Transcripts For CSPAN2 Space Commerce Forum Part 1 20240713

Developing space projects. Please welcome Christian Zur of the Space Industry Council, us chamber of commerce. Good morning and thank you to the chamber of commerce, launching the space economy. Our Second Annual space summit. Events such as this are team effort and we appreciate the support of our sponsors, boeing, northrup, rocket lab, one web, hawkeye 360, we have been busy in the past year from policy discussions ranging from management of commercial aviation and space launch airspace to small satellite encryption and the orbit assurance, commercial opportunities aboard the iss and future gateway. We convened a roundtable for the coast guard regarding the need for greater use of space surveillance in the arctic waterways. And Space Industry Council has an effort for policy pursuits. Fortunately we have an enthusiastic space industry ceo. And it sums up the chambers approach to the entire sector for which i will quote. Harnessing the potential of space will be no easy feat. It took hundreds of years to create an efficient and will regulated system. But, he added, the vital art of the economy and space increasingly too. Spaces a new economic frontier, public and private sectors must Work Together as partners and pioneers, more potential for humankind. It cant be said any better. Before this, we have a brief video and we will roll that now. Greetings from the International Space station. I am castanet cook, we would like to welcome the attendees of the 2019 space summit aboard our magnificent laboratory. We are appreciative of the us chambers support and commitment to enabling commercial partnerships and Strategic Investments especially in the space industry. As we fly 255 miles above you we are making great progress on a number of experiments. For example examining how microgravity can improve the health of people on earth. We expect the trend to continue as we approach the twentieth continue with your of humans living and working aboard the space station. We cannot join you in person, we are happy to join you from orbit and wish you a productive space summit. With that, tom donohue, ceo of the chamber of commerce. In a few minutes i will go to the airport on a horizontal basis. Im going to fly about 250 miles and it is unbelievable to think that you just saw a quick video from space, and people are telling me that you aint seen nothing yet. I am glad you are all here. You and your team, thanks to all the folks on the space station for tuning in with us, it is great to see so much commercial work underway on the International Space station. A jewel and a crown and cuttingedge research you are going to see as we go forward. I would like to thank all of you who are joining us as a speaker or panelist or participant or whatever you are doing, just great to have you here again or a new. Let me wake one observation. I went through all the programs on the way here and i was taken aback by the extraordinary number of and quality of speakers that we have today. If we just look carefully at the whole agenda of who is going to be here there is no question we are on our way to space in a huge way. This years summit is appropriately titled launch the space economy. The name perfectly describes where the industry is headed. In recent years we witnessed a sea change in commercial space. We officially moved beyond the countdown to the point of liftoff. Today there are less than 2000 active satellite in orbit but last year alone the fcc licensed over 13,000 satellites for operations in low earth orbit. Space is the most promising industry to arise since the birth of the tech sector and Companies Large and small want a piece of the action. That is why in the coming years growth will continue to skyrocket. The us chamber projects that commercial space will be at least a 1,500,000,000, 000 industry by 2040 and if there is stimulus from competing operations around the globe that will happen faster in a competitive way and a much more vigorous investment. If that doesnt give you a path you aint paying attention, the future of our economy is being built right before your eyes and it is poised to upend everything that came before. Commercial space will transform how all societies across the globe learn, communicate, thrive, and grow and that is only using space hundreds of miles above us. If you just think, if you just think in the last 6 months the things we have learned, the things we have read, the things we have seen, on what we are finding, new black holes, extraordinary, deeper into space and the next space in the next space, it is unbelievable. What you are watching and what we are working on is the only the beginning and as soon as we get one place, and commercial space is something that stimulates the mind and has Great Potential to fundamentally change our education system. All civilizations throughout history look to the heavens and wonder and pray, now we have the chance to reach up and grasp those dreams and the opportunities are endless. Spaces and an empty void but it is a landscape of deer infinite opportunity. Public policies that will foster the innovation investment and growth necessary for continued commercial expansion into space. Thats where the chamber comes in in our small way. Were working with all the private and Public Sector stakeholders to chart the course towards a mature commercial space, Regulatory Regime. Thats the reason we brought you all here today. Its you, our nations business leaders, policy experts, and government officials who are laying the groundwork for a new age in Space Exploration. We are eager to hear from both government and industry this morning, as you Work Together to build a National Space policy that will help us lead the world into the next economic frontier. The future of our economy depends upon a vigorous pursuit of industry beyond earth, and with the right combination of private investment in Public Policy, our potential for growth, like space itself, has no limits. So lets learn from each other today. Lets boldly venture into the beyond, and lets go there together. And thanks to all of you again for joining us and for making this a very, very important event, the next step to space. Thank you very much. [applause] please welcome jim chilton, Senior Vice President , space and launch, boeing Defense Space and security at the boeing company. An neil bradley, executive Vice President and chief policy officer, u. S. Chamber of commerce. Good morning. [applause] well, jim, thanks for joining us this morning and helping us kick off our Second Annual space summit, our lunch program. I wonder if we can just start top wightman tells about boeings history and space expiration and Space Program which announced frankly a lot richer than i personally appreciated and may be made and her and also how you think about your priorities today. Okay, well, one priority is to thank the chamber and all the people here, you and thomas, a great event and a note that got a great start last year, so thank you for that. From a history and legacy perspective, a lot of people dont know but boeing goes back a good 60 years in human spaceflight and about the same in satellites, commercial satellites. If you look at the legacy companies, we were part of mercury and gemini, apollo, built on both ends of the rocket, built devices, the lur rovers were boeing products out of washington. I know thats a long time ago but it makes our workforce very proud and are still technical papers and Lessons Learned there and were able to keep a workforce very engaged and interested. I think the first commercial satellite rollout of our factory in california, in 1962 maybe, i might get off a year there, and since then satellites have rolled out of what was an autoplay. Theres a great legacy. If you look for recently we had the privilege of serving nasa on the Space Shuttle program. Those orbiters are a marvel if you havent gotten too amusing to see one of them, im a little biased because i got to work the program during my work and life, those things enable the Great Observatories and it also enabled construction of the International Space station which i think people are familiar with. But a huge matter of learning as a nation, partner nations on station kind of all, concord lowearth orbit. We didnt call great but we should learn it, and the kids coming out of high school today do not know a time when humans have lived continuously in space. Theres a new generation coming. From our workforce standpoint, the shuttle and station very relevant. The shuttle Lessons Learned for our star liner project are huge. I would argue nasas space station of the International Partner space station that is of the human Space Program for a country and a lot of the world today. We just keep learning. The ability to learn how to, someone that comes up or put and the crew ops and training and a fast you might have to move when you get an unexpected event, that is just fantastic for our workforce. I wanted to start with history because i mentioned backstage, i was home in oklahoma with my family over the thanksgiving holiday we went to the tolls of air and space museum. Some of those companies that are not part of the boeing corporation where some of those products you just talked about were built in tulsa and some of the volunteer docent at the museum with the ones who said the payload doors for example, on the Space Shuttle program. Its amazing well, not amazing. It is remarkable the pride in which they take in the work that they did and having been part of putting americans into space at our space dominance at the time and how they translate that, even to my nineyearold son in terms of what they can be a part of. Sometimes we skip so quickly to the present that we forget about how were building on that kind of legacy, that rightfully people who you and people who proceeded you have deserved pride in what youve accomplished. Thanks for bringing that together. Thanks for what boeing does in particular to help educate younger americans to follow your footsteps. I know what other ways you will help inspire folks, one of your colleagues with us last year was Chris Ferguson. For those of you who are here enjoyed as you know chris was a nasa astronaut, has been a space but is currently no longer with nasa, but he is training to go back to space and prepared to go back to space than a couple of years as part of boeings starlight a program. Tell us a little bit about how you bring together the expertise of someone like chris has and is history in nas and kind of the public side of space expiration and expertise that you all have, the private sector side and how that marriage works and what have opportunities that creates as we think about how the u. S. Returns to human spaceflight. Thats the great perspective. I had not thought about the public and internal part of it. Ill start by saying were working in the commercial crew program. Our intent to something called starliner can really proud of it. It. Were counting down days now, not months or weeks. How many days . Were looking at the 19th. I will just disclose were on the 17th and we as for the 19th and the may of disposition that by now i dont know but thats a we prefer. With something come up over the weekend on the purge was a little off so he told the team get it how you need to get it. So number one, we called the commercial crew program right now we are serving nasa and i need to just really fake nasa because a lot of what we know about human spaceflight and what boeing is able to do we learn from nasa. We also bring in lot of techniques and approaches and were really doing this with much less nasa direct involvement than weve had in the past. Having chris on the team is immensely valuable. You bring into the team, put a boeing badge on it. First off, he has an effect on all of us. We all know these are very brave americans, also really smart people. Sue is a great ability to lead of the people. He has maybe too much ability to set i could probably handle that risk, but his participation in those designs and how are we going to operate this vehicle has been invaluable and we think that has, we just needed that inside the tent. I have no way of saying that the nasa astronauts are not able to come in and participant in the way but its been good for us. I think pretty cool for chris to