demonstration mission with two. 

Those—and following that, we will be carrying up to four NASA astronauts with an FAA-licensed launch for NASA to the International Space Station. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. What about you folks? You are delivering everything without flaw, it sounds like. So when are you getting in the 

game? 

Ms. GAREHIME. We are in the game. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. 

Ms. GAREHIME. So we also have a commercial crew contract 

with—we are the launch service provider under a NASA prime contract. And Boeing is our customer, and will be delivering astronauts, and—— 

Mr. PERRY. Do you have a timeframe? 

Ms. GAREHIME. We do have a timeframe and we understand 

NASA will be providing an update in the near future. 

Mr. PERRY. OK, all right. Do we have primary barriers in the 

United States vis-a-vis China, Russia that are problematic that 

this rulemaking tends to solve, or we are not going to hit the mark 

on that? 

23 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. What I think that this rulemaking works to 

solve is creating an optimal regulatory regime for the U.S. Government to attract launches to the United States. 

So I have been personally contacted by representatives from 

other governments who are interested in learning from us about 

how we are reforming our regulations, because they are interested 

in not starting where we started, which is with the Air Force requirements from, you know, 20, 30 years ago, but with a modernized, streamlined approach. So like the performance-based approach that we are talking about implementing here. 

Mr. PERRY. What do other governments that are competing— 

what do they use? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So most other governments are just starting 

to develop their launch licensing regulatory regimes for—— 

Mr. PERRY. But the ones that we are—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK [continuing]. Commercial—— 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. Competing with now, the—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So their government—yes. So the—it is more 

like having a government—essentially, government owned and operated system. So, as opposed to having a commercial licensing regime like we do, under which, you know, SpaceX flies predominantly, they have government systems. So it is more like being a 

commercial provider, where the government covers your system. 

Mr. PERRY. And do they do the same thing—would—I think 

about it as a TFR [temporary flight restriction], but what did you 

call it? What is the terminology? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. The hazard area, the coordination with their 

airspace. 

Mr. PERRY. You called it something else, like a—it is not a nofly-box, it is a—what—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Well, they issue NOTAMs, notice to airmen—— 

Mr. PERRY. Yes, yes. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK [continuing]. To implement what is a TFR, a 

temporary flight—— 

Mr. PERRY. It is a TFR? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Yes, yes. 

Mr. PERRY. It is essentially a TFR? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. They used to be—yes. 

Mr. PERRY. And they use the same thing? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Well, I don’t—well, actually, I was going to 

say—— 

Mr. PERRY. Or some—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. As far as other governments are concerned, I 

would assume that they are similar. But I am not familiar with 

aviation rules in other nations. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Time has expired. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my home State of 

Georgia there are thousands of aerospace employees working for 

24 

large aerospace corporations that export more than $8.5 billion in 

aerospace products annually. 

Additionally, the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Aerospace Engineering is the largest aerospace engineering program in 

the United States, and was ranked third in the 2014 rankings of 

the best undergraduate engineering programs by U.S. News and 

World Report. 

Because of our educational institutions, skilled workforce, and 

large manufacturing operations, I believe Georgia is poised to become a leader in the space sector if we remain vigilant and focused 

on preparing our workforce. As commercial space exploration increases, how will aerospace workforce needs change, and what 

should we be doing to prepare the next aerospace workforce? 

Ms. POWERS. I will take that. I think what is important is there 

is amazing innovation going on in this industry right now. And 

some of the leading universities, much like Georgia Tech, is responsible for training the next generation of engineers that will innovate in that way. 

So when we talk about things like reusability and alternative architectures, finding the way to enhance the safety of these vehicles 

while driving cost down through innovative measures, that has 

been really, really important for this industry, and it will be, going 

forward. Blue Origin has proudly partnered with a number of great 

engineering universities to support those efforts. 

Mr. CANOLL. I will add on that we have seen it quite dramatically in my profession, in my industry. Commercial success entices 

people to want to go join them. It is exciting, it is doing well. There 

is a career opportunity to be productive and add something exciting 

to the economy and to your family and to science, in many cases. 

It will naturally attract the best and the brightest. 

During periods of my industry, when bankruptcies were rampant 

and there was not any commercial success, we had a horrible time 

attracting people to become airline pilots. And we are paying for a 

little bit there right now. Over the last 10 years, though, it has improved dramatically, and the flight schools are full. So I think that 

is great evidence that if the expected commercial success we see 

from these companies happens, they are not going to have any 

trouble attracting people to the industry. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. And I will ask this of the panel. In 

your opinion are there any current FAA regulations that are inhibiting private-sector growth? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Well, I would say that there are examples 

within the launch-licensing regime, regulatory regime, that is inhibiting innovation, and that is the prescriptive approach to the expendable launch vehicle regulations in part 415 and 417. 

