Transcripts For CSPAN2 Space Commerce Forum Part 1 20240713

Developing space projects. Please welcome christian, the executive director, procurement council, u. S. Chamber of commerce. Good morning. And welcome to the u. S. Chamber of commerce and to launch the space economy, our Second Annual space summit. Events such as this are a team effort and we deeply appreciate the support of our sponsors, boeing, northrup, rocket lab, oneweb, hawkeye 360 and ascent. We have been busy over the past year from policy discussions ranging from management of commercial aviation and the orbit assurance, to opportunity aboard the iss and future gateway. And we even convened the need for greater use of space enabled surveillance of the water ways. The procurement and council has an ever expanding set of policy pursuits. Fortunately, we have an enthusiastic space industry ceo here at the chamber. Tom donohue wrote an article, he wrote, harnessing the economic expansion of space is no easy feat. It took years for the maritime system and nearly a hundred years for aviation, but both are vital parts of the Global Economy and space increasingly is, too, indeed he wrote, space is the new economic frontier, the public and private sectors must Work Together as partners and pioneers to leverage its vast potential for human kind, end quote. I am not sure that it could be said any better. But before i introduce the ceo of the u. S. Chamber, we have a brief video i think youll like if we could roll that now. From the International Space station, im nasa astronaut christina cook. On behalf of the expedition 51 crew we would like to welcome the attendees of the 2019 space summit aboard our magnificent laboratory. We are appreciative of the u. S. Chambers support and commitment to enabling commercial partnerships and streak investments, especially in the space industry. As we fly 255 Miles Per Hour 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 this trend to continue as we approach years of living aboard the space station. Were happy to have joined you from orbit and wish you all a productive space summit. And with that, tom donohue, ceo of the u. S. Chamber of commerce. [applaus [applause] in a few minutes, im going to go out to the airport and a horizontal basis, im going to fly about 250 miles and its unbelievable to think that you just saw a quick video from space and people are telling me that you aint seen nothing yet. So im glad youre all here. Christian, you and your team have put together a great event. Thanks to all the folks on the space station for tuning in with us for a few minutes and its great for us to see so much commercial work underway on the International Space station. Truly a jewel in the crown of the Cutting Edge Research youre going to see as we go forward. Id also like to thank all of you who are joining us today, whether as a speaker, a panelist, a participant, whatever youre doing, its just great to have you here again, or anew. Let me just make one observation. I went through all the programs this morning on the way here and i was really taken back by the extraordinary number of, and quality of speakers that were going to have today. If you just look carefully at that whole agenda of who is going to be here, there is no question that were 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, weve witnessed a sea change in commercial space. Were officially moved beyond the countdown to the point of liftoff. Think of this, today there are less than 2000 active satellites in orbit. But yet, 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. Thats why in the coming years, growth will continue to skyrocket. The u. S. Chamber projects that commercial space will be at least a 1. 5 trillion dollar industry by 2040. And if there are 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 pause, then 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 society across the globe learn, communicate, thrive and grow and thats only using space humps of miles above us. If you just think, if you just think back in the last six months, the things weve learned, the things weve read, the things weve seen on what were finding, new black holes, extraordinary deeper into the space and the next space and the next space, its unbelievable and i want to say, again, what youre watching and what were working on is only the beginning and as soon as we get one place, were going on further. Commercial space is something that stimulates the mind and has the Great Potential to fundamentally change our education system. All civilizations throughout history look to the heavens and they wonder and they prayed, now we have the chance to reach up and grasp those dreams and the opportunities are endless. Space isnt an empty void, but it is the landscape of near infinite opportunities. The materials and Energy Resources that are scarce here on earth are everywhere in our solar system. Lunar colonies, astronaut mining, and interplanetary travel, once the stuff of Science Fiction could soon become reality. But for that to happen, we need sensible Public Policies that will force through the innovation and 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. Were 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 and 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 vicepresident , space and launch, boeing Defense Space and security at the boeing company. And neil bradley executive vicepresident and chief policy officer, the u. S. Chamber of commerce. Good morning. [applaus [applause] well, jim, thanks for joining us this morning and helping us kick off our Second Annual space summit and our launch program. I wonder if we could stop top line and tell us a little about boeings history in the Space Exploration and Space Program, which i know is frankly a lot richer than i personal appreciated and many in our audience appreciate and how youre thinking about your priorities today. Okay, well, one priority is to thank the chamber and the people here, you and thomas, a great event and i know its a great start last year, so, thank you for that. From a history of legacy perspective, a lot of people dont know, but boeing goes back a good 60 years in human space flight and about the same in satellites to include commercial satellites, so 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 lunar rovers were boeing products coming out against washington. I know thats a long time ago, but it makes our work force very proud and technical papers on Lessons Learned there and keep the work force engaged and interested. And look, i think the first commercial satellite rolled out of the factory and in california, sin com one in 1962, maybe, i might be off a year there and since then the satellites were off an auto plant. Theres a great legacy there. If you look for recently, we have the privilege of serving nasa on the Space Program and those are a marvel if you havent gotten to a museum to see one of them. Im biased because i got to work the program during my work and life and those things enabled the great observatory and the International Space station that theyre familiar with. And the partner nations, ill call it, conquered low earth orbit. Maybe we didnt conquer, but learned a lot about it and the kids dont know a time when humans havent lived continuously in space. Theres a new generation coming and from our work force standpoint. They were very relevant. And the Lessons Learned for our star liner project are huge, and i would argue nasas space station and the International Partner stations, that is the human Space Program for our country and a lot of the world today and we just keep learning so the ability to learn how the human race system and environments and kind of the crew ops and training and how fast you might have to move, in an unexpected event, thats just fantastic for our work force. So, i wanted to start with the history because as i mentioned back stage, i was home in oklahoma with my family and we went to the tulsa air and space museum and some of those companies that are now part of the boeing corporation, where some of those products that you just talked about were built in it you will is an and some of the volunteer docents at the museum were the ones who sent design the payload doors, for example, on the Shuttle Program and its amazing well, not amazing, its remarkable the pride in which they take, and the work they did in having been a part of putting americans into space and 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. And so, i think 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 preceded you have deserved pride in what youve accomplished. Thanks for bringing that together and thanks for what boeing does in particular to help educate younger americans who follow your footsteps. I know one of the ways that you all help inspire folks and one of your colleagues with us last year is Chris Ferguson and for those of you who are here and joined us, you know that chris was a nasa astronauts and been in space and hes currently no longer with nasa, but training to go back to space and preparing to go back to space in a couple of years as part of Boeings Starliner program. Tell us a little about how you bring together the expertise of someone like chris has and his history in nasa and kind of the public side of Space Exploration and the expertise that you all have in the private sector side and how that marriage works and what kind of opportunities that creates as we think about how the u. S. Returns to human space flight. Well, yeah, thats a great perspective. I hadnt thought about the public internal part of it. Ill start by saying, were working in the commercial crew program and ours is called a starliner and proud of it and were going to fly were counting down the days now not months and weeks. How many days . Were looking at the 19th. We have the range over the weekend. We were on the 17th and we asked for the 19th and they may have positioned that by now, but thats what we prefer. We had something come up over the weekend on the purge was a little off we told the team get it how you need to get it. Number one, we call it the commercial crew program, but right now were serving nasa and i need to thank nasa. Because a lot of what we are able to do we learned from nasa and we have techniques and approaches