Background-White House Led Range Study

1. Spaceport and Range Technology Development InitiativeAl Sofge NASA Headquarters May 15, 2001

2. Background-White House Led Range Study • White House-led Interagency Review on the Future Management and Use of the U.S. Space Launch Bases and Ranges kicked off in March 1999 • Co-chaired by National Security Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy • Review limited to Air Force Eastern and Western Ranges • Participants included: OMB, DoD, USAF, NRO, DOC, DOT, NASA • Commerce Business Daily Announcement requesting input from the non-govt community

3. Background-White House Led Range Study (cont.) • Purpose: To develop national strategy for future management and use of US space launch bases and ranges • Focus on appropriate division of roles & responsibilities between USG and US commercial space sector including spaceports • Intended to result in recommendations to the President on policy, law, budgets

4. Accomack County, VA Aerospace Industries Association Astrotech Boeing Joint Investment Team California Space and Technology Alliance Command and Control Technologies Corporation Directorate of Aerospace Fuels Management, Kelly AFB, TX George Mason University Institute of Public Policy Lockheed Martin Moonspace Corporation National Space Society Orbital Sciences Corporation Practical Innovations International, Inc. Quantum Technology Services, Inc. Spaceport Systems International Somerset County Commissioners, MD ACTA, safety contractor at Vandenberg AFB, CA United Paradyne Corporation Universal Space Networks Universal Synaptics VA Commercial Space Flight Authority Wicomico County, MD Representative List of Respondents to Commerce Business Daily Announcement Requesting Input

5. Background-White House Led Range Study (cont.) • Final study report contained six recommendations with multiple desired outcomes • Report recommendations were approved by the President • OSTP and NSC co-signed an implementation memo on June 12, 2000, directing the appropriate Cabinet Secretaries and the NASA Administrator to implement the recommendations

6. Study Recommendations Recommendation 1: “Propose alternative management structures to allow commercial and government users of the U.S. space launch bases and ranges adequate opportunity to communicate their requirements so they can be considered and factored into decisions on improvements and operations with the goals of providing greater user voice and improving operational flexibility.” Recommendation 2: “Pursue means of improving efficiencies in range operations.”

7. Study Recommendations (cont.) Recommendation 3: “Encourage, permit, and maximize use of nonfederal funding sources (especially from states and spaceports) for the continued maintenance and modernization of the space launch bases and ranges to meet national needs for space transportation.” Recommendation 4: “Explore options for replacing the ‘excess capacity’ constraint in the current policy and legal framework, while retaining priority access for national security and critical civil sector missions, to allow a more complete partnership to develop between the federal government and the U.S. commercial space sector, including states and spaceports.”

8. Study Recommendations (cont.) Recommendation 5: “Develop common range safety requirements for government, civil, and commercial launches at federal and nonfederal launch sites and ensure that FAA resources are commensurate with its statutory requirements and safety responsibilities.”

9. Study Recommendations (cont.) Recommendation 6: “The Air Force and NASA should develop a plan to examine, explore, and proceed with next-generation range technology development and demonstration, with a focused charter to improve safety, increase flexibility and capacity, and lower costs for reusable and expendable launch vehicles. NASA should designate KSC as a National Center for next-generation RLV range technology development and demonstration, while the U.S. Air Force remains the overarching authority for Eastern and Western Range architecture.”

10. Study Recommendations (cont.) Recommendation 6-Desired Outcome: NASA and the AF should agree on plans to coordinate, develop, demo next-generation range technologies and set goals for next-generation range technologies to: • Improve safety • Reduce costs by orders of magnitude • More efficiently support RLV and ELV operations • Enable high launch rate ops using next-generation RLVs

11. National Need to Coordinate Advanced Range Technology Development • The Advanced Range Technology Working Group (ARTWG) co-chaired by NASA and AF was formed • First meeting March 1 at KSC • Coordinate range technology development on National level • State Spaceports, industry, other govt org and academia participated • The ARTWG is focused on range technology

12. Spaceport vs Range • Spaceport = Launch base • Range = Tracking, range safety function, telemetry • Supporting Infrastructure = Can support either or both

13. Advanced Spaceport Technology Development • A similar need exists to coordinate on a National level advanced spaceport technology development • The Advanced Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG) will focus on advanced spaceport technology development • Chaired by NASA • Participation by/inputs from AF, other govt org, State Spaceports, industry, academia