So if you look at a performance-based approach like we are advocating for, and you look at an example like flight safety systems, 

one of the most important aspects of our vehicle, and the thing, 

really, that is the focus of the FAA’s regulatory approach, if you 

take a prescriptive approach, and you tell industry that this is exactly what to do to be safe, so to speak, then you limit innovation 

that can actually improve safety. 

And we see that with the flight safety system that is dictated by 

the current regulations. It takes a traditional approach, whereas 

25 

we, at SpaceX, in partnership with the Air Force, have actually 

moved to what is called an autonomous flight safety system, which 

is a much more responsive approach to safety than a traditional 

flight safety system. And that would not have happened under the 

existing regulations. It happened because the Air Force took the 

initiative to drive that. We worked with the Air Force, and then we 

convinced the FAA to accept this other approach, despite the fact 

that their regulations demand a less-safe approach. 

Ms. POWERS. And I will add—and I think an important point to 

that—given that the FAA licenses reusable launch vehicles differently. 

Blue Origin has been operating its New Shepard system from 

west Texas, and on board that vehicle is an autonomous flight safety system that we have used now for 2 years. And we were able 

to move through review of that system and vetting of that system 

with FAA under their reusable launch vehicle regulations because 

the approach of those regulations is not prescriptive. They are a 

system safety review, a performance-based review. And that is why 

we have advocated for using that set of regulations as the basis for 

development of a new set of regulations, going forward. 

So there is this dichotomy in the industry where some of us have 

been able to have a little bit of flexibility in innovation. And the 

primary hurdles that we see—back to your original question, are 

there regulations that inhibit progress—the process-based regulations, as far as how you move through the application process, are 

very, very difficult for the cadence that we are trying to achieve, 

as launch operators. 

So the 6-month review timeline of a license application, when 

you update something about the vehicle, having to maintain that 

information with the FAA and have them review, sometimes starting anew an entire license application. So FAA is a bit constrained 

into how they can move through the licensing process because of 

the existing regulations. And that applies to any vehicle architecture. And that is something that we focused on very heavily in this 

ARC effort to update. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

I have exceeded my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

Arkansas, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

witnesses. 

NASA says that there are up to 500,000 objects in space that are 

1 to 10 centimeters in diameter, this water bottle is about 6 centimeters in diameter [holding up a water bottle]. And then over 

20,000 objects that are over 10 centimeters in diameter, or roughly 

larger than the size of a softball, that are floating through space. 

And they also say that space junk can reach speeds of about 17,500 

miles per hour. And if my math is correct, that is 530 times the 

speed of a .50-caliber machinegun bullet. So that is pretty potent 

objects that are flying through the galaxy, or through the atmosphere. 

And I have got a question when you think about safety and space 

travel. Is there a proper regulatory framework to provide commercial operators such as yourselves the necessary information to track 

26 

this debris and to keep your launch vehicles—and in the future, astronauts—safe in space? And how do you coordinate with the Federal Government to track this? 

And I also read that even the space shuttle had damage done by 

pieces of debris the size of paint flecks, and there are millions of 

those floating around in space. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Excellent question, thank you. So in the 

course of undertaking the licensing—licenses that we receive from 

the FAA right now today for launching, we receive what is called 

a COLA, essentially a collision analysis to look for any kind of collision that would occur, most importantly, with the International 

Space Station, our permanently manned laboratory in space. And 

that helps us design our trajectories and our timing of our launch. 

It goes to the point that there is only so much movement we can 

have, so sometimes we can’t launch on a specific day because of 

this collision avoidance concern. That is part of what happens 

today. And the JSpOC [Joint Space Operations Center] actually 

provides that service, so it comes through the Department of Defense. 

There are discussions underway led by the National Space Council—and I want to show appreciation for the work in the House 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, as well, on the space 

situational awareness piece of legislation that Chairman Babin, I 

believe, plans to move tomorrow. SpaceX supports that legislation 

and the idea of moving that space situational awareness service 

that is provided to launch operators, as well as to satellite operators. So our launch customers want to know that their satellite is 

going to be entering into an orbit that is safe, and that other things 

won’t be colliding with it. Whatever the size may be. 

And that also goes to a point about the bill that is a very important one, and that is that we need to improve our capability of 

tracking. So one of the ideas behind the legislation that we certainly think is very important is improving the fidelity of the information that we receive so that it is more actionable for operators, 

be that satellite operators who might need to expend vital fuels, 

moving their satellites to avoid debris in space, or launch operators 

who are looking to book launch windows that perhaps don’t disrupt 

the NAS quite as much. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Would anybody else like to address that? 

Ms. POWERS. Well, I think this is a very important topic, and I 

echo many of Caryn’s comments. The Department of Defense has 

provided this service for the industry for a long time. And looking 

at the increase in commercial activities in space, it is certainly understandable that we revisit whether DoD is the right person to be 

providing that service for all of industry any more. 

