U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–770 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–283 

REOPENING THE AMERICAN FRONTIER: 

PROMOTING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN 

COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT 

TO ADVANCE EXPLORATION AND SETTLEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 13, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts, Ranking 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 13, 2017 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cruz ..................................................................................... 1 

Statement from The Center for Advancement of Science in Space 

(CASIS) .......................................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 5 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 6 

Statement of Senator Sullivan ............................................................................... 53 

WITNESSES

Jeffrey Manber, Chief Executive Officer, NanoRacks LLC .................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Tim Ellis, CEO and Co-Founder, Relativity Space, Inc. ...................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Tim Hughes, Senior Vice President, Global Business and Government Affairs, 

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) ................................................ 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Dr. Moriba K. Jah, Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Cockell School of Engineering, The University of Texas 

at Austin ............................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Robert D. Cabana, Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ...................................................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to: 

Jeffrey Manber .................................................................................................. 59 

Tim Ellis ............................................................................................................ 60 

Tim Hughes ....................................................................................................... 61 

Dr. Moriba K. Jah ............................................................................................ 62 

Robert D. Cabana ............................................................................................. 64 

(1) 

REOPENING THE AMERICAN FRONTIER: 

PROMOTING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN 

COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE U.S. 

GOVERNMENT TO ADVANCE EXPLORATION 

AND SETTLEMENT 

THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND

COMPETITIVENESS, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m. in Room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Sullivan, Markey and Nelson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this hearing. 

Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes, the ones who see 

things differently. They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, 

glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore 

them because they change things. They push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are crazy enough to think they can 

change the world are the ones who do. That quote, of course, was 

made famous by Apple in the company’s 1997 television commercial, ‘‘Think Different.’’ 

Nearly 3 months ago, this subcommittee began a series of hearings looking at the reopening of the American frontier. These hearings are in a way dedicated to the crazy ones who not only think 

differently, but who take risks and are looking to push the human 

race forward by expanding American commerce and settlement 

throughout the universe. 

Our national space program is on the verge of a renaissance. 

This renaissance is being driven by innovators who don’t accept the 

status quo and who are changing the very nature of space flight. 

This renaissance is also being driven by public-private partnerships 

between NASA and commercial space companies. 

In the last few years, we have witnessed the test flights and success of reusable rockets, which will lower the cost for Americans to 

2 

access space. We’ve seen the deployment of Cube Satellites from 

the International Space Station, which are not only helping maximize the utilization of the International Space Station, but are expanding research opportunities for Federal agencies, industry, and 

even high schools. 

As our previous hearings have showcased, we also have seen an 

interest for American companies who are looking to expand a commercial presence to the surface of the Moon and beyond. 

Space exploration is rapidly expanding, and both commercial 

companies and NASA are complementing one another. A survey by 

the Department of Commerce found that U.S. companies had $62.9 

billion in space-related sales in 2012. While U.S. Government programs provided much of this market, about one-quarter of the sales 

were within the commercial sector. Public-private partnerships 

have become the backbone of core NASA programs, such as the 

Commercial Orbiter Transportation Services, the COTS program, 

and the Commercial Crew program, which will finally end our dependence on Russia to transport American astronauts to and from 

the International Space Station. 

However, we shouldn’t be content to rest on the laurels of recent 

success. There is still a lot of work left that needs to be completed 

to ensure continued U.S. competitiveness in space. Congress needs 

to work to ensure that investment and innovation within the commercial space sector isn’t effectively chilled by obsolete regulations 

or overly burdensome requirements that may not naturally apply 

to new business models. 

We must also continue to challenge NASA and the commercial 

space community to find new ways to partner to advance our national space policy goals, as Congress will never be able to fully 

fund every priority within the space community. 

And in preparation of an expansion of commercial space activity, 

we will also need to examine orbital debris and how it impacts exploration and space traffic management. 

There are people who are crazy enough to think that they can 

change the very nature of space exploration, and if they keep pressing forward, they just might. 

If there are no objections, I want to enter into the hearing record 

a statement provided by the Center for the Advancement of Science 

in Space. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE IN SPACE (CASIS) 

Public-Private Partnerships in Space: Examples from the ISS National 

Laboratory Model 

Public private partnerships are a key component to driving innovation and national leadership. With the potential to address a wide array of modern challenges 

from technology development to infrastructure modernization, and from education 

to the economic development of space, public private partnerships unlock new possibilities unavailable when we rely solely on public or private investment. 

The International Space Station (ISS) National laboratory is a great example of 

a public private partnership model that is working in space. The ISS National Lab 

opens up the incredible possibilities of the space station research environment to a 

diverse range of researchers, entrepreneurs and innovators that could create entirely new markets in space. 

The International Space Station offers a unique research and development platform, unlike any on Earth, enabling research that benefits both exploration and life 

3 

on Earth. In an effort to expand the research opportunities this unparalleled platform provides to the nation, the International Space Station United States Orbital 

Segment, through bipartisan legislation, was designated as a U.S. National Laboratory in 2005, enabling research and development access to a broad range of commercial, academic and government users. After final assembly of the ISS in 2011, the 

Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), a (501)(c)(3) organization, 

was selected by NASA to manage the International Space Station United States National Laboratory. CASIS fulfills its mission to accelerate space-based research by 

engaging a variety of non-traditional space users, operating in the fields of life 

science, physical science, technology development, and remote sensing. CASIS engages primarily with organizations that pay toward the value obtained on the International Space Station National Laboratory, as well as with other organizations addressing national science and research priorities. This research serves commercial, 

and entrepreneurial needs and other important goals such as the pursuit of new 

knowledge or education. Since 2011, CASIS has stewarded more than 200 International Space Station research projects, ranging from developing new drug therapies, to monitoring tropical cyclones, to improving equipment for first-responders, to 

producing unique fiber-optics materials in space. Working together with NASA, 

CASIS aims to advance the Nation’s leadership in commercial space, pursue 

groundbreaking science not possible on Earth, and leverage the space station to inspire the next generation. 

Prior to the ISS National Lab Model, NASA traditionally funded all aspects of 

International Space Station research, whether it was research needed to further exploration, or discovery-based space research that expanded upon its scientific agenda. As the International Space Station evolved into a National Laboratory, CASIS 

has increased the diversity of users by accelerating utilization of the International 

Space Station National Laboratory as an innovation platform for a wide variety of 

partners. These include Fortune 500 Organizations, small businesses, educational 

institutions, philanthropic and research Foundations, Federal and state government 

agencies, and other thought leaders in pursuit of groundbreaking technology and innovation who are interested in leveraging microgravity to solve complex research 

problems on Earth. CASIS plays a role in not only attracting a diverse set of users, 

including private companies, to utilize the International Space Station National 

Laboratory, but also in engaging the private sector through various research and 

cost-sharing arrangements. 

CASIS has developed a successful sponsored program model that attracts third 

party funding from private industry and other government agencies to solve big 

problems or address target challenges. These programs translate into projects on the 

International Space Station National Laboratory. The sponsored program enables 

an organization to ask new questions and explore key variables, using the International Space Station National Laboratory environment as a tool in their innovation portfolio. In return, the organization creates opportunities for targeted research 

and development projects, STEM projects or fosters novel ideas of startup companies. Fortune 500 companies, government agencies and regional incubators have 

successfully used the International Space Station National Lab sponsored program 

model. This unique research and development model is flexible to meet the needs 

and budget of a partnering organization. Successful sponsored programs include 

Boeing Mass Challenge, Massachusetts Life Sciences Center, National Space Foundation (NSF) fluid dynamics and combustion and NIH’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) organ on chip technologies that total more than 

$20 million in third party funding over the last two years. Additional sponsored programs totaling close to $5 million in 2017 with Fortune 500 organizations are imminent and will target major challenges to humankind as well as STEM education initiatives. 

Much of the CASIS International Space Station National Laboratory portfolio consists of organizations starting new space commercial activities. Over the last 5 years 

CASIS has made concerted efforts to educate a wide variety of organizations about 

the opportunity that the International Space Station National Laboratory represents. Many of these organizations are now using the International Space Station 

National Laboratory as part of their research and technology development process 

for the first time. Demand for space projects is being seen in the following areas: 

• Better targeting and quick to fail models in drug development that can lead to 

breakthroughs in curing disease and better drug delivery systems that can lead 

to increased access of therapies throughout the world 

• Accelerated Disease Modeling associated with aging and chronic disease 

4 

• Regenerative Medicine breakthroughs that can repair, restore or replace damaged tissues and organs due to creating ways to expand and grow cells in a 

three dimensional environment 

• Crop Science breakthroughs that can lead to ways to feed the growing world 

population with less land, water, etc. 

• Understanding of fundamental material properties that can lead to novel materials and better manufacturing processes on earth 

• Creation of commercially relevant microgravity enabled materials that may 

transform many U.S. industries including telecommunication semi-conductor 

manufacturing 

• 3D-Metal printing and other additive manufacturing capacity in space 

• Quantum satellite technology that could benefit national security 

• Remote sensing capability that can impact a variety of downstream applications 

including maritime security (jamming, spoofing), weather, agriculture productivity, energy and urban development 

As the demand for space research and development projects increases, the supply 

of access to space, and research and development facilities will need to be augmented. In space private sector commercial research and development facility operators are on the forefront of a new era of space research on the International Space 

Station and future space platforms. These organizations operate their facilities internally and externally on the International Space Station. They provide users with 

more choices to address unique research needs and are the pathfinders for a marketplace in low-Earth orbit. Many of these companies have used their own resources 

to invest in on-orbit research and development facilities, reducing the risk for the 

Federal sector to develop these facilities and services. In its first five years of International Space Station National Laboratory management, CASIS has supported 

growth in the number of these research and development facility operators from one 

in FY12 to five in FY16—with four additional facilities expected to begin in-orbit 

operations by FY18. CASIS fosters healthy competition between these supply partners by allowing them to bid on each commercial customer projects, seeking the best 

solution for the customer. The current commercial facility operators are: 

• NanoRacks—Since 2009, NanoRacks has provided hardware and services for 

the International Space Station National Laboratory. Three internal research 

platforms can house plug-and-play NanoLabs and provide critical capabilities 

such as centrifugation and microscopy. Additionally, the NanoRacks External 

Platform was launched in FY15 and provides capabilities for Earth and deep 

space observation, sensor development, and testing for advanced electronics and 

materials. 

• BioServe—In-orbit offerings from BioServe include multiple life sciences facilities and kits, including the multi-purpose Space Automated Bioproduct Laboratory (SABL), launched in FY15. SABL supports myriad initiatives for commercial life sciences research as well as physical and material science experiments. 

• TechShot—Launched in FY15, the TechShot Bone Densitometer is a commercial 

bone-density scanner for use in spaceflight rodent research. In just one year, the 

successful operation of this facility has already demonstrated its utility as a catalyst for disease modeling research and commercial biomedical initiatives in 

space. 

• Made In Space—In FY16, the Additive Manufacturing Facility developed by 

Made In Space launched to the International Space Station, enabling 3D printing projects from commercial, educational, and government entities interested 

in the development of objects for experiments and technology demonstrations. 

These objects will be produced onboard the International Space Station in a 

fraction of the time currently required to have such objects manifested and delivered to the station using traditional ground preparation and launch. 

• Space Tango—TangoLab-1 is a general research platform launched in FY16. 

This facility from Space Tango allows multiple automated experiments in the 

life and physical sciences to run simultaneously. This architecture minimizes 

crewmember interaction and reduces complexity while increasing scalability, enabling improved throughput for users. 

In addition to currently available capabilities, a growing pipeline of commercial 

International Space Station National Laboratory facilities in preparation (from 

Teledyne Brown, AlphaSpace, STaArS, and HNu Photonics) will advance research 

in remote sensing, materials testing, molecular biology, and tissue culture. Companies are exploring how these capabilities might transition onto future low-Earth 

5 

orbit platforms, from free-flying spacecraft to expandable modules. Through support 

of such companies, CASIS and NASA is enabling the International Space Station 

National Laboratory to serve as an incubator for the low-Earth orbit market and 

U.S. private sector spaceflight interests, and using public private partnership funding models to share the risk and benefits of these emerging human space flight activities. 

CASIS is executing congressional intent by leveraging public private partnerships 

to get the most out of the International Space Station and its national lab. With 

the active involvement of our partners, CASIS is helping deliver advances of scientific and economic value to the Nation. As our outreach leads more organizations 

to form public private partnerships to use the national lab, the Nation’s return on 

its investment in the ISS will continue to increase. And as the ISS approaches the 

end of its planned service life, Congress will have an opportunity to consider the 

value of maintaining a national laboratory on another platform in space. 

Senator CRUZ. I now recognize the Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Ed Markey, for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And 

thank you for this distinguished panel of witnesses. I think it’s 

going to be a great hearing. 

When President Ulysses S. Grant hammered in the Golden Spike 

on the Transcontinental Railroad, he was connecting not only the 

eastern and western United States, but completing a project made 

possible by a public-private partnership. We were able to complete 

this historic achievement of connecting the United States by way 

of rail by connecting government with private industry. 

As we now further look toward the stars, we should continue to 

look to maximize these sorts of collaborative partnerships between 

government and business, but we need to ensure that these sorts 

of partnerships continue to benefit both the public and the private 

partners. So we need to identify the ways in which the public benefits from projects in space, including those projects undertaken by 

private and commercial entities will participate. 

Every day we benefit from the transformational advancements 

made possible due to space exploration. From GPS to cancer research and everything in between, our activities in space and the 

knowledge we develop there make life on Earth better. As NASA 

increasingly turns its gaze further from Earth, we need to ensure 

that we protect our capabilities to continue to conduct the basic scientific research to conduct in space that has driven so much innovation. The responsibility to continue pursuing science closer to 

home needs to continue to be mission critical and cannot simply be 

jettisoned. 

The International Space Station orbiting the planet is the successful result of partnerships between 15 countries and five international space agencies, including NASA. The Space Station is an 

example of international cooperation, but also of successful publicprivate partnerships, which combine the government’s ability to invest in infrastructure and basic research with the private sector’s 

ability to innovate and commercialize. 

The National Laboratory located on the International Space Station is managed by the Center for the Advancement of Science in 

Space, which is tasked with promoting public-private partnerships 

with the goals of fostering scientific breakthroughs to benefit all of 

6 

humankind and delivering a commercial return on the investment 

that the United States has made. 

This collaboration has made it possible for private entities across 

the United States to take advantage of this incredibly important 

laboratory. 

For example, Visidyne, a company based in Burlington, Massachusetts, has conducted three major projects on the International 

Space Station National Laboratory, developing algorithms and imagery from the Station that can better predict tropical cyclones and 

save lives. This work was only made possible due to the public-private partnerships encouraged as a part of the National Lab. 

When we pursue these sorts of public-private partnerships in the 

right way, the public interest will benefit. The Outer Space Treaty 

states that the use of outer space, quote, should be carried on for 

the benefit of all peoples. Therefore, we need to make sure that we 

are continuing to structure our priorities in space to maximize the 

scientific and other benefits to all people. 

We should also ensure that our space policies promote the inclusion of small businesses and protect our ability to conduct scientific 

and nonprofit activities as well as promoting for-profit activities in 

the new frontier. 

The United States continues to be a pioneer in space activities, 

and our policies should support the continued innovation that has 

been the key to America’s economic success. While space may be 

the final frontier, this is not the first time that we have looked to 

innovate by allowing government and industry to partner together. 

There may not be a golden spike to symbolically connect Earth to 

space, but the same successful collaboration between governments 

and business that fueled the achievements of centuries past can 

drive the innovation in this century and beyond. I look forward to 

working with this Subcommittee and stakeholders to ensure American scientists and American companies continue to be leaders in 

space. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I would now like to recognize Senator Nelson, the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, if he would care to make an opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And good morning. And we have an exciting topic here. We are 

right on the cusp of a major breakthrough and a reengagement of 

the American people in America’s space program. 

Now, we have certainly witnessed the gee-whiz stuff as we see 

rovers on Mars and as we understand greater information about 

the depths of the universe through the Hubble. And next year 

we’re going to launch the James Webb, which is going to look back 

in time almost to the beginning of the universe. 

We set upon the manned space program a new course with the 

NASA bill back in 2010. It set a dual course. It set one course— 

the commercial operations, as described by my two colleagues— 

bringing new vitality into the space program with creativity and inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
7 

geniousness, and that obviously is paying off in the gee-whiz stuff 

that we see. We set off on the other dual track with getting NASA 

out of low-Earth orbit and exploring the cosmos, deep into the cosmos, and with the goal as set by our President three years ago, followed by this President, to go to Mars, followed by another NASA 

authorization bill that sets that as its course, Mars with human 

beings, with American boots on the surface of Mars. 

In the course of that, there have been enormous changes. The 

very launch pads that were created for the Apollo program to take 

us to the Moon? Those launch pads, under the able leadership of 

Bob Cabana, have been transformed: one for a commercial operation that can handle all sizes of rockets; the other, reconfigured. 

And one of the things that we’ve got to tend to is to make sure appropriators get us the $600 million requested to—since this new 

launch vehicle, the monster rocket, the largest rocket ever, called 

the SLS, with its spacecraft on top, Orion—it’s going to grow over 

time. It’s going to evolve. It’s going to get up to where it is launching an unbelievable 260,000 pounds. The Space Shuttle cargo bay, 

for example, would carry about 45,000. 

And so that launch tower has to be capable, not for the first of 

the SLS rockets, which is going to be smaller, but to handle, as it 

evolves, when we put crew on it in 2021 or 2022. And then we start 

doing the deep space missions and taking up huge components that 

in lunar orbit will be assembled, and then we will go off with humans to Mars and return. 

That is an exciting future, and it couldn’t be done had we not 

had the leadership of Bob Cabana, who you will hear from today. 

It couldn’t have been done either if we hadn’t had finally the U.S. 

Air Force, NASA, and the FAA all getting in a room and agreeing 

that we can use all of that unused real estate down there at the 

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station for a lot of this activity. 

And now we’re going to be—within a year and a half, 2 years— 

sending Americans on American rockets again. You will see the 

American public reengage like you’ve never seen, once Americans 

are flying on American rockets again. And that is the excitement 

of the future. Right now, in what’s called the Operations and 

Checkout Building, named after Neil Armstrong, Bob Cabana took 

the Vice President of the United States there last week and showed 

him the spacecraft that is going to go—Orion—on the top of the 

SLS next—in about a year and a half, 2 years. And so that’s why 

I say we are right on the cusp. 

I want to thank General Monteith, the Commander, the two-star, 

that is the Commander of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station 

because we’ve never seen the cooperation of the Air Force with 

NASA and the FAA like we are now seeing. And I’m happy to report in last year’s—actually, it’s this year’s defense authorization 

that you and I have helped Chairman McCain get out, there are 

provisions that we inserted to improve the launch infrastructure at 

the range, at the Air Force Eastern Test Range, and to accelerate 

the Air Force’s adaptation to reusable launch vehicles like SpaceX’s 

Falcon 9. 

And, Mr. Ellis, I want to add that I want you to know we have 

a spot for you at what we generically call the Cape for you to 

launch your rockets. I would love for Relativity Space to become a 

8 

part of the community of the folks as this exciting business is being 

built there. 

So thanks to all of you. Thanks to Senator Cruz and Senator 

Markey for holding this hearing. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

And I will note when the Vice President was down in Florida, he 

promptly reached out and touched the display right next to the ‘‘Do 

Not Touch’’ sign. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. And then he had the presence of mind and quick 

wit to blame the junior Senator from Florida for enticing him to do 

so. 

Senator NELSON. And thank goodness I wasn’t there, or he would 

have blamed me. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. Well, we appreciate this very distinguished panel 

coming and testifying this morning. We have five witnesses. 

The first is Mr. Jeffrey Manber, who has served as the CEO of 

NanoRacks since 2009, and is the Chairman of the XO Markets 

Board. He has steered the growth of NanoRacks from a garage 

space in Webster, Texas, to where NanoRacks is today, a pioneer 

and leader in the commercial market for low-Earth orbit utilization. 

Our second witness is Mr. Tim Ellis, who is Co-Founder and 

CEO of Relativity, based in Los Angeles, California. Relativity is 

using 3D printing to build orbital rockets with zero human labor. 

Prior to Relativity, he worked at Blue Origin as a propulsion development engineer, and was involved in the initial development of 

Blue Origin’s BE–4 rocket engine. 

Mr. Tim Hughes is Senior Vice President of Global Business and 

Government Affairs at SpaceX. Prior to joining SpaceX, Mr. 

Hughes served as majority counsel to the Committee on Science 

and Technology in the United States House of Representatives. He 

was the principal attorney responsible for helping draft and shepherd the passage of groundbreaking commercial human spaceflight 

legislation, the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 

2004. 

Dr. Moriba K. Jah is an Assistant Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas at 

Austin. ‘‘Hook ’Em.’’ 

Dr. JAH. ‘‘Hook ’Em.’’ 

Senator CRUZ. Prior to beginning at UT Austin, Dr. Jah was the 

Director of the University of Arizona’s Space Object Behavioral 

Sciences with applications to space domain awareness, space protection, space traffic monitoring, and space debris research. Preceding that, Dr. Jah was the lead for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Advanced Sciences and Technology Research Institute for 

Astronautics and a principal investigator for the Detect/Track/ID/ 

Characterize Program at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s 

Space Vehicles Directorate. 

And, finally, Mr. Robert Cabana is a former NASA astronaut currently serving as Director of NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida. In his current role, Mr. Cabana manages all NASA 

9 

facilities and activities at the spaceport, including a team of civil 

service and contractor employees who operate and support numerous space programs and projects. A veteran of four space flights, 

Mr. Cabana has logged 38 days in space. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us. 

Mr. Manber, we’ll begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY MANBER, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NANORACKS LLC 

Mr. MANBER. Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I’m delighted to discuss with you today the challenges we face in developing an American-style marketplace in space. 

Since my last visit before this Subcommittee in 2014, my company, NanoRacks, has continued to grow into a commercial space 

station company. We have taken on dozens of new customers and 

have brought over 550 research projects to the Space Station, including over 180 satellites, as you mentioned, all with no direct 

NASA funding. 

How is this possible? Through a growing number of public-private partnerships between us and NASA, each one more commercial in nature. Each partnership allows the creativity of the private 

sector to further utilize the public investments made by you and 

Congress for the Space Station. NanoRacks has self-funded over $10 million in hardware to date. 

Moving forward, we have partnered with Boeing Aerospace and we 

are co-investing $15 million to manufacture the world’s first commercial space station airlock, we call it the Gateway to Space, to 

further grow our business. These investments will develop the technical expertise and hardware base to own and operate our own 

space stations, a realistic goal we have set for ourselves as U.S. 

policy has matured. 

But why am I not seeking NASA money up front? Because that’s 

not how the commercial marketplace works. I want to make sure 

there is no Space Station gap, just as there was with Shuttle and 

transportation. For a seamless transition, I believe we need the 

agility of the private sector to be involved. I want to squeeze efficiencies where none existed before, efficiencies in cost, efficiencies 

in use. This is how you build a customer base, and this is how you 

expand markets, even in outer space. This is called capitalism. 

So how best to work with NASA to realize these efficiencies? Or 

to put it another way, what is the optimal partnership? The short 

answer is we don’t know that answer yet. But the good news is 

that our partnerships are getting more and more productive, and 

the proof is our growing customer base. 

In our partnerships, NASA has always been the safety regulator, 

the launch provider, and station resource provider. NanoRacks is 

the designer and developer of the hardware, provides the funding, 

and builds the customer base. 