see if things work behind the curtain. Publicly, we can better deal with chris that we have want to be in position where hes not entirely comfortable with what were trying to do. With our schedules and a timelines and artest articles. I think that has a good effect on both of us and it gives him the ability for the represent nasa in the quarters hes able to do at our close that question by just saying, if youre an engineer entering the workforce or a a technician that wants to build something just right or your off time to work with other nations or individuals who may want to buy a commercial ride on this, the ability to go ask chris questions or say hey, what you think about this or that, its honestly through. Im glad hes not here because youve been mad at me. I will do from that period last year i had lunch with him the day before and i walked in with naive question for someone who is not in your line of work, and his ability to walk through some of those things is a credit both to him but also i think to what hes learning with this kind of advent of how we go back into space, right . The starliner is a lot different, for those who think about mercury or gemini or even the shuttle, this is a lot different, feels a lot different. Hows that transition that in terms of reflecting boeings vision for what the commercial space crew experience is like . Let me describe it as a composite. So number one, the physics of caring people safely in the city base, protecting and bring them home safely has changed. Were not going to walk with what we learn. I dont think anybody needs to hear more on that. That fundamentally doesnt change. The Business Model is very different and what we are trying to do with the machine after we fly them for nasa is very different. When i say its a composite, chris is an aspiring guy but also hardnosed test pilot and with some pretty tough chief engineers who built the thing right. At the same time we know from our commercial airplane business and other commercial ventures were in, the optics of how you sell it and that he might arrange the seats and be able to reconfigure them, thats all much different, how we might be able to sell it and create value in future. Thats a lot of fun for the team as well. Thats why wanted to go a little bit next. The Current Administration has a renewed focus on Space Exploration, returning americans and american vehicles into space. You also thinking that be on that. Youre thinking about it from the commercial side of it. Talk to us a little bit about in the same way we kind of combine the best of Chris Ferguson with the best of boeing, how do you marry up the administrations vision for what it wants to do in terms of Space Exploration and understanding thats got to take place over multiple congresses and multiple administrations with what boeing wants to do in terms of planning out a commercial enterprise. How do those things that together . Other opportunities presented, conflicts . Theres the potential for conflicts. I think the first answer is its a great opportunity. I would remind everybody that nasa has a a policy objective n addition to taking americans to space, and others from u. S. Soil, which is job one, full stop, they also want to stimulate an ecosystem. They want commercial companies to succeed so that i didnt we work for nasa, to some extent we had a policy blessing to try to use these things to use for customers of the vanessa. You see them doing smart things with the International Space station fiber. We try to help them do that. There could be a conflict, hypothetically a customer would want to play the same time nasa is. What weve experienced so far is every open, its okay to want to could do that, just do no harm from what we are doing. I think nasa is enabling that much more than they are so the would be in a conflict. Is this a Lesson Learned from going all the way back to kennedys challenge to put a man on the moon, that the government is leading and providing some incentive, not just funding but the commercial spinoff opportunities that are created by that National Commitment . May be were not anticipated at the time and were not playing for but turned out to be very real, and now we understand that are going to be this type of commercial spinoffs and opportunities and a part of the planning. Is that whats happened over the 50 or 60 years . Lets see, our backup. If you look at apollo it used a very large, the stored by current standard, proportion of the gdp, was high. Since then with maybe 10 of that annually weve done an Amazing Things. The big lesson in those Amazing Things is be ready for something you didnt expect, some opportunity will arise. In our economy thats how it works so you want to scar your system to be able to go to great things. You want to party with people who look at the world differently. Were trying to see if we can be complementary businesses. Absolutely, the government is an anchor customer. It would be hard to get in this business if you didnt have a certain customer customer thats domain and could tolerate the risk. Its hard to predict a schedule. We struggle struggled a littleh the schedule. I think Everybody Knows that. You have to do systematically. Its absolutely an effective policy from my perspective and we wouldnt have a chance to do the other things were going to try to do without that first nasa buyin. So the first nasa by we think about the secretary, third and fourth iteration, and to your point, we dont know exactly what those are going to look like. We know to expect the unexpected but from a business standpoint you have to plan and have some type of insight as to what you think the commercial opportunities are. Obviously here at the chamber this conference our conference a year ago, we talk a lot about the commercialization of space and we threw up big numbers about what the opportunities are there, right . That involved a little bit of science and a little bit of art, right . You all had to do much more heavily from a business perspective on the science side of it. Give us your perspective in terms of how you see the future commercial opportunities of space, and are we right to really talk about a new space age and the commercialization of space . I think we are right. I think its hard, yet the number one thing that gives the optimism is a quantity of the entrance of the players. A lot of people can see themselves in this economy now. You can make the pro and con argument. I would say i would segment the market for you. The launch market of changing a lot. Use small sat, use small launchers and big launchers and lots of them. Historically there hasnt been room for as many as we see. The question will be as we get more and more efficient, will the elasticity happen . If you drop prices we get more demand . That experiment is underway. Any protection . Launch is something nationstates are not going to give up. Theres some subset of worldwide launchers that can be commercial. Theres a subset that people are going to keep in the country so they dont lose the ability to do it. I think theres a finite amount of people who can survive in the commercial market. Wishing great competition. We are in it. Were super proud of our partnership and people that you will lay, people forget in the last 20 years it was can you really get rockets to work all the time . Theres a company that is proven yes, you can. If you could do it reliably and to get the price to the question becomes do you stimulate demand . That question goes to satellites first. The commercial satellites business has been historically and geobased business, probably know when your needs needs reminder thats been a type this is the last figures orders happened that and we think the proliferation of nongeoconstellations and that will have implications for launch, big and small. And moving away from kind of broadcast to network provision, we have to see how that plays out. Some of those folks will start competing with the horizons. Got a landing rights in countries for its exciting but it wont be easy. But again, unattended or originally and contemplated opportunities. And finally, human spaceflight, if we can crack open more people go to space that are not exclusively or almost exclusively govern people, thats got to be big. What kind of doors doesnt open . You hear about the idea, theres a lot of research that goes on the International Space station but your of a lot of opportunities to do Cutting Edge Research that can only be done in space with a benefit if done in space. Is that what that third Market Element of nongovernmental human spaceflight unlocks . Its one of them. There are things, as great as robotics have advanced and computers are, mighty hand in the discover a number of things you wouldnt discover or notice. I think thats true. I think much has been made about manufacturing in space. Thats possible but we also discovering things, viruses mutate differently. You can work quickly find vaccines. Salmonella was discovered, a prominent example. Theres a segment of the market in my view which is tourism. And is that going to be a growing i dont know. Virgin galactic, congratulations to them. They are ready to start service. Short suborbital rides. We aspire to provide some horrible rides. How deep that market is and what longterm present environment could present is not sure. Were going to try. Is that another a work price elasticity and the man come we dont exactly where those with occur . Im not sure. Im not sure we are to that point yet with early adopters. Would you like to go and why . And after some people go, are a lot more people critical or will it fade away . I bet a lot of folks in this room would like to go. I think all of us in this room would like to have the resources to be able to be one of those early adopters, and so we are thinking about how were interested in our capsule is baselined for nasa, but you can have a seat or a cargo for anybody who wants to join the fifth seed, she me an email. [laughing] whats the going rate for Something Like that . We will talk. Exactly. Its like a car lot. Its an installment system. This is something i havent heard yet. You mentioned a couple of times, and im really curious your perspective on this. Obviously, the number of commercial players has multiplied, and that we dont know whether supplies is going to exceed demand or demand is going to rise to meet supply or how that is going to play out. You all are obviously, as we begin the conversation, a longterm player in this space. Perhaps more than many of the other folks who are peers and competitors in some sense today, you have a long time horizon from which to look at from. Give us boeings perspective on the current marketplace and the dynamics of that competitive element that i would argue may be relatively new in terms of how we think about the commercial Space Services side. Thats a great observation because i talk about legacy and our pride and parts worked on. The future is different. So number one, our view is its going to happen. Toms comments about the large economy, im not going to turn the number economy will be like humans want to go there. Theres a lot of utility and excitement around going to space, so we believe in the economy. Number two, its not going to happen in the traditional Business Model so we can look back and say, you know, you could watch our behavior of lipid little bit or commercial crews is a completely different business both in space station which is different from the institutional model for space launch system. If you look at our military said let line, thats a lot of cross flow between commercial and military technology. We set a lot of base price for military service lot of commercial there. So number one weve got to be agile in the Business Model and you can confuse the technology and the difficulty of the physics draw you in. You cant get excited about that and get drawn into the wrong Business Model. In what way . Im curious. Ill pick launch. People are very excited at this as a personal observation. People are excited to get in the launch business. I think someone like the chamber studied, theres more small fat launchers and Small Satellite Companies pick you wonder is that the mismatch . Then you look at same from where you are maybe series a how many runs with jeff to get through if all youre going to succeed come is her that much money out