SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
73–319PS
2001
SPACE TOURISM
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JUNE 26, 2001
Serial No. 107–12
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DAVE WELDON, Florida
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
ERIC STERNER Subcommittee Staff Director
BILL ADKINS Professional Staff Member
ED FEDDEMAN Professional Staff Member
RUBEN VAN MITCHELL Professional Staff Member
CHRIS SHANK Professional Staff Member
RICHARD OBERMANN Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHAEL BEAVIN Legislative Assistant
C O N T E N T S
June 26, 2001
Hearing Charter
Opening Statement by Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Representative Nick Lampson, Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, U.S. House of Representatives
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Opening Statement of Gary G. Miller, Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, U.S. House of Representatives
Opening Statement by Edward L. Hudgins, Ph.D., The Cato Institute
Opening Statement by Pat Dasch, Executive Director, National Space Society
Statement by Dennis A. Tito, Chief Executive Officer, Wilshire Associates
Statement by W. Michael Hawes, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Station, NASA
Statement by Buzz Aldrin, President, Starcraft Enterprises; Founder, ShareSpace Foundation
Changing the Space Paradigm: Space Tourism and the Future of Space Travel
Statement by Rick N. Tumlinson, President, The Space Frontier Foundation; Executive Director, F.I.N.D.S.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Discussion
Space Tourist Lottery
Extra Seats on Shuttle
3 Crew vs. 6 Crew
Tito Debriefing
Available Seats
Tourism Flights
Audit of Tito Flight
Stafford Recommendations
3 Crew Limitation
Selling Shuttle Seats
Public Response to Space Tourism
Iran Non-Proliferation Act
Limitations on Crew Size
Life Support Systems
Expanding Crew Size
Safety
Tito on Investment in Space Tourism
APPENDIX 1: Biographies
Dennis A. Tito, Chief Executive Officer, Wilshire Associates
Rick N. Tumlinson, President, The Space Frontier Foundation; Executive Director, F.I.N.D.S.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APPENDIX 2: Material for the Record
NASA's Responses to Queries, Submitted by Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator, NASA
SPACE TOURISM
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I hereby call this meeting of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee to order. Without objection, the Chair will be granted the authority to recess the Committee at any point. No objection, so ordered.
HEARING CHARTER
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Space Tourism
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001
2:30 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
I. Purpose of the Hearing:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2001 at 2:30 p.m. in 2318 Rayburn, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will hold a hearing on Space Tourism. The hearing will review the issues and opportunities for flying non-professional astronauts in space, the appropriate government role for supporting the nascent space tourism industry, use of the Space Shuttle and Space Station for tourism, safety and training criteria for space tourists, and the potential commercial market for space tourism. The hearing will consist of the following witnesses.
Mr. Dennis Tito, Space Tourist, will address the following questions in his testimony: 1) What were your experiences preparing for the mission and overall observations onboard the Space Station as a visitor? 2) What do you believe is the benefit of space travel and its value to society? 3) What are your observations of the Russian space program and opportunities for an improved partnership, particularly on the Space Station?
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Mike Hawes, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Station, NASA, will address the following questions in his testimony: 1) What is NASA's position regarding the flight of non-professional crew and tourists on-board the Shuttle and Space Station? 2) What safety/training and policy issues must be addressed for the flight of non-professional crew and space tourists? 3) What agreements or assurances has NASA made with Russia or other partners regarding non-professional crew and space tourists on the Space Station?
Dr. Buzz Aldrin, President, Starcraft Enterprises and Founder of the ShareSpace Foundation, will address the following questions in his testimony: 1) What types of activities do you believe will be enabled or enhanced as a result of space tourism? 2) What do you believe are the major hurdles which must be overcome before the space tourism business will be self-sustaining? 3) What role should the federal government play in promoting space tourism?
Mr. Rick Tumlinson, President, Space Frontier Foundation, will address the following questions in his testimony: 1) What role should the government play in promoting space tourism? 2) What legal, liability, and policy issues must be addressed for space tourism to move forward? 3) What recommendations do you have for a Non-Government Organization (NGO) in managing Space Station resources, specifically in order to balance scientific research with commercial development?
2. Background
As a result of the recent flight of millionaire Dennis Tito to the Space Station, public interest in human space flight and space tourism has increased dramatically. For many space enthusiasts and thrill-seekers, a trip to space may no longer be a dream, but could become a reality in the near-future.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Broadly defined, space tourism refers to the concept of paying customers travelling into space. Although Dennis Tito is the first to personally pay for his flight to space and is, therefore, the first space tourist, many other ''non-professional'' astronauts have flown into space, typically, as part of a specific mission, i.e., as a mission or payload specialist with very specific responsibilities.
Some initial market studies and surveys indicate that there may be a significant potential market for space travel and tourism—potentially a multi-billion dollar per year market.(see footnote 1) Although these studies are encouraging, many space tourism advocates readily admit that more detailed and reliable market research must be done to more accurately predict the market for space tourism. Nonetheless, many believe that the space tourism industry could become a major economic force in the space industry with significant side-benefits to government space programs. Specifically, a strong and viable space tourism industry could ultimately fund the development of low-cost, reliable space transportation vehicles and advanced technology that could be used for human exploration missions beyond the Earth. However, the space travel and tourism industry must first address several major obstacles and uncertainties. Many policy, legal, technical, and business issues need to be addressed.
3. Dennis Tito's Flight
Mr. Dennis Tito became the first paying space tourist in history. Mr. Tito's estimated $20 million 6-day flight followed a contentious debate between NASA and Russia regarding the flight. NASA objected to Mr. Tito's flight on the following grounds: 1) he was not fully trained, and therefore, represented a safety risk; 2) he would require ''babysitting'' by the other astronauts to ensure he would not do anything that would possibly endanger the lives of the crew or harm the Space Station; and 3) the tempo of operations during the assembly phase of the Space Station was not the appropriate time to bring tourists on-board. Russia, on the other hand, insisted that it had the right under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to choose whatever crew it desired, so long as the crew was properly trained. More to the point, Russia wanted Mr. Tito's money.(see footnote 2)
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The crew, including Dennis Tito, visited the International Space Station (ISS) as part of a Soyuz taxi crew to deliver the new Soyuz TM–32 spacecraft and return to Earth in the older Soyuz TM–31. Soyuz spacecraft serve as ''lifeboats'' for the ISS crew, and must be replaced every 6 months. The Soyuz taxi crew spent a week on ISS with the ISS ''Expedition 2'' crew. The Expedition 2 crew has been on the station since March and is scheduled to be replaced by a new space station crew in early August.
Originally, Mr. Tito was to fly to Russia's Mir space station, but after Russia decided to de-orbit Mir, Russia announced its intention to send Mr. Tito to ISS instead. The United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada insisted that he was not sufficiently trained and that the pace of activity on ISS is too intense for the crew to be distracted by having a nonprofessional astronaut aboard. Russia asserted that he was adequately trained and would not interfere with operations. NASA Administrator Goldin testified on May 2 that NASA would bill Russia if it determined that the agency incurred any additional costs because of Tito's flight. NASA has yet to indicate whether any such costs were actually incurred or whether it will be sending Russia a bill.
4. Major Barriers to Space Tourism
Appropriate Use of Government Assets
A key policy issue is what role the federal government should play, if any, in supporting and promoting the space tourism industry. Specifically, should the Space Shuttle and Space Station which were built and paid for by the taxpayer be used as a tourist destination for wealthy individuals? Following intense and extensive consultations amongst all Space Station partners, Dennis Tito was allowed to fly to the Space Station. The situation brought about by the Tito flight highlighted that the existing guidelines for crew selection were inadequate. The Space Station Multilateral Crew Operations Panel (MCOP) is working to define criteria for selection, training, assignment, and certification of future crew. NASA is expected to present these guidelines later this summer. Meanwhile, other private citizens, such as movie director James Cameron, are rumored to be interested in flying into space.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cheap Commercial Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs)
The single greatest technical barrier to the development of a viable space tourism industry is that commercial Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) to transport space tourists to orbit do not yet exist. Today, the Space Shuttle and Russia's Soyuz rocket are the only two systems available to take humans into space. Although many small entrepreneurial start-up space firms are trying to develop low cost RLVs, their progress has been stagnant due to difficulties in securing adequate financial backing. NASA's X–33 sub-orbital demonstration vehicle was expected to serve as a prototype for a commercial RLV. However, because of technical problems with the design and a lack of clear market demand, the concept was shelved by NASA. NASA's Space Launch Initiative is aimed at dramatically reducing the cost of space transportation and increasing the reliability of future space transportation systems. While this program was just recently started, technologies developed under SLI may enable man-rated commercial RLVs to be developed which could be used to fly tourists into space. Ultimately, a self-sustaining space tourism industry will not be realized until the transportation problem is solved. For more information, see the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearing on the Space Launch Initiative on June 20, 2001.
No Supply and Uncertain Demand
The price passengers would be willing to pay to fly to space is unclear. To date, only a few consumer market studies have been conducted to assess the general public's interest in space tourism. Although these studies indicate that the market for space tourism could be in the billions of dollars per year, it has yet to materialize. This is likely due to the ''Catch-22'' situation in which many commercial space ventures have found themselves. In essence, the industry's ''supply'' elements—low-cost, reliable, human-rated space transportation and the financial backing for the technology—will not materialize until its ''demand''—a clear market—becomes evident. With the drivers of economic activity at odds, the public space travel industry remains inert.(see footnote 3) The key questions are: how does an industry grow in the face of such uncertainty? What role, if any, should the government play in supporting and nurturing a space tourism industry?
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Buzz Aldrin has started a venture called ''ShareSpace'' which proposes to use a lottery system to raise the capital necessary to jump start the space tourism industry. For example, if a lottery ticket for a flight into space cost $50 and 2 million people took advantage of the opportunity and bought a ticket, $100 million could be raised for a flight. Clearly, other issues would need to be resolved regarding the physical and psychological suitability of the participants and the winner.
Should NASA Revive the Citizens-in-Space Program?
Some advocates for space tourism believe NASA should revisit the idea of flying public citizens on the space shuttle. A citizen-in-space program to fly journalists, poets, and others on the Shuttle was canceled when the Challenger accident occurred in 1986 killing the 7 person crew including a teacher, Christa McAuliffe. Although advocates realize that the space business is risky, they feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. Dennis Tito has proposed that one seat on each shuttle should be made available for private citizens.
Legal and Regulatory Issues
Existing national and international laws provide only a rudimentary framework for commercial activities in space and on celestial bodies. It is possible to examine how existing laws will be applied to activities such as mining, manufacturing, and construction in space. However, one can also conclude that private settlement of outer space and celestial bodies is legal under existing law. Nonetheless, the absence of law regarding certain key subjects such as property rights, mining, salvage, liability, and dispute resolution is a disincentive to private space activities. Individuals, companies, and investors are unsure of their rights and have no assurance that their efforts and investments will be legally protected.(see footnote 4)
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, commonly referred to as the ''Liability Convention,'' the nation from whose territory an object is launched from is absolutely liable for any damage caused by that object on the surface of the Earth. For example, the U.S. government would be liable for any damage caused by an object returning from space, even if it was a wholly commercial venture, if it was launched from U.S. territory.
There are many legal and liability issues which must be addressed if private citizens begin to fly into space. For example, is a space tourist liable for any damage while on-board the Space Station or other platforms? As a condition of Dennis Tito's flight, NASA required the Russian Space Agency to agree to compensate the other Space Station partners for any damage to their equipment resulting from Mr. Tito's activity. The agreement was not tested, however, because no damage from Mr. Tito's flight has been reported.
Some examples of other legal and liability issues include whether the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will require a license for activities in space and on any potential commercial space stations in a manner similar to its regulation of activities on aircraft. Currently, the FAA only has the legal authority to license commercial launches, but FAA may try to expand its authority to activities performed in space as well. In other areas, it is unclear what laws govern liability for personal injury and the procedures for dispute resolution and enforcement of criminal activity.
Clearly, the public's interest and enthusiasm for space tourism has increased dramatically because of Dennis Tito's flight. Space tourism advocates have held several conferences and seminars to increase awareness and work through many of the issues surrounding this potential new industry. Although studies on space tourism show great economic promise, many issues need to be resolved before it can be fully realized.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
5. Questions
What is the benefit and value to society of space tourism?
How big is the space tourism market estimated to be?
What are the major barriers to the development of a space tourism market?
Should government assets such as the Space Station and Space Shuttle be used for essentially private sector activities?
Should the government sponsor space tourists as part of a civilian-in-space program?
Will a space tourism market develop in the absence of government support?
What policy, legal and liability issues must be addressed to enable the space tourism industry to develop?
Who is liable for damages caused by a space tourist on-board the Space Station or Space Shuttle?
Can space tourists and scientific research both be conducted satisfactorily on the Space Station?
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER
Today's hearing will examine Dennis Tito's trip to space and its repercussions on the emerging space tourism industry. Mr. Tito has the distinction of being the first space tourist. As such, he has become a household name. His trip to low-Earth orbit has helped us realize that our push towards the stars is not limited to meeting just government's needs. By forcing his way into the domain of two superpowers, Mr. Tito has demonstrated that citizens no longer merely pay the bills and watch from the sidelines. I believe Mr. Tito has opened the door for commercial space by making the public apart of the greatest endeavor in human history: space travel.
Now that we are poised to enter the Commercial Space Age, Mr. Tito's accomplishment holds major implications for an emerging space tourism industry. We must begin to address the issue of what role the federal government should play, if any, in supporting and promoting the space tourism industry? Apart from the Space Shuttle and Russian Soyuz rocket, we don't possess launch vehicles to transport space tourist to orbit. Is privatization of the Shuttle and the Space Station a viable short-term solution? Is space tourism a viable industry in the absence of regulatory, operational, and legal regimes? Is there a clear market demand for carrying people to space? Mr. Tito's valuable insights will help us begin to address these and other issues critical the to success of space tourism. Indeed, Mr. Tito's space experience may be the catalyst for the ''Commercial Space Revolution'' by proving that dreams of traveling to space can be realized in the near future.
Dennis Tito's adventure has caught the imagination of the general public. I hope that today's discussion will open a new chapter in America's continuing presence in space.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Today's Hearing, we will examine Dennis Tito's trip to space and its repercussions on the emerging space tourism industry. Mr. Tito has the distinction of being the first space tourist, I guess, in history books and the Guinness Book of Records. He is going to be the first space tourist in the history of mankind and we hope that it will only be the first of what we are talking about. Mr. Tito has the distinction, as I say, of being that first space tourist and we hope many others will follow. As such, he has become a household name.
His trip to low earth orbit has helped us realize that our push toward the stars is not limited to meeting just government's needs, but also, in fulfilling the peoples' dreams. By forcing his way into the domain of the two superpowers, Mr. Tito has demonstrated that citizens no longer merely pay the bills and watch from the sidelines, but actually can take an active participant role in space. And in that, you have really kept the imagination of not only many of your fellow citizens, but at least one or two taxicab drivers in Paris who knew all about you, I might add.
I believe Mr. Tito has opened the door for commercial space by making the public a part of this great human endeavor. Now, people can imagine themselves as part of this effort. And that is conquering the next frontier and traveling into space.
Now, we are poised to enter this new commercial age and we are looking for some insights that Mr. Tito might have for us. Mr. Tito's accomplishments hold major implications for tourism as a space industry, but also, perhaps, some aspects of commercialization.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We must begin to address this issue of space tourism and we must address what role the Federal Government should play. And we are looking forward to some of your guidance in that. And what role should we play? Should the government support? Promote? Should we subsidize? Just how should space tourism be configured?
And, of course, Buzz Aldrin has been someone who has given this issue long thought. And another hero of space and a man who is known throughout the world will be joining us today and we are looking forward to your insights, as well, Buzz. And we appreciate you being with us. And you have not only been in space, but you have also been someone in his last few years and meetings with myself and other people who are involved in space policy, given us some very important direction from—for which we appreciate.
Now, apart from the Space Shuttle and the Russian Soyuz Rocket, we don't have, at this time, vehicles that can transport tourists into space. And I know Buzz has some thoughts on that that we would like to hear about. And we also should be talking in short-term, in terms of privatization and what use and—can we have of the Shuttle and the Space Station in terms of trying to ease into this arena of space tourism and space commercialization. And is space tourism a viable industry in the absence forever, for example, of regulatory and operational and legal regimes that other industries have? What should we be doing to lay that foundation?
And should be discussing, is there a clear market demand for carrying people into space? And we have heard all about the famous or the infamous $20 million. And—but what kind of demand is there for people with $20 million? And—but perhaps, maybe that will be $1 million in a few years and maybe even less than that in time to come. Mr. Tito's valuable insights will help us begin to address some of these issues. And many of them, as I say, are very critical to development of what could be a new industry, the space tourism industry.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Indeed, Mr. Tito's space experience may be the catalyst of, you might say, a commercial space revolution. Because we have someone here outside of government and talking about ways of making a profit in space and ways of utilizing space not just for a government end, but to fulfill the dreams and aspirations of people who are ordinary people, rather than just government agents and those trained and picked by government.
So we have all of this and Mr. Tito's adventure has caught the imagination, as I say, of the general public. And I hope that today's discussion will open a new chapter and—in this whole area of discussion. Perhaps your trip up there—as I say, you are going to be not just the first space tourist, but the first man to breach the wall, so to speak.
And I would like now to recognize the Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon from Tennessee for his opening statement.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I would like to welcome the witnesses to today's Hearing. The topic of space tourism is a departure from our usual oversight, but I am sure it will generate some interesting discussion. I would like to say upfront that I don't see any fundamental reason why we can't have a space tourism industry someday. The only question is when? In that regard, I think last week's Hearing on NASA's Space Launch Initiative is relevant to today's Hearings. Because we have not had any meaningful space tourism without highly reliable, as well as low cost space transportation. And we won't have space tourism industry until the private sector demonstrates the ability and the financial commitment to build and operate commercial space vehicles and habitations both safely and affordably. We are not there yet. And I don't know how long it will be before those conditions are met.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Perhaps our witnesses today will be able to speculate when that time will be. So with that, I want to welcome our witnesses once again and look forward to hearing your testimony today.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Without objection, the opening statements of other members will be put into the written record.
[The prepared statement of Representative Nick Lampson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK LAMPSON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling this hearing to order and I appreciate having the opportunity to hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses.
Humans have long had a yearning to travel in space and experience conditions beyond Earth's atmosphere. Forty years of human space flight experience have demonstrated the feasibility of safe travel to and from space as well as the ability of humans to live and work in space. The Nation's human space flight program has developed technologies and operational procedures that the private sector could make use of to enable American citizens to experience space travel. Space tourism has the potential to become a significant industry and a powerful stimulus for advances in space transportation.
No one likes to admit when they're wrong—much less Members of Congress! When I first learned of Dennis Tito's anticipated flight to the Space Station, I was extremely hesitant to offer support—in fact, I expressed my concerns quite publicly. We all breathed a collective sigh of relief when he came home safely. I do continue to have concerns, regarding flying a ''space tourist'' to the International Space Station during its assembly phase—in essence, putting at risk a Space Station that is being built with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars so that a private citizen can fly into space. However, I must say that Mr. Tito's flight led to more enthusiasm—and much needed at that—for space travel and the space program than I have seen in such a long time.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NASA has in the past made much of the limitations on crew time, consumables, and habitable volume that will occur during the assembly phase. If now there truly are sufficient on-board resources available to support a ''tourist'' visitor during the Station's assembly period, then those resources should instead be used to support the flight of a trained scientist who can directly contribute to meeting the research goals of the Station.
That being said, I am in the process of drafting legislation that will address the issue of space tourism. This legislation will be directed by means of federally guaranteed loans; tax credits; expeditious establishment of a straightforward and predictable regulatory structure; and research and development in technologies that may enable the private sector to develop operational passenger-carrying space transportation systems and on-orbit habitations. The Department of Commerce, and in particular its Office of Space Commercialization, would have the lead role in encouraging the growth of space tourism. As the agency of the Federal Government currently responsible for regulating America's commercial space transportation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration, in particular its Office of Commercial Space Transportation, should have the lead role in establishing the regulatory structure necessary to ensure the safety of United States space tourism. As the agency of the Federal Government responsible for carrying out the major share of the Nation's civil space activities, NASA would continue its traditional role of conducting research and development related to new space technologies and systems and facilitating their transfer to the private sector.
Again, thank you for calling this hearing to order and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Gary G. Miller follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY G. MILLER
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses hear before us.
I believe we are beginning to see the future of the space industry. The science and growth of research lies in the rise of opportunities for space travel and tourism. Where economic prospects are to be found, industry research dollars are sure to follow. One only has to look as far as the Information Technology industry to see how public interest and competition have driven innovation and accessibility. When we to begin open up space to the average citizen, competition will drive industry to make space travel cheaper, more reliable, and safer.
I see no reason why the space industry in this nation should be limited to a single customer, namely NASA, when exploring new technology. Limiting itself to the focus of government will I restrict both creativity and reliability and the space industry will never realize its full potential. This system that continues to reward contractors without results-based output takes away any incentives to explore the promise of space.
I know Mr. Tito's trip raised the ire of bean-counters and administrators who had to account for the true costs of his celestial sight seeing tour. However, these same bureaucrats did not blink an eye at giving a former Senator his final hurrah in outer space. After nearly forty years of space travel, I believe the question should be why, in 2001, this is the first private citizen to exit the atmosphere. While I don't believe that the International Space Station should be rented out as a ''Heavenly Hilton''.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I hope these witnesses before us can begin to shed some light on the potential for private space travel, and what the future holds in store for us. I believe NASA can play a role in designing industry ''standards'' to help address safety concerns in this field. I hope we can also hear some positive suggestions in this area as well.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE
I would like to thank Chairman Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Gordon for providing this opportunity for the Subcommittee to review the issues and opportunities for flying non-professional astronauts in space, and the appropriate government role for supporting the nascent space tourism industry. The hearing today will also review the use of the Space Shuttle and Space Station for tourism, safety and training criteria for space tourists, and the potential commercial market for space tourism.
This hearing comes as a direct result of the recent flight by Mr. Dennis Tito to the Space Station, when he became the first paying space tourist. Mr. Tito has generated a great deal of debate inside and outside of our national space exploration effort. His initial agreement was to pay the Russian Space Agency $20 million for a visit to their Mir Space Station. Mr. Tito paid the $20 million dollars and had begun training for his visit to the Mir Space Station. However, with growing safety concerns and the eventual demise of the Mir Space Station his goal of space travel was placed in doubt.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
His trip into space was eventually accomplished by the Russian Space Agency providing him transportation to the ISS and standing firm that they had the right to include whomever they wanted to as crew to visit to station.
Commercial activity in space has long been a national goal, and for this reason one of the Strategic Goals of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is to promote commercial use of space. The strategic goals of NASA's, Human Exploration and Development Enterprise (REDS), are to: Explore the Space Frontier; Expand Scientific Knowledge; Enable Humans to Live and Work Permanently in Space; Enable the Commercial Development of Space; and Share the Experience and Benefits of Discovery.
The formal development of commercial ventures in space have been limited to communication based satellite activities, which have evolved into a multi-billion dollar a year industry.
The International Space Station marked a new chapter in our nation's space exploration efforts. Today marks the total time of the Space Station in orbit is 949 days, with a cumulative crew time in orbit of 238 days. Its primary function is one of scientific research and space exploration.
However, space tourism was considered to be one of the last commercial ventures, which might evolve from our efforts in space exploration and habitation. Our nation's first space tourist paid for his trip, but the cost of his visit to the ISS has been primarily born by that project.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My concern is that we have lost the focus of what our Nation's space program should be invested in for this century. In a hearing before this Subcommittee on May 15, on the issue of our nation's Aerospace Industrial base it was determined that the U.S. aerospace industry is in danger of losing its leadership role due to a combination of factors. Some of the greatest challenges that we face regarding this critical area of our nation's ability in aerospace technology are a shrinking workforce, loss of market share to European competition, and declining government and commercial investment in aerospace research and development.
Our review of this matter has several points of serious concern that I would like to have address: Do our other partners in the ISS believe that they can demand that their own space tourist must have access to the ISS? Will the ISS be reimbursed by the Russian Space Agency for costs associated with Mr. Tito's stay? Should the ISS also have habitation models to accommodate paying space tourist if it is economically feasible?
These and other concerns must be addressed so that we may fully access the value of space tourism at this stage in our nation's space exploration efforts.
I would like to thank today's witnesses for coming before the Subcommittee to offer their insight into this very complicated, but important issue. I look forward to your testimony, and responses to questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Edward L. Hudgins follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. HUDGINS
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Space Policy and Space Tourism
I want to thank the committee for inviting me to submit testimony on space policy in general and space tourism in particular. This is a very broad topic about which books have and are being written. This fall, for example, I will publish a book entitled Space: The Free-Market Frontier, based on a Cato Institute conference earlier this year.
In this discussion I will highlight certain points that I should be useful for policy makers who wish to see space become a realm opened not only to a handful of government astronauts but to all individuals seeking adventure, discovery, knowledge and beauty.