Sometimes NASA is a customer to us at NanoRacks, but there 

is no guarantee. To my understanding, this is how our partnerships 

with NASA are unique, no guarantee of NASA use, no preoperational funding. We invest our own capital and pray there’s a market. 

10 

More recently, we have agreed to pay the space agency for use 

of Space Station resources via pricing discounts and other tangible 

advantages to the taxpayer. Our station satellite deployment service is a great example. We, at NanoRacks, were the program originator and the operator. In other words, it was our idea and our 

capital and our hardware to deploy satellites from the Station. 

NASA provided the existing Station resources. 

The result? Today, we are one of the leading American providers 

of CubeSat deployment opportunities. We have shown that Space 

Station has a unique role in satellite deployment, such as our 

Stash and Deploy program, where we store satellites on the Station 

for months at a time before timely deployment. You can’t do that 

with a launch vehicle. 

However, an even larger success is that we, NASA and 

NanoRacks, have accelerated the growth of the small satellite market on behalf of customers like Spire, Planet Labs, universities, and 

other agencies of the U.S. Government now using the Station for 

satellite deployment. Better use of Station; again, no direct NASA 

funding. 

What’s next? We are proud to be part of the NASA NextSTEP 

program. Specifically, NanoRacks, along with Space Systems Loral, 

is studying the reuse of upper stages, including that of the ULA 

Atlas 5, for use as a low-Earth orbit commercial habitat. This pathway is made possible because of the growing maturity of the partnership between NASA and NanoRacks. 

Let me add one key point necessary for continued commercial 

growth, if I may. I respectfully ask that by 2019, we know the end 

date for Station services, whether it’s 2024, whether it’s 2028, the 

date to me is not as critical as the certainty. This will help us attract investment capital. 

Additionally, let me compliment this committee’s work on the 

ISS Transition Plan and specifically addressing this issue in the 

NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017. 

In summation, we have a range of partnerships today, each with 

greater commitments by NanoRacks. And I applaud the NASA 

Space Station folks for more and more venturing out of their own 

comfort zone in forging new relationships with companies like 

NanoRacks. And I thank Congress and I thank you gentlemen here 

today for the leadership you’ve shown on allowing us to go down 

the commercial pathway. 

I know we will continue to be successful because creating new 

markets and tapping the next frontier is what America does best, 

whether on the Earth or for the benefit of those of us on Earth. 

I look forward to answering your questions. And please accept 

my written testimony as part of the record. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manber follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY MANBER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

NANORACKS LLC 

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, and other distinguished members of 

the Space, Science, and Competitiveness subcommittee, thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to return to this room to testify before Congress once again. I look forward to discussing with you the challenges we face at my company NanoRacks, and 

within the larger commercial space industry, in seeking to develop a robust, American-style, service-based economy in space. We seek a marketplace that will realize 

11 

multiple commercial space stations, in multiple orbits—within near and deep space, 

serving both traditional and unique customers from around the world. 

Since my visit before this subcommittee in April of 2014, NanoRacks has continued to grow into a commercial space station company via greater utilization of the 

International Space Station and other platforms. In the past three years we have 

taken on dozens of new customers, ranging from high schools you represent, to multiple U.S. agencies, other members of the commercial space industry and even foreign governments. To date, NanoRacks has brought over 550 research projects to 

the Space Station, including approximately 180 satellites, many of which are educational-based experiments representing schools throughout the country. All of this 

has been done with no direct NASA funding. We are a company that lives on our 

customers and the revenue generated from our ability to bring payloads and provide 

services to the Space Station. 

How is this all possible? Through a growing number of non-traditional public-private partnerships between my company and NASA. These relationships have grown 

in time to be more robust, as both organizations learn what works and what doesn’t 

for industry and for government. 

As I discussed three years ago before this subcommittee, we at NanoRacks have 

chosen a business model that is quite normal here on the Earth, but far less common in our space program. Fundamentally, we pay for our own hardware. For example, we have invested $5 million in our External Platform, over $4 million in our 

satellite deployment program, and close to $1 million in our internal research 

frames. We are now partnered with Boeing Aerospace and investing $15 million to 

manufacture the world’s first commercial space station airlock. This expenditure of 

at least $30 million from one company, one small company I would emphasize, has 

made the International Space Station more robust, asserted American leadership 

and spurred the growth of new markets. 

Why am I not seeking upfront NASA money? Because that’s not how the commercial marketplace works. I want to make sure there is no space station gap as there 

was with shuttle. For a seamless transition, we need the agility of the private sector. I want to squeeze efficiencies where none existed before: efficiencies in cost and 

efficiencies in use. This is how you build a customer base, and this is how you expand markets—whether on the Earth or in space. This is called capitalism. 

For my company, these investments are intended to develop the technical expertise and hardware base to eventually own and operate our own space stations—a 

realistic goal we’ve set for ourselves as U.S. policy has matured. Why does this 

work? Because the growth and development of our public private partnership with 

NASA allows each of our customers—whether NASA, the European Union, pharmaceutical companies, schools, or industry, to pay fees to use our services—just like 

any other business here on Earth. 

When last here, I ended my talk by stating how we have forged a new, and constantly evolving relationship with NASA. NASA is our landlord, and NASA is our 

safety official. But every day the agency has become less and less of a competitor. 

Still true! And today, we work with NASA, not without challenges, but focused on 

establishing the agency as a facilitator for the private sector building a space economy in low-Earth orbit, and eventually, beyond LEO, that will make all Americans 

proud. 

This is what I would like to briefly talk with you more about today: The changing 

relationship between NASA, NanoRacks and other members of the industry—and 

how we together are working to fulfill the wishes of you, in Congress, to inject more 

commercial practices in the conduct of the American space program. The growing 

partnership between NASA and NanoRacks adds value to each new program on the 

space station, and, if utilized to its fullest potential, it can bring about a future in 

which we can only dream today. 

Our Evolving Partnership with NASA 

Seven years ago when I first approached NASA, I told the space agency I didn’t 

want their funding. Boy that got their attention. Instead, I wanted the right to put 

research hardware on the International Space Station and offer services to the public, including NASA, for a fee. 

Some at NASA were shocked. How could we charge money for a service onboard 

the station? Others asked so many questions from their public-sector perspective: 

Who would set the price? What if there were no customers? What would be the relationship between NASA and the company? Would astronauts work on a commercial 

service? What services would we offer? How would NASA know if we were successful? By the way, I told them if we were still in business in five years with customers, we would have been successful! 

12 

Both sides survived those initial days. And I applaud the Space Station Program 

Office for more than once leaving their comfort zone to meet our objectives at least 

half-way. Today, it is more accepted that companies can utilize the space station for 

commercial gain. That’s great. And NanoRacks has competition—some offering very 

similar services. That’s a sign of policy success. Now comes the hard part. What is 

the optimal partnership and policy between NASA and private companies to assure 

a robust commercial marketplace in low-Earth orbit? And, at the same time, is their 

one type of partnership that is optimal or do different commercial programs, customers, and sectors require differing partnerships? 

Permit me to illustrate the landscape as we see it at NanoRacks. 

For the past seven years, NanoRacks and NASA have worked together in what 

has become the first public-private partnership that demonstrates a true path to a 

commercial marketplace in orbit. Our partnership serves two goals: 

1. To unleash the power of the private sector in space services; 

2. To assure U.S. leadership and new programs including commercial space station platforms during a time of difficult Federal budgets. 

In our partnerships, NASA is the safety regulator, launch provider, and station 

resource provider. NanoRacks is the designer and developer of chosen hardware, the 

funding source for the hardware, and chief marketer of on-orbit services. 

Our relationship works because this program is voluntary. The private sector 

(NanoRacks) can choose which hardware it wishes to develop and market. Consequently, the government can choose if to utilize the hardware. In plain language, 

NASA acts sometimes as a customer to NanoRacks to use our services, but there 

is no guarantee they will. And we should perform the service to be paid by customers. And, in a growing number of cases we ‘‘pay’’ the space agency for use of 

space station resources via pricing discounts and other tangible advantages. 

There is one other implicit understanding: the private sector program can fail— 

and there may not be customers. NanoRacks assumes this risk. 

One of our largest demonstrated successes with this partnership has been the development of our space station satellite deployment program. NanoRacks recognized 

that American industry wanted to develop sophisticated small satellites, but was 

stymied by the fact that the only real small satellites launch opportunities were 

non-domestic. NanoRacks believed the International Space Station could play a pivotal role. 

Today, our responsibilities in the public-private partnership have expanded: we 

are the program originator and program operator related to launching the small satellites of our customers. The government risk remains confined to the safety of the 

hardware. And we use the NASA-Japanese space agency (JAXA) barter relationship 

to utilize the Japanese airlock to deploy the satellites, until the NanoRacks Airlock 

Module, now under development, is on station in 2019. 

As such, I believe this is as pure an example that has ever existed of a publicprivate partnership between NASA and the private sector. Unlike the Commercial 

Resupply Mission program (CRS), NASA did not institute our program. NASA did 

not fund our program, and there was no guarantee that NASA would even use our 

program. Let me add, however, that CRS has proven to be everything we hoped in 

allowing a company like SpaceX to leverage NASA as a customer, and truly change 

space transportation today. 

But look at what the NASA-NanoRacks partnership has provided: American leadership in a marketplace for small satellite services. 

Today, we are one of the leading American providers of small satellite deployment 

opportunities in low-Earth orbit. Our experiment has been a wonderful success: our 

satellite customers range from NASA and other government agencies, the European 

Commission, private companies, startups, universities, high schools—and yes, even 

elementary schools. Over 180 small satellites have been deployed from the station. 

Just as importantly, we have shown that space stations can have several unique 

roles in satellite deployment. To cite just one example, we have customers who store 

satellites on the space station to deploy on demand, when necessary. That can’t be 

done from a launch vehicle! 

So industry (NanoRacks) suggested a commercial space station program (satellite 

deployments) to NASA. We fully funded the hardware. We made use of NASA resources. NASA is ‘‘paid’’ via defined deployment opportunities. And the U.S. Government has become growing customer as well. 

However, an even larger success is that we—NASA and NanoRacks—accelerated 

the growth of the small satellite market. Without a doubt. Because of our demonstrated success, private capital exists for non-ISS launch services. Companies 

around the world are able to tap private capital because there is an existing market. 

13 

There are (literally!) dozens of companies that offer low-cost, efficient CubeSats and 

SmallSats. 

For example, our customer Spire is changing the way we track ship movements 

and weather from space through their CubeSat constellation. The leadership at 

Spire tells me that this is causing NOAA to re-look at public-private partnerships 

for the availability of commercial weather data. 

Clearly, our initiative and willingness to take the risk worked. The market is 

growing and the number of customers is increasing, but the ISS share of the marketplace is dropping, as it should, in a growing competitive marketplace. This is a 

public-private partnership at its best, whether on the ground or in low-Earth orbit. 

Partnership Stage Two: Commercial Airlock on Space Station 

As I previously mentioned, NanoRacks is currently manufacturing the world’s 

first commercial Airlock Module onboard the International Space Station. The 

NanoRacks Airlock Module, which we call our ‘‘Gateway to Space,’’ will be on the 

station in 2019. We solicited NASA for the right to build and operate the Airlock. 

We did not seek NASA funding. We saw a market need and are willing to invest 

our own capital to increase the capacity of the station as a deployment platform for 

smaller satellites and for moving larger cargo out of the station. 

The advantages for the program are many: the NanoRacks Airlock Module will 

be five times larger in volume than the current airlock owned and operated by our 

friends at JAXA. It will be commercially operated, efficient, allow NASA capabilities 

not possible today, and best of all, at the proper time, the hardware can be removed 

and mated onto our own future commercial platform. NASA is not funding the Airlock Module. Rather, in an exciting and unique partnership with Boeing, our two 

organizations are privately funding the hardware. Yet we are aware that the Airlock 

Module is also utilizing valuable NASA resources, and we have voluntarily entered 

into negotiations with the space agency to forge a partnership that makes smart 

sense for both parties. 

In this regard, NanoRacks is a commercial space market pioneer. Together with 

NASA we are forging an even larger partnership than that for the satellite deployment program. At the same time, we have made clear to the Space Station Program 

Office officials that we expect other companies will also enter into such partnerships. And not just for space station use. Use of taxpayer resources for commercial 

services should either be at no-cost for all, or some sort of barter arrangement for 

all. 

For us, our Airlock Module is a stepping-stone to the goal of working with NASA 

on commercial habitats in an equitable manner. 

From Airlock to Commercial Space Stations beyond ISS 

NASA has a unique opportunity, one previously only dreamed about: fostering 

U.S. leadership in opening the door for commercial space stations in low-Earth orbit 

and beyond. I have spent the last three decades working to bring about a more commercial space marketplace, including helping set up the first investment fund for 

commercial space ventures on Wall Street and commercially marketing the Russian 

space station Mir. 

My time at NanoRacks has been focused on our long-term goal: owning and operating commercial space stations, all while democratizing access to space. One where 

NASA is a customer; where the capital is commercial, and the operating system onboard the station is one based on American-style free markets. 

There are a number of approaches companies can take as we look to a future beyond the International Space Station. Some of our colleagues in the industry seek 

to realize the commercial habitats after the ISS by constructing new platforms and 

stations on the ground, and launching them into orbit. That’s one way. And that’s 

the expensive way. 

Let’s consider another strategy: the re-use of in-space hardware. We have seen recently the value of re-using the first stage of launch vehicles, as shown by both Elon 

Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin. At NanoRacks, we are focused on reusing the second stage, not for use in another rocket, but as the shells of commercial 

habitats. I’m pleased to report that NASA has given us a chance to prove the value 

of using re-purposed in-space hardware for commercial habitats in low-Earth orbit. 

Over fifty years ago, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Director Werner von Braun 

proposed the idea of re-using the spent upper stage of a rocket and converting it 

into an orbiting platform. From this concept came America’s first space station, 

Skylab, which was a re-purposed second stage of a Saturn 5—the vehicle that took 

America to the Moon. 

We are ‘‘back to the future’’ now at NanoRacks. We have been awarded funding 

through the NASA NextSTEP Phase II program for the ‘‘Ixion Initiative,’’ a concept 

14 

study for re-using in-space hardware and converting upper stages of rockets into 

commercial habitats in low-Earth orbit and deep space. Specifically, NanoRacks, 

along with Space Systems Loral (SSL), is studying the re-use of upper stages, including that of United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas 5, for use as a low-Earth commercial habitat. 

This pathway is made possible because of the growing maturity of the partnership 

between NASA and NanoRacks. From NASA’s acceptance of our first self-funded research platforms to our satellite deployers to the commercial Airlock, we together 

have paved a partnership where the gravity pull is mutual: both sides contribute 

what it does best. In NASA’s case, that is resources and hardware already paid for 

by the taxpayer and available for further utilization. In NanoRacks’ case, that is 

capital and the expertise in attracting and working with customers in a cost-efficient manner. 

Let me add, if I may, one key point necessary to make our program a success: 

The announcement of a firm date for the end of the current mode of ISS operations. 

I respectfully ask that by 2019 we know the end date for station services. Additionally, let me compliment this committee’s work on the ISS Transition Plan and specifically addressing this issue in the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017. 

No matter the end of operations date, the private sector needs to hear what that 

date is, rather than keeping it ambiguous—and we seek for this committee to emphasize this with the next NASA Administrator. Also key is to understand the requirements of the U.S. Federal Government as a customer, post-ISS. Keep in mind, 

this is not only about creating a robust economy in space, but also assuring we do 

not leave this territory to foreign governments. 

The Ixion Initiative team and NanoRacks look forward to being part of this discussion on the proper ISS transition. 

However, some key questions still remain: How does NASA determine the merits 

of a commercially funded program? How much should a company be expected to contribute? How does NASA protect this emerging marketplace from foreign government competition dumping at arbitrary prices or zero cost? And how do we assure 

America’s continued leadership in near space in the event of commercial setbacks? 

In short, what is the policy that will enable flexible, optimal, public private partnerships between NASA and industry? We are far closer than three years ago, and 

I’m confident with your continued leadership we are close enough to imagine commercial habitats and commercial in-space servicing in partnership with NASA. 

Close enough for us to be confident enough to continue investing private capital. 

Conclusion 

We are in a new space race, one where to the winner belongs the most robust 

use of the new frontier by all segments of our society. NASA is ready, industry is 

ready, and I’m ready, to focus on our return to the Moon and the human exploration 

of Mars. But I am sure that this can only be done once we have freed up our national resources from low-Earth orbit by creating a sustainable market economy in 

near space. 

Whether we’re reaching for Mars, returning humans to the Moon, exploring asteroids, or conducting science and business on commercial platforms, flexible partnerships constitute the direction we should be heading, and the methodology we should 

be using. The International Space Station has served as a powerful management 

and policy test bed for how the government and private sector can undertake space 

exploration together—and that has been proven by seven years (and counting) of 

customer growth at NanoRacks. 

I’m confident we are on the right pathway even though there is no precedent to 

guide us. There is no proven formula to understand how to make space just another 

place to do business, one where America will excel. We are venturing into the unknown. 

However, we will be successful in this venture because creating new markets and 

tapping the next frontier is what America does best, whether on the Earth, or for 

the benefit of those of us on Earth. 

Thank you. I will look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Manber. 

Mr. Ellis. 

15 

STATEMENT OF TIM ELLIS, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, 

RELATIVITY SPACE, INC. 

Mr. ELLIS. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, members 

of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

My name is Tim Ellis. I’m a native of Plano, Texas, and the CEO 

and Co-Founder of Relativity. We’re a stealth-mode startup creating a new launch service for orbital payloads, allowing for enhanced launch certainty at significantly reduced cost. Relativity’s 

rockets are 100 percent designed, built, and flown in the United 

States. We are based in Los Angeles with current testing operations in Mississippi, and we are looking to expand operations into 

Florida, Texas, and beyond. 

We’re a 2016 graduate of the prestigious startup accelerator Y 

Combinator, whose alumni include Dropbox and Airbnb. We then 

raised an eight-figure funding round led by top Silicon Valley firm, 

Social Capital. As an entirely privately funded startup, I believe 

Relativity offers a unique perspective on building a space business. 

The VC funding model is fantastic for creating innovation in a 

short timeframe, but the reality is that startups often operate on 

12- to 24-month do-or-die funding cycles during which we must hit 

aggressive growth goals or risk not being able to raise more money 

to survive. This environment creates both challenges and opportunities for time- and capital-intensive efforts, like developing space 

infrastructure. This reality is what led Relativity to first explore 

public-private partnerships. 

For the past 10 months, Relativity has worked with NASA Stennis Space Center via a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement. We are 

actively testing our liquid oxygen/liquid methane engines with over 

six dozen hot fires in the past 6 months of testing. Due to this partnership with NASA, we are able to spend more of our precious time 

and investment capital on Relativity’s other never before seen technology innovations rather than commodity infrastructure buildup 

for engine testing, and as a result, we’re a much more attractive 

opportunity for investors. 

We believe the U.S. Government has an historic opportunity to 

act as an accelerator for space startups, much like President Eisenhower catalyzed the American automobile industry when he created the interstate highway system. 

I think progress would be made by addressing the four following 

challenges. 

First, the current incarnations of the Space Act Agreement and 

Commercial Space Launch Act Agreement frameworks are not 

ideal instruments for providing startups access to infrastructure 

due to their limited applicability and certainty. Relativity proposes 

a Commercial Space Lease Agreement, a new framework similar to 

SAA or CSLA, but with standardized provisions for greater access 

to leasing engine test, rocket stage launch, or satellite development 

infrastructure at direct cost, much like LC–39A and LC–13 at Kennedy Space Center. 

Second, currently there are lack of ideal launch sites in the U.S. 

for small-class launch vehicles to meet polar, retrograde, and sun 

synchronous orbits. Consequently, many small satellite customers 

look to foreign launches from India, Russia, and Europe. The use 

of an offshore drone ship launch platform operating under an FAA 

16 

license could potentially alleviate this problem by allowing for 

launches in international waters. The concept we envision is more 

like the reverse of the drone ships and barges SpaceX and Blue Origin pioneered for landing recovered boost stages versus the expensive Sea Launch platform. Creating an open access West Coast 

launch site similar to Kennedy’s 39C could be another alternative. 

Third, for our potential customers, issues such as orbital debris 

reduction and spectrum rights need to be tackled in a way that do 

not limit the potential revenues of satellite companies or the 

launchers that fly them. A large addressable market needs to exist 

to attract private investment on both sides. 

Fourth, we also encourage NASA to explore a modulated version 

of the Venture Class Launch Services program that provides for 

larger recurring contracts. 

In closing, Relativity is but one example of the hundreds of dynamic space startups hard at work in suburban garages and 

repurposed airplane hangars all across America. I believe we are 

united by a vision for America that is predicated on pushing the 

limit of what is possible, both in technology and in spirit. We are 

all convinced that an incredible future waits for us among the stars 

and that America will lead it. 

Space is the ultimate stage for exploring our humanity. What 

could be more human or more American than aspiring to do something in the face of the impossible and succeeding? 

I thank our team at Relativity for embarking on this journey. 

And, Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, and members of 

the Committee, thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ellis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM ELLIS, CEO AND CO-FOUNDER, RELATIVITY SPACE, INC. 

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Members of the Committee—thank 

you for the opportunity to testify here today, and for your leadership in guiding 

America’s ambitions in space. I firmly believe that this Committee’s work in the 

weeks and months ahead has the potential to inspire and empower the next generation of space entrepreneurs. 

Relativity is a stealth-mode startup reimagining the way orbital rockets are built 

and flown. We are creating a new launch service for orbital payloads enabled by 

never-seen-before technologies, allowing for a high degree of launch schedule certainty at significantly reduced cost. The ability to get back and forth from space inexpensively and on a reliable launch schedule will unleash not only economic opportunities on Earth and beyond, but also push forward humankind’s desire to explore 

the heavens we have gazed at in wonder for thousands of years. At the moment, 

however, there is a paucity of affordable launch options capable of addressing 

emerging market demands. Satellite and other payload customers increasingly require new models to access space on short lead-times, at lower cost, with high frequency, and with scalable services. From India to China and Russia to Europe, 

other countries are racing to address these market needs, and at Relativity, we intend to help preserve and expand U.S. dominance in commercial space. 

When Dwight D. Eisenhower created the interstate highway system he helped to 

catalyze the American automobile industry. I believe that this Committee finds 

itself at a moment of similar opportunity. Smart and aggressive updates to our national space infrastructure and regulatory framework have the potential to unleash 

a new generation of American ingenuity in space. Public-private partnerships will 

be critical to continuing this tradition of bold innovation. Partnerships build upon 

the enabling foundations NASA and other U.S. Government agencies have created 

for private companies. They act as accelerators that open doors of opportunity which 

might otherwise remain closed. 

Today, due to a confluence of private investment, emerging markets, the continued strong support of the United States Government, and the maturation of revoluVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
17 

tionary new technologies, commercial space is on the cusp of changing forever. My 

testimony will reflect our company’s unique perspective from the intersection of 

these exciting trends. I am hopeful that our conversation here today will help us 

develop a deeper understanding of the challenges facing the next generation of commercial space companies and the ways in which new legislation could address these 

challenges. 

Company Introduction 

I co-founded Relativity in December 2015 with Jordan Noone. We are alumni of 

Blue Origin and SpaceX, where we were both propulsion development engineers and 

worked on programs such as BE–4, New Glenn, Crew Dragon, and Cargo Dragon. 