there . See what amy . You have to pick your spots and predict which Business Model is going to work. They are all probably all capable of flying. Your business, and theres a harsh kind of business decisions, right . Is this a little bit like the romanticism, if i could put it this way, of being involved in space and having a program that can take people and things and launch them into the heaven . Is that where you begin to have a bit of a breakdown with the hardnosed, profit and loss can what the market demand is good is there a look at of that going on . I think theres a lot going on. Our cfo who looks at me as a 35 your space nerd, and he doesnt say i drank the koolaid. He says jim, theres no blood left in your koolaid stream. Because i am obvious if the space enthusiast and so i talk about different Business Models. Thats going to be as important as the technology, as more people are able to demonstrate the ability of technology, can you get into a sustainable business. Without revealing too much of how you are thinking of boeing, if launch is one of those areas where everybody is getting income everyone has got the weight of doing it, when you sit around, you personally think about this, thats the area where in 20 years i said i wish i wouldve been, i want to be involved at, because the old ice hockey adage, you skate to where the puck is going, not where it is. Wheres the puck going . What would you like to see people skating to . In launch specifically . No. Beyond launch. Specifically beyond launch. I think the prize, i will say the prize, what all want to arrive with the puck, weve had humans with continuously in space. Were going on 20 years. We dont want a gap in that. I boldly, we dont want it ande at a dont think we want it worldwide. We have two go get this economy going. We have to go get these, if the government says actual the world how to do it and now its to the commercial sector to go get this done for the world, we have to go do or we will have that gap or we will not occupy space. When you think about that gap, we know the age of the young National Space station. We know the International Space station. We know there are things with great engineering and ingenuity we can pull long time. You cant prolong an asset indefinitely. When do you think about that gap . Gosh, i hope we are prepared as a nation to be at that point where we can fill that gap in ten years, 15 years, 20 years . How do you think about that time horizon . I think you got the time horizon about right, ten, 15. Ill use government examples. If you look at our congress, looks like the local extent space station for 2030. Not a technical reason you couldnt do that. If you look at the european budget coming out right about now, they look like theyre committed for longterm. Then you say how long should it go . Just because it could go. I think the wheel coming off but hasnt decreased the right now a lot of the commercialization and space is about the space station. We are in with the airlock from which they dispense their satellite. We built that. Of course we take a payment whenever they want something. A lot of small Business Models like that. The mass challenge incubator people put experiments up. Tell us about the incubator and the kind of experience and now that is evolved and where do you see that going . Ill start with nasa policy again. They are clearly allowing that as long as it does no harm to the station, they are allowing us to try to build businesses there. Prominent examples are the Small Business but we are working with a lot of them. In fact, were trying to stimulate some. Its a little bit like our horizon x interest are. People may not know, boeing has a venture arm called horizon x we take shares in companies that we think or maybe those ones that will survive longterm and they might at some technology we think would not exist while in her company but we can help it be born in another company. I see the station as an integrator like that. You were seeing all kinds of things being tried and we will discover sustainable businesses out of that. When you think about those sustainable businesses, when we planned plan for that gap that you talked about, do you think that were going to avoid that gap. We are going to avoid that gap. I want to come back to the things we need to do to help avoid that in one moment, but do you think that everyone is thinking about, when we close that gap, when we avoid that gap, we are talking about something that succeeds the International Space station and hopefully something that talks about and furthers the type of innovation like that Incubator Program you just talked about. Do you think thats a common view of what the next stage of man living in space looks like . Do your competitors . Do the government . To Public Policy makers, do they that view of the future . Im going to be bold and say yes, but not in the same architectures. So i think writ large people agree we like to see lowearth orbit commercialized, a little easier to get to. Its a place which we can do some this is something people imagine hotels, commercial labs and i think of the coaches talk about building their own space stations there. So i think everybody imagines some form of proliferation in lowearth orbit. The Artemis Program is just nothing but exciting. We have an administrator who is out there rallying deep Space Exploration program on a scale with different for everybody. So you think about lowearth orbit, its commerce his job to go populate that and the government will go lead like the railroads in the west. They will build some devices that will help us go to deeper space than the moon and mars and young. I think those architectures will go deep and youll of lowearth orbit, gender agree. How you do it, a lot of competition and a lot of some architectures are only for the people describing it. Some architectures are very open. We want to see a lot of players so we can be institutionally independent. I think its great. I dont know how it is going to end up. It is exciting. To your point about having leaders who expressed that excitement, one of the things the chamber, were proud to work with going on as well as are other members is laying that Public Policy groundwork. Talked a little bit how the government is being an important buyer and incubator of these things, but they also lay out a lot of the vision in a way that brings together the commercial side. I mention the air and space museum. Its not a coincidence that jim bridenstine, before he was nasa administrator, before he was a member of congress, was the executive director of that air and space museum. You see is passion when you talk to him about it. But like all administrations theres a finite time, and time horizon that we talked about in terms of avoiding the gap is going to exceed any, well, exceed the next administration whoever that is, in the next administration and probably the next administrator after that. So what can we do as enthuses, advocates, as boosters for that kind of exciting future to maintain that level of enthusiasm so that we maintain the level of commitments and support to make sure we avoid the gap and get to that future that you talk about . You have any advice for us in terms of what we can do in that regard . Number one, i do, i have little strong interest in this. Number one, we need to look at artemis, the larger space ecosystem that is emerging, especially artemis as as a gret big program and something we all have to to put together and try to make happen. We all see ourselves in different ways that we want to do well, our Company Wants to do well but we have to advance it. We all have to support each other. Here sits a boycott on stage stage. I cant see my colleague rick ambers is easy but but i like o concrete joint congratulate Lockheed Martin for advancing because of building a deep space machine and shes going to go to the cape after this test, so a round of applause for those guys. [applause] so i know that sounds odd, but the point was, the thing im trying to defeat here is, im 35 years at a nursing time in human spaceflight where everybody was a reading for everyone else. Im not sure that you happening anywhere right now. Were tried to commit to say okay, lets all be mutually supportive within the confines of the competition. Because this this is a National Policy and as you mentioned we are all going to have to stay committed to it through good times and bad. Thats how the station has lived so long and thats how the shuttle flew. Its a little different from going to the moon so we have to be sustainable. Number two, we must have a new generation of talent seeing themselves in this. The museums, the work we do to make sure that early career people get a lot of access to people like Chris Ferguson, and those of you in the room, many people in the room, we all must invest time and time in that by are the artemis generation. If were not going to have that human gap, they are going to carry the torch. Whats left me is maybe to pass on a few lessons. You know what, its pretty exciting to build to carry the torch come you should do but also excited to pass it up another future is bright. Thanks for taking the time for sharing with us not just what boeing is doing but the perspective on the overall architecture. Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm. Thats whats most exciting is this is a just a brief moment in time. This is a moment in time that is going to define future history. Its pretty excited to be a part of, and a privilege you took the time to share with us today or thought about it. Thank you thanks for doing it. I think youll find the same enthusiasm all over the audience. Join me in thanking gym jimr spending time with us today. [applause] and now, eric graham, right to Affairs North america at one web. Lord topic, seen by present Global Launch Service at rocket labs usa, Brigadier General Wayne Monteith, associate administrator for commercial space transportation, federal aviation administration. John serafini, chief executive officer at hawkeye 360. And doctor kerry buckley, Vice President of air force programs, said for programs and technology, the mitre corporation. Good morning. Good morning. Its great to be here with all of you. The topic for our panel this morning is the involving regular join date for commercial space and the earth orbits operations. So thank you all for being with me. I think we all know that the future of space led operations is going to be shaped by the increased demand of the volume and diversity of commercial space. We also know that this is a global challenge, and it really calls for the safe and responsible behavior from the International Community as well as capabilities in areas such as space domain awareness, space Traffic Management continued innovation. We also know we need to account for challenges in National Security while at the same time enabling growth in the commercial sector and promoting standards for safe launch in space at the International Community. To do this its going to take a hold of government approach as well as continued collaboration between government and industry. We are very fortunate that our federal agencies are looking to focus on those regulatory processes to help streamline the activities and the regulations that we need to do that. We are going to a great panel this morning. Lets discuss this meaty topic, so he offered hurt some of the names on the go through and do some introduction again very quickly. To the right of me i have john serafini, again the chief executive officer with hawkeye 360. Brigadier general Wayne Monteith who just told me he had made three promises to himself when he retired. Was it to make days ago this time last year . One was not working, again. One was not to live in the washington metropolitan area again, and you can see how successful he is been at that. Thank you for joining us. We also eric graham who has been in his role for just three months as the director directoo affairs at one web. Again, take you for joining. Lets jump in. We just have all a bit of time together. My first question, im going to give you, general monteith. If you could just walk us through some of the regulatory approaches that you are taking to streamline. What are some of the key points of contention in the area and how are you working to balance those considerations. Was