The Benefits of Space
It is first useful to put the topic in perspective by considering some of the past, present, and potential future benefits to society of space travel and the ability to live and work in space.
The ability to travel outside the Earth's atmosphere already has ushered in important commercial benefits, most notably from communications satellites and remote sensing, the sectors in which private suppliers have been freest to operate. Data from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation places the value of America's space-related economic activity at $61.3 billion annually, generating earning of $16.4 billion and employing nearly 500,000 workers. The Satellite Industry Association estimates that worldwide satellite industry revenues alone were $83 billion in 2000, up from $69 billion in 1999, with the American portion currently valued at $37.5 billion. SIA estimates that there are 253,600 jobs in that industry worldwide, up from 205,400 in 1999, with 136,500 Americans employed. The International Space Business Council puts space current industry revenues even higher, at $96 billion in 2000. A Merrill Lynch study in 1999 projected that the global satellite market will grow to $171 billion by 2008. These figures to not take account of all secondary and tertiary effects.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The contributions to human knowledge and, I might add, to the human spirit, generated by access to space have been at least as important as the commercial benefits. The philosopher Aristotle said ''All men by nature desire to know.'' From the days that early humans looked up at the Moon and the stars from the warm savannas and cold caves, they wondered about the nature of those lights in the sky. Telescopes were the first great leap forward in revealing the nature of the universe. Space travel was the next leap, allowing us to place scientific instruments and observatories in orbit, to send robot probes to the planets, and to travel into space and to the Moon ourselves.
But the full benefits of human space activities lie in the future. In the long run, the capacity to travel and work in space could literally ensure the human race's survival, for example, by allowing us to detect, divert or destroy meteors or comets heading toward Earth. Further, space-faring could be as valuable as the opening of the Americas was to humanity. Men some day not only will land on Mars but will terra form it, making it into a second habitat for humanity in this solar system.
The future also promises more commercial benefits. Much has been said about the potential for creating and manufacturing new materials in the microgravity environment of space. Space also could help guarantee cheap and unlimited sources of clean energy. Current or near-future technologies can allow solar arrays in orbit to collect energy and beam it to Earth via lasers of microwaves. As an intermediate step, natural gas that currently is flared off as a waste product in Middle East oil fields could be converted into another form of energy, bounced off of a device in orbit and received in California or some other energy-starved part of the world.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But currently launch costs are too high to make such projects commercially viable. For example, some estimates suggest that for solar energy collectors to be commercially viable, launch costs might need to fall by as much as two magnitudes, from about $10,000 per lb. to $100 per lb.
Private space travel offers one of the most promising potential space markets for the future. Surveys by the Space Transportation Association and other groups and scholars suggest that a majority of Americans would take a trip into space if they could afford it. Surveys that examine the prices individuals would be willing to pay to go into space place the value of that market at least at about $10 billion.
I suspect that if the actual prospect of going into space materializes, the market would grow even larger. After all, consider the place of space in popular culture. Some 20 million people each year visit the Air and Space Museum in Washington. Science fiction movies, television shows, books and magazines are enjoyed by more than a billion people worldwide and generate billions of dollars in revenue. These figures suggest that if rides on real rockets were readily available at reasonable rates, millions more would want to go. But the high costs as well as lack of availability keep those who dream of flying in space chained to the Earth.
The Unrealized Revolution
Even given the impressive private-sector commercial space achievements, for example, with communications satellites, and the technological and scientific achievements of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), space enterprise so far as been an unrealized revolution. Looking back to civil aviation, we find that 40 years after the Wright brother's first flight, probably at least a million people had taken flights in planes. By contrast, 40 years after the first men traveled into space, fewer than 500 individuals have followed them. When the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was released in 1968, it depicted what most people expected for that future year; commercial flights into space and orbiting space hotels. The year 2001 has arrived and the vision of Arthur C. Clark and Stanley Kubrick is unrealized.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Contrast space enterprise with the explosive growth in the past two decades of information and communications technology. Most Americans appreciate that pioneers like Microsoft's Bill Gates and Apple's Steve Jobs have made a revolution in the private sector, offering hundreds of billions of dollars in new goods and services, making them affordable for most Americans, and capturing the imagination and enthusiasm especially of young people who see what man at his best can accomplish. Even where the government did initial research, for example, developing primitive internet technology, it was the private sector that made it available at affordable prices to millions of consumers.
To understand the barriers to private space travel, it is important to keep in mind three important facts:
First, travel is tied to the general fate of most other private space efforts. Less costly rocket designs or the ability to place private habitats in orbit are the essential elements for a successful space tourism sector. Reforms that help the space industry in general can benefit, both directly and indirectly, private space travel. Regulations that hinder the industry in general will smother commercial synergies that arise in a healthy industry.
Second, since the beginning of the Space Age, the activities by NASA, U.S. government policies, and international treaties have systematically hindered or barred many private space endeavors. The past two decades have seen numerous policies struggles to free the private sector, some successful, some not.
Third, America's general regulatory regime and that part of it in particular that governs commercial space activities is the principal barrier to the expansion of those activities. If such a regime were in place earlier in this century, civil aviation would not have developed as it did and air travel might be as rare as space travel. If such a regime had been applied two decades ago to emerging personal computer, software and internet firms, the communications and information revolution would have been stillborn.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With these points in mind we turn to a more detailed examination of space tourism.
Dennis Tito and the Current Situation
The demand for trips into space by private citizens offers a potential market that could usher in a breakthrough in the fight to lower the costs of traveling to space. It might be more accurate not to describe this as ''space tourism,'' a term used in a pejorative manner by opponents of Tito's flight. Those opponents meant the term to conjure up pictures of people in shorts and sandals and loud-colored shirts taking pictures of things they had little understanding of or respect for. In fact, Tito and those who follow his lead are better described as adventurers, individuals willing not only to spend money but to take risks to have the thrilling and profound experience of traveling into space.
It is necessary to place Tito's flight in its full context. Tito, of course, originally planned to visit the Mir space station. Russia has planned to de-orbit it when private parties came to its rescue in the form of MirCorp, a company 40 percent owned by private Western investors and 60 percent owned by Energia, Russia's mostly privatized rocket company. MirCorp planned to make the station financially self-supporting facility. For example, it signed a deal with the producer of the TV show ''Survivor'' to allow contestants to train and compete at Russia's Star City with the winner traveling to Mir for a 10-day stay.
Top NASA officials in part were responsible for Mir's demise. For example, behind the scenes they pressured Energia to abandon Mir so it could devote more resources to fulfilling International Space Station (ISS) commitments. Also MirCorp wanted to pay for the use of several Russian ''Progress'' supply rockets that were sitting unused but on which NASA had first call. Even though they could have been replaced before NASA would need them, NASA would not let MirCorp purchase them. Finally, MirCorp wanted to export a tether needed to supply energy to Mir from the United States to Russia for launch. The U.S. State Department, under pressure from NASA, delayed the export license for 10 months, until after the Russians decided to abandon Mir.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thus Tito's flight to ISS was made necessary because of Mir's demise. It is also important to note that the budget of Russia's space agency is just over $100 million. That means that an offer from Tito of $12 million to $20 million to travel into space was a an important source of revenue. Further, SpaceHab, an American company, is paying the Russian government to be allowed to place module on the Russian part of the ISS to provide a variety of commercial telephony and communications services. The Russians likely will sell more rides to the ISS.
The public's interest, enthusiasm and support for Tito's flight was in sharp contrast to the strong opposition from NASA's top management. Now the ISS partners are discussing how to limit access to the station, to head off other private travelers and commercial activities.
Thus it is necessary to raise the question of what should be the role of the NASA or governments in private space travel as opposed to the private sector? The problem arises in large part because governments rather than private parties own the ISS. If an American citizen offers NASA money for a ride to the station, a number of problems would arise.
As a general principle, should NASA devote resources paid for by taxpayers to help private individuals who have the money to purchase the services? Generally government resources should not be used in this manner.
Should NASA be providing such services in competition with potential private sector providers? Again, government agencies should not be competing with private providers to offer any goods or services.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So should we expect governments not provide private trips to space and leave it to the private sector? Ultimately yes! And a number of entrepreneurs indeed are planning such efforts. For example, Bigelow Aerospace is designing a private space station that it hopes to launch in several years for a fraction of the cost of the ISS, providing a place for private travelers to stay as well as for scientific and other commercial activities. Other companies are developing suborbital systems for quick trips above the atmosphere and to place cargoes and people in orbit.
But there are several policy and governmental barriers to these efforts.
Regulatory Chains
It is important to remember that private companies are still fighting a decades-long struggle to remove regulatory barriers to their efforts. From the beginning of the Space Age most American policy makers assumed that governments would be actors operating in space and thus made no allowance for private actors. In the 1970s when private companies did arise that wanted to sell services rather than hardware to NASA and other government agencies, NASA was not interested in giving up its bureaucratic empire. Starting in the Carter years, government agencies were barred from using private carriers to place cargoes in space.
The 1982 private launch of the Conestoga rocket brought to light the regulatory barriers to private companies. The rocket's maker had to spend six months and $250,000 to get permission to launch.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The creation of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) in the Department of Transportation was suppose to avoid the jurisdictional confusion that Conestoga faced. The Challenger disaster in 1986 eventually led to the removal of the ban on government payloads from private rockets. In 1995 the OCST was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Securing permission to launch still involves safety requirements, reentry licensing, financial responsibility requirements, site operations licensing, and various environmental impact requirements. If this sort of regime had been in place in the early part of this century, the civil aviation industry probably would still be a dream waiting for a deregulated future to be realized.
Because of this regulatory regime, Kistler Aerospace, which is developing a reusable launch vehicle, was required to meet with local interest groups and Indian tribes, and draft extensive environmental impact statement as part of its effort to secure permission to launch from a federal test facility in Nevada. J.P. Aerospace of California was competing for the private Cheap Access to Space (CATS) prize of $250,000 for placing a payload 124 miles above the Earth by November 8, 2000. It began the effort to secure permission to launch from the Black Rock Desert in northern Nevada in May, 2000. The company was informed in late September by the government that it would take another two months to process the license. J.P. Aerospace missed the deadline. Other companies too have lost business because of the licensing process. Potentially customers generally want two month lead time for launches. Since it often takes launchers six or more months to secure a license, it is obvious how private providers are hindered.
It is no wonder that other countries, for example, Australia, are openly courting American companies to launch from their less-regulated facilities. Add to the licensing difficulties the fact that many government branches and agencies still have jurisdiction over the activities of space enterprises and it is also little wonder that they have failed to develop faster.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Commercial Space Act of 1998 sought to remove barriers to private space efforts. It did, for example, remove the ban on private providers bringing vehicles and payloads, including private travelers, back from space. It also required NASA to purchase services rather than hardware whenever possible. But due to lack of enforcement, NASA has not had to honor this mandate.
Further, the fact that the regulatory regime continues to change introduces uncertainty to a sector in which uncertainties in technologies are already major problems. This uncertainty concerning the regulatory regime itself is a major barrier to investments and the expansion of private space activities.
Another extremely serious hindrance to private space activities in general is the export control regime. In 1998 Congress passed the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act. That law transferred jurisdiction over exports from the Commerce Department to the State Department, which has been much stricter and slower in approving exports. Already the American satellite industry is being seriously harmed. We saw how the delay in authorizing the export of a tether helped kill the Mir space station. This law is harming the private space sector in general and certainly will hinder the emergence of private space travel.
Perhaps one way to deal with the regulatory problems faced by private space entrepreneurs, in addition to changing the laws, would be to establish an ombudsman both to help such entrepreneurs through the regulatory process and to monitor each step of the process. This monitoring will illuminate the regulatory roadblocks and thus better allow policy makers to eliminate them.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other ways to help the space sector in general and thus private space travel would be to create and enterprise zone in orbit, to not tax or regulate commercial activities off the Earth's surface. After all, taxes are one of the greatest burdens on private commerce. Private parties in space would provide all of their own services and thus the government would have little cause to charge them for services provided on Earth. In the long run potential problems with the Outer Space Treaty also will have to be dealt with to ensure that private space travelers and the companies providing such services are secure in their property and liberties.
The ISS
In addition to changing the regulatory regime, something must be done about the ISS. We have seen how NASA often uses its influence to stifle private space efforts. There is also always the danger of unfair NASA competition with the private sector. The ISS and NASA's role in it poses just such a problem. Those dangers must be contained if private space travel is not to face even more roadblocks.
It would be best if the station were privatized, but that would be politically difficult since the United States is in partnership with other governments in the ISS. Thus a possible alternative would be to organize the ISS like an airport authority or a multi-jurisdictional port authority like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Such a station authority would be chartered among the station's owners, that is, the governments that are participating. NASA would not be U.S. government representative on the authority though it could be a customer or tenant on the station. That authority initially would provide infrastructure, safety, utilities and a regime that would allow private parties to run commercial operations on the station. The private sector could take over even those functions at some point. The authority would not be allowed to finance any station business operations, to expand into unrelated businesses, or to own any stock in station contractors. Those restrictions also would apply to NASA itself. In addition to commercial activities, the private sector would provide and pay for all future travel to and from the station, station operations, maintenance, and expansion.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Such an approach would mean that station resources would be allocated for the highest valued activities. A real market would be created. Because market prices would be paid, this approach would help contain the danger of unfair competition from a government station to a private station.
It is also important that a station port authority arrangement allow for private sector expansion and perhaps even eventual takeover of the station. For example, perhaps to expand activities, one provider wants to add infrastructure that would provide energy cheaper than the shared energy facilities. It would not be sound policy if the station owners, the governments, could veto such a move in order to hold on to their control and stake in the station.
Conclusion
The discussion above highlighted the potential for private space travel. The potential of such a sector can serve as a reason for policy makers to renew their efforts to reduce and eliminate regulations on the private space sector.
If the right policies are initiated, space can become a realm not just for NASA astronauts but for all Americans.
[The prepared statement of Pat Dasch follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT DASCH
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Opening Space to All Americans
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the hearing on Space Tourism.
Ordinary Americans are dreaming of traveling in space. For a half-century we have anticipated the day when we can follow in the footsteps of our space pioneers. Mention space and our imaginations soar. Our hearts quicken. What would it be like to experience no up or down, to break gravity's hold and float in weightlessness?
As ordinary citizens, we are envious of the fortunate few who have escaped Earth's boundaries. But we are impatient. There is no greater adventure, no experience to compare with space travel. And because of Dennis Tito, we are one step closer to realizing this dream.
NASA did not support Mr. Tito's flight, which was initially planned as an expedition to the Mir space station. With Mir no longer an option, Russia made arrangements to launch Tito to the International Space Station.
NASA had justifiable questions about safety. Administrator Goldin emphasized, ''Safety is our number one objective.'' For the United States, flying civilians to space is a particularly sensitive issue. It has taken years for our nation to heal from the Challenger disaster in January 1986 that killed all seven crew members including Christa McAuliffe, America's first civilian space pioneer.
Prior to the Challenger disaster, the public—as today—enthusiastically supported flying civilians to space. Senator Jake Garn opened the door to non-professional astronauts when he flew to space in April 1985, followed by Congressman Bill Nelson's flight months later. With much fanfare, NASA announced McAuliffe's flight, and then began preparations to subsequently have a journalist aboard the Space Shuttle. Administrator James Beggs said NASA expected 3,000 to 5,000 journalists to apply for the mission.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The dream of opening space to the general public was put on hold when Challenger exploded soon after launch from Cape Canaveral. After Challenger, NASA abandoned the civilian-in-space program. When John Glenn made his second space flight in October 1998 NASA stated it was not a revival of the civilian-in-space program. Rather, Glenn's return to space was only ''expanding the reach of the astronaut program'', explained Mr. Goldin.
Dennis Tito, a successful businessman and former aerospace engineer, had also dreamed of going to space since childhood. With no option to fly aboard the Space Shuttle, he turned to Russia, which has a ''guest cosmonaut'' program. Flights initially were restricted to cosmonauts from Eastern Bloc countries. But after the Soviet Union began to experience severe economic troubles in the 1980's, the guest cosmonaut program was modified to allow western countries and private individuals to participate. In December 1990, Toyohiro Akiyama, a former Washington bureau chief for Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS), paid $11 million to spend a week aboard Mir.
The Mir station enjoyed a temporary reprise when the United States agreed to pay $400 million for a series of docking missions. Afterwards, budgetary problems again became a major issue. The United States pressed Russia to de-orbit the station, arguing it could not afford to both operate Mir and provide support to the ISS.
In January 1999, the Russian government ended financing for the Mir space station. In an attempt to keep the facility in orbit, Energia Corporation formed a joint venture called MirCorp. In addition to conducting commercial micro gravity research, it hoped to attract tourists by offering trips to the facility. Tito jumped at the opportunity and soon began formal training at Star City. But before he could complete his training, a decision was made to de-orbit Mir.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Tito believed his dream was over. But the Russian space agency agreed to fly Tito to space on a Soyuz rocket (which had an empty seat), planned for launch in early 2001. The entire budget of Russia's space program is a mere $150 million per year. The $20 million reportedly paid by Tito is a substantial amount of money for Russia's space agency.
Tito's flight, not surprisingly, rekindled NASA's concerns about transporting non-professional astronauts to space. The ISS partners were caught off-guard. There was no expectation that the first commercial payload to the ISS would be human cargo. Safety panels had not studied the issue. Tito's commercial flight went beyond the civilian-in-space program. It is one thing to select and train non-professional astronauts, such as a teacher or journalist, but quite another to offer a commercial visit to the ISS.
Russia refused to delay the mission until outstanding issues could be resolved. The media was curious and cynical about a ''twenty million dollar sightseeing trip.'' Norm Thagard, the first U.S. astronaut to visit Mir, generally endorsed the idea of space tourism. He explained the seat on the Soyuz is usually unoccupied. If it was not going to be used for a mission, he said he had no problem with flying a non-professional astronaut.
In the end, NASA acquiesced, making a ''one-time exception'' for Tito to fly to the ISS. Special rules were drafted; detailing what Tito could and could not do. The crew was obliged to modify their daily work schedule to prevent any mishaps. Whenever Tito moved from one module to another, he had to be accompanied by a crew member. He also had to sign a statement holding NASA and the international partners harmless for any problems that might occur, and agreed to pay for any damages.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Luckily, Tito's six-day trip to the ISS was uneventful. But its success should not be viewed as a precedent to automatically establish a commercial visitor program for the space station. There are legitimate issues to be considered before implementing such an option. NASA delayed the civilian-in-space program because the Shuttle was deemed too risky. Since then, the Shuttle has been upgraded improving its safety. Is the risk now acceptable to fly civilians to space? Before opening the door to the Space Shuttle and ISS space tourism we believe, it is vital to conduct a review to answer such questions as well as address the following concerns:
If the risk to fly non-professional astronauts is now acceptable, is it advisable given potential disruptions in building the station and conducting research? Should civilian space travel to the ISS be delayed until the ISS is fully assembled?
If the U.S. declines to transport civilians on the Shuttle, are there limited flight opportunities for non-professional astronauts, such as Tito's flight aboard the Soyuz that can be accommodated by Russia without major disruptions in the ISS program?
If the risk to fly non-professional astronauts is acceptable, should NASA revive the civilian-in-space program? If so, should it consider space tourists as a component? If civilians and tourists fly to the ISS, how should the flights be allocated?
What training should be required for civilian astronauts? How healthy must they be? How old? What are reasonable standards and procedures for flight qualifications of visitors?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What are the legal liabilities for NASA and the international partners of a space tourism program.
If a space visitor program is established, what should be the criteria for selecting candidates?
NSS governor, Buzz Aldrin, one of the nation's leading proponents for space tourism, agrees there is a high-end market for civilians who want to travel to Earth orbit. ''There are a number of market surveys,'' he explains, ''. . .that show that at upper levels of cost, a sizable number of people would pay to fly to orbit.'' But Aldrin believes average citizens should also be given a chance to fly to space. He suggests setting aside a limited number of flights—perhaps five percent—for ordinary citizens who would be selected by a national lottery.
A space lottery, he posits, would expand space tourism ''beyond the wealthy'' to the ''guy on the street''. Opening space travel to the average citizen, he adds, would also ''broaden the base'' of support for America's space program.
Aldrin originally proposed a space lottery to fly aboard the Space Shuttle, which often has an extra seat. But after Tito's flight, the proposal could equally apply to the ISS. National lotteries could potentially generate tens of millions of dollars.
Had Dennis Tito not paid for a ticket to Mir, it is unlikely he would have had the opportunity to visit the International Space Station. Now that Dennis Tito has made his space flight it raises the question: how-best can we accommodate space tourism? According to Russia, ten commercial flights are under consideration. Mikhail Sinelschikov, head of Russia's human space flight program, said, ''If there are people willing to do it, why not?''
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Movie director James Cameron has expressed interest in traveling commercially to space. As one of America's premiere filmmakers, if he is willing to pay $20 million, should he be allowed to visit the ISS the same as Tito?
In the wake of the Challenger disaster, NASA has been hesitant to consider flying non-professional astronauts to space again. But if safety is not compromised, the National Space Society (NSS) strongly believes the time has arrived to open the space frontier to all Americans. The NSS urges NASA and its ISS partners to undertake a review of commercial space travel to the ISS. Specifically, the National Space Society urges accelerated efforts to facilitate activities in space by private companies and citizens and, in particular:
1. That NASA and it's International Space Station (ISS) partners revise the ''Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station'' to include provision for paying visitors (e.g., private researchers, journalists, educators, entertainers, tourists) to the ISS. Such revisions should include making private visits a 10th ''Potential Pathfinder Area'' as described in the Plan's Attachment 1.
2. That NASA and its International Space Station partners define reasonable standards and procedures for the flight qualifications of such visitors to include the utilization (at reasonable cost) of existing Space Shuttle and Soyuz vehicles, government training facilities, flight equipment, and operations facilities; and the certification of future private training facilities and operations facilities.
3. That these provisions and standards be established by the end of 2001, to enable private ventures to select and arrange for training of citizens to visit the International Space Station as early as mid-2003.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
4. That NASA and the U.S. Congress promote private visits to the ISS as part of the ''Space Station Commercial Development Demonstration Program'', and as a means to stimulate the space economy and therefore help fulfill their obligations as defined in the Commercial Space Act of 1998.
5. That NASA set aside one or more seats aboard the Space Shuttle per fiscal year for private citizens, whether visiting the ISS or not; to be chosen and paid for by commercial or private entities; and
6. That NASA revitalizes and expands the Payload Specialist program to include space shuttle and space station missions, and to provide appropriate training for future ''Teacher-In-Space'', ''Journalist-in-Space'', and any other citizen in space program candidates.
The public yearns to fly to space and we should seek ways to help them do so. The International Space Station is a laboratory for research, a platform for observing the cosmos, and a bridge to connect many nations. It also can serve as a gateway to commercial space travel. To this end, the NSS urges Congress to expand the ''Commercial Development Plan for the International Space Station'' to include as an objective in the ''Potential Pathfinder Area'' the making of private visits to the facility.
NASA should take a broad view of space tourism to find ways to make it a reality. Tito's flight speaks for the millions of ordinary people who also have dreams to venture to Earth orbit and beyond. Space flight should not be just for professional astronauts. In 1985, our nation began to open space to all Americans. The time has arrived to continue this quest.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. And—so we can get straight to the testimony. And hearing no objection, so ordered. I would also ask unanimous consent to insert at the appropriate place in the record for the background memorandum prepared by the majority staff of this Hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Lastly, I request unanimous consent that the record is herein remained open until—so that additional materials received from outside groups may be inserted into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
We have with us today a distinguished panel. And they have unique perspectives to share with us today on the subject of space tourism and commercialization and its implication for the space—for our space efforts in the future. We have asked them to summarize and if I could, ask to summarize in 5 minutes, if possible, your statement. And the rest of your statement will be in the record. And we have quite a number of participants here today at this Committee. And they'd like to ask you all some questions. And so if you could summarize, we would deeply appreciate that.
I would also like to acknowledge the Chairman, Sherry Boehlert, the Chairman of the Full Science Committee, who is a—how would I say? An annual activist when it comes to science. A nice guy who is really very active throughout the Science Committee and using his creativity. And it is hard work to make sure we all get our job done and we appreciate him being with us today.
Our first witness is Dennis Tito, the world's first—as I say, the world's first space tourist. And, Mr. Tito, you may proceed and we are very grateful that you came with us to share your experiences today.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Gordon and other members of the Science and Astronautics—Aeronautics Subcommittee, for inviting me here to talk a little bit about my recent space mission and, you know, some of the observations I made during the flight about the ISS, as well as space tourism, in general.
Mr. TITO. This is a result of a more than 40 year dream that I have had. I have always been interested in space. I first became interested at age 17, with the launch of Sputnik. I enrolled in Aerospace Engineering the next year at NYU. I ended up working at NASA JPL on various unmanned missions to Mars and Venus. Had this lifetime fascination with space.
I left about 30 years ago to pursue a career in investments, taking a lot of the aerospace technology that I learned. So you have to watch out for these export controls. I applied them to the stock market and found myself in a position to actually become a space tourist. Now——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Any good tips for us today?
