Of international affairs. This is 2. 5 hours. Our keynote speaker Jim Bridenstine is here. And one of my former graduate its now at nasa headquarters is also online and we will have him in the first panel. The topic today on Publicprivate Partnerships in space. I think some person said, does this mean too big to fail . There are lots of uncertainties about these kinds of things. Concern about the Industrial Base goes back to the beginning of aerospace in the United States. The creation of the predecessor to the Nasa NationalAdvisory Committee on aeronautic was funded by 5,000 carved out of the main budget back in the early 20th century. Several years after the ride the Wright Brothers have already flowed. Europe accelerated is plans. If you did not hear about American Craft in world war i. You heard about french and english and japan. America was not deprived prime leader in that time. In a concern, a natural Advisory Committee for aeronautics was put together which included industry academics and government folks. A clear violation of the federal Advisory Committee act. This would never be allowed to date, but the folks came together to agree on basic research. It could be argued it was an early Publicprivate Partnership. With retail and other basics integral to us today. For someone who has a fondness in his heart for aviation and waste, i would like to ask Jim Bridenstine to provide keynote addresses. His smiling face is here in front of me but he cannot see you. But i will put him on the microphone and hope for the best. Over to you. Jim thank you, scott. It is great to be here. I apologize that i could not be there in person. I wanted to be. I was all feeling good and thought it would be a mistake to get on an airplane was not feeling good and thought it would be a mistake to get on a airplane. I am grateful to the state policy institute and corporation for putting this form together. And honored to participate. When we talked about Publicprivate Partnerships in my view, nasa has done and lots, long before i was there. In large part because of the great work of scott case and others that have been working on this for a long time. I will tell you that it was apparent to me as a nasa administrator, i got criticized a lots a program called state law system sls. The space launch system is a government owned and operated system that was does not was not designed by nasa. This was not a project nasa would have ever undertaken. This was a product put on nasa by a politician who were not was not interested in how to create a program for the moon were going to mars. They were interested in maximizing the amount of dollars that could go to certain state and certain congressional districts. I can tell you, as a former member of congress, people are very transparent about what the purpose of sls was in the it was formulated. I will also tell you, it was a perfect example of how the United States of america will not be able to out plan china. As long as we have a very distributed system where a lots of interests are at stake, it is almost impossible for the United States of america to out plan china. What we can do is out innovate and outentrepreneur china bike who will require we do things differently than in the past. To be clear, with sls i want to make sure people understand that while this project is nothing nasa would have ever created itself. Nasa owns it and gets criticized for it. I will also tell you a lot of majoring things have happened because of that. I will give some examples. This goes back to the purpose of the conference which is Publicprivate Partnerships. Because when it was created, we had a lots of things we had to invent. Spending tens of millions, maybe even over 100 million on a nasa ball this machine to bring together things of different materials and different faces and differentthicknesses. When i went and visited blue origin as a nap administrator, i was shocked there was a welding machine that looked exactly like the one at the assembly facility. The reason it was the reason it was affairs because it was purchased offtheshelf after tens of millions, if not over 100 million was spent by nasa in the development of this technology. Even though this might not have been the most Efficient Program in history, it resulted in technology that commercial companies can benefit from and drive down costs and increase access. When we think about the sls rocket, heres why nasa would not have designed it this way. You are using space element inches which are one of the greatest in the history of mankind. They are also the most expensive and for a Space Shuttle, it makes sense because you can use them dozens of times for every time you go up into space. But for sls where you throw away the court staged on every vehicle, it might not make sense to buy an engine for 100 million apiece. Then you think about the rocket boosters and technology that came straight from the Space Shuttle program. Then the tanks on the Space Shuttle used for the course stage of the sls. A lots of capability that were legacy from the a lots of capability that were legacy from the 1970s was upgraded into rockets. The technology to the ability is important. We now have a vehicle that can take this to the moon and get our capability to the moon. We have the gateway, the Orion Capital and commercial service model. When we think about the future, how are we going to do things . We have to think, how do we take advantage of Publicprivate Partnerships to share in the costs and risks . How do we develop an Industrial Base that will make the United States of america competitive for the teacher. When we think about the development of the sos for deep bass exploration