And we also support the efforts to move a lot of that capability 

to the Department of Commerce. Certainly the existing tools and 

infrastructure that are in place will still be relied upon and, hopefully, improved to make the entire system more safe as we increase 

the number of objects that are in space. So—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes. So as we put more objects in space, that 

lends you to think there is going to be more space debris over time. 

Are there activities being taken to reduce the amount of space debris, and also any efforts to clean up some of the space debris? 

27 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So as far as reducing or containing the 

amount of space debris, when we launch to orbit, be it with our second-stage vehicle that is delivering a payload, or if we are going 

to be operating, for example, a constellation of satellites in orbit, 

there are requirements in the licensing of the launch vehicle, as 

well as operating spacecraft in orbit that go to orbital debris propagation, so their ability to protect against, as you indicated, debris 

in space causing a catastrophic event to that spacecraft, as well as 

any kind of propagation of debris. 

So, for example, at SpaceX we often deorbit our second stage, or 

we move the second stage into a safe parking orbit. That is part 

of the licensing regime. So the license regime looks at the safety 

of the public through the NAS. But in that regard, with the vehicle 

itself, it looks to the space safety, as well. And I will assure you 

that SpaceX is certainly very interested in preserving the space environment, as we not only want to launch our own constellation, we 

want to launch customers, and we want them to all be able to operate safely in space. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from 

Nevada, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much. A lot of my technical questions 

have been asked and answered, but I would just like to continue 

with this notion of how crowded space is getting, and not just with 

this trash that is floating around. 

If you look at our airspace, now you got more small regional airlines, you have got more international flights that can travel 

longer, you have got open skies, you have got the UAV [unmanned 

aerial vehicle] industry that is out there, we have got a possible 

creation now the President has talked about a space force, and now 

this commercial space industry. 

I am wondering, if you move from accommodation to integration, 

are all of these people at the table with the FAA, which tends to 

be very slow and hidebound anyway, or are you just operating in 

silos and then we are going to have to put it all together somewhere down the road? 

Mr. CANOLL. So, in the instance of the NextGen Advisory Committee, most representatives—I do not believe there is a commercial space operator on the NextGen Advisory Committee. ALPA is 

a member of the NextGen Advisory Committee. The Drone Advisory Committee is another one where we have good representation, 

but I don’t think it is all-encompassing. And Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory Committee, ALPA is not a member of 

that. 

A lot of the issues solved in this—and you are absolutely correct, 

it is a finite resource, the national airspace—that we need to find 

ways to accommodate all these users. We just have to. And, technologically speaking, there are ways to do it. But it is going to take 

all the players to be in the same room. 

So we would urge to expand the cross-section on the NextGen 

Advisory Committee, the Drone Advisory Committee, and the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, to include all 

the players. 

Ms. TITUS. Did you all hear that? 

28 

Ms. POWERS. I think those are great points. I will highlight that 

the Aviation Rulemaking Committee focused on national aerospace 

issues and integrations and space ports. That seems to be an effort 

to engage a lot of these interests that have not previously been on 

the same panels together. 

So that seems to be the one recent effort that does the best job 

of bringing all of these interests in to collaborate on some of these 

issues. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. And I will add that the Federal Advisory Committee, the FACA for commercial space, the COMSTAC, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, was recently reinstituted, and it includes not only, I think, stakeholders from 

every aspect of the aviation industry, but was actually reconstituted with aviation members for the first time. 

Ms. TITUS. That is good. My other question is it is called commercial space transportation activities, and yet what I have heard 

you all say is you have contracts with NASA to take some astronauts to the International Space Station, you depend on the Department of Defense for tracking the trash that is out there, you 

work with the Air Force. What are you doing commercially? What 

are you doing in the private sector? Is this for tourism, is it for scientific research, is it for communications, is it just because you can 

fly out there and want to prove it? What are some of the commercial applications you anticipate? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Well, I will point out that our ranking mem- ber today noted that there are $158 billion of space investments occurring on an annual basis. And the majority of those are actually 

satellite-related. So satellite manufacturing, satellite operations. So 

DIRECTV, communications, the Wi-Fi on board your flight across 

the country, all of those kinds of applications that we see, in addition to the Government applications that you noted. 

So the majority of SpaceX’s contracts are actually commercial 

contracts. They are to launch those satellites, the commercial satellites that provide those services for commercial entities to space. 

So while we do provide launch services to the U.S. Government, 

one of the things that is notable about the way that we provide 

those services is that we provide them under a firm, fixed-price 

contract. And that is a commercial-like contract. So that is why you 

hear commercial space talked about even with regard to NASA, 

like the commercial crew program, or the commercial transportation program for delivering cargo to the space station. It is because those are conducted under commercial-like contracts. 

But it is important to know that we had 18 launches at SpaceX 

last year, 17 of those were FAA-licensed as commercial-style 

launches. And the majority of those were for commercial customers, 

non-U.S. Government customers. 