first off, it was great to get space policy directive number two i chose directing us to streamline our regular construct online, four to the the rules into one. The cornerstones, number one, is moving from a prescriptive approach, what we tell you what to do and how to solve problems, to a performancebased approach which will unleash innovation while still maintaining Public Safety. And also being able to do a single license for multiple launches from multiple locations, which is just one of the ways we are looking to help us keep up with, if not stay head of this tremendous increase in both cadence and complexity in this industry. We have to have a light, as light a regular touch as possible to enable this business. Good, thank you to im to turn it over to eric next to talk about one web and some of the ways that one web is looking to promote the sustainable of leo constellations in space, and how does the new constellation design, how do those change the nature of operations and again what are the concerns and how might Regulatory Reform help to address the challenges that are emerging . Sure. We heard already this morning that there are so many more satellites that were authorized within the last year at the fcc that would exist in space today in lowearth orbit. As you see these large constellations that are necessary to connect the entire world, stop adjustment and think with that wired communication for over a century. We find wireless terrestrial communications for decades now at massive portion of the earth computer parts of the United States are still left uncovered. These leo constellations by the constellations that will be able to connect those areas, connect those people to the economy. Were talking billions on earth who are still not connected. Its message of these large numbers of satellites in lowearth orbit, but its just as necessary to think about what happens to the satellites once theyre up there. Think of a succeeding 99 uptime and thats pretty good but when you talk about thousand satellites, thats a large number of dead satellites per 1 failure is a large number of dead satellites that up there. Id like terrestrial collisions unlike which can be swept up, gravity is something us out, all it takes is a broom and a big dustpan to conclude anything. You get to space its not that easy. That impact has a ripple effect, Chain Reaction potential particles that cant be tracked but can destroy future satellites or that can puncture the space station, for instance. So we have to think about what happens to the satellites after endoflife. You have to have certainty that the satellites will be orbit in the proper way. One thing that one web is focus on in space is how we make our satellites capable of being retrieved should something go wrong. That technology is not quite there right now, but active debris removal in space is something that we look at. So responsible space is a major divorce. We launched a website responsible that space that brings together all the principles that guide us as we design a selfless, make sure their operational on earth before we put them into space. As we follow our deployment plan, launches starting next year. Can you talk to us a little bit about some of the challenges that you see from that International Perspective and the way some of our, the other place in space might challenge some of the things you just described . Yeah, so there has to be International Cooperation around how we get the satellites into space and what happens to them once they are out there. And the concern that we have as a satellite operator is countries getting ahead of each other and going in different directions. You can only lead if everyone follows. If you lead and no one follows binger an outlier. The thing that hurts companies as we plan is are we following the outlier . What happens when theres not some sort of regulatory consistency . So International Bodies exist. We met to work on spectrum, and thats a good example of a place where countries can step out from the group and make things more difficult for the operators. That puts risk connectivity in that country. Said john, im going to turn over to the we just heard about some regulatory uncertainty. We heard from general monteith about kind of a lightweight regulatory processes which i do put in place, but tell me from kind of that start up community what are some of the uncertainties in the regulatory space right now . How did the impact startups in commercial space . Said the best way to think about is from a fundraising perspective, always your most paramount mission. At the Venture Capital investor in a startup operator, ive seen an interesting paradigm shift, which is more vcs are risk embracing as relates to a lack of a defined policy regime. Because theres less whitespace out there, traditionally, for new companies to be traded. In order for the next Great American company to take off, sometimes they have to be in the gravy gray zone. I would point to uber, airbnb, companies that were established before the Regulatory Regime was established. You walk outside and sell these line scooters. There was a obligatory regime outstanding for how those scooters should or should not be in place on the street but the one hit and it anyways. So vcs looking for the next great thing, right as we answer is of a bad thing, but that is an offset, which is a realtor and 70 has to come down as the art of capital goes up here space ecosystem given the capital intensity, that means regular and certainly early on is more dangerous point so if for a company like hawkeye, has raised over 100 million, will raise more in the future, inc. Able to showcase to our investors at larger fundraising totals that the Regulatory Risk has reduced is very important. Can you share a a little bit about how the faa and commerce have been interacting with it, especially startups . As i mentioned earlier, its not only the increase in cadence but its complexity. Its working with startups and trying to come up with, and working to a predatory construct that supports companies Regulatory Companies doing this for decades where they are launching almost every week the companies that will not launch of the two three years but have very in a way innovative plan to get to orbit. So it is laying the foundation that does not stifle innovation. Actually empowers innovation, but also creates that regulatory certainty so that investors are encouraged to come into the market so that we can maintain Global Leadership and not lose out in this sector. And so whether its coming up with ways, for instance, Safety Systems on board a rocket. You would think, just makes intuitive sense, you have to have the ability to stop and eric rocket but what if you had, you are launching from a place where the impact if something goes wrong errant rocket docket simply negligible. You still need a Safety System on board. No, i would try to come up with a construct and instead of turning all that extra weight and that complexity on your rocket it is simpler, simple to design, simpler to get to orb. You can carry more to orbit and you could get your license through quicker. When i look at what we do, its maintaining Public Safety and we been doing this for 35 years here we have never suffered a tattled or injury to the nondefault public, is keeping it Going Forward also like these companies to innovate and go fast. Great, thank you. That was a great late into some of the things you and i have been talking about. You shared that you are moving your next launch i believe to long island, right . This spring. So if you could talk to us a little bit about how the new footprint of launch activity both in the u. S. And worldwide are evolving and really for you what does drive the launch location by commercial provider . Like a lot of thinks its really driven by market demand. We have been operating out of new zealand where we have launched now nine times, launch number ten coming up this week, but were getting to open up in virginia. The reason is we have customers that prefer to launch from your soil and we can reach a lot of different orbits there. When you picking out a launch site location, market demand is going to be a big driver because you have a Business Case that closes. You also driven by geography and chill political considerations. Consideration. You want to make sure youre in a spot that is going to take advantage if you can come close to did he quit, you want to make sure youre launching out over open spaces and if something does go wrong or not endangering the public but you also want to be in a stable location through not worried about whether or not you be able to launch weather is a factor as well. Its all these considerations. So for us operating the first private Launch Complex out of new zealand has worked out perfectly. We can watch up to one and 20 times per year there. With a great partnerships with the faa and licensing our launches and also a load licensing. They had been a huge help to us in terms of a start up getting up and running and have been able to launch on a monthly cadence. We have had a good fcc and noaa as well for their licensing. Thats all worked out quite well now, launching out of the island is a nasa facility so it interacting more with other Government Agencies and of the partisan launching from the state Launch Complex web a good part of their as well. You mention launching on a monthly cadence. Lets stress the system of it and take this board to a weekly basis look across what the future may have in store for us. A question maybe for each of you on the panel. When you think about this increase in volume and this possible of weekly launches, what will be needed both from Space Operations and error operations domain to make this successful . I open it up to the panel. Launches that frequent are actually necessary for a company like one web. We built a satellite factor in florida where at peak production we can produce two of our satellites a day, and we are launching 3036 satellites per launch to build the constellation as quickly as we need to. Thats just one in gsl operator. Add a couple more in their plus any other missions and weekly cadence of launches is not out of the realm of possibility becomes a necessity so the respite away to chordate that come away for the folks who had of launch vehicles manage it, and then of course once your satellites get up there thats where our people fly the satellites and other countries do the same thing, and we are to coordinate up there as well. We are on a path to launch a week. In 2020, its once once a month, probably twice a month. Its altered my market demand but the market commit across government and commercial customers worldwide is rising steadily, as we talked with earlier. The path that the economy, spe economy is on is leading us in this direction. Which in comparison make to the metaindustry, if you look at the airline industry, same sot of growth pattern over the last few decades or the early decades and we are on the same path. When general monteith was running the 45th space wing and set them on a path afford it launches you, that wasnt one launch provider but multiple launch providers. The challenge was to the whole enterprise to be able to support that. For hawkeye, the challenge or the bali which is a launch but yeah. Its the manufacturing capacity in the United States. American manufacturers of microsatellite buses is relatively paltry. Most of them are r d type facilities, are not many set a pesco, particularly with not only u. S. Operations but u. S. Ownership and principally u. S. Supply chain. That is difficult to find an scale. So we need to encourage that and set policy to allow that manufacturing facility here in the u. S. To flourish. Thank you. When we look across, what these comp is trying to do, again we have to have the right regulatory construct. My office has to be agile, responsive and have to be fast. We can do that. In the last seven years, our Licensing Activity has increased about 1000 . We see is the potential for that to happen again over the next five years, and so 2012, my office, we had essential 25 people to do a single license. Now im down to less than three. We cant keep that cadence up unless we do a couple of things. One, we need to hire good new poster were honest look at her. If you know someone whos out there was in this