I proudly spent my first eighteen years as a resident of Plano, Texas, with both 

sides of my family residing among the great aerospace states of Texas, Florida, Colorado, and Alaska for generations. Relativity is based in Los Angeles, California, with 

testing operations in Mississippi, and we are exploring potential test facility expansion and launch opportunities in Florida, Alaska, Georgia, Texas, California, and 

Hawaii. As cofounders, Jordan and I originally met seven years ago as students at 

the University of Southern California in the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory. We led 

the first student group in the United States to attain FAA clearance to launch a 

suborbital rocket above the Von Karman line of 100 km, a project that ambitiously 

involved us designing and building our own rockets from scratch as young students. 

We were inspired by the long and storied history of the great American innovators 

who were willing to dream big and boldly claim: Impossible is nothing. 

In January 2016, Relativity joined Y Combinator, a Silicon Valley-based startup 

accelerator that is widely recognized as the most prestigious accelerator in the world 

and whose notable alumni include Airbnb, Dropbox, Stripe, and others among its 

combined $80 billion company portfolio valuation. In March 2016, Relativity graduated from the Y Combinator program and shortly afterwards, we raised an eightfigure funding round led by Silicon Valley venture firm Social Capital, with participation by Y Combinator Continuity, Phillip Spector (formerly of Intelsat), the University of Southern California, Stanford University, and other private investors. 

Still just two cofounders, we expanded to our current Los Angeles facility in July 

2016, and worked to scale up a bigger and extraordinarily talented core team. 

Relativity has begun testing of our liquid oxygen/liquid methane engine with over 

six dozen hot fires across multiple test articles at NASA Stennis Space Center, with 

plans for continued routine testing. Additionally, we are hard at work developing 

a series of novel, never-seen-before technologies for creating our own orbital launch 

service and changing the way things get to space. Altogether, we made significant 

progress in the last ten months and achieved dramatic results that we will begin 

sharing publicly once out of stealth. We are happy to discuss more details of our 

progress specifically with government policy makers and regulators to ensure there 

is early awareness of development plans for Relativity’s capabilities, and form public-private partnerships that will help get us there. 

The Venture Perspective 

Relativity is an entirely privately funded company and, as such, we believe we 

have a rather unique perspective on building a successful private space business. 

As first-time founders, Social Capital, Y Combinator, and our other investors and 

advisors taught Jordan and me some fundamental lessons about how to run a successful startup. This advice may best be distilled by the proverbial motto: ‘‘Make 

something people want.’’ Relativity was founded on the belief that people crave a 

fantastic future, a future that pushes the boundaries of what we dream to be possible and then brings those dreams to life. The very idea of America is predicated 

on pushing the limit of what is possible, both in technology and in spirit. Space is 

the ultimate stage for exploring our humanity. We are convinced that an incredible 

future waits for us among the stars, and that America will lead it. We believe this 

is ‘‘something people want.’’ 

But to help make this vision a reality Relativity must first build a thriving business and, while Relativity’s investors share our conviction and ambition to build an 

iconic company, they also have very real financial targets that we must reach, together, to be successful. Working alongside some of the top venture capitalists (VC’s) 

in Silicon Valley, we have learned that investors generally focus on the following 

key criteria when deciding whether or not to fund a company: 

• Potential for Outsized Returns: small capital investments create large company 

value increases, normally in a 5–10 year return on investment (ROI) timeframe 

• Large Total Addressable Market: the target market needs to be $1B+, growing 

quickly, or emerging and highly disruptive 

18 

The VC funding model is fantastic for creating industry-disrupting innovation in 

a relatively short timeframe, but it comes with some non-intuitive quirks. Venture 

capital is predicated on the financial model that approximately one-third of companies funded will fail, one-third will simply break even, and one-third will successfully pay for all the others and then some. Often, only a few breakout successes 

within an investment portfolio constitute a vast majority of the ROI for a venture 

capital firm. Thus, private investors seek to quickly determine if a bet placed on 

a company will succeed or fail, primarily focusing their attention on the ones that 

show the most promise. This dynamic means startups often have only 12–24 months 

of funding remaining to prove they are worth continued support from the venture 

community, or left behind in the annals of entrepreneurial endeavor. 

It is worth noting that investors have the entire economy’s array of industries on 

which to place their bets—space is but one sector, and effectively must compete for 

limited investment capital against scalable businesses in the software, consumer 

product, industrial, biomedical, and a multitude of other sectors as well. 

I mention this because in addition to the critical, daily challenge of proving our 

technological concept, we must also reckon, on a daily basis, with the equally critical 

challenge of meeting growth metrics sufficient to remain an attractive private investment in repeated 12–24 month do-or-die timeframes. 

The Startup Perspective 

The above business-building parameters have real and immediate implications for 

the way in which we think about and approach many aspects of our R&D. For example, as capital is infused in discreet funding rounds spaced approximately 12–24 

months apart, we face not only short-term execution timelines, but also must simultaneously focus on achieving long-term goals that may be years into the future, well 

past our current funding amounts. Interruptions to this timeframe, even on the 

order of weeks or months, are highly impactful and can cause an increase in business risk. 

As a startup in the launch services industry, test infrastructure is paramount to 

validating our technologies. However, this infrastructure is extremely slow and expensive to procure, develop, and operate. In the context of already enormous initial 

risks, neither founders nor VC’s have much desire to spend the bulk of our precious 

time and capital toward de-risking what we view to be commodity infrastructure: 

test sites, launch facilities and ranges, and other commonly required development 

facilities. 

Growing a small business in the environment sketched above has serious ramifications for the way we think about potential partnerships with the government 

and it will continue to do so at every stage of our company’s life cycle, exemplified 

by the many ‘‘Series’’ of investment rounds a startup goes through and the partnerships that would be of maximum use at each stage: 

• Early Stage—‘‘Series Seed’’: Lower barriers to entry through contracts: NASA’s 

Tipping Point, Announcement of Collaborative Opportunity (ACO), Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, DARPA and DoD opportunities 

• Product Development—‘‘Series A’’: Test stands, bigger infrastructure, Venture 

Class Launch Services, DARPA and DoD opportunities 

• Growth—‘‘Series B/C’’: Launch pads and infrastructure, launch licenses and 

regulation, larger government contracts and recurring payload launch procurement 

• Scale—‘‘Series D+’’: Certification for flying government payloads, large procurement contracts like Commercial Resupply Services (CRS), Commercial Orbital 

Transportation Services (COTS), and Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) 

incentivize early private investments and close the loop on investor ROI as well 

as bootstrap commercial success 

Our key partnership to date has involved working closely with NASA’s Stennis 

Space Center. After a brief description of our engagement with Stennis, the remainder of this testimony examines the ways in which Relativity has approached vital 

government partnerships. It includes a discussion of specific policy and regulatory 

fixes we believe could go a long way towards unencumbering the next generation 

of commercial space companies. 

Working With NASA Stennis Space Center 

In February 2016, Relativity was contacted by the DoD accelerator MD5 to be one 

of their pilot companies. MD5 is a public-private partnership between the DoD, 

NYU, and other top research universities that accelerates startups by helping provide and facilitate access to government infrastructure. As a result, Relativity 

signed a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA Stennis Space Center in 

19 

mid-2016 for an extensive engine test campaign on an existing test stand. This 

agreement has allowed Relativity to reimburse NASA for direct costs incurred during the facility buildup, upgrade, and testing of our in-house designed rocket engines. 

We are pleased to report we have completed over six dozen hot fire tests to date 

with routine testing ongoing. We thank NASA Stennis Director Dr. Richard J. 

Gilbrech, along with David Coote, Gary Taylor, Ray Nichols, and the rest of the 

Stennis team for their work in helping us achieve these results to date, and look 

forward to our continued progress in the future. 

Relativity chose to partner with NASA and was initially drawn to partnership opportunity with Stennis due to the fact that the testing infrastructure was already 

built and that its team previously ran several successful testing campaigns. Working with NASA has saved Relativity almost a year toward commencing hot fire testing, enabling us to meet our targets far sooner than if we had to build our own engine stand from scratch and it allows us to develop faster against our current funding timelines. It is also important to note that our public-private partnership with 

Stennis allowed Relativity to invest in other unique elements of our technology development because we had capital available to deploy for those key initiatives rather 

than being forced to spend money on building our own engine test stand. Investing 

in the truly unprecedented side of our technology development, which is a critical 

element of our planned business model, has the additional benefit of putting us in 

a better position to receive further private funding. 

By partnering with the U.S. Government and using NASA’s existing infrastructure, Relativity was able to more quickly test our proprietary new technologies, grow 

our operations, and ultimately accelerate our time-to-market so that we will eventually be competing with domestic and foreign competitors on an international scale. 

Working with Stennis on a ‘‘lean team’’ approach has provided solid learning experiences for both sides, and we wish to take these lessons learned and carry them forward in an expanded, future public-private partnership if Relativity’s business 

needs can be optimally met. 

Policy Recommendations: Startups and The Future of Partnerships 

Public-private partnerships have provided critical resources for our company’s initial success. However, we have learned a lot about working with the government 

along the way and would like to offer a few suggestions for improvement. Our desire 

here is not merely self-interested: We firmly believe that opening and strategically 

building up specialized government infrastructure could act as an ‘‘accelerator’’ of 

space startups, in much the same way that President Eisenhower created the highway system and catalyzed the automobile industry. 

We recognize that the commercial space legislation under consideration today and 

in the weeks ahead may not be the proper vehicle for space infrastructure investments. But we also recognize that infrastructure writ large is very much a topic of 

discussion in Washington and an issue that generates bi-partisan support. Ultimately, we believe that if public-private partnerships can incentivize and maximize 

investment into the space industry from private sources they will, in turn, maximize 

the impact the U.S. Government can have in fostering the industry, further consolidating our Nation’s dominant position when it comes to exploring the cosmos. 

(1) Maximizing and Updating Launch Infrastructure 

As mentioned above procuring and qualifying launch infrastructure—launch pad, 

ground support equipment, range and communication systems, and flight termination safety systems—is a daunting task for any company, and particularly for a 

startup that is simultaneously developing new manufacturing technologies and an 

orbital rocket on a timeline of just a few years. 

Relativity strongly support initiatives like NASA’s development of a mobile Universal Propellant Servicing System (UPSS) and the Autonomous Flight Termination 

Systems (AFTS) developed by DARPA and NASA, as these are perfect examples of 

the types of commodity infrastructure development by the government, which adequately meet the needs of private companies looking to reach operational status 

more quickly and cost effectively. 

Of particular note is that for small class launch vehicles, the lack of accessible 

West Coast launch sites able to meet polar, sun synchronous, and retrograde orbital 

inclinations leaves many small satellite customers stuck with launching on foreign 

rockets from India, Russia, and Europe. Internationally located FAA-licensed launch 

sites, such as in New Zealand, are privately developed and not open to other U.S. 

companies, and have technical advantages that are nearly impossible to replicate in 

the United States other than potentially in Hawaii or other remote Pacific islands. 

One potential near-term option is to help create a small launch vehicle pad similar 

20 

in design to KSC’s 39C at Vandenberg Airforce Base in California, or another suitable West coast location. Regardless, with emerging small satellite customers split 

between desiring launches from the East coast and West coast due to the orbits they 

provide, startups like Relativity must think about multiple launch facilities and operations spread across the country. 

The lack of a singular launch complex able to serve the bulk of small satellite customers is a thorny problem to solve, but we have postulated that the use of an offshore drone ship launch platform could potentially alleviate this problem by launching in international waters under an FAA license. The concept we envision is less 

complex than the repurposed oil platform known as ‘‘Sea Launch,’’ and is more akin 

to the reverse of the drone ships and barges SpaceX and Blue Origin have pioneered 

for landing recovered boost stages. We believe it is worth mentioning as a potential 

area for further regulatory and technical investigation. The expected influx of massively higher frequency of launches in the coming years will present new regulatory 

challenges. It could cause an eventual bottleneck where multiple small launchers 

and satellite constellations alike would be constrained in servicing a new wave of 

commercial customer needs. Even proposing an uncharted solution like international drone ship or barge launch goes to show just how dire the launch bottleneck could be with current regulatory processes and launch site limits to the total 

number of flights possible per year in the United States. This is also a key issue 

that is pushing companies to investigate air launch as an alternative solution, again 

with daunting technical unknowns and operational challenges. 

Finally, we are grateful for the government’s foresight in helping to create readyaccess launch pads and propellant loading systems such as 39C in Kennedy Space 

Center. However, Relativity is concerned that 39C is located too close to the Space 

Launch System (SLS) pad 39B, potentially risking multi-month schedule delays as 

a national asset like SLS will rightfully take schedule priority. Due to this proximity 

to SLS, we are nervous about potential insurance premium increases that launching 

at 39C could entail. We also believe it will be difficult to serve multiple companies 

effectively from the same location, and while there appear to be several available 

moth-balled facilities at Cape Canaveral, for example, the growing scarcity of mature launch pads will hinder new entrants’ ability to meet customer demand. 

(2) A New Model for Service Agreements 

The current incarnations of the Space Act Agreement (SAA) and Commercial 

Space Launch Act (CSLA) agreement contain problematic provisions for handling 

conflicting test stand priorities. 

We fully understand that in the event of a national emergency the government 

may require the use of test infrastructure. Our primary concern is that as the SAA 

and CSLA are currently drafted, if another commercial company wants to use the 

same test stand as us (or any other launch startup) NASA would be required to accommodate them in a presumed ‘‘one-month on, one-month off’’ type testing arrangement. This is troubling to a startup company where a delay of this sort could seriously jeopardize our ability to hit milestones with enough momentum required for 

further private funding. This is precisely the sort of scheduling conflict that could 

wreak havoc with development deadlines, and thus force us to seek highly inefficient alternatives, i.e., building our own infrastructure. We are willing to reimburse 

direct costs and pay site maintenance fees in exchange for additional guarantees. 

If launch startups had a window of time during which we could lease engine and 

stage test stands this would go far to make us more comfortable relying on government infrastructure during critical development phases before operation. 

Agreements with local centers like Stennis are extremely valuable but risky mechanisms in the way they are formed. They save new small launch startups precious 

time and money but they are negotiated in an ad-hoc, case-by-case manner which 

creates a significant risk variable. A more certain framework and policy stance for 

making agreements between privately funded startups and the U.S. Government for 

infrastructure use could greatly help startups in particular navigate public-private 

partnerships. 

Relativity thus proposes the creation of a ‘‘Commercial Space Lease Agreement’’— 

a new framework similar to a reimbursable SAA or CSLA but with provisions for 

leasing development testing infrastructure at direct cost in much the same way 

launch infrastructure like LC–39A and LC–13 at Kennedy Space Center is leased. 

To ensure competition for an agreement of this type, public notices much like LC– 

39A and LC–13 could be held for a period of time, with similar optionality on proposing either exclusive-use or multi-user operations. Investment dollars from venture capital often follow—not precede—winning these types of agreements, worth 

noting for comparison of proposals versus more entrenched and initially-funded competitors. Potentially leasable facilities which are not considered moth-balled could 

21 

be selectively duplicated or expanded to ensure a higher number of participants 

have equal access as the space industry grows. Continued support for flexibility in 

the Company’s choice of using either Company or Government personnel, and supporting Company-funded facility upgrades and modifications are critical to ensuring 

the best-of-both-worlds in a testing infrastructure public-private partnership. As we 

envision it, a Commercial Space Lease Agreement framework would lower competitive barriers to entry and promote significantly more efficient use of private capital 

and time, while reducing risk across the breadth of company development phases 

by providing more certainty in negotiation outcomes. 

(3) Reimagining Procurement 

While Relativity is currently entirely privately funded, the opportunity for any 

company to apply for competitive partnership contracts provides essential support 

and valuable signaling to potential commercial customers. 

As a startup operating under aggressive financial goals, Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR) is a key long-term metric and far superior to helping build our bottom 

line than one-off revenue generating events such as Venture Class Launch Services 

(VCLS). VCLS is an excellent opportunity for a company like ours because it enables 

us to gain initial traction, generate revenue, and validate that we can attract new 

commercial customers. While I strongly support any further rounds of flight opportunities where we may apply for funding, a one-off launch contract is unable to 

move the needle on a private investor’s ROI expectations—although we understand 

that with the current incarnation of VCLS, that outcome perhaps was not the intent. We would also point out that delays in contract awards, yearly submission cycles, and any lags in funding a company once a contract has been awarded may 

cause undue harm to a startup where weeks and months are counted. 

We would encourage NASA to investigate a modulated version of the program 

that provides for recurring and larger launch contracts over multiple launches. This 

could include a hybrid model of sorts, one that predicated the award of a full contract on the successful execution of an initial run of two-three launches over an 

agreed-upon period time. Failure to meet clear benchmarks along the way would result in the immediate termination of such an agreement. Alternatively, some version 

of new public-private contracts like the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS), Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), and Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) that is geared towards smaller and newer launchers would also 

incentivize early private investment. 

(4) Avoiding the Licensing Logjam 

The question of adequate resources for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation has been raised in previous hearings, but as a company that plans to soon 

join the ranks of those applying for launch licenses with greater and greater frequency, it is of the utmost importance in our minds that AST receive sufficient funding and personnel to avoid a significant back up in licensing applications. We understand that there is a broader and healthy debate taking place about AST’s role visa`-vis that of the Department of Commerce’s Office of Space Commerce but this 

should in no way supplant a critical focus on ensuring AST is equipped to carry out 

its current mission. 

(5) Continuing to Support a Robust Satellite Market 

Low cost, frequent, predictable orbital launch is simply the first step in accessing 

space and creating a large impact above Earth and beyond. Support of satellite companies—both established and emerging—is needed to ensure the large total addressable market investors need to see grows and matures. Issues such as orbital debris 

reduction need to be tackled in a way that do not limit the potential revenues of 

satellite companies or the launchers that fly them. Limits to the total number of 

satellites in orbit would be more damaging than service lifetime limits, tracking requirements, or end-of-life deorbit requirements. This is especially true as many proposed orbital constellations specifically benefit from a high number of payloads circling the globe with rapid iteration of their technologies. We also support innovative 

solutions to spectrum rights that increase the number of satellite companies able 

to cost-effectively serve their customers without interference. Our potential customers need to access space today to prove their business models and survive until 

tomorrow, and we do not wish to hinder them in doing so. Thus, we do not support 

an explicit ban on unsubsidized foreign launchers as we wish to instead work on 

public-private partnerships to create other incentives toward fielding a low-cost U.S. 

designed, manufactured, and flown—non-ICBM derived—orbital vehicle for small 

satellite constellations. 

22 

Conclusion: A Startup Vision for Commercial Space in the 21st Century 

For the most part, Relativity has had an overwhelmingly positive experience in 

its partnerships with NASA and MD5. However, we believe it is important to point 

out that from conversations with our peers not every commercial space startup feels 

the confidence to rely on public-private partnerships in key development infrastructure roles yet. 

Take, for example, this vital question of engine and vehicle stage testing infrastructure. A dearth of available stands, an occasionally cumbersome engagement 

process, an uncertain prioritization process—those challenges and more will push 

many startups to spend valuable private funds building their own test stands and 

support hardware. Building our own development testing infrastructure continues 

to be an expensive and inefficient process that results in a loss of time, money and 

creative energy that could be better spent on cutting edge innovation rather than 

on items which are proven commodities—and which the U.S. Government is perfectly placed to provide access to be it via existing infrastructure or through the targeted, gradual buildup of new infrastructure to meet the demands of a new generation of private space exploration companies. 

Lastly, it is worth noting that no matter which strategy a company pursues, 

startups like Relativity initially compete directly with much larger and more wellfunded competitors through new ideas, development speed, equity ownership, and 

novel big-payoff technologies. It is that willingness to innovate in the face of uncertain risk that uniquely bonds startups, even as competitors. There is one other thing 

that any startup worth its salt has in common: ambition. We grind and labor and 

persevere not merely to get rich—there are probably easier ways to do that—we do 

it to change the world. Commercial space startups do it because we want to change 

the world by reaching the cosmos. 

Relativity is here today as a representative example of a successful partnership 

with the United States Government. We also recognize that we are here today as 

one humble example of the hundreds of dynamic space startups currently hard at 

work in suburban garages and repurposed airplane hangars all across America. The 

United States Government has not always been known for the nimbleness of action 

that characterizes your average startup. But I would be so bold as to venture that 

we are united by one thing that is greater than all of us: A vision. A vision of the 

Stars and Stripes on the first spaceship to safely land men and women on Mars. 

A vision of how we will guide this world, our home, into a more fantastic future 

by learning to understand new worlds and applying that knowledge to our own. A 

vision of all the other missions that will expand the limits of our known universe 

and the bounds of the human spirit. What could be more human and American than 

aspiring to do something in the face of the impossible—and succeeding? 

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Members of the Committee—thank 

you for this opportunity. 

I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Ellis. 

Mr. Hughes. 

STATEMENT OF TIM HUGHES, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GLOBAL BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 

SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. (SPACEX) 

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, Senator 

Nelson, Senator Gardner, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. 

I’m pleased to be here today representing the nearly 6,000 men 

and women of SpaceX who are working hard every day to provide 

NASA, the Department of Defense, and our commercial customers 

with critical launches to space. 

SpaceX is a firm believer that public-private partnerships between commercial space entities and the government, if carried out 

with the right structure and the right incentives, are among the 

best ways to rapidly, safely, and cost effectively advance America’s 

space program. 

23 

Before outlining some views on how to best leverage commercial 

partnerships, I wanted to give the Committee a quick update on 

what has been happening at SpaceX of late. 

To begin, since the start of the year, we’ve completed 10 missions, including 3 in just a 12-day period, and these have included 

landings of our first-stage booster, both at land and at sea. 

In addition to flying our commercial customers, SpaceX is routinely supporting cargo resupply missions to and from the International Space Station. And we have, in a set of historic firsts, successfully launched two previously flown boosters for commercial 

customers. 

Separately, we’re making great progress on a fully reusable next 

generation launch system, which will enable large-scale human and 

cargo transportation to and from the surface of Mars. 

And most importantly, we are laser-focused on safely and reliably launching astronauts onboard our Falcon 9 and Dragon 2 capsule with this launch to occur next year. This will restore America’s 

human space flight capability for the first time since the Shuttle 

retired in 2011. And as noted by the Chairman, it will end our Nation’s reliance on Russia to carry our own astronauts into space. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an exciting and dynamic time for space exploration. With new commercial space companies emerging, private 

capital investment and commercial space ventures surging, and 

new technologies and competition offering rapid innovation, affordability, and flexibility, now is the time for the U.S. space enterprise 

to make maximum use of commercial capabilities. 

There are a few points to that end that I’d like to make. First, 

we encourage the Committee to look back on the NASA COTS program. It offers important lessons about the utility of public-private 

partnerships and the right way to carry them out. NASA structured the COTS program very wisely. It shared the risks, the costs, 

and the rewards of developing new space transportation capabilities. Under the program, NASA provided seed money for the demonstration of private space flight capabilities, and it issued payments only after a company met technical or financial performance 

metrics. 

By using this approach, NASA was able to leverage its $800 million investment in the program alongside significant commercial investment, and it yielded two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two new cargo spacecraft. This partnership moved at rapid 

speed with the first flight of the Falcon 9 and Dragon to orbit occurring in less than 4 years, and with the first flight of an operational mission to the Space Station in less than 6 years. 