Ms. GAREHIME. Right now ULA does work with the FAA for commercial—like Caryn was saying, commercially licensed contracts. 

In the past we have worked with various companies—Digital 

Globe, EchoStar, the Cygnus missions—I am sorry, not Cygnus, it 

is—the name is escaping me. But we have had strictly commercial 

missions. Right now we—our commercial missions are—have Government end customers. But again, our fixed-price contract is licensed through the FAA. 

29 

And then, looking forward, we expect to have more commercial 

missions with, for example, Astrobotic, which has a lunar lander 

that—it is planning to launch in the 2020 timeframe. 

So the different launch services really vary across the board. 

Ms. POWERS. And I will add from Blue Origin’s perspective. 

Every example that you provided of a commercial endeavor are 

ones that we are currently undertaking and pursuing. So we have 

private research interests whose payloads we are launching on 

every New Shepard flight. We also—I mentioned our collaboration 

with NASA, so we are launching payloads with Government interests, too. 

We are very, very methodically and rapidly moving towards a 

day when we will fly private astronauts to space. So we certainly 

envision a day, not just on our New Shepard program, but also on 

our New Glenn orbital vehicle program that we are developing, 

where we will fly commercial satellites, we will fly commercial research payloads, as well as Government payloads, as well, and 

Government satellites, as well as people. So Government astronauts, private actors. We approach this as we are providing a commercial service, a commercial launch service, to whatever type of 

customer might be out there wanting to get to space. 

So our approach is we are not providing Government launches 

when we have a Government payload on board; we are providing 

commercial services to a Government customer, a private customer, 

a commercial business entity. So we hope to cover the entire scope 

that you mention in your question. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, let’s promote tourism. I am from Las Vegas, we 

always believe in tourism. Thank you. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady from 

Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. Panel, I have a very strong passion 

for workforce issues. Today every industry is facing challenges for 

a skilled workforce. Standards of education, barrier to entry, lack 

of collaborations between public and the private sector, racial and 

gender diversity are just a few of the factors that impact our workforce. 

In the next 10 to 15 years it is estimated that the size of the 

global space economy will nearly double. To meet such needs, the 

workforce also has to grow. So what do you believe we need to do 

to ensure that we have a workforce equipped to manage the future 

commercial space transportation venues and projects. I have been 

in contact with the—worked closely with the pilots, knowing there 

is a critical need now for pilots in the commercial arena. And now 

we are talking about the space arena. 

So please comment. I will start with you, Captain. What—when 

we start elevating—and this all sounds good, and we get the laws 

and the plans. Will we have the workforce ready to step in and do 

the work? 

Mr. CANOLL. So I completely agree. We have to have a long vision here to understand how we are going to do it. And not everyone is suited for the same job. The aptitude for becoming an aerospace engineer is different than an aptitude for becoming a pilot. 

Someone has to desire it, as well. 

30 

To my earlier point, success breeds desire from those who look 

at the industry that they are beginning to really grow at a rapid 

rate now will breed success and those will want to be part of it. 

But there are challenges in making sure everyone has an equal opportunity here. 

Currently, we do have a dip in the availability of pilots, due to 

the factors I mentioned earlier, where, for example, the industry 

was doing very poorly, and I personally took a 42-percent pay cut, 

lost my retirement. My benefits were slashed. We have built back, 

and people are starting to come back to the industry, but still, only 

6 percent of airline pilots are women in this country. That has got 

to be addressed. 

So we are taking efforts to ensure at even the primary school 

level, that our association is out there, visiting thousands of schools 

every year, making sure that the guidance counselors and the kids 

are exposed to aviation as a potential career early on, so that they 

find out if they have the aptitude and they want to join this. 

And I would urge our friends from commercial space to do the 

same thing. There is a natural attractiveness to commercial space. 

I mean it is the Buck Rogers effect. People are going to want to 

do it. That doesn’t mean you are going to get the cross-section from 

society that you really need to do it. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Yes, Ms. Powers. 

Ms. POWERS. Well, you have touched on something that I am personally very passionate about, and I am proud to say that Blue Origin has a great interest in this, as well. I was an engineer for a 

long time before I became a lawyer. So something that I have great 

interest in is making sure that I personally and Blue Origin, as a 

company, supports STEM efforts for young children in grade school 

and high school. 

We have a number of outreach efforts that many Blue Origin employees are engaged in to make sure that young children and high 

school students have the opportunity to be exposed to science and 

technology and engineering, regardless of their gender, regardless 

of their race, regardless of their socio-economic status. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Ms. POWERS. This is very important to us. 

