Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Growing the Future of Commercial Space

2013; Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.; Volume: 1; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1089/space.2013.1501

2168-0264

Moderator Scott Hubbard, Ken Davidian, Steve Isakowitz, John M. Logsdon, James R. McMurry, George C. Nield, Marcia S. Smith,

Space Exploration and Technology

New SpaceVol. 1, No. 1 Roundtable DiscussionFree AccessGrowing the Future of Commercial SpaceModerator: Scott Hubbard, Participants: Ken Davidian, Steve Isakowitz, John Logsdon, James R. (Russ) McMurry, George Nield, and Marcia S. SmithModerator: Scott HubbardDepartment of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Search for more papers by this author, Participants: Ken DavidianFederal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Search for more papers by this author, Steve IsakowitzVirgin Galactic, Oak Hill, VA.Search for more papers by this author, John LogsdonThe George Washington University, Washington, DC.Search for more papers by this author, James R. (Russ) McMurryThe Boeing Company, Huntsville, AL.Search for more papers by this author, George NieldFederal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC.Search for more papers by this author, and Marcia S. SmithSpace and Technology Policy Group, LLC, Arlington, VA.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:21 Mar 2013https://doi.org/10.1089/space.2013.1501AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Scott Hubbard:Thank you all for being part of this roundtable discussion forNew Space. I think this new journal will have a special place in its emerging field.George Nield, I would like to start with you. The FAA, of which you are a very senior member, has the regulatory responsibility for commercial launches and reentry, but it has also a very interesting collateral responsibility called "encourage, facilitate, and promote," or EFP. Please tell us how this mission of EFP is helping to grow or encourage the long-term viability of this emerging commercial space sector.George Nield: Thank you, Scott. I am George Nield, and I am the associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. As Scott was mentioning, we actually have a two-fold mission, directed by Congress, that includes ensuring public safety during commercial launch and reentry activities, and also this other mission to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space transportation. Safety is our top priority, and I cannot think of anything that is more important to the industry and its success in the coming years than having a good long period of safe and successful operations.But in addition to that, our office is also looking at other things that can be done to help the industry move forward. Some of those things include developing and sharing information of interest such as launch forecasts and economic impact assessments and so forth. We have an annual conference to bring the community together. We work with other government agencies like NASA and the Departments of Defense, State, and Commerce to identify and minimize regulatory obstacles.We also operate a Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation, in which students and professors from a number of different universities around the country are supporting and conducting research on problems of interest, both to the government and to industry.We have also recently been able to give out a number of spaceport grants to assist in the development of facilities and infrastructure for commercial launch and reentry sites. Those are just some of the things that we are focusing on in an effort to help the industry move forward.Scott Hubbard:Thanks very much. That helps tee up a lot of the discussion. Next I would like to go to Marcia Smith and ask you, as part of this whole landscape, to address the following question: Do you think that NASA's new cargo and crew programs will be sufficient to stimulate a whole new business sector? Clearly they are aimed at space station utilization, so how do you think this policy will impact the commercial space sector as George described it?Marcia S. Smith: Well, obviously the jury is still out on whether these programs are going to be successful or not. There are so many factors, and we all know them, because space is a risky business and you never know if a launch vehicle is going to fail or a spacecraft is going to fail. So it is great what has happened so far with SpaceX and Dragon. And I think people are feeling much more relaxed about the possibility of commercial cargo and maybe even commercial crew from a technical standpoint. But I do think there remain questions about the business viability because, at least from the standpoint of Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Antares rocket and Cygnus spacecraft for commercial cargo, the government seems to be the primary market.SpaceX is focusing on the fact that their Falcon rocket is going to be used for a lot of things other than government purposes, so they have a nongovernment market. And I do think that the success of these ventures is going to be dependent upon them having a customer other than the government. But I have not seen that market develop yet, especially for commercial crew.Scott Hubbard:That is an excellent point. Where are the adjacent or nearby or collateral industries that will pick up on this developing capability? To follow-up on one element of adjacent industry, I would like to turn to Steve Isakowitz. In your role at Virgin Galactic, they are pursuing a very ambitious plan to offer suborbital excursions to ordinary citizens. If these flights do become numerous, what impact do you think that might have on space activities in general?Steve Isakowitz: Thank you, Scott. Yes, I am the chief technology officer and executive vice president of Virgin Galactic. I joined about a year ago. We have two major activities that we consider very complementary to each other. One is to open up the frontier to