Mr. TITO. Well, let me say that everyone talks about the money involved. But in a way, if you have it, writing the check is easy. The tough part was arranging it. And that would be—take more time than we have today. It would take probably a couple of days to explain it. But I had to go through a lot of training in Star City. I had to leave my home in California. I had to live in this two room flat and attend class 8, 9 hours a day, do a lot of physical training and be in a position where I actually could fly in space. Because it is not an easy thing to sit on top of 100 tons of high explosive and be launched into space. And one has to be trained to have the courage and perseverance to do that. So the first observation is that it is not easy—an easy process to go through. Even if the costs come down. There is training and this is not like getting on an airliner.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My flight turned out to be much more of an—a positive experience than I thought. I was prepared for possibly an entire mission of space sickness. I only had some minor problems the first day and the rest was the greatest experience in my life. I can say the 8 days I spent in space remain—will always remain the highlight of my life. I had the opportunity to be weightless for that time, to observe the earth, the beautiful planet below us, the thin atmosphere that you could barely see from 250 miles up. It was an experience that if other people were to have that, that would now be my biggest dream. And I intend to spend my efforts trying to promote space tourism so other people can realize their dreams, as I have. Because I know from the reaction worldwide to this flight, that there are a lot of people that felt very positive about this experience and lived vicariously through me on that.
I would like to suggest that we consider reinstating the NASA Civilians in Space Programs, so that we can have people from all walks of life, teachers, journalists, novelists, opera composers, etcetera, take their experience that they might have and bring it back to us on earth. So as a culture, we can better understand and experience the pleasures of flying in space and make that part of our culture.
I think we should encourage Russia to sell additional seats on the Soyuz, as they did to me. Make that available to people that can afford it. So you have both people that would be selected by NASA to fly, based on their cultural contribution and also, people that are willing to pay to add to the array of people that fly in space.
As far as the Space Station is concerned, I found that it has tremendous volume and tremendous capacity. It actually could support a crew of 6. I could have stayed up there for several months. I had secured a birth area that was very comfortable. And if Mr. Goldin would have called and said, we didn't want you to go, but now, we don't want you to come back, I would have said, fine. I would have stayed up there.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter]
But seriously, the impression that I got up there was that we could easily double our crew size if we just hired the Russians to provide two additional seats—two additional Soyuz per year. And we could expand our science almost immediately. Because the amount of science that is being done on the station right now is highly limited.
Finally, my experience in dealing with the Russians was one of initial skepticism, but I found out that they were ready to honor the contract that they made with me. And they would not have signed that contract with me in January if they knew what was coming down 2 months later, as far as the partnership resistance. They really want to cooperate with the partnership. But they had signed the contract and they are honorable and intended to meet it. So I feel, from my experience in dealing with the Russians, that they are highly reliable and I would suggest that the Subcommittee consider that in any future dealings with the Russians. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dennis Tito follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS A. TITO(see footnote 5)
''Expanding the Dream of Human Space Flight''
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gordon and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to have been asked to testify before you today. I hope that my testimony will bring a unique perspective with regard to the United States space program and our ability to work cooperatively with Russia and our other partners in the International Space Station (ISS).
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is my understanding that during today's hearing the members of the subcommittee are interested in reviewing the issues and opportunities for flying non-professional astronauts in space, the appropriate governmental role for supporting the nascent space tourism industry, use of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station for tourism, safety and training criteria for space tourists and the potential commercial market for space tourism.
More specifically, I have been asked to address the following:
My experiences preparing for the mission and overall observations on board the ISS as a visitor;
The benefit of space travel and its value to society;
My observations of the Russian space program and opportunities for an improved partnership, particularly on the ISS.
I am happy to address all of the aforementioned topics, but do ask that testimony that goes beyond a retelling of my personal experience be considered that of a non-expert in human space flight.
Pursuing A Dream
My interest in space travel began with the launch of Sputnik when I was teenager and grew with the U.S.- Soviet space race. Given that my father was a working class Italian immigrant, looking back it may have seemed foolish for me to one day dream of going into space, but I just knew space flight was something I had to experience. I also knew that my parents had come to the United States because it was a country where, if you set high goals and worked hard to achieve them, anything was possible. On April 28, 2001, 40 years after the first manned space flight, I was able to prove that my mother and father were right. A boy from Queens could fly in space. My only regret is that they did not live long enough to see my dream become a reality.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Focused on my desire to participate in the U.S. space program, I earned a B.S. in Astronautics and Aeronautics from NYU College of Engineering and a M.S. from Rensselaer in Engineering Science. I began my career as an aerospace engineer with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) at the age of 23. While serving at JPL, I was responsible for designing the trajectories for several Mariner spacecraft missions to Mars and Venus. I left to pursue a career in investment management and today serve as Chief Executive Officer of Wilshire Associates Incorporated, a leading provider of investment management, consulting and technology services. Despite my career change, I never lost my fascination with space, my commitment to our nation's space program, or my dream that one day I might go there myself. Indeed, it was that career move that eventually enabled me to achieve my dream.
Because it is currently impossible for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to fly civilians on the Space Shuttle, I was excited to learn last year that the Russian government was receptive to citizens flying into space for a fee. My original intention was to fly to Mir, but that hope was dashed when it was determined that the Russian station needed to be de-orbited. Officials of the Russian Space Agency and the company RSC Energia then approached me about my possible interest in flying to the ISS on the April 2001 taxi mission. After much consideration, in January I signed a contract to do so.
Training as an American Cosmonaut
Last summer, in pursuit of my dream, I left my business, family and home in California and moved into a two-room flat in Star City, a Russian military base outside of Moscow, where I lived a fairly Spartan existence, dedicating myself to my training. The comprehensive training program I completed closely mirrored that of any Russian cosmonaut engineer.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In total, my training encompassed approximately 800 hours of instruction and practice and ranged from emergency and evacuation procedures and basic life support and engineering systems, to simulations of ascent and descent and zero gravity, to housekeeping chores and taking care of personal hygiene needs. I should note here that my detailed technical training not only covered the Soyuz, but also the Russian-built elements of ISS—Zarya, the functional cargo block or FGB, and Zvezda, the service module—as well as their subsystems. Of course, because of the nature of my flight, I would like to note that I was trained as a passenger, not as someone expected to take the controls of the Soyuz.
As a ''graduate'' of the Russian cosmonaut training system, I was fully confident when the engines were ignited on the launch pad in Kazakhstan that I would be able to handle whatever might happen on my flight. In fact, my training prepared me so well that my heartbeat never went above 72 beats per minute during ascent, and I was able to track to the second the sequence of events from our launch until reaching orbit.
I believe that it is a testament to my training that after just a few hours in space, I fully adapted to weightlessness. I was able to assist the crew in housekeeping chores like food sorting and preparation. I have to admit, though, that the training that prepared me for sorting food took place in college when I hand sorted mail at the U.S. Post Office near Penn Station in New York City.
There was one thing not even the most extensive training could prepare me for: the awe and wonder I felt at seeing our beautiful Earth, the fragile atmosphere at its horizon and the vast blackness of space against which it was set. Just imagine being able to watch 16 sunrises and sunsets each day. And, thanks to a team of generous Ham radio operators and the crew on the ISS, I was able to connect more clearly with my sons down on Earth than I had previously when we were face-to-face.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As any one of the 400 plus people who have traveled to space will tell you, no amount of training can prepare one for the experience of weightlessness and the freedom of effortless movement. It remains something that's still hard to describe to others. I can say that you get a sense of total relaxation. The nights I slept in space were the best nights' sleep I've had since I was a baby.
ISS Observations
With regard to my observations as a visitor aboard the ISS, I want to remind the subcommittee that mine are the opinions of someone trained for my taxi flight mission, but certainly not those of an expert. I say without hesitation, however, that anyone associated with the development of the ISS has every right to be extremely proud. As it orbits our Earth, the ISS serves as tangible proof that men and women from diverse backgrounds and cultures—even former adversaries—can accomplish great things when we work together in a cooperative spirit for the betterment of all humankind. This subcommittee deserves much of the credit for this stellar achievement. You have repeatedly taken the lead in supporting the ISS, even when that required providing a not-so-gentle guiding hand.
Anyone who hasn't been to the ISS or toured full sized mock-ups of it cannot possibly have a full appreciation of how large it really is. End to end it is already roughly 150 feet long. When it is completed, the ISS will be almost 300 feet long with its solar panels spanning over 350 feet. The ISS is so large and well-integrated that it is simply amazing to realize that it was built in pieces at different places on Earth, launched into space by different rockets, and assembled more than 200 miles above us. It is truly a triumph of humanity and technology.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I spent most of my time in Zvezda, the Service Module, where I listened to opera, shot video and stereographic photos of the Earth out of the porthole, helped prepare food and talked with the crew during meals. The U.S. Destiny laboratory module is dedicated to science and not yet fully operational, so after a tour and briefing on safety procedures, there was not really a reason for me to spend time there.
The three of us on the Soyuz taxi flight slept in Zarya, the FGB, each camping out in a third of its space. ISS Commander Yuri Usachev and James Voss each had a berth in Zvezda, and Susan Helms had chosen a nook in Destiny as her part-time bedroom.
The crew on ISS works very hard, but most of their time is spent simply carrying out the day-to-day logistics of keeping the station functioning. Air filters have to be replaced. Computers need to be monitored and sometimes repaired. Supplies have to be inventoried and stowed.
My observation was that the crew lacked enough time to do as much science as they wanted. In fact, I understand that NASA testified to the full Science Committee in March that currently the crew was spending just 20 hours per week on science. In fact, I was told by one crew member that even less time was being spent on science.
It would appear that the only way significant time can be dedicated to scientific experiments aboard the ISS is if the crew size is doubled, as was originally planned. I understand that cost overruns and budget constraints have forced us to keep the crew size at three for the foreseeable future. But, if the true mission of the ISS is to foster scientific research, we cannot expect it to succeed unless and until the crew size is increased to six.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I can tell you that my Soyuz crewmates and I had plenty of room to spread out and ''camp.'' Furthermore, the atmospheric life support systems on Zvezda are capable of supporting both a regular crew of three plus the three visiting cosmonauts from a Soyuz swap-out flight. Throughout my visit we never had to use the supplemental oxygen canisters or other such mechanisms.
What this means is that we could transition to a six person crew fairly quickly. We would have to purchase an additional two Soyuz flights per year to have a full crew rescue capability, and carry up additional food, water, and other supplies. Also, we'd have to use the Soyuz missions to swap crew as well as spacecraft, rather than conducting ''taxi'' flights, since the ISS currently cannot support a crew of six plus three visitors.
By doubling the crew size sooner we can free up much more time for actual research on the ISS, and hopefully speed up progress towards growing the ISS even further.
As I stated, this is not my area of expertise and I realize there might be logistical, re-supply and psychological implications that might need to be addressed, but I do think it's an alternative that merits NASA's and your consideration.
Spreading the Benefits of Space Travel to Society
In my opinion, one of the benefits of the ISS and its long-term value to society is to lay the groundwork for us to expand human civilization beyond Earth orbit to the Moon, Mars and other places in our solar system. In other words, we're not just going to visit: we want to live in space.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In order to do that, we need to learn more about the effects of long duration flight on the human body and psyche. We also need to develop self-sustaining life support systems that will reduce and eventually eliminate the need for re-supply from Earth, allowing us to complete space flights of 1,000 days and more.
As an engineer, I want to suggest that we not just view the ISS as a useful platform for scientific research, but also for the research and development of new technologies that will allow us to live in space for extended periods of time. That, as much as anything else, will create new economic and scientific opportunities for the future.
In the short-term, I believe we need to find ways to include the general public in our human space flight activities. As I have mentioned, it is hard for me to fully convey what it was like to be weightless for eight days. But then again, I'm a businessman. On the other hand, just think of how magnificently poets, writers, musicians, composers, teachers, filmmakers, painters, journalists and other creative individuals would be able to communicate the beauty and inspiration of spaceflight.
Based on the extensive worldwide media coverage and public reaction, it would be fair to say that my taxi flight to the ISS captured the attention and imagination of millions of people around the globe and renewed their interest in human space flight. I've found that whether people agree or disagree with my decision to fulfill my 40-year dream the way I did, they are fascinated by my experience. They don't care so much how I got up there, but what it felt like when I got up there. I keep hearing questions like, how did you put on your socks? Can you wear contacts in space? How do you sleep when you're floating around?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Back here at home, I believe that the United States should consider re-instituting the Citizen in Space program. There is nothing that intrigues and excites the American public like seeing someone they can relate to achieve and experience great things they consider beyond their reach. Ours is a government of, for and by the people. I think we know that if asked, the American people would say that as horrific as it was, it is time to put the Challenger tragedy behind us and move forward in a positive way that honors those aboard that Shuttle. We need to once again offer our nation's teachers, journalists, creative artists and others an opportunity to experience what is now the sole bailiwick of fighter or test pilots and scientists. The bottom line is that the American people, who pay for the space program, should have every opportunity to share in it.
A survey by a respected publication, which will not be released until later this summer, found that nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe that NASA should allow citizens to pay to travel to outer space in order to raise funds for space exploration. Since that isn't an option, I would suggest that we work with the Russians and allow them to send one paying passenger on each available Soyuz taxi mission. While I would agree that passenger criteria need to be put in place, we also need to be careful not to set the bar as high as the standard would be for a Shuttle mission commander, thus eliminating most candidates.
Not only would this system allow for more citizens to experience space and communicate its awe to the rest of us, the amount paid by qualified passengers would represent a significant portion—up to one-fifth—of the entire budget of the Russian Space Agency. It is clearly in our interest to ensure that the Russian space community has the money it needs to continue supporting its portion of the ISS. This is one of the best ways to do that.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Speaking of the economics of paying passengers, although the terms of my contract prevent me from divulging the exact amount I paid for my flight, I can tell you that it was money well spent—by both the Russians and myself. The average Russian working in their space program makes about $100 per month. I can safely say that in a roundabout way I am responsible for the paychecks of 10,000 Russian aerospace workers for more than one year. These are the production line workers responsible for assembling the Soyuz spacecraft and the Progress supply vehicle, which are both critical to the ISS. Without them, no crews could stay on the ISS and it would become a ghost town in orbit.
As I have said on many occasions, it's my hope that as a result of my flight I will be able to combine my interest in space and my investment expertise to further the advancement of space commercialization. As you know, with the sole exception of communications satellites, to date the investment community has been apathetic, at best, to this idea. My ultimate goal is to build a much wider understanding and support in the business world for the goals espoused in NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise. Most importantly for our space program, I intend to be an advocate in the national and international financial community to encourage long-term utilization of and investment in space.
Observations of the Russian Space Program
During my time in Star City I got to know many of the cosmonauts and astronauts who were training for missions to the ISS, including members of the crew that was on board when my crew mates and I arrived at the ISS on April 30. All were hard-working and passionately devoted to the space programs of their countries. Overall, the professionalism and dedication of everyone I came into contact during my training—from Mr. Koptev, General Klimuk, and Mr. Semenov, to the engineers, flight directors, medical staff and technicians—were of the highest quality and caliber. There were no corners cut or pages left unturned.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I can specifically report that the Russians have tremendous respect for America generally and NASA specifically. Without giving away any confidences, I can tell you that the cosmonauts have abandoned some of their valued traditions to comply with NASA guidelines for crew behavior. These capable professionals have done this because they respect and want to continue working with NASA.
To be sure, the Russian space program has fallen on hard times along with the rest of their economy, but I believe they are still extremely capable, especially when we don't have unrealistic expectations about the level of funding their taxpayers can provide to the Russian Space Agency—Rosaviacosmos—and the various private and governmental organizations it oversees. From my perspective the Russians have every right to be very proud of their space program.
Like any American who grew up during the Cold War, I was initially skeptical about doing business with the Russians. I was wrong. At every juncture I found them to be trustworthy, honest and aboveboard with me. The negotiations were tough, but friendly. And once they signed the contract with me in January, despite a change in attitude by our country, they stuck to their convictions and faced down great pressure. At no time did I observe them acting unilaterally. Just as we do not allow the Russians to approve our Shuttle crews, they did not feel we had a right to select the crew for a Soyuz taxi flight.
Perhaps my experience reflects what President George W. Bush encountered during his recent meeting with Russian President Vladmir Putin. After that meeting President Bush said, ''Can I trust him? I can.''
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I wholeheartedly agree with our President that is time to put mistrust and suspicion behind us and move forward in constructive and respectful ways that benefit both Russia and our nation. I also agree with his assertion that ''Russia has got great mathematicians and engineers who can just as easily participate in the high-tech world as American engineers and American mathematicians.''
Now is the time to step back and, without casting blame, think clearly about our partnership with the Russian space program. There is no doubt that the Russians have tremendous technical and operational capabilities for long-duration space flight. But by presuming their economy could afford to fully fund their participation in ISS, we pretended that Russia could be an independent partner, just like the European Space Agency, Canada and Japan. The reality, however, is that the Russian space industry has to be self-financing. So our partnership with Russia must become a commercial and economic one, rather than a political or bureaucratic one.
Looking Beyond the Horizon
All of the partners in the ISS should be proud because together we are building the first permanent human settlement above our planet. ISS is important to me, and should be important to all Americans, because it is our first foothold in space, our first enduring step in humanity's expansion beyond its cradle on Earth. In the future, ISS will be judged based on whether it enabled our civilization to slowly grow upward and outward into the ''neighborhood'' of our solar system, in the process opening up an endless frontier to generations to come.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That grand future—and not mere scientific knowledge, new technologies, or even economic return—is why the International Space Station is worth the political debates, technical challenges, and cost overruns we have endured to get this far. But achieving that future will require transcending those problems to ''open up'' the ISS. We can begin to do that by re-instituting our Citizen in Space program. Another step is to not just allow, but encourage the Russians to sell the third seat on Soyuz taxi missions to individuals who meet criteria agreed upon in advance.
Finally, we need to explore issues and opportunities with the Russians like an expanded crew with habitation in the Zarya module and two Soyuz vehicles docked at the station at all times. We need to demonstrate to them that we have confidence in their people and their programs and have no qualms about working with them.
I hope that my testimony today has been helpful. Thank you again for this opportunity. I consider myself blessed to have been able to live in a democratic country where free market capitalism allows any of us with a dream to know that no challenge is too difficult or goal too lofty if you work hard and never lose site of your objective. I stand ready to be helpful where I can and provide constructive input as requested.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Tito. Our next witness is Mike Hawes, Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Station at NASA. And you have some comments, I am sure, and you may proceed.
Mr. HAWES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And members of the Committee, it is a privilege to come before this body and provide testimony concerning the issues facing our Nation's space program. In particular today, we are focused on space tourism and its potential impact on the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am extremely proud of the International Space Station team. Over the last several months, they have executed a remarkable series of flights and have established a new human outpost in space. Only a year ago, we were projecting that we would be complete with Phase II of the Space Station Program and in July of this year, and we will accomplish that plan within just a few weeks of the schedule that we had set last Summer.
As we meet, the second ISS expedition crew is conducting research on the Space Station and the third crew is preparing to take their place in August. Yet, this is still a construction site. I am also proud of the cooperation of our International partners in dealing with the issues surrounding this commercial tourist to the Space Station.
The policy making body of the Space Station Partnership was not originally envisioned to meet to respond to rapidly evolving events. Yet, in response to all of these concerns raised by this flight, my counterparts and their teams were able to meet three times in person and several times by teleconference to resolve the issues. The mechanism by which we made our deliberations had been captured in the very first set of Space Station agreements in 1998, and had still served as we had predicted over 13 years ago.
Today's primary discussion is about space tourism, a fascinating topic that resonates with many Americans. Over the last several months, I have had many letters and calls supporting that—tourism and questioning NASA's role. That question is critical to this debate today. What is NASA's role in the emerging space tourism market? Our goal should be that NASA does not drive or control this activity. That NASA provides a catalyst, it provides technology and continuously ensures safety of flight. NASA has a role in enabling commerce in space, but are absolutely not the primary driver.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We expect that through programs like Space Launch Initiative, industry will dramatically decrease the cost of getting to orbit. Industry will drive the growth of commerce in space and NASA will focus on providing technology and the continued exploration mission. Several companies, large and small, are building today toward the potential of this market.
With regard to the Space Station, the ISS Partnership with NASA in the lead, must assure that any crew member, a professional astronaut or not, is safe. We have developed with our partners selection and training criteria that we feel are appropriate for this point in the Space Station Program. All of the partners have worked to formulate these criteria and have, in principle, agreed to them. After these criteria are accepted by the Multi-lateral Coordination Board later this Summer, they will be made available to the public.
In reality, this international team has accomplished this task in just a few months. Our ability to do such in such a short time is a real testimony to the strength of this partnership.
The remaining debate with regard to the Space Station is the manner in which we use this publicly funded international asset and how do we prioritize future visits of space flight participants?
Obviously, international use of this asset must be considered open to those representing the full spectrum of the world's people. We must consider carefully, until the private sector has developed more affordable transportation, how both the Shuttle and the Space Station can be used to support the development of commerce in space.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These are important questions. They are being considered seriously by all of our partners in this program. And at NASA, we look forward to working with our partners and the private sector to enable the future of space commerce. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of W. Michael Hawes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. MICHAEL HAWES
Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today about the appropriate government role in supporting space tourism and the flight of non-governmental space travelers on government assets including the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS). NASA and our international partners recently accommodated the visit of one such traveler to the ISS. This event, coupled with emphasis in recent years on space commercialization and new space launch vehicle technologies, has fed growing interest, both within NASA and outside the agency, in the potential of the space tourism market. NASA's mission to explore space remains central, but as we resolve a variety of safety, policy, economic, technology, and legal issues, NASA also remains committed to opening up the space frontier for commercial purposes including tourism.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This commitment is reflected in NASA's strategic planning documents, which stipulate near-term goals of advocating policy and conducting legislative and engineering actions to facilitate privately-funded commercial space development, as well as providing appropriate NASA support for public space travel. We are adhering to these plans and expect that our continuing efforts to reduce launch costs and improve the capabilities and accessibility of the ISS will help lower market barriers and enable the commercial space sector.
Regarding the International Space Station in particular, I believe it is important to convey to you the pride that all of the ISS partners have in our efforts to build this world-class research facility. At the same time, Mr. Dennis Tito's visit demonstrates that the ISS is potentially a prime destination for space tourists, so there clearly is a need to engage in policy discussions over the proper use of this international resource and strategies for balancing the interests of the public and private sectors. NASA looks forward to engaging in this debate, but we also have a deep respect for the difficulty of assembling and operating the ISS and are committed to ensuring the safety of the crew and the vehicle. The challenge before NASA, the Administration, our International Partners, Congress, other government agencies, and the aerospace and tourism industries is to work together to enable space tourism and maximize its economic benefits without compromising in any way the safety of the general public or space travelers, whether professional astronauts, researchers, or commercial passengers.
U.S. Government Policies and NASA's Role Regarding Space Tourism
NASA's policy on space tourism is derived from the broader context of space commercialization. In particular, NASA is chartered by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, to ''seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.'' The U.S. government's commitment to promoting space commercialization has been reaffirmed in other documents including the National Space Transportation Policy, issued in 1994, the National Space Policy, issued in 1996, the Commercial Space Act of 1998, and the NASA Strategic Plan 2000.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given the evolving nature and growing significance of space commercialization, NASA has assigned responsibility for coordinating and updating its commercial space policy, including space tourism issues, to the Chief of Staff Mr. Courtney Stadd. Although we are still in the process of formulating a specific agency strategic plan for space commercialization, a number of general goals are clear.
First, recognizing NASA's mission to advance human exploration, use, and development of space, it is essential that we help to increase the scale and diversity of commercial activity in space. NASA will give priority in utilizing its resources for commercial activities, granted that safety and NASA mission success are in no way compromised. NASA will endeavor to reduce or remove barriers to space commerce by improving our responsiveness to the private sector, and focusing our investments on the types of research which are not provided commercially.
NASA will also establish selection criteria for prioritizing private sector requests to use NASA resources, and emphasize activities that advance NASA's mission consistent with national policy and direction from Congress. This may include encouraging commercial education and outreach activities, and potentially providing space flight opportunities for persons other than career astronauts. Finally, NASA will work pro-actively to ensure a more supportive, transparent, and predictable regulatory environment for commercial space activities.
NASA's role in enabling space tourism is not limited to policy-making, but also includes the sponsorship of feasibility studies and the continuing development of critical technologies. NASA-sponsored space tourism studies, conducted for years in collaboration with industry and non-government organizations, have included detailed market research analyses and helped lay the groundwork for solid strategies to make future progress. These studies include a Commercial Space Transportation Study completed in 1994 by an aerospace industry alliance in cooperation with NASA, a Commercial Space Business Park study conducted by Boeing for NASA and the ISS program in 1997, and a General Public Space Travel and Tourism study completed in 1999 by NASA and the Space Transportation Association.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These analyses are a valuable resource in ongoing policy discussions. For example, they have characterized the demand elasticity of the space tourism market, identified the need for order-of-magnitude reductions in operating costs in order to contain business risks, advanced the notion of the ISS as a commercial incubator providing common infrastructure to a variety of business interests, and offered a number of recommendations, some of which have already been incorporated into NASA policy or legislation such as the Commercial Space Act of 1998.