and doing it with much less nasa direct involvement than weve had in the past. So having chris on the team is immensely valuable. You bring him into the team and put a boeing badge on him and firstoff, he has an effect on all of us. You know, we all know these are very brave americans and these are also really smart people so he has a great ability to lead other people. And he has maybe too much ability to say i could probably handle that risk, but his participation in those design trades and how are we actually going to operate this vehicle has been invaluable and we think that that is needed inside the tent. And no way of saying that the nasa astronauts are not able to participate in that way and its been really good for us and pretty cool for chris to see how things work behind the curtain. Publicly, we kind of have a deal with chris, we never want to be in position where hes not entirely comfortable to include our schedule and our timelines and our test protocols and it has a good effect on both of us and it gives him to fairly represent the nasa in the quarters hes uniquely able to do and ill close at that question by saying that if youre an engineer entering the work force or a technician that wants to build something just right and youre off trying to work with other nations and individuals who may want to buy a commercial ride on this. The ability to go out and get the question and say, hey, what do you think about this or that, im and last time i had lunch with him the day before and i talked in with naive questions for someone who is the know 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 . Let me describe it as a composite. So never one, physics carrying peoples hefted his base, protecting them and bring it home safely really has a change. Were not going to walk away from what weve learned. I dont think anybody needs to hear more on that. That fundamental doesnt change. The Business Model is very different and what we try to do with the machines after we fly with nasas very different. When i say its a composite, hes a hardnosed test pilot and with some pretty tough chief engineers who will build that thing right. At the same time we know from our commercial airplane business and other commercial ventures, the optics of how you sell it and how you might arrange the seats and be able to reconfigure them, thats all much different, how we might be able to sell them, wed found in the future. Thats a lot of fun for the tape as well but its got to be thought through carefully. Thats i want to go further. The Current Administration has a renewed focus on Space Exploration returning american and american vehicles into space. You are also thinking the on that pic youre thinking about it from the commercial side of it. Talk a little bit about the same way we 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 fit together . Other opportunities presented . Are there conflicts . Theres the potential for conflict. The first answer is its a great opportunity. I want to remind everybody nasa has a policy objective in 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. We want commercial companies to succeed so that whether we work for nasa, to some extent we have their policy blessing to try to use them for customers other than nasa. You see them to export things with the International Space station and firemen to try to help us do that. There could be a conflict, hypothetically a customer and want to fly the same time nasa does. What weve express is there very open about its okay if you want to try to do that, just you know what harm to what were doing. I think nasa is enabling that much more than they are [inaudible] is this the Lesson Learned from going all the way back to kennedys challenge to put man on the moon, that the government is leading a providing some incentives and not just funding but the commercial spinoff and opportunities that are created by that National Commitment may be were not anticipated at the time and were not planned for but turned out to be very real, and now we understand there are going to be those type of commercial spinoffs and opportunities and a part of the planning. Is that whats happened over the last 50 or 60 . Ill back up. For apollo a used a very large, historic by kurdistani the propulsion of the since then with maybe 10 of that annual with done Amazing Things. The big lesson in those Amazing Things is be ready for something you didnt expect, some opportunity will arise and in our economy that set works so you want to scar your system to go to great things. You want to partner with people who look at the world differently. Were trying to see if we could become an aerial photos businesses. Businesses. Absolutely the government is an anchor customer. It would be hard to get in this business if you didnt have a certain customer that knew this to me and could tolerate the risk. Its hard to predict a schedule. We struggled a little bit with the schedule and i think Everybody Knows that. You have to do it systematically. Its absolutely an effective policy from my perspective and we wouldnt have a chance to do the other thinks were going to try to do without that first part. The first nasa by we think about the secondary and 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 that some type of insight as to what you think the commercial opportunities are. Obviously here at the chamber this conference or conference a year ago we talk a lot about the commercialization of space. We throw out big numbers about what the opportunities are, right . That involved a little bit of science and a little bit of art, right . You all have to do much more heavily from a business perspective on the sides of it. Tell us your perspective in terms of how you see the future commercial opportunity of space, and are we right to really talk about a new space age and 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 new entrants and players. A lot of people consensus in this economy now. You can make a pro and con argument. I would say i would segment the mark meadows markets for you. Use small launchers and big launchers and lots of them, historically there hasnt been room for as many as we see. So the question will be as we get more and more efficient, with the elasticity happen . If you drop prices we get more demand . That experience is underway. Any prediction . Launch is something nationstates are not going to give up. So theres some set of worldwide launchers they can be commercial. Theres a subset that people are going to in the country so they dont lose the ability to do it. At a think theres a finite amount of people who can survive in the commercial market and we are seeing great competition. We are in it. We are super proud of her partnership and the people that people get in the last 20 years it was annually get rockets to work overtime . Theres a a company that is prn you can. If you could do it and get the price down the question becomes do you stimulate demand . I question goes to satellites first. The commercial satellite business has historically been a geobased business, probably no one here needs a reminder thats been a type business the last two years work order seven death and were seeing a proliferation of nongeoconstellations and that will have implications for launch big and small. And moving away from broadcast the Network Provision is, we have to set the place up. Some of those folks will start competing with horizons and how did get landing rights for countries. Its exciting but it wont be easy. But again unintended are originally im contemplated opportunities. And finally human spaceflight, if we can crack open more people go to space for not exclusively are most exclusively government people, thats got to be big. What kind of doors does that open . You have a idea theres a lot of research that goes on International Space station but you of a lot of opportunities to do Cutting Edge Research that can only be done in space or would of benefits if done in space. Is that what the third Market Element of nongovernmental human spaceflight unlocks . Its one of them. As great as robotics have advanced and computers are mighty handy and they discover a number of things that maybe you would discover or notice so i think thats true. Much has been made about manufactured in space. Thats possible but were discovering things, you can more quickly find vaccines for things, salmonella discovered on the station is a prominent example. Theres a segment of the market which is tourism. Is that going to be a growing speedy i dont know. Congratulations to them, they ready to start service. Short subpart of all right. We aspire to provide orbital rights. How deep that market is and what long term and private could exist is not sure youre were in. Going to try. Is at another area of our price elasticity and demand we dont know exactly where those are going to be on the curb . Im not sure. You know, im not sure to the point with early adopters. Would you like to go and why . And ashes after some people goa lot more people going to go . 