give people an opportunity to experience space, which we are trying to do through our Spaceship effort. And second, we are developing a small launch vehicle, hoping to expand the opportunity to launch small satellites into space at affordable prices. What makes these two efforts unique is they are trying to build off the same assets that we already use, so we believe it keeps the projects economical and affordable.We are quite excited about our Spaceship effort. I think we are going about it in a unique fashion in that we are not seeking government financial assistance. Certainly we work with the FAA from a regulatory standpoint, but in terms of government funding, our effort is a private venture using private funds to pursue it.Back to Marcia's point earlier regarding commercial crew, we are trying to enter a part of the market where we believe there is private sector interest and there is a business case that will open it up. Whether it is SpaceX, ourselves, or other ones out there, as we begin to demonstrate crewed flights, the nongovernment market will expand tremendously.Scott Hubbard:So we will go now to John Logsdon. John, you are a very senior observer of space exploration. There is a change going on. We do not know, as everybody has said, exactly how it is going to turn out, but I would like to get your opinion on where you think this is going, particularly in relationship to our international partners. I know there was just a meeting during which some concern was expressed about whether Europe should jump to the Ariane 6 because of competition from the United States. How do you see the U.S. changes interacting with the rest of the world?John Logsdon: I think you are quite right that SpaceX is, in particular, seen by launch companies around the world as a potentially very formidable competitor and is entering at a particular point in the market that looks very promising for the future. At least some in Europe worried about the need for continued government subsidies to Arianespace, saying, "We need a launch vehicle that hits the sweet spot in terms of future traffic." That is the push behind the planned Ariane 6 launcher. No other country has gone very far on suborbital human space flight. Astrium made a kind of false start a couple of years ago and seems to have withdrawn from that. Steve Isakowitz would have a better sense of that, I would expect.Scott Hubbard:One of the things that keeps being discussed is barriers to the development of space activities. What always comes up in that context, of course, is the ITAR, or International Traffic in Arms Regulation. George, you are sitting there inside the beltway and have to deal with all of this. Do you think this will be something that is changed in the future?George Nield: I certainly hope so. I think it was a well-intentioned effort to support our national security, but as it has turned out over the years, I think we are seeing that in many cases the law as currently written is actually an impediment to our national security and our U.S. leadership. The Administration has been pushing hard to try and get some changes made there, and we are hopeful that can happen in the near term.It is important to look at other policies, too. Of course, we had the National Space Policy come out in June 2010 and the National Space Transportation Policy is currently being reworked and updated. We will hopefully see that soon, but I think it is important for the government to periodically look at the landscape and try to identify the obstacles, the benefits, and the things that are either holding industry back, or getting in the way, or making us more inefficient. It is important to understand those and make a conscious decision about which ones do not make sense going forward.Scott Hubbard:Thank you. At this point, I am going to open up our conversation for anybody to jump in and comment on anything that has been said thus far, or whatever they would like to add.John Logsdon: One intriguing thing is that various ventures, like Bigelow Aerospace and the new Golden Spike, are looking at other sovereign countries as customers; countries that cannot afford to have a space station, or to send people to the surface of the Moon. Is that going to be real? Is there a market for U.S. firms marketing to non-U.S. governments? And how is the U.S. government going to deal with those kinds of issues? That is a nascent development but could be a very intriguing issue for the future.George Nield: That is an excellent point, John. I would also like to add another example. What we are seeing in our area is a tremendous interest in participating in space activities from other nations that are not in a position to design and build their own rockets, whether it is for space station replacements or to go to the Moon or whatever, but also on a smaller scale, to have a spaceport. So especially as we start to see suborbital space tourism expand and grow, there are going to be a number of locations that, for their own reasons of jobs and economic development and opportunity, are going to want to host some of these activities in their local region. There is a lot of interest in, for example, converting or modifying an airport in other parts of the world in a way that might host Virgin Galactic or other suborbital operators once the operations are underway.Steve Isakowitz: Just to follow up on that point and the point that John made earlier about international interest in suborbital, I do think spaceports is an area that there is a tremendous amount of interest. We have been approached by a number of countries who have had an interest in developing a spaceport around suborbital activity. Right now our focus is on demonstrating it here in the United States first, but there is real money, I believe, that is out there with people who are ready to do that as soon as we start some of the demonstrations here.Also, I want to tie it back to the point that Scott made about ITAR. ITAR is actually a very important consideration and impediment for