But NASA's primary focus is on technology research and development, and beyond the policy realm, we continue to assess options for applying current and future space systems to commercial markets including space tourism. In particular, it is clear that the cost of space access must be lowered dramatically to realize the full potential of the space tourism market and commercial space endeavors in general. As such, NASA will continue to address the need for affordable, safe, and reliable space transportation through our Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) and the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). We are also committed to the ISS program and recognize that it creates an opportunity to offer a viable and compelling space destination for tourists arriving via spacecraft, regardless of origin.
Non-governmental Travelers on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station
Following the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA instituted a policy, as documented in the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR 1214.300), which suspended the flight of non-astronaut, non-payload specialist personnel aboard the Space Shuttle. This was done so that NASA could devote its attention to proving the Shuttle system's capability for safe, reliable operation. NASA indicated that once this was accomplished, resumption of such flight opportunities would be considered.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Consideration of new policies to accommodate non-government travelers on the Space Shuttle or the ISS would need to address questions of potential reimbursement for costs incurred by NASA or its International Partners. Such a discussion would also need to address a widely-held view that the U.S. government should avoid competition with U.S. commercial space tourism ventures. Alternatively, as alluded to in the Commercial Space Act of 1998, policy options also exist to pursue the full privatization of the Space Shuttle. If this happens, the focus of policy discussions would shift from the criteria for private use of government assets to one of regulation over a new and self-sustaining industry.
NASA's development of policies to govern space tourists on the ISS in particular has been accelerated as a result of Mr. Tito's flight in April. Reflecting the fact that the ISS is still being assembled and has had full-time crew aboard for less than a year and that ISS commercialization is still in its early stages, these policies prior to Mr. Tito's flight did not fully address all potential types of enterprises. Instead their focus was on the use of space to develop commercial products, rather than to promote space tourism. Nevertheless, NASA had established policies on pricing and intellectual property rights protection, identified a single agency point of contact for accommodating commercial entities, and declared a commitment to reserve 30% of the U.S. share of ISS utilization resources and accommodations for commercial use. NASA has also been working to establish a non-governmental organization to manage ISS utilization most effectively for public and private uses.
As early as September 2000, my ISS partner counterparts and I acknowledged that in the future, the ISS partnership would need to develop crew selection and training criteria for non-professionals travelling to the ISS in the post-assembly phase of the program. However, a series of events promulgated the need to expedite the development of such criteria. In the course of the first few months of 2001, NASA was able to develop a well-defined template that addressed crew training and selection requirements that accommodated not only professionally trained astronauts, but others along a continuum such as payload specialists, commercial researchers, media/entertainment representatives, and tourists. In parallel, intense and extensive consultations occurred among all the ISS partners to address the Russian Aviation and Space Agency's (Rosaviakosmos) proposal to fly a non-professional crew member to the ISS in April 2001.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a result, on April 24, 2001, the ISS partnership achieved consensus on the flight of a non-professional crew member on a commercial basis aboard the Soyuz 2 Taxi flight to the ISS by granting an exemption. This decision was documented by a statement signed by all ISS partners which outlined the background, process, and conditions for granting an exemption for the flight of a non-professional to the ISS. Specific conditions for granting the exemption were discussed with Rosaviakosmos officials and presented in writing. These conditions included commitments from Rosaviakosmos and Mr. Tito that in the interest of safety, he abide by standard flight rules and the ISS Crew Code of Conduct; undergo on-orbit safety training; restrict his activities on-board the ISS to mitigate shortfalls in his training; and that the ISS crew reduce its operational activities during the Soyuz crew visit as an added measure of protection. Additionally, Mr. Tito agreed to release NASA of any liability in connection to his stay aboard the ISS, and Rosaviakosmos agreed to indemnify the other ISS partners for any damage to equipment arising from Mr. Tito's flight activity. All conditions were satisfied during Mr. Tito's stay aboard the ISS, and fortunately no injuries or breaches of safety occurred.
The events surrounding Mr. Tito's flight to the ISS have been amply covered in the media and I do not plan to review a chronology of all the various steps by the various players. As with any precedent setting activity like the ISS, real life scenarios occur that were not originally envisioned. Yet as our experience with the ISS grows, we will be operating a world class facility that has benefited greatly from the experience, knowledge and expertise of space-faring nations around the world. Given that the ISS is a long-term program requiring continual improvement, I believe it is productive and important to place on the record the following lessons learned from this recent experience.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, NASA and all the ISS international partners view safety as the primary focus. Any person coming to the ISS either as visiting crew or as an expedition crew member must be adequately trained according to an agreed upon set of criteria to ensure the health and safety of the on-board crew members as well as the ISS. Space is a serious business and the infancy stage of the ISS requires a significant level of activity by all crew members on a daily basis. An untrained tourist in such an environment may potentially disrupt routine operations or even introduce hazards to him-or-herself and others.
Second, the ISS program is an international partnership regulated by governmental agreements that lay out the roles and responsibilities of each partner. The agreements have specific provisions regarding ISS crew and decisions are made, whenever possible, through consensus. The ISS International Partners were unified in their resolve that they all should follow the provisions of the various agreements and make use of existing agency level programmatic mechanisms to reach consensus on the Russian proposal to fly a non-professional astronaut to the ISS. A significant condition for achieving consensus was unanimous agreement that a non-professional astronaut would not fly to the ISS until specific crew selection and training criteria had been adopted by all the ISS partners. NASA and its international partners are in the process of finalizing an agreed upon set of crew selection and training criteria that will facilitate non-professional astronauts flying to the ISS.
Throughout this episode, we at NASA tried to strike a balance between respecting our safety lessons of the past and preparing for the possibility of more space commercialization in the future. We at NASA believe that while space flight is a wonderful adventure and potentially both fun and profitable, maintaining safety is our top priority and we must remain forever vigilant. Accordingly, ISS and Space Shuttle crews, ground control teams, and engineers continue to concentrate on the important task at hand, building the International Space Station.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Looking ahead, NASA managers including myself are building upon this experience to develop policies which will preserve a clear and stable regulatory environment for space tourism and guide our long-term Space Station commercialization efforts. All the ISS international partners recognize the economic potential that the ISS offers and are ready to capitalize on this investment. NASA recognizes the interest outside the agency in pursuing a variety of visions for space commercialization, including a view of the ISS as an incubator and host for a mixture of research, tourism, and other enterprises. We will continue to monitor these developments, recognizing that the choices we make today will help us determine which visions are viable. The opportunities are limited only by our creativity—yet we will always proceed in a manner that is safe and in accordance with our international agreements.
Conclusion
Since mankind first ventured into space four decades ago, our ability to support life in that hostile environment has made tremendous progress. NASA's human space flight program has gained valuable experience in building and operating spacecraft, and refined our understanding of how humans adapt to the space environment. In response, we have developed and improved medical countermeasures, life support systems, and other technologies required to reduce the unknowns and achieve a sustainable, robust, and safe operational environment for any inhabitant in our spacecraft.
However, space travel is not routine and continues to pose significant risk. In order to carry out our responsibility to ensure the well-being of the general public and our astronauts, NASA maintains and will continue to maintain strict design and operational safety requirements, including criteria for the selection, training, and certification of Space Shuttle and ISS crew members. These requirements and precautions still need to be carefully controlled, even as we welcome opportunities for space tourism.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As long as safety is not compromised, NASA will continue to support policies and technology development to enable commercial space tourism. In the near-term, clarification is needed regarding the proper use of the ISS and the degree to which this international resource should accommodate commercial opportunities in general and space tourism in particular. Looking to the future, the largest long-term hurdle to a sustainable space tourism market is probably the high cost of access to space, and NASA will continue to work with industry to address this challenge.
Realizing the full promise of commercial space tourism is an evolutionary process. NASA, in concert with our ISS international partners, will complete a step in the process later this summer when we finalize the formal criteria for the selection, training, and certification of ISS crew, including non-professional civilian members. NASA looks forward to engaging in these and broader space commercialization discussions with this Committee, as well as other stakeholders in government, industry, and academia.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr. Buzz Aldrin. Wait a minute. I am not done yet, Buzz. I am just—not many people know that you have got a Doctorate from MIT. I want to, you know, brag about you a little bit and—but first of all, let us everybody know, we all know that when Mr. Tito was talking about being on top of that rocket filled with explosives that Buzz Aldrin knows more about that than anybody else in this room. And we are very proud of you, Buzz. And very proud and very grateful to you for over these years that I have been Chairman of this Subcommittee, that you have given me and you have given this Subcommittee the valuable advice that has enabled us to have insights that we wouldn't have had otherwise. And we appreciate that very much.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And you—obviously, you know, you are famous. You are a famous man. Second man on the Moon and—but more than that, you are a very patriotic and—citizen who is deeply involved in space today. And trying to help guide our policies, especially on the issue of space tourism and opening up space for the average American. This is something you have given a lot of thought to. You have talked to us about it in the past. Mr. Tito is sort of in the catalyst of getting this issue open and we are very grateful to have you here today to share your thoughts. You may proceed.
Mr. ALDRIN. Mr. Chairman, members of the space Subcommittee and others, it is a great privilege to speak with you today about the future of our space program. After 40 years of space exploration, space tourism has emerged as the key to generating the high-volume traffic that will bring down launch costs. NASA's own research has suggested that tens of millions of US citizens want to travel in space, with far more if the global market is addressed. This immense volume of ticket-buying passengers can be the solution to the problem of high space costs that plague government and private space efforts alike.
My passion about this springs from the way that large-scale space tourism leads to space infrastructure that enables broader national goals, such as a return to the Moon and the exploration of Mars. This is spelled out in my voluminous written testimony, which I would like you to all read. I hope you will.
We can have an architecture that meets a broad range of anticipated needs by using space tourism as a catalyst and by focusing now on it is likely future evolution. It would first reduce the costs to orbit of existing payloads by reducing them 50 percent. It then evolves, logically, to a two-stage-to-orbit system to meet NASA's follow-on Shuttle needs. It could also satisfy military space plan needs and it can enable high volume space tourism, complete with large orbital hotels, within the next 15 years.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Committee, however, has asked me to respond to the—to three significant policy-oriented questions. But let me first say that in my view, policy and architecture are inextricably linked. Well-intentioned policy, combined with a poor architecture, which the Space Shuttle turned out to be, has resulted in the situation we find ourselves today.
If we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, it is imperative that we involve the private sector. The needs of the commercial space tourism business must be central as we define the next generation of reusable space transportation. The next vehicles must be designed with the flexibility to not only satisfy NASA unique needs, but evolve to meet high volume commercial tourism requirements. And the private sector must be responsible for operating the system.
Now, to the questions at hand. The first question. What types of activities will be enabled or enhanced by space tourism? Space tourism will provide the high volume commercial demand for space transportation necessary for space launch to evolve into a normal industry. It will become like the rail, pipeline, ship, highway and air traffic systems. They all have vast markets, low costs, high reliability, full reusability and routine operations. Today, space transportation is characterized by small markets, totaling less than 100 tons a year, high costs, high accident rates, wasteful expandability and inability to operate on a routine schedule and continuing loss of market share to foreign suppliers.
Properly planned and implemented, the reusable first stage of a two-stage orbit tourism system will cut the cost of space access by 50 to 70 percent. Not by an order of magnitude. This lower cost system will deliver several benefits.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The United States will recapture the lions share of the global satellite market.
NASA's planetary probes will become far more affordable.
Space hotels will become feasible, providing greater volume at far lower cost than the International Space Station.
The launchers for space hotels, also, will be ideal heavy-lift vehicles for expeditions to the Moon and Mars. Reliable, reusable and lower cost than currently feasible. They will also launch massive military payloads like space-based lasers and future civil solar power satellites.
The architecture will also enable large military Titan-class payloads to be lofted at a fraction of the cost of today's Titan IVs. These capabilities will allow future national security payloads the robust shielding and enhanced survivability that our current space assets sorely lack.
The new markets created will make private capital a viable alternative to government funding for new launch vehicles and orbital facilities. This can be contrasted with the current situation where the exhorbitant cost of the Shuttle and ISS operations have become a millstone around the neck of our space exploration programs and the American taxpayer.
Your second question. What are the major hurdles which must be overcome before the space tourism business will be self-sustaining?
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Actually, it may be self-sustaining already. Some Russian officials have said that Dennis's check covered the entire out-of-pocket cost of launching the Soyuz rocket that took him to the Space Station.
If space tourism already makes financial sense when you fly Russian expendable rockets, what happens when their technology becomes reusable? When Russian launch costs suddenly drop and their safety goes way up? I will touch upon this more in a minute.
We Americans have spare seats for rich tourists, too. The Space Shuttle often flies with only five or six people, when it can hold seven, possibly eight. The United States could be learning about space tourism using the assets we already have. Flying passengers on the Shuttle can be part of the research that leads to new vehicles based on first-hand experience with Shuttle tourists.
So, I have to say that NASA's refusal to actively encourage passengers on the Shuttle is a major hurdle.
This leads directly to the other major hurdle for space tourism, which is access to capital. Private launch companies have not been able to convince investors and lenders to support their efforts. This hurdle can be addressed several ways.
First, investors needs market research on space tourism. As I noted, we immediately can start getting some of the data by a series of flights by paying Shuttle tourists. This is the most reliable data. Real people spending their own money to fly, not just answering survey questions. I know of two individuals right now, a well-known Hollywood producer and a well-known television correspondent, who are ready to go right now.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, investors and lenders worry about regulatory uncertainties. In other words, if you build it, will the government let you fly it? Initial passenger flights on the Shuttle can start the process of sorting out the regulatory issues of passenger space travel.
Third, investors and lenders hate technical risk. The private operators of the next space transportation system should be assisted by NASA in perfecting available technologies and not forced to use ''bleeding edge'' technologies that will increase technical risk.
Fourth, only a large potential market will attract sufficient capital. That is why our focus must be on developing the future space tourism market and creating the vehicles to satisfy space tourism market demand.
Another hurdle is the current structure of the space transportation industry. The two major private companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, formed a monopoly to operate the Space Shuttle. Even monopolies have good ideas from time to time and one idea was to turn the Columbia Orbiter into a commercial vehicle, one that might take passengers. NASA's reaction was to have the president of the monopoly fired.
On the military space side, the two major companies both were given contracts for the EELV, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. With the 20/20 clarity of hindsight, we can now see that this was a mistake. Now, neither of them has any incentive to develop reusable vehicles, despite what may be said for public consumption, at least until they have recovered their considerable sunk costs in the new systems. So, we have a civilian space agency that has been hostile to tourism and the two major private companies left with no incentives to move on to reusable systems that could greatly serve our national interest and the waiting tourism market. In the mean time, the Russians have announced at the Paris Air Show that they are moving ahead with their reusable first stage system, the Baikal. Making matters worse, they have found a market for their——
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. You have got a minute more to summary, Buzz.
Mr. ALDRIN. When the Baikal starts launching the Ariane 5, unless we significantly reduce the cost of our EELVs, we are going to lose tremendous market share.
What role should the Federal Government play in promoting tourism? Well, it should keep its promises. Speaking very personally, I want you to know what NASA has done directly to my ShareSpace Foundation. At the end of March, after great effort, we responded to a NASA request for cooperative research proposal on the HEDS Program. We offered to compile detailed and sophisticated market research on the potential demand for passenger space travel. Two months later, NASA told us our proposal was exactly what they wanted and that we had won. But in the same letter, it said, the money to fund the entire program had been hijacked by other budget needs. This, unfortunately, has become more of a norm for doing business with NASA, not the exception.
Numerous universities, foundations, small companies responded to the NASA request and submitted over 150 proposals. The request plainly said that while funds for ''out years'' might be uncertain, at least money was set aside and available for this year's work. I understand the need to reshape budgets for future years, but it is shameful to yank away current year funding from people that worked hard and in good faith.
I have a number of other incentives, tax policies and others that I could mention about amending the IRS Code and so forth, but I think that——
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. If one of those universities zero tax, you could proceed. That would be——
Mr. ALDRIN. Well, let me see if I can.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Go ahead and summarize, Buzz, and we will——
Mr. ALDRIN. That is the essence of my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Buzz Aldrin follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BUZZ ALDRIN
Mr. Chairman, members of the Space Subcommittee and others, it is a great privilege to speak with you about the future of our space program. After forty years of space exploration, space tourism has emerged as the key to generating the high-volume traffic that will bring down launch costs. NASA's own research has suggested that tens of millions of U.S. citizens want to travel to space, with far more if the global market is addressed. This immense volume of ticket-buying passengers can be the solution to the problem of high space costs that plague government and private space efforts alike.
My passion about this springs from the way that large-scale space tourism leads to space infrastructure that enables broader national goals—such as a return to the Moon and the exploration of Mars. This is spelled out in my written testimony, which I would like to submit now.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We can have an architecture that meets a broad range of anticipated needs by using space tourism as a catalyst and by focusing now on its likely future evolution. It would first reduce the costs to orbit of existing payloads by greater then 50%. It then evolves logically into a two-stage-to-orbit system to meet NASA follow-on Shuttle needs. It could also satisfy military space plane needs, and it can enable high volume space tourism, complete with large orbital hotels, within the next fifteen years.
The committee, however, has asked me to respond to three significant policy-oriented questions. But let me first say that in my view, policy and architecture are inextricably linked. Well intentioned policy combined with a poor architecture, which the Space Shuttle turned out to be, has resulted in the situation we find ourselves in today. If we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, it is imperative that we involve the private sector. The needs of the commercial space tourism business must be central as we define the next generation of reusable space transportation. The next vehicles must be designed with the flexibility to not only satisfy NASA unique needs, but evolve to meet high volume commercial tourism requirements. . . and the private sector must be responsible for operating the system. Now to the questions at hand:
The first question: What types of activities will be enabled or enhanced by space tourism?
Space tourism will enable space transportation to evolve into a normal industry. It will become like the rail, pipeline, ship, highway, and air traffic systems—they all have vast markets, low costs, high reliability, full reusability and routine operations. Today, space transportation is characterized by small markets totaling less than 100 tons per year, high costs, high accident rates, wasteful expendability, an inability to operate on a routine schedule and continuing loss of market share to foreign suppliers.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Properly planned and implemented, the reusable first stage of a two-stage to orbit tourism system will cut the cost of space access by 50% to 70%. This lower cost system will deliver several benefits:
The United States will recapture the lions share of the global satellite market.
NASA's planetary probes will become far more affordable.
Space hotels will become feasible, providing greater volume at far lower cost than the International Space Station.
The launchers for space hotels also will be ideal heavy-lift vehicles for expeditions to the Moon and Mars—reliable, reusable, and lower cost than currently feasible. They will also launch massive military payloads like space-based lasers and future civil solar power satellites.
The architecture will also enable large military Titan-class payloads to be lofted at a fraction of the cost of today's Titan IVs. These capabilities will allow future national security payloads the robust shielding and enhanced survivability that our current space assets sorely lack.
This can be contrasted with the current situation where the exorbitant cost of the Shuttle and ISS operations have become a millstone around the neck of our space exploration programs and the American taxpayer.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Your second question: What are the major hurdles which must be overcome before the space tourism business will be self-sustaining?
Actually, it may be self-sustaining already. Some Russian officials have said that Dennis Tito's check covered the entire out-of-pocket cost of launching the Soyuz rocket that took him to the space station.
If space tourism already makes financial sense when you fly Russian expendable rockets—what happens when their technology becomes reusable? When Russian launch costs suddenly drop and their safety goes way up? I'll touch upon this more in a minute.
We Americans have spare seats for rich tourists, too. The Space Shuttle often flies with only five or six people, when it can hold seven to eight. The United States could be learning about space tourism, using the assets it already has. Flying passengers on the Shuttle can be part of the research that leads to new vehicles, based on first-hand experience with the Shuttle tourists.
So, I have to say that NASA's refusal to actively encourage passengers on the Shuttle is a major hurdle.
This leads directly to the other major hurdle for space tourism, which is access to capital. Private launch companies have not been able to convince investors and lenders to support their efforts. This hurdle can be addressed several ways.
First, investors need market research on space tourism. As I noted, we immediately can start getting some of this data by a series of flights by paying Shuttle tourists. This is the most reliable data—real people spending their own money to fly, not just answering survey questions. I know of two individuals right now, a well-known Hollywood producer and a well-known television correspondent, who are ready to go right now.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, investors and lenders worry about regulatory uncertainties. In other words, ''If you build it, will the government let you fly it?'' Initial passenger flights on the Shuttle can start the process of sorting out the regulatory issues of passenger space travel.
Third, investors and lenders hate technical risk. The private operators of the next space transportation systems should be assisted by NASA in perfecting available technologies, and not forced to use ''bleeding edge'' technologies that will increase technical risk.
Fourth, only a large potential market will attract sufficient capital. That's why our focus must be on developing the future space tourism market and creating the vehicles to satisfy space tourism market demand.
Another hurdle is the current structure of the space transportation industry. The two major private companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, formed a monopoly to operate the space shuttle. Even monopolies have good ideas from time to time, and one idea was to turn the Columbia Orbiter into a commercial vehicle, one that might take passengers. NASA's reaction was to have the president of the monopoly fired.
On the military space side, the two major companies both were given contracts for the EELV, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. With the 20/20 clarity of hindsight, we can now see that this was a mistake. Now neither of them has any incentive to develop reusable vehicles, despite what may be said for public consumption, at least until they've recovered their considerable sunk costs in the new systems.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, we have a civilian space agency that's been hostile to tourism, and the two major private companies left with no incentives to move on to reusable systems that could greatly serve our national interest and the waiting tourism market. In the mean time, the Russians just announced at the Paris Air Show that they are moving ahead with their reusable first stage system, the Baikal. Making matters worse, they have found a market for their vehicle in Europe where they are now attempting to team with ESA to use it as a reusable booster on the Ariane 5, replacing the more costly and accident prone expendable solid rocket motors.
Therefore, until NASA becomes an advocate for space tourism, or Congress intercedes and mandates the DoD or NASA to develop reusable space transportation, and it can be done during this administration, the current establishment structure will not produce what we need.
Your third question: What role should the federal government play in promoting space tourism?
Well, first it should keep its promises. Speaking very personally, I want you to know what NASA has done directly to my ShareSpace Foundation. At the end of March, after great effort, we responded to a NASA request for cooperative research proposals on the Human Exploration and Development of Space. We offered to compile detailed and sophisticated market research on the potential demand for passenger space travel. Two months later, NASA told us our proposal was exactly what they wanted, and that we'd won. But in the same letter, it said the money to fund the entire program had been hijacked by other budget needs. This, unfortunately, has become more of the norm for doing business with NASA, not the exception.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
More than 150 universities, foundations and small companies had responded to the NASA request. This request plainly said that while funds for ''out years'' might be uncertain, at least money was set aside and available for this year's work. I understand the need to reshape budgets for future years, but it is shameful to yank away current year funding from people who have worked hard and in good faith. I doubt that NASA has congressional approval for this maneuver. I hope you tell them to put the money back where they found it.
Next, NASA should immediately set up the mechanism for flying paying passengers on the space shuttle. My ShareSpace Foundation has been proposing this to NASA for two years now. We offered to create a scientific research program on what's required to safely train passengers for space travel, and what medical standards should be developed for screening passengers. The passengers' own ticket money would pay for all the research, and my Foundation would make the results freely available. This would be a tremendous help to all the companies planning space tourism ventures, and to the government agencies that would regulate them. Left over ticket money would go back into NASA to support other space tourism initiatives.
Since the Shuttle was declared operational, more than 100 seats have gone unused. If the value of a seat is $20 million, that amounts to $2 billion in lost revenue for the space program.
The ShareSpace Foundation proposal for Shuttle seats would see the chance to fly to orbit made available in many different ways. Some seats would be sold to the highest bidders, to determine just how much early pioneers are willing to pay for space travel. This is important market research data. Some seats would be offered via sweepstakes or lotteries, so that every American could have a small chance of flying to space. Others might be sold to television networks, so that professional communicators could educate the public about the nature of the experience. It also would be good to have an independent journalist or two check in person on the space station's progress. As things stand now, the taxpayers will pour up to $95 billion into a government construction project, and the only people who will report on how its going are employees of the federal agency in charge of construction. This strikes me as very unusual for such a massive expenditure of taxpayer funds.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If NASA continues to be hostile to using the Space Shuttle, all space tourists will be forced to use Russian companies, as Mr. Tito did. This makes no sense to me. We have spare seats in the Shuttle, and using them doesn't cost NASA a cent—instead, it brings in extra money. As I hope you recognize by now, space tourism is not just a cute idea. The country that leads in space tourism will reap a tremendous drop in launch costs and far greater vehicle reliability. Its exploration initiatives, and its military space activities, will dominate the 21st century. As you can see, the United States is way off course on this subject, and it desperately needs Congress to firmly set a new pro-tourism policy. And the Russians have again assumed a lead position in this important area.
Another arena for government action is tax policy. The IRS code should be amended to remove some unintended disincentives. For example, airports and seaports are allowed to issue tax-exempt bonds. Spaceports are not. Such an amendment would be nearly tax neutral because this industry is just getting started.