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 was designed for nasa but you can have fifth cedar or cargo for anybody who wants to fill that fifth seat just shoot me an email. Whats the going rate for that . Its high. Exactly. A Monthly Payment system, just like at the car lot. A Monthly Payment system, this is on the havent heard yet. Yet. You have 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 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, this began the conversation, a longterm player in this space. And 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 back from. Give us your perspective on the current marketplace and the dynamics of that kind of competitive element that i would argue may be relatively new in terms of how we think about the commercial Space Services side. Thats the great observation, doesnt talk about legacy in our pride and parts we worked on. The future is different. So number one our view is its going to happen. Toms comments about the large economy, i will not tell you how large the economy will be. Theres a lot of utility and excitement around going to space so we believe in that the economy. Number two, its not good happen in the traditional Business Models that we can look back and say, you could watch our behavior a little bit or commercial crews is a completely different Business Model than space station which is different than the institution model for space launch system. If you look at our military satellite line that a lot of cross flow between commercial and military technology. We set a lot of fixed price to the military so theres a flavor of commercial there. So number one weve got to be agile and Business Model. You cant 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 . Ill pick launch. People are very excited and this is a personal observation, people are very excited to get in the launch business. I think someone like the chamber studied the earth more small set launchers that small satellite companies. You wonder if that is a mismatch. You look and say from where you are, how many rounds would get to get through and if all of you were to succeed is that much money out there . See what i mean . You have to pick your spots and predict which Business Model is going to work. They are all capable of flying. Your business, and theres harsh is his decision, 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, is that where you begin to flow bit of breakdown with the hardnosed, profit and loss, what the market demands . Is there a limit of that going on . I think theres a lot of that going on. Our cfo who looks at me as a 35 year space nerd. He says jim, theres no blood left in your koolaid to stream. Because obviously a space enthusiast and so i talked with different Business Models. Thats going to be as important as the technology as more people are able to do with it the ability of technology and you get into a sustainable business. Without revealing too much about your thinking at boeing, if launch is one of those areas where everybody is getting in, everyone has their way of doing it, when you said around, you personally think about this, thats the area where in 20 years i said i wish i want to be involved at because the old ice hockey adage, you skate to where the puck is going, not where it is. Where is the puck going and would you like to see people skating to . In launch specifically . Know, beyond launch. Specifically beyond launch. I think the prize, i will say the prize were all what you arrive at the puck, weve had humans live containers in space. We are going on 20th and we dont want a gap in that. Im boldly, we dont want in the u. S. And we dont want worldwide. We have to go get this economy going. We have to go get that the government says ive shown 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 our we will have that gap. So when you think about that gap, we know the age of the young National Space station. We know there are things with great engineering and ingenuity we could do for prolonged time. You cant prolong an asset indefinitely. When do you think about that gap and faith gosh, i hope we are prepared as a nation to be at that point where we can fill that gap . Ten years . 15 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 they will go extend space station for 2030. Not a technical reason you couldnt do that. If you look at the european budgets budget that come out right about now, you look like theyre going to be there for the long term. Then you say how long should it go . It could go, i think its decreased but right now a lot of the conversation is wednesday station to what a deal with the airlock from which they dispense the satellites, we did that. Of course we take a payment whenever the launch is something but a lot of this is false like that going on. The mass challenge incubator where paying people to bring experience up. I think theres a lot of speakers talk about the incubator and the experiments and of that is evolved and we see that . I will start with nasa policy. They are clearly allowing at as long as it does no harm to the stationed there allowing us to try to build businesses out there. Prominent examples of Small Businesses. We are trying to stimulate some. Its a little like our horizon x ventures are. People may not know boeing has a venture arm called horizon x were we take shares of companies both fake baby the ones that will survive long Company Might have some technology we think would make visible in our company but we can help it be born in another company. I see the station as an incubator like that. You are seeing things being tried and we will discover sustainable businesses. When you think about those sustainable businesses, when we plan for the gap that you talked about, do you think that were going to avoid that gap we will of what the 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, with talk of 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 that is a common view of what the next stage of man living in space looks like . Do your competitors . Does the government . Do Public Policymakers share that view of the future . Im going to be bold and say yes, but not in the same architecture. I think writ large people agree we like to see lowearth orbit commercialized a little easier to get to. Its a place where we can do some business of people imagine hotels and commercial labs at a think of the countries talk about building their own space stations there. I think everybody imagine 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 exhalation program on a scale with his room for everybody. So you think about lowearth orbit, its commerce job to go populate that. The government will go meet with like the railroads in the west. There will be some devices that help us go to deeper space than the moon and mars and beyond. You will have lowearth orbit. How you do it, a lot of competition, 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 will end up but it is exciting come into your point about having leaders express that excitement, one of the things the chamber we are proud to work with boeing on as well was our other members is laying that Public Policy groundwork. Talked a little bit about how the government 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 mentioned 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 error and space museum. And you see his passion when you talk to him about it. But like all administrations theres a finite time, at the time horizon that we talked about in terms of full avoiding the gap is going to exceed any, exceed the next administration whoever that is in the next administrative and probably the next administered after that. So what can we do as an susie is, as advocates, as boosters for the kind of exciting future of to maintain that level of enthusiasm so that we maintain this level of commitment and support to make sure we avoid they get gap and get the futurt you talk about . Do you have any advice for us entered the one we can can do in that regard . Number one, i do have a little strong interest in this. Number one, when you do look at artemis, larger space ecosystem that is merging and a special artemis as something we all have to pull together and try to make happen. We alter self linking of different ways and we want to do well at our Company Wants to do well but we have to advance it. We all have to support each other. I cant see my colleague rick, if easier but i would like to congratulate Lockheed Martin for dancing their orion to test because theyre building a deep space machine and shes going to go to the kate after this test. The round of applause for those guys. [applause] i know that sounds odd but the point was, the thing im trying, im 35 dash by never seen a time in human spaceflight were everybody was waiting for everybody else. Im not sure thats really happening everywhere right now. What would try to do is commit and say lets all be mutually consoled supported. As you mention were 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 different than going to the soap 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 in that because they are the artemis generation. If were not going of the human gap, they are going to carry the torch. Whats left for me is able to pass on a few lessons. Its excitability terry that george as youre doing but also exciting excited to build a pass off and know the future is bright. Thanks for taking the time and sharing with us all a bit about not just what boeing is doing with the perspective on the overall architecture, thanks for sharing your enthusiasm. Thats whats most exciting is this isnt just a brief moment in time. This is a moment in time that is going to define future history. Its pretty exciting to be a part of and im privileged you took the time to share with us today your thoughts about. Thank you and thank you for doing this. I think youll find the same enthusiasm all over the audience. You are at the front of something very big. You ought to grasp it. Join me in thanking jim for spending time with us. [applause] and now eric graham, lord hoffman, Global Launch Services at rocket labs usa, brigadier general, 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 miter corporation. Good morning. Good morning. Its great to be with all of you. The topic for our panel this point is the evolving regulatory needs for commercial space and lowearth orbit operations. Thank you all for being with me. I think we all know that the future base led operations will 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 of the International Community as well as capability in areas such as space domain awareness, spacecraft management, and continued innovation. We also know when he 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 whole 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 have a great panel this morning. Lets discuss this meaty topic. You were some of the names but let me go through and do some introductions again for a quickly. To right of me i have John Serafini again the chief executive officer with hawkeye 360. Brigadier general witches told me that he had made three promises to himself when he retired. Was it two days ago this time last year . One was not to work in government again. One was not to live in the washington metropolitan area again, and you can see how successful he has been at that, so thank you for joining us. We also have senior Vice President of Global Launch Services and eric graham who has been in his role for just three months as director of regular affairs