The features associated with the COTS program can be more 

broadly applied now to the development of deep space exploration 

systems for transportation, habitats, communications, reconnaissance, and resource utilization. In general, they include the use of 

pay-for-performance milestone-based structures under firm-fixedprice contracts. Contractors should be paid when they deliver and 

they should take risks and they should share risks. Additionally, 

the government should set high-level requirements, objectives, and 

goals, but should not dictate how private partners achieve those 

goals. This encourages fresh thinking and creative problem solving. 

24 

Further, competition is critical to the overall success of any such 

program. 

Overall, NASA should once again pursue a parallel track with 

nontraditional partners meant to augment and increase the probability of the long-term success of the Nation’s space exploration 

goals. We recommend a new competitive public-private partnership 

modeled on COTS for deep space exploration. 

Objectives here could include a sustained lunar presence, a large 

cargo carriage to Mars, commercial space habitats and weigh stations to other planets, or a deep space communications program 

meant to supplement our current capabilities. Regardless, we believe a competitive performance-based partnership program with 

relatively small investment by the government would yield great 

results for the Nation, along with high-paying jobs and critical national space capabilities. 

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

some thoughts on this topic. I look forward to any questions that 

you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM HUGHES, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL

BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

(SPACEX) 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Markey, and Members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important hearing on ‘‘Reopening the American Frontier.’’ SpaceX is a firm believer that public-private partnerships between U.S. commercial space entities and the Government are the optimal vehicles to rapidly, safely, and cost-effectively advance space exploration and 

settlement of the solar system. 

Under your leadership, the Committee recently has reviewed an array of matters, 

including regulatory reform to enable commercial space to thrive and revisions to 

the Outer Space Treaty, which are critical to ensuring the Nation’s continued leadership in space exploration. Today’s hearing provides a timely opportunity to discuss 

the nature of NASA’s recent successful partnerships with private industry and to 

review how the United States can leverage such innovative approaches in its deep 

space endeavors going forward. SpaceX’s direct and significant experience working 

under unique, innovative public-private partnerships with NASA should help to 

shape the contours of this dialogue. In addition to existing programs at NASA focused on deep space exploration transportation and architectures, NASA again 

should pursue a parallel track that leverages non-traditional, public-private partnership approaches to increase the likelihood of success for the Nation’s space exploration objectives. 

From its beginning, SpaceX has leveraged American innovation, technical savvy, 

and an iterative culture to yield the most advanced space launch vehicle and spacecraft systems in history. We are grateful for NASA’s ongoing support, which has 

been critical SpaceX’s success. We are proud to provide a dependable and affordable 

ride to space for NASA, the Department of Defense, and the world’s most sophisticated commercial satellite manufacturers and operators. Today, we regularly conduct critical un-crewed cargo resupply missions to and from the International Space 

Station (ISS) with our Dragon spacecraft—which was developed in partnership with 

NASA—and next year, we will begin launching American astronauts on American 

rockets for the first time since the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011. Commercially, 

SpaceX has restored the U.S. as a leader in global commercial satellite launch, taking back a market that had been wholly ceded to Russia and France for over a decade. As we look to the future, SpaceX is committed to continuing to support America’s space program and to contribute to our national exploration objectives through 

reliable, innovative, and affordable access to space. 

To begin, it bears noting that the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 

identifies one of NASA’s core mission areas as follows: ‘‘[t]o seek and encourage, to 

25 

1Pub. L. 115–10, title III, § 305(b), title IV, § 443(b), Mar. 21, 2017, 131 Stat. 32, 47, added 

items 20148 and 20149. 2 National Space Transportation Policy. November 1, 2013. Available at: https://www.nasa 

.gov/sites/default/files/files/national_space_transportation_policy_11212013.pdf 

the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.’’ 1 Additionally, 

the National Space Transportation Policy expressly directs Federal agencies to 

‘‘[p]romote and maintain a dynamic, healthy, and efficient domestic space transportation industrial base,’’ and to do so, in part, by cultivating ‘‘increased technological 

innovation and entrepreneurship in the U.S. commercial space transportation sector 

through the use of incentives such as non-traditional acquisition arrangements, 

competition, and prizes.’’ 2 American policy-makers dating back to the formation of 

NASA have recognized that the commercial use of space represents one of the country’s greatest assets—private sector ingenuity and capital, rather than cost-plus contracts and open-ended requirements. This, coupled with unique Government capability, technical insight, experience, and resources, will sustain and grow American 

leadership in space, and more broadly, benefit all of humankind. 

My testimony today will focus on the following areas: 

(1) The NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program 

should serve as an object lesson in successful, high-value public-private partnership approaches. The COTS program resulted in significant new capability 

for the U.S. Government, saved hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, and 

helped restore U.S. competitiveness in commercial space launch. The lessons 

learned through COTS—a program to support cargo transportation to lowEarth orbit (LEO)—could easily be transposed on innovative partnership arrangements for deep space exploration going forward. 

(2) Public-private partnerships and commercial-type contract approaches under 

the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) can provide cost-effective, accelerated development and deployment of new space capabilities, if properly constructed and tailored. Here, my testimony will focus on how the unique features of such approaches can and should be applied to deep space exploration 

initiatives to keep America at the cutting of edge of space technology within 

reasonable budgets and timetables. 

(3) Specific commercial partnership concepts for deep space exploration can complement and enhance the space exploration efforts NASA is currently undertaking through more traditional contract and development approaches. Here, 

my testimony sets forth some possibilities that are additive, and emphasizes 

that no single approach is perfect. That is, it is evident that the country will 

benefit by applying multiple different approaches and enabling multiple different, redundant pathways to space exploration. 

I. SpaceX Today 

Founded in 2002, SpaceX employs approximately 6,000 people dedicated to designing, manufacturing, and launching rockets and spacecraft in and from the United 

States. To this end, SpaceX was created with the express goal of dramatically improving the reliability, safety, and affordability of space transportation. We have 

made that goal a reality. And, of course, our ultimate goal is to help to establish 

a permanent human presence in the stars, with an initial focus on Mars as a destination. 

To date, the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle has successfully launched 37 times, 

all while achieving important evolutionary reductions in the cost of space launch. 

Among other things, SpaceX has focused on making our rockets reusable. After several years of self-funded research and development on reusability, beginning with 

critical work at our McGregor, Texas Rocket Development Facility, SpaceX has now 

recovered a total of 13 Falcon 9 first stage boosters since December 2015—5 at 

Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and 8 aboard our autonomous 

spaceport droneships at sea. After a four-month qualification program, SpaceX successfully launched and landed a previously-flown Falcon 9 booster in March of this 

year, placing a high-value telecommunications satellite into orbit for SES, a global 

satellite operator. This was an historic first for an orbital-class booster. In June 

2017, SpaceX repeated this success with the launch of the BulgariaSat-1 satellite 

using a flight-proven booster, which itself had previously launched in January of 

2017. 

Currently, SpaceX has approximately 70 missions on manifest, representing more 

than $10 billion in signed contracts for a diverse and growing set of customers, including NASA, the Department of Defense, commercial satellite operators, and allied international governments. As our business continues to grow, SpaceX, as techVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
26 

3 ‘‘The development of commercial cargo vehicles is considered by many as one of the major 

success stories at NASA in the last decade.’’ Jeff Foust, ‘‘For commercial cargo, ideas old and 

new,’’ The Space Review, March 23, 2015. Available at: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/ 

2717/1. 

nology companies should, invests heavily in the company’s manufacturing and 

launch infrastructure and advanced research and development projects, including 

spacecraft development. 

We remain laser-focused on reliability and safety as we prepare to launch U.S. 

astronauts next year. This is a sacred responsibility that we approach with the utmost dedication and diligence. Additionally, we continue efforts to reach a cadence 

of a launch every two weeks or less for 2017, with an even higher rate planned for 

2018; to move toward rapid and complete reusability of our boosters; to launch our 

Falcon Heavy launch vehicle later this year, which will be the most powerful rocket 

to launch since the Saturn V Moon rocket; to develop and produce the initial prototypes for our broadband satellite system; and to continue design and development 

work of a Mars launch vehicle architecture. Critically, all of this innovation is occurring in the United States, creating high-paying jobs, advancing technology, and generating substantial economic activity. 

To update the Committee on SpaceX’s major milestones for 2017: 

• We have completed 10 missions in the past 7 months, for a total 37 successful 

Falcon 9 launches overall. Recently, SpaceX launched 4 successful missions in 

32 days (3 of those in just 12 days); 

• We have already successfully completed two cargo resupply missions to the ISS 

for NASA, CRS–10 and CRS–11, which was the first re-flight of a Dragon spacecraft; 

• We successfully launched two flight-proven Falcon 9 rockets for commercial satellite customers; 

• We successfully delivered the NROL–76 national security payload to orbit for 

the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) on May 1, 2017, the first dedicated 

national security mission flown by SpaceX, under an innovative, commercial 

services contract; 

• We were awarded a second GPS III missions under a competitive procurement 

in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program, yielding a significant cost savings to the Air Force; 

• We have launched missions from both active East and West Coast launch sites; 

and, 

• We are completing final upgrades to the Falcon 9 (Block 5), after which we’ll 

focus much of our launch vehicle engineering talent on SpaceX’s Mars vehicle. 

SpaceX maintains its manufacturing and engineering headquarters in Hawthorne, 

CA; a satellite system design and development office in Redmond, WA; a Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, TX; and launch pads at Cape Canaveral 

Air Force Station, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and, 

soon, a commercial launch site near Brownsville, TX. SpaceX also relies upon a network of more than 4,400 American suppliers and partners—an investment in the 

American industrial base when others are spending heavily abroad. 

II. COTS: A Successful Model for Public Private Partnerships 

The Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program has been widely 

and correctly hailed as a major success for NASA and its commercial partners, delivering significant new capability to the Government at incredible value to the taxpayer.3 After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, all Space Shuttle flight 

operations were suspended for more than two years, and the United States became 

reliant upon foreign governments to carry both American cargo and crew to the 

International Space Station (ISS). In 2006, NASA established the COTS program to 

develop new U.S. cargo capability to serve as a follow-on to the Space Shuttle Program for missions to ISS. COTS was an innovative, commercially competitive program that successfully leveraged private sector dollars and ingenuity through public-private partnerships. 

The COTS program was the first of its kind for NASA: a pay-for-performance 

partnership between the U.S. Government and private businesses to rapidly design 

and prototype critical technologies. NASA structured the COTS program as a collaborative partnership with the commercial space industry, sharing the risks, costs, 

and rewards of developing new space transportation capabilities. Under the program, NASA provided seed money for the development of private spaceflight capabilities, but issued payment only after a company met technical and financial perVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
27 

4SpaceX has continued to invest in reliability, performance, and reusability enhancements for 

Falcon 9. 5 NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy, ‘‘Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle: NAFCOM Cost 

Estimates,’’ August 2011. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAF 

COM.pdf 6See: NASA, ‘‘Public-Private Partnerships for Space Capability Development: Driving Economic Growth and NASA’s Mission,’’ April 2014. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_Partnership_Report_LR_20140429.pdf 7 NASA, ‘‘Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM),’’ May 31, 2017. Available at: https:// 

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1804.html 

formance milestones. The participating COTS contractors, likewise, invested in the 

program and put their own financial skin in the game. The contractual mechanism 

utilized was a ‘‘Space Act Agreement’’ (SAA), which allows the agency to rapidly design and prototype technologies, and allows contractual flexibility such that private 

parties can contribute financially to what would otherwise be a Government effort. 

The SAA has its genesis in ‘‘other transactions authority,’’ which exists in Federal 

statute for NASA, as well as the Department of Defense and many other Federal 

agencies. 

NASA competitively awarded a COTS Space Act Agreement to SpaceX and an- other entity in 2006. For SpaceX, the SAA ultimately represented a total of $396 

million of NASA investment, primarily focused on development of the Dragon cargo 

capsule and two demonstration flights of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon 

spacecraft. SpaceX in turn invested more than $500M (at that time) in the development of the Falcon 9, including launch sites, production, and test facilities.4 In only 

four years, SpaceX went from a clean sheet design to launch of the Falcon 9 and 

the first orbit and reentry of Dragon—an unprecedented reduction in development 

time for a complex space system that was realized under the SAA approach. 

In May 2012, Falcon 9 successfully launched Dragon to orbit and the spacecraft 

then successfully berthed with the Space Station, a mere six years after contract 

award. Shortly thereafter in October 2012, the first operational mission under the 

follow-on Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract lifted off, resulting in mission success and kicking off a new area of U.S. resupply to the space station. 

This level of output and speed relative to expenditures is unprecedented in the 

aerospace community and marked a major success for NASA and its innovative approach to restore a critical capability. In short, this was a major win for the U.S. 

taxpayer, for U.S. manufacturing, for NASA specifically, and for the U.S. commercial space industry. It was perhaps the greatest ‘‘bang for the buck’’ that NASA has 

ever achieved. 

Notably, in August 2011 NASA, using the NASA-Air Force Cost Model 

(NAFCOM), determined that had Falcon 9 been developed under a traditional NASA 

approach, the cost would have been approximately $4 billion. The analysis also 

showed development of the Falcon 9 would have been approximately $1.7 billion 

based on the traditional commercial models and assumed factors. However, NASA 

independently verified SpaceX’s development costs of both the Falcon 1 (our early 

‘‘pathfinder’’ vehicle) and Falcon 9 at approximately $390 million in the aggregate 

($300 million for Falcon 9; $90 million for Falcon 1).5

Beyond COTS, NASA has had other successes utilizing the innovative and flexible 

framework enabled by Space Act Agreements.6 For example, NASA successfully 

worked with Bigelow Aerospace, which makes expandable modules and habitats for 

use in space. Here, once again NASA used an SAA applying a firm-fixed-price structure and leveraging significant private investment by Bigelow, to launch the 

Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) to the ISS. SpaceX launched BEAM 

to the Space Station on April 8, 2016 during a cargo resupply mission. Once Dragon 

berthed with the Space Station, NASA astronauts extracted the BEAM module from 

Dragon’s unpressurized trunk and attached it as a new module to the ISS. When 

activated, BEAM expanded to ten times its size at launch to provide more than 565 

cubic feet of new volume to the Station and became the first human-rated expandable module in space. With this success, Bigelow and others will now develop technologies for habitats in low-Earth orbit and beyond, which will likely later be utilized by space agencies and commercial customers for in-orbit research labs, habitats in LEO, lunar orbits, on Mars or elsewhere.7

III. Value of Partnerships and Commercial-Type Partnerships 

By any accounting, the COTS program has been an historic success. According to 

NASA, ‘‘[b]ecause these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget [less than a single Space Shuttle mission] 

with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and 

two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
28 

8 NASA, ‘‘Commercial Orbital Transportation Services: A New Era in Spaceflight,’’ February 

2014. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf 9Government Accountability Office, ‘‘NASA: Acquisition Approach for Commercial Crew 

Transportation Includes Good Practices, but Faces Significant Challenges,’’ December 2011, 

(GAO–12–282). Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587021.pdf. (Emphasis added). 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 

ships.’’ 8 We encourage the Committee to consider ways to take the lessons learned 

from the COTS program and more broadly utilize of the basic features of this approach in future public-private partnerships that extend to deep space exploration 

initiatives. 

The basic features of the COTS program include: 

(1) Establishing high-level requirements and encouraging contractors to execute 

against them with creative, innovate, and cost-effective solutions, reducing 

‘‘requirements creep’’ and encouraging new thinking. The COTS program required contractors to meet a clear set of established safety and interface ISS 

requirements and high-level milestone requirements, rather than implementing overly-specified and ever-changing detailed Government requirements. This requires the Government customer to tell contractors what they 

need to be done, rather than prescribing how to do it. Coupled with firm, 

fixed-price arrangements, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 

found that ‘‘the use of firm-fixed-price contracts—along with well-defined requirements and a sufficient level of knowledge about critical technologies— 

presents the least risk to the government.’’ 9

(2) Using firm, fixed price, pay-for-performance, milestone based agreements or 

contracts, creating proper incentives on the contractor to execute toward successful conclusion, and discouraging continuous Government requirement 

changes that add costs and delay schedules. Pay-for-performance creates proper incentives on both sides of the Government/contractor relationship. Here, 

the GAO has reported: ‘‘[f]irm-fixed-price contracts place the onus on the contractor to provide the deliverable at the time, place, and price negotiated by 

the contractor and the government. In addition, firm-fixed-price contracts 

place the maximum risk on the contractor as well as full responsibility for all 

costs and any resulting profit or loss.’’ 10

(3) Maximizing competition, which is critical to drive value and performance, and 

improve quality of service to the customer. Again, GAO has reported that 

‘‘promoting competition can help save the taxpayer money, improve contractor 

performance, and promote accountability for results.’’ 11

(4) Requiring a significant private capital contribution to the overall program. 

The COTS agreements required commercial partners to share costs and provide a significant percentage of the overall total investment, resulting in lower 

costs to the Government and high incentives for commercial firms to drive toward operational success to generate revenue and recoup their investment. 

(5) Tolerating programmatic risk, and easy termination for failure. One of the 

major early lessons learned under the COTS model was borne of the failure 

of Rocketplane-Kistler, one of the original winners of the first competitive 

down-select, alongside SpaceX. Ultimately, Rocketplane-Kistler was unable to 

execute against one of the financial milestones in its agreement with NASA. 

As a result, NASA was able to early terminate the agreement without significant lost investment or time, and pivot to OrbitalATK (then Orbital Sciences) 

to serve as the second provider under the program. This flexibility to terminate contracts and rapidly ‘‘stop the bleeding’’ on non-functional programs is 

one that is largely lost when applied to traditional FAR-based contracts. 

(6) Encouraging new, non-traditional companies to work with NASA. Due to the 

complexity and cost associated with conforming to traditional FAR-based contract requirements, start-up companies with small teams and no expertise 

interfacing with the complex regulatory and contractual environment associated with U.S. Government are often deterred from participating at all. As a 

result, the Government is often not at the cutting edge of new commercial 

technology offerings. The use of Space Act Agreements—as with COTS—can 

help enable such firms to do business with the Government. 

(7) Facilitating the development of new markets, and leveraging market-driven 

pricing to support U.S. Government requirements and missions. Today, 

SpaceX is the world’s leading commercial launch services provider measured 

by manifested launches. A substantial majority of our more than 70 missions 

29 

12 Not all of the world’s commercial satellite launches are open to competition. 

under contract are commercial. This year, we are on track to launch more 

than half of the world’s accessible 12 commercial missions to geostationary 

transfer orbit (GTO). Next year, we expect to launch a majority of the world’s 

missions to GTO with our Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. 

Prior to SpaceX entering the commercial space launch market with the Falcon 

9 launch vehicle, the U.S. had effectively ceded this market to France and to 

Russia, and no U.S. company had launched a single commercial mission to 

GTO since 2009. SpaceX has brought this multi-billion dollar market back to 

the United States. The benefit to NASA, and to the entire U.S. Government 

when buying launch services, is that commercial competitiveness drives 

launch prices lower for the Government customer (since costs are widely distributed instead of borne entirely by the Government), increases the 

robustness of the launch company’s business, and increases reliability and 

launch heritage through higher flight rates. As a result of COTS—at least 

with respect to SpaceX—NASA and the Department of Defense are paying 

lower prices for launch with higher performance than in the past. 

IV. Recommendations for Increasing Use of Public-Private Partnerships for 

Deep Space Exploration 

SpaceX applauds this Committee for examining ways in which public-private partnerships and commercial arrangements can contribute to the Nation’s space exploration objectives, just as they have done to enhance America’s capabilities in lowEarth orbit. To this day, America’s achievement of landing men on the Moon and 

returning them safely to Earth likely represents humankind’s greatest and most inspirational technological achievement. This was accomplished in eight years using 

slide rules and pencils, with engineers literally inventing rocket science as they progressed. Now, other nations like China seek to replicate an achievement America 

first accomplished 48 years ago. 

With the technology advancements and increased knowledge through decades of 

work by NASA in deep space, including Mars, the United States is now well-positioned to build upon past achievements in space and surpass them. Coupled with 

the NASA resources and unique expertise, American ingenuity, the principles of free 

enterprise, and the benefits of competition, the United States can do more in space 

than has ever been accomplished previously. 

SpaceX recommends that, in parallel with existing programs at NASA focused on 

deep space exploration transportation and architectures, NASA again leverages nontraditional, public-private partnerships to improve the likelihood of success for its 


713HUGHE1.eps
30 

space exploration objectives. By leveraging flexible, innovative contracting approaches as well as private capital, NASA and the space program could generate 

efficiency gains and accelerate progress, while expanding the potential pool of technology companies contributing to the overall effort to expand humanity’s presence 

in the solar system and ultimately establish settlements on other planets. 

What are the goals and near-term outcomes of such an approach? 

• American Aspiration and Inspiration. The last astronaut left the surface of the 

Moon in 1972, and no one has returned since. Despite being an historic achievement for America and humankind, the Apollo program did not create a lasting, 

sustained presence in deep space for humanity. A permanent human presence 

on the Moon presents humanity’s next obvious foothold outside of Earth. However, rather than look back to the Moon alone, the United States should also 

lead the world to the next great destination: Mars. Moving beyond the EarthMoon system will open the broader solar system to human exploration, a potentially generations-long enterprise. Both missions would enable settlement and 

tap into America’s spirit of exploration. 

• U.S. Leadership. A realistic and sustainable human exploration program will 

demonstrate American leadership in space exploration, technology innovation, 

and scientific discovery for many years to come. This leadership will enhance 

the American economy, extend America’s technological edge, and project American power. The technologies and applications developed invariably will have 

beneficial impacts to America’s national security goals and space superiority. 

• American Jobs and Industrial Growth. Every dollar spent on effective publicprivate partnerships and commercial-type contracts to establish an American 

presence on the Moon or Mars represents an investment in our economy, our 

technological infrastructure, and our ability to achieve accelerated advancements in space exploration and settlement. A viable Moon or Mars program will 

create tens of thousands of high-tech, high-paying American jobs and revitalize 

the U.S. manufacturing sector in order to develop and produce large scale systems for deep space transportation and capability (e.g., propulsion systems, 

launch vehicles, spaceships, orbiting reconnaissance systems, and communications satellites), as well as systems to enable a permanent human presence on 

celestial bodies other than Earth (e.g., life support systems, habitats, surface 

power, surface exploration, and resource extraction). A Moon-Mars initiative 

that leverages the strengths of the U.S. Government and the strengths of the 

private sector and invests in America’s workforce will create new, high-paying 

American jobs in dozens of states—but most importantly, it will move the Nation’s space exploration goals meaningfully forward. 

To run in parallel with existing programs and increase the probability of success 

of establishing initial human presence on the Moon or Mars within the next in eight 

years to ten years, NASA could build upon the already demonstrated successful 

COTS model and create a similar COTS-like program for deep space exploration initiatives based on the following proven elements: 

• Competition. NASA should hold an outcome-oriented, open competition, and 

award initial contracts to at least four companies. Later, NASA should downselect to at least two contractors to maintain competition and, critically, to have 

back up capability. Companies (or teams of companies) can compete with existing or novel designs and technologies. 

• Focus on Performance Goals Not Requirements. Like the COTS program, NASA 

should set overall goals and establish clear milestones for the program and enforce only the necessary level of requirements and conduct continuous insight 

to ensure contractors are meeting milestones. NASA should let private companies determine how to achieve high-level requirements, rather dictate detailed 

specifications that suffocate innovation and ingenuity. 

• Fixed-Price, Milestone-Based Payments. NASA should pay for performance 

achieved along the way, on a firm, fixed-price basis that encourages rapid prototyping and development, rather than only use traditional cost-plus Government 

contracts that historically have resulted in cost overruns and led to schedule 

delays. 