The IRS code should be further amended to encourage the development of new privately owned and operated space passenger vehicles that significantly reduce cost and increase safety. One such mechanism would be an investment tax credit designed to draw in several dollars of private capital for each dollar of tax credit. Provisions to prevent abuse must be a part of the package, and these would include a sunset clause.
The IRS code should also be amended to incentivise the development of new space based businesses such as space hotels. One such mechanism would be a tax holiday. Again, such an amendment would be tax neutral because these new industries do not yet exist.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you on these matters of great national importance.
73319a.eps
73319b.eps
73319c.eps
73319d.eps
73319e.eps
73319f.eps
73319g.eps
73319h.eps
73319i.eps
73319j.eps
73319k.eps
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73319l.eps
73319m.eps
73319n.eps
73319o.eps
73319p.eps
73319q.eps
73319r.eps
73319s.eps
73319t.eps
73319u.eps
73319v.eps
73319w.eps
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
73319x.eps
73319y.eps
73319z.eps
73319aa.eps
73319bb.eps
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. We always give Buzz a little extra latitude from the 5 minutes because he's earned it. And Rick, you haven't earned it yet.
Mr. TUMLINSON. I will be the anonymous guy sitting next to the famous people.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Rick Tumlinson is President of The Space Frontier Foundation. Let me say that it is one of the most—he heads one of the most innovative organizations and people who are activists in understanding that the frontier of space is also the frontier of freedom. And we appreciate your being with us today, Rick. And you may proceed.
Mr. TUMLINSON. Thank you. The Committee has asked us to address a few questions about space travel. I call it this, as I think the term space tourism doesn't begin to capture what is really going on in what may be the next major trend of human history. And I want us to keep that perspective in mind, or otherwise, we have a tendency to trivialize the flight of such folks of Mr. Tito into space.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After 30 years of passively watching the exploration of space from the comfort of their couches, Americans of all sorts and people around the world are wanting to join in the fun, themselves. And that is the proper role of the people, is to go out there after the explorers and begin to turn the new domain explored by our current Lewis and Clarks into a domain of human culture. Into a part of our society.
It is only in places like Washington and NASA and a few of us—a few people in the traditional space companies and organizations, that we haven't quite gotten that message. And I understand that what is going on is exactly what is supposed to happen in the frontier. Now, Mr. Tito's flight may not be as glamorous as the early pioneers in the old West or, you know, building cabins and dealing with all kinds of problems out there, but essentially, it fulfills a similar economic role and begins to create an economy in space. And that is what we are after.
Now, if we can recognize that—if the Federal Government can recognize that, then, perhaps, we can begin to put this flight by Mr. Tito into the proper context and begin to understand that this is the beginning of a wave. This may be the ''killer app'' for space. This may be the money maker we have all been waiting to find. We have been looking at space solar power, helium three on the Moon, this, that, the other. Processes that can be done in microgravity. Flying people into space may be the one that propels this initiative that was begun with the Apollo Program and highlighted by such heroes as Buzz Aldrin into a mainstream economic activity that produces income taxes and support throughout for our government.
The criticism, by the way, that was leveled at Mr. Tito by some people in the government, I think was completely unfair and in a couple of cases, downright obscene. The questioning of his patriotism that occurred in this room, I find to be ridiculous and an insult to anybody who is engaged in space travel. And I just wanted to make that comment.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have to say that in the end, it was Mr. Tito, even though I was lucky enough to have signed him to fly to Mir, it was Mr. Tito who flew himself up to ISS, who made it through the red tape. And I know he breathed a breath of relief the moment he strapped into that Soyuz, because really, the hard work was over. He climbed the walls. And I want to congratulate you, Dennis. I want to congratulate you for teaching an insular and self-deluding aerospace community what it is all about to be an American. I want to congratulate you for being a hero. You may not be as tall as some of the heroes of space, such as Buzz here. You may not be as eloquent as some of us who are coached to say the right things in front of the cameras or as dashing as a TV superhero like Captain Kirk. But then, none of them are us. And that is the point. You are us. And I congratulate you and we thank you, sir, for what you did.
The role of government infroding space, as we have been asked, is broad. First of all, as physicians say, do no harm. The people running the Space Station need to understand that these crazy civilians who are pulling up next door or sometimes knocking on their airlock are not the enemy. They are, in fact, the people they have been working for. And they are knocking on those airlocks and coming through their hatches is, in fact, a symbol of success of the Space Program to date.
We need to begin to look at what we can do from the government perspective to support space. Setting standards and creating a level playing field just as happens on earth is the first thing to do. Look around at tourism industry on the earth and emulate that in space. Space ain't so different. The rules are the same. A dollar is a dollar. A deal is a deal. Let us go out there into space and operate like it is an arena of human culture, not some unique science fiction area.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I said in the Space Roundtables a few weeks ago that was held by the Space Frontier Foundation and Pro-Space over in the Senate, we have to understand that it is time for NASA as Lewis and Clark to move on. It wasn't Mr. Tito who was in the wrong place. It was NASA. The ripple that shook their canoe was that of a passing tour boat, which should be an indicator that it was time to go a little further up the Mississippi.
The fact is that the time has come to open space to the American people. And to do so, we need to set standards. Standards need to be set for visitors to the Space Station. We have to understand that the Space Station is aimed at professional use. It is not a hotel. It is the equivalent, shall we say, to be somewhat topical, of a submarine, as opposed to a cruise ship. It is an industrial and commercial laboratory, as opposed to a hotel. And they are very, very different things.
So, let us not get the wrong message from Mr. Tito's flight. The idea isn't to take the Space Station and turn it into a hotel for civilian visitors. The idea is to enable the development of civilian facilities such as hotels co-orbitally with the Station. I think that would be a magnificent idea.
The other thing we have got to be careful about is giving away flight seats on the Space Shuttle. Every seat that is given away is a ticket that can't be sold by a commercial vendor. However, flying reporters, flying the occasional poet, etcetera, let us do it. But keep in mind, the original Citizens in Space Program was meant to sell a program that nobody was buying. The people get space. Mr. Tito's flight proved that. Go home. Ask your mom and dad. Do they understand that space could be fun and that they want to go. Ask the guy at the 7/11. They get it. They don't need to be sold. Thank you.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much for your very provocative statement.
Mr. TUMLINSON. I have got 20 more pages. No. Just kidding.
[The prepared statement of Rick Tumlinson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICK N. TUMLINSON
Space Tourism and Private Space Travel (A Few Thoughts)
The committee has asked us to address a few questions about the idea of private space travel. I call it that as I think the term ''space tourism'' does not begin to capture what is really going on in what may well be the next major trend of human history, and frankly, not everyone going into space is a so called ''tourist'' simply because they don't work for the government.
After thirty years of passively watching the exploration of space from the comfort of their couches, Americans are ready to join in the fun. In surveys, large numbers of people express their interest in the chance to fly in space, and firms promising short sub-orbital flights to the edge of space have already taken deposits from thousands of customers. The question is no longer if civilians will be able to journey beyond the Earth, but when, how much will it cost and where will they go when they get there?
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recently, we witnessed one answer. The flight of Dennis Tito to the International Space Station Alpha was one of the most historic moments in the opening of space. Far from being the glitch or one-of event that some in the traditional space community would like to believe, his arrival at Alpha heralded the opening of a new phase in the exploration—and now utilization—of the space frontier.
Mr. Tito is the first of many who have lived their lives to share the dream of space, and are now able to use their own resources to get there. At a time of drastic cut backs in available funds and resources for the traditional space exploration community, the large sums of money he and others are willing to pay to fly should not be ignored. He represents a potentially huge market for space transportation, entertainment and housing that will completely transform the space industry in the next few years, if it is recognized and managed correctly. Although many have proposed their own ''killer apps'' for space, flying people to and from space has often been ridiculed, ignored or pushed off into the distant future by those of limited vision, and those whose focus ends at today's government budget.
For those of us who believe that opening the frontier to human settlement is the real goal of space exploration, this is exactly the ''killer app'' we have been looking for. Of course, in yet another irony of history, it is both the most obvious, and until recently one of the most ridiculed areas of space development. Due to the fantastic success of the early Apollo program (as exemplified in this hearing by my personal hero, Buzz Aldrin) and the later shuttle program, our culture has completely bought into the idea of an elitist, government run space program. This is not the fault of those running the current program, but of our leadership, who have repeatedly failed to recognize space for what it is, a place, not a program. A place so huge and vast as to stagger the minds and imaginations of even the biggest thinkers, a place where we can undertake all the activities of our human culture, while transforming that culture in the crucible of a new domain of experience. We have barely touched our collective toes to the edge of this vast new ocean, barely glimpsed its islands and wonders, and few among us have completely understood what it may mean to our nation, our civilization and the planet itself.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This is the context within which we must discuss Mr. Tito's flight. Rather than trivializing it, or dismissing it as a stunt or the act of one crazy playboy, we must look at what it means, and the potential it represents to propel our space agenda forward.
If the federal governments of the Earth can recognize the potential of space tourism and private space travel, if they can build that recognition into their existing space programs, if they can create a partnership between the public and private humans-in-space sectors, and if they can avoid over-regulating this infant field before it has a chance to grow, within a few years, humanity will have established its first permanent foothold beyond the Earth.
Tito and MirCorp
The visit to Alpha by Dennis Tito earlier this year was actually the second shot fired in the space revolution. The first was the year-long operation of the Russian space station Mir as a private facility. Although greatly misunderstood by the public and this body in particular, the MirCorp experiment was not simply another attempt by some eccentric group or person to try and save the space station, nor was it carried out by some anonymous ''Netherlands-based'' group of shills working for the Russians. MirCorp was founded by a group of American baby boomers who believed in the dream of space as a frontier, and found in the Russian firm Energia other true believers. These two very different groups joined together in the name of Tsiolkovsky and Gerry O'Neill, and tried for a shining moment to rise above international politics and secure an alternative foothold in space for the people who are left out of the current world space programs—i.e.—almost everyone.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know what the firm was about as I helped found it. I signed the first agreements leading to its creation, named it, brought in the prime investor (Walt Anderson) and recruited the CEO, Jeff Manber. I saw the people on both sides of the table who formed the firm and I know where their hearts were. . .in the stars.
It was during this time that I was lucky enough to be introduced to Dennis Tito, who saw me giving a talk at a Space Tourism event about our experience trying to save the Mir. After several failed attempts to get a firm named Space Adventures to bring him to MirCorp, I went to visit in early 2000. On the way to the meeting I contacted MirCorp and told them I was ''going in'' as private citizen to meet with Tito, and to sign him to fly. During that meeting we looked each other in the eye and I told Mr. Tito MirCorp was real, and serious, both of which were true. He looked at me and said ''I want to go.'' After some discussion, we shook hands and the deal was done. I called MirCorp and Anderson from the car and told them Tito was ''a go'' and to contact him right away to handle deposits etc. . ..
We met again a couple of times to re-affirm the deal and to talk over some of the challenges he was facing in the pursuit of his dream.
During the course of this, as you know, Mir was taken out of the game. This came about due to a confluence of intense behind the scenes and very public pressure on MirCorp and a couple of bad coincidences.
Around the time of President Putin's final decree on the station's fate, but well before Mir plummeted into the sea, Mr. Tito, originally scheduled to fly to Mir, of course changed his target and began his quest to fly to Alpha. His money was in the bank, in an escrow account. MirCorp honorably handed him over to Energia, and when Energia flew him to their side of the station, they were simply living up to what they felt was their agreement. In other words, they were keeping their word and being good business people.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
He Did It His Way
The criticism leveled at Tito and Energia by some in Congress was insulting, crude, below the standards of professionalism and in at least one case, obscene. Senator Glenn went beyond hypocrisy in his statements condemning Tito to insult the intelligence of the very taxpayers who funded his own multi-million dollar joy ride, and Senator Mikulsky, who diligently brings home the NASA bacon to her district on a regular and predictable schedule, crossed all lines by calling the Russians ''pimps''—showing not only her complete ignorance of what was going on and its real ramifications, but also a lack of understanding of the word ''pimp.''
In the end it was Mr. Tito himself, using his own hard earned money, and working every political and business avenue he could, who got himself on ISS. Rather than the hypocritical vilification some here in Washington and a few in the space traditionalist media heaped upon him, he should be honored for cutting a trail through the biggest obstacles in the way of those who want to open the frontier—bureaucracy, elitism, and fear of losing control by those now in charge. To be able to work your way up through life, to accumulate the resources you need to reach your own personal dream and to carry it out magnificently in the face of hard opposition is what we are taught in this culture, and it is high time someone showed us that in space. And he did. It should inspire all who are out there. So I say congratulations Mr. Tito. Congratulations, Dennis, for teaching the insular and self-deluding aerospace community what it is all about to be an American and feel your destiny is in your own hands. You may not be as tall as some of the heroes of space, such as Buzz here, you may not be as eloquent as those who are coached to say the right things in front of the cameras, nor as dashing as a TV superhero, but then none of us is, and that is the point. You are us. Congratulations!
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In all the TV and radio interviews I did as a result of the Tito flight, almost none of the call-ins or other regular people I met had any problem with what he did. In fact, outside of the beltway the coverage of the event was almost totally positive. Most people even had no problem with what he paid for his ticket. They understood. ''It's his money and he can with it what he wants!'' seemed to be almost the universal response when asked.
We live in a world where physically different under-privileged kids can grow up to be multi-millionaire sports figures (no one is going to question what Shaq does with his money). Where singers and actors can make tens of millions of dollars for a single production (what does Madonna do with hers?) and where corporate leaders can drive an entire region into black outs and still get multi-million dollar bonuses. The idea that some guy ''made it'' and decided to use that money for something fun that he wanted to do his whole life just isn't that big a deal. And most people also understand the economics of a new technology or pursuit as well. They know the rich will buy first, and that over time, the market will bring the price down. When asked by the occasional/reporter to explain, all I had to say was DVD, high definition television, or computers. The challenge is, how do we set things up so that market forces will do their job and not only keep open the airlock to space for the people, but also bring the cost of getting there down so they too can afford the dream.
The Role of Government in Space Tourism and Private Space Travel
The role of government in promoting space tourism is the same as it is on Earth. It is not to ''do'' space tourism, but to support it using the natural and common practices of government in relationship to private industries of all sorts. Throughout the world, governments have begun to realize that private visitors and guests can produce an economic bonanza, if they are welcomed, well treated and managed in relationship to the resources and locations they come to see. Entire nations now base their economies on tourism, and many a government bureaucracy has been turned on its head as the realization that the headaches caused by foreign devils wandering around their precious national monuments could be turned into an economic cornucopia.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thus, at this moment in time it is important to begin re-learning what space is about, and transforming the often confusing and completely dysfunctional relationship between the private and public sectors in space, for it is only with a clean and understandable interface between the two that both can prosper.
First, I ask our government to, as the physicians say: ''Do no harm!'' The MirCorp experience revealed a lot of key misunderstandings of the relationship between the public and private sectors in space. The odd yet understandable protection of turf exhibited by many on our government program when it comes to ''those nasty civilians'' must end. As I said in my Alpha Town testimony to this same committee several years ago, NASA and the other space agencies must begin to see the arrival of people like Dennis and firms like MirCorp in the place they have seen so long as their own play ground as symbols of success, not portents of invasion by foreign forces.
NASA and the space agencies running Alpha must begin to pull out and move on. They should never have been left in low Earth orbit for so long, especially when, (thanks to the awesome and inspiring work of Buzz and the Apollo team) the edge of the Far Frontier is out at the Moon. The Near Frontier area within the Moon's orbit has been done and done again when it comes to basic exploration. Government employees have been flying around in circles there for thirty years or more killing any other enterprise that seemed to be edging in on their turf, as it is the only turf they have been given. Operational Near Frontier (LEO) activities such as driving trucks (shuttles) and constructing and managing buildings (station) should be handed to the private sector and related non-exploration civic entities, and our courageous explorers should move on out to the edge where they belong.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I said at the Space Roundtable that the Space Frontier Foundation, Pro-Space and F.I.N.D.S. held a few weeks ago, if NASA is Lewis and Clarke, they are still paddling in circles just off St. Louis, and the ripple that shook their canoe when Tito showed up was the wake of a passing tour boat. In the larger cultural sense, it was NASA that was and is in the wrong place, not Mr. Tito.
I do not blame any one person for this failure, rather, I blame ignorance and a lack of understanding of the meaning of our own history when related to space.
What did anyone expect would happen after more than thirty years of being shown the wonders of space, being fed the dream of the frontier in books movies and television? The people out there, the people who have funded this fantastic adventure to date have been watching, learning, praising and waiting for their time. And now it is here.
Yet for now, the reality is that Alpha is a government laboratory, and until it is transformed into a free-port or some other quasi-commercial entity, we have to deal with its current management structure, if there is one. Even if the capitalism that seems to be about to envelope it takes root, the ISS is not designed for casual visitors, nor should it be. It is a laboratory and research station. It is closer in design to a submarine than a cruise ship, it resembles a high tech government or corporate lab more than a Hilton, and it should not be confused with a hotel.
Other Roles for the Government
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As on Earth, the U.S. government should work to create a level playing field between competing firms, the private and government sectors and internationally. The U.S. and other space-faring nations should set up a few standard rules for operating commercially in space, much like those which govern the seas. A few basic standards are all that is needed, as we do not want to over regulate what is an embryonic field at best. One can guess what would have happened to the Internet, television, radio and even commercial flying here on Earth, if at the very earliest stages overly zealous bureaucrats had stepped in and created a wall of red tape.
Set Standards and Codes
Some basic standards are essential, however, and are needed by those wishing to insure and finance their space endeavors. Basic licensing for commercial activities, certification of space ships and their operators and safety requirements and building codes will help to establish a clean and safe record for all involved, and help the industry avoid disasters.
Change ITAR
While the need to stop proliferation of U.S. technology to the wrong people is a valid idea, the ITAR regime has been killing the new U.S. space industry just as it is being born. From satellite exports that have been devastated to several innovative and co-operative projects the space field is littered with the bodies of this witch-hunts victims, who, in the eyes of our government are guilty until proven innocent.
Last year F.I.N.D.S. spent 300k on legal bills to export a tether to fly on the Mir, a device the military had said was harmless almost a year before it was finally approved, which, coincidentally, came one week after President Putin's order to bring the Mir down.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Russian space firms are the natural partners for US entrepreneurs. They are experienced and they work very, very cheaply,—and—unlike NASA, they keep their word. They can be watched and certified, as they are now, but entrepreneurs must be able to work with them in an open and unfettered manner. Otherwise, it is as if Congress had banned Gates and Jobs from dealing with Japanese chip makers at the start of the computer revolution. . ..
Put ITAR back in to the Commerce Dept. ASAP and simplify its procedures, with special clauses and exemptions for various space projects, much like those NASA and its contractors enjoy as part of the ISS project.
Set Standards for Civilian Visitors to Government Space Facilities
We need to learn from the Tito space flight and establish non-political and realistically achievable minimum standards for professional guests who need to visit Alpha. One friend of mine whimsically suggested we call these standards the Tito Scale, with a quarter Tito being a Vomit Commit Flight, A Half Tito being a sub-orbital jaunt to the edge of space and a Full Tito being a week on the station. This of course makes a Shuttle or Soyuz Commander a two or three Tito and the Station's Commander around a Four Tito. . ..
Seriously, real standards should be set, and set soon. Also, as I have repeatedly stated, it is time to end the hubris of those who see themselves as ''in charge'' of space. The citizen groups and interested non-government parties should be invited to comment and review on these standards before they are locked in. This time let's not have a fight. Invite us in to talk before throwing out the NASA edict. I would rather be standing next to the new NASA administrator with the other space organizations than having to fight them for months afterwards. I have spoken to NASA folks about this at JSC and elsewhere, and they have been very positive, now it is up to headquarters.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, once such standards are set, the agency can't then deny potential visitors the chance to meet them by locking them out of the very facilities needed to prove themselves. NASA should also open up its neutral buoyancy tanks to private users via contracts, eventually privatizing them entirely. I know they are heavily booked with EVA training for the station, but I also know at least one tank in Alabama has been floored over. Let's see if there is enough interest to open it up and get it profitably operating.
But keep in mind, these standards are for professional visitors to government facilities only. Our goal should not be to try and convert the facility to an orbital hotel and spa. Instead, we should focus, on nurturing the development of dedicated commercial guest facilities in the Alpha neighborhood.
Cruise Ships and Submarines, Labs and Hotels
One of the biggest inhibitors to the opening the frontier for the people is the confusion about who should be doing what in space. Sometimes this is due to ignorance of the appropriate relationship between the government and private sectors in our society. Other times the sheer desperation of true believers for anything, anything at all that will even create the appearance of progress for ''the cause'' has led to some very bizarre situations and short term solutions which actually killed long term opportunities. We find free enterprisers like Ronald Reagan putting the government in charge of building construction in orbit, or Congress encouraging NASA to engage in for profit activities as in last year's provisions in their funding bills.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I fear that some are taking the wrong message from the flight of Mr. Tito to ISS, and will now focus on trying to turn the unfinished station into a ''tourist'' destination. This would be a mistake. Alpha is a government facility. It is a laboratory. It was not designed to house casual visitors and such activities are not in its charter or operations plans. As I mentioned earlier and Mr. Hawes is well aware of in his role at NASA, the difference, roughly stated, is that between a submarine on a shakedown cruise and a cruise ship, or laboratory and a Hilton. They are not the same, nor should they be. It is not Mr. Hawes job to turn down the bed for guests. He has a mandate to fulfill. NASA may be stuck in the wrong place doing the wrong job, but let's not compound that by piling more inappropriate activities on them.
Alpha Town and a New LEO Community
Many years ago, while in search of clarity in the government vs. private debate in space, I introduced the idea of Alpha Town, in fact I did so in front of this Committee. The key premise being that the governments investment in the ISS and its related infrastructure would become the economic catalyst for a new orbital community, rather than allowing it to try and mirror all the functions of our free enterprise society in one government box. (And no, I had nothing to do with the station's being named Alpha. . .but thank you, NASA.) Now, more than ever, this idea applies.
If we misunderstand what the Tito visit meant, and then take the wrong turn back into the morass of government-acting-as-business, we will actually delay the opening of LEO to large scale public space travel. We will be creating a quasi-governmental constituency on ISS and in the shuttle program that will be threatened by competing private services and facilities, and will have the power of the world's governments and largest corporations to kill them if threatened, and they will be threatened.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To harness the power of both the private and public sectors, we must let Alpha become a space business incubator, functioning as an early government lab and industrial park, with individual tenants operating and even competing under a clear and impartial management structure such as a FreePort Authority. But the larger cultural goal must be the development of a thriving orbital community beyond Alpha's airlocks, not the bureaucratic survival of a monolithic and dead end one-stop space shop.
Hire Commercial Firms to Provide Bunks on ISS
This is not to say the station doesn't have legitimate needs for accommodations and expansion. For example, Alpha does need additional beds for its crew and professional visitors. Unfortunately the currently proposed state-to-state barter deals like the one with Italy will do nothing to support the development of orbital industries, and continue the confusion of roles in space. NASA HQ says the trade cost nothing. . .of course these are the same folks who are bringing in an estimated 20 billion dollar space station for a mere 70 billion. The real costs will show up somewhere, perhaps in the budget for a satellite, or a ''free'' ride to ISS on the shuttle for an Italian space worker. These behind the door deals are how the agency has operated for years. They ignore the potential of the commercial sector, short change the taxpayers and keep other nations beholding to NASA at the state level. It is time for them to end.
NASA does have a need for its people to sleep somewhere. These bunks should be provided by the private sector through competitive bidding or some lease-back provisions based on rates for power and service provision from ISS to the private module's operators. Again, station management should stop at fulfilling its needs, and steer away from any competition with its neighbors in this area. And neighbors there shall be, if ISS managers can look beyond their own turf, and a space enterprise zone can be created around Alpha.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To create the common currency one needs to establish a commercial relationship, the ISS should also begin to standardize its leases and meters. In other words, set clear costs and processes for those who wish to attach to the facility. If the numbers are there and are real, then a cost basis can be set for negotiating things like lease-backs for use of space on commercial modules, etc. SpaceHab and others wishing to add modules to the station should not have to essentially ''sneak in'' on a Russian module, like extra roomies under a landlord's nose.
(For more on station management see the attached ISS Authority publication.)
Space Hotels
For guests paying millions of dollars, the ability to stay in facilities where they are the center of attention and service rather than nuisances only makes sense. It will be far more fun to float in your own padded suite doing whatever you like, rather than being over trained for months then treated like a lost child who might hit the wrong lever or button in a facility that was never meant for your presence. After all, the ergonomic design of a lab filled with dangerous buttons and delicate experiments is very different than that of hotels, which are designed to be as ''idiot'' proof (pardon me) ''guest'' proof as possible. This ''design the building for the customer'' instead of ''design the customer for the building'' approach also means shorter training periods on the ground, reducing time and costs for customers, and thus increasing markets further.