at one web. Again thank you for joining me. Lets jump in. We have a little bit of time together. My first question im going to give you general, and he did just walk us through some of the regulatory approaches that youre taking, intent to streamline launch licensing a payload permitting. What are some of the key points of contention in that area, and how are you working to balance those considerations . First off it was great to get space policy directed number too directing us to streamline our regular construct to combine four different rules into one. Number one, he 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 that 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 as light a regulatory touch as possible to enable this business. Good, thank you. Im going 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 sustainability of leo constellation in space, and how does the new constellation design, how does this change the nature of operations what are the concerns and how might raid tory reform help address the challenges . We heard already this morning that there are so many more satellites that were authorized within the last year at the fcc than what exists in space today and lowearth orbit. As you see these large constellations that are necessary to connect the entire world, stop for a minute and think we have wired communication for over a century without wireless terrestrial communication for decades now, and massive portions of earth, parts of the United States are still left uncovered. These leo constellations are the constellations that we will be able to connect those areas and connect to those people to the economy. Were talking billions on earth who are still not connected. So its necessary to have these large number of satellites in lowearth orbit, but its just as necessary to think about what happens to the satellites once theyre up there. If you think about succeeding 99 of the time and thats pretty good, but when you talk a thousands of satellites, thats a large number of dead satellites. 1 failure is a large number of dead satellites that are up there. Unlike terrestrial collisions which can be swept up, gravity is helping us out, all it takes is a broom at a big dustpan you can clean up anything, when you get to space its not that easy and that impact has a ripple effect, Chain Reaction of potential particles that cant be tracked but they can destroy future satellites or they 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 deal with in a proper way and one web is focus on in space is how we make our satellites capable 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 theme for us. We launched a website responsible dot space that brings together all principles that guide us as we design a salad. So make sure their operational on earth before you put them into space. And as we follow our deployment plan, launches starting next year. Can you talk to us all a bit about some of the challenges that you see from kind of that International Perspective and the way that some of the other players in space my challenge some of the things that you just described . Yes. There has to be International Cooperation around how we get the satellites into space and what happens to them once they are up there. The concern that we have as a satellite operator is countries getting hit of each other and going in different directions. You can only lead if everyone follows. If you lead and no one follows, then youre an outlier. The thing that hurts companies as we plan is always following the outlier, and what happens when there is not some sort of regulatory consistency. So International Bodies exist, they met in egypt last week to meet on spectrum, for instance, 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 at risk connectivity in that country. So john, im going to turn do you get we just heard about some regulatory uncertainty. We heard from general monteith about kind of the lightweight regulatory processes that we try to put in place, but tell me from kind of that Startup Community what are some of the uncertainties in the regulatory space right now. How did the impact startups in commercial space . The best way to think about from a fundraising perspective for starters, your companies, always your most paramount mission. As a Venture Capital investor in a in a startup operator, ive seen interesting paradigm shift which is more vcs are risk embracing as relates to a lack of defined policy regime. Because those once white space at the traditionally our new companies to be traded and in order for the next Great American company to take off, sometimes they have to be in the gray zone because the whole lot of competition. I would point towards uber, airbnb, companies that were established before the Regulatory Regime was established. Walk outside and see all these line scooters. There wasnt a Regulatory Regime outstanding for how those scooters should or shouldnt be in place within the streets but they did anyway. So for vcs looking for the next great thing, regular and certainty is not the sort of bad thing but there is an offset which is the regulatory uncertainty has to come down as the amount of capital goes up. The space ecosystem given the capital intensity, that means regulatory uncertainty early on was more dangerous. Dangerous point for a company like hawkeye raise over 100 million, or raise more, the apple to showcase to our investors at larger fundraising totals that the Regulatory Risk is reduced is very important. Can you share a little bit about avi at the a or are comes has been interacting with industry, especially startups . So as i mentioned earlier, its not only the increase in cadence but its complexity and its working with startups and tried to come up with are working to a regulatory construct that supports company data been doing this for decades, or they are launching almost every week the companies that will not launch for the next two to three years but have a very innovative plan to get to orbit. Its 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 the sector. And so whether its coming up with ways to, for instance, Safety Systems on board a rocket. You would think, just make sense, you have to have the ability to stop an errant rocket but what if youre launching from a place where the impact if something goes wrong is simply negligible . Do you still need a Safety System on board . No, and were kind to come up with a construct for that and then instead of carrying all that extra weight and the complexity on your rocket it is simple to design, simple to get orbit. You can carry more to orbit and you can get your license through quicker. When i look at what we do, its maintaining Public Safety and weve been doing this for 35 years and we have never suffered a fatality or injury to public, is keeping that going for it while companies to innovate and go fast. Thank you. That was a great lead into some of things you and i been talking about. You shared you are moving the next lunch i believe, is that right . This spring. So if you could talk to us a little bit about how the new footprint of launch activity both in u. S. And worldwide are evolving, and really for you what does drive the launch location by commercial providers . Like a mother a lot of thins driven by market demand. Our customers needs, operating out of new zealand where we launched nine times but were getting rid to open up in virginia. The reason it we have customers preferred to launch in your soil and we could reach a lot of the preferred orbit. We are thinking at a launch site location, market demand is going to be a big driver because you have a Business Case that closes. Your also driven by geography and geopolitical considerations. You want to make sure you in a spot that you can take offense if you get close to the equator, you want to make sure youre launching out over open space so if something does go wrong youre not endangering the public but you also want to be a stable location so youre not worried about whether or not you will be able to launch. The weather is a fact as well. All of these considerations. For us operating the first private large comp lex and new zealand has worked out perfectly. We can launch up to 120 times a year. With a Great Partnership from the faa in licensing our lunches and also payload licensing, and so there been a huge help to us in terms of i started getting up and running and ill be able to launch on a monthly cadence. We fed good cooperation from fcc and noaa as well for their licensing. Thats all worked out quite well. Now launching, where interacting more with other Government Agencies and of the partners that are launching from the same launch complex. You mentioned launching on a monthly cadence. Lets stress the system and take this more to a weekly basis, when you look across what the future may have in store for us. A question to maybe for each of you on the panel. So when you think about this increase in volume and this possibility of weekly launches, what would be needed both in the Space Operations and air operations of domain to make this successful . I open it up to the panel. Launch is launches that ethically are necessary for company like one web. We put a satellite factory in florida where we can produce to make of our satellite a day and we are launching 3036 satellites for launch to build the constellation as quickly as we need to. That just, that is just one ngas operator. You add a a couple more plus ay other missions and weekly, weekly capable launches and not out of the realm of possibility. It becomes a necessity, in fact. So there has to be a way to coordinate that, away for the folks went of launch vehicles manage it and then of course once your satellites get up there thats where our people fly the satellites and other companies do the same thing and we have 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 all driven by market event but the market demand across government and commercial customers worldwide is rising steadily as we talked about. The path that the spaced economy is leading us in this direction. Comparison was made to the maritime industry. If you look at the airline industry, same sort of growth pattern is a look at the pattern over the last few decades and were on the same path. When general monteith