• Contractor Investment/Public-Private Partnership. The benefits and burdens of 

funding such a program should be shared by the Government and awardees, 

with commercial space partners making commitments of at least one-third of 

the funding for any bid made. This will buy-down risk for the Government, 

incentivize performance, and demonstrate commitment. Corporations should 

view this as an investment in technology and potential follow-on business. 

31 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your invitation to testify before the Committee today. 

Commercial-type contracts and public-private partnerships have resulted in significant successful outcomes for NASA and the Nation with respect to space capability. 

The principles applied in past programs for low-Earth orbit capability can and 

should be applied to deep space exploration. The United States can achieve incredible advancements in technology by coupling NASA’s established capabilities, technical skills, and resources with those of the private sector and American entrepreneurship. 

Again, we appreciate and support the work this Committee has undertaken to address policy matters before the commercial space industry, and we look forward to 

continuing the dialogue. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. 

Dr. Jah. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MORIBA K. JAH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

AEROSPACE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING MECHANICS, 

COCKELL SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE UNIVERSITY OF 

TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

Dr. JAH. Chairman Cruz, Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. 

Markey, and other members, Senator Nelson, thank you very much 

for having me here today coming to you from UT Austin. 

I would like to speak to you a little bit today about some of the 

problems that we have in space and why it’s critical that we do 

some problem-solving with not just government, but academia and 

private industry. 

Right now, the United States Strategic Command maintains a 

database or a catalog of about 23,000 objects the size of a softball 

and large all the way to school bus size. The good news is that they 

are maintaining this day in and day out and really working hard 

at it. The bad news is that it’s not all the objects in space that can 

threaten critical space services and capabilities. 

Before, when space first started with Sputnik, you only had a 

few objects on orbit, so it wasn’t very difficult to know where things 

were or where things could be, but with 23,000 objects that are 

being tracked and others that are detected but not tracked for a 

variety of reasons, it poses a huge problem. 

The other thing, too, is that we have countries like India, they 

just broke this record of launching 104 satellites in one fell swoop 

just a few months ago. They’re going to continue to do this and just 

saturate the orbits with a lot of satellites, which in and of itself 

isn’t a bad thing. We shouldn’t be concerned with congestion; we 

should be concerned with not understanding where these things 

are going, how they’re behaving, so that we can help businesses 

and commerce thrive. 

I really like the analogy of the Western Frontier of old because 

that’s what space is pretty much today. Basically you have some 

folks that are going up there trying to make money. The big bonanza seems to be putting as much on orbit to look down to track 

human-based activity or to monitor the Earth. Also, you have 

OneWeb and SpaceX that are looking to do global Internet. These 

are all great things. 

But the guidelines that have been put in place to protect that 

sanctuary, which no longer is quite the sanctuary it was in terms 

of orbital safety and long-term preservation of space activities, 

those guidelines are ill-suited because they were based on a paraVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
32 

digm of decades ago, not what we’re facing now with all these new 

launches. And, again, the new launches aren’t a problem; the problem is that we don’t have a space traffic management system to 

really understand how best to do these things. 

For instance, all the objects that the USSTRATCOM tracks, 

they’re all modeled as spheres. How do we regulate spheres? How 

do we understand which sphere is doing what when? It’s very difficult to do. On the roadways, we have guidelines on how to manage the traffic. Things are based on size, how many axles, that sort 

of thing. Trucks that are carrying hazardous material are treated 

very differently than Vespa scooters. Maritime oil tankers are 

treated very differently than kayaks and canoes. What do we have 

for space? Nothing. We don’t have anything today, and that is a 

problem. There’s a vacuum that needs to be filled, and the United 

States is in the best position to do that collaboratively between government, academia, and industry. 

Russia is basically saying that they want to have the UN lead 

a space traffic management system. That’s not a widely adopted 

viewpoint for a variety of reasons. And so, again, the United States 

is in a great position to show some leadership and do something 

about this. 

Regarding that space traffic management system, what should 

this space traffic management system do? For sure, it should ensure the safety of operations in space, maximize and incentivize 

commercial opportunities. I hear some people on orbit saying, ‘‘Oh, 

FCC, please don’t grant any more licenses because any single object up here is going to pose this risk of cataclysmic failures and 

all these things.’’ That’s not necessarily the case. We have an 

unquantified risk because there is so much that we still don’t 

know. There is science that still needs to be done. 

We also need to provide transparency. USSTRATCOM is doing 

the best it can to provide orbital safety products, but they can’t disclose where everything is in space for very good reasons, so they 

shouldn’t be asked to do that, and this is a good reason why I agree 

with General Hyten here why that should be moved outside of the 

DoD’s purview. 

A CSTM, a Civil Space Traffic Management System, should observe and monitor, track and catalog these objects, and inform the 

public of where things are at for orbital safety purposes and reasons. 

And with that, I say thank you again very much for having me 

here. And I look forward to answering any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Jah follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MORIBA K. JAH, PH.D. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, AEROSPACE

ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING MECHANICS, COCKRELL SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Mr. Committee Chairman Thune, Mr. Subcommittee Chairman Cruz, Subcommittee Ranking Member Mr. Markey, and other members of this subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to share my view of some 

salient issues that affect orbital safety, space traffic, and the future of our Nation’s 

space exploration and exploitation program. It is an honor to be seated at this table 

with some of our world’s Space sector giants. My name is Moriba Jah. I’m an engineer, scientist, and a technologist. The views I express today have been shaped 

through an 18-year aerospace engineering career in government, industry and acaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
33 

demia. I started my career as a member of the technical staff of the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I navigated a variety of spacecraft to Mars and Asteroid 

Itokawa, and also developed advanced spacecraft navigation algorithms toward autonomy and improved orbital knowledge, beginning with Mars Global Surveyor and 

ending with the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter mission. After JPL, I worked as a 

Civil Servant in the Air Force Research Laboratory, where I led the design, development, and implementation of algorithms that have successfully and autonomously 

detected, tracked, identified, and characterized man-made objects in space, so called 

‘‘Resident Space Objects,’’ to include orbital debris. My last position within AFRL 

was as the Mission Lead for Space Situational Awareness. Amongst my achievements, I was given the highest award that can be earned as an AFRL employee, 

that of AFRL Fellow. Currently, I am fortunate to serve on the faculty of the Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics Department, in the Cockrell School 

of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. At UT Austin, I lead a research 

program called ASTRIA focused on the design, development, and technical transition of astronautical sciences and technologies relevant to Spacecraft Navigation, 

Space Situational Awareness, and Space Traffic Management. I am a Fellow of several organizations and professional societies and serve as a chair and member of 

several major space-related national and international technical committees. However, I am here today as an individual and the views I express are mine alone. I’d 

like to also thank my wife Cassaundra, and children Denali, Inara, and Satyana for 

lending me to you, today. 

Executive Summary 

We have laws, regulations, and norms of behavior on our roadways, waterways, 

and airways. We classify and regulate traffic based upon things like size, maneuverability, weight, hazard potential, and others. An oil tanker is treated very differently 

than a kayak. A truck carrying hazardous fuel is treated quite differently than a 

Vespa scooter. 

Do we have an equivalent Civil Space Traffic Management (CSTM) System? No. 

Do we need one? Absolutely. Why? Uncontrolled and unpredictable growth of the 

use of near Earth space. What form could a CSTM System take? What role should 

America have in it? This is what I am here to discuss. 

To be clear, the question is not, ‘‘do we need a Civil Space Traffic Management 

system’’ but rather, ‘‘What form does such a system involve and how do we design, 

test, implement, enforce, and maintain the system.’’ 

Today, I’m going to address this problem by briefly establishing: 

• Why we need such a CSTM system 

• What could be the components of a CSTM system 

• What are the next steps required to put this into effect 

Regarding the ‘‘why’’ of us needing a CSTM System, I’ll begin by saying that our 

Space Domain and Environment is no longer the sparsely-populated state-actordominant sphere of activity it was decades ago. Our need to explore and grow has 

motivated the commercial sector, epitomized by our own people the likes of Mr Jeff 

Bezos and Elon Musk, to discover the state-of-the-possible and turn that into our 

state-of-practice. This is exactly what we want to see happen and indeed foster and 

encourage. However, the U.S. is not the only country with growing activities in 

space. India, just recently broke the record for the largest number of deployed satellites in a single launch, 104 to be exact. Licenses are currently being sought for 

the launch and deployment of thousands of satellites, within the next few years. So, 

who is rigorously and comprehensively analyzing the growth of the Resident Space 

Object population and how does this affect Orbital Safety of Operations and the 

Long-Term Sustainability of Space Activities? The view of most space actors and investors is that it is someone else’s problem! I vehemently disagree. 

The Space Domain and Environment is still much like our Western Frontier of 

old. It suffers from a lack of monitoring, vast geographical sparsity, potential for 

‘‘lawlessness’’, lack of environmental protection, etc. Space Piracy has likely already 

happened, is happening, and will happen so long as we lack the ability to comprehensively monitor all space activities. This unfortunate human behavior has happened in all other domains and to expect the Space Domain to be an exception is 

naı ̈ve at best. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that our space technology has 

made access to space cheaper, which has brought greater numbers of space actors 

to participate in the space commerce sector, much like what the Transcontinental 

Railroad did for businesses connecting the East Coast with the Western Frontier. 

The United States of America has developed, maintains, and distributes, to the 

rest of the world, the largest free record of cataloged man-made objects in space, 

so called ‘‘Resident Space Objects’’. This catalog is owned and operated by the U.S. 

34 

Department of Defense, specifically our dedicated men and women of the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Many organizations and entities around the world 

use these Orbital Safety products on a daily basis. However, for the growing needs 

and demands of the space community these products have been shown many times 

to be inadequate. They incur an increasing burden upon the USSTRATCOM primary mission, which is National Defense. 

We need a CSTM system because: 

• Orbital Debris experts worldwide agree that 

» Compared to what is being tracked in our USSTRATCOM catalog, the number of mission-damaging and debris-generating RSOs (1 centimeter in diameter and larger) is at least 100 times greater. 

» Two-Line-Elements (TLEs), which provide basic orbital information on RSOs, 

are insufficient to meet growing Orbital Safety needs because the theory is 

based on averaged motion and they lack any measure of uncertainty. 

• We do not fully understand the reasons we cannot track more objects. All 

untrackable objects pose an unquantified level of threat or hazard to space operations and safety. 

• For reasons of National Security, USSTRATCOM cannot be fully transparent 

in providing knowledge of where all trackable RSOs are located in space. This 

is at odds with efforts at the United Nations Committee On Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space (UN–COPUOS) where we talk about transparency and confidence 

building measures (TCBMs) for collaboration. 

• Russia has suggested the creation of a UN-developed and led effort to perform 

Space Traffic Management/Control. This is not a view accepted by everyone, but 

if we do not step up as leaders and provide a meaningful solution for others 

to join and follow, someone else absolutely will. It’s only a matter of time. 

• Europe is developing their own Space Situational Awareness (SSA) program 

and their own catalog of RSOs, as well as many other nations, in part because 

the USSTRATCOM products do not meet their SSA and STM needs and requirements. 

• The number of RSOs is growing at a rate that is outpacing global governance 

measures for the space domain and environment. 

What are the proposed components of a Civil STM System? 

The CSTM Mission should: 

• Assure the safety of operations in space. 

• Maximize, foster, and incentivize the use of commercial capabilities and data 

sources. 

• Provide transparency, advocacy of informed guidelines, and safety services as 

a public good to preserve the space environment for continued, unhindered, and 

uncontested access and use of space. 

The CSTM Primary Functions would be to: 

• Observe and Monitor: Space Domain and Traffic Observations, Space Situational Awareness (SSA) 

• Track and Catalog: Identify, Characterize, and Catalog Objects; Relational Statistics, Catalog Updates, Traffic Attribution, Achieve Track ‘‘Custody’’ 

• Analyze and Inform: Information Dissemination, Safety Products, Conjunction 

Data Messages 

What are the next steps required to put this into effect? 

• Provide the FAA with an adequately funded and resourced mandate to: (1) use 

their STM Pilot Program to work with the community and provide the first instance of a Civil STM system and (2) begin collecting and exploiting space object 

(e.g., non-SSN tracking) data for orbital safety purposes, with an eye to do this 

via a Public-Private-Partnership. 

• Create or expand the existing role of NASA to: (1) lead the technical requirements for a robust, effective, and meaningful CSTM System, and (2) to work 

closely with other government agencies, industry, and academia. 

» Conjunction Analysis concerns itself with predicting close approaches between 

any two RSOs; it is a growing and changing field, and research into new 

methods is critical to keep up with the rapidly changing and marginally predictable space environment. NASA already has a research investment in this 

35 

area (the CARA Program at Goddard Space Flight Center) that can be leveraged along with 30+ years of developing and executing this capability for use 

by civil space operators. It is government’s role to retire risk, invest in 

Science and Technology (S&T) Research and Development (R&D), and share 

the results with the community to encourage growth. 

• Invest in and expand the role of University Affiliated Research Centers 

(UARCs) as foundational, dedicated, and focused government-academic partnerships to solidify science and technology (S&T) research and development for 

critical space-related core technical competencies and technology risk-retirement 

needed by the U.S. Space Exploration program and Commercial Space Industry. 

• Engage and craft mechanisms for Industry to get their investment and participation in a CSTM System: 

» Satellite manufacturers 

» Satellite launch providers 

» Space Insurance Brokers and Providers 

» Commercial Space Situational Awareness Providers 

» Space Angel Investors and Venture Capitalists 

» Space Service Users 

Mr. Chairman, in the years since the end of World War II, American 

Exceptionalism has set standards to which the world has aspired. Right now, today, 

the world needs leadership in this issue. Implemented effectively, Space Traffic 

Management will provide secure access to space for our critical national infrastructure. It will guarantee America can lead the world in the commercial exploitation 

of space, and that America can maintain its lead over the world in space exploration 

and space science. This committee could provide that leadership, and the opportunity to act is before you. 

Narrative 

In my vast travels around the globe, speaking to and collaborating with space scientists, engineers, and policymakers, it is evident that ‘‘American Exceptionalism’’ 

is still invoked and desperately yearned for, by the many. America’s leadership in 

the space domain, underscored by taking on and delivering upon what seemed to 

be an impossible feat, to send humans to another celestial body and return them 

safely, has inspired not only our great nation, but an entire planet, and seeded some 

of the world’s most creative and innovative ideas. 

Exploration is critical to who we are as a species; it drives our growth and evolution. When our minds and bodies are idle, we tend to self-defeating behaviors. 

What brings out the best in Americans? Rising to great challenges, and working as 

a nation to overcome them. What got Americans to the Moon and back, safely and 

repeatedly? Government, Industry and Academia working seamlessly, together. No 

one sector could do it by themselves. 

The U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) currently has over 24,000 records 

active in its space situational awareness database, commonly referred to as the Department of Defense ‘‘catalog.’’ Of these, well over 18,400 records correspond to welltracked, well-understood RSOs in Earth-centric orbit, roughly 1,300 of which are 

operational satellites; the rest are so-called ‘‘space junk.’’ The remaining records in 

USSTRATCOM’s active space situational awareness database are not as welltracked or understood, which creates uncertainty when operational satellites are 

screened against them to identify possible spaceflight safety hazards, or conjunctions. The number of RSOs is increasing given an increase in launches, and on-orbit 

breakup events (i.e., when one RSO collides with another, a satellite explodes, or 

breaks on its own due to space aging and material fatigue and stresses). If we could 

track every detected object, we could wrap a sensible Space Traffic Management 

system around that and even develop empirically-based policies and regulations. 

Unfortunately, it is hypothesized that we can only track a few percent of the total 

number of RSOs that can cause loss, disruption, or degradation to critical space 

services, capabilities, and activities. In other words, we have an orbital iceberg 

equivalent of sorts. The ability to track an object in space depends on two main factors: our ability to detect the object AND our ability to uniquely identify the object. 

This is to underscore that an object that is detectable does not imply it is trackable, 

and this is a critical distinction to make moving forward. 

Tracking an object means that we know where it was, is, and have some idea of 

what it is and where it will be. Think of how we track air traffic, where the aircraft 

is in the custody of someone who monitors its motion and relationship to other aircraft. The following Figure (1) puts into perspective the problem we face in our inVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
36 

ability to track more of the objects we can detect. It was generated from real data 

collected by the U.S. Space Surveillance Telescope, about to be shipped to Exmouth, 

Australia. It is worth mentioning that while we will soon have a long-awaited Space 

Fence on Kwajalein, the results are likely to be much like with the Space Surveillance Telescope, as seen in Figure 1. When one has an exquisite sensor and it’s 

unique, you’ll get very accurate observations during a very small part of the total 

orbit and you’ll be observing things that other sensors will not or cannot. Think of 

a hula-hoop. An exquisite sensor is having one hand on this hoop. Think about the 

variety of ways in which the hula-hoop can rotate if you only grab it with one hand. 

This is like the ambiguity you will have with a unique and exquisite sensor. It will 

help but you’ll have a large number of objects that you can detect but will be unable 

to track. 

Figure 1. A Single Night’s Worth of Resident Space Object (RSO Detections (for various orbital 

regions) from the U.S. Space Surveillance Telescope (SST) in New Mexico. Detections (dots) that 

are Black are those believed to be from known (cataloged) RSOs. All else (Cyan) are Detectable 

but Untrackable RSOs. 

So, what prevents us from doing better at tracking objects in space? First, we 

don’t have ubiquitous observations, meaning we don’t persistently detect all objects 

all of the time. In fact, we generally have very sparse observations on any given 

object in space. Globally, we do not share observational data as a community. This 

lack of data sharing is perhaps the single most problem in us having a more robust 

space traffic monitoring and management capability. Secondly, every single object 

in the world’s largest space object catalog (that of our DoD) is represented and modeled as a sphere, a cannonball in space! Needless to say, there aren’t many manmade cannonball-shaped objects in space. Only those space objects whose motion is 

not significantly different from that of a sphere in between observations, are ones 

we can ‘‘track.’’ Gravity is what I call an equal opportunity accelerator: just tell me 

where you are and I will tell you your acceleration due to gravity, regardless of your 

size, shape, material constitution, orientation, etc. However, there are non-gravitational forces experienced by objects and all of these depend on the object’s physical 

characteristics. Thus, the lack of a rigorous object characterization and classification 

scheme is a strong contributor to our inability to track more objects in space. When 

we wish to understand any population of things, we first ‘‘tag’’ individuals in that 

population and then ‘‘track’’ these individuals through time, space, frequencies, and 

evaluate their interaction with other individuals and their environment. We formulate hypotheses, test them, and draw conclusions based upon evidence. We do not 

do this, rigorously and scientifically, for space objects. If we wish to someday have 

a Code of Conduct for Outer Space, we will need to know how many classes or species of space objects there are, and how each class moves, behaves, is influenced by 

the local environment, etc. Trucks carrying hazardous fuel are regulated differently 

than Vespa scooters, Oil Tankers on our seas are regulated differently than kayaks 

and canoes. So, why would we treat all things in space as the same thing . . . cannonballs? The following figure (2) is a cartoon to show the difference between the 

limitations imposed by assuming space objects to be cannonball-like versus what 

they actually are like. 


713JAH1.eps
37 

Figure 2. Difference between the motion experienced by a spherical (cannonball-like) space object and a satellite with realistic size, shape, orientation, and material properties. For the 

sphere, the acceleration due to the sun’s effects are unidirectional. In reality, our tracking data 

informs us that objects experience accelerations due to the Sun’s effects in 3-dimensional space 

(multi-directional). 

Lastly, regarding our inability to track more objects in space, are the mathematics 

and physics we use to process the observed data and infer physical quantities regarding these objects. It really matters . . . call these our algorithms. Our representation of uncertainties is demonstrably and inarguably oftentimes flawed, unrealistic, and inconsistent amongst our software and tools. The following figure (3) 

shows a picture our current problem with having multiple detections at multiple 

times and having to find clever methods of uniquely identifying objects in order to 

make them go from detectable to trackable. Most RSOs are defunct and therefore 

do not self-report their identities. 

Figure 3. How to Uniquely Identify Space Objects from a Set of Unidentified Detected Objects 

in Order to Make Detectable Objects, Trackable. The method shown here is one of Multiple Hypothesis Testing as a mechanism to decide which detections should be paired to which objects. 


713JAH2.eps 713JAH3.eps
38 

If the RSO population was held constant, I’d say we’d have more time on our 

hands to figure this all out. However, our global space environment is on a path 

of suffering a Tragedy of the Commons given that our Geospace belongs to all humans and that many space actors behave according to their own self-interests without full consideration of the impact of their space operations and activities on the 

whole environment . . . our Space Commons! 

As the cost of access to space is decreasing, the number of space actors is increasing. It’s like what the Transcontinental Railroad did for helping businesses explode, 

connecting the East Coast and Western Frontier. Just a few months ago, we saw 

a record-breaking 104 satellites being deployed by India’s PSLV space capabilities. 

Unfortunately, while they did assess potential collisions amongst these 104 satellites, no one performed analyses of potential collisions between those 104 newly 

deployed satellites and the remainder of the current RSO population. OneWeb just 

recently received the ‘‘green light’’ from the FCC to equip LEO with over a thousand 

satellites that will aim to provide global internet. SpaceX will surely be soon to follow with a planned ∼4000 satellites. 

As experienced in the Western Frontier of old, the environmental impact of runaway mining and prospecting was harsh and detrimental in many instances. Examples are mercury poisoning, silt in our water sources, etc. Our space environment 

is becoming much more commercially driven and populated. Many ‘‘New Space’’ 

companies or start-ups are getting significant investment from Angel Investors and 

Venture Capitalists who are focused on getting a Return On Investment (ROI) within a few years, believing Space Traffic and Orbital Safety to be someone else’s problem. I have personally found an absence of space operations expertise amongst the 

workforce driving some of these ‘‘New Space’’ ventures, causing me further concern 

regarding orbital safety and long-term sustainability of space activities. There is a 

mentality of ‘‘take risks and fail often.’’ While this worked well for software companies in Silicon Valley, we can’t afford to have this exact mentality in space. 

Existing orbital safety methods, information, and processes are not designed to 

handle the current space traffic conditions let alone the planned activities with larger satellite constellations. There are no standard ‘‘rules of the road’’ for space operations and activities, and we should avoid creating these in a vacuum, absent informed science and technology. While USSTRATCOM provides orbital safety products to the world for free on behalf of the U.S. Government, for very good reasons 

it cannot simultaneously be fully open and transparent and this is a self-evident obstacle to meaningful international collaboration and partnership due to its defensive 

responsibilities. I’m in full agreement with Gen Hyten, Gen Raymond, Rep 

Bridenstine, Rep Babin, and others in that a Civil Space Traffic Management 

(CSTM) system makes good sense to enabling more innovative U.S. space operations 

into the future. 

A government-only solution makes no sense given that transparency, open sharing, ease of working with international partners, etc. is a strenuous situation for the 

U.S. Government at best. The government also lack the full spectrum of expertise 

required to do this job exceptionally well. A commercial-only solution makes no 

sense because no single entity has the solution to such a multi-disciplinary problem, 

nor does it have all the expertise required. Moreover, funding a company or consortium of companies to do this is likely to result in an inability for external input to 

be well received and incorporated. I’ve witnessed and experienced this, many times, 

as a Civil Servant. 