The activities one might pursue in private commercial hotel facilities are also incompatible with industrial and government labs. One obvious area being that of sex, as someday soon honeymooners will want to consummate their relationship while floating above the beautiful vista of Earth. (MirCorp was approached by one such prospective couple last year. . .and others are out there.) Sports and other activities also don't fit into your basic industrial research park, although the Bigelow inflatable would be ideal for some sorts of tourneys and dance performances.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beyond this, the development of co-orbital hotels and facilities increases safety dramatically. Keep in mind the safety mantra that redundancy is good in space. Obviously, co-located habitats provide that redundancy in emergency situations. For example, should Alpha be hit with a catastrophic failure, rather than a complete de-orbit, its inhabitants would simply taxi over to the buildings next door, a much safer option than plummeting back to Earth. Conversely, Alphanauts can also act as space versions of the Coast Guard, a highly trained professional corps that can step in during emergencies and save the day, an appropriate and clearly understood role for government to play.
There are at least two and perhaps three companies stepping up to the space hotel/destination market with real money and hardware. Bigelow Aerospace says it will be ready with inflatable station size modules in three years. MirCorp, down but not out after the demise of its first in history commercial facility, is already developing a MiniMir to fly co-orbitally with Alpha. Even SpaceHab may eventually wean itself from its long symbiosis with the NASA host and spread its own wings, with some free flying variant on its Enterprise module. And down the road, someday, some way, someone will eventually make good on President Reagan's unfulfilled order to let a company try and develop the giant and wasted external tanks into something useful.
Public and Private Space Transportation
In the area of transportation to and from orbit, there are several recommendations I would make:
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let the Russians sell their seats to whom they please for now. They need the funds and since Congress can't pay them anything, let them use the free market to make up the shortfall. Behind the scenes, perhaps they can be talked out of sending anyone else ''controversial.'' (Actually, advocates for opening space win either way, for if NASA handles the next visitor as badly as the last, they will actually help our case even more.) As they are now on the free-enterprise bandwagon, NASA can expect to be billed for each person bumped, and rightly so.
Re-structure the Space Launch Initiative Program SLI(P). NASA is not only slipping in the camel's nose to build its new Shuttle II, it is parading the beast up and down in front of Congress as if confident no one will notice until it has moved in entirely. One simply needs to read the quotes from the players such as these from Space News:
''I must ask this committee, what are you going to do about this? SLI is upside down. Rather than tossing crumbs to the new firms who are focused on building fleets of space transportation vehicles, rather than buying lobbyists golf clubs and spending most of the money on yet another incestuous and market killing government vehicle, re-structure all of SLI to resemble the contract given to Kistler Aerospace, wherein they received a little money up front to develop their system and will be paid for actually delivering payloads.''
If Congress wants to see low cost access to space, lock the traditional aerospace lobbyists out of the room for a day and draw up a funding bill that offers the same several billions as is being spent on SLI(P) as guaranteed launch contracts for various sets of payloads including humans, with incentive payments and pay on delivery clauses in the contracts. I guarantee you that in the same five year period SLI(P) is supposed to run and not produce a viable sole source Shuttle II, this will result in several firms serving several different markets, and a dramatic growth in the number of flights to and from space, and the tumbling of costs to get there and back. And by the way, don't worry about Lockheed and Boeing; I promise you they will be there too, with beautiful new spaceships competing not just for NASA rides, but for all the new passengers and payloads that will materialize when a real market is operating in space transportation (and they will make a LOT more money in the long run than servicing just NASA).
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Do not let NASA give away seats on the shuttle to guests. The idea of empowering a NASA Inc. to compete with any current or emerging commercial human carriers should scare anyone who has studied the history of public and private transportation, and our space program to date. We must avoid throwing government at the challenge of providing space access to the people by giving away seats on government shuttles and flights to potential customers for the private sector. Each person given a free ride on a shuttle is one less who will pay for a ride or find sponsors to do so, and that is one less customer for someone's business plan. Blurring the line may sound good at first, but it will undercut the very competitive environment we need to lower costs, and thus actually keep people out of space in the long run. If seats are to be sold while the new systems come on line, then let the money go to a third party, such as a National Space Investment Fund, or some other entity. that will not create and addiction for NASA that will be hard to break later.
End the use of the term ''NASA Unique'' when discussing human transportation to orbit. This idea may have made sense when NASA was the only federal agency flying humans to U.S. facilities, but as Tito's flight shows, it is no longer a ''NASA unique'' requirement or capability, if it truly ever was. It is now meaningless and is used to justify such backwards moving projects as the Shuttle II program.
Privatize Columbia. One of the best ways to retain clarity in this area, yet give a strong boost to commercial access to space for payloads and people is to privatize the Columbia space shuttle. Some in NASA have talked of mothballing the venerable old ship, which means she is headed for the front yard of some space center, an unworthy end for her years of service. NASA should begin now to examine the right structure for a fair and clean sale or long-term lease of the shuttle to a private operating firm. In order to protect the healthy satellite launch market, it should be banned from carrying such payloads, but allowed to fly anything else, including people, as these markets need the help such a recycling of government assets could provide. This move would send a very clear signal a new era had arrived, add new cash flow and continuity to the processing teams at the Cape and begin to create a competitive market for human space flights.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding the rest of the shuttle fleet, let NASA use them to finish the station, and if they wish and can win the fight here in Washington, let them upgrade the fleet as much as they want. I won't care anymore, as Columbia, the SLI enabled new firms and the Russians will be in there slugging it out on the free market for customers who want to experience life above the Earth. At that point what to do about the government fleet is a separate government expenditures question, more germane to discussions of Mars Missions and other Far Frontier exploration activities. I believe that if this plan were implemented (fixing the failed SLI(P) to incentivise the private fleet builders rather than building Shuttle II, acknowledging and supporting the right of Russia to sell tickets to whomever they please, privatizing Columbia, and letting NASA do what it wants with the remaining shuttles) would create a whole new and vibrant market to serve civilian and military needs at a fraction of today's costs.
Citizens in Space
While these new vehicles are being developed, the public and investment community should keep being fed stories of people of all sorts flying into space. To that end I support a limited re-introduction of the Citizens in Space Program. However, we must remember that program was intended to develop support for NASA's failed policies of the past—not to sell the basic idea of space. Send NASA to the Far Frontier and Mars, get them out of operations and back to the exciting work of their early days and the support will grow, especially if at the same time real opportunities begin to open up for them to go themselves. (Car dealers use this marketing method all the time, come see the incredible new SuperCar—read Mars—and on the way out buy the Saturn—read—my own flight into space or investment in a space business.)
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The people have ALWAYS loved the idea of going into space themselves, it was the program that didn't excite them. Don't get confused on this point or you will reach the wrong conclusion. Jim Cameron making a film is one thing as he will be producing a product in space, Miles O'Brien reporting live from orbit is a good thing too, but even then, to some degree, both of these examples could be funded with private sponsorships or underwriters. Although I do not ignore the pure propaganda aspects of such flights, and the long history of such government largesse to further its own goals and image, the day when we needed to fly free cultural translators for space ended with Tito's arrival at ISS. Read the non-space media, talk to your dad and mom. The people get it, they just can't afford it. They don't need to be sold on the idea now and they shouldn't be taxed to fund anyone's flights ever again.
Space Lotteries
If someone wants to fly people into space by lottery, good, the proceeds can be used to buy a ticket (I produced the world's first commercial for a space lottery in 1991 and more recently F.I.N.D.S. gave Buzz Aldrin his first funds for ShareSpace). In our culture we also have another way for people to jump the line to wealth, material gain and travel to exotic places (no, I don't mean a political career) . . .. For fifty years game shows have been used to lift common people up to uncommon wealth and prizes. . . ''Vanna, show the folks their prize. . .An orbital Cruise on the SS Aldrin!'' As we speak, the Europeans, the folks from a U.S. network, and at least one space firm are working on just such an idea. And guess what, no taxpayer dollars needed, no subsidized public relations stunts, just plain business that incidentally does more than all the subsidized Senatorial flights to orbit could ever do.
Privately owned transportation and co-orbital hotels and facilities solve many problems and create huge opportunities for all involved. They decrease potential non-professional visitor driven traffic loads to the delicate ISS, with its bureaucratic nightmares, while increasing the transportation infrastructure through private investment in non-government vehicles. Just as on Earth, if the bus or delivery van can make more stops in one area the cost to go there drops. Thus, creating a larger overall payload market to a single neighborhood—the Alpha orbital community—or Alpha Town. . .will reduce costs. and increase flight opportunities for all.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Imagine if we are successful in this endeavor what it might be like just ten years from now, as only a couple of hundred miles above we sit, you float in a space hotel suite with the love of your life. . .sipping on a bulb of champagne after a day diving into what on Earth would feel like a giant bubble of water floating above you in a giant inflatable sphere. . .and a night watching Barishnikov's Zero ''G'' ballet, you look out the window and watch shuttles of various kinds docking and departing from Alpha, as A1phaNauts begin to assemble the giant Mars One Exploration ship, all floating above the beautiful planet below. . ..
As Mr. Tito found when he finally strapped into the Soyuz and breathed a sigh of relief after negotiating miles of red tape, our greatest challenge when trying to open the Space Frontier is not the physical barriers nature has placed in front of us, it is the mental and cultural barriers we erect for ourselves and each other.
Given a little clarity of purpose, comprehension of how our free enterprise democracy works, understanding of whose job it is to do what in space, and just a touch of common sense, we can achieve the vision of a human society breaking out of its Earthly cradle in a self-sustaining and ever growing flow upwards and outwards.
It is time to ''Let the People Go!''
SPACE TOURIST LOTTERY
Chairman ROHRABACHER. We will proceed with questions and then we will have a second round, if necessary. I—Buzz, you were suggesting something about the extra seat in the Space Shuttle. And would you—do you think that maybe we could achieve something by having some sort of lottery for that seat on the Space Shuttle?
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ALDRIN. I believe that we need to open this opportunity up to a wide variety of people and let the people understand that they do have an opportunity. They don't have to be some specially qualified person. I think initially, there is a mindset brought about by the Challenger accident that needs to be dispelled by what I feel is a professional communicator. And that is why I have always advocated a well-recognized, highly professional communicator from the television industry, who could communicate the reasons why he would want to risk his career.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Dennis, would you want to comment on that, possibility of some kind of a lottery or something for a seat on the Shuttle?
Mr. TITO. Well, I thought about that. But it doesn't seem workable to me because there is the issue of whoever wins the lottery, is that person going to be qualified? And what happens if that person isn't qualified? How do you actually go about it?
Chairman ROHRABACHER. That would—have to be something that would be taken into consideration. I—you know, it was—we just had a lottery drawing in California. I think it was 100 and how many million dollars? What was it? 121 million. At that rate, we could have had six Dennis Titos up in space for $120 million, for Pete's sake. Rick, you shook your head yes, but you had said no during your testimony.
Mr. TUMLINSON. Well, I—the idea of a—we have—first of all, I have to tell you, in 1989, I ran a—I produced a commercial for some guys in Texas who were putting together a space lottery. They were probably thrown in jail by the Attorney General and then 6 months—for doing a lottery in Texas. This was right before all the states started doing lotteries. The fact is that we have a way of giving incredible wealth and prizes to people. They are called game shows. And they operate all the time. You know, Vanna, please show us the ticket to the S.S. Aldrin that is going to take you to orbit. You know? We have a mechanism in our culture. A lottery would work. But the idea, again, of giving away seats, I don't want to have us fall back into a socialist solution of a free enterprise problem. There are people who are going to be coming on line with spacecraft down the road and we need to give them the customers, not take them away.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I was thinking more in terms of lottery would open it up to people with lower income than——
Mr. TUMLINSON. Right.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Than the 20 million. Buzz, you wanted to comment on that?
Mr. ALDRIN. I think when the flight rate of people, private citizens going into space is one, two, three or four a year, a lottery doesn't make that much sense. When the flight rate begins to get to once a week, then I think that other means of selection are not as efficient as the lottery. When we are flying every other day in a spacecraft to a stage system that has been significantly subsidized by the private taxpayers, then I think that is the time when we need to broaden this out from just the specialty selected people, the ones sponsored by a corporation or selected by the State Department to represent opposing ethnic situations in the world, where the symbolism of carrying people from different ethnic backgrounds would be tremendous gesture on the part of this Country and it is assets.
But I think the lottery comes into play when the flight rate is high and you want to have 95 percent of the passengers full paying passengers and 5 percent or some number like that available to the private citizens. That is when the lottery selection becomes really effective, I believe.
EXTRA SEATS ON SHUTTLE
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Mike, is NASA—what is NASA's point of view on the—you have an extra seat or two on the Shuttle? Are we going to just keep the Shuttle going up with empty seats or is it possible that we could expand and utilize those seats for commercial or other type of purposes?
Mr. HAWES. Mr. Goldin has designated Courtney Stadd to lead a team in the Agency to review all of our commercial policies, including the Space Flight Participant Program that folks have referred to before Challenger. We are doing that to review our policies, but again, I don't think it is NASA that is the selectee in this process or drives this, you know, we will understand what our policies allow us to do. We will understand what it takes to do space flights safely. But as many of these folks have just suggested, there are other bodies in the private sector that need to force how this process works.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. Now, I will turn to Mr. Gordon and I—we will have a second round of questions.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you. Mr. Tumlinson, I am—you mentioned that this should not be a submarine type of venture.
Mr. TUMLINSON. Um-hum.
Mr. GORDON. And I hope that we would not want to have another Greenville.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TUMLINSON. Right.
Mr. GORDON. Where we have tourists that could have led to a tragedy there. The other interesting thing that I think you mentioned are there has discussion about the lottery. As well as the—your articulate presentation of the inspiration this might give to others that want to go to space, do you remember a few years ago where there was something of a lottery? Where there was a commercial group had a competition to send someone to the Mir?
Mr. TUMLINSON. There was, I think, something in Europe that was done along that line. In England, I think.
Mr. GORDON. Yeah. Do you remember who the person was that won it?
Mr. TUMLINSON. No. I had forgotten.
Mr. GORDON. It was 12 years ago.
Mr. TUMLINSON. I had forgotten.
Mr. GORDON. It was 12 years ago. There was hundreds of people——
Mr. TUMLINSON. Oh, yes. Yes.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GORDON. Hundreds of people applied.
Mr. TUMLINSON. Right.
Mr. GORDON. It was a commercially sponsored project.
Mr. TUMLINSON. Right.
Mr. GORDON. And Helen Sherman won. We don't remember Helen Sherman now, though.
Mr. TUMLINSON. No.
Mr. GORDON. Is this going to be different? Or do we—you know, and you might——
Mr. TUMLINSON. Well, you know, it is—interestingly——
Mr. GORDON. Why is this going to be different?
Mr. TUMLINSON. Well, one thing that is interesting, you know, is if Mr. Tito had flown to Mir as originally planned, it probably wouldn't have helped the industry as much as trying to fly to ISS and having NASA handle it as they did. They handed us a media opportunity that was incredible. Regarding a lottery—regarding the seats on the shuttle, those types of things—and by the way, it is almost a good sign when you get to a point where enough people are flying in space where you don't remember all their names. I mean, that is exciting for the Shuttle.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GORDON. Well, so we have got——
Mr. TUMLINSON. But——
Mr. GORDON. That is, like, two. So——
Mr. TUMLINSON. Right. What I want to say——
Mr. GORDON. You know, we are going to have to try a little harder.
Mr. TUMLINSON. What I would say is that I can——
Mr. GORDON. No. let me go. If I could go—only, just like you expect time limitation, I have a time limitation.
Mr. TUMLINSON. Sure. Of course.
3 CREW VS. 6 CREW
Mr. GORDON. I would really like to get into another area. Mr. Tito made a very interesting and I think thought provoking statement in his testimony when he said that the International Space Station could support a six person crew with the life support system currently on board. This is a very critical question that is before us now because under the Administration's budget, only looking at having three. And three—all that three allows you to do is to keep it up there. And if we have made this enormous investment, it would seem like that we would want to, you know, get some research from it. So we need to go beyond the three. And I would like to have, I guess, some type of interaction between Mr. Tito and Mr. Hawes and—on this comment. Mr. Hawes, is he correct? And if not, why? And, Mr. Tito, you should have a chance to rebutt that. Because this is a—very—again, a very critical question. We have invested billions of dollars. And if all we are going to do is just keep it up there and not use it, I don't think this has been a very good investment.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAWES. The experience that Mr. Tito has had in this taxi flight regime of about a week's period of time. And our life support compatibilities on board today can handle the three person long duration crew with a periodic visiting crew. And so in this scenario——
Mr. GORDON. And how would you define visiting crew?
Mr. HAWES. Well, this type of mission. About a week long mission, where you have a surge capability in the life support systems. You also have some backup capabilities that can be utilized. To sustain a larger, full-time crew, we still need some additional capacity in the life support systems.
Mr. GORDON. And what would they—what would that be?
Mr. HAWES. In our case, what we have been developing on the US side is what we call our Advanced Environmental and Life Control Systems or Advanced ELCS. And that provides the capacity for the full seven person crew that we had planned for the Space Station.
Mr. GORDON. Is that just the rescue vehicle or are you talking oxygen, food——
Mr. HAWES. I am talking about oxygen generation, carbon dioxide——
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GORDON [continuing]. Space to sleep——
Mr. HAWES [continuing]. Scrubbing. Just a life support——
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Tito, what will——
Mr. HAWES [continuing]. And then habitation space provide you the volume to make better use of all that.
Mr. GORDON. Do you want to respond to that, sir?
Mr. TITO. Yes. One important aspect of the 8 months of training that took place at Star City was a detailed training about the electron system, which supplies oxygen, was used on the Mir. It is also used on the service module. It provides the capacity on an ongoing rate easily for 6 people. The Vozduk System, which scrubs the carbon dioxide, which is also a regenerative system, will handle 6 people. There was no use of supplemental canisters or supplemental CO scrubbing canisters while I was on board. And that was a question I had beforehand because I didn't like those oxygen canisters, since one caught on fire on Mir a few years ago. So I—my experience is that it is sustainable. As far as habitation space, there has plenty of habitation space on the functional cargo block——
Mr. GORDON. For an extended period?
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. For an extended period. As I said, I could have stayed there for months. It was very comfortable. It was no different than the little nook and cranny that Susan Helms uses on the Destiny Lab. You just—in zero G, you can just set up shop anywhere and that becomes your birth. It is very practical. It is very habitable.
Mr. GORDON. In—well, or—in the second round, I would like to hear everybody talk a little bit more about this. This is a very, I think, critical question. I have been critical of the Administration in what I think is a pennywise pound foolish approach to not adequately funding the Space Station. If all—again, if all they are going to fund is three people and all it can do is keep it up there, but you can't get anything done, then we are probably wasting that money. We either need to use it or lose it. And I would like to, again, have this talked through a little bit more on the second round. I don't want to take the time away from the others.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, being the Chairman, I will take away the time from others. We need to solve this problem right now. This is a contradiction in testimony right here. Mr. Hawes, representing NASA says that the life support systems cannot support and maintain, you know, over a long period of time, as a regular crew situation of six people. Mr. Tito says it can. Mr. Tito has been up there and he's got some expert advice and has certainly studied this issue. What about it, Mr. Hawes?
Mr. HAWES. All the indications that we have had from working with our Russian colleagues tell us that those systems that Mr. Tito mentioned are not sized for the long-term for six crew. They continue to need re-supply. They continue to need Progress vehicles. And if we were to increase the crew size past around three or four, they would need to be augmented. That is the information that I have at hand and have had for some time. So Dennis' perspective is something different to me, as well. That I would need to go and——
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. So your position is that oh, yes, we could go up to six people, but it would have to be just for a short surge period of time, not for a sustained crew habitation of a period of months. Mr. Tito, would you like to comment on that?
Mr. TITO. Well, if you look at the required parameters for life support, your oxygen has to be maintained at 21 percent of your total volume. Your CO has a maximum percentage. And once you start going beyond that, you start getting headaches, alarms start going off. I mean, it is something that has to be stable. It wasn't a situation where over the 6 days they were on the station that, you know, the oxygen started diminishing below 20 percent and the CO started, you know, going beyond it is prescribed levels. I mean, it was a stable environment.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I believe Mr. Hawes is saying in order to maintain that, that there would have to be a re-fueling or a re-supplying of that particular life support equipment or it could not sustain that. Am I, you know, getting your point correct, Mr. Hawes?
Mr. HAWES. With the compatibilities on board today, our information from the Russians is that it could sustain three to four long-term group, but not above that.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I know. But to the point that he—that Mr. Tito is pointing out that with a number of six people up there for a short period of time, that is—it is clear that it is capable of doing that for a period of time. You are saying that after that period of time, it would require more——
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAWES. Well, you would have to augment those systems, either in redundant systems or you could have bottled oxygen as part of the supply, which they do off of the Progress at times. Certainly using canisters to scrub carbon dioxide, as we do on the Shuttle and as we do on the Space Station, are alternative ways to try to solve that problem for the longer term. But those all require re-supply over time.
Mr. GORDON. I am bothered by two things. One, it sounds to me like, again, if we take the Administration's budget of only three individuals, that we have purchased a truck, but said you can't haul anything in it. Now—and I am also concerned about our information and the reason that you say that we can't put more up is simply because the Russians have told us. Now, I know that I am not quite as bad as the Chairman, but to say—tell the Chairman we are not going to do something or going to do something or a fact is based upon what the Russians told us, I think we want to go a little bit beyond that. And I would certainly hope that NASA could give us a better answer than that is what the Russians told us. That we can only have three there for any sustained time.
Mr. HAWES. The life support systems that we have on board the Space Station today are Russian provided. So we have the information that we have gotten from working with the Russian and our own experience as a joint control team flying the Space Station to rely on, to try to characterize those systems. We also know that we still have the need for additional crew return, if you increase the crew. We have talked about that, as either a crew return vehicle or additional Soyuz. And we believe that there are additional habitation capabilities that you should also have if you increase the crew for the long term.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. We will get to this again in the second round. We will finish up the question on this. Because there are some questions to be asked. And—but we have the Chairman of Full Committee with us now. And, Mr. Boehlert, would you have any questions you would like to ask?
TITO DEBRIEFING
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the recognition. I would like to say how much I appreciate the line of questioning and the depth of the questioning of both you and Mr. Gordon. This byplay is very, very important and very instructive. You see, I view Mr. Tito as a national resource. He's had a unique experience that none of us have ever had. And that experience leads me to conclude that his mind is sort of fertile territory, ripe for the picking. Which prompts this question.
How much time have you spent since returning to Earth in serious conversations with officials of NASA?
Mr. TITO. I had a breakfast meeting this morning with Mr. Hawes. I guess it lasted an hour and b.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The eggs were cooked to your satisfaction? You had a breakfast meeting with——
Mr. TITO. Yeah. Egg white only.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. No. No. I understand. But you had a breakfast meeting with me, too, with the Chairman.
Mr. TITO. Yes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. My question is, how long have you been back?
Mr. TITO. A month and b.
Mr. BOEHLERT. How much—let me repeat the question. Because I would rather have a precise answer than what you did socially. How much time have you spent with NASA in serious conversation about your flight and your experiences since you have returned, in a month and b?
Mr. TITO. Zero.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Hawes, can I ask for some sort of explanation as to why NASA hasn't reached out to engage Mr. Tito in serious conversation? He's learned an awful lot. He is the only American that I know of that has had this very unique experience of direct negotiations with the government of Russia. Has engaged in this very unique experience and is now back here. Why wouldn't we—we, because we are all part of the same team in the government, reach out and invite Mr. Tito in to sort of pick his brain, maybe learn something from the experience?
Mr. HAWES. I agree with you, sir, and that is exactly what we did today. This was not a social call. This was a meeting. I had been appointed by Mr. Goldin to be the interface to Mr. Tito for arranging a mission debriefing to learn everything that we could, both from the practical aspects of his experience in Russia, to the discussions of the commercial aspects of his mission. And that is what we discussed this morning. To establish a time line and the types of issues that we should have that debriefing on. Because it is a very unique experience——
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. Well, I should——
Mr. HAWES [continuing]. That we have to learn from.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I suppose we should be satisfied with the concept of better late than never. But I would suggest 6 weeks is rather late. It would have—because some of these experiences, Mr. Tito is like all of us. Six weeks, you begin—some of the things get a little bit cloudy. It seems to me, someone should've been waiting for the first opportunity to do so. So I would encourage you to think about that in the future. It—arrangements been made for a second meeting?
Mr. HAWES. assessing our calendars and putting our debriefing team together to be able to do that.
AVAILABLE SEATS
Mr. BOEHLERT. Okay. Fine. Now, the next question I have, Mr. Chairman, and then I will relinquish the balance of my time. Seats on the—are so limited and the question, naturally, will occur in the minds of a lot. I mean, the first objective of the International Space Station and our whole flight program is the advancement of science. So the question is, with seats so limited, why seat for a sightseer, rather than seat for a scientist? Mr. Tito, I will challenge you with that question.