and think about starships, and who will revolutionize how we get to space. When you think about starships, if you are trying to maximize the cost per mass or space or to the moon and are trying to maximize for that, you want large volume and large mass vehicle so you have to invent the largest rocket that has ever been created and do things like transfers you in the environment with the vacuum and microgravity and all different things. This is challenging but if it is accomplished, or when it is accomplished, it will be transformational. I want to be clear and have said this frequently. The only thing worse than a government monopoly is a private monopoly of the government is dependent on. Which is the direction we are quickly heading. You could argue we are there right now when you think about reasons why we have the International Space station work screwed to the International Space station. If we are going to do you commercial development of these capabilities with a partnership with the government, the government needs to understand it is with the government interest to have multiple providers competing on cost and innovation. Each of those providers will get customers that are not the government, in this case specifically not nasa, and then we can drive down costs and increase access. We can improve safety at the same time. I think it is important to recognize that how we formulate Public Private partnerships for Space Exploration is critically important. The contracting tools that have been very instrumental in the past are going to still continue in many ways where there is no commercial capability. But where there is commercial capability, we need to change the way we do things. Can we create Publicprivate Partnerships with the development of capability and technology . Instead of owning and operating hardware, can the government buy services . Can the government buy data . If we can do those things, the competitive markets where providers have customers who are not the government, we can significantly read costs and risks. And at the same time, we can create the Industrial Base or may the United States of america is competitive in a way we cannot out plan china. Those are my thoughts it be upset of this conference. I will be watching the conference after my comments. We have some time. If you want to open up to questions were asked and questions yourself, i am here. Scott that is terrific. Thank you very much. [applause] i want to do two things. I want to open it up if there are any get questions for jim. Then i have a surprise keynote speaker. Any questions for jim right now . Either online or q a . I am looking around the room. There is a question from online. How do we get Program Offices to embrace multiple vendors . Still seeing in many cases where they preferred to pick a one too early to focus all resources on and one type of leadership is forcing them not to. Im sure you have no experience with that. Jim when i was at nasa, i was very clear. When you think about human landing systems on the moon, if we are going to buy services from a commercial company, we need to have multiple providers. The only thing worse than a government monopoly is a private monopoly that the government is dependent on. Nasa looked at as a budget and what we anticipate future budgets to be, you will have a single human landing system for the moon. They selected space x which they thought was the right approach. I am not making any judgments. Space x has a unique and Game Changing approach. While i will say is, you do not want to give any private Company Purchasing power over the american continent. That has happened in the past and can happen in the teacher. I was talking to members of congress, telling them that you need to have multiple providers. I was not the only one, i know a lot of others were. And we have bipartisan support for a second human landing system. And now we have that into a contract to achieve just that. It requires vigilance and it is also important to have Political Leadership at these agencies because apart from Political Leadership, some of these tough decisions go right back to what is the budget into what can we get for this . It drives you to solutions that in the short term makes sense but in the long term will result in a law higher costs and see the blessed capability. There is a of things that can be done to increase the number of providers. Political leadership is a key component. Scott terrific. We have to all pile on with additional thought. And a lot of time, people talk about having additional providers and pressing on prices. That is certainly true but in the space business, it is not a normal market. This is not the Principal Market of buyers and sellers. One thing nasa has burned into deeply is the value of redundancy. In the aftermath of the columbia accident, we would not have been able to maintain the station without the russians. And having similar redundancy. There is strong pressure to pick one provider in the case of commercial crew having two around. That is important because you do not know how people will perform. Even if you do not buy into the commercial arguments about competition and future growth, simply in selfdefense, there is similar redundancy. It is Something Program managers can relate to so you do not have to buy into arguments. Jim yes. You go back to the challenger accident. We had a period of three years where we had no access to space at all. He put all our x into one basket and that was the lesson of the past we need to be mindful of today. Scott, also, this was when you and i first met. I was a member of congress and had constituents every year that died in tornadoes. I