being able to work with these countries, whether it is in spaceports or just trying to conduct our suborbital activity elsewhere. I think the good news is the Administration has been taking a very aggressive stance on trying to reform and modernize it based upon where the industry has moved, because it has been a major impediment across the board.Right now as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, there is a lot of discussion taking place on potentially inserting some new language that would allow the Department of Commerce to play what had been a historical role before the late '90s when things were changed. So hopefully by the time this roundtable discussion goes to print, we will see some very significant reforms in this area.Scott Hubbard:Marcia, do you want to jump in on any of this?Marcia S. Smith: I am sitting here listening to the idea about other countries being home to spaceports and the like, and one question that comes to mind is whether or not the companies themselves or the U.S. government has a role in ensuring that these countries, for example, abide by the Outer Space Treaty and the Liability Convention. Maybe I could ask Steve, as an industry representative, do you think industry would have an interest in making certain that countries abide by those treaties, or do you think the U.S. government should or should not get involved in that?One thing I had in mind was that, in the maritime industry, there are countries that serve as flags of convenience because they do not have the same stringent safety regulations, for example. That is why companies register ships in these countries. I do not know if that is going to extend to the space regime also. As private companies begin sending people and cargo up in space, it may become an analog to that.Steve Isakowitz: Certainly the U.S. government has been involved, and I do not think we have really seen that as an impediment in our discussions with those who are trying to develop their own spaceports. In fact, I believe the United States can serve as a model in addressing the legal issues we face as we hope to fly abroad. It is important that we get this right, as our efforts are quickly becoming a global undertaking with a substantial market for U.S. space goods and services.George Nield: Just a comment on that, a reminder that under U.S. law, U.S. operators who conduct launches anywhere in the world would need to have an FAA launch license. So you are still going to have the same safety standards in terms of operating as long as it is the U.S. company that is conducting those operations.You bring up some interesting questions in terms of how this would really work. Is it sort of an expeditionary operation where a vehicle goes to one location for a few months at a time and then moves on to somewhere else? Or do you sell the vehicles? Or is it more like an airline operation where a company like Boeing builds the aircraft and then sells it to operators? There are lots of different models, and certainly we will need to work within the government, the State Department, and look at all the laws and regulations that apply and figure out which ones make the most sense to protect national security and abide by the international agreements and treaties, but also hopefully giving U.S. industry an opportunity to be successful on a global basis.Scott Hubbard:I would like to bring up something that is an implication of the idea that we could have spaceports not only in the United States but around the world, which is the interaction with the worldwide aviation airspace. Certainly in U.S. airspace there are something like 40,000 flights a day. Let me start with George. Do you have this issue on your radar screen, or do you think that the FAA will be dealing with it and tell you what the rules are?George Nield: That is certainly one of the areas we are focusing on right now in preparation for the operation of Virgin and others. We are working with the other parts of the FAA, specifically the air traffic organization, to help incorporate space activities into the national airspace system so that we do not have to just block out large areas.That was fine when we were flying a space shuttle five or six times a year, but if, as you say, we are moving toward a time when we have multiple flights a day from many different locations, we really need a better way of operating. And so as the FAA rolls out our next generation system of operating an advanced traffic control system, we want to make sure that space vehicles can also be accommodated. We are looking at the technologies and procedures, and whether corridors make sense, and any other ways that would enable this to be a seamless operation in which all users can have an equitable opportunity to traverse the airspace.Scott Hubbard:Any other comments from the rest of you?John Logsdon: There was a concept that emerged a few years ago under the name Space Traffic Management. I wonder how various commercial ventures will end up interacting, some 15 or so years from now, with some sort of presumably international regulatory regime that deals with managing access to space, managing movements in space.One of the areas that nobody has discussed yet today is in-space servicing, for example, and the potential of that being a commercial activity. I think the next 10 or 15 years are going to see a substantial growth in commercial activity in space interacting with government activity. The way that is all going to be managed, I think, is still not very clear.Scott Hubbard:Pascale Ehrenfreund (Research Professor at the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs) was unable to attend the Roundtable due to an illness, but did submit some comments that bring up another adjacent potential growth area, which is the innovation and utilization of small satellite technology. She points out that there have been a lot of advances in this field. There are a lot of innovative, small payload systems that can be accommodated on small satellites, and that there