was running the 45th space wing and set them on a path to 48 largest and you the wasnt just one launch, multiple launch provides all launching from the same launch complex. The challenge was to the whole enterprise to be able to support that. For hawkeye the challenge or its the manufacturing capacity here in the trinity. American manufacturers of microsatellite buses is relatively paltry. Most of them are r d type facilities, not many set up at skill, thickly with not only u. S. Operation but u. S. Ownership and principally u. S. Supply chain. That is difficult to find at scale. We need to encourage about and set policy to allow that manufacturing facility here in the u. S. To flourish. Thank you. When we look across, what these companies are trying to do, again we have to have the right register a construct. My office has been agile, responsive and fast here we can do that. In the last seven years our license activity is increased about 1000 . We see this potential for that to happen again over the next five years, and so 2012 from my office we had essentially 25 people do a single license. Now im down to less than three. We cant keep that cadence up and listen to a couple things. Number one is higher good new folks so were always looking to hyper if you know somebody out there whos in this biz visit s to come be a regulator, which is exceptionally exciting. [laughing] but weve got increased but it cant increase the size of my office by 1000 so its got to get more efficient more effective at that. The streamlined rules we talked about, thats going to be one part. Its also reorganizing our office. Back in april secretary chao announced we would restructure the office of commercial space transportation. Im happy to announce steve dixon, my boss, who you will hear from later today just approved that realization last night. That will allow us to be more responsive to industry as we move forward. Now, with that cadence the other issue is getting into the air space, the on ramp or getting through. I look at it like it on on a freeway. It got to be able to safely get there. We have to move and we are moving from segregation and second airspace to integrating one of the things we did this year is removed responsibility for integrating space transportation into the National Airspace system from our office to air traffic organization. They own the requirements, the priorities, the funding. They will get this done. Does nobody better in the world at airspace integration than them. Because even though the impact right now with the commercial space Transportation Industry is relatively small, its going o increase. On the other side, one general aviation aircraft can stop the 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. Lets take that out a little bit further. As the surface that the space Traffic Management evolves and loses to commerce, what would be some of the significant changes and what should the commercial players hope to gain as this moves out the more of the dod domain into the commerce domain . I can start that. Im going to sound like a broken record. Safety. As a shift to commerce and out of the duty realm and still have all those exquisite sense of providing data, first and foremost the foundation has three safety. Without some kind of safety construct, there is no commerce. There are some who suggest were at the beginning of debris creating more debris and creating an overreaching so we can no longer use. We have to be sensitive to that. And without that we have no ability to take event of this trillion dollar economy. Whether its getting to the airspace over or whether functg once you are 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 piece or another satellites orbital path. I was in the organization in the air force when that was a bad day. Fortunately we havent seen any more of those but its out there. Its going to happen at some point. Let me hear from the kind of commercial player perspective on what your needs are and what you are expecting from this to me or tour in five and we are entering into. If you want to evolve into a period where we are launching almost like airline taking off and landing at major airports, and integrate into nash is basis we transit through, then we have to adopt to the rules of the road. In ways we can do that is regulatory and also technology. One of the evolutions that is happening right now is the move from a command or we rely on systems and humans loop to an autonomous flight Safety System or termination which is on board that provides a lot of benefits. Its a safer model in which to operate. Were going to be launching using autonomous flight termination on upcoming launch and thats our standard or the government has come up and said this is so important, so good that we want to set that as a standard for everybody to migrate to by 2023. 2023. 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. Our mantra is lets only leave the satellite, the payload and its got regulatory requirements to deorbit that we dont want to leave any other parts of their come in at the debris so we deorbit of the gulls, try to our booster, user boosters who want to be responsible in that manner as will. Theres some of these norms and practices that are starting to come into effect that are going to help the whole industry move that direction. General, ill turn to you. It was mentioned about the technology that we might be able to partner with to help promote that safety as we transit from the surface to space. Any comments on that drum your perspective . Well, as an operator we obviously care about the quality and the notification we received, who provides it to us. Were kind of agnostic or we dont have a viewpoint on that. We just care about quality of service and make sure get information that is necessary and time as possible. From a technology perspective, its the global tragedy of the commons that weve seen. We do a lot of work with a time awareness and look for bad actors for using that Global Common in nefarious ways, illegal fishing, human smuggling, et , et cetera. Same concept in space. It takes all of us in a concerted effort to be good stewards. Hawkeye, even with our spacecraft that we want to purchase the in our consolation to the one weather and space x of the world now have thousands of spacecraft. If we are all not following the orbital debris 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 color of the rocket perhaps. On the other extreme you have people who would say regulators have no business here. They will destroy my innovation. My job is to go fast and break things. The right place as so often isnt 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 you are talking about a sog like space, which is a common area for people, which can be destroyed for the future by one or two bad actors. I dont envy the job of the regulators. We truly appreciate the job they are doing and i think all of this comes back and you hearing this from general monteith, he has this, the value of foresight within the regulatory agencies. We see this with other agencies around the globe that we have to work with to get rights to some of the spectrum. Some of the regulations that we are having to work through, most of the fact are designed for geostationary, not ngos. So these that mightve been appropriate for a single Satellite City above the equator are suddenly impossible when youre dealing with 1000, 2000 or more satellites. And so the pace of regular change has to keep up with the pace of innovation. And so theres probably a need today for more collaboration between stakeholders and regulators than ever before. We talk about the government as regulators, that they are also facilitated as it transitions from one agency to another, commerce is more about promoting the conversation a spe in their facilitator voelker there are also companies entering the space economy that are going to help facility as well, copies like lille labs that are tracking very small objects and helping augment the government space tracking in the space domain awareness. You get compass like astral skill that are looking for active debris removal constructs and models that are wrote on the forefront of that because what we talk about the threat of a horrible debris, we will dont have good solution for a right now other than wait it out and actually not a good solution. The current orbital debris standards requires the or both and 25 years here that was written long ago and went 25 years seems reasonable. Its unacceptable today. That will drive the whole economy, though space economy, all of the participants to upgrade just like we talked about autonomous flight termination system as the new model or stand where migrating toward in a shorter time. He brings up an interesting point. In the fa my organization is unique in that under title 51 of the u. S. Code we also have the responsibility to facility, promote, not just safety. We take the facilitate part two heart and that allows us to be able to lean a little further forward than some regulatory rer agencies may be able to lean because we do for whatever reason, the government still considers this after 60 years a nation industry. We are pleased got the faa to stop calling space transportation new entrants, like at what point do we become just standard . But encourage facilitate promote allows us to find that right rogatory 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 is just get each of you an opportunity to kind of share perhaps from the perspective in the chairs are sitting in, whats the next most exciting thing youre looking forward to in this area of commercial space and leo operations, and what scares you most . John, lets start with you. Well, i will address what scares me the most. Its an area that i think is light on regular oversight, and thats not the harbor or the launch. Its the data. The attack vectors endemic with data, particularly data that is flowing International Systems and architectures. That data have to be trustworthy. It has to be cyber protected come at a dont think we are at the point of emphasis for a lot of cybersecurity, particularly cybersecurity Start Companies without the resources fortunate which hawkeye has others do not. Im concerned about cybersecurity for small operators. Thank you. From