business and wants to become a regulator, which which is exceptionally exciting. [laughing] but so is that increased by to get increased the size of my office by 1000 so we have to get more efficient and more effective at the. Streamlined role we talked about. That will be one part of the tickets also reorganizing our office. In april secretary chao announced we would restructure the office of commercial space transportation. Happy to announce that steve dixon, my boss, whom you will hear from you today, just the proof that reorganization last night. That will allow us to be more responsive industry as we move forward. Now, with that cadence, the other issue that you got is getting into airspace, the on ramp or getting through. I look at it like an on rent on a four way. You have to be able to safely get there. We have to move, and we are, moving from segregation and segregated the airspace to integrating. One of the things we did is we moved responsibility for integrating space transportation into the National Airspace system for my office to air traffic organization. That own the requirements. That own their priorities, the funding. They will get this done. There is nobody better in the world at airspace integration that them. Because even though the impact right now with the commercial space Transportation Industry is relatively small, its going to increase. And on the other side, one general aviation aircraft can stop it launch with a Single Person on board. We have to be able to use this limited airspace effectively. The faa is committed to doing that. Great, thank you. So lets take that out a little bit further. As the surface that the space Traffic Management evolves and loses to commerce, what will be some of the significant changes and what should the commercial players hope to gain as this moves out of more than dod domain into the commerce domain . I can start that. Im going to sound like a broken record. Safety. As it shifts to commerce and out of dod realm and still have all those exquisite sensors providing data, first and foremost the sound foundation has to be safety. Without kind of safety construct or an eye toward safety, there is no commerce. Those who suggest we are at the beginning of the castle effect of debris creating more debris and creating an horrible regime so we can no longer use, so we have to be sensitive to that. Without that we have no ability to take advantage of this chilean dollar economy. And so whether its getting to the airspace were actually functioning once youre on orbit, folks quite frankly have to play well. You have to be sensitive about the debris that you leave. You have to be sensitive about moving out of another satellite or another satellites orbit path. I was in the organization in the air force when they hit. That was a bad day. Fortunately we have seen any more of those but its out there. Its going to happen at some point. Let me hear from the kind of, a commercial player perspective on what your needs are and what youre expecting from kind of this new Regulatory Environment we are entering into. If we want to evolve into a period where we are launching almost like airline take it off and landing a major airports, and integrate into the National Airspace system as we transit through there, and have to adopt to the rules of the road. In ways that we can do is both regulatory and technology. One of the evolutions thats happening right now is the move from a command and structure where we rely on a lot of sound systems and humans through an autonomous flight Safety System or autonomous termination which is on point that provides a lot of benefits. Its actually a safer model. Were going to be launching using autonomous flight termination on our upcoming launch and thats our standard. The government has come in and said this is so important, so good that we want to set that as a standard for everybody to migrate to by 2023 with the target date set. Thats going to help move that direction and thats very beneficial. Another thing is being responsible participant in the space environment, whether youre a satellite operator, whether youre a launch provider. And so our mantra is lets only leave the satellite, the payload on orbit and its got regulatory requirements to the orbit over time. We do want to leave in other parts of of the company of the debris so we do orbit anything else, try to back our booster and we use our booster so we want to be responsible. Theres some of these norms and practices that are starting to come into effect that are going to help the whole industry move in that direction. We obviously care about the quality of the conjunction of notification we receive. Who provides that to us, we are kind of agnostic. We dont necessarily have a viewpoint on that. We just care about quality of service and assure that we get the information that is necessary as timely as possible. From a technology perspective, its the global tragedy of what we have seen. We do a lot of work looking for bad actors who are using that Global Common in nefarious ways, human smuggling, et cetera. It takes all of us with a concerted effort to be good stewards [ inaudible ] thousands of spacecraft but if we are all not following the orbital degree requirements and statutes, then shame on us. The pace of innovation these days makes the regulators job probably harder than its ever been. Regulators have a very difficult job to do and on one extreme, you have the viewpoint of the regulators should control everything down to the cover of the rocket, perhaps. On the other extreme, you have people who would say regulators have no business here, youre going to destroy my innovation. My job is to go fast and break things. The right place, as so often is the case, is somewhere in the middle. We believe theres a place for forethought in regulation, and a framework that we can all follow. You cannot have the wild west when youre talking about Something Like space which is a common area for people, which can be destroyed for the future by one or two bad actors. So i dont envy the job of the regulators. We truly appreciate the job theyre doing and i think all of this comes back to, you are hearing this from general monteith, the value of foresight within the regulatory agencies. And we see this with other agencies around the globe that we have to work with. Some of the regulations that we are having to work through, most in fact, are designed for geostationary operators, not ngso so what might have been appropriate for a single satellite sitting above the equator are suddenly impossible when you are dealing with 1,000, 2,000 or more satellites. So the pace of regulatory change has to keep up with the pace of innovation and so theres probably a need today for more collaboration between stake holders and regulators than ever before. We talk about the government as regulators but they are also facilitators. As it transitions from one agency to another, you know, commerce is more about promoting the commerce of space here and their facilitator role. There are also companies that are going to help facilitate as well, companies that are tracking very small objects in space and helping augment the government tracking space awareness. You have Companies Like astroskill that are looking for active debris removal constructs and models that are really on the forefront of that because we talk about the threat of orbital debris but we dont have solutions for it right now other than to wait it out and thats not really a good solution. The current debris standards requires the orbit within 25 years so that was written long ago, when 25 years seemed reasonable. 25 years is completely unacceptable today. So thats going to drive the whole economy, the whole space economy, all of the participants to upgrade, just like we talked earlier about autonomous flight termination systems, the new model, new standard we are migrating toward in the shorter time period. Lars brings up an interesting point. In the faa, my organization is unique in that under title 51 of the u. S. Code, we also have a responsibility to encourage, facilitate, promote not just safety, and we take particularly the facilitate part to heart. That allows us to be able to lean a little further forward than some regulatory agencies may be able to lean, because we do, for whatever reason, the government still considers this, after 60 years, a nascent industry so we at least got the faa to stop calling space transportation new entrants, this idea at what point do we become just standard, but we call it encourage, facilitate, promote, allows us to find that right regulatory construct to enable these companies to be successful. Thank you. We have just a few more minutes. What im going to do rather than posing another question to the panel, just give each of you an opportunity to kind of share perhaps from the perspective of the chair that youre sitting in, whats the next most exciting thing that youre looking forward to in this area of commercial space and what scares you most . John, start with you. Well, what scares me the most, its an area that i think is light on Regulatory Oversight right now and thats not the hardware, the launch, its the data. The attack vectors endemic with data, particularly data thats flowing into National Systems and architectures. That data has to be trustworthy, has to be cyberprotected and i dont think thats a point of emphasis for a lot of cybersecurity, particularly cybersecurity startup companies, without the kind of resources which hawkeye has but others do not. Im concerned about cybersecurity. Thank you. From an excited perspective, being on the horizon of human space flight participants. We dont call it passengers because we dont regulate to passengers yet, but getting more folks access to space which i think will continue to generate a tremendous amount of excitement to go along with the tremendous opportunity for business. What scares me, doesnt really scare me, but concerns me, is we are regulating, we are living in buck rogers time right now. This is just exciting. As a little boy, if you cant drive a truck for a living, being able to be in the rocket launch business is about the next best thing. As i try to regulate this industry, im governed by an act from 1940, the administrative procedures act. So im trying to regulate space transportation on with a foundation that was set before we even had jet aircraft. We want to go fast, we want to have that light regulatory touch. That concerns me. Thank you. So most exciting, what youre hearing right here, awareness of both the challenges and the problems is the First Step Towards making improvements and innovating and opening up this new frontier, which we have to do. Theres no question. Theres forecasts of a trillion dollar space economy by 2040. What we dont want is a bubble, we build it and no one shows up. We want to do it in a responsible manner but we also dont need to fear it so there is a tremendous opportunity to open up low earth orbit in the next couple of years. I think you will see that. Going to the moon, all of these things is all going to stretch us and move us that direction so its a very exciting time. We need to do it in a responsible manner. We touched on some of the things that we worry about a bit. They are all manageable and i think awareness of these and taking responsible steps is the path to approach those. Thank you. Last word . Im really excited about the coming year. We are on the cusp of unlocking the Global Economy for half the worlds population. Im not quite at the age where i remember space being Science Fiction. I remember it being for astronauts. And we are to the point now, you will see this coming online next year and certainly the year after, where space is becoming for everyone, not just for astronauts, not just something out of a Science Fiction movie. 