Y 4. Sci 2: 100/114 H.R. 3765, THE COMMERCIAL SPACE CS RECORD ONLY HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey, Chairman GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey C. THOMAS MCMILLEN, Maryland JIMMY HAYES, Louisiana DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER, New York MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico* CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, Rhode Island DON RITTER, Pennsylvania SID MORRISON, Washington RON PACKARD, California ROBERT C. SMITH, New Hampshire HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER, JR., Virginia ERNEST L. KONNYU, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland CONTENTS Page John E. O'Brien, General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration, Washington, DC; Courtney A. Stadd, Director, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC; Charles W. Cook, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Space Plans and Policy, Department of the Air Force, the Pentagon, Daniel E. Cassidy, Chairman, Technical Committee on Legal Aspects of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, DC; William D. English, Chairman, Subcom- mittee on Allocation of Space Launch Risks, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, DC. Joel S. Greenberg, President, Princeton Synergetics, Inc., Princeton, NJ.... George P. Roberts, President, Contel ASC; Bruce L. Crockett, President, World Systems Division, Communications Satellite Corp.; Rex R. Hollis, President, Ford Aerospace Satellite Services Corp.; and James H. Frey, General Manager, Spacecraft Operations, Astro Space Division, Gener- John F. Yardley, President, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.; Richard E. Brackeen, President, Martin Marietta Commercial Titan, Inc.; Dennis R. Dunbar, Program Director of Atlas/Centaur, General Dy- namics; Wallace H. Boggs, Vice President Engineering, E'Prime Aero- space Corp.; Donald K. Slayton, President, Space Services Inc. of Amer- APPENDICES H.R. 3765, COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH ACT AMENDMENTS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1988 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Mr. NELSON. The meeting will come to order. I want to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses as we open this second session of the Congress, at this subcommittee's hearing on a new legislative initiative, H.R. 3765, the Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments. Five months ago we had a hearing, two days of hearings, and the purpose of those hearings was to gain insight into the progress made toward developing a truly commercial launch industry. We found that over the course of one year after the determination of the Space Shuttle that it would no longer be available to commercial users that there were a number of interesting findings. And so let me relate to you and refresh your memory from what we learned on September the 15th and September the 17th. We learned that America's launch providers had made significant investments in order to enter the world launch competition. We learned also that several companies had succeeded in signing up satellite customers for launches beginning in 1989, but that none of those were American companies. We learned that satellite customers could obtain neither cost quotes nor launch quotes from American launch providers. Why? Because the Government had not made a clear commitment to recognize commercial providers as a partner and a user of the national ranges. We also learned that despite the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Act of '84, which consolidated authority over commercial space transportation into a single department, the Department of Transportation, a multi-agency space policy decisionmaking quagmire persisted, with each agency protecting its own turf. We further learned that the Government's pronouncements of fostering this new industry were not being translated into workable, commercially reasonable agreements. Across-the-board, the Government's Model Range Use Agreement, which was the principal agreement setting forth the terms and conditions, that agree (1) |