the exciting perspective, being on the horizon of human spaceflight participants, we dont call them passengers because we dont regulate the passengers yet, but giving more folks axis is based what you think will continue to generate a tremendous amount of excitement to move on with a tremendous opportunity for business. What scares me, doesnt really scare me, but concerns me is we are regulating, living in rogers time right now. This is just exciting. As a little point if you cant drive a truck for a living, thinkable to be in a in a rockt launch business is about the next best thing. As i tried to regulate this industry, i am governed by an act from 1940 in the cupboard. The administrator procedures act or untried 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 the regulatory touch. That concerns me. Thank you. Whats exciting is what you hearing right here, awareness of the challenges and the problems is the First Step Towards making improvements and innovating and opening up this to frontier, which we have to do, no question. Theres trillion dollar space economy by 2040 and some were even higher than that. We dont want is build it and no one shall. We need to do this in in a responsible manner of we also dont need the fear. Theres a tremendous opportunity to open up the earth orbit here in the next couple years and youll see that with some of these leo constellation. Others are going to the moon, all of these things, stretches and moves and attractions its a very exciting time. We need to do in a responsible manner in which such and some of the things that we worry about a bit. They are all manageable and i think awareness of these and take responsible steps is the path forward, the approach. Thank you. Last worked. Im really excited about the coming year. We on the cusp of unlocking the Global Economy for half the worlds population. Im not quite of age where our Member States being Science Fiction. I remember it being for astronaut. We are to the point now and youll see this coming online next year and the year after were space is becoming for everyone. Not just for astronaut and not just something out a sciencefiction movies. 2020 for one web is he a skill. Thats when our cadence launches become regular and the constellation will start to do customer demos and then coming to full service in 2021. Something thats never happened before and something that would be us to provide. All right. I think were out of time. I want to thank each of you for joining for this exciting conversation about regulatory processes. So thank you very much. [applause] and now, Vice President and general manager, Propulsion Systems division at Northrop Grumman, former nasa astronaut, charlie precourt. Good morning. How is everybody doing . Im delighted to represent Northrop Grumman at the u. S. Chamber of commerce Second Annual conference on launching the space economy. Im here to tell you about Northrop Grumman mega launch vehicle but first i want to applaud the chamber for promoting and addressing the exciting developments that happened today in space. You have astutely noted and double quote this, the rapidly evolving space sector has the potential to great 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 force acquisition approach for National Security space launch to modernize that National Security space launch has enabled unprecedented levels of collaboration with industry and it is yielded a Record Number of offerings. This has accelerated fielding the next generation of space left systems and kept us on track to meet some aggressive goals. The air force has done this one addressing significant risks and challenges like meeting a congressional mandate to eliminate our dependency on the russian engines by the end of 2022. For more sustainable future. Later today you will hear from speakers who will talk about ensuring the us remain the center of the future space economy and ensuring technological dominance in space and discussing the risks of losing usbased dominance. These topics appropriately focus on the risks we must manage to be successful. I thought i would talk to you about omega today in terms of how it addresses risk and enables Mission Success for our nation. Northrop grummans approach and our unique way of viewing how we solve these risks through the air force is through the lens of 3 key areas, financial risk and the physical or Operational Risk and National Security risk. As for financial risk it is wellknown that building and launching rockets has been an expensive endeavor. It is a capitalintensive business requiring large facility and tooling and the harnessing of massive amounts of energy. As those of us in business recognize perhaps the bane of our existence is the tyranny of overhead costs. For every rocket that makes it to the launchpad the price paid by the customer covers much more than just the direct cost of building it. Behind the vehicle itself, payments to cover depreciation on a companys tooling and facilities meeting reserves to replace them, medical and benefit plans for the workforce, taxes, utilities, transportation costs, the fact that space launch is so capitalintensive drives most lunch providers to pursue large annual flight risks to spread those costs over more rockets. This approach works well in years where there was a large demand for launches but history has shown projected launch rates dont always materialize. Given the lessons of the past 2 days the air forces right to address its financial risk by demanding todays competitors show they will not be dependent on a Large Air Force lunch manifest for their business to be viable. Northrop grumman is the only company among competitors that sells many many more products than its launch vehicles meaning overhead costs dont have to be covered by just omega but are spread over many programs that provide tremendous economy of scale. When we set about developing omega we did not need large facilities or a large new workforce. We added to the margins of what already existed. Omega comes from the same plants that provide dods and nasa systems like the trident, minuteman missile fleets, nasas antares rockets, the sls lunch vehicles and others. The core stage of omega is form, fit and function identical to the sls, to enable synergy. In search of many flights per year omega is a launch vehicle that adds a few components to the existing manufacturing lines of other programs. With his robust approach were 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 drive down launch Operations Costs that would come with the unique infrastructure for just one rocket. The air force will receive cost benefit from omega sharing, nasas sls vertical assembly building, the mobile launch platform and the launchpad. This is also good news for nasa as it will work costs for human exploration heavy lift. Northrop grummans approach for sharing resources is unique in the space launch competition and allows the omega Business Case without the need for complex reasonable systems. Northrop grumman is the ohmic competitor that is publicly traded bringing the highest level of financial accountability and transparency. When youre 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 like ours at Northrop Grumman 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 High Expectations on reliability and resilience in the systems they will procure. With 130 successful consecutive rockets it is understandable they want to maintain that high level of policy when striving to do better on cost so with omega, Northrop Grumman took an approach that leveraged brought experience across our entire business particularly in mission assurance. That begins with design simplicity which reduces likelihood of failure. Omega is the only want offering that reduces solid propulsion in a proportion of the overall design. This brings them clear benefits. Firstever historical track record of lower failure rates than other systems and now both liquid and solid propulsion have come a long way and reliability. It is not a significant difference in them statistically but 500 flight streak, historically we would expect one failure of followed motor followed motor as opposed to four with liquid systems. Greater consideration is the balance of risk the omega design brings to fleet options available in the air force. Part of assured access comes with similar redundancies across launchers they select which are solid propulsion offers. Furthermore omegas design simplifies launch processing and operations. Once the solid propulsion system is stacked on the launchpad there are a few things that preclude launching it. Fewer reckless liquid propellant valleys, fewer moving parts which lead to fewer scrubs, greater large 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 serve National Security systems for the dod across a broad array of systems from cybersecurity to Mission Planning and control facility operations, aircraft, spacecraft, missiles, armaments and launch vehicles. Northrop grumman is a Company Built around National Securitys needs. With his heritage and his unwavering commitment to the air force and the air forces mission to achieve reliable and sustainable lunch capability. Although we all want to see this nation returned to the moon and go on to mars, having flown in space four times no one wants to see that more than me. We also recognize 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 recognize once operational omega will offer an affordable, highperforming option for commercial land Exploration Mission needs as well. Omega is on track for first certification lunch in early 2021, impressive timeline for a major new system. We have ground tested the core booster that beats the air force need to replace the russian are 80. Many of you watch their first ground test which verified essentially Perfect Trust and performance. The results of that test rather help engineers refine and validate our models increasing readiness for flight. The upper stage engines were first flight are ready and liquid upper stage manufacturing is well underway in louisiana. At the Kennedy Space center we are modifying one of nasas mobile launch platforms to handle the omega and that structure will be rising above the kennedy skyline starting in january. It has been my pleasure to share my approach