WASHINGTON — Because the House Science Committee considers a business space bill, industry officials advocated for key topics they consider must be included in that laws.
A July 13 hearing by the committee offered the industry a possibility to weigh in on topics they consider must be included in a business space package that the committee is developing, from business human spaceflight safety to oversight of emerging space activities.
Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), chair of the committee, said a theme of the laws will likely be maintaining the competitiveness of the industry. “As this committee prepares to think about business space laws, it’s imperative we keep U.S. international competitiveness at the highest of our priorities,” he said in his opening statement. “Ensuring a strong business space sector is essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in space and technology.”
One in every of the highest issues is extending the present restriction on the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to control safety for individuals who fly on business spacecraft. That restriction, often called the “learning period” by industry, was included in a 2004 business space act with the intent of allowing firms to achieve experience upon which regulations could then be based.
The educational period was originally designed to last eight years but has been prolonged by subsequent laws and is now on account of expire Oct. 1. Many within the business spaceflight industry have been lobbying Congress for an additional extension, citing the slow pace of progress that has limited the experience firms have gained.
“CSF supports a multi-year extension of the educational period to enable key dialogues to proceed between government and industry,” said Karina Drees, president of the Business Spaceflight Federation (CSF), on the hearing. “Allowing the educational period to finish this yr would result in regulations that inadvertently freeze development before industry has had time to mature, harming safety and our nation’s competitiveness in the long run.”
One key member, while not explicitly against an extension of the educational period, did appear concerned about safety. “We’ve got an obligation to make sure spaceflight safety,” said Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-In poor health.), rating member of the space subcommittee.
Drees argued an end of the educational period would hinder safety. “If we start developing that regulatory environment too soon, before we now have enough data, before we now have enough knowledge of those individual vehicles, there’s a long-term safety risk that something could go improper.”
“As a substitute of learning from our mistakes, we want to be sure we’re using science to not make mistakes in the primary place,” Sorensen responded.
One other priority for industry is establishing a “mission authorization” system for regulating business space activities not overseen by agencies today to be able to comply with the Outer Space Treaty’s requirement for authorization and continuing supervision of space activities.
While the National Space Council is developing a proposal for mission authorization, some witnesses said that responsibility should go to the Office of Space Commerce within the Commerce Department. “It’s just like the best way other countries have structured it, where they’re eager about those activities with reference to their economic contribution and the potential for economic growth,” said Caryn Schenewerk, president of CS Consulting.
Josef Koller, systems director for The Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy, said a mission authorization system would even be vital for human spaceflight, since any ability by the FAA to control business human spaceflight safety can be limited to launch and reentry. “Similar to business aviation advantages from a single oversight agency, business human spaceflight would do the identical,” he said.
Jim Dunstan, general counsel for technology think tank TechFreedom, opposed giving that authority to other agencies just like the FAA or Federal Communications Commission. While the FCC has expertise in spectrum, he argued, it lacked knowledge in other satellite issues. “To place more on their plate on areas they’re going to have to return up to the mark on, I believe goes to slow those activities down.”
Other issues raised on the hearing included broader regulatory reform in areas reminiscent of launch and business distant sensing. Witnesses noted that while FAA enacted a “streamlined” set of launch licensing regulations, called Part 450, greater than two years ago, industry remains to be combating points of the brand new rules.
The FAA’s Business Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) approved at a July 11 meeting a set of recommendations for the FAA to enhance the Part 450 licensing process. “Those recommendations do call upon the FAA to handle specific points of Part 450 which can be proving problematic,” said Schenewerk, who chairs COMSTAC’s regulatory working group.
Drees said the CSF also backed proposals to revive a spaceport infrastructure grant program for business launch sites, which was briefly funded from 2010 to 2012. That, she argued, would give spaceports access to grant funding to accumulate capabilities that would reduce the burden on federal launch sites.
House members haven’t offered a schedule for introducing a business space bill or confirmed what it’d include. Lucas was publicly neutral on the educational period issue, for instance, saying only that Congress must determine if the present state of the industry required an extension.
“Our laws should be fastidiously written and executed to create a positive environment here at home,” he said, “and forestall U.S. firms from turning to overseas destinations that promise speedy authorizations with minimal restrictions.”