Were all very comparable to the nk33 because it had been in development for all tm ten years now to replace that engine on a couple of different russian rockets. So when we started talking to them over three years ago, they were pretty far along on that path already. There was a lot of analysis and whether we reached a point where we needed to move forward with another engine, it was the one that was most likely to succeed in our application and the one that was available to make sure we could deliver cargokargcargo. Ms. Van kleeck, youve had heard some reference to it today and in the next panel, were going to hear that its going to cost a significant amount of money to reengine the atlas five with the ar1. Can you address where 200 and as i understand it, its going to cost at least 200 million to modify the other spot for the arrow one. Can you address that . Yes, i can. The weve been working closely with ula for several years now on replacing an rd180 in various forms. Like i said, we have looked at this problem over the last ten years. We have an active contract right now identifying the specific changes that need to be made, assuming this goes into an at atlas five vehicle. For the record in terms of the estimate for those costs, ive heard a variety of numbers. Ive never heard a 200 million number. The number ive heard are in the low tens of millions of dollars. I think that cost estimates still needs to be refined but the type of modifications that are required are very minor. For the ar1 . For the ar1. Yes. Now, mr. Meyerson. Can i add to mr. Culbertsons comments. His response, the key word was it, ten years of investment by the russian government to develop a replacement for the nk33 which was developed into the av26 thats the key point ten years and we dont know how much money was invested. The b4 is being developed. Its fully funded. Were more than three years into the development. So this is real. Its not a paper engine. Great. Do you have any mr. Bruno has stated both the b4 and the ar1 would work on the atlas five with modifications. One with more modifications than the other. Can you describe the extent to which we would have to modify the at last five for your engine to work . I think thats a better question for mr. Bruno. Its but the engine, when youre developing a new engine you start with requirements and the details really matter. Because it is so far along in its development, those details are much more well understood so that mr. Brunos team at ula can look at that and design the right system to meet the National Security needs. Mr. Bruno, id love for you to visit there topic. This is an excellent sort of example of the difference between an engine provider and a launch Vehicle Service provider. It will not cost tens of millions of dollars to incorporate any version of an ar1. Recall that we started with an understanding that the performance level coming out of either of these two engines will not match the rd180 and we will be using a pair of engines to do that. Let me ask you, would the combined thrust of the two engines be comparable . Yes, it will. In fact, it will be larger than the two. In addition to that, the rd180 uses a novel control system to move the no, sir 8 and steer the rocket based on tapping off the engine fuel system. Thats a technology that does not exist in the United States. And by the way one that we do not have an interesting in developing. So there will be a new thrust sector control system to go along with that. So when we do all of that with the new performance point thats required and the new thrust levels that will be delivered, there will be instruct furs changes, there will be alterations to the pad to accomplish even the ar1. The number that was quoted was not unreasonable, but i think you will hear from the 200 million i think were going to hear from the air force later. Do you think thats accurate . I do think thats accurate. I can drive that number down if i am willing to leave the tank exactly the same size that i have on atlas. But if i do that because of the lower efficiency of that engine and its first generation as they launch system for several missions, i will be adding one or more solid rocket boosters to the launch vehicle. And so the cost competitiveness, the affordable of that system will be less than the at last today. So getting you those modifications moves you towards the new rocket system you want but is not necessary for the replacement engine that we are pursuing or that im pursuing. It will not lift the same missions. So i think youre asking me could i keep the tank size the same take the engine that i am that is made available to me strap on the extra strap ones and deal with the additional cost . I could did that for the first set within the fleet. So remember that the at last is a fleet of rockets. The least capable of which is equivalent to a falcon there are much more difficult orbits that we go to. Eventually, theres a limit to how many strap ones i can physically attached to the rocket because of the way the rocket is configured. Those missions would suddenly become out of reach of an atlas in this configuration without a tank to carry more fuel. So the be4 requires more extensive changes to our infrastructure and to our rockets. So what does the 200 million figure turn into . It would not be unreasonable to triple or quadruple that number. So 600 to 800 million. Yes. Tell me lets talk about the other infrastructure involved when we change lets say we change to a new rocket. And im not saying im ready to go there but what else is required for the launch . Modifications other than just the rocket. Dont you have to change the infrastructure that you use for the launch process . Yes. So you know, you could think of it in these pieces. Theres the rocket, theres the pad, factory, of