Therefore, I propose that the best solution moving forward would be to create a 

Non-profit Civil Space Traffic Management (CSTM) Public-Private-Partnership 

(PPP) that will: 

• Accelerate the pace and reduce the costs of CSTM development by modernizing 

approaches to SSA and STM, with focus on long-term sustainability of space activities, through the creation of new federated data standards, measurement 

standards, models and ontologies, open source software, and data management 

and analysis techniques that aid in the scientific evaluation of the efficacy and 

safety of space operations, and attendant policies. 

• Act as a neutral public-private entity that could create consortia of industry, 

academia, and government for collaboration and sharing of databases, computational techniques, and standards. 

• Operate a CSTM system that provides the accuracies and products necessary 

to safely enable innovative and non-traditional commercial uses of space. 

The CSTM Mission should be to: 

• Assure the safety of operations in space. 

39 

• Maximize, encourage, and incentivize the use of commercial capabilities and 

data sources. 

• Provide transparency, advocacy of informed guidelines, and safety services as 

a public good to preserve the space environment. 

The CSTM Primary Functions would be to: 

• Observe and Monitor: Space Domain and Traffic Observations, Space Situational Awareness (SSA) 

• Track and Catalog: Identify, Characterize, and Catalog Objects; Relational Statistics, Catalog Updates, Traffic Attribution, Achieve Track ‘‘Custody’’ 

• Analyze and Inform: Information Dissemination, Safety Products, Conjunction 

Data Messages 

The Tenants of a Non-Profit CSTM Public Private Partnership (PPP) would be to 

provide and incentivize: 

• Open observational data—All collected or acquired data will be made open and 

available for 3rd party analysis to improve learning and enable high Quality of 

Service domain analysis. 

• Open catalog of space objects and events—All derived conclusions from CSTM 

data will be made open and available for 3rd party verification and peer-review 

of results and conclusions. 

• Open Safety Advisory Services—As these services are intended to be a global 

public good, they will be made available to the world. 

• Open and objective verification of data and analyses—As the CSTM capabilities 

and processes improve, impartial feedback will be made available to all service 

providers in the spirit of achieving increasingly effective Quality of Service. 

• Open Market—It is not the role of the FAA to define the economics of the data 

and/or analysis marketplace. The intent of the CSTM PPP is to empower industry to stay involved in the provision of service to all space domain actors. 

• Open Workforce Development—It is to the benefit of all for the specialized skills 

required of effective space traffic managers to proliferate globally. To this end 

this CSTM PPP will support mechanisms which result in the education of additional skilled space traffic managers and analysts. 

The Benefits of a CSTM PPP are that it would: 

• Provide standard and benchmark data sets that enable quantifiably consistent 

comparative analyses between competing tools, techniques, and algorithms. 

• Provide the government with a transparent mechanism to guide and exploit 

CSTM activities and capabilities AND a sustained/focused investment in STEM 

education. 

• Provide industry with a free foundational CSTM service and a marketplace of 

focused, cost-shared and openly available sciences and technologies that it can 

‘‘pick up’’ and operationalize/commercialize for its own profit. 

• Provide academia with a sustained scientific and technological CSTM research 

and educational investment, to ensure that the U.S. is stocked with capable and 

skilled workforce to handle the scientific and technological problems of tomorrow. 

How does industry profit from such an activity, financially? It can easily wrap 

profit-making services around the foundational ‘‘for public good’’ layer of orbital 

safety services and products. It lowers the bar for entry for new space initiatives 

as they don’t need to shoulder the burden of self-providing of these orbital safety 

services. It’s like the benefit of the U.S. developed, owned, and operated Global Positioning System (GPS)! Think of not only the paradigm-changing science but explosion of commerce that has resulted from this U.S. Government investment and service. Many companies have developed profit-making applications which exploit the 

layer of foundational service provided by GPS. 

I also propose that the FAA’s Center of Excellence in Commercial Space Transportation be leveraged as an existing mechanism under which a larger academic consortium could be assembled, invested in, and properly leveraged for Space Traffic 

Management. The current FAA CoE CST membership would need to be expanded 

upon and increased but focused funding would need to be appropriated and delivered to the CoE with a strategic roadmap on how the S&T is developed and 

transitioned to both government and industry. Several University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) should also be invoked, invested in, and leveraged, to be 

foundational partners in this STM research and development effort. The UARCs 

40 

could provide foundational capabilities and sciences to the FAA CoE CST and those 

CoE academic members could then focus them uniquely on STM needs and requirements, working closely with the government and commercial communities. 

Two remaining points for me to make are (1) our society has become too risk 

averse. We say that we want to push the boundary of exploration except that we 

are intolerant to failure. This is a gross inconsistency. You can’t have leading edge 

exploration with zero failure. Failure should be calculated but embraced as a necessity of pushing the limits of our science and technology. We maintain a leading edge 

by assuming and embracing risk. We would have never gotten man to the moon and 

back, safely, without taking risks! Had we not achieved this lunar exploration first 

and convincingly, our world would be quite different today, and I’m not sure it 

would be for the better. (2) I have been asked if the U.S. Government should take 

great strides in providing security clearances to as many academics as possible. My 

answer is, ‘‘no.’’ Instead, put the effort in declassifying material that should have 

never been classified to begin with and material that no longer requires it. In other 

words, make as much information available to the largest pool of smart and passionate people as possible, without sacrificing national security needs, and our country will emerge victorious! 

The motto of my research program at UT Austin, ASTRIA, is: 

Ex Coelestis, Scientia . . . Nihil Arcanum Est! This loosely translates to, ‘‘from 

the heavens, knowledge . . . nothing hides!’’ 

As Ever, 

MORIBA K. JAH, PH.D. 

Associate Professor, 

Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, 

Cockrell School of Engineering, 

The University of Texas at Austin. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Jah. 

Mr. Cabana. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. CABANA, DIRECTOR, 

JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. CABANA. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Markey, Senator 

Nelson, thank you for this opportunity to appear today to discuss 

NASA’s public-private partnerships enabling commercial space. I 

submitted a statement for the record, but I’ve got a few remarks. 

Since the end of the Shuttle program in July 2011, the Kennedy 

Space Center has gone through a major transformation, establishing itself as the Nation’s premier multiuser spaceport, enabling 

both government and commercial operations to and from low-Earth 

orbit and beyond. This would not have been possible without the 

authorities granted by law that allowed us to establish the publicprivate partnerships that have totally reshaped KSC and Florida 

Space Coast. And I would like to thank Senator Nelson for his help 

in support of this effort. 

Following the last flight of the Space Shuttle, KSC performed a 

thorough evaluation of all its facilities, identifying those necessary 

to support the Space Launch System and Orion, those that were 

excess and could support commercial operations, and those that 

were no longer needed and could be razed, thus, reducing our operating costs and becoming more cost efficient and effective. 

Using a notice of availability in 2011, KSC went out to the commercial space industry to see who might be interested in operating 

and maintaining the excess facilities not scheduled for demolition. 

Working directly with the commercial space industry, and in partnership with Space Florida, KSC now has SpaceX, Boeing, and the 

Air Force all operating from former Shuttle facilities. And in ExploVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
41 

ration Park, a research and development park, on Kennedy property, but outside the secure perimeter, Blue Origin is now building 

a manufacturing facility approximately half the volume of the Vehicle Assembly Building for their New Glenn rocket, and OneWeb is 

building a satellite manufacturing facility. 

These partnerships are not successful just because of the unique 

facilities made available, but also because of the effort made to 

allow our commercial partners as much autonomy as possible in 

their day-to-day operations. 

Public-private partnerships work. Instead of having these facilities rust away in the salt air, we have enabled a vibrant and diverse commercial-government operation on the Space Coast that 

has already seen eight successful launches by SpaceX this year. 

The International Space Station is a unique National Laboratory 

in low-Earth orbit that provides a destination for our commercial 

partners: Orbital ATK and SpaceX for resupply under the Commercial Resupply Services Contract, and Sierra Nevada Corporation, 

under CRS–2, as well as the destination for the Commercial Crew 

Program for Boeing and SpaceX, who will be flying crews to the 

International Space Station on test flights next year. 

The NASA investment in ground systems to launch deep space 

exploration systems creates enormous synergies with private investment, leading to our shared future in space. As we move deeper 

into space with SLS and Orion, NASA is looking to expand our 

public-private partnerships through Next Space Technologies for 

Exploration Partnerships–2, or NextSTEP–2, where in August of 

last year, six companies were selected to develop prototypes or concepts for deep space habitats. 

Public-private partnerships have worked well at KSC and across 

the agency. In order for us to be a successful nation, we need both 

government and commercial space integrated together. KSC is committed to successfully meeting NASA’s mission needs and continuing to grow as a multiuser spaceport. 

In all of human history, only three nations have sent humans to 

space: the United States, Russia, and China. Today, at the Kennedy Space Center, there are four United States companies building hardware and infrastructure to launch humans to orbit: Blue 

Origin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and SpaceX. I think that’s pretty 

darn amazing and something that we can be proud of as a nation, 

and public-private partnerships have played a key role in making 

that happen. 

Thank you for your time. And I look forward to your questions, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabana follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. CABANA, DIRECTOR, JOHN F. KENNEDY SPACE

CENTER, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Cruz, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA’s 

public-private partnerships and enabling commercial space. 

Since 1962, when it was formally established as NASA’s Launch Operations Center, the Agency’s John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has helped set the stage for 

America’s adventure in space. From the early days of Project Mercury, Gemini, and 

Apollo to the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs, from 

the Hubble Space Telescope to the Mars rovers, KSC enjoys a rich heritage in its 

vital role as NASA’s processing and launch center. 

42 

Today, KSC is upgrading its ground systems in preparation for America’s next 

great spaceflight endeavor—the exploration of deep space beyond low-Earth orbit 

with the Space Launch System and Orion. KSC’s Ground Systems Development and 

Operations Program has transformed Launch Complex 39B to support the Space 

Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift vehicle and the Orion crew vehicle and the overall 

Exploration Systems Development work for human exploration of deep space. By the 

end of this calendar year, the construction of all the hardware and facilities necessary to support the processing and launch of the SLS and Orion will be complete 

and validation testing will ensue. The Orion spacecraft for Exploration Mission-1 is 

currently being built in the recently refurbished Operations and Checkout Building 

High Bay, and Launch Complex 39 will be ready to support the first test flight of 

the SLS and Orion in 2019. 

In keeping with the history of terrestrial exploration, Government-led space exploration has enabled the rise of private sector space ventures that build off of Government-emplaced infrastructure. Since the end of the Space Shuttle Program in 2011, 

KSC has utilized public-private partnerships to establish itself as the Nation’s premiere multi-user spaceport, supporting both Government and commercial flights to 

and from low-Earth orbit and beyond. With the extension of the International Space 

Station to at least 2024, the Commercial Crew Program is working diligently with 

our commercial providers, Boeing and SpaceX, to carry astronauts on flight tests to 

the Space Station from United States soil in 2018. Meanwhile, our Launch Services 

Program continues to procure and manage the commercial launch services needed 

to launch NASA’s scientific, weather, and communications satellites, as well as 

robotic missions into the solar system and beyond. We have been successful in numerous commercial partnerships that have been instrumental in revitalizing underutilized facilities at no cost to NASA and taxpayers, while enabling commercial 

space operations. 

NASA and KSC are moving forward into a new era of human spaceflight with activities in both low-Earth orbit and deep space, and we are committed to partnering 

with industry to enable commercial spaceflight companies to manufacture, process, 

and launch their systems from the Space Coast. 

KSC’s Philosophy on Public-Private Partnerships 

Following the 2004 decision to end the Space Shuttle Program, it became clear 

that many of the facilities utilized to support the Shuttle would not be required to 

support SLS or Orion. Therefore, NASA conducted an assessment of the $2.7 billion 

worth of Shuttle assets to identify those we needed and those we did not. As a result 

of that assessment, KSC was able to determine which of those facilities should be 

demolished and which should be candidates for partnerships with outside entities. 

In 2010, KSC created what is now known as the Center Planning and Development 

(CPD) directorate to manage the strategic planning for this transition. CPD is 

tasked with developing partnering opportunities with Federal and non-Federal entities, including broadly announcing opportunities seeking partners to use KSC assets, as well as evaluating unsolicited partnership offers and ensuring that proposed 

partners offer value compatible with NASA’s vision and strategic goals. Using this 

process, KSC was able to (1) leverage underutilized facilities to help U.S. companies 

develop new capabilities, reduce the cost of space activities, and create jobs on the 

Space Coast, while (2) preserving and revitalizing critical NASA assets by 

transitioning financial responsibility for those facilities to our partners. 

KSC’s Partnerships 

Through a January 2011 Notice of Availability, NASA sought to identify potential 

outside interest in KSC assets that the Agency determined to be partially or fully 

available for other users at the conclusion of the Space Shuttle Program. The Notice 

sought to ensure broad awareness and visibility of the anticipated opportunities for 

partnerships between NASA and industry and other non-Federal public entities. 

NASA’s purpose in pursuing such partnerships was to maximize utilization of KSC’s 

unique infrastructure, while minimizing the Center’s operations and maintenance 

(O&M) burden, and to enable commercial space operations. 

KSC’s partnership efforts have resulted in agreements of varying sizes with commercial entities, universities, as well as Federal, state, and local government for 

physical assets and services. The types of services range from providing launch sites 

to access to technical capabilities. KSC has been able to use our extensive launch 

vehicle and processing expertise to enhance the success of our commercial partners. 

Looking across the KSC landscape, you can visually see the construction and 

modifications that Blue Origin, Boeing, Florida Power and Light (FPL), OneWeb, 

Space Florida, SpaceX, the U.S. Air Force and others have made to grow the industry on the Space Coast. Blue Origin is building a 750,000 square foot manufacturing 

43 

facility, just outside of KSC’s secure area in Exploration Park, which is about half 

the volume of our historic Vehicle Assembly Building. 

All three former Orbiter Processing Facilities house new spacecraft, the former 

Shuttle main engine shop is being used by Boeing to manufacture the service modules for its CST–100 Starliner spacecraft, and the former Processing Control Center 

will be used to monitor on-site spacecraft manufacturing and processing and 

throughout mission phases. 

FPL currently is using 60 acres of former orange grove as a solar field to produce 

10 megawatts of power to supply the grid. As part of our agreement, FPL built a 

one-megawatt solar field for NASA to offset our energy costs. FPL is responsible for 

the O&M of the solar field for 30 years. 

OneWeb Satellites is building a 150,000-square-foot factory in the Exploration 

Park. OneWeb, in partnership with Airbus’ American branch, intends to build 2,000 

satellites that will form a constellation capable of wirelessly connecting every portion of the world to the Internet. 

SpaceX commenced launches from Launch Complex 39A in February of this year. 

Amidst launches, they are modifying the launch pad to support future commercial 

crew missions aboard the company’s Crew Dragon, as well as future Falcon Heavy 

launches. 

In 2013, NASA selected Space Florida to take over operations at the Shuttle 

Landing Facility (SLF). Through this partnership, KSC’s 15,000-foot runway can be 

converted to accommodate a wide range of users, supporting Government and commercial needs, while removing NASA’s responsibility to maintain the associated facilities. 

NASA has also selected Orbital ATK to negotiate an agreement under which it 

will occupy and operate from Vehicle Assembly Building High Bay 2, and negotiations are underway to use other processing facilities. These facilities are some of the 

largest on KSC and contribute significantly to the Center’s O&M costs. NASA seeks 

to build on that success by continuing to search for opportunities to partner with 

outside organizations to reduce Government costs and enable the aerospace industry. 

International Space Station 

As NASA’s processing and launch center, KSC is the gateway to the Station along 

with the Wallops Flight Facility. NASA is continuing to develop initiatives to use 

the Station to enable increased commercial investment and to transition to more 

public-private partnership models. The Center for the Advancement of Science In 

Space manages the activities of the ISS National Laboratory to increase the utilization of the Space Station by other Federal entities and the private sector. National 

Laboratory partners can use the unique microgravity environment of space and the 

advanced research facilities aboard Station to enable investigations that may give 

them the edge in the global competition to develop valuable, high-technology products and services. 

Under the original Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, our two commercial cargo partners, SpaceX and Orbital ATK, provide cargo deliveries to Station. 

Through CRS contract modifications, KSC has been able to provide processing support of Orbital ATK’s fourth, sixth, and seventh Cygnus cargo resupply missions to 

the Space Station. This opportunity enabled Orbital ATK to capitalize on the Center’s expertise and infrastructure while also enabling the use of an alternate launch 

vehicle for cargo resupply missions to enhance operational flexibility. KSC also is 

currently looking at future partnership opportunities with Sierra Nevada Corporation as part of the follow-on CRS–2 contract. 

NASA’s commercial crew providers, Boeing and SpaceX, are developing the 

Starliner and Crew Dragon spacecraft, respectively. These companies have made 

significant progress toward returning crew launches to the United States, and 

NASA anticipates having these capabilities in place by 2019 to regularly fly astronauts on operational missions safely to and from Station. The crew and cargo vehicles, as well as the launch vehicles developed by these providers, have the potential 

to support future commercial enterprises as well. 

It is NASA’s intention to transition low-Earth orbit operations to private platforms and capabilities enabled by commercial markets, academia, and Government 

agencies, including NASA, that have an interest in and need for research and activities there. NASA continues to seek ways to further commercialize operations on the 

International Space Station. The next payload processing contract, Research, Engineering, Mission and Integration Services or REMIS, will enable the design and conduct of science operations in low-Earth orbit by the commercial market. The contract is targeted to be awarded July 2017. 

44 

Deep Space 

NASA looks forward to expanded partnerships as we leave low-Earth orbit and 

head for deep space. In August 2016, NASA selected six United States companies 

to help advance our mission to put humans deeper into our solar system by developing ground prototypes and concepts for deep space habitats. 

Through the public-private partnerships enabled by Next Space Technologies for 

Exploration Partnerships-2, NASA and industry partners will expand commercial 

development of space in low-Earth orbit while also improving deep space exploration 

capabilities to support more extensive human spaceflight missions. 

Expandable habitats are one such concept—they require less payload volume on 

the rocket than traditional rigid structures, and expand after being deployed in 

space to provide additional room for astronauts to live and work inside. The Bigelow 

Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) is the first human-rated expandable habitat 

to be tested in space. During its two-year demonstration attached to the Station’s 

Tranquility port, crew members will routinely enter the habitat to take measurements and monitor its performance to help inform future designs of habitat systems. 

BEAM will be tested to see how it performs in the thermal environment of space 

and how it reacts to radiation, micrometeoroids and orbital debris. 

Government and Industry 

Public-private partnerships have worked well at KSC and across the Agency. In 

order for us as a Nation to be successful, we need both Government and commercial 

space exploration. For instance, industry’s vital role in low-Earth orbit transportation has lowered development and launch costs, and enabled NASA to invest in 

uncharted territories, like new technologies and deep space exploration. The work 

we do together and the lessons learned that we share are essential for the United 

States space economy. 

Conclusion 

KSC is committed to successfully meeting NASA’s mission requirements and continuing to grow in its role as a multi-user spaceport that launches NASA’s deep 

space exploration missions and catalyzes the continued growth and development of 

the commercial space industry. The long-term strategy to expand United States access to space and stimulate the development of the domestic launch industry continues to gain traction and minimize operating costs. NASA remains committed to 

meeting our Nation’s goals in deep space human exploration with careful stewardship of our critical resources and wise investment of taxpayer dollars. NASA is making strides toward these goals with KSC’s transformation into a multi-user spaceport of the future, where both Government and commercial space operations can be 

conducted and support one another. 

In all of human history only three nations (United States of America, Russia, and 

China) have launched humans into space. Today at the Kennedy Space Center, 

there are four United States commercial companies building systems to launch people from the Space Coast (Blue Origin with the Space Vehicle, Boeing with the 

CST–100 Starliner, Lockheed Martin with NASA’s Orion, and SpaceX with the 

Crew Dragon). This is an amazing time for our Nation, and one that I am proud 

to say that we have enabled at KSC. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Cabana. 

And thank you to each of you for your testimony. 

In the last Congress, this committee worked with our counterparts in the House to enact the U.S. Commercial Space Launch 

Competitiveness Act. One of the major components of that legislation was the continuation of the regulatory moratorium, preventing 

the FAA from implementing regulations governing commercial 

space flight that would affect the operations of the crews’ transportation capabilities currently under development. While there is a 

regulatory moratorium right now pertaining to the FAA—and this 

is a question to any of the witnesses—can any of you identify for 

this committee any regulations that in your judgment are having 

a negative impact on the industry that Congress should examine? 

Dr. JAH. Yes. Thank you. Right now, there’s a policy issue that 

needs to be fixed with regards to commercial companies being able 

to go up in orbit and provide space situational awareness data to 

45 

folks. Other countries can do that; we can’t yet. And NOAA has to 

provide a waiver for these companies to be able to do that. Unfortunately, there are reasons that some people feel, well, we should 

really take a look at this to figure out the best way forward, but 

I think that that will be something, a positive thing that could be 

done, is to remove that barrier because I think that’s a severe hindrance in us being able to monitor and understand what’s going on 

in space. 

Senator CRUZ. OK. That’s helpful. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. HUGHES. With respect to launch and reentry, this is governed by the FAA. And SpaceX, for instance, has 70 launches on 

manifest. Nearly all of them will be commercially licensed. The cadence and pace with which we are now launching, combined with 

startup companies and other companies that will be offering launch 

from the United States very soon, gives rise to concerns that the 

existing regulatory regime isn’t rightsized for this volume of 

launch. So we want to make sure that the FAA has the right resources to carry out the launches and not be an inhibitor to growth 

in this business. 

We also think the time is ripe for the FAA to go back and scrub 

the Part 400 regulations that are used for launch and reentry. 

They were written at a time where the United States might be 

launching six to eight times a year. They aren’t really rightsized 

at this point for the volume that we’re talking about. And here 

we’re talking about things like transitioning from one-off boutique 

licenses to mission authorizations for missions that look similar in 

nature, and moving rapidly toward a recognition that the cadence 

of pace and launch dictates a new approach by the FAA. And 

here’s—this is an area where we think a re-review would be quite 

helpful. 

Senator CRUZ. Now, when you talk about rightsizing, are you focused on dollars and manpower, or do you think there need to be 

structural changes as well? 

Mr. HUGHES. Primarily focusing on dollars and manpower, but, 

you know, I think any sort of study on this should look to the way 

to optimize any structure. 

Senator CRUZ. Another significant component of the Commercial 

Space Launch Competitiveness Act was extending the life of the 

International Space Station to 2024. It is not clear from a technical 

perspective when we will reach the end of life of the ISS. However, 

to ensure that our national space program doesn’t face a gap in capability post-ISS similar to what we are experiencing post-Space 

Shuttle, the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 instructed 

NASA to come up with a plan so that at some point we can have 

a smooth transition from the ISS to our next capability. 

To each of the witnesses, in your judgment, what will our national space program look like post-ISS? And do you have any recommendations for what the next major capability should be? 

Mr. MANBER. Obviously, I spend little time thinking about that. 

Thank you, Senator. 

As we look out in the next decade, we don’t think there will ever 

be a facility in low-Earth orbit like the International Space Station. 

You can tell it was built by governments. I mean, it’s just large, 

46 

it’s connected. So if you want to do microgravity research, well, you 

don’t really maybe want visiting astronauts. It’s just everything is 

together in one place. 

So logically, as you look out, you see a multiplicity of commercial 

platforms, some unmanned for in-space manufacturing. We are focused on in-space manufacturing deployment. Some will be for professional astronauts, warehouses, fuel depots, stepping stones as 

we go to deep space. We’re looking at supporting ventures like Blue 

Origin and Orion as they go further out into deep space. We’re 

looking at it with factories and warehouses. 