are a lot of people, governments, universities, private sector, even the United Nations, that are interested in this. The question for the panel is: "Do you think this will be something that is involved in commercial space exploration or is this going to remain part of the government science sector?" Let us start with Marcia.Marcia S. Smith: I think that many people are excited about the possibility of SmallSats and CubeSats because they see them as inexpensive ways to do a lot of innovative work. I am not in industry, however, so I cannot really say whether or not industry is going to pick up on this more than the government sector. But one of the interesting aspects of this has to do with space sustainability and space situational awareness when you start having so many of these in, probably, low Earth orbits, and how all of that is going to be managed, which goes back to the space traffic management question. So there is all the excitement going on about the innovation you can have, the low-cost aspects of space, bringing in new users of space, and helping them understand the value of space flight. And on the other hand, you have all this extra stuff up there that you have to manage, so I think there are a lot of open questions here.Scott Hubbard:Steve, is Virgin's business plan also capable of including these small payload systems one way or another?Steve Isakowitz: Oh, absolutely. As I mentioned upfront, we are developing such a vehicle. We call it LauncherOne, which is a small launch vehicle dedicated to these classes of small payloads that we believe can be launched at very affordable prices. This is certainly not the first time you have heard others in industry try to do this. I think it is different now, as we are at the cusp of a very successful business idea with the space industry changing.I think some of the best innovation is taking place in the small satellites. It is much easier for someone to start a business when your satellite costs anywhere from half a million to 20 million dollars. It is much easier for the government to try new technologies and take the risk if it is measured in singles or just a few tens of millions of dollars.I think, particularly as the budget of the United States has gotten extremely tight and people still want access to space and they still want to push the state of the art, that this is an area we are going to see a whole lot more, both for industry and the U.S. government. Whether it is flying as a secondary payload on larger launch vehicles, or to be able to fly as a dedicated payload on some of the smaller vehicles like ours, it is going to be one of the most exciting areas to watch in commercial space in the next few years.John Logsdon: Let me go back to expand what I said earlier before relating to this idea of small sats. We all know, and George was precise in saying so in his remarks, that FAA has regulatory responsibility for launch and reentry. At this point there is no regulator for in-orbit activities, which are by their nature international or at least global in character. How the emergence, or not, of that regulatory regime impacts the future of new space endeavors is an area worth exploring in future articles and tracking as the journal matures.Scott Hubbard:Absolutely. One of the things that is part ofNew Spaceis the proposal for both nonprofit and profit-making deep space efforts, mining asteroids, observing near-Earth objects funded by philanthropy. There are several things coming out that are not strictly related to the current entrepreneurial, commercial crew, and cargo programs that people think of; they are something over in another sector, although they might take advantage of that. I think you are absolutely correct about that.One of the things that you did bring up, and maybe this would be a good time to clarify, what is and is not in these treaties. Let me start with Marcia. What is in any of these treaties that has anything to do with what countries or even individuals in this case put into orbit around the Earth?Marcia S. Smith: Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty makes governments responsible for the activities of their nongovernment actors. There is a lot of debate about Article 6 and exactly what it permits or prohibits, but fundamentally, that is what the language says. The government would certainly have a role under the treaty in what their private sector organizations do in space. I do not—unless you want me to go through all the different provisions of the treaties, and George knows them as well as I do–but I think that is the fundamental one that affects commercial activities in space.For any country that is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, the government would have responsibility to oversee what the private sector companies are doing, which is partially what made me raise the question earlier about what if there is a country that is not a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty. Is that a way for someone to get around the limitations that are in the treaty, such as putting no weapons of mass destruction into space?Scott Hubbard:Interesting. George, in the maritime world, of course, you have cruise ships that are flagged out of Panama or Malta or someplace for certain business considerations. Is there some small country that is not a signatory that might be the flag for space launch activity?George Nield: I do not see that happening in the near term, but I do think that it is going to become increasingly obvious that there needs to be international cooperation with regard to the space environment. And how are we overseeing the activities of our nongovernment actors in our respective countries, and how are we working together to ensure that we do not see more collisions and proliferation of orbital debris?Right now there is quite a discussion underway within the U.S. interagency community on who should take the lead, how should that work, what options are available for offering space traffic monitoring services as