course, with its tooling and then the equipment that we use at the launch site to integrate the rocket to the launch site with the satellite and roll it out. So those things are more dependent upon the physical size and considerations with what changes we have to make to accommodate the engine. So my colleague is correct there are far fewer changes with the ar1 because of the same propellant and so the diameter and length of the rocket will be much more similar, much more of the tooling in the factory can be the same. The equivalent at the launchpad can be only slightly modified and the pad will have smaller modifications. For the methane engine, the tent will be much larger. Ill have to replace much more tooling in the factory. Ill have to redo what is called the rocket platform and then the changes to the pad are more extensive. Are those costs part of that triple or quadrupling inspect. Yes. Okay. So that was a comprehensive figure. Maybe i missed it, but were you able to explain the difference in the 16month leave that you assumed blue originalin has over arrow jet and their development . Yes. So both companies are under contract with us. We have sort of weekly engagements, monthly formal reviews, were tracking both schedules side by side. As i mentioned in my opening remarks, several years later than blue origin. And that is slily the nature of the 16 months. This will be for all the witnesses. Do you agree that the government should own that until it makes in the system . Mr. Meyerson do you believe that we should own some of the intellectual Property Value . I think if the government fully invested in the system they should. I do agree. Companies also investing should own their i. Mr. Thornburg. I agree with my colleagues in that if the government fully invests for systems that are prioritily dwopt developed they would not. What if we pay for 60 of the Development Costs . Is that something that you believe should inhibit our owning a percentage of the intellectual Properties Value . I think it would depend on what type of development we were talking about in terms of the technology. If the technology was an offshoot of something that had been completely developed and invested inti the private corporation, maybe not. But i think it would be case dependent. Mr. Meyerson. I think theres Public Private partnershipes and theres mechanisms that can be in place to allow industry to invest and account for shared ownership. Thats one of my concerns. Weve already set aside a little over 400 million for this and we project by the time its all said and done, 1. 5 million will be spent in pursuit of this new engine. And as much as 800 million or more will be paid for by the federal government. It seems to be there should be some intellectual property that arises out of that. I want to ask the witnesses this. And this is for all the witnesses. Are there clear requirements from the air force as we go into this process about what theyre not only clear, but fair and reasonable . Mr. Meyerson . I think yeah, i think the requirements are clear, yes. Ms. Van kleeck . I assume youre representing the current acquisition process thats under way. Yes, maam. And theres a process thats well spelled out in that. It does focus on an ultimate launch service as opposed to an engine. But its spelled out. I think theres a lot of different paths that that particular process can go. Mr. Culbertson. Yes, sir. We understand the requirements of the air force and what theyre looking for and we think it is focused on a system that could be developed in a Public Private partnership that would give the government the most openings for competition as well as success. With regards to the ongoing source selection activity i dont think its appropriate for me to comment on that right now because i wouldnt want to upset anything that would undo that source selection. Do you have any comment on this . Youre not building an engine but youre going to be buying it. I believe the requirements and the rps activity that youre referring to are very clear from the government. Fair and reasonable . Yes. Right. A couple of cleanup questions for ms. Van kleeck been your history is providing with launch Service Providers or being a launch service prime when developing a new engine. Why do you think this appropriate is not appropriate in this situation . I think the issue at hand that were talking about is replacing an engine and right now we are looking at an acquisition process thats looking at replacing a service or looking at an evolution of that service. I believe what that acquisition, you can get through an engine with that process but it isnt the most efficient way to do that. Finally, mr. Bruno, as ula moves forward with a new vulcan launch vehicle, can you tell the committee if you intend to mitigate your risk by carrying forward both the ar1 and be4 as Design Options . If not why not . If yes, when will you be able to select the new single option . I will not carry them all the way until completion. We will carry both until it is clear that the major technical risk with either path has been retired and were in a position to make a down selection based on their technical feasibility, their schedule and their forecast at recurring costs. I expect that to happen at the end of 2016. The reason well down select and not carry both forward is simply because we cannot afford to carry both all the way. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. There are five areas id like to pursue. Some are just contacts and peripheral. But i think its going to be important for this committee to understand. In the air force rpf, is there a prediction in the out years of payload size . Because i think the assumption is theyre going to stay about the same size as they are today. Some are and some small. There are some trends going into tomorrow, probably be on the big side if were going to do cube sets. Maybe we dont need the lift. So all this talk about systems and lift capacity, the question is what are we lifting . And as Electronics Get smaller and smaller, it could be that lighter lift capacity is sufficient to do the job. I dont know. Anybody have any answers on this panel . So the standard reference for tentacle performance remains what the air force calls the eight reference missions. And so they provide us with a set of orbits and pay loads lifted to that orbit. The most challenging of those orbits require our complete capability all the way to the atlas five with its five strappons and its largest pay load bearing. And part of it is orbit. Part of it is weight. Yes. And its probably important to understand a subtlety within that, as well, which is the time required in space to reach the highest orbits and that dictates some of the technical characteristics of the upper stage. So when we go to, for example, the ghee your synchronous orbit to preserve the light of the satellite, it takes eight hours flying in space operating an upper stage in order to circular iegz that orbit something not possible with conventional systems to keep them from simply freezing up. We havent given much attention at all to the second stage problem. You point out its very important. On the intellectual property issue, the greatest source of wealth on the planet that we have understanding ownership and relationships like that. I guess it gives us some comfort that an american citizen might be owning all this i. P. But sometimes citizens move. Sometimes they make private sale decisions that could endanger National Security. So this is something that we need to figure out better and in terms of payback to the taxpayers, if we could get one or two form ceutical companies to pay back all the benefits of their blockbuster drugs from basic Research Done at nih, it would return many more than a few billion dollars. So perhaps we need to work with our colleagues and committees on that on the question of paperwork. Mr. Bruno mentioned far 15 i think he called it. And thats a requirement that you have to some others might not. But im not sure. Is that good paperwork . Is that necessary paperwork . Can we stream line par 15 so that we can reduce the burden for anybody who might have to be subjected to all that paperwork burden . Its not the Ten Commandments its not written in stone. The federal acquisition regulations actually provide for different models. 15 is one set. Theres another set refers to as 12 and there are others that do exactly that and provide guidance when its appropriate to use the lessee elaborate systems. So there is some flexibility within that. Is this the biggest and scariest monster out there . Yes. But theyre less of a monster . So you just mentioned that to scare us. Well, it happens in the world that we live in at ula. The question mr. Einstein mentioned, monopoly. Nobody likes monopoly but i think in the best case situation, we would have a did you opoly or maybe an oligopoly. Business case about this diminishing number of pay loads, substantial risk. It takes an investors ego to propel the sort of speculative investment, the glory of space fairing. So i think as we fear monopoly we should bear in mind that were going to have an oligoply. We love the retail model where we can get amazon pricing for everything and its not likely to be available. Here just like mr. Bezoss involvement. So we dont want to be too idealistic in this. Finally, theres this touchy issue of recruiting brilliant personnel. We in america i think the last one just died in huntsville alabama. Incredibly, there are some brilliant scientists who make a difference. I couldnt help but note on the first bais page of mr. Meyersons testimony, he recruits from lots of places. Including someone with merlins experience. Thats interesting. It makes me think regarding the rd180 is actually not recruiting a russian who knew how that works. Where is that person . And maybe the chinese did that when they have integrated a that into their lot in march or maybe they just sold blueprints. But you kind of wonder you know, you hope that a team of scientists can do great things. In many cases, they have. But in some cases, there are these brilliant individuals who come up with the secret sauce. And that leads us to the very interesting feature of spacex where they do not rely on the patent system to protect their idea preferring, instead, the trade secret system which is basically thumbing their nose at the entire western system of protecting intellectual property. And im not defending it the Patent Office or you know, but this is kind of an interesting challenge here. As opposed to publishing and dissemester mateing legally. So there are many challenges that we face to make sure we have a perhaps unique natural security capability whatever is required on the timetable that we need. Yet were increasingly relying on commercial molds global models, International Models that may or may not service this unique national capability. So these are some of the challenges the subcommittee faces as we try to come up with some fair solution that above all suits america first. Thats how i see it. And if you all publicly or privately have corrections, anticipates to that modifications, i would appreciate hearing from you. Were trying to do the right thing and not have Congress Mess up yet again like we did last year. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I would note, when congress noticed that last year, it was the language the private sector gave us. We didnt dream up that language. The gentleman from oklahoma mr. Bridenstine for any questions he may have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Bruno you mentioned earlier, ula will need to be able to compete in the commercial sector for space launch. Is that correct . Yes. Mr. Meyerson does blue origin plan to compete in the commercial space launch industry with its own system . In the very longterm, yes we do. Our first iteration were working on is our suborbital shepherd we flew last month. And making those engines available. And just for you, mr. Bruno, if blue origin enters a space and theyre competing directly against you in the xlushl market and youre entirely dependent on them for your rocket engines, does that pose a risk to the cost of government launches . In the foreseeable future i see your activities in the marketplace as complimentary. And what my colleague, rob, is referring to is in the far future when well have ample opportunity to work out arrangement arrangements. If the ar1 engine ultimately is not what is down selected what is the future for the ar1, ms. Van kleeck . Currently, the ar1 is relevant to this particular change in launch vehicles in this particular point in time. We dont reengine launch vehicles, you know, but every ten years or we have different opportunities to do that. We would maintain the technology. We would probably put it at a technology level. But if there isnt a launch vehicle provider that would use it, it will the development will not be completed at this point in time. Is there a chance that that launch vehicle provider might materialize and the ar1 would find itself relevant, both commercial and the eelv program . Its possible. There are it clearly depends on what some of the launch vehicles providers, what their paths Going Forward are. But as you know, there are multiple providers here on this panel. And we talked about a limited market. So in the near term its not a high probability. One of the challenges we have is certainly it seems like there are two Different Directionses that the panel is trying to accommodate. One direction is the air forces position, which is we need to purchase launch as a service. And, of course that has been the going mindset for everyone for quite a while. And we ended up in this position where it got aggressive. Certainly i agree with rogers that we need to do Everything Possible to mitigate the risk to our unassured access to space. Thats kind of what drove us to this position today where weve got language and the ndaa that ultimately might not be compatible with language that says we need to purchase launch as a service. This is a challenge were going to continue. Unfortunately the panelists today find themselves in a challenge where theyre trying to basically go two Different Directions at the same time. Given whats happened in the world and we and Congress Need to find a way to make this the best for our country, the best for the taxpayers, the best in the National Security interest in the United States. I know chairman rogers has that in his heart. The goal here is to get off these engines and make sure we have assured access to space. And i appreciate you guys being here and working through us with this. Mr. Chairman, i have one question. Mr. Meyerson mr. Thornburg, has a large methane rocket engine ever been built and flown in space and why is this a and what are the advantages and the challenges of building this type of engine . By large, ill sa no, engines that are greater than 250,000 pounds, theres been no large methane engine thats been built in space that i know of. Weve been busy working on the be4 and weve made some specific Design Choices to mitigate any risk with that development, Design Choices in our chamber pressure, design choice necessary our injector and Design Choices in our material that will give us confidence that we can develop this engine by the end of next year, get into testing and meet the vulcan launch requirements. To your first question about have we flown a large methane rocket engine, no we have not done that. The one aspect as you hear a lot about this Novel Technology and some of the new engine power plant that are being discussed today, i would to point out that the one Common Thread across rafter, ar1 or be4 is really the ox rich stage combustion tenl. All three engines incorporate that and that really does represent the technology coming into the table. So whether youre trying to replace something with atlas in terms of an ar1, you still have to finish the development of oxford stage combustion technology. It would be the same for a raptor engine. And i wanted to also comment that the talented engineers in the United States have been working on these types of technologies since the late 90s. Through programmatic investment for the Research Laboratory and nasa, these technologies have been available, but have yet to be fully funded and brought to the table until these conversation res happening now. So thats kind of where we stand on the methane. Would anybody else like to comment on that . Yes, sir, i would. I agree that the Common Threat through these things is the oxford stage technology. However, i would say there has been i mean, weve worked on methane as a company. We built a number of different devices, none of which have grown yet. Methane will probably be an Important Technology with Mars Missions where were dealing with landers where you want to make your propellant in space. In terms of the difference between the methane and the kerosene engine, the fuel. Kerosene is characterized. The ability to run carekerosene is the russians have perfected this technology over decades. I am confident we can do that with methane but it takes time. We will be building off of that technology. I believe this can be done for methane, but i think the time frame is going to be quite a bit longer. Anyone else . Not about methane, but i would like to point out there are other technologies involved here