|
|
|
Policy Address by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
July 22, 1997 Cheap Access to Space Symposium |
 |
|
Dana Rohrabacher at the CATS Symposium.
|
Much thanks to NASA, of course, for helping to organize this, as well as the Space Frontier Foundation, Phillips Lab, and Rick, Dave Anderman, Chaz Miller, and all the rest. I really appreciate this.
Let's start out today with a discussion on a positive note. I think that with a positive spirit we can and will move forward. I hope we'll move forward at a very fast pace; there are others who are a little more cautious. But as we're evaluating where we are, we should first of all note how far we've come in these last eight years – and there's a lot of reasons for optimism when we take a look at what we've done.
Eight years ago I had just been elected to Congress, and President Bush was calling for a $500 billion mission to Mars. Lots of people were listening to what I considered to be that impossible blabber. The fact is that cheap access to space is the next step. And I'm not opposed to going to Mars at all – I think that's exactly what mankind should think about doing, and not only Mars; we should think about mankind's ascent into the heavens and the conquest of the universe. But that's not the next step – the next step is making sure that we can get into low Earth orbit. Heinlein said that once you're into low Earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the universe. So we have to get to the next step – and, eight years ago, we had people again trying to skip steps, and trying to get us to involved in something that would be beyond our capability and thus hurt our ability to actually do things in space within our lifetimes which we are capable of doing. So, anyway, if we had at that time – when George Bush was talking about going to Mars – had a meeting like this calling for "cheap access to space", you would probably have had two or three people in the room, and that would have been it. But the fact is that today we have an impressive gathering, and you can see by the number of companies and different organizations that are sponsoring this that cheap access to space has finally caught people's attention as to not just the importance, but the necessity, of coping with this challenge before we go on to other challenges in space.
Today, after eight years, we have Pathfinder and the Sojourner rover on Mars, costing much less than the price of one Shuttle launch, and about one-third of this year's cost overruns for Space Station. We have President Clinton and Vice President Gore strongly supporting the X-33 experimental RLV program, and we also have a Director of NASA who is committed to developing a reusable rocket system. These are terrific accomplishments – major steps forward. Cheap access to space is today on nearly everyone's priority list. No longer are those of us who are pushing for this voices in the wilderness – we actually have people in the corporate boardrooms saying, "Look, we're going to get involved in this because this is something that will take in the near future and we want to be in the competition."
We have six private companies, including Lockheed Martin, involved in developing RLVs at this time. And they're different kinds of RLVs, as you know. There are all kinds of new concepts that are emerging. And this is healthy – it is healthy that you not put all your eggs in one basket. Mark Twain said, "Put all your eggs in one basket – and then watch that basket!" But that's not really the way to do things; that's not the way to have progress and to develop new technology. The way to develop new technology is to make sure there are diversified approaches to solving a problem, just in case the computer graphics don't work when you actually start twisting the metal and building the craft. We're finding some problems now – VentureStar is having some unforeseen problems. I'm sure they will overcome those problems. But, as far as I'm concerned, we can't rely on one piece of technology to carry the whole load ten or 15 years from now. Even if it is successful – if VentureStar, for instance, is successful, as we all pray it is; I am supporting it 100 percent – we don't want just one craft to be available; we want there to be competition. Competition is a good thing. Competition will ensure that quality remains high and prices go low. That's what the free enterprise system is all about.
And so we not only have VentureStar and DC-X – we have a myriad of different approaches. Out in central California at Redlands, they're developing this craft that will be sort of dragged up like a glider, and it will take off after it's reached 40,000 feet. These innovative ideas are exactly what we've been wanting to happen. And they should all be taken seriously, looked at and considered, and be put into a cost-effective analysis of how they will work. And, if possible, they should all be in competition with one another a few years from now in getting people and things into space.
So a lot of credit for the progress we've had can be given to people right here in this room, and I'm grateful to all of you. There are leaders like Bud Kramer – Bud and I have been working very closely. I think that on the Space Subcommittee, we've shown that you can have cooperation between Republicans and Democrats, and we are working for the good of the country and to push this particular technology. So thanks to all of you for being part of the team, and let me say that it is a lot easier to be part of a team than it is to be a voice in the wilderness – which is what I felt like eight years ago. I felt that people were sick and tired of hearing me talk about developing cheap access to space – or, as I used to say, bringing down the cost of getting into space. I was almost like a Johnny-One-Note, and they just got sick and tired of hearing me.