And the other thing that I am very proud to talk about as far 

as Blue Origin’s efforts is we have an amazing university outreach 

program that organizes a number of women’s and diversity initiatives. We have events on our campus in Seattle, where we invite 

women of college age to come and interact with our engineers and 

learn about the work that we do at Blue Origin, and to support 

tech careers in technology and engineering. And we very proudly 

partner with some of the Michigan universities, too. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. And the next two comments, could you just tell 

me also—because we talk about the engineers, but there is a whole 

workforce that is needed that is not an engineer, it is the skilled 

trades, like your electronic technicians, your computer programmers. And this is a work group that we know is the—growing and 

the most abandoned right now workforce, because if you do not go 

to college, there is still an amazing amount of opportunities in 

skilled trades. Will you please talk to that? 

31 

And I just want to say, Ms. Powers, thank you for saying socioeconomics. Because a child is not in this elitist zip code does not 

mean that child does not have the capacity nor the dream to enter 

into the commercial space industry. And frankly, because the baby 

boomers are dropping off and this industry is growing, we are going 

to have to look past our bias that if you are poor you don’t belong 

in this industry. And women have traditionally been bypassed. So 

thank you for that. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. And Representative Lawrence, I want to point 

out that the child that you are speaking of that might come from 

that socio-economic background that is a little bit more challenging 

could grow up to be one of the technicians that we depend upon 

at SpaceX. You know, I am very honored to be part of a 6,000- 

strong workforce that does include engineers, but that heavily relies on technicians that come from a whole host of backgrounds. 

So today that means that we hire folks that were working in the 

house-building industry, maybe the automotive industry, and we 

bring them in and we train them to work in aerospace because 

when we started building this company, there weren’t exactly dozens and dozens of aerospace-trained engineers and technicians who 

were looking to start at a new startup company that was wanting 

to be as innovative as SpaceX is. And so we are very honored to 

have those very important members of our team. 

I am also honored to work for the president of our company, 

Gwynne Shotwell, who works tirelessly to promote women’s engagement in the aerospace industry, and also honored to be part 

of various interest groups within the company. So while we work 

external to the company to promote these interests, we also have 

really good, strong support networks within our company that we 

understand are vital to maintaining that workforce internally, and 

also to then promote our efforts externally. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentlelady yields back. While we have all of 

this expertise gathered in one place, with your indulgence, we 

would like to pursue it. I would like to yield to a second round. 

The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to 

something Ms. Powers said nearly an hour and a half ago, I guess, 

and it was about the use—the DoD site, and then—and therefore, 

the requirement that you have to use USAF requirements, even if 

you have an RLV. 

And so the question is then why did you use it? And second, you 

know, must you use it? And third, what would be the alternative 

if the requirements didn’t change? 

Ms. POWERS. And, I am sorry, why did we use the—— 

Mr. LARSEN. You said you—no, the—because you used a Federal 

range, you had to do the prescriptive—— 

Ms. POWERS. Right. 

Mr. LARSEN [continuing]. Rules, even though you are using an 

RLV. 

Ms. POWERS. Right. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Ms. POWERS. Why did we go to a Federal range? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

32 

Ms. POWERS. Yes. So there is—I think probably secret to no one, 

there is an amazing legacy that exists at our Federal ranges. There 

are folks working for the Space Wings that have a great deal of expertise in this area. And we saw it as a benefit not just from existing infrastructure that was already there—there are launch pads 

and launch sites where we had the opportunity to either refurbish 

or build new structures, relying on the infrastructure that already 

existed. 

We definitely have brought a commercial approach to that relationship, and this is where we see the struggle with the prescriptive requirements in many ways, whether it is building infrastructure or launching and returning a vehicle to that location. 

So it was definitely a cost-benefit analysis, and we decided that 

we had an opportunity to go to a Federal range and rely on some 

of that amazing legacy expertise and infrastructure and the support that they could bring our program, while also progressing that 

model forward to be accepting of a more modernized, commercial 

approach in some ways. 

So we see it as a system that can progress the same way that 

the administration has directed—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. So—— 

Ms. POWERS [continuing]. That the Air Force progress. 

Mr. LARSEN. So if, as the numbers show, the commercial 

launches out of the U.S. are going to increase, does that become 

less of an incentive as the numbers increase to use Federal ranges? 

Ms. POWERS. To use—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Or is it more of an incentive? 

Ms. POWERS. Well, I will say, given that we also have the experience of flying New Shepard at a private launch site, we enjoy a lot 

of flexibility at our private launch site that we don’t see at Cape 

Canaveral. 

And we feel that we have succeeded at setting up a vehicle that 

operates very safely from a public safety perspective at our west 

Texas launch site, and there are a lot of benefits to operating from 

a private site. And I think we have seen, with the increase in the 

number of space ports in any number of locations around this country, that other actors might be behaving in the same way. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Ms. Schenewerk, do you have a comment on 

that? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Sure. One of the comments that I would like 

to make about being on a Federal range versus being on a non-Federal range—and we are on both about 3 miles apart from each 

other—is that when we operate with the Air Force, one of the benefits is the Air Force’s ability to update its requirements with some 

level of regularity and ease that does not exist to rules that are 

written in the Federal Register and subject to the Administrative 

Procedures Act. 