John referred to them earlier? And what would that look like? Is that a Department of Defense function? They have traditionally been the ones tracking these objects and keeping track of where they are going to be at various times. Is it NASA because of their operations? Is it the FAA because we are a regulatory organization? Those are some of the debates that are going on right now as we figure out how we want to operate as a U.S. government, and then how the United States wants to play in the international community.John Logsdon: I have a question for Marcia or George. Is the Isle of Man covered by the United Kingdom, being a signatory to the various space treaties, given its role in trying to promote itself as a center of commercial space?George Nield: I am not an expert on that area. My understanding is certainly they are billing themselves as not subject to the tax or other regulatory obstacles that other nations may have, so I think their point is, no, they are independent.John Logsdon: So they could be a flagging authority, kind of like Malta or Liberia, for ships?George Nield: In theory.Marcia S. Smith: I do not know the answer legally. That is a good one for the lawyers. But I think there have been some scenarios that people have not looked at. Of course, our discussion today so far has been about U.S. activities, and I am sure there are other countries that are looking into their own new space ventures and ways of putting things into space. I do think that this is an area that someone should be keeping an eye on as to how do we ensure that the international regime that has been established for the last 40 years holds together as some of these activities become more accessible to countries who may not have the same goals as the traditional space players.It is terrific to get more and more countries involved in space and using space. But there is a broader interest in the space community at large in order to ensure that we do have a sustainable space environment and that these treaties, which have stood the test of time—I know that some people have criticisms about them but overall I think they have stood the test of time—to make certain that they remain relevant in the future as more and more countries get involved in space activities.Scott Hubbard:Let me turn the discussion in just a slightly different direction. I am going to use a public quote here from former astronaut Brewster Shaw, who did work, I believe, with Boeing for a number of years. Brewster would say something in various panels and meetings like, "Boy, when it comes to space, the more people that go, the more people who will want to go." I guess I will start with Steve. Virgin Galactic is led by some very astute people. Do you have a sense of what the market might be out there of people who would love to experience four minutes of weightlessness?Steve Isakowitz: Yes, Brewster Shaw has it right; the more that go, the more that will want to go. There have been a lot of studies that have been done looking at how big of a market it is. The truth of the matter is we ultimately do not know how big it will be until we get into it. Now from our standpoint, what we have seen very early is extremely promising. We are not yet flying, but we have more than 500 people signed up with significant deposits so they can have the experience of flying into space.And as customers, they come with many different reasons why they want to have the experience. I think there are those that are sort of the founding members, who are just excited about the thrill of being able to do this, like being challenged by other thrills around the world. But I think there is a growing number of folks who are signing up because this is an experience they want to have, as part of their list of things they want to do in their lives, to be able to see the Earth from space, to have the experience of doing that while you are floating around as an astronaut. It is an experience that is unique to mankind, and the first time that we are able to do something like this for all who want to go.We have not seen a shortage of customers. In fact, I think we have been really impressed, even with just the people we have signed up. When we fly them, we will have put more people into space than have ever flown in the history of the world's space programs. We think there is a tremendous opportunity out there.Just like all things that are new in the market, over time, there will be more entrants, more competition, and prices will come down. I think it has the opportunity to tremendously expand. When I go to conferences and ask people "Raise a hand who would like to fly into space," nearly everybody raises their hand. It just becomes a question of affordability. That is what we hope to be able to provide.Scott Hubbard:Now let's turn to Russ McMurry, our representative from one of the long time aerospace companies, Boeing. Russ, Boeing is almost 100 years old. With that long tradition and history, you are at the leading edge; you are a competitor for NASA's commercial crew program. My question to you is, "How have you seen the bigger aerospace industry adapt to these new directions or this new effort to stimulate commercial cargo and crew?"Russ McMurry: As far as our company is concerned, we have really been a developer of innovative products for most of our history. I will not go through the history of the airline industry and our participation in that, but there are also several cutting-edge, defense-type products that we have been involved with throughout our history. So really we view this as just another evolution of an exciting product and a new industry that we hope to emerge and participate in.We do have a long history in human space flight. We were the developer and the designer of the Shuttle Orbiter and various parts of Apollo. And Boeing is currently the prime contractor on NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) Rocket. We have been in the space business for a good period of time and intend to be here in the futur