Mr. TITO. Well, we are talking about Shuttle missions, as well as missions to the ISS. As it was mentioned, some of the Shuttle missions only have five people on board. Many of the Shuttle missions are not directly related to scientific experiments, but construction on the Station or repair of Hubble type satellites. And if a seat is available, that—in my view, that seat should be made available to people that could relate space back to the American public. Yes, there is value in science. But there has also a cultural value of space. And we learned a lot about science through both the manned and unmanned space programs. So it is not that there, you know, should be 100 percent science versus 100 percent individual, private individuals, there should be some balance. Because that is what the American public wants. We can see that as a result of my flight. We should give the taxpayers something more than we have.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BOEHLERT. Time is up. Thank you for the courtesy.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We now—Mr. Lampson from Texas, a real active member of the Committee and someone who is always—when we have interesting witnesses like today, is always right on top of everything. So we look forward to what you have in your questions.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying that no one likes to admit when they are wrong. Much less a Member of Congress. But when I first learned of Dennis Tito's anticipated flight in—flight to the Space Station, I was very hesitant to offer support. And, in fact, I expressed my concerns publicly. And we all breathed a collective sigh of relief when he came home safely. I do have concerns or continue to have some concerns regarding flying a space tourist to the International Space Station during its assembly phase. In essence, putting at risk the Space Station that is being built with tens of billions of taxpayer dollars so their private citizen can fly in space. However, I must say that Mr. Tito's flight led to more enthusiasm and much needed, at that, for space travel and for the space program than we have all seen in a long time.
That being said, I am in the process of drafting legislation that will address the issue of space tourism by means of Federally funded—Federally guaranteed loans, tax credits, expeditious establishment of a straightforward and predictable regulatory structure and research and development in technologies that may enable the private sector to develop operational passenger carrying space transportation systems and on orbit habitations.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, Mr. Tito, I have an easy question and a hard question for you.
Mr. TITO. Okay.
Mr. LAMPSON. Did you have any difficulty with your contact lenses when you were in space?
Mr. TITO. Actually, before I went into space, I discussed this with Susan Helms. And, you know, she explained that all you had to do was take the reusable lenses and it was very easy to put them in, which it was. And then you throw them away. So that was a very simple solution.
Mr. LAMPSON. So they work in space?
Mr. TITO. Work fine.
TOURISM FLIGHTS
Mr. LAMPSON. Okay. Let me ask you this one. In a—in an April 14 Associated Press Article, you are quoted as saying that, ''Dennis Tito is probably the best person alive to open up tourism, to set the example, to actually set the criteria. We shouldn't have private individuals like the character John Candy in the comedies who comes in with plaid shirts and his goofy or Chevy Chase character.'' You go on to say that, ''Space Station guests should be serious.'' ''Not just wealthy people looking for a joyride.'' However, in your testimony, you talk about free market capitalism allows any of us with a dream to know that no challenge is too difficult or goal too lofty. Which is it? Should flights go to the highest bidder or should somebody be empowered to impose standards of good taste and seriousness?
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. I totally agree with NASA that standards have to be set. And that people have to be qualified. Flying into space, again, as I said earlier, is not something like stepping onto an airplane and taking off. So, yes, criteria have to be established and that is what NASA is doing. Given that one meets those criteria and those criteria are reasonable, that they don't—the bar isn't as high as would be required for a Shuttle Commander. Then it should go to the highest bidder. That is the free market. That is capitalism. I knew I was qualified. I knew I was not going to push the wrong button when I went up there. And I knew I was going to have a successful mission. I had trained well. And I was confident of that. And that is why I made those statements.
AUDIT OF TITO FLIGHT
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Hawes, when Administrator Goldin testified before this Committee earlier this year, he stated that NASA would bill the Russians for any additional cost that the agency incurred as a result of Mr. Tito's flight. Has NASA completed an audit of the costs of the Space Agency resulting from Mr. Tito's flight? And if so, what was that cost?
Mr. HAWES. We have not yet completed that. I suspect that that will be best done when the—this expedition crew returns and we can have the full debriefing with that crew. Because of the issues that we were working with the computer problems at the time, we had already unloaded the crew time line. So I think any impacts will turn out to be relatively small. And once we finish that assessment, we will talk with our Russian colleagues about that.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STAFFORD RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. LAMPSON. Prior to the flight, NASA made a lot of the potential impact of Mr. Tito's visit on the Space Station operations. The Stafford Task Force recommended that most planned Station activities be deferred during Tito's visit. What specific Station activities had you decided to defer as a result of the Stafford Task Force recommendations?
Mr. HAWES. The key high activity events that were scheduled during that time frame were the repair of the treadmill system, the activation and checkout of the research racks that had just been delivered on the Space Shuttle and the checkout of the Canadian arm that had just been delivered, as well. We basically removed all of those from the time line and let the crew and the ground teams determine as the schedule permitted which activities could be reinstated. They did repair the treadmill. They did some of the activation on the research racks, but they did defer the checkout of the Canadian arm. And, obviously, we have been in the midst of that and chasing the small issues over the last several weeks.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. That was very, very thoughtful. Thank you. We have with us a doctor doctor. This is a doctor who knows about health. And I hope that at least one of your questions deals with Mr. Tito's health and how this affected him. Because you are the one who would really understand that—what—about——
Dr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, I will make sure one of my questions deals with that issue.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. You may proceed.
3 CREW LIMITATION
Dr. WELDON. Mr. Hawes, my understanding is that the proposed enterprise module could provide a habitability option for three additional crew or even accommodate a non-professional crew. What is your assessment of the desirability of having a commercial area on ISS? And will NASA consider utilizing enterprise somehow in some capacity?
Mr. HAWES. We have talked to both the American and Russian proponents of enterprise to understand this particular proposal. We have assessed the module—first and foremost, it is a replacement for a proposed Russian element, the docking and stowage module. We have assessed how does it do that job? It certainly still needs to do that job and we believe that that can be satisfactorily accomplished within the context that they are discussing.
They have proposed, as well, providing additional life support equipment and providing as part of the package, Soyuz vehicles for crew return. We think that those are very reasonable and potentially attractive items. How to manage the commercial arrangement is still a challenge. And as you well know, the—there are not spare dollars in the Space Station budget today. Yet, we would know to deal with potential cost impact of doing that. We think, in some sort of basis, whether interim it can certainly provide a capability for more crew.
SELLING SHUTTLE SEATS
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. WELDON. Now, I did a little bit of math. Buzz Aldrin said you could possibly accommodate two paying crew on Shuttle missions. NASA, as you know, came to the Congress a few months ago and told us of a looming $4 billion cost overrun in the Station program. If we have seven shuttle missions a year and two paying customers paying $20 million each to fly, that is about $280 million a year. Over 5 years, the projected time span on this $4 billion cost overrun, that is $1.4 billion, about 35 percent of the cost overrun could be made up by flying tourists. Necessity of the mother of invention. I have been looking around Washington to see where I can find $4 billion. And it is been a little tough going. Can you tell me why the Congress shouldn't look at this?
Mr. HAWES. Even flying an individual for $20 million on the Shuttle is not necessarily a positive cost rate in——
Dr. WELDON. But it couldn't cost $20 million to fly a tourist on the Shuttle.
Mr. HAWES. Clearly, the cost of flying a shuttle is more than the $20 million.
Dr. WELDON. Well, I realize if you pro rate the cost of flying the shuttle to each tourist, it is a lot more than $20 million. But we are strapped for cash. Okay? And how do we make up $4 billion is the challenge. Indirectly, Mr. Aldrin just laid out a way for us to make up about 30, 35 percent of that cost overrun. Why shouldn't we do it? I mean, why shouldn't we fly the enterprise module and put a commercial operation on that and get some revenue off of that? You know, we have a problem. How do we make up for all this money that we are missing?
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAWES. Clearly, as I said earlier, we are looking at all of our policies to look at flying people in space. Whether that is as a revenue generating arrangement, that is part of that discussion.
Dr. WELDON. You know, I am not trying——
Mr. HAWES. I will—no. no.
Dr. WELDON [continuing]. To give you a hard time. I think we establish policy. And so really, my question for you is, why shouldn't we look at that? Policies are established by the Administration and the Congress and NASA carries them out. And to me, this looks—as one lawmaker, this looks very attractive for making up some of the problem, the loss, the need we have for cash.
Mr. HAWES. I would, at least, try to correct one theme laid out by Dr. Aldrin. Most of our Space Station assembly missions are still going with maximum weight. Even adding people means you are going to throw something off. And that is going to be some component of a Space Station, some spare part, some supplies. It is a trade. That trade needs to be made in the context of the policies that you have discussed.
Dr. WELDON. Well, I would be interested to know what would the cost be? I am sure there would be some costs associated with flying tourists on the Shuttle and up to the Station. It wouldn't be a total positive cash flow situation. But it would seem to me that it would be something that we need to look at.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I see my time is up, but I must ask Mr. Tito, how was your health while you were on the Space Station?
Mr. TITO. Excellent.
Dr. WELDON. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I thought we were going to get the stethoscope out and all these things here. We also have a—another—not only a doctor doctor, but a educational doctor with us. And Dr. Etheridge was, of course, very involved with shaping the educational policies of the State and gives this Committee a very unique perspective. And also, always emphasizes the importance of education and learning to what—to our endeavors. And so, Mr. Etheridge, you may proceed.
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO SPACE TOURISM
Dr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank our guests for being here today. This is certainly enlightening in terms of education, I must confess. Mr. Tito, in your testimony, you talked about the space flight and you also said that your flight to the International Space Station has captured the attention and imagination of millions of people around the globe. And renewed their interest in human space flight. While I don't doubt your sincerity, I must confess my office has not been overwhelmed by mail. I am not sure others have. And my question, I guess, is, as it relates to that, you know, I watch a lot of reality TV sometimes, as I pass through, but I don't pay a lot of attention to it. On what do you base your assertion that people have been fundamentally affected in a positive way by your flight?
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. Well, there have been some polls that—prior to the flight. There has over 80 percent of the respondents supporting the flight. But more directly, it is really the media response. We counted, like, over 5,000 different TV coverages of my flight alone. I know I was able to get on Yahoo and see over 5,000 different articles that were written about the flight. And at least to me, that indicated that—through the media, we can see if there has interest. If there has no interest on the part of the public, the media wouldn't be broadcasting these stories and writing these articles.
Dr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. Well, I guess the basis of my question, though, goes back to a couple that have already been raised that relates to the public investment and the attempt to do scientific research and—which is important. And I hope that we don't get deterred from that message. But let me ask each one of you, since I have very little time, if you will respond to this. Because if this has tweaked the public's interest and if each of you would very quickly respond to this question. What do you think it will take to keep the public interested in space? If each one of you could just very succinctly touch that.
Mr. TUMLINSON. I think the way to keep the public interested in space is to keep in front of them the fact that it is about them going, eventually. That the goal of the space program is to open space to them. Not for them to watch on their couches.
Dr. ETHERIDGE. Dr. Aldrin?
Mr. ALDRIN. I think we could demonstrate a sincere interest on the part of NASA and on the part of the Congress to investigate some of the spacecraft and orbital systems that would allow large volumes to be put up in space that could augment the Space Station, right now, in the absence of the half module, that could lead toward the high volume traffic. If the public saw an interest being exhibited by NASA in supporting public space travel, then I think that would add tremendously to the public's support and interest in the overall space program.
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Hawes?
Mr. HAWES. Well, obviously, from my view, the goal of building out this Space Station, as we expect it to do what we can to increase crew time for research and to try to bring that benefit back to everybody on Earth is where we need to gain their support.
Dr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Tito?
Mr. TITO. We think of astronauts—and I have always felt astronauts of being, you know, super highly-qualified people, test pilots, scientists with several Ph.D.s. I think one of the things that will keep people interested in space is seeing ordinary people go up from different walks of life. People that they can identify with and people that can articulate the experience.
IRAN NON-PROLIFERATION ACT
Dr. ETHERIDGE. All right. Before my time runs out. Mr. Tito, in your testimony, you suggested that NASA could transition to a six person crew quickly by purchasing an additional two Soyuz flights per year. How would you implement your recommendation in light of the Iran non-proliferation Acts Prohibition against buying additional Space Station goods and services from the Russians? And, Mr. Hawes, does NASA believe that it would be possible to buy additional Soyuz of Space craft and still comply with the Iran Non-Proliferation Act? And if so, why?
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. Well, you are getting into an area that I am far from qualified to answer. It would be ideal if you could, you know, work out some compromise with the Russians to make them move in a direction more to our liking.
Mr. HAWES. From our view, there are certainly challenges and trying to actually purchase Soyuzs. We understand, though, that there are certainly many provisions of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act that may make that available. But they may not. And certainly bound within that situation. We have also talked about those purchases with our partners, as well, as whether or not there is any role that the partners would play. So there are certainly circumstances, but fully aware and abide by the law.
Dr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LIMITATIONS ON CREW SIZE
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you. We are going to have a second round now. And I want to go back to the issue, which I think is vitally important for us to understand. And I can't tell you how important it is in terms of the timing, as well. We are going to have to be making a decision very soon as to what we are going to be financing and how we are going to be able to deal with this $5 billion overrun that we find ourselves with the Space Station. By the way, before I do that, let me note to Mr. Etheridge and others, it seems to me that we have had more young people at this Hearing today than at any other Hearing that I have chaired. And does that mean that any of you young people may some day want to go into space or something like that? Is that—all right. We have got a few volunteers back here. Buzz, could you please take names for us and—I think that that is precisely it. And when I said that, all those hands went up. And I really believe that in your lifetime, you have got a wondrous lifetime ahead of you and more opportunity than anything that ever I looked forward to when I was your age. And I think someday, you will have a chance to visit the planets and visit the Moon. And your children may go to the University on the Moon. That is my goal, someday, is to have something like that.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Tito, before we can do any of those lofty—and accomplish any of those lofty goals, we have got to overcome this challenge right now on the Space Station. Mr. Boehlert was exactly right. You have some insights that could help us. And I am somewhat dismayed that NASA took this long to try to at least debrief Mr. Tito to see if there was something, some insight that he had that could be valuable to us. And this is—but let us not dwell in the past. Let us move forward.
Mr. Tito, you are convinced that the Space Station can have a crew of six with the current equipment that actually provides all of the conditions there, the air and the water and the life support systems?
Mr. TITO. Well, you have to remember the two systems that deal with oxygen and the CO removal are regenerative. So it isn't something that, you know, you are using up some canister that you have to replace. I mean, you have certain——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. How about fuel? Doesn't it use fuel to do the——
Mr. TITO. It uses electricity generated from the solar panels.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay.
Mr. TITO. So that is sustainable, as well.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. So you are just suggesting there has machines that are ongoing, that are——
Mr. TITO. Well, I——
Chairman ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Fueled by the fuel cells.
Mr. TITO. I think Mr. Hawes is correct that, you know, you have to look at issues of redundancy. That is if those devices continue to work. now, there are backups. There are two backups to oxygen re-supply. One is the progress vehicles which carry oxygen, which will overdose the station temporarily with oxygen. And, you know, that is one way of supplementing the system. You also have the oxygen canisters——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. That would still provide enough for six people?
Mr. TITO. Well, the——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. In other words, you have a redundancy for an emergency situation.
Mr. TITO. You have redundancy.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. That would provide for six people.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. But I think, you know, that you—if you have a six person crew, you may have to beef up the redundancy. You may have to have additional oxygen canisters on board. You may want to have progress re-supply vehicles, which will have to probably be increased anyway because of other logistical requirements. So it is—I am not saying that I have all the answers here.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Mr. Tito, I don't——
Mr. TITO. There are no easy solutions.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. We don't expect you to have all the answers. We might think that you might have one of the answers. And this answer could be very valuable. You have a very valuable insight here. And I don't want ego problems with NASA to get in the way of perhaps a very valuable idea and concept that Mr. Tito was able to understand because he was up in space to just be ignored. And I—now, I would like an answer to what Mr. Tito just said. He said that you have got these life support systems that are being run by electricity from your solar cells and not by fuel that has to be delivered to the Station. Where's the problem?
Mr. HAWES. I had just heard about this discussion with Dennis this morning in terms of his—this idea.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Now, wait a minute.
Mr. HAWES. I don't——
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. No. No. Before you go on, let me say that I personally notified NASA about this several weeks ago. This was not—this is not new. This is—when I had breakfast with Mr. Tito, I passed that on. And I—maybe nobody passed it onto you——
Mr. HAWES. Well—-
Chairman ROHRABACHER. But then again, that indicates a mindset over at NASA. So go right ahead. Sorry for interrupting.
Mr. HAWES. Clearly, we have a difference in understanding what the capacity of those two devices may be. The Vozduk and the electron. They both run off of electricity. One creates oxygen. One scrubs carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The Russians do have some backup capabilities in terms of lithium hydroxide canisters, just as we use on the Shuttle for scrubbing CO. They have the SFOG canisters, which create oxygen off of a chemical reaction. We all know the issues that have been associated in the past.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Don't go into great detail. Just specific detail of what Mr. Tito just said. Those systems that you are talking about that run—not to the point when there has an emergency, if they have to go to backup, they provide enough life support for six astronauts. Six inhabitants. Is that right?
Mr. HAWES. I cannot validate that.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would like the——
Mr. HAWES. I cannot validate that they do that for the long-term. I will go and do that.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. I would like to have that validated within 24 hours.
Mr. HAWES. I don't know that I can do that within——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well——
Mr. HAWES.—24 hours. I will certainly try.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. We need to know—there are some very important decisions that are being made in the next few days. And this piece of information, whether it is accurate or not, will go a long way in determining decisions that are being made here in Capitol Hill.
Mr. HAWES. What I can offer you right now that I know is that in these same systems which were used on the Mir, when they had visiting crews, they always used the backup capabilities. Either the gas bottles from the Progress or the SFOGs and the Lithium Hydroxide.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Now, this—Mr. Tito——
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HAWES. No. No. No. And I will go back and do what I can to validate that.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Mr. Tito, do you want to say something about that?
Mr. TITO. Well, the reason for that is very simple. On the Mir, they had deficiency in solar power. So you cannot run the systems at the six person level when you don't have enough power. And that is not a problem on the ISS. The ISS has surplus power because of the additional solar rays that went up last——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, we also have to understand, Mr. Tito, that that extra power may be needed for something else. And we have to make sure that when NASA tells us this—because—that that power not only is—yeah. Sure. There is power. But maybe that power is needed for some of the experiments that we want to have conducted on the Station. It—I agree with Mr. Gordon. You know, why did we spend all of this money if we are going to reduce the crew size and get nothing out of it? I mean, this isn't—if we reduce the crew size and the—and the amount of science that able to achieve on the International Space Station is reduced so dramatically, this will undercut public support for other space programs in the future. And it should. But, instead, maybe we should step forward and try to make sure that this program is a success. That is our job. It is our job right now, all of us, to work together. And the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, but also, within the bureaucracy. And now, maybe even outside, where we have got people on the outside who are trying to do their part to see that this program is successful. And Mr. Tito has some insights here. I would expect from NASA, hopefully within 24 hours, to get an answer to this. And directly, let me make it clear. Do the life support systems—can they sustain six people inhabited on the Station as, you know, for a long period of time? And in terms of backup, you could say, what is necessary to have a backup? Now, if it is not—if that isn't the case, how much will it cost them to upgrade the systems as compared to building a habitation module? Maybe if we don't need the habitational module, maybe all we need to do is upgrade these life support systems. And, again, I am—I know that NASA knew about this before. And I am really quite surprised that you weren't ready to answer the question. Buzz is just itching to say something here.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ALDRIN. Yes, sir. I think without having all the details, there are three things that this Committee could consider that could help obtain more use out of the Station by increasing it is personnel habitable size without relying more on the Russians.
Number one, we could go to a long duration orbiter, where we could come close to relieving an orbiter on Station. A former astronaut, Owen Garriott, has done a good bit of research on this, along with United Space Alliance.
Number two, there are over $4 billion in the SLI funds, which could be used in a way that enhances our launch capability. And this is a tourism meeting, we are talking about. And we need something more than just transportation. We need a place to go. And I believe that Skylab gave us a very good answer as to how to have large volume in space. There are a number of things that could be done with an unmanned launch of the external tank and other habitable volumes. One of which could be hooked onto the present ISS. And it could increase it is habitable volume.
Obviously, I don't have all the details of that, but that is one of the things that is needed to support tourism.
The third thing, in addition to long duration orbiter and a habitable volume on a heavy lift vehicle, which is an SLI expenditure, is a recoverable pod on an orbiter of the future. The orbiter of the two stage system needs an ejectable pod. The systems of that pod are essentially to provide crew saving from launch pad all the way into orbit and from orbit all the way back down again. A small portion of that use of that pod is the on orbit. That is the crew return vehicle. The problem with the present crew return vehicle is it is only very limited to on orbit aborts. Only for use in an emergency. So I think a crew ejectable return vehicle coming out of SLI funds could help to alleviate the Space Station cost overruns in the habitation module and in the crew return vehicle.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I don't have all the answers, but we could consider that as a good expenditure of SLI funds to solve the Space Station cost overrun problem.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Gordon?
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are getting to the point of beating that dead horse. So let me just sort of quickly and succinctly say, Mr. Tito, you heard Mr. Hawes say that by virtue of the experience that the Russians had with these life sustaining systems on Mir and by the fact that they built them, that they are saying that they will not provide sustained support. Have you had a conversation with the Russians to—that is contrary to that?
Mr. TITO. Yes. In my training, we went in great detail as to the volume of oxygen that gets generated by the Vozduk system. Also, the volume of CO that gets—I am sorry. By the electron system. And the amount of CO that gets removed by the Vozduk system. I have detailed notes, technical description of those systems. And I would be happy to share them with you.
Mr. GORDON. Okay. Now, let me ask you this. If, you know, we—you may still be talking in a narrow view of this. When taken in the full context of all the life support systems that are necessary, if the Russians say to NASA, once again, we want to confirm that you can't have a sustained life support system for over three, too much of a strain. Would you have any reason to doubt them?
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. I mean, it is a hypothetical question, as far as I am concerned. I have already talked to them about that. If they said—if they change their mind——
Mr. GORDON. I don't know what I would like, though, for NASA to have that conversation again and bring us back some information. Thank you.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Dr. Weldon?
Dr. WELDON. Sir, a quick question for Mr. Tito. You know, we heard a lot about Lindbergh and the Wright Brothers, but I assume there was somebody who bought the first commercial plane ticket, I guess back in the twenties or whatever. A lot of people view going to space as very exotic. And I realize it is not at all like flying on a commercial airplane. It is much more rigorous and demanding. But still, nonetheless, I think if going to have space tourism, people have to stop thinking of space as exotic and far away. And they have to start thinking about space in terms of a place they can actually go, assuming they have the wealth to get there, at least by today's economics. Do you consider yourself like the first person to buy a plane ticket? You just had to do it in a strange and peculiar way. It wasn't like going up to the counter at National, I realize. But it at least seems to me that it was—there are some similarities and parallels there.
Mr. TITO. Well, when I first established the dream of going into space 40 years ago, I certainly did not think that I would be the first. I probably thought I would have been the millionth by now. And the reason I was able to accomplish this mission was not because I wanted to get into the Guinness Book of Records, but because I had this dream and I wanted to realize this dream. So the name of the first person to buy a ticket on an airplane has been long forgotten. And maybe my name will be long forgotten. But it doesn't matter. I realized my dream.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. WELDON. Getting back to this oxygen and carbon dioxide issue, I guess you know that the amount of oxygen you consume and carbon dioxides you eliminate is a function of your body weight, your size and, as well, and very importantly, your activity level. Were you saying to the Committee that based on the technical information the Russians provided to you, that the electron and the Vozduk systems can handle six people? Is that what you were saying?
Mr. TITO. I was saying under normal circumstances, they can handle six people.
Dr. WELDON. Right.
Mr. TITO. Maybe a little bit, you know, little, slight margin. Not a great deal of margin. If all six people were exercising, that would put additional demands——
EXPANDING CREW SIZE
Dr. WELDON. Right. I am sorry to cut you off. I—the man with the gavel there always shuts us off. So I just wanted to ask Mr. Hawes a follow-up. Is—there has more to this than just carbon dioxide and CO. Isn't there? There are issues of water, food and other requirements? Heat—I don't know if heat generation is an issue or——
Mr. HAWES. Not so much, but you are right. The logistics. The food supply, all the things the crew needs. All of those need to be factored in the balance. And the fact that as we construct the Space Station, there is a point where having more crew makes sense. There is probably a point before that that you would just underutilize the crew. As we build out the Space Station, clearly, we would like to have more crew when the research mission really can make use of those crew.
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. WELDON. Now, if you went to six crew now, when you do a crew change, you would then go up to nine people, transiently, during that time period when you have——
Mr. HAWES. Potentially. Yes. You would also increase when you have a Shuttle flight docked. But in that case, the Shuttle is also helping provide capability.
Dr. WELDON. Right. That is what I was going to ask you. If it is a Shuttle mission, the Shuttle has it is own internal——
Mr. HAWES. Right.
Dr. WELDON [continuing]. Life support systems. Correct? Did you want to——
Mr. HAWES. Yes. And the Shuttle does help with that mission while it is attached. In fact——
Dr. WELDON. Right.
Mr. HAWES [continuing]. Just before this Soyuz flight, the Shuttle had basically pumped up the oxygen content from it is supplies before it went back to the Earth.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. WELDON. Did you want to add to that, Mr. Tito?