So what we see as being—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Some would see that as—for some things, yes. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So for one of that actually drives one of the 

recommendations that we have with regard to the FAA rulemaking 

process, which is to create a performance-based approach, but then 

move—you could move some of the things that are prescriptive in 

the ELV regulations to guidance or to advisory circulars that could 

33 

be updated more regularly, and then you could accommodate these 

operations under two different authorities in a much more streamlined manner, and they could keep pace with each other much better. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Ms. Garehime, do you have a thought on this, as well? 

Ms. GAREHIME. Well, ULA operates at the Federal ranges. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Ms. GAREHIME. Only at the Federal ranges. So no real comment 

there. 

Mr. LARSEN. So—OK, that is fine. That is fine. It is about 10 

members of this committee that are also on the House Armed Services Committee, and it might be time for the 10 of us to—probably 

past time for the 10 of us to maybe sit down as a group amongst 

ourselves and brainstorm this cross-over between DOT and DoD. 

Can I get some clarification on the use of the NAS for launches 

that—generally, do each of you believe that the technology is progressing and we have the people to narrow the amount of space 

that we absolutely have to use for commercial launches to address 

some of the issues about conflict in the NAS? Generally? 

Ms. POWERS. I think we absolutely do at this time. There have 

been a number of initiatives in the past, some of them mentioned 

today—— 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Ms. POWERS [continuing]. That just really need to be finalized, 

right? So we have practiced and achieved flowing telemetry from 

flying space vehicles into the data center in New Jersey. And the 

final piece is getting those integrated into the air traffic system so 

that air traffic controllers can actually rely on that data. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CANOLL. Yes, I agree. I think the real-time data will allow 

us to shrink the airspace that we have to segregate. 

The next step after that—because that will limit it to a certain 

point—is the actual integration, so there isn’t segregated airspace. 

They are operating with us. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Mr. CANOLL. That is where we run into the problem of adopting 

a 10 to the minus 9 or 10 to the minus 6. There is the challenge, 

scientifically. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. In that regard, my understanding is that we 

are years out from this if we don’t expedite that approach soon. So 

right now there are folks within the NextGen office who are looking 

at how to design those. They have been running some test cases 

and designing some tests of this capability. They have some designs. But there is a next level of procurement that needs to occur, 

and then an integration testing and verification that needs to 

occur. I have been told that that could be as long as 7 years. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Ms. Garehime? 

Ms. GAREHIME. We are just becoming part of this conversation 

through the airspace integration ARC, and I think there is a lot of 

education that needs to be done on both sides. We just participated 

in the ARC committee meeting where we learned the airlines’ perspective, and we have agreed to give a similar presentation back 

34 

to the airlines, so that they can better understand why do we have 

these long launch windows like some of the other panelists have 

discussed. 

So I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done, and we 

are doing that through the ARC. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. If the chairman will indulge me—thank you. 

So Captain Canoll testified earlier about the presence of the moratorium until—is it 2023? On a lot of what the FAA can do, but 

there are some exceptions. 

But yet your argument, Captain, is that it doesn’t prevent the 

FAA from working on these issues that it might be able to bring 

folks together outside of regulation because there are outstanding 

issues that need to get addressed. Is that generally what you—— 

Mr. CANOLL. Absolutely. We shouldn’t wait to 2023 and begin the 

process. We can start right now. As a matter of fact, we must start 

right now if we want a nice set of comprehensive, safe procedures 

and rules for us to jointly operate in the national airspace. We have 

to start right now. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, I think we have to clear the room after we are 

done with the hearing, but maybe you guys could meet out in the 

hall. 

Mr. CANOLL. I am willing. I got the rest of the—— 

Mr. LARSEN. It is that urgent. Do the rest of the panelists believe 

the same, you don’t need to be waiting for the moratorium to lift, 

because—— 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So—— 

Mr. LARSEN [continuing]. And my personal view—this is kind of 

a classic thing, where Congress will come to 2022 and say, ‘‘Let’s 

extend it for about 5 more years,’’ which may be a good idea and 

may be a bad idea. But it is a matter of work having to get done 

being stymied by a moratorium that may not be necessary at the 

time, so—— 

Ms. POWERS. I think it is important to clarify that that moratorium is applicable to passenger safety. So human astronaut—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Ms. POWERS [continuing]. Safety on board the vehicle. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Ms. POWERS. The airspace issues, those are within the realm of 

the public safety efforts that are ongoing. So there is just a little 

bit of a difference there. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sure. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Yes, that is a very important point of clarification, and I think a misconception about this learning period. 

The FAA regulates our activities for public safety so that is to 

prevent harm to any people or Government property on the ground 

or in the air or at sea. So it is regulated for that safety aspect. This 

question of the learning period specifically has to do with carrying 

human space flight participants on board a spacecraft. 

So as far as the public is concerned, the difference between having a human on board and having a satellite on board is—it is the 

same level of safety to protect the uninvolved public. 