I figured that what I'd do is give you a little summary this morning of what's happened and what's going on this year – the bad news, the good news, and the weird news. The bad news is that I'll have to give some mea culpas here myself for a setback that we experienced in Congress last week. Tim Roemer and I were planning to offer an amendment to the NASA appropriations bill which would have moved $100 million from bailing out the Russian government for its failure in Space Station into an RLV to follow on after the X-33. But because of a snafu, the appropriations bill moved so fast that the NASA part of the bill came up two hours earlier than it was supposed to; and six people – including me – who had amendments lost their time to offer those amendments because their time had already passed on the floor. It was basically one chance in a hundred that this would happen, and I was flabbergasted. One Congressman who was supposed to offer an amendment didn't show up on time, and so he lost his hour's slot – and then the other Congressmen (five of them were ahead of me) lost their slots because they were counting on that Congressman to be on time. When I thought I had three or four hours, I didn't have any time at all, and I got there about one minute late. As I say, those things do happen, but it is very disheartening when they do. But it makes me a little more appreciative of other people who sometimes get themselves into situations they didn't count on. Much to his credit, Chairman Sensenbrenner – the Chairman of the Science Committee – tried to offer my amendment, but the appropriators used a procedural maneuver to prevent him from doing so. They had every right to use that maneuver – they had their priorities; I have mine – but that was an unfortunate thing. But next time around, we'll be ready.
But nevertheless, while the NASA appropriations haven't turned out as well as we had hoped, basically there are some good things happening. There is good news. First, I believe that the NASA Authorization Law, which I was involved with writing, is basically going to be passed. So it will be the first time in years that we've actually had a Space Authorization Bill passed into law. And that authorization gives Dan Goldin and NASA strong direction to find the resources to build a follow-on RLV. So, basically, the authorization bill empowers NASA to move forward on this road. I've spoken to Dan, and he is committed to bringing down the cost of getting into space – he's got lots of great things he wants to do, including going to Mars. And he knows, as well as I and many of you here do, that before we can go anywhere we've got to tackle this problem – we've got to come to grips with this and bring down the cost of getting into space.
The second reason for a little optimism: there is funding in the defense bills for military spaceplanes and military research and development. So instead of just focusing on old technology, we do have some help coming from the military side. Finally, we're about to go to the House floor with H.R. 1702, the Commercial Space Act of 1997, which does several things for commercial space transportation. First, it sets up the regulatory authority for commercial RLVs – so, after this bill passes, we will have the regulatory foundation for RLVs in business. Basically, the bill also tells the government to buy commercial space transportation services instead of developing and operating launch systems itself, and it pushes the Space Shuttle towards further privatization.
So we've really had some good things, and I look forward to working with Bud Kramer in building the momentum for next year, and we have all next year to work together and try to do things, because we have a two-year authorization this year. I think we're going to have some exciting hearings in our Space Subcommittee – some hearings that will actually propel and push the industry along and open up some exciting new doors. However, whatever progress we make, I know it's not going to be easy. Bureaucracy, whether it's space bureaucracy or any other kind in the government, is difficult to overcome. As somebody said, bureaucracy is the most efficient method known to man of turning pure energy into solid waste. The fact is that we have a space bureaucracy today, in large corporations and in government, who are tied to their own particular status quo because that's how they pay their mortgage. They want to pay their mortgage, and they don't want to do new things that might threaten that. I cannot blame people for being in that situation – after all, that is a very human condition. But for the rest of us to progress, we have to be able to move beyond the inertia that is created by the status quo.
So, basically, I'd like to talk about some of the things I've heard about that will impede progress. And the first thing I've heard about is the mistaken notion that the NASA budget is eventually going to go up, and thus we can start spending as if it's going to go up. This wishful thinking is something that will probably get us in trouble unless we get control over that wishful thinking which flows, naturally, from people who don't really want to change the status quo, but want all change to be outside the status quo. And, frankly, I don't see the NASA budget increasing. We should be thinking about a steady NASA budget now and at least for another decade.
Those who believe that NASA will have an increasing budget believe that we will take the savings from consolidating the Space Shuttle and satellite operations, and revenue from commercialization of the Space Station – and with those items and an increasing NASA budget, we're going to have enough money to send astronauts to Mars. Of course, they're going to do this in cooperation with Russia – even after the last two weeks. To do this, NASA needs – and this is an idea going around that I'd like to talk about a little bit today, because I believe that the more we keep this notion in our mind, the less progress we're going to have in those areas that we can progress in. So, to me, it is a negative idea instead of a positive one – because to accomplish this, NASA needs a new heavier-lift rocket, which I understand will be called Magnum Lifter. I think this is unaffordable – to get right down to the foundation – and there is a lot of talk about maneuvering us to the point where we can develop this Magnum Lifter. Perhaps one of the steps in doing this that is now being talked about is developing liquid fly-back boosters that could also be used for the short term on the Space Shuttle.