was trying to figure out, how do we improve weather prediction . The jps as jpss satellite was way behind schedule and being delayed a couple years longer. The question was, how do we mitigate yet that we make ourselves dependent on a single system. We were asking questions on the science community, what happens if we lose the satellite that was the predecessor to jpss . It was beyond the end of his life and the jpss was not ready. They said we would lose the ability to protect up to 25 of severe storms. Here we are with dependency on a single system, a single government purchased owned and operated system without any redundancy that will have huge implications for mike lives in oklahoma. How do we create more diversity . He brought in experts like you. We talked about, can we do commercial hyper structural, can we do commercial radar . Can we do gps radar . The answer was, yes, we can do these things. We need budget. But the resistance we got from government bureaucrats was overwhelming. The original argument was, commercial gps and radio data will not fit the standards for the numerical weather models that no a user. Great. Tell us those standards and we will incorporate them into the commercial data set. Then we heard, we have this partnership with taiwan with the cosmic consolation. We do not want to undermine the relationship with taiwan. We can augment government provided gps gp has a radio occupation with commercial provided gps occupation. Lets do that. The other excuse was that the world of euros to go through efficiencies that if we buy any commercial data, we have to give it to the world for free. Therefore, we cant buy commercial data because nobody will select us if we have to give it to the world for free. It didnt matter what response we gave, there was a resistance that was going to be had. So he said, ok, lets create contracting mechanisms where we can license the data to the u. S. Government without having to give it to the world for free. We actually had to write a bill in congress in 2017 that ultimately forced noaa to buy commercial data, gps data and feed it into the weather logs. We got that bill created. A pilot program. After the pilot was finished, now noaa is by a commercial gps radio quotation data from multiple providers and the cosmic constellation continues to provide data and now we have numerous commercial companies also providing data. All of this results in, as you said, scott, it is not just driving down costs and increasing competition and creating innovation, all those things are happening, 100 percent. But we also have more resilient architectures and ultimately, more dissimilar redundancy that makes our weather prediction capability far more resilient. So we are not dependent on a single government satellite that if it dies, we lose the ability to predict any 5 of severe storms in oklahoma, which, by the way, is devastating for a state like oklahoma. Great, thank you. I would like to shift over to my surprise walkon keynote, my friend, steven sakowitz is here. We probably will not tell the story of how we met during the proposal for marking the Space Shuttle to ensure the future monopoly of the Space Shuttle program. He and i both have much sin to atone for. But i am thrilled to see him here with us today. Steve. [applause] thank you, scott. Hes had surprise keynote, i was, like, who . [laughter] i actually just wanted to say a few words. First of all sco of aerospace corporation, i am excited to be partnering with the Space Policy Institute on this wonderful event. Scott, thank you and your staff for putting it on and also our folks for the great work you have done putting this together. From my perspective, the whole issue of Publicprivate Partnerships actually goes back to when i was back in school, it was my final year of getting my engineering degree and i thought , wouldnt it be interesting to take an elective in partnership with the Sloan Business School . I did. I was, like, this is pretty interesting stuff. Wonder if theres something i can do in the space sector. I quickly realized in those days that if you have 250 million dollars, you, too, can have a startup. I went to a Consulting Firm that was primarily a wall street Consulting Firm which was doing a lot of work and trying to come up with Publicprivate Partnerships, and literally the first three assignments i got out of school, i was able to characteristically good, the bad and the ugly. The good, i got a Business Plan tossed in front of me and they said do some due diligence. Three guys that went to m. I. T. And harvard, they had this crazy idea to make an upper stage commercially on the shuttle called the transfer orbit stage and the company was orbital sciences, which a couple of years ago was bought for 9 billion. You could argue they are one of the true pioneers of the commercial effort from a long time ago. So that was good. The bad was that i also had some contracting work with nasa, trying to figure out how to commercialize the space station, because the space station was in the early days of development. We looked at things on the shuttle, protein crystal growth it was bad. The cost of getting it checked space was exorbitant, the cost of operations, exorbitant. There was no business case. Then scott back in those days, as i was going to monopolize the shadow, it was called the space transportation system. We would get rid of all expendable large vehicles. Nasa said we need somebody that can actually sell it ride on the shuttle. We teamed up with rockwell. This guy walking to my office to work on the proposal with me, his name was scott pace. We got ready for what i thought would have been an winning proposal. Then we move