I will also point out that many of us that are engaged in carrying 

human space flight participants, we are doing so at SpaceX in collaboration with NASA. So we are building our Dragon spacecraft 

35 

to meet NASA human space flight requirements, and to achieve 

their certification level. So that is a significant level of what you 

could otherwise call regulation, but because it is NASA it is requirements that go to the design and build and operation of that 

vehicle. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right, right. 

Ms. Garehime? 

Ms. GAREHIME. We think it is time to start the discussion about 

ending the moratorium. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, OK, great. So thanks. 

In closing, I would like you all—and I invite the subcommittee, 

if it is possible—to come back and report in a year, once the FAA 

has issued its proposed rule. Clearly, there is still a lot of opportunity to ensure the continued growth and success of the commercial space industry, but being mindful of the safety mandate. 

And I would be interested in hearing from all of you before then, 

as well, but—on what the FAA’s proposal seems to address and 

what requirements might need further evaluation and time to work 

through. 

So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. 

Captain, I was looking at the enthusiasm on your face when you 

were talking about your Buck Rogers moment there. I don’t know 

how many folks that reference might have been lost on, it is becoming more and more dated. 

Mr. CANOLL. Legacy reference, sorry about that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOODALL. Folks are excited, though. I have got a letter here 

from all 14 Georgia congressmen promoting a space port down in 

Camden County. As you may know, we don’t have any folks committed to flying out of there yet, though we would love to share 

that with the folks who are interested. But that kind of enthusiasm 

is driving a lot of these discussions. 

I saw in your testimony your concern that commenting before 

you know how a facility is going to be used makes it a little more 

difficult to comment. Distinguish for me, thinking about a legacy 

reference, if I am thinking about BQK, our little Brunswick Glynn 

County Airport down there on the coast, we can come and expand 

that airport’s purpose many times over many years, separate comment period for each expansion down there, lots of opportunity for 

folks to get involved. How are we disadvantaging American airspace with commenting before we understand an intended purpose 

for a space port, rather than after? 

Mr. CANOLL. So I don’t think I want to use the word 

‘‘disadvantaging,’’ because someone is going to use the airspace for 

their benefit, be it unmanned aircraft system or be it commercial 

space transportation. Someone is going to use it. It is a matter of 

fairness in who got displaced so we can do it. 

Mr. WOODALL. OK. 

Mr. CANOLL. Short of our implementation, or integration, complete integration, we are still stuck with this, well, we have to displace the users while we launch. OK? Even for a short period. 

And if you take the south Georgia proposal, the issue there is 

while there isn’t a lot of local traffic, except for maybe Savannah 

36 

nearby, Jacksonville just to the south, there is a tremendous 

amount of north-south overhead traffic transiting up and down the 

east coast. And if you were to look at the FlightAware diagrams, 

you would see that. 

So the concept in that instance would be, OK, we are going to 

authorize the space port, but we really don’t know what it is going 

to do—to your point—until we see what the operator intends to fly 

out of the space port. So it is a little disconnected right now. We 

think, you know, a joint application, so you could see the whole picture when making comments as to the impact, not only from a 

safety perspective, but from the economic perspective for my members to have access to the airspace that they need to earn their income. 

Mr. WOODALL. It certainly makes sense, limited resource, understand the impact on other potential users of the resource. 

From the commercial perspective, you would agree with the captain, that we should understand what the use of a space port would 

be before we initially license it, or that we are advantaged by licensing first and understanding utilization later? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. So one of the things that I would like to point 

out about this—and this isn’t an agreement or a disagreement—is 

that when a space port puts forward its application, my understanding is they have to—and I have not undertaken this effort, 

but this is my understanding—is that they have to put forward 

types of vehicles and types of trajectories that would be launching 

from that site. But that is separate and apart from the actual 

launch license that an entity would have to get to even be able to 

operate from that site. 

So if you are going to have a space port and a licensed space port 

that is going to be a multiuser space port, that space port can get 

a license that covers the idea that you would have activities there. 

But any operator of a launch vehicle or a reentry vehicle is going 

to have to go and acquire a separate license covering their specific 

activities, their kinds of trajectories, their kind of vehicle, and their 

kinds of operations from that site. 

Mr. WOODALL. Now, understanding that Congress is sometimes 

slow and delay is often the norm, as Mr. Larsen just referenced, 

help me understand when—if we are setting deadlines, of when the 

synthesized airspace should occur, the day we leave blocked space, 

and we have a synthesized system. Your expectation as experts in 

the field is that that date is when? When are we prepared, as an 

industry, even if we are not yet prepared as regulators? 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. For the—clarification. For the NAS integration tools that we are looking at? 

Mr. WOODALL. That is right. 

Ms. SCHENEWERK. Yes. So we are prepared to work today—we already are, actually, through the Space Data Integrator—to provide 

our trajectory data directly to the FAA to be integrated into a tool 

that could show a controller our vehicle on the scope as it moves 

through the NAS. So that is something that we are eager to engage 

in today. 