So the answer to your question is I think we’re going to see a 

multiplicity of commercial platforms, less expensive, dedicated to 

one use, just as you have on the Earth. 

Senator CRUZ. Anyone else? 

Mr. HUGHES. I share the view that low-Earth orbit will become 

a place where there are multiple platforms. There are a number of 

companies working on really exciting technologies for space habitats, whether in conjunction with the International Space Station, 

if it goes in the direction of privatization, or independent of the 

International Space Station. And to Jeffrey’s point, this can be 

viewed as a stair step into deeper space exploration needs. 

So when we talk about the U.S. enterprise after the International Space Station, I think it’s important to think about a sustained human presence out further whether it’s the Moon or Mars, 

SpaceX’s focus, we’ve made no mistake about it, is focused on Mars. 

It’s really one of the reasons for our being, to put human boots on 

Mars. 

And NASA’s program right now is focused on Mars as well. And 

we think there are complementary things that could occur to make 

sure that there is a sustainable presence on Mars long term, for instance, large cargo carriage to Mars to put the resources in place 

that would allow permanent human presence. That’s not something 

that’s currently in the trade space, and it might be something that 

would be really ripe for a prize or for a public-private partnership 

that sets a high-level requirement against which companies could 

bid to demonstrate their capability to do that. 

Senator CRUZ. OK. Very good. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Mr. Cabana, do you believe that there is a risk that we will lose 

key scientific and research capabilities in space if we largely turn 

over functions closer to Earth to private companies? What is the 

balance there to make sure that as a nation we are guaranteed to 

have access to that knowledge? 

Mr. CABANA. Yes, sir. Well, I think the International Space Station has proven to be an outstanding test bed in preparing the Nation to actually have a permanent presence in low-Earth orbit to 

enable the commercial operations. I agree with the other panel 

members that have said that, you know, eventually it’s NASA’s 

goal to move out of low-Earth orbit. We know how to do that, and 

utilizing the Space Station as a stepping stone to enable operations 

to low-Earth orbit, I think we will establish the commercial presence to allow NASA to focus on the more challenging mission of exploring beyond our home planet. 

47 

So I think that as commercial space grows—and it’s critical that 

we have a transition from the International Space Station and lowEarth orbit, that we continue to maintain that presence. I think 

that we will be able to do science in low-Earth orbit, and NASA 

will also participate in that science. It won’t be a NASA space station, hopefully it will be a commercial space station that’s up there 

as we transition, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t continue to 

do science in low-Earth orbit participating with our commercial 

partners. And I think that’s where these commercial-government— 

these private-public partnerships are going to be critical to making 

that happen. 

Senator MARKEY. OK, great. Thank you. Now, how do you believe 

the public would be best served by the National Lab when the 

International Space Station is retired? Should it be hosted by a 

new International Space Station or should it be hosted by a private 

station, or should it be a public-private partnership? 

Mr. CABANA. Sir, I’m going to defer on that one to other folks at 

NASA, and we’ll give you a more detailed written statement for the 

record rather than my opinion. 

Senator MARKEY. Anyone out there have a view? Does SpaceX 

have a view, Mr. Hughes? 

Mr. HUGHES. I think there’s a natural progress for the International Space Station to transition to a private venture. When you 

look at the overall NASA budget, there is obviously a significant 

outlay year after year for the International Space Station. And if 

you want to do bigger things in space, eventually you may transition off the International Space Station into these broader goals. 

That said, the International Space Station is, as Mr. Cabana indicated, a critical stepping off point for deeper space exploration, and 

we shouldn’t move off it prematurely. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Cabana. 

Mr. CABANA. I would just like to enforce that point. I think it’s 

critical that we don’t end the International Space Station until we 

have established commercial operations in low-Earth orbit. So right 

now the Space Station serves as a critical destination for our commercial partners for both crew and cargo as we develop this capability for commercial entities to operate in low-Earth orbit. 

Senator MARKEY. And what do you think a reasonable timeframe 

would be, Mr. Cabana, for NASA reaching a conclusion as to what 

makes the most sense for the next era? 

Mr. CABANA. Well, again, I agree, you know—I support—it’s really good that we have until 2024, the Space Station would be capable of going beyond that. Again, I think it’s something that we need 

to look at, and working with Bill Gerstenmaier in NASA headquarters, we can give you a more detailed answer on that. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Cabana. 

Yes, Mr. Manber. 

Mr. MANBER. Yes. If I may say that as I said in my remarks, 

that certainty is very important to us in the private sector. And so 

it’s almost less important to us whether it’s 2024 or 2026, as at 

some point in the next several years, I call for 2019, we say if these 

conditions are met in the private sector, we can see transitioning 

from current Station services so that we’re able to raise the capital 

and other requirements that are necessary. 

48 

Senator MARKEY. So you’re saying you don’t want the decision in 

2024 or 2026, that in 2019, everyone can adjust to the new—— 

Mr. MANBER. If the decision is announced and let’s say you and 

Congress task NASA to say, ‘‘What would be the conditions?’’ We 

would like to see that by 2019 where we in the private sector can 

then begin to prepare and be ready by—I think we’ll be ready before 2024, but if the Station is there to 2026 or 2028, fine, as long 

as we have certainty. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you agree with that, Mr. Cabana, that the 

sooner that kind of a policy can be established, the better it will 

be for everyone, government and private sector? 

Mr. CABANA. I think that it’s important to work together with 

the government, with Congress, and the private sector to come up 

with a date that we want to transition from the Space Station, but 

we have to ensure that there is something to transition to. 

Senator MARKEY. Exactly. 

Mr. MANBER. Exactly. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Manber? 

Mr. MANBER. Yes, I would of course agree. I lived through the 

Shuttle gap, and we’re all living through it now, and given the foreign interests as well, it’s very important that the United States 

does not give up its role in low-Earth orbit. 

Senator MARKEY. So are you saying, Mr. Manber, but it’s better 

that we telescope the time-frame that it will take for us to reach 

some certainty—— 

Mr. MANBER. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY.—because that plan would then most likely unleash a lot of the capacity—— 

Mr. MANBER. Yes, exactly. 

Senator MARKEY.—which we have. So NASA has a stake. 

Mr. MANBER. Right. 

Senator MARKEY. The American—yes. 

Mr. MANBER. And I’ll say that I’ve been frankly pleasantly surprised how serious NASA—we interface with the folks at Johnson 

Space Center—how seriously they are taking this issue. And we’re 

speaking to them monthly about, ‘‘How do you have, let’s say, an 

International Space Station and also have a commercial platform 

at the same time? When does NASA give up offering on Station 

certain services if we have a platform and it also offers those services?’’ 

These are complex issues. We recognize that. And I’m very 

pleased at how much our NASA colleagues are looking into this, 

but for us, it’s certainty. We need private sector capital, and the 

first thing they ask us is, ‘‘When is the—,’’ you know, ‘‘What’s the 

policy?’’ 

Senator MARKEY. Can you explain that to me just a little bit 

more? You’re kind of saying that NASA is like a carnivorous vegetarian. It’s—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MANBER. I wasn’t aware I was doing that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Well, in a way you were. 

Mr. MANBER. Yes. Well—— 

49 

Senator MARKEY. You were saying, well—you know, there’s an 

old song, ‘‘Did you ever have to make up your mind to choose as 

to one and leave the other behind? Did you ever have to make up 

your mind?’’ And that’s what you’re saying, that that creates more 

certainty in the private sector—— 

Mr. MANBER. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY.—because they know then what their opportunities are, they can go to the capital markets and then they can 

move. So can you just expand upon that a little bit? 

Mr. MANBER. Yes, yes. I mean, NASA and all the partners on the 

International Space Station have done a tremendous job of looking 

at, ‘‘How do you utilize a station? What do we use it for? How do 

we work together?’’ And now they’re looking at, ‘‘How do you involve the private sector?’’ So I give them full credit for this mindset 

change. 

But we’ve also identified at NanoRacks four to six markets that 

are not silly markets like branding or advertising, but certain inspace manufacturing and other markets we can’t do on the International Space Station. It’s holding back the development of inspace resources. It can’t be done in the Station because it’s 

manned. It can’t be done on the Station because there are certain 

international requirements. 

So as we look at further utilization, clearly there is a sunset 

where the Station has proven itself. I mean, my company’s revenue 

is dependent on Station, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not being critical, but the Station is serving its purpose, and we, in the private 

sector, believe in public-private partnerships, we can offer commercial platforms, we just need to know what you folks in Congress 

want from us. 

Senator MARKEY. I understand. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Dr. Jah, on January 11, 2007, China launched a ballistic missile 

from Xichang Space Launch Center that aimed at a nonoperative 

Chinese weather satellite, the Fengyun 1C, completely destroying 

the satellite. The destruction of the satellite created more than 

3,000 pieces of space debris, the largest ever tracked, and much of 

it is expected to remain in orbit for decades. According to NASA, 

more than 21,000 orbital debris larger than 10 centimeters are 

known to exist today. 

For members of this committee who may not be as familiar with 

space debris, could you please explain the current state of space debris, how it is impacting space exploration, and what steps Congress should consider taking to address this issue? 

Dr. JAH. Absolutely. Thank you very much. So, correct, there are 

about 21,000 pieces of debris that the U.S. Strategic Command 

tracks and maintains every day. 

What are these things? Well, for one thing, most of the things 

that we launch in space don’t come back, and at the end of their 

lives, it’s almost like the car runs out of fuel, it just stops wherever 

it stops, and then you go get another car and you jump into that, 

and then you keep on driving. That’s the state of what’s going on 

up there. 

50 

Now, are there highways in space? Absolutely. There are certain 

orbital regimes that are being more and more impacted. In fact, 

thank you, Mr. Cruz, for the example with the Chinese ASAT test. 

At the sun synchronous altitude—so there are these kind of 

Goldilocks places, places where the gravity field is just right so 

that certain missions can be enabled for Earth observation, for 

communication satellites, the geostationary ring. So there are certainly Goldilocks kind of regimes. And sun synchronous orbital altitudes are becoming more and more congested. 

Where the Chinese decided to do this was really a bad place because it falls into that sun synchronous orbital regime, a place 

where other people are trying to put satellites, like OneWeb and 

SpaceX, and these sorts of things. 

And so what it does is two things. One, because we don’t really 

understand the risk and we’re not able to track everything because 

the smaller pieces are very difficult to track. I mean, 1-centimeter 

diameter pieces can be mission catastrophic, and those are extremely difficult to track. 

So we detect many things. We can’t track everything for a variety of reasons. Certain orbital altitudes are becoming more congested. And, again, it’s not so much the number of things that we 

should be concerned about, but it’s not being able to predict where 

these things are going to be from one moment to the next, and you 

have USSTRATCOM that are providing these free services to the 

globe saying, ‘‘We predict that at this time at this place there is 

a likelihood of collision of two objects,’’ so that operators can try to 

move out of the way. 

But how many of those are real? How many of those would actually happen? That’s very difficult to calculate. And so that’s part 

of the problem when it comes to the debris. It’s increasing, it’s not 

going down. There is no way to clean the stuff up. The European 

Space Agency has something called Clean Space, they’re trying to 

identify different pieces of debris that they can go and remove, but 

it’s not economically feasible to do that because it costs more to 

bring something down than to put something up that works. 

And politically, it’s not very feasible because any given nation 

that has a piece of debris assigned to them, they’re the sovereign 

owners of that piece of garbage, and so it becomes problematic to 

just go up and clean other people’s stuff. 

Senator CRUZ. So are there any steps we can take that would be 

positive in terms of addressing this challenge? 

Dr. JAH. Yes, sorry about that. So I think positive steps are, one, 

monitor things more collaboratively. And what do I mean by that? 

So USSTRATCOM has a Space Surveillance Network. It collects 

these data and it tries to produce orbits for things, but the actual 

sensor observations aren’t shared. They’re not shared with other 

people for very good reasons. Different countries have different sensors. And so everybody has their own eyes, but we don’t have all 

eyes together. 

And so because we don’t share these observations kind of ubiquitously internationally and with other partners, I think the first 

step is create a data lake where all these observations can come 

together, expose it to as many people as possible to analyze, and 

just infer things, and through the exercise of the analysis and the 

51 

inference, I think you’re going to end up with a better idea of 

what’s up there and understand that better. 

Senator CRUZ. So the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation has licensed ten spaceports in seven states since 1996: 

two each in California, Florida, and Texas, and one each in Oklahoma, Alaska, New Mexico, and Virginia. I wanted to ask the witnesses, how is NASA working with these spaceports to support or 

enable its missions? And what can NASA be doing better? 

Mr. CABANA. From a NASA point of view, we work very closely 

with the Air Force and the FAA at the Kennedy Space Center to 

make commercial operations a lot easier than they have been in 

the past. I think we’ve got a great partnership with the FAA, and 

especially the 45th Space Wing and General Monteith right now as 

we work to make it easier to launch from KSC, what’s required for 

a commercial launch license, how the commercial customers meet 

that requirement. 

As far as operating away from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, 

I’m not familiar with what NASA is doing in direct regards with 

any other spaceport. Now, we’re working with other commercial 

customers to supply services for NASA, such as Virgin Galactic in 

the future, and so on, and they’ll be operating, of course, out in 

New Mexico. So from that point of view, we work with the commercial customers, not necessarily the spaceports themselves. 

Senator CRUZ. Anyone else on this? 

Mr. HUGHES. I just wanted to echo some things in Mr. Cabana’s 

statement there. First of all, I read his statement with great interest because it’s remarkable the transition that Kennedy Space Center has undertaken since Shuttle retirement in 2011. Bob and his 

team have done an amazing job bringing commercial firms to Kennedy and getting us to a place where we can operate effectively. 

And the cadence of launch that I mentioned earlier that SpaceX is 

undergoing is a direct tribute to the work that he and his team are 

doing. And that is true relative to the Air Force, the 30 Space Wing 

and the 45th, General Monteith, Colonel Hough. 

I think one of our chief concerns relative to the ranges and the 

spaceports is that there is infrastructure that could probably use 

modernization: the roads, some of the bridges. The electrical infrastructure at Vandenberg in particular is aging. We’ve had situations in the past where actually the electricity had gone out prior 

to a launch. And Senator Nelson has been very active in helping 

to modernize the infrastructure at the spaceports. 

In order to keep the commercial companies running in conjunction with NASA, I think additional modernization of infrastructure 

would be quite helpful. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me come back to you, Mr. Manber, if I can. Your initial partnership with NASA involved no funding from the agency to your 

company, which when dealing with the government is quite an innovative approach, and importantly, this meant that NanoRacks 

assumed most of the risk of the arrangement and could benefit 

from success, but protect taxpayers’ dollars because very few of 

them were exposed. 

52 

Can you talk about how you see that expanding in the years 

ahead and what that could mean for as long as there is an established understandable policy for, again, a more rapid innovative 

era to unfold? 

Mr. MANBER. It’s a great question, Senator, because there are 

some things that governments do well and there are some things 

that government does not do well. And one of the things that government does well is provide some of the basic infrastructure that 

the private sector cannot. And just as Mr. Hughes was just alluding to, the infrastructure, the roads, in space, we have the Space 

Station, and it’s a foundation, it’s a platform. And what the private 

sector is doing through companies like mine is we’re leveraging 

that investment that you’ve made on behalf of the taxpayer. 

So really moving forward, I see the public-private partnerships 

of the future being where there are occasions where the government continues to provide an infrastructure. It could be, for example, the lower cost or space transportation that SpaceX and Dream 

Chaser and Orbital and others will be doing, and leave it to the 

private sector to provide some of the add-on services. 

It could be, as we’ve talked about now with Orion, where there 

are certain basic things that the government is supporting, but the 

private sector, as I mentioned earlier, provides the fuel depots, the 

warehouses, at our cost, and we look to customers, whether it’s in 

the government or whether it’s in the private sector, asteroid mining or whatever it might be. 

So some of my colleagues talk about this utopian view with less 

government. I don’t see that and I don’t welcome that. We need 

government, of course, as regulator, we need government as provider of infrastructure. So I think we need to find the right—I 

mean, look at aviation. I’ll leave my expertise for a moment and 

say in this country, the government provides the safety officials, 

the FAA, and the air traffic controllers, and the government helps 

maintain the airports, but the private sector has the planes, sells 

the tickets, and worries that we get home on Thanksgiving along 

with the government. So for me, that’s a model that may work in 

space as we move further out, with the government providing the 

infrastructure and the private sector selling the tickets. 

Senator MARKEY. Mm-hmm. Interesting. Although there are 

many who want the FAA to be privatized as well. 

Mr. MANBER. I said I was leaving my expertise. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. No, I appreciate that, provides this Committee. 

Mr. MANBER. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. So, Mr. Hughes, could you speak to that question of where you see the balance in the future? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, yes. So as we move into outside of low-Earth 

orbit into deep space exploration, I think that there’s obviously a 

program of record right now that is NASA’s central focus for deep 

space exploration, but I think it can be readily supplemented with 

public-private partnerships to allow us to sustain a permanent 

presence in space. So I mentioned earlier the idea of putting forward either prizes or high-level requirements that companies can 

meet relative to maintaining that human presence. One idea might 

be for the government to put forward high-level requirements relVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
53 

ative to large cargo to Mars, or vertical takeoff and landing demonstrations on the Moon, or perhaps even something like establishing a more robust communications network that would enable 

more rapid and efficient communication to and from Mars. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you need a prize to do it—— 

Mr. HUGHES. You don’t—— 

Senator MARKEY.—or is the reward financially sufficient in order 

to make sure once the rule is set, that it’s more like the Oklahoma 

Sooners, and they’re just ready to go once they know what the 

rules are? So do we really need a prize? 

Mr. HUGHES. No, I actually don’t think a prize is necessarily the 

right approach. A prize could be one way to pursue it, but actually 

I think the preferable approach would be a COTS-like program 

that I referenced in my testimony where there would be some element of public-private partnership where high-level requirements 

are set, companies put their own skin in the game in conjunction 

with the government, and there’s a long-term market against 

which you work. 

Senator MARKEY. Mm-hmm. Interesting. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate 

you and the Ranking Member holding this hearing. I think it’s a— 

you know, we’ve always got to look out to the future and be inspired, and I think that’s what we’re trying to do here in a lot of 

ways. And I appreciate the witnesses and all your expertise on this 

important issue. 

I wanted to ask about the importance of U.S. FAA-licensed 

spaceports to commercial space launches. In Alaska, we have the 

Pacific Spaceport Complex in Kodiak. Actually, just yesterday, you 

may have seen in the news, it conducted a THAAD missile test 

that was very successful. 

And can you give me from your perspective what the benefits are 

from a commercial perspective of having these kind of—they go 

into really one of the topics of the hearing, which is really a publicprivate partnership approach, a little bit different from, say, the 

Kennedy Space Center. But just your thoughts on the importance 

of those kind of space complexes that we have like, for example, in 

Kodiak? 

Mr. ELLIS. I can speak to that one. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

So as Dr. Jah pointed out before, there are different types of orbits, 

and there’s kind of a Goldilocks zone that different markets fit into. 

So for us, especially being a small satellite launch company, and 

as OneWeb and SpaceX and these companies are making constellations, that having a launch site that is geography dependent to the 

technical requirements of the customer is very important. So in 

Alaska, at the Kodiak site you reference, you could reach what’s 

called polar or sun synchronous orbits—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. And it’s the only non-government-owned 

space complex that allows you to do that in the world, correct? 

54 

Mr. ELLIS. I’m not sure about the world, but in the United States 

that is true. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. ELLIS. There is also a military missile range in Hawaii, 

Barking Sands, but they are doing more missile testing. 

Senator SULLIVAN. But—go ahead. 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes. So it’s just very important that we look at markets and how they’re changing and what needs customers have because right now having a West Coast launch site that is accessible 

other than Kodiak, it is a challenge. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you. Any other thoughts on just 

kind of those kind of commercial space complexes, space launch 

complexes, what they can do for our capability? 

Mr. HUGHES. So a little bit different than the spaceport concept, 

I can speak to SpaceX’s experience with launch sites. So we have 

two launch sites at Cape Canaveral and one launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and then a private launch site under development in Texas. Our work at Vandenberg and at Cape Canaveral 

has been critical, and we worked hand-in-glove at the Cape with 

Mr. Cabana’s team to establish processes by which we can provide 

commercial launch, national security launch, and NASA launch as 

well. 

And in the absence of public-private partnerships like the kind 

that enabled SpaceX to take on LC–39A, which is our newest 

launch site, the former Shuttle site, we would be inhibited from 

taking on the big manifest that we’ve acquired. Right now we have 

70 launches on manifest. We took more than 50 percent of the global market last year for commercial satellite launch away from the 

French and the Russians. And in the absence of our commercial 

partnerships with NASA at both Kennedy and Vandenberg, we 

would not be able to service that manifest. So it’s quite critical. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Let me broaden kind of a topic here. 

Did any of you—did any of the witnesses see the movie The Martian? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. So I took one of my daughters to see the 

movie The Martian, and I’m not a Hollywood movie critic or anything, but when you come out of a movie and your eighth grade 

daughter says, ‘‘Boy, I need to study math and science more because that looks like that could be a real interesting future,’’ to me 

that was pretty inspiring and a pretty good movie. 

And what do you see we should be doing to try to inspire the 

next generation of Americans beyond movies like that that can get 

them interested in what this whole hearing is about, which is kind 

of the future of space where, you know, in the NASA days and the 

Apollo space mission days, every young American was inspired? I 

think we’ve lost some of that, but we can regain it. 

You guys are the experts. What do you think beyond just a good 

Hollywood movie we can be doing to inspire the next generation of 

Americans to do more math and science and maybe be on Mars in 

a couple decades? Yes. Anyone. 

Dr. JAH. Yes. So thank you, Senator Sullivan. I think first and 

foremost, one of the things that—you mentioned Apollo and that 

55 

sort of inspiration. Those were days of what I would call real exploration where we strapped on the idea of taking risk. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Dr. JAH. I think we’ve become very risk averse—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. And why? Why did—after the Shuttle accidents and things like—— 

Dr. JAH. Yes. So the thing is, you know, taxpayers say, ‘‘I want 

to know where my dollars are going. I want guaranteed success as 

much as possible.’’ And when you start levying those requirements 

of it has to be successful or else—I mean, JPL had a couple failures 

as well with Mars when I worked at JPL. And so when you levy 

that requirement, that really turns into doing the last thing that 

you did that worked, and that is not really pushing the boundary 

of exploration. And I think allowing NASA to go back to those days 

of you’re in a risk retirement kind of mentality, and, you know, 

some bad things are going to happen and some lives are likely to 

be lost, I think strapping on that idea of risk to get out there and 

explore, I think that’s the thing that will inspire our next generation, is to see bold moves and not just argument upon argument 

and incremental kind of things, but just bold, ‘‘We’re going to do 

this and we’re committed to it, and it’s just going to happen.’’ 

Senator SULLIVAN. By the way, the Chairman and I are very interested in missile defense, and we hear that a lot from our experts 

in the missile defense area, that the risk of failure really inhibits 

us from making significant advances. 

Anyone else on that question? I know—sorry, Mr. Chairman, is 

that all right? 

Senator CRUZ. Take your time. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. CABANA. I would like to add to that, sir. I think taking risk 

is important, I just want to take informed risk. I want to understand the risk that I’m taking and mitigate it as best as possible. 

Our Visitors Center at the Kennedy Space Center, it’s totally run 

by—there are no appropriated dollars that run it. 