that involve propulsion systems. Theyve been mentioned several times. Thats a solid rocket loaders that contribute to our access to space, whether theyre strap ones or main stages. Thats a part of our heritage as a country. And working with several people her on the panel and making sure that that is part of their system. Any system Going Forward is going to have to have either newly developed or perfected solid rocket motors as a part of it whether its the main engine or second stages. And i think that needs to be a part of the system. Solid rocket motors and solid rocket propellants over the rest of the world to help with National Defense as well as our access to space for these big pay loads. Just to comment back on the methane side i think the research and development that has been performed by spacexs private development as well as whats been happening with blue origin whether its ox rich or a full blown stage combustion cycle. Weve been operating Hydrogen Propulsion systems in this country since the dawn of the stage. Methane typically falls somewhere between kerosene and hydrogen in terms of its properties. But i do want to point out that theres been government nmt over the last several years. I just had one comment to that, as well. We talk about methane, but another choice the commercially available, the commodity that you can buy and the infrastructure in the u. S. Is grog rapidly in the last decade. So we chose an lng because its cheap. Its four times cheaper than kerosene. Its available and its clean. So it supports reusability applications which we are interested in in the longterm and those are very important points that we want to add. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. The chair now rises mr. Lamborn from colorado for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Id like to drill down a little bit more on a line of questions i was pursuing earlier to hopefully get more clarity. The general stated that spacex has not formally submitted the changes to be accepted under certification for the full thrust system to the air force, unquote. If spacex hasnt formally submitted the changes how is it that your system should be certified for launch or illegal for competition on eelv . Sir, id have to get back to you on the specifics of was been transferred. But i can tell you that to my knowledge presently since the last hearing there has been numerous conversations between the air force and spacex specifically to address this information. I believe the blum bulk of all that has been provided. But im happy to take that and provide it back for the record. That doesnt really satisfy me. Let me approach this from a different angle. Im going to refer to an article from march 17th of this year, aviation entitled spacex sees u. S. Air force certification of falcon 9 by mid summer. Here is a quote out of that article. This year, spacex and its lengthy this year spacex expects to debut another falcon 9 upgrade, one that will see at least a 15 increase in thrust for the falcon 9 merlin 1d core stage engine and a 10 increase in the upper stage tank volume. Nasa has said such an increase is likely to require significant design modifications to the engine and rocket which could necessitate additional certification work including a series of successful flights to prove the vehicle. How is it that nasa can say that these are significant modifications and that they require additional certification and possibility test flights yet you dont seem to think there is a need for more certification . The language youre using no need for more certification, just to clarify i guess my comments earlier were mainly with regard to resetting the clock on certification. Theres been ongoing certification work to upgrade the launch vehicle formed before spacex existed. My comments were basically on the fact that spacex is not doing anything different in terms of bringing on new improvements to systems, but improved performance and cost. I can say that were working very closely with nasa and the air force. Who both certified us for our launches and pay load these year and we have ongoing conversations with them with regard to the status of the vehicle. Theyre fully read into all the changes, all the modifications that are planning on going and are fully supportive in terms of gaining the certification for upcoming launches. Okay. Well let me change gears and ask my last question. You stated in your Opening Statement that there should be a 50 50 investment in a new engine. Did spacex fol follow that guideline guideline falcon nine investment . With falcon nine investment spacex 100 in investment in the development of that vehicle so yes. Now, you said 100 . Its my understanding that spacexs capital is forward funded nasa contract or contracts totalling around 3. 5 billion. Is that correct . I cant speak to the total, but if youre referring to the cost program itself, the nasa money under the cost program was focused on the dragon space capsule versus the falcon nine vehicle which spacex funded the development of. