Majority Statement

• Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV

  U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
  Read statement

  Majority Statement

  Chairman John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV

  WASHINGTON, D.C.—The United States has long been a world leader in using space for societal and commercial benefits.  Satellites, for example, provide us with instant communication, the indispensable Global Positioning System – or GPS – for navigation, and weather data to inform forecasts that prevent loss of life and property.  While the original investment for each of these examples came from the federal government, the commercial sector went on to make them profitable industries.  

  The commercial sector is now looking at space transportation and the market that may emerge as the next big business opportunity, and that’s what this hearing will consider here today.  NASA’s purpose in the development of domestic commercial space flight capabilities is to lower the cost of getting crew and cargo back and forth to the International Space Station.  

  Lowering the cost of access to space is not just important to NASA, but to the defense and intelligence communities, as well as satellite broadcasting and communications providers, just to name a few.  But if NASA’s investment is to pay off in seeding this “commercial” industry, there are tough questions that need to be asked regarding the taxpayers’ investment.  What have these programs cost NASA so far; how are the funded companies performing; and, above all, how cost effective will these service providers be once NASA has invested in their development?

  It is important to remember that as soon as there is a domestic capability, NASA is required by law to stop purchasing Russian Soyuz seats to get to the International Space Station.  What is to stop a company from turning around and charging the government a fortune to access our space station?  Much has been said about not wanting the government to pick winners and losers, which is why we should not lock in a dominant player at this stage of the game.  Key to the premise of competition, however, is whether or not a viable market for commercial space emerges beyond the federal government.

  As these companies work to attract private investment, we hear repeatedly that they need certainty and stability both for investors and the emerging market; however, “certainty” and “stability” only seem to apply in certain situations.  Many companies have advocated that extending the government’s indemnification of third party liability adds certainty and stability; however, some of these same companies argue that FAA regulation at this time does not.  Many advocated and were successful in obtaining a continued moratorium on FAA’s regulation of crew and passenger safety until October 2015 in the FAA Reauthorization.  I didn’t like this provision then, and I don’t like this provision now, as it increases the chances that regulation will be decided in reaction to an accident.  Space flight is inherently risky and we know accidents happen.  

  With these questions in mind, I welcome our witnesses here today to help the Committee with its policy deliberations and oversight responsibilities in this area.

  ###

Testimony

• Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier

  Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations

  National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  Download Testimony (105.66 KB)

• Col. Pamela A. Melroy USAF (ret.)

  Senior Technical Advisor, Office of Commercial Space Transportation

  Federal Aviation Administration
  Download Testimony (28.11 KB)

• Dr. Gerald L. Dillingham

  Director of Civil Aviation Issues

  U.S. Government Accountability Office
  Download Testimony (1.30 MB)

• Mr. Michael N. Gold

  Director, D.C. Operations and Business Growth

  Bigelow Aerospace, LLC
  Download Testimony (1.99 MB)

• Capt. Michael Lopez-Alegria USN (ret.)

  President

  Commercial Spaceflight Federation
  Download Testimony (167.35 KB)