2020 is a year of scale. Thats when our cadence of launches becomes regular and the constellation will start to do customer demos, then come into full service in 2021. Full coverage of the globe, something thats never happened before and something that we will be the ones to provide. All right. I think were out of time. I want to thank each of you for joining me for this exciting conversation about regulatory processes. Thank you very much. [ applause ] and now, Vice President and general manager, Propulsion Systems division at Northrop Grummond and former nasa astronaut. Good morning. Hows everybody doing . Im delighted to represent Northrop Grummond at the Second Annual conference on launching the space economy. Im here to tell you about Northrop Grummonds omega launch vehicle but first i want to amrau the chamber for promoting the advances that are happening in space. You noted the rapidly evolving space sector has the potential to create new markets and opportunities that will transform the economy as we know it, which means now is the time for greater government and Industry Collaboration to chart our path forward into the economy of the future. To the point on government Industry Collaboration, i want to also commend the Leadership Team at the air force headquarters as well as the space and Missile Systems center, Whose Mission is to deliver resilient and affordable Space Capabilities to defend the nation. The air forces acquisition approach for National Security space launch to modernize that National Security space launch has enabled unprecedented levels of collaboration with industry and has yielded a Record Number of offerings. This has accelerated fueling the next generation of space lift systems and kept us on track to meet some aggressive goals. The air force has done this while addressing some significant risks and challenges like meeting a congressional mandate to eliminate our dependency on the russian rd1h engines by the end of 2022. This approach has enabled significant Corporate Investment and by leveraging a shared investment from both government and industry, they have enabled highly innovative approaches to space launch which will position us for a more sustainable future. Later today, you are going to hear from speakers who will address important topics like ensuring the u. S. Remains the center of the future space economy and ensuring u. S. Technological dominance in space as well as discussing the risks of losing u. S. Space dominance, and what is at stake. These topics i believe appropriately focus on the risks that we must manage to be successful. So i thought i would talk to you about omega today in terms of how it addresses risk and enables Mission Success for our nation. Specifically, Northrop Grummans approach and our unique way of viewing how we want to solve these risks for the air force is through the lens of three key areas, key risks. Financial risk and then the physical or Operational Risk and then National Security risk. As for financial risk, its well known that building and launching rockets has been an expensive endeavor. Its a capitalintensive business requiring large facilities and tooling and the harnessing of massive amounts of energy. As those of us in business recognize, perhaps the bane of our existence of the tyranny of overhead costs. For every rocket that makes it to the launch pad, the price paid by the customer covers much more than just the direct cost of building it. Behind the vehicle itself were payments to cover depreciation on the companys tooling and facilities, meaning that we have reserves to replace them as they wear out, medical and benefit plans for the work force, taxes, utilities, shipping and transportation costs, insurance and much more. The fact that space launch is so capitalintensive drives most launch providers to pursue large annual flight rates, to spread those costs over more rockets. This approach works well in years when theres a large demand for launches, but history has shown that projected launch rates dont always materialize. And given these lessons of the past, today the air force is right to address its financial risk by demanding that todays competitors show that they will not be dependent on a Large Air Force launch manifest for their business to be viable. Now, Northrop Grumman is the only company among the launch competitors that sells many, many more products than its launch vehicles. Meaning that our overhead costs dont have to be covered by just omega. Instead, they are spread over many other programs that provide a tremendous economy of scale. When we set about developing omega we did not have to add new facilities or a large new work force. Instead we added on to the margins of what already existed. Omega comes from the same plants that provide the dods and nasa systems such as the trident, Minute Man Nuclear missile fleets, the sos launch vehicles and others. In fact, the core stage of omega is in form, fit and function nearly identical to the sls booster segments to enable sinnsi synergy. Omega is a launch vehicle that adds a few more components to the existing manufacturing lines of those other programs. While with this robust approach, Northrop Grumman will be there as a reliable partner when the economy suffers a downturn. Similarly, omega leverages underutilized facilities at Nasas Kennedy Space Center to dramatically drive down launch Operations Costs that would come with the unique infrastructure for just one rocket. The air force will receive cost benefit from omegas sharing nasas sls vertical assembly building, the mobile launch platform and the launch pad. This is also good news for nasa, as they will lower costs for human exploration heavy lift. Northrop grummans approach for managing overhead costs and sharing resources is unique in the National Security space launch competition, and allows the omega Business Case to close on very few launches per year without the need for complex reusable systems. Finally, Northrop Grumman is the only company among the competitors thats publicly traded, bringing the highest level of financial accountability and transparency. When the air force looks to address its financial risk with the future launch vehicle acquisitions, this is not a trivial consideration. By spreading Business Risk across a large and diverse product portfolio, we have the ability to be there when the going gets tough. The second risk i mentioned was the physical or Operational Risk. As for the physical nature of launching vehicles, the air force has always placed very High Expectations on reliability and resilience in the systems they will procure. Obviously, with over 130 successful consecutive launches, its understandable that they want to maintain that high level of quality while striving to do better on cost. So with omega, Northrop Grumman took an approach that leveraged broad experience across our entire business, particularly in mission assurance. That begins with design simplicity, which reduces the likelihood of a failure. Omega is the only launch offering that leverages solid propulsion in a significant proportion of the overall design. This brings several clear benefits. First is a historical track record of lower failure rates than other Propulsion Systems, and now in both liquid and solid propulsion have come quite a long way in reliability over the years, and theres not a huge significant difference in them statistically, but on 500 flight streak historically, we would expect one failure of a solid motor as compared to four failures with liquid engine systems. But perhaps a greater consideration is the balance of risk the omega design brings to the fleet options available to the air force. Part of assured access comes with dissimilar redundancies which are solid propulsion offers. Furthermore, omegas design simplifies launch operations. Once a solid propulsion system is stacked on the launch pad, there are very few things to preclude launching it. Fewer liquid propelant valve leaks, fewer moving parts which leads to fewer scrubs, greater launch availability and enhanced Mission Readiness and resilience for the air force. Finally comes the National Security risk that i mentioned. Northrop grumman is the only competitor for space launch that serves National Security systems for the dod across a very broad array of systems from cybersecurity systems to Mission Planning and control facility operations, aircraft, spacecraft, missiles, armaments and yes, launch vehicles. Northrop grumman is a Company Built around National Securitys needs. With this heritage comes an unwavering commitment to the air force and the air forces mission to achieve highly reliable and sustainable launch capability. Although we all want to see this nation return to the moon and go on to mars and having flown in space four times, no one wants to see that more than me, we also recognize that enabling the economic freedoms of this great nation depends on unsurpassed National Security capabilities, and to that end, we are 100 focused on the air force mission first, and we recognize that once operational, omega will offer an affordable, highperforming option for commercial and Exploration Mission needs as well. So omegas on track for first certification launch in early 2021, an impressive timeline to field a major new system. We have groundtested the core booster that meets the air force need to replace the russian rd180. Many of you watched our first ground test which verified essentially perfect thrust and performance. The results of that test further helped engineers refine and validate our models, increasing our readiness for flight. The upper stage engines for first flight are ready and our liquid upper stage manufacturing is well under way in louisiana. At the Kennedy Space center, we are modifying one of nasas mobile launch platforms to be able to handle the omega and that structure will be rising above the kennedy skyline beginning in january. Its been my pleasure to share with you our approach to omega and the challenges of the National Security space launch mission. Perhaps some of these concepts resonate with your own business or can serve to advise you in your own future business choices, but at Northrop Grumman, its a privilege to be part of the Space Community and we look forward to our collective success in the future. If you would like to learn more, we welcome you to join us at our booth in the exhibit area. I thank you very much. [ applause ] please welcome the honorable mike griffith, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, u. S. Department of defense. Well, already im at a disadvantage. I cant see you but you can see me. I want to use my time this morning with you in about a 50 50 increment. Im going to talk for maybe 20 minutes and then i would like to take questions and ive got a great timer here to keep me on track. Because its always my impression that people would rather bend the flavor of the discussion toward topics in which theyre interested rather than just hear me pontificate. So let me get things started. You all are about commercial space. I know about space in general, but about commercial space, and u. S. Technical dominance in space. We are, after all, here in the u. S. Chamber of commerce. Space is an area that from a commercial perspective, remains intriguing and so im going to try to talk a little bit about that, and how the commercial perspective blends in with what were trying to do in National Security space, but i want to start at the top level, if i might. The u. S. Government buys an awful lot of different kinds of things. We buy things that range from Aircraft Carriers and submarines and f35 fighters and we buy microchips. Now, what will not be lost on this group, there are as yet there is as yet no commercial demand for an Aircraft Carrier or a missilecarrying submarine and i think very little commercial demand for fighter aircraft. On the other hand, there is actually percentagewise very little demand on the part of the government and the National Security community for microchips. Yes, we have an enormous appetite for chips, but we are something less than 1 of that market. So the best thing in that side of the spectrum that the u. S. Government can do and the department of defense and the National Security community writ large can do, the best thing we can do is to invest in certain areas where our microcircuitry demands are unique and not part of the commercial sector, such as chips that are designed to withstand prompt nuclear dose or longterm high radiation exposure. In other areas, to simply follow the market and do our best to stay, if you will, out of its way. Whereas with Aircraft Carriers, we have to drive that market. We have to be the designer and the promulgator of Aircraft Carriers or they wont happen. Space is somewhere in the middle. There is a commercial demand for space, and all that space brings, and it is growing. I believe