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you. Really i appreciate all of you all. Thornburg, you made a great point when you emphasized we got ourselves in this situation and the Ranking Member did when you asked about investing heavily enough in this technology and developing where we need to be and where we should have been before now. But our full attention is focused on the matter now. And we appreciate you being here. I would we mind all the witnesses were going to keep the record open for at least ten days in case members have any additional questions they would like to ask you to respond to the record. We are about to have another panel of government witnesses. I very much hope you will listen to them and let us know what you think. We can continue to grow and develop and try to move this policy in the right direction. With that, we stand in reset for this panel too adjourn and bring the new panel in. Id now like to open the experts for our second panel. I want to thank you all for coming here today and preparing for it. We have the honorable Katrina Mcfarland assistant secretary of defense for acquisition. General john heighten, commander, air force Space Command and general mcfarland or general mcfarland, that would have been good. Its great to have you back to testify on this topic. We truly appreciate your opinions and we look forward to hearing from Lieutenant General sam grievous, air commander, air force space and missiles command center. We also have dr. Mike griffin who is representing himself today, but he is deputy chair of deaths Risk Mitigation study and he is a former naz nasa administrationer. General mcfarland, ill turn it over to you to summarize your Opening Statement. I would tell all the witnesses, your Opening Statements in full would be submitted for the record. Thank you, chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper and distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here before this committee, particularly since youre supposed to be at recess and i ask that my written testimony, aus state be taken for the record. Thank you. This continues to be critical to our Space Defense capabilities and National Security especially as our world has changed over the last decade to a nonpermissive environment. During or march 17 hearing we touched on many topics concerning the evolved expendable launch vehicle program. Amongst those were the departments plans for reintroducing competition on how we secure our launch services for the satellites and our plan for transitioning away from the u. S. Of the rd180 engine the russian engine, on to domestically sourced propulsion capabilities. While im mras pleased to state that were making progress on both of these, competition is intrensively and fundamentally intertwined. This interdependency cannot be ignored, it must be managed. As you heard from the members, its a complex issue. With spacexfalcon 9 now certified for mss launches, we have for the First Time Since ulas joint venture enabled competition for launch contract services. However, section 1608 for the fy15 ndaa prohibits any use beyond the block one contract for our most costeffective launch capability atlas five which relies on that russian rd180 engine. As enacted, section 1608 creates a multi year gap without at least two price competitive launch providers. It also impacts ulas viability to compete in the future as discussed. As estimates replace and certify this capability as optimistically about seven years. Yes, im a recovering engineer and it is a complex issue. To avoid this unacceptable situation, the department submitted legislative proposal number 192 requesting section 16308 be amended. This department believes this legislative proposal combined with the edition of the newly certified Spacex Falcon 9 ensures capabilities while they complete the transition using domestically designed and produced systems. The department greatly appreciates the subcommittees support and looks forward to working with congress on the Defense Committee with the appropriation languages are debated. The air force believes in requests for information the industry around august 2014 soliciting feedback and approaches the transitioning away from the 180. Responses supported the departments strategy to coinvest off transition of the rd180. These are markedly broader approaches than anticipated, as you heard. As a result, in order to comply with the commercial Space Transportation Services and include access to space mandates. The Department Remains committed to working with congress and industry, to transition off the rd180 engine and the most efficient, expeditious and affordable management possible. Again, thank you for your support to our Critical Missions and i look forward to our discussions. Thank you. General, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member cooper, distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to talk about this important issue with my distinguished colleagues. Thank you all for your efforts to work this hard topic. It is a very difficult topic to try to work through. I think everyone has been fortunate enough to witness our space power while our commanders have realized how fundamental space is to what takes place on the goal today. For todays National Alliance on Space Capabilities assured access has gone from important to imperative and remains one of our highest priorities. The launch industry has fundamentally changed over the last decades. We purchased access to spaces and service. An industry is now investing launch amounts of capital and developing new engines and rockets. Were collaborating closely with them to determine how best to invest in private Public Partnerships and u. S. Made Rocket Propulsion systems. So within context of assured access to space, its critical that we move as fast as we can to indicate reliance on the rocketing. The United States should not rely on another nation to assure access to space and we need an american hydro carbon engine. We think with the effort and ingenuity of our teams it is possible to development an american engine by 2019. However, the engine still has to be made into a rocket. It still has the be made into a complete space launch system. Even if that system looks similar to the atlas five we have to test it certify it and thats going to take another year or two once the engine is developed. This subcommittee can be committed to the healthy launch space as we move as fast as we can towards u. S. Built engines. Thanks for your support and i look forward to your questioning