to omega and the challenges of the National Space launch mission. Perhaps some of these concepts resonate with your own business or to advise you in your own future business choices but at Northrop Grumman it is a privilege to be part of the Space Community and collective success in the future. If we would like to learn more we welcome you to join us in our booth in the exhibit area. Thank you very much. Please welcome the honorable mike griffin, under secretary of defense for research and engineering, undersecretary of defense. Already i am at a disadvantage. I cant see you but you can see me. I want to use my time this morning with you in a 50 50 increment. I want to talk for 20 minutes and then take questions. I have a great timer to keep on track. It is always my impression people would rather bend the flavor of the discussion toward topics in which they are interested rather than just hearing me pontificate. Let me get things started. You are all about commercial space. And us technical dominance in the space. We are in the us chamber of commerce. Space is an area that from a commercial perspective remains intriguing and so i am going to talk a little bit about that and how the commercial perspective blends in with what we are trying to do in National Security space but i want to stop at the top level if i might. The Us Government buys an awful lot of different kinds of things. We buy things that range from Aircraft Carriers and submarines and a 35 fighters and microchips. It will not be lost on this group that there is as yet no commercial demand for an Aircraft Carrier or missile carrying submarine and i think very little commercial demand for fighter aircraft. On the other hand there is percentagewise very little demands on the part of the government and National Security community for microchips. We have an enormous appetite for chips but we are suffering less then 1 of that market. The best thing on that side of the spectrum the Us Government can do, and the National Security community but large can do, the best thing we can do is invest in certain areas our micro circuitry demands are unique and not part of the commercial sector such as chips designed to withstand nuclear dose or longterm high radiation exposure. Another areas to follow the market and do our best to stay out of its way. Whereas with Aircraft Carriers we have to drive that market. We have to be the designer and promulgate her 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 that. We pioneered in my stint at nasa the development of the commercial Cargo Resupply Services to space station. I regard myself as a cardcarrying supporter of is 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 the demand for National Security and other civil government space sustains that market. 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. That would mean we have a thriving economic sector making money out of space. The government could buy what it needs and invest in those areas where commercial sector doesnt tread. We are not there yet. As we think through how we develop and sustain both National Security space and commercial space we should have an i to each other in how we can synergize those developments. There are Us Government policies we can place and support that will provide sustenance to the commercial sector and there are commercial sector behaviors and investments that can sustain National Security. Why do i care . What problem are we trying to solve here . From the perspective of my present position the problem we are trying to solve is space is no longer an uncontested Us Operational domain. We have today Space Architecture that i would have designed in an era in which we had no adversaries. Space has been critical to our way of fighting war in the middle east and the balkans and before that the middle east again and it remains critical to our way of fighting war should we engage in great power competition. The problem is 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. 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 revolve the pace and the style with which we enable the new Space Architectures. This brings us to the Space Development agency which was the dods response to the congressional question, dod, how do you plan to manage space for the future. I collaborated with deputy secretary shanahan and many others in the air force and across the dod. We collaborate together to advance a plan, the 1601 report by which the department would seek to manage space in the future particularly with regard to the kind of Development Timelines we used to enjoy when we were serious about great power competition. I will stand an ancillary remark in that domain. Are here now that are acquisition timelines tend toward the 15 year mark on average for statement of need to operational capability. Our adversaries are using three and four your timelines consistent with what we used to do. I often quoted this example only because it is so from a certain perspective heartbreaking. When the f117 a 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 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. The space developed agency was created within dod to work outside the existing acquisition system, to work with commercial space, to work with purveyors of new architectures that would be proliferated, more resilient and above all else more timely in their application. There were two overwhelming needs that our first entrance in the new architecture needed to provide. Those two overwhelming needs are robust and resilient communications, what we refer to as the communications transport layer designed to consist of a network of low earth orbiting satellites to provide so many targets that our adversaries cannot easily remove them and certainly cannot remove them in a pearl harbor type strike. Secondarily the development of the surveillance and tracking layer that could see conventional hypersonic threats that in particular china and secondarily russia are secondarily deploying. 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 and read more powerful optics farther from the action. 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 have to have to meet these new threats. If we take as our paradigm that this is government business as usual then i dont know what the outcome will be, but i believe based on 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. If we are going to develop proliferated Space Architectures whether in lower medium or high orbit, and architectures, we need from National Security purposes to adopt commercial sector, manufacturing practices. I do not say we in the National Security community are going to go out and simply by commercial assets, to meet security needs, there may be cases in which we can do that especially if we want to rent time but there are many other cases that it is not practical. And commercial sector for communications and so on. However, we in the National Security community have a crying need, overwhelming need to modernize our development, manufacturing for space assets and this could only come from the commercial community and we in the National Community and writ large have much to learn from the commercial sector which is trying to stand itself up today to deploy similar constellations. I am in different as to which contractor succeeds, we need competitors. The dod needs to be prepared to engage commercial sector contractors in building to our demands. Let me rephrase that, the dod needs to engage to our requirements, the things we need but by the methods the commercial sector can bring and the dod has yet to learn. When we need a new fleet of automobiles for the dod we dont see it set out to design our own automobiles, we set out to take automobiles produced by the automobile Manufacturing Sector in the United States. In most cases we modify those a little bit for our needs but we as the commercial sector to produce them for us. I believe that is the right strategy written large. When we can buy something we need using best commercial practice or modifications thereof to suit our needs that should be a path. That is the path we go down the space developed agency, to the leadership of doctor derek truenear. By these means i believe we will be able to produce the necessary redundancy, resilience, proliferation, persistence, timeliness that our Space Architecture needs to deter the wars of the future or wyndham if we have to fight. Thank you very much. I am going to leave the rest of the Time Available to you for questions and it would be great if someone could turn down the lights on me and turn up the lights on the audience. Thank you. [applause] im not sure theres any view which is enhanced by having more light on me. So questions . Thank you, patrick tucker. I want to speak briefly to beyond overwhelming numbers of small satellites leading to resiliency, what are the defense of strategies or capabilities you are looking to develop in nextgeneration architectures possibly putting thrusters and mobility or whatever else beyond resiliency to large numbers . I am not seeking, we are not seeking to proliferate our Space Architecture, merely to have greater numbers of small satellites. If it is to be our architecture that has to be the solution to a problem, not the problem itself. The solutions we are talking about for National Security space rely us to be in the words i used earlier persistent meaning all the time, global meaning everywhere and latency your timely, meaning when i need it. In particular the hypersonic threat we face that i believe is now common knowledge, systems crafted with the express goal of flying above us and allied air defenses and below missile defenses. It is a new arena, one where the United States really pioneered the r d in this but chose not to weapon ice it. We werent looking for another arms race. Our adversaries have chosen to weapon eyes it. We really have very little choice. We have to respond. I am fond of saying it is not a difficult target. It is a target for which decoys are not readily possible so when you see it you know it is a threat and there is a relatively long cruise base 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 position that the point of the event and radars i would offer are a target so we need better surveillance. We