that during my time at nasa, i was one of the people who strongly pushed for more of that. We pioneered in my stint at nasa, we pioneered the development of the commercial Cargo Resupply Services to space station. So i regard myself as a cardcarrying supporter of as much commercial space as the United States can bring to bear. At the same time, in the present era, the demand for commercial space is insufficient to maintain the kind of Industrial Base we need and in fact, the demand for National Security and other civil government space sustains that market. I would like it to be i would like one day to believe we will reach in commercial space the status we have in microchips, where we are 1 of the demand, because that would mean we have a thriving economic sector making money out of space, and the government could simply buy what it needs and invest in those areas where commercial sector doesnt tread. Were not there yet. So as we think through how we develop and sustain both National Security space and commercial space, i think we should have an eye to each other in how we can synergize those developments. There are u. S. Government policies that we can in place and support that will provide sustenance to the commercial sector and there are commercial sector behaviors and investments that can help sustain National Security space. Why do i care . What problem, in fact, are we trying to solve here . Well, from the perspective of my present position, the problem we are trying to solve is that space is no longer an uncontested u. S. Operational domain. We have today the Space Architecture that i would have designed, frankly, in an era in which we had no adversaries. Space has been critical to our way of fighting war in the mideast and the balkans and before that, the mideast again, and it remains critical to our way of fighting war should we have to engage again in great power competition. The problem is that our adversaries know that. China and russia are investing, have invested in methods by which they seek to nullify our space advantage, knowing it to be a critical advantage. So we, the United States, along with our partners and allies, are going to have to rethink our Space Architecture from the ground up and critically, we are going to have to evolve the pace and the style with which we enable those new Space Architectures. This takes us to the Space Development agency, which was the dods response to the congressional question in ndaa18 of dod, how do you plan to manage space for the future. I collaborated with then deputy secretary shanahan and many others in the air force and across the dod, we collaborated together to advance a plan, the socalled 1601 report, by which the department would seek to manage space in the future, particularly with regard to enabling the kinds of Development Timelines that we used to enjoy back when we were serious about great power competition. Ill just add an ancillary remark in that vein. I think all here know that our government acquisition timelines tend toward the 15year mark on average from statement of need to operational capability. Our adversaries are using three and fouryear timelines consistent with what we used to be able to do. I have often quoted this example. Only because it is so, from a certain perspective, heartbreaking. When the f117a Stealth Fighter was developed, 32 months after the contract was signed, there was an airplane on the ramp. 32 months. For something that had never in Human History been designed and built. We would be arguing about the requirements in todays environment for 32 months. If we cant relearn how to do what we once knew how to do better than any other society, we will not prevail. So the Space Development agency was created within dod to work outside the existing acquisition system, to work with commercial space, to work with the purveyors of new architectures that would be more proliferated, more resilient and above all else, more timely in their application. There were two overwhelming needs that are first entrants in the new architecture needed to provide. Those two overwhelming needs are robust and resilient communications, what we have been referring to as the communications transport layer, designed to consist of a network of low earth orbitting satellites to provide so many targets that our adversaries cannot easily remove them and certainly cannot remove them in a pearl harbor type strike. And secondly, secondarily, the development of a surveillance and tracking layer that can see the conventional hypersonic glide body threats that in particular, china and secondarily, russia are developing and deploying. These threats have actually fairly robust signatures, but the signatures are some 15 times lesser in magnitude on average than the Strategic Missile threats that are existing, overhead constellations are designed to observe. Simply put, we need to be closer to the action or we need much larger and more powerful optics, farther from the action. It is our thought that we need to be closer in and so the secondary function of the Space Development agency is to develop and deploy that tracking layer. This will give us the persistent global low latency surveillance tracking, targeting and fire control that we really have to have to meet these new threats. Now, if we take as our paradigm that this is going to be government business as usual, then i dont know what the outcome will be, but i believe that based on now nearly 50 years of experience in the business, i can guarantee what the outcome wont be. The outcome wont be affordable and it wont be timely. So we need, if we are going to develop proliferated Space Architectures, whether in low orbit or medium orbit or high orbit, if we are going to develop proliferated Space Architectures, we need for National Security purposes to adopt commercial sector manufacturing practices. Now, please parse my statement carefully. I do not say that we in the National Security community are going to go out and simply buy commercial assets and deploy them to meet National Security needs. There may be some cases in which we can do that, especially where we merely want to rent time, but there will be many other cases where thats not practical. I dont believe theres a commercial sector need for a tracking layer, nor necessarily a commercial sector need for communications in theater and so on. However, we in the National Security community do have a crying need, an overwhelming need, to modernize our development, manufacturing and deployment practices for our space assets, and i believe that this can only come from the commercial community, than we in the National Security community and the Government Community writ large have much to learn, in fact, have nearly everything to learn from the commercial sector which is trying to stand itself up today to deploy similar constellations. Im indifferent as to which contractor succeeds. I hope many do. We need competitors. I think the dod needs to be prepared to engage commercial sector contractors in building to our demands let me rephrase that. I think the dod needs to engage commercial sector contractors in building to our requirements the things we need, but by the methods that the commercial sector can bring and that the dod has yet to learn. When we need a new fleet of automobiles for the dod, we dont set out to design our own automobiles. We set out to take automobiles produced by the automobile Manufacturing Sector in the United States, in some cases, in most cases we modify those a little bit for our own needs, but we ask the commercial sector to produce them for us. I believe thats the right strategy, writ large, whenever we can do so, if we can buy something that we need using best commercial practice or modifications thereof to suit our needs, that should be our path. And that is the path we intend to go down with the Space Development agency. By these means, i believe that we will be able to produce the necessary redundancy, resilience, proliferation, persistence, timeliness that our Space Architecture needs to be able to deter the wars of the future or win them if we have to fight. Thank you very much. Im going to leave the rest of the Time Available to you for questions, and it would be really great if somebody could turn down the lights on me and turn up the lights on the audience. Thank you. [ applause ] im not sure there is any view which is enhanced by having more light on me. So questions, please. Hi. Thank you. Patrick tucker from defense one. I wonder if you can speak briefly to beyond just overwhelming numbers of small satellites leading to resiliency. What are some of the defensive either strategies or capabilities that youre looking to develop in next generation architectures, possibly including thrusters and greater mobility or whatever else beyond just resiliency through large numbers . Thank you. Thats a good question. The value of im not seeking, we are not seeking to proliferate our Space Architecture merely to have greater numbers of smaller satellites. If it is to be our architecture, that has to be the solution to a problem, not the problem itself. The solutions that we are talking about for National Security space rely us to be in the words that i used earlier, persistent, meaning all the time, global, meaning everywh e everywhere, and low latanc late timely, meaning when i need it. In particular, the hypersonic threat that we face that i believe is now common knowledge, are systems crafted with the express goal of flying above u. S. And allied air defenses and below missile defenses. Its a new arena. Its one where the United States really pioneered the r d in this but chose not to weaponize it. We werent looking for another arms race. Our adversaries have chosen to weaponize it. We really have very little choice, we have to respond. As im fond of saying, its not a difficult target. Its a target for which decoys are not readily possible. So when you see it, you know its a threat, and there is a relatively long cruise phase for such weapons, but their speed is so great that you have to spot it way far out to use a colloquialism. You have to see it coming for longer than we can do using radars positioned at the point of defense, and radars, i would offer again, are also a target. So we need better surveillance. We need persistent, timely global surveillance. Now, in fact, that can be done from high orbit. We see these things today from high orbit. The trouble is that to piece together a trajectory takes quite a bit of time, so it is not low latency. The signatures are quite dim and not persistent. Its a real work of art to tease the glide body tracks out of the data. Thats not a war fighting solution. As i said a minute ago, we can use bigger optics for sure, but thats an expensive solution which will still result in only a few very high value targets. Some years ago, our now vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff gave an interview to 60 minutes in which he referred, if i recall correctly, referred to these high value assets as juicy argumentargets. I dont think a better phrase has been coined so i will repeat it. Our goal is to attain the necessary persistent, timely global surveillance without creating an environment consisting of juicy targets for the adversary. Thats the best answer i can give you. Other questions . Yes, maam. Same table. Theresa hitchens. Thank you for your presentation. I have a twopart question. It has to do with communications in space. You said that with the transport layer, you dont believe theres a commercial market to be able to provide those, i think thats what you said, im paraphrasing, i want to make sure i got the gist of that correct. Secondly, the air force through a program called Global Lightning is experimenting with using the star link satellites for exactly that, to create a communications transport capability to aircraft. I wondered how we might be thinking about or working with that program. Im not going to endorse any contractor or any contractors solution. As i said, you know, my honest hope is that several succeed. Thats not a throwaway line. I honestly hope that several such Communications Ventures succeed. If and as they do, i think we, the National Security community, would be foolish not to be major purchasers of time on those systems. 