Last year, we set a record for the number of visitors that we had, 

1.6 million, and we’re on track to beat that this year. There is great 

interest in space. And I go over there on a regular basis, and I’ll 

just walk up to kids and ask them, ‘‘Hey, how did you enjoy your 

day?’’ and it’s the exact right mix of entertainment, but also learning. And they are truly inspired when they see what’s going on, 

when they see our history, but they also get a chance to see what 

our future is. And I think to continue to generate that interest in 

students today to pursue math and science, we need to continue on 

the path we’re on. 

We have to continue having launches at the Cape. I don’t care 

what rocket it is or what’s on it. Anytime a rocket ship leaves planet Earth, that is an inspiring experience, and people walk away 

from it motivated and enthused and wanting to be part of what 

we’re doing. 

I think we’re on the right track. We just need to follow through, 

continue to build on what we’ve done, continue to have commercial 

launches, to have an exploration program for NASA to go beyond 

planet Earth to work in partnership with our commercial compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
56 

nies to make that happen. I think we’re doing all the right things 

and we’ve just got to press ahead. 

And I want to make—I read the book, the book is a lot better 

than the movie, but I saw the movie, too. I want to make The Martian happen for real. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. CABANA. Everything except that part for the story at the beginning—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes, we don’t want to leave Matt Damon on 

Mars. 

Mr. CABANA. I don’t want to leave anybody behind. But—— 

Senator CRUZ. Do you have someone in mind that you want to 

leave there? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CABANA. No, but I volunteer to go. I’m ready. I think we 

need to continue to pursue this bold path that we’re on and continue to have the success that we’re having, and that’s going to 

continue to generate this interest in math and science. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Anyone else? 

Mr. MANBER. Yes. Sorry. If I may make two quick comments. 

The first is on the risk aspect, one of the toughest things at 

NanoRacks was getting NASA and the Space Station program 

early on to recognize that failure was OK as long as it didn’t hurt 

the safety of the crew. And they were just so focused that we had 

to build the customers’ payloads so it would work 100 percent of 

the time, but the customer didn’t want to pay that cost. And maybe 

they get 70 percent of their results, as long as it didn’t—and today 

we’re at a point with the Space Station program where they understand failures on the private sector side. If I don’t get the hardware 

to work, my customer doesn’t pay me. And so we’re reaching a very 

interesting balance with NASA now. 

On the education, let me say that one of the biggest surprises for 

NanoRacks when we started was our early customers were educational schools, and it’s gotten to be such a huge program for us 

that we’ve created a new company, a public benefits company, 

called DreamUp. And it’s separate from us. And we’ve flown four 

or five schools in Texas, in Houston. We’ve flown I think it’s something like 40 high schools, we’ve flown high schools in Israel, 160 

congressional districts of schools, with no NASA funding. And some 

of the parents have bake sales, they get together, they get local— 

the Subaru dealers, gives them sponsorship. 

And so I can tell you that in the trenches out there, you know, 

in the small towns, the enthusiasm for space and education and research is huge, and that DreamUp is growing significantly, and it’s 

wonderful, and there is no government funding. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. That’s great to hear. Anyone else on 

that important topic? 

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, yes, I can speak to it. So as CEO of Relativity, 

I am humbled to speak on behalf of all of venture-backed startups. 

I can definitely tell you if you’re getting venture capital, you do not 

dream small, you dream big, and you take huge risks, and you’re 

looking for outsized returns. 

So I think that setting an example, you know, myself, being a 27- 

year-old co-founder of a space company that’s now tested rocket enVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
57 

gines at NASA Stennis Space Center, that I hope to be an inspiration for other people, and that members that join our team at Relativity and all of the other venture-backed startups are able to see 

that success, and having more winners will actually inspire people 

to go make that reality happen themselves. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. 

Mr. HUGHES. And I’ll jump in as well. So SpaceX’s goal, stated 

goal, for years now is to make humanity a multi-planetary species, 

a rather lofty goal, and it’s one that we deeply believe in, and it 

drives almost every decision that we make within the company. 

And so I think setting big goals like that is critical. 

And the way that the government can help to encourage this 

through public-private partnerships are to set high-level requirements and not tell companies how to complete them, but, rather, 

establish the requirements, partner with the companies to get 

them done and to get them in a way that is rapid and efficient, safe 

and reliable. There are a number of opportunities I think that 

we’ve got out to the right here to complement our existing program 

to get to Mars that can rely upon commercial capabilities, set these 

big goals, let private capital work in conjunction with government 

money to achieve these goals, and get it done in 4 to 8 years. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. And I didn’t get a—are you a fan of The Martian as well? 

Senator CRUZ. I am, although an even more important technological innovation, if any of you could develop a lightsaber—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ.—I think that would truly energize interest in 

space exploration. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. I think this was 

a productive hearing, a helpful hearing, with a lot of good, positive 

suggestions that came out of it. 

The hearing record is going to remain open for 2 weeks. During 

this time, any Senators that have follow-up questions for the 

record, they’re asked to submit them for the record, and upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit their written answers 

to the Committee as soon as possible. 

And with that being said, thank you again. This is hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

JEFFREY MANBER

Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships 

Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I included in the 

FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense 

(DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial partnerships can—where appropriate—play a key role in filling these needs. 

What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S. space capabilities, like the 

domain awareness and communications gaps in the Arctic? 

Answer. There are challenges to working with the U.S. Government, but in more 

cases than before there is a mutual understanding that the commercial community 

can provide services, rather than hardware. And these services are economically efficient, and place the burden of risk not on the taxpayer but on the commercial organization. We are moving the scale of the needed public private partnerships more 

to the private sector. We at NanoRacks welcome that. But challenges remain. They 

are contractual and they are challenges of mindset. To many in the USG, small is 

still not desirable. Whether small hardware or smaller budget. It is changing, but 

it remains an obstacle. Also contractual. For a company like NanoRacks some of the 

key programs require an onramp that is thousands of pages long and require dedicated proposal writers who understand the jargon. During the Mercury and Gemini 

and Apollo days, some of the contracts were several pages long. We need a return 

to that. Here is what the USG needs. Please provide. If you don’t provide, you don’t 

get paid. If you do provide, here is the rate. 

Internet Access in Rural Areas 

Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and many times 

are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity 

hinders business growth and increased economic activity. 

Commercial space provides the possibility of increased communications, including 

satellite-based broadband internet, at a reduced cost. Especially if the cost of 

launches continues to decline, this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places like Alaska. 

How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-level Internet to the most rural areas? 

Answer. First off, commercial space offers a diversification of in-space opportunities. To be specific, this means that states like Alaska can have their own spaceport. 

How wonderful. We support the development of regional spaceports that meet the 

needs of the region. In this case, for Alaska, it is polar orbit launches that can accommodate small satellite constellations that meet much of the needs of the business and residential sectors. Commercial space offers off the shelf opportunities in 

satellite communications, satellite navigations, earth observation to monitor environmental issues and so on. There is now growing private sector capital available 

where there is a regional customer. 

Question 3. Is latency still an issue? 

Answer. As we understand, latency is still an issue. 

Thank you for allowing us to respond. We welcome further dialogue on advancing 

commercial in-space services via the Alaska spaceport to meet the needs of the people of Alaska. 

60 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

TIM ELLIS

Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships 

Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I included in the 

FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense 

(DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial partnerships can—where appropriate—play a key role in filling these needs. 

What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you from working 

with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S. space capabilities, like the domain awareness and communications gaps in the Arctic? 

Answer. Relativity is a new launch services provider for payloads following the 

‘‘small satellite’’ form factor of less than 1,000 kg. Satellites in this weight class can 

potentially be a primary solution to communication gaps in remote locations, such 

as the Arctic areas described. 

Primary challenges include open access to a launch site capable of satisfying the 

commonly used polar or sun synchronous orbits used by these satellite communication systems. Geography dictates that in the United States, a West Coast launch 

location is ideal to reach high inclination orbits without prohibitively flying over 

land or using a costly ‘‘dog leg’’ flight maneuver, such as from Wallops Island. The 

Pacific Spaceport Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska is one such potential commercially-usable site, as well as Vandenberg Airforce Base in California. Both sites 

would need modification to be ideally capable of launching cryogenic liquid fueled 

orbital rockets optimized for small satellite launches. Some of these modifications 

include shipping, receiving, and ground transport infrastructure for rocket vehicles, 

cryogenic propellant loading and ground handling equipment, and expanded support 

for Autonomous Flight Termination Systems. We are beginning conversations with 

both sites to assess applicability to Relativity’s needs, and would be happy to follow 

up with any other roadblocks or challenges we find. 

A potential Hawaiian island located site, or drone and barge ship launch platform, 

could also help solve the challenge of U.S.-based launch sites open to smaller orbital 

rockets performing on a commercial basis. Streamlining procurement by the government through expanded use of Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) would 

incentivize emerging companies and startups with the most cutting-edge technologies to work with the government earlier in their lifecycles. This is due to the 

lower overhead requirements and streamlined procurement process agreements such 

as OTA’s provide, which reduce the burden on personnel-strapped startups and 

allow transactions to happen more quickly for both parties. 

Internet Access in Rural Areas 

Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and many times 

are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity 

hinders business growth and increased economic activity. 

Commercial space provides the possibility of increased communications, including 

satellite based broadband internet, at a reduced cost. Especially if the cost of 

launches continues to decline, this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places like Alaska. 

How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-level Internet to the most rural areas? 

Answer. Relativity believes we are at the beginning of a huge growth phase in 

satellite Internet and connectivity capabilities. Several major, well-funded constellations of distributed ‘‘small satellites’’ are being developed that would greatly aid in 

solving the issue of rapidly deployable, low cost, high bandwidth access to remote 

areas such as in Alaska. 

As mentioned above, this future is possible ‘‘especially if the cost of launches continues to decline’’. Relativity and several other private, commercial space launch 

companies are emerging to fill the needs of the emerging small satellite sector. Currently, none of the proposed and in-development Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite 

constellations are in full operating service. There is great promise, with significant 

funding going to both satellite companies and the launchers that will serve them. 

However, for the space ecosystem to capitalize on this opportunity requires an ROI 

incentive for continued private funding, advanced technology development, infrastructure buildup, and successful relationships with regulators and the U.S. Government. 

Question 3. Is latency still an issue? 

61 

Answer. Yes. For streaming internet, video and voice communications, and applications with high inout bandwidth needs, latency at traditional Geosynchronous 

Earth Orbits (GEO) high above the Earth will always inhibit these systems from 

serving these low latency applications. This is a fundamental physical limit to the 

speed of signals traveling through a long, fixed distance through space. Medium 

Earth Orbits (MEO) and Low Earth Orbits (LEO) increasingly improve latency by 

locating satellites at lower and lower altitudes, and thus shorter transmission distances and times to the surface of the Earth. However, using MEO and especially 

LEO satellite constellations necessitates much larger numbers of satellites to provide continuous, effective coverage due to the orbital periods and ground tracks they 

require. The future of distributed LEO satellite constellations promises latency and 

bandwidth that is comparable to terrestrial coaxial cable and fiber internet, however 

none of these constellations are currently fully operational and are in various development phases. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

TIM HUGHES

Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships 

Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I included in the 

FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense 

(DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial partnerships can—where appropriate—play a key role in filling these needs. 

What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S. space capabilities, like the 

domain awareness and communications gaps in the Arctic? 

Answer. SpaceX agrees that commercial partnerships can serve to rapidly support 

the development and deployment of capability for the Department of Defense, as 

well as other U.S. Government entities. We recommend the Government make fuller 

use of innovative Federal contracting strategies, like Other Transaction Authority 

(OTA) and commercial contracting methods in leveraging commercial capability. 

Specifically, some challenges include: 

• Government requirements that add cost and schedule delay; 

• Vague or poorly defined requirements; 

• Use of non-commercial contracts and the imposition of unnecessary or inappropriate contract clauses and requirements onto commercial contracts; 

• Costs and time associated with certification of commercial products and commodities for Government use; 

• Number and scope of compliance documents associated with DOD contracts; 

• Onerous and time-consuming proposal process for DOD contracts; and 

• Unnecessarily slow acquisition processes. 

Internet Access in Rural Areas 

Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and many times 

are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity 

hinders business growth and increased economic activity. Commercial space provides the possibility of increased communications, including satellite-based 

broadband internet, at a reduced cost. Especially if the cost of launches continues 

to decline, this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places 

like Alaska. 

How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-level Internet to the most rural areas? 

Answer. SpaceX agrees that even the latest terrestrial telecommunications infrastructure is often costly (or cost-prohibitive) with respect to extending broadband 

services to remote areas, particularly to certain terrains like those in Alaska. We 

also recognize the undeniable social and economic value that comes when communities can access quality, high-speed broadband. The disparity in available service 

to rural and ‘‘hard-to-reach’’ areas is the result of the heavy, up-front capital expenditures that terrestrial build-outs require to connect small and dispersed communities in such remote locations. Regulatory approvals, such as environmental approvals and local rights of way issues associated with siting cable and fiber 

broadband infrastructure, compound this problem. Additionally, given higher latiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Jul 25, 2018 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\30770.TXT JACKIE
62 

tudes, traditional satellites located high above the equator often cannot ‘‘see’’ all of 

Alaska’s territory with comparable speeds and costs offered elsewhere in the Continental U.S. 

SpaceX seeks to address the challenges of access by developing a next-generation 

satellite system that will apply innovative technologies to provide rapid broadband 

data rates and minimal latency. Initially, the SpaceX system will consist of 4,425 

satellites operating in 83 orbital planes in orbits close to the Earth. This will include 

polar orbiting satellites designed specifically to serve high-latitude areas like Alaska. The SpaceX constellation is designed to provide a wide range of broadband and 

communications services for residential, commercial, institutional, governmental, 

and professional users worldwide. The goal of the system is to provide high-speed, 

low-latency broadband directly to end-users. 

Our planned satellite constellation would remove the per-mile construction costs 

inherent in rural and remote broadband access solutions and bypass the complexity 

of expanding terrestrial broadband networks (for instance, digging trenches, environmental approvals, and property rights issues). By operating close to the earth, 

the system will replace typical speed and latency complaints from current-generation satellite broadband offerings with service speeds, latencies, and pricing equivalent to terrestrial and 5G wireless technologies available in urban centers. 

By investing upfront in a large-scale global satellite constellation, the cost of 

reaching additional customers—even in the most remote areas of the world—becomes incremental. Because the system will bring global coverage, including highlatitude customers, the cost of reaching these areas becomes essentially the price 

of a consumer terminal. 

Commercial space is further contributing to the deployment of such systems by 

driving down the high cost of launch. SpaceX, for example, has developed its Falcon 

9 rocket to be highly reliable and affordable. We have further innovated to enable 

our rockets to be reusable by landing the first stage of rockets on land or at sea 

on ocean-going droneships, and then re-launching previously flown boosters. Reduced launch costs will enable the deployment of large satellite constellations that 

can then help Alaskans get connected to affordable, high-speed broadband internet. 

Question 3. Is latency still an issue? 

Answer. Current-generation satellite broadband services utilize geostationary 

(GEO) satellites that fly at altitudes of 35,000 km, resulting in higher latencies 

(typically around 250 milliseconds) as the broadband signals traverse to and from 

the satellite in space. By contrast, the SpaceX broadband system will operate in lowEarth orbit (LEO), at altitudes ranging from 1,110 km to 1,325 km. This dramatically shorter distance allows for latencies between 25–35 milliseconds. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

DR. MORIBA K. JAH

Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships 

Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I included in the 

FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense 

(DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial partnerships can—where appropriate—play a key role in filling these needs. 

What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S. space capabilities, like the 

domain awareness and communications gaps in the Arctic? 

Answer. Thank you for the question sir. The primary challenges I have had have 

been: 

(1) There is no real strategic and coordinated investment in government-related 

science and technology (S&T) research. There is an army of researchers and 

academics waiting to tackle our most dire S&T challenges and problems, but 

we cannot engage this community without a dedicated investment. Moreover, 

the small investment in S&T research that currently exists is scattered and 

each government entity funds work without being aware of what other government entities are funding. The U.S. Government is likely paying may times 

for the same work without knowing it. Each government entity needs to be 

free to invest in S&T research as it needs to satisfy its own gaps but much 

benefit could be had by having an office that coordinates this investment such 

that S&T can be leveraged across the government and to prevent funding the 

same work more than once. There should also be a strategic roadmap that 

63 

1https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/institutes.html 

2https://sa.catapult.org.uk/services/centres-of-excellence/ 

3http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/20130426_UARC_Engagement 

Guide.pdf 4https://www.diux.mil 

clearly identifies how the S&T research will be transitioned as it matures. The 

U.S. Government should also favor companies that propose solutions that leverage or build upon previous U.S. Government (taxpayer) investment. Germany has so called ‘‘Fraunhofer Institutes 1’’ which are an effective marriage 

between government, industry, and academia. The U.K. has the so called ‘‘Satellite Applications Catapult.’’2 The U.S. has so called ‘‘University Affiliated Research Centers.’’3 These too should be reenergized and enlisted to serve a cohesive government, industry, and academic partnership in S&T research and 

development and risk retirement. These could be made to augment or compliment Public-Private-Partnerships for space domain awareness, space traffic 

management, orbital safety, and space commerce. 

(2) The National Science Foundation (NSF) has not been historically keen to fund 

research in space-related technologies, areas where the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) has but AFOSR has a much much smaller budget. 

If the NSF could be motivated to complement AFOSR’s investment areas in 

these topics, that would be greatly beneficial. 

(3) Many U.S. Government meetings have required security clearances which I 

have, but most researchers do not. More unfortunately is that almost all of 

these meetings are absent any classified information being exchanged or 

shown. I’ve questioned why the U.S. Government continues to over-classify 

material and the answer is complicated. However, a great effort must be undertaken in making as much information as possible, available to the scientific 

and technological communities if we wish to empower our country in maintaining a leading edge regarding our space services and capabilities. 

(4) The U.S. Government has focused upon developing systems making sure that 

the space systems (including the ground segments) themselves are robust and 

work, but paying much less attention to the accuracy of information being 

generated and distributed by these space systems. No one has been assessing 

the physical and statistical consistency amongst various space situational/domain awareness funded efforts. The assumption is that as long as different 

products and applications meet interface control requirements, all is good. 

This is a flawed assumption that works to our collective detriment. The 

world’s best plumbing can distribute potable water or sewage. 

(5) The U.S. Government is losing its internal competency to quantify and assess 

the goodness and accuracy of funded projects and delivered products. So, it relies strongly on what is called SETA support or FFRDCs. Unfortunately, these 

oftentimes work in their own self-interest and under the guise of information 

security, avoid independent scrutiny and peer-review. Many innovative, disruptive, and paradigm-shifting solutions never make it to the U.S. Government’s table so to speak. The U.S. Government lacks an independent and unbiased group of people who can help it quantify and assess products to meet 

its needs for space situational and domain awareness. Scientific and Technological solution developers, providers, and integrators must never be the same 

people! 

(6) Very rigid acquisition processes also hinder rapid and agile deployment of 

space services and capabilities, like communications in the Arctic. I suspect 

that initiatives like the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx)4 is a 

method to remedy this discrepancy. 

Internet Access in Rural Areas 

Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and many times 

are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity 

hinders business growth and increased economic activity. 

Commercial space provides the possibility of increased communications, including 

satellite-based broadband internet, at a reduced cost. Especially if the cost of 

launches continues to decline, this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places like Alaska. How can recent advances in commercial space help 

provide broadband-level Internet to the most rural areas? 

64 

5https://www.planet.com 

6http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/jicspoc-morphs-to-national-space-defense-centerwhat-itmeans/ 7http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spookyactionrecord-distance 8http://www.kirtland.af.mil/Units/AFRL-Space-Vehicles-Directorate/ 

9http://www.kirtland.af.mil/Units/ORS/ 

Answer. This is a very relevant question. Companies such as Planet Labs 5 have 

demonstrated an innate capability to rapidly and effectively deploy space based assets to fill gaps. Planet has paved the way for companies such as OneWeb and 

SpaceX to deploy massive numbers of space-based assets to deliver the very capabilities that you desire for Alaska and the world writ large. The activities of these 

companies should be encouraged and assisted as appropriate, without sacrificing the 

ability to motivate competing technologies. General Hyten created a commercial cell 

in the National Space Defense Center 6 for Battlespace Management, Command, and 

Control (BMC2) at Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs. The U.S. Government could 

take a page from this book and create a commercial cell that addresses communications and global Internet to meet our national needs. Perhaps this could be championed under the newly formed National Space Council. 

Question 3. Is latency still an issue? 

Answer. Yes, latency is very much still an issue but this can be mitigated and 

remedied via (a) leveraging other on-orbit assets as effective relays (b) heavily investing in quantum computing and communications as recently demonstrated by 

China.7 (c) investing in autonomous satellite systems and networks (e.g., via the Air 

Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate 8 including academic partnerships, and the Operationally Responsive Space 9 office) that can capitalize on Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence to self-heal/repair and reconfigure in near 

real time in the presence of sensed latencies and/or outages. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DAN SULLIVAN TO

ROBERT D. CABANA

Challenges Hindering DOD-Commercial Partnerships 

Question 1. Earlier this year, in response to a provision that I included in the 

FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense 

(DOD) released an Arctic strategy that among other points, highlights severe challenges caused by the limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north. When the DOD needs to quickly address gaps in capabilities, commercial partnerships can—where appropriate—play a key role in filling these needs. 

What are the primary challenges that have hindered or prevented you from working with the U.S. Government to fill critical gaps in U.S. space capabilities, like the 

domain awareness and communications gaps in the Arctic? 

Answer. NASA employs several kinds of commercial partnership mechanisms to 

address U.S. space capabilities, including—but not limited to—Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR)-based contracts to fulfill Agency requirements, as well as funded 

and unfunded Space Act Agreements (SAAs), which support and encourage commercial innovation. The Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) contracts, under which 

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Orbital ATK have been providing 

cargo resupply to the International Space Station (ISS), are examples of the former. 

NASA’s Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST) initiative, which has established multiple no-funds-exchanged SAA partnerships with U.S. private sector entities, is an example of the latter. The purpose of 

these SAAs is to encourage the development of robotic lunar landers that can be 

integrated with U.S. commercial launch capabilities to deliver payloads to the lunar 

surface. NASA looks forward to continuing commercial partnerships to address 

Agency requirements and to support commercial innovation in the future. 

As to addressing U.S. space capabilities such as domain awareness and military 

communications in the Arctic, the Committee may wish to contact the Department 

of Defense for details on their efforts in these areas. 

Internet Access in Rural Areas 

Question 2. In Alaska, many places do not have any connectivity and many times 

are not even connected by road. It is costly to deploy telecommunications infrastructure, and while these communities are extremely innovative, a lack of connectivity 

hinders business growth and increased economic activity. 

65 

Commercial space provides the possibility of increased communications, including 

satellite-based broadband internet, at a reduced cost. Especially if the cost of 

launches continues to decline, this could provide real benefits to consumers in extremely rural places like Alaska. 

How can recent advances in commercial space help provide broadband-level Internet to the most rural areas? 

Answer. While NASA defers to private industry to articulate the business case 

supporting the provision of services to specific customers, a number of companies 

currently offer launch services and satellite-based communications services that 

could potentially increase broadband Internet access in rural areas. 

Question 3. Is latency still an issue? 

Answer. Please see response to Question #2, above. NASA defers to private industry on the specifics for their ability to provide broadband Internet service to rural 

areas. 

Æ