need persistent, timely, global surveillance. In fact that can be done from high orbit. We see these things today from high orbit. The trouble is to piece together a trajectory takes quite a bit of time so it is not low latency, the signatures are quite didnt and not persistent and it is a real work of art tutees the glide body tracks out of the data. That is not a war fighting solution. I said a minute ago we can use bigger optics but that is an expensive solution which will still result in only a view very high value targets. Some years ago john creighton, our vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff gave an interview to 60 minutes in which he referred if i recall correctly to these highvalue assets as juicy targets. I dont think a better phrase has been coined and so i will repeat it. Our goal is to attain the necessary, persistence, timely, global surveillance without creating an environment consisting of juicy targets for the adversary. That is the best answer i can give you. Other questions . Yes, maam . Same table. Teresa hitchens. Thank you for your presentation. A 2part question has to do with communications in space. You said this with the transport layer, you dont believe theres a commercial market to provide those satellites. I think that is what you said was i want to be sure i got the just of that correct and secondly a program called Global Lightning is experimenting with using starlight satellites for exactly that to create a communications transport capability to aircraft and i wonder how you might be thinking about working with that program. Im not going to endorse any contractor or any contractors solution. My hope is several succeed. And that is not a throwaway line. I honestly hope several such Communications Ventures succeed. If and as they do, 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. That said i think 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 needed, not that it doesnt have a day job in peacetime but has to be guaranteed against harsh environments both manmade and natural. It has to be to the extent we can do so secure in its communications. It has a number of requirements which frankly do not obtain 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 buy for ourselves the rent from other people. That can be guaranteed. That is going to come at a price. I dont expect that we are going to get something for nothing. So we the dod are going to have to invest in the provider or providers to provide these extra things in exactly the same way much of what we buy in the micro circuitry line is purely commercial but some things we buy that have to be ruggedized or have to withstand high radiation environments are just different and we have to pay more for those. I am not trying to parse words with the difference between needing a National Security need and running a commercial business, there is a difference and we will come to grief if we dont recognize it. I dont want us to fall back on handbuilt, one of a kind traditional methods of building spacecraft 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 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. Good to almost see you. Good to see you again. We have a pretty clear delineation between the public and private sectors in space and in other industries around the world, not necessarily the case, some countries rising space powers, happy to provide Space Capabilities through Public Sector and possible private sector entities that may be statesupported. Do you have any concern about that. If it is depending on the margin of the commercial space industry being affected by that, the viability of the us industry being affected by foreign subsidized state subsidized space entities. I dont because i will bet on us innovation, us freemarket capitalism over state supported institutions every time. I will bet on it against our own statesupported institutions every time. So to be clear i can only always be wrong, it happens multiple times every day but to be clear, i am a conservative in the oldfashioned sense of a free market individual liberties minimal government balance the Budget National defense kind of conservative. Im uninterested in the culture wars, what other people do their own business. But i will bet every day on the capability of freemarket entrepreneurs in any country over the long run to win out over subsidized statesupported institutions. That said, for fledgling enterprises there is a long history where enlightened Government Policies can enhance and speed the bringing about of new industries, space is one of those. I personally have been paid a good deal of money. As an aerospace consultant, to assess the commercial communication sector Business Case and it is a tough one to close. I wont status permanently on closable. And they can take the early losses, and can advance that commercial case, that is great. And i will bet on the free market to be state subsidized institutions. Kevin barry here, thank you for your speech. You talked about the dod being the leading the sector and Space Development and being a small portion of that demand spectrum. I wonder if you find it comes to be issued in space where you cv dods future and cleaning up those messages dealing with a difficult logistical problem of putting up a lot of satellites. What if something happens and they start running into each other . Do you see the dod leading more on keeping space a more hospitable environment as well . I probably need you to speak closer to the microphone but i think you are asking about 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 35 years. It turns out as a happenstance that i was the designer and chief engineer on the first dod project that developed the first hit to kill space intercept mission. That was very much an engineering prototype, the interceptor weighed a ton literally so it is not anything like what we have in the ground today but starting back in 19845 i became involved in the issues of how to mitigate or prevent and control space debris generation. With that said, we know the divine practices to allow us to prevent, control and mitigate space debris. We have to have plans to deorbit satellites whose lifetime becomes if they are high enough problematical from the debris point of view if they are uncontrolled. We need Design Practices which encourage the reentry of such satellites. We have Design Practices that give us redundant capability to control them so of other failures occur the satellites remain under control. We need Design Practices so that we know where they are at all times so the space Traffic Management function can be executed. We know what are the things to do. It is merely a matter of making sure there are policies in place that require constellation providers to it here to those practices. In the long run we want to avoid the kessler affect First Published by don kessler, where past a certain point you have run away debris generation through Chain Reaction collisions and we know how to do it and it is a matter of implementing what we do. Sandra irwin, space news. I want to develop Space Development agencies, one of the imperatives, to work fast, speed and whatnot. There is obviously a budget, dont have fundings for 2020, but where are your expectations for funding getting past for future years and how will that impact the plan to get fda, space layers on time. Thanks, that is a great question, sandra, 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, for those of us who are in it day today we are 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 we earnestly need to do. The Space Development agency is one of by not means the only casualty of our current situation. What are our plans . We will wait until we have budget approval to fund some of the in activities. There is largely agreement on both sides of the aisle that we really do need to reform our Space Architecture and leaving aside the 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 Space Architecture is widely accepted and we will embark on it when conditions allow us to do so. The best answer i can give you for this year, i dont know when this cr is going to end or if we will ever get a budget. We will cope as best we can. In succeeding years as i hear now, our plan at the Space Development agency is when and as congress chooses to approve the creation of a space force as an operating entity under the air force and the space developed agency moves under the space force because that is the proper place for it. I tell people this and sometimes get people with sharp intake of breath who say you are going to give up an organization you supervised, it is the right thing to do and i am really uninterested in under what badge, what organization we do our work as long as the work gets done so we have nearterm plans for space developed agency and longerterm plans and in the space force that the administration has requested. Longerterm budgets, dont know what we are doing the shortterm, no idea what we are doing the longterm budgets. I cant help you with that. Your readings on the budget is better than my own. Another question . Four minutes left. My name is a j. How are you . It is a Small Business. My question, the dod has always been very nice to Small Businesses in the past. Do you see a potential for that kind of thing for the activities, very difficult to participate in them being Small Businesses, what you can see . If i can hear you correctly are asking about how dod can enable the role of Small Business to promulgate Small Business capability. The space related activities you are talking about today. Im going to go limp on that. I dont know. We have to billion dollar a year Small Business integrated Research Program that i oversee, the people who oversee and as i think most of us now, Small Businesses are where most of the abilities of the american privatesector reside. The usual excess event for a successful Small Business is to be bought by a bigger business, a measure of success and there are new Small Business is coming along. I cant sit here today and say where Small Business can fit in the reformation of our Space Architecture to be a more resilient war fighting machine. My crystal ball is not that good. I am sorry. That needs to be the last question because we are down to