80 in round numbers of our Dod Communications links are purchased today and i see no reason why we would depart from that. Now, that said, i think, theresa, you may have overstated my remarks a little bit, or i may have been insufficiently precise. The National Security community has an absolute need for guaranteed communications. It has to be guaranteed in wartime when we really need it, not that it doesnt have a day job in peacetime, but it has to be guaranteed in war time. It has to be guaranteed against harsh environments, both manmade and natural. It has to be to the extent that we can do so, secure in its communications. It has a number of requirements which frankly do not attain in a purely commercial environment and in which a commercial purveyor would be unlikely to invest money. Those kinds of additional requirements dont grace a balance sheet. So there has to be, in my view, a National Security communications substructure to any future architecture that we might either buy for ourselves or rent from other people that can be guaranteed. Thats going to come at a price. I dont expect that were going to get something for nothing. So we at the dod are going to have to invest in the provider or providers to provide these extra things in exactly the same way that much of what we buy in the microcircuitry line is purely commercial, but some things we buy that have to be ruggedize or have to withstand high radiation environments are just different and we have to pay more for those. Im not trying to parse words, but i think the difference between meeting a guaranteed National Security need and running a commercial business, i think there is a difference there, and we will come to grief if we dont recognize it. Now, that said, i dont want us to fall back on, you know, handbuilt, one of a kind traditional methods of building spacecraft in onesies and twosies in order to meet that need. My hope for the future and hope is not a management tool, but my hope for the future is that we can use commercial sector methods where appropriate to manufacture the items we need to address National Security requirements. I dont know that i have put it well enough, but i dont believe i can put it any better. Good morning. Jeff traverman. Hey, jeff. Good to see you. Good to almost see you. Good to see you again. Here in the United States, we have a pretty clear delineation between the public and private sectors in space and in other industries. Around the world, its not necessarily the case. Some countries, rising space powers are happy to provide Space Capabilities through Public Sector and sort of possible private sector entities that may be really statesupported. Anyway, my question is do you have any concern about that . Is the dod buying on the strategy of the margin of the u. S. Commercial space industry being affected by that . That is, the viability of the u. S. Industry being affected by foreign subsidized, state subsidized space entities . Well, i dont, because i will bet on u. S. Innovation, u. S. Free market capitalism over statesupported institutions every time. I will bet on it against our own statesupported institutions every time. So to be clear, i can always be wrong, it happens multiple times every day, but to be clear, i am a conservative in the older fashion sense of a free market, individual libertieliberties, m government, balance the budget, National Defense kind of a conservative. Im uninterested in the culture wars, what other people do is their own business. I could care. But i will bet every day on the capability of free market entrepreneurs in any country over the long run to win out over subsidized statesupported institutions. Now, that said, for fledgeling enterprises, there is a long history where enlightened Government Policies can enhance and certainly can speed the bringing about of new industries. I believe space is one of those. So i personally have been paid a good deal of money in my past life as an Aerospace Consultant to assess the commercial Communications Sector Business Case, and its a tough one to close. I wont say that it is permanently unclosable and certainly an investor with big enough pockets can take the early losses and bring it to fruition, but its a tough Business Case. If the u. S. Government, by buying in early, can help to advance that commercial sector case with a solid demand signal, i think thats great. I think we should do it. But in the long run, im going to bet on the free market to be state subsidized institutions. Thanks. Hello. Kevin barry here. Thank you for your speech today. Over here. I just wanted to ask you, earlier in your speech today, you talked about the dod, being the leading sector in Space Development and being sort of a small portion of that demand spectrum and im wondering where you find, if it ever comes to [ inaudible ] in space, where you see the dods future in cleaning up those messes, dealing with the difficult logistical problem of you put up a lot of satellites, what if something happens and they start running into each other . Do you see the dod leaning more on keeping space a more hospitable environment as well . I probably needed you to speak closer to the microphone but i think you are asking me about the dod role in keeping space basically clean, dealing with debris, is that correct . Okay. I have personally been involved in the technical aspects of space debris for now over for now over 35 years. It turns out as a happenstance that i was the designer and chief engineer on the first on the dod project that developed the first hit to kill space intercept mission. Now, that was very much an engineering prototype, the interceptor weighed a ton, literally, so its not anything like what we have in the ground today, but starting back in 1984 and 85, i became involved with the issues of how to mitigate, prevent, mitigate and control space debris generation. So that said, we know the Design Practices that will allow us to prevent, control and mitigate space debris. We need to have plans to deorbit satellites whose lifetime becomes, if they are high enough, their lifetime becomes problematical if theyre uncontrolled so we need Design Practices which encourage the reentry of such satellites, we need Design Practices which give us highly redundant capability to control them so that if other failures occur, the satellites remain under control, we need Design Practices so that we know where they are at all times so that the space Traffic Management function can be executed. We know what are the things to do. Its merely a matter of making sure that we have policies in place that require constellation providers to adhere to those practices. In the long run, i think we want to avoid the kesler effect, First Published by don kesler and his cohorts at nasa, where past a certain point, you have runaway debris generation through Chain Reaction collisions. We all want to avoid that and i believe we know how to do it. Its a matter of implementing what we know how to do. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about Space Development agency, one of the imperatives you have said many times is to work fast, speed and whatnot, so i know theres obviously a budget gridlock right now so you dont have funding for 2020, but what are your expectations for funding getting passed for this year, for future years, and how potentially is that going to impact your plan to get sda space layers on time . Thanks. Well, thanks. Thats a great question, sandra. Its a great question because the answer is so obvious. Even i can come up with it. Continuing resolutions, budget battles of any kind are an enormous problem for the National Security community. We are about as just plain for those of us who are in it day to day, we are about as nonpartisan a group of people as you can find. We are trying to accomplish the mission of protecting the nation, and when the things we think we need to do are delayed or prevented, by budget battles in congress and continuing resolutions, it slows us down and in some cases, prevents us from doing things that we earnestly believe that we need to do. The Space Development agency is one of, but by no means the only casualty of our current situation. So what are our plans . We will wait until we have budget approval to fund some of these activities. I think there is largely agreement on both sides of the aisle that we really do need to reform our Space Architecture, and leaving aside the, you know, organizational squabbling and Turf Management that goes on in all organizations, because in the end, i really dont care who does it, i think the general approach to creating a more robust, resilient Space Architecture is widely accepted, and we will embark on it when the budget and the permissions allow us to do so. Now, so thats the best answer i can give you for this coming year, because i dont know when the c. R. Is going to end. I dont know if we will ever get a budget. We will cope as best we can. In succeeding years, as i think all here know, our plan with the Space Development agency is when and as the congress chooses to approve the creation of a space force, as an operating entity under the air force, then the Space Development agency moves under that space force because thats the proper place for it. Now, i tell people this and sometimes i get people, you know, with a sharp intake of breath who say youre actually going to give up, you know, an organization that you supervise to another organization . Well, yes, of course, because its the right thing to do and as i said a moment ago, im really uninterested in under what badge or what organization we do our work, as long as the work gets done. So we have both nearterm plans for Space Development agency and longer term plans that are consistent with its continued life under the space force that the administration has requested. Longer term budgets, i dont know what were doing in the short term, i have no idea what were doing in the long term budget. I cant help you with that, sandra. Your reading on the politics of the budget is probably better than my own. Another question . We have four minutes left. My name is a. J. Hi, a. J. How are you . How are you . I guess my question is related to Small Business. Dod has always been very just and nice to Small Businesses in the past, and do you see a potential for that kind of a thing to continue with the spacerelated activities that youre talking about . Because its very difficult for us to participate in them, being Small Businesses. How do we participate in that, that you can see . I think youre asking, if i could hear you correctly, youre asking about how dod can enable the role of Small Business or promulgate Small Business capability . Yes. For the spacerelated activities that you are talking about today. Okay. Im going to have to go limp on that. I dont know. I mean, we have more than 2 billion a year Small Business Integrative Research program that in fact, i oversee through i dont oversee it, i oversee the people who oversee it, and as i think most of us know, Small Businesses are where most of the creative urges and abilities of the American Private sector reside. So the usual exit and in for a Small Business is to be built by a Large Business and there are always new Small Businesses coming along. So im a huge fan. But i cant sit here today and say where Small Business can fit in the reformation of our Space Architecture to be a more, you know, resilient war fighting machine. My crystal ball is not that good. Im sorry. I think that needs to be the last question because were down to two minutes. So thank you for spending time with me today, and for listening to my preconceptions. Thank you. [ applause ] the house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country. So you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. The u. S. Senate is about to gavel in on this thursday morning. Senate lawmakers expected to continue work on executive nominations, including the nomination of president trumps pick to head the White House Budget Office information and Regulatory Affairs branch. A vote on advancing the nomination is set for 11 00 eastern today. And now live to the senate floor here on cspan 2. The president pro tempore the senate will come to order. The chaplain, dr. Barry black, will open the senate with prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Eternal father, who extends daily to our lawmakers compassionate love, we praise your holy name