Mr. TITO. Yeah. I—the Shuttle mission, again, doesn't present a problem. What you would do is have a three person crew go up with the same vehicle and leave with the same vehicle. So you wouldn't have——
Dr. WELDON. The Soyuz vehicle.
Mr. TITO. The Soyuz. And you wouldn't have to have a transition of three other crew members. Because you would have the three person crew undock and descend to Earth and then the new Soyuz would come up with the new crew.
Dr. WELDON. Right.
Mr. TITO. So you would never have a transition—you wouldn't need to have a transition where there has temporarily three extra people.
Dr. WELDON. Is part of the disagreement here over the issue of having backup, Mr. Hawes? Is there a requirement to have extra capacity for these life support systems in case one of the systems goes down?
Mr. HAWES. Clearly, there are issues. In the Space Station, you want to be able to sustain and fight any problem that you have in the Space Station as your first order of business. You don't want to have to abandon the Station because of a problem. So you want to make sure that you have margin. You want to make sure that you have redundancy. And we need to assess those things. As I said, Mr. Tito has information from his training that we need to go and validate and make sure that we understand. And we will do that.
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. WELDON. Well, thank you very much. I believe my time is expired again.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Mr. Lampson?
SAFETY
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to take anything at all away from our—from the Space Shuttle and the successes that it has had. But let me ask a question about it. The professionals that operate that are very safe and do a wonderful job. But the probability of losing a Space Shuttle currently is about 1 in 250. Buzz, do you believe that those odds are good enough to justify flying tourists on the Shuttle?
Mr. ALDRIN. Yes, I do. Specially selected people can accept that kind of an odds. I don't know what our odds were. I know a lot of people offered to go along in our place and would have done the same thing.
Mr. LAMPSON. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Mr. TITO. Well, when I made the decision to fly, I calculated that I had about a 1 percent chance of not making it, you know, just based on, you know, my own evaluation of history. In 415 people going into space and we lost 11, that would be about 3 percent. And I knocked it down by g. And that was my number. A Russian Roulette with 100 barrel gun. And I accepted that. And that is why I was willing to sign off with NASA and say I wouldn't sue anyone if, indeed, it didn't work out. That was the risk I accepted.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LAMPSON. Who should set the safety and reliability standards to be met by the space tourism industry? Anybody.
Mr. TUMLINSON. There is a real role there for government. And I am glad we are getting back to space tourism again. This discussion of, you know, how many breaths you can take on the Space Station isn't really relevant to me, as far as this issue is concerned. The fact is that the government has a role in setting those kind of standards. Just as it does on a cruise ship or even if you wanted to do in the—compare to the experimental aircraft industry, for example. So there is a government role in setting those sort of standards. But we have to not be in denial that space is dangerous. People will die. But the kind of people who are stepping forward to fly in space are the kind of people who not only accept those kind of risks, they invite them. We have people climbing to Everest all the time. People die on the way to Everest. It doesn't stop the flow. We have to be understanding of that. That has to be a part of the discussion and not shuffled away. And I think then, the people will understand. I think during the Challenger incident and what followed was running into that denial that safe—space was so perfectly safe. That was the shock. If people understand it, I think we will be fine.
Mr. LAMPSON. It can be argued that having the Federal Government fly a few people on the Shuttle or the Space Station doesn't constitute a real space tourism industry. What will it take to get the private sector to make a real commitment to developing space tourism? And I know how much you have done on that, Buzz. So maybe you——
Mr. ALDRIN. I think a clear indication that the Nation is setting a course that entertains opening up space to private citizens by the consideration of the next generation Space Shuttle that could service not only NASA needs, including exploration, going to the Moon, going to Mars and doing the other missions that the government would like to have and operate it by the private sector that additional versions of that vehicle could be built that could accommodate passengers. I think a clear indication that we are moving in that direction by the Congress, by the Administration and accepted wholeheartedly by NASA would increase tremendously the reaction of the people. They would say, at last.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TUMLINSON. If I could add to that. I would like to say that I think the fact is they are already moving. And one of the things that I would like this Committee to understand is they are out there. We are 2 to 3 years away from the next commercial orbital facilities being completed or flown. Mr. Bigelow in Las Vegas is building an inflatable right now with his own money. This is the guy who founded Budget Suites of America. The Mir—the mini-Mir is being discussed right now. You may have thought MirCorp. had gone away, but they are over there cutting a deal with Mark Burnett of Survivor right now. Okay? It is going to happen. And it is going to land in you all's lap again in about 2 years. And I just want you to be ready for it. It is not about how many breaths you can take on the Station right now. It is not about making the Station safer for future Mr. Titos. It is about understanding that the commercial sector is moving and endorsing it. Passing the tax bill. Getting out there and saying, we understand it. We endorse it. We want it. And NASA going, welcome to the neighborhood.
TITO ON INVESTMENT IN SPACE TOURISM
Mr. LAMPSON. Okay. Let me—I am going to get my last question in here before my time runs out this time. Mr. Tito, in your written testimony, you state that with the sole exception of communications satellites to date, the investment community has been apathetic, at best, to space commercialization. Since you run an investment management firm, would you say that the behavior of the investment community has been irrational with respect to space commercialization? If not, why hasn't it been investing in space? And would you recommend to your clients that they invest in space tourism at this time and on what basis, if so? If not, why not?
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. I think the investing community has been irrational on evaluating dot coms. But not on space commercialization. I don't think there has enough data to suggest that commercial space tourism is yet viable. And I would like this—it to be the opposite. But I am going to be looking at the demand, the other people that might be interested in following me. Like Rick has said, we will never really know, unless, you know, we start opening it up and offering these opportunities and see what the market provides.
Mr. LAMPSON. But right now, you are not recommending to your clients that they——
Mr. TITO. Absolutely not.
Mr. LAMPSON. Well, with that, the only other thing I can say is that you guys ought to be planning a codell to the Space Station. Because you are going to find out about this.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I know Bart really would like to do that. I——
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I guess if we are talking about the investment community would have been as irrationally optimistic about space enterprises they have in dot coms, that we would be already to Mars by now. Plenty of funding. No—5 billion? No. no problem. But 5 billion is a big problem.
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me—we have heard some skepticism today about the first space tourists and how much money and $20 million and how does this relate to the ordinary person. Somebody calculated this. That the $20 million for 8 days in space comes to about $1,700 per minute. Which this person points out, is actually less than it costs people to get President Clinton to give a speech nowadays per minute. So, anyway, we will leave that where it is at.
I think this has been a great Hearing. And there has been, obviously, two major things—issues that we have looked at today. And I don't know, if I was a journalist, I don't know how I would write this up. Because there has two hooks. And one is about space tourism, which is important and which has been discussed today. And the other is this obviously insight that Mr. Tito has that we are very interested in and concerned about in terms of what type of—I am going to give you 1 second. I will be very happy to let you have one more minute. Some of his insights here that may indicate that we have got the life support systems to move forward in the Space Station without having to necessarily put some of these other expenditures up. Or we don't necessarily have to lower the crew size on Space Stations to the three people. And those insights are very valuable insights. And as I say, in both of these issues that we have discussed today, I think that all of us who participated in this Hearing have been enriched by all of your insights.
And Mr. Hawes, I know I gave you, you know, a lot of guff here, but we appreciated you to be here and to—you knew this was going to be a tough Hearing. And we appreciate you being here and representing NASA. And I am sure this is the type of dialogue that actually helps us all move on. The Legislative Branch, Executive Branch. So no personal insult or anything was meant by that. And, Mr. Tito, you wanted to say something?
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. TITO. I just want to correct your math or whoever gave you that information.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Oh. Okay. It wasn't me. Okay.
Mr. TITO. It was 128 orbits in 8 days. That is about 150,000 an orbit. So if I divide that by 90 minutes per orbit, I think it is more like $1,700 rather than $17,000.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Oh. $1,700 per minute?
Mr. TITO. That would be my guess. Just——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Yeah.
Mr. TITO [continuing]. Mentally calculating it.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. That is——
Mr. TITO. You are off by a zero.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. That is even—that is far less than President Clinton. And I am—so—but there are some very serious issues we have to decide on. This is a challenge, this $5 billion shortfall in the Station. We are not going to permit the Space Station to fail. That is the bottom line to this. We are not going to permit this project to fail. And there are alternatives, however. The private sector has to be looked at as a source of resources and a source for ideas of how we are going to meet this challenge and how we are going to utilize this asset. This is a—this is an asset of all the people. And we are going to make sure that that asset isn't diminished because of any short-term decision making or decision making that is in some way skewed by ego or whatever. We are just not going to permit that to happen. We are going to work hard on this. This Committee is going to work hard. We are going to work hard with the Administration, with NASA.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We appreciate each and every one of you, especially you, Mr. Tito's, insights into this. Buzz, you, again, have, you know, given us some food for thought. But also, you demonstrated that you are a real activist. And we really appreciate that. And appreciate your thoughts on space tourism.
Vern, would you like to ask a couple questions? I mean, I would ask—let me finish one thing, also, and just finish up with Rick.
Rick, you and your gang are about the most creative and energy filled people in the whole—in this whole space effort. I cannot tell you how you—you are the fuel that energizes so many projects here. And I remember when you guys were involved with this. The first time I got involved with these guys, they said, well, maybe we should go around the Moon this way instead of always going around that way. Remember? And I remember Jim Muncy was—took that very seriously and said, Dana, you know, these guys really know what they are talking about. We really, we don't know what is on those—in those polar areas. And the establishment fought you guys right down to the line. And a couple of us gave you some—and do you know what we found? What we found? Water up there. Which, of course, is one of the most important historic accomplishments. So don't give up and keep your energy level and your idealism. We like that.
And appreciate all of you today who have been here to testify. And, Doctor, would you like to——
Mr. EHLERS. No. No, thank you. I have no comments. I am sorry I am late. I was—I just came back from space. So——
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, actually, well, Dennis has already told us that you have the next seat in the Shuttle going up there to the Station. So—Dr. Ehlers, of course, is a Ph.D. and Physicist and has a great deal—we are sorry you couldn't join us today but we appreciate you being here. And I know you will read the testimony in the record. Again, thank you very much. Our—let us see. We have got a—I have got some words that I am supposed to say here at the end. Legal words. I would like—okay. Please be advised that the Subcommittee members may be requesting additional information for the record. I would like to ask other members who are going to submit written questions to do so within 1 week from the date of this Hearing. And with that said, this concludes our Hearing. We are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX 1: Biographies
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BIOGRAPHY FOR DENNIS A. TITO
Dennis A. Tito is the Chief Executive Officer of Wilshire Associates Incorporated, a leading provider of investment management, consulting and technology services.
Applying science to the art of money management, Tito and his team of 250 professionals utilize mathematical formulas to advise a wide variety of institutional and high net worth investors worldwide. Founded in 1972, Wilshire advises on about $1 trillion in assets, directly manages about $10 billion in assets, and provides analytical tools to some 350 institutions around the world
Focused on his goal to participate in the U.S. space program, Tito earned a B.S. in Astronautics and Aeronautics from NYU College of Engineering and a M.S. from Rensselaer in Engineering Science. He began his career as an aerospace engineer with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the age of 23. While serving at JPL, he was responsible for designing the trajectories for the Mariner spacecraft missions to Mars and Venus. Even though he left to pursue a career in investment management, he has always remained interested in and committed to the exploration of space.
Employing the same methodology he used to determine a spacecraft's path, Tito is credited with helping to develop the field of quantitative analytics that uses mathematical tools to analyze market risks. In 1974, Tito developed the Wilshire Total Market Index (The Wilshire 5000), the broadest stock market index that Federal Reserve officials cite as a barometer of the U.S. economy.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under Tito's guidance, Wilshire has consistently been an industry pioneer. As the world began entering the computer age, Wilshire integrated computers with engineering and investment concepts, to provide some of the first data to money managers, ultimately shaping modern portfolio management theories. Among milestones in Wilshire's history:
Created the first asset-liability model for pension funds.
One of the first investment management firms to advise clients to invest in index funds.
Developed the first custom style indexes to evaluate equity managers and developed portfolios to match these indexes.
Advanced the first comprehensive small stock index, the Wilshire 4500.
In the area of trading, Wilshire again was in the forefront creating a fourth market among large institutions to trade stocks at almost no cost, and was one of the first to create a transaction cost measurement system.
Among the first to use performance-based fees after the SEC approved the idea and in 1990, to develop a quantitative approach to measuring manager style, called the ''style map.''
Among the first to integrate currency hedging into an asset allocation framework.
Aided in the development of the first-ever ''Corporate Restructuring Fund'' in Korea—the country's first closed-end mutual fund—to provide capital to small and medium-sized firms in the wake of the financial crisis in Asia.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times in 1999, Tito noted ''You don't get to Mars by luck. It's like threading a needle (from) 10 miles away. In dealing with the stock market, you could just throw darts and end up with a portfolio that might luck out and beat the market, but you don't get to Mars that way.''
A philanthropist and civic leader, Tito supports and is actively involved in many charitable and civic causes including establishing the Dennis A. Tito Gene-Nutrient Interaction Laboratory at the UCLA Center for Human Nutrition. He formerly served as President of Commissioners for the Department of Water and Power of Los Angeles.
On April 28, 2001, Tito made history by becoming the first individual to personally pay to travel in space. Launched from Baikonur, Kazakhstan, Tito served as a crew member of an eight-day Russian Soyuz taxi mission to the International Space Station. By fulfilling his 40-year dream to travel to space, Tito captured the imagination of millions of people worldwide and renewed interest in the United States space program.
Born August 8, 1940, Tito has one daughter and two sons and currently resides in Pacific Palisades, California.
BIOGRAPHY FOR RICK N. TUMLINSON
Rick N. Tumlinson is the President and co-Founder of the Space Frontier Foundation, a policy organization working to open space to human settlement.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A Texan whose family was one of the original founding families of the state and of the Texas Rangers and the son of an Air Force Sargeant, Mr. Tumlinson attended school in England and at Stephen F. Austin University in Texas. Married for 14 years, he has spent much of that time living in New York City and now is a resident of Los Angeles.
He is Executive Director of the Foundation for the International Non-governmental Development of Space (F.I.N.D.S.), a U.S. $25M endowment funding cutting edge frontier enabling projects around the world. Examples of F.I.N.D.S. research projects currently underway include asteroid materials processing, ''The WATCH'' killer asteroid search, solar sails, laser launch systems, HE research, SETI, the recently concluded Cheap Access to Space Prize (the world's first fully funded space prize) and the Mir Electrodynamic Tether System (project Firefly). He is also a co-Founder of Luna-Corp, a commercial space exploration and entertainment firm which is working with Radio Shack Inc. on a Lunar Return mission.
F.I.N.D.S. and the Space Frontier Foundation also co-sponsor events such as the Congressional ''Space Roundtables,'' where members of Congress, the White House and new space transportation firms meet to discuss relevant space issues. Other events include the Third Annual Lunar Development Symposium to occur this summer in Las Vegas, and the Space Entrepreneur Symposiums, a series of events introducing space entrepreneurs to venture capitalists. Recently F.I.N.D.S. signed the first ever non-terrestrial space data purchase contract, and began a broad-based support program for the Arthur C. Clarke Centre in Sri Lanka as part of a global space education program called ''Permission to Dream.'' Recently, he has begun a new project called the ARC, a human-based library to be placed in orbit and on the Moon.
Long a critic of government domination of space activities, Tumlinson produced the first ever paid political ads for a space cause, has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress (where he introduced the idea of ''Alpha Town''—an orbital community centered on the ISS, in 1995). He appears regularly on national TV news programs including such shows as Politically Incorrect and several documentaries as well as radio programs around the world promoting the concept of a new human frontier in space. A believer in action over words, he organized and led the team that saved the Russian space station Mir and converted it to the world's first commercial space station, and signed Dennis Tito as its first guest and ''citizen explorer''.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
APPENDIX 2: Material for the Record
73319cc.eps
NASA'S RESPONSES TO QUERIES
Capability of Current ISS Life Support Systems to Provide Sustained Support for Crew Greater Than Three:
While the questions and discussion during the Subcommittee's June 26 hearing focused on certain specific technical capabilities of the life support systems of the Russian Segment, there is a much broader context that must be considered in determining the size of a crew for the ISS. In the broader context of the total system, including the safety of the crew and visiting vehicles, the ISS in its current on-orbit configuration can sustain a crew of no more than three for long durations.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the design process of any human system, the basic functional capability (how much the system can actually do) is only one factor in the overall design and operations consideration. The overall performance is dependent on each interrelated component. The frequency and level of operation, surge capability, safety factors, and maintenance of a system affect the lifetime functionality of each individual component. As a result, a system is rarely intended to normally operate at 100 percent of its basic capacity—a system is generally operated at 50 to 70 percent of this capacity. This means that the life support systems of the Russian Segment with some functionality in the U.S. laboratory could support short-duration surges to a crew of six, but extended operations at this level would overtax the design and result in frequent failures and necessitate excessive maintenance and repair time.
The life support system on-board the ISS (substantially in the Russian Segment, with some functionality in the U.S. laboratory) has the aggregate design capability to sustain a three-person crew. Each individual component or subsystem has some basic capability that exceeds that three-person capability. However, there is a myriad of human and technical considerations that must be considered simultaneously in determining the sustainable crew size.
The two particular systems discussed during the Subcommittee's June 26 hearing were the Electron and the Vozduk. These specific capabilities and constraints of these systems are noted below:
The Electron System (oxygen generation):
This system is designed to operate for a crew of three and have a design life of 7 years. It can produce oxygen for six crew members, but this would have it operating significantly above its design duty cycle (taking an additional 1-kilowatt of electricity), resulting in increased down-time and a reduced system life by approximately 50 percent. The increased down-time would remove a level of safety redundancy for whatever period is required to bring it back into operation. This is obviously true for any system that is stressed by operating above its designed duty cycle.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The back-up or contingency oxygen generating system utilizes the solid oxygen ''candles'' which generate oxygen in a chemical reaction.
The Vozduk system (CO removal):
This system has the design capability to remove CO for four crew members. The U.S. Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) system has the design capability to remove CO for five crew members. Due to malfunctions, neither of these two systems has been functioning at anticipated levels since their installation. In concert in their current condition, they have enough capacity to cover the current needs of the 3 crew members. At such time as this system's capabilities are increased, CO removal becomes a lesser consideration in the overall assessment.
Other considerations:
Emergency return capability:
At present, and until other capability can be provided, the ISS crew size must be limited to the Soyuz three person capacity. Later this year when the Russian docking module is launched, attaching a second Soyuz would be possible. The development of a U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) or the provision of two additional Soyuz vehicles a year would alleviate the emergency return vehicle constraint to building beyond a crew of three. The Soyuz approach requires three available docking ports on the Russian Segment of the ISS. Deployment of an additional Soyuz would be accomplished by either barter agreements with our international partners or by purchase of additional Soyuz capability, and would need to be accomplished within existing statutory restrictions of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–178).
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Logistics: The addition of three crew members increases the logistical requirements of the ISS by approximately 18,000 lbs. per year. Through the period to assembly complete, this weight is planned to accommodate payload assembly requirements. Additional logistics impacts and considerations include:
This is equivalent to two additional Shuttle flights or four additional Progress flights. If six crew members were on board prior to assembly complete, these requirements would likely have an adverse affect on research and assembly schedules.
Stowage—Current stowage volume is barely sufficient for the necessary supplies for a crew of three, adding more crew would literally mean filling the aisles. This clearly is not acceptable from a safety perspective. It also exacerbates inventory management and impacts crew productivity and mental health. Finding additional stowage space would impact space available for research.
Habitation:
Additional crew would be essentially ''camping out'' which is not conducive to maintaining a well-rested, healthy crew. There are essential elements that must be considered to maintain the mental health of the crew given their remote and confined environment. While these concerns may appear to be minor annoyances, over time the additional stress of living in a camp-out mode can be considerable:
Sleep Stations—Additional stations isolated from noise and shielded from radiation would be required for additional crew members. Having crew ''sleep in the aisles'' is acceptable only on a short-term basis. Again, this is not acceptable from a safety position.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There would be inadequate volume for isolating crew activities (eating, exercising, health care. . .) from the research environment. This also has long-term safety implications.
The galley would be inadequate for preparation of hot water and food heating with the current oven capacity.
Expanding crew without increasing personal privacy space to store family photos, belongings, and relax alone would be detrimental to crew mental health. There would also be inadequate hygiene area, such as for bathing.
Crew Health:
To help enable an increase in crew size, additional exercise equipment was planned for installation in Node 3 or the Habitation Module. Currently, only one crew member can exercise at a time and they each exercise 2 hours per day as a minimum. With current exercise space and facility limitations, additional crew members would have to operate the equipment on board for nearly 12 hours per day with six crew. This also significantly impedes the activities of the non-exercising crew members.
Waste management:
Urine and solid waste stowage is problematic. We anticipated recycling urine first using a Russian system that is yet to be deployed (it has been impacted by limited Russian funding). Eventually, with 6 or more crew, waste was also to be recycled by a U.S. system that may now be impacted by future funding considerations. Other considerations that would need to be addressed include downmass, flight frequency, and maintenance requirements.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, the total systems capability of the current ISS configuration and operation simply cannot support a crew size greater than three. The current assembly sequence with a three-person crew was well defined to safely operate and assemble the vehicle. It balances the needs of ISS assembly and early research while providing the necessary provisions, habitation, and return capability for a crew of three until the ISS can be expanded to a larger crew size with additional capability.
Capability of ISS to Accommodate a Crew of Six without a Habitation Module:
As to your inquiry on how NASA might accommodate a six-member crew aboard the ISS without the Habitation Module, there is the potential to accommodate up to six ISS crew members utilizing alternative pressurized habitation volumes (other than the Habitation Module). Increasing crew size to six can be accommodated with the following:
Pressurized volume to support 12-rack equivalents of habitation equipment such as a galley, sleeping compartments, a wardroom, a second treadmill, and U.S. environmental control and life support systems are required to support six crew members. Development of the regenerative U.S. life support systems is required. The life support systems could be put in the Node 3 and the Lab, as the Lab has been scarred to accommodate some equipment. The sleeping quarters could be put in Node 2. NASA would maximize the integration of these systems into Node 3 to lessen the impacts to the science rack allocation and overall research quality in the Lab. By providing for a regenerative capability, the ISS would be able to sustain larger crew without additional logistics penalties associated with bringing up air and water, and disposing of wastewater.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This approach would not impact the international partners, but the reduced volume (absent a Habitation Module) would require the use of nonstandard stowage resulting in some impacts to free volume and traffic patterns and reduced operational effectiveness. The crew support functions would be scattered throughout the ISS (Lab, Nodes 2 and 3) in an inefficient manner. Lab operations would also be affected, and there are potential galley contamination issues with it being placed in the Lab. These factors would result in adverse impacts to research from that which was originally planned and would shift significant U.S. research emphasis out of the U.S. Lab and into the ESA and Japan's National Space Development Agency (NASDA) provided labs. However, overall research would clearly be improved with additional crew from that available with a crew of three.
The development of a U.S. Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) or the provision of two additional Soyuz vehicles a year would alleviate the emergency return vehicle constraint to building beyond a crew of three. The Soyuz approach requires three available docking ports on the Russian Segment of the ISS. Deployment of an additional Soyuz would be accomplished by either barter agreements with our international partners or by purchase of additional Soyuz capability, and would need to be accomplished within existing statutory restrictions of the Iran Non-Proliferation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106–178).
NASA has in the past reviewed various options for accommodating the habitation functions such as the possible lengthening of Node 3. The result of lengthening Node 3 would have no impact upon the number of research racks and have no impact to International Partner utilization. The known issues are the estimated launch weight, as well as the potential cost and schedule implications of modifications on the Node 3 development. Barter negotiations with the Italian Space Agency (ISA) would need to be modified in lieu of the current Habitation Module discussions. NASA has also considered the potential of modification of a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module for accommodating habitation functions, but it would require additional Space Station modifications to implement. The Centrifuge Accommodations Module has also been evaluated and would require extensive redesign to accommodate habitation functions. Such changes would be possible only with significant cost and schedule impacts and the attendant loss of variable-gravity research and the enabling capability for most biological and life sciences research aboard ISS.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While many of the options that have been explored in the past were not promising, NASA continues to look at other options that may be able to support six crew.
(Footnote 1 return)
A joint NASA/Space Transportation Association study in 1997 predicted space tourism to be a $10–$20 billion industry within several decades. In 1994 the Japanese Rocket Society conducted a market survey to estimate the interest in commercial space flight and found that ''world demand for orbital tourism services could reach a level of more than $12 billion per year (in 1994 dollars).''
(Footnote 2 return)
IB93017 ''Space Stations,'' Marcia Smith, Congressional Research Service
(Footnote 3 return)
''When a Ticket to Ride?,'' Amy Paige Snyder, Ad Astra, May-June 2001, p. 21
(Footnote 4 return)
''The Legal Regime for Private Activities in Outer Space,'' Wayne White, Published by CATO Institute
(Footnote 5 return)
Mr. Tito is Chief Executive Officer of Wilshire Associates.