I think that our understanding is that the timeframe is a little 

further out, due to the testing and procurement and integration 

schedule that is part of the FAA process. But as far as SpaceX is 

37 

concerned, we would happily build that tool together and provide 

that information today. 

Mr. WOODALL. Captain, as one who represents all the other users 

of the airspace today, are—do you feel like we are prepared to 

move in that—— 

Mr. CANOLL. We are certainly getting closer. There are other 

tools that will be needed to actually make it a reality. It is a great 

enhancement to have the real-time data of the space vehicle 

transiting the national airspace. 

But the controller not only has to go through training, and has 

to be tested, and has to be verified, there is a slight difference— 

excuse me—the controller today has the ability to control the airspace. It sees a user and says, ‘‘No, you need to turn right to 270.’’ 

Well, that is not an option in this instance. You can see it, but you 

can’t manipulate it. You are just using it for deconfliction purposes 

to shrink the amount of airspace needed to be deconflicted. 

The follow-on is the one we need to keep working on. This is a 

good program that is going to really advance our ability to operate 

multiple users in the airspace. But we need to be thinking always 

to the next generation. I hate to use that term, because we are always working on it. And you always think, well, we have reached 

the next generation, we are done. No, it is the one after that that 

we need to be focusing on, as well. 

Mr. WOODALL. Yes. I did watch ‘‘Hidden Figures’’ on the airplane 

coming up here, and I did see the Atlas heavily referenced there 

in the 1960s—I don’t know what next generation means, in terms 

of Atlas, but, well, that is a different conversation for a different 

day. 

Thank you all so much for committing your time and your intellect to the committee today. 

And if there are no other questions from committee members, the 

committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

38 


Insert offset folio 7 here 31577.007
39 


Insert offset folio 8 here 31577.008
40 


Insert offset folio 9 here 31577.009
41 


Insert offset folio 10 here 31577.010
42 


Insert offset folio 11 here 31577.011
43 


Insert offset folio 12 here 31577.012
44 


Insert offset folio 13 here 31577.013
45 


Insert offset folio 14 here 31577.014
46 


Insert offset folio 15 here 31577.015
47 


Insert offset folio 16 here 31577.016
48 


Insert offset folio 17 here 31577.017
49 


Insert offset folio 18 here 31577.018
50 


Insert offset folio 19 here 31577.019
51 


Insert offset folio 20 here 31577.020
52 


Insert offset folio 21 here 31577.021
53 


Insert offset folio 22 here 31577.022
54 


Insert offset folio 23 here 31577.023
55 


Insert offset folio 24 here 31577.024
56 


Insert offset folio 25 here 31577.025
57 


Insert offset folio 26 here 31577.026
58 


Insert offset folio 27 here 31577.027
59 


Insert offset folio 28 here 31577.028
60 


Insert offset folio 29 here 31577.029
61 


Insert offset folio 30 here 31577.030
62 


Insert offset folio 31 here 31577.031
63 


Insert offset folio 32 here 31577.032
64 


Insert offset folio 33 here 31577.033
65 


Insert offset folio 34 here 31577.034
66 


Insert offset folio 35 here 31577.035
67 


Insert offset folio 36 here 31577.036
68 


Insert offset folio 37 here 31577.037
69 


Insert offset folio 38 here 31577.038
70 


Insert offset folio 39 here 31577.039
71 


Insert offset folio 40 here 31577.040
72 


Insert offset folio 41 here 31577.041
73 


Insert offset folio 42 here 31577.042
74 


Insert offset folio 43 here 31577.043
75 


Insert offset folio 44 here 31577.044
76 


Insert offset folio 45 here 31577.045
77 


Insert offset folio 46 here 31577.046
78 


Insert offset folio 47 here 31577.047
79 


Insert offset folio 48 here 31577.048
80 


Insert offset folio 49 here 31577.049
81 


Insert offset folio 50 here 31577.050
82 


Insert offset folio 51 here 31577.051
83 


Insert offset folio 52 here 31577.052
84 


Insert offset folio 53 here 31577.053
85 


Insert offset folio 54 here 31577.054
86 


Insert offset folio 55 here 31577.055
87 


Insert offset folio 56 here 31577.056
88 


Insert offset folio 57 here 31577.057
89 


Insert offset folio 58 here 31577.058
90 


Insert offset folio 59 here 31577.059
91 


Insert offset folio 60 here 31577.060
92 


Insert offset folio 61 here 31577.061
93 


Insert offset folio 62 here 31577.062
94 


Insert offset folio 63 here 31577.063
95 


Insert offset folio 64 here 31577.064
96 


Insert offset folio 65 here 31577.065
97 


Insert offset folio 66 here 31577.066
98 


Insert offset folio 67 here 31577.067
99 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 68 here 31577.068