Now if this is all part of one scheme, it is a very complicated, convoluted scheme – and I've heard complicated, convoluted schemes before: "If this works out, and this works out, and this works out, we will be on the Moon without breaking the budget." Usually, schemes that rely on five or six variables like that do not succeed, and usually waste a lot of money or lives. I will tell you right now that when I was in the White House, I was told why the Marines were landing in Lebanon. There was a convoluted plan that would bring peace to the Middle East. We ended up losing a lot of Marines – not to mention the money, but the Marines' lives were far more important. In this case, we may lose some lives, and we may lose a lot of revenue that could be put into developing those technologies that we can develop and taking that step so that we can take the next step after that.
To rationalize the huge cost that we'd have to have for developing those boosters that I'm talking about, the Shuttle would have to fly more often – and it would have to keep flying long beyond 2012. So here's another part of this strategy that I think is a poor use of revenues and technology. We should be looking to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible. The Shuttle is a brilliant piece of technology. It is a masterpiece. It is something that we can be proud of. It served our country well when our country needed it. Ronald Reagan happened to be President when it first took off and landed, and it did more to lift the spirits of the American people, and to solidify that positive infusion of energy that came about during the Reagan years, than anything else.
It [the Shuttle] was magnificent and it is magnificent. But it is not a space transportation system that we can afford. And now it is old technology – and it is better to move on and, as we do, to give our praises to older things and put them into the museum.
So what this idea about using the Space Shuttle will require, if this strategy I'm hearing about continues, is that the Shuttle will have to use commercial customers. But NASA, basically, is not going to be selling space to commercial customers, is it? Isn't that something we've agreed to – that commercial customers will be left to the commercial space enterprises? Isn't there some way we're going to bolster these new developments that we've been talking about here today? So I think that truly privatizing the Shuttle is an important step – but we should not end up with a situation where privatizing the Shuttle means a prolonged use of the Shuttle, and nothing more than a government-owned but privately-operated Space Shuttle system. That's not what we have in mind for the Shuttle, and any plan that is based on that will not work. So what do you have? NASA gets the Shuttle and the Space Station – and with that scenario that I've just outlined, commercialization is nothing more than rhetoric, and in the end with the boosters that we've developed we can set out for Mars. A very expensive plan. Now the really weird part of this scenario that I've just outlined for you is that there are some people who believe that it's going to happen. That plan cannot happen without being authorized by my Subcommittee. And it's not going to happen – bottom line; that will not happen.
Now if there's other scenarios for getting to Mars that people want, and they can show that it won't totally defund every other space enterprise that's going on, I will be open-minded about it. Dan Goldin has an appointment to talk to me later on today, in fact, and I'm anxiously waiting to hear him. I will listen and be open-minded to any new ideas. In fact, I will permit any idea to come before the Space Subcommittee that I chair, and if the majority of members want to go in that direction, that's the direction our country will go, because this is a democracy and I run my committee like one. I am just one voice. I have the say in how to organize the hearings, but I don't use that organizational power to thwart the majority's will on my Subcommittee. But I do not believe our Subcommittee will authorize something that will consume so many billions of dollars that it prevents us from doing all the other wonderful things we can do in space.
So it sounds to me as if we're going to have a good conversation with Dan Goldin this afternoon, because I don't believe that Dan Goldin or Vice President Gore or President Clinton is going to OK a program to go to Mars if it means that all of these other reusable rocket concepts – including the one they've already approved, the X-33 – will lose any potential for any type of government help because the money is being sucked into a Mars program. I don't see that that's going to happen – and again, the bottom line on all this talk is that when people start talking this way, show me the money. If Dan Goldin can show me the money today, or anyone else can show me the money in the future, I'll come back and give just as long a talk on why Mars is such a great idea. Who knows? Perhaps the rover up there will uncover a bottle of Guinness on Mars – and when we do, the Irish will help us fund our entire space program. But until that happens, we have other things to talk about.
The Civil Space Authorization bill that I sponsored gives NASA full funding to operate, and makes safety-related upgrades to the Shuttle. But it does not in any way give authorization for the development of liquid fly-back boosters – and neither does the appropriations bill that was just signed. After all, both the appropriators and the authorizers want to give Lockheed a chance to succeed in the development of the X-33 VentureStar. Chairman Sensenbrenner and I want there to be at least one other follow-on vehicle, as you are all aware – and this, again, is the type of thing that will not be funded if we waste our money on trying to reach too far.
Now it may be possible to privatize the Shuttle – and don't think that what I'm telling you today means that we shouldn't be moving forward and trying our best to privatize the Shuttle. I've supported the consolidation of operations under USA, and I'd like to give them a chance to slash costs even further. And if that can save the taxpayers money and earn USA a profit between now and the arrival of cheap access to space, then that's a great idea. And, by all means, let's include the Shuttle in this large perestroika of space transportation that we're talking about in the next ten years. But I am absolutely against subsidizing the Shuttle to compete against VentureStar or the privately emerging RLV companies. I am especially against government-funded upgrades to the Shuttle just to prolong its use. I believe I've made myself clear on that: if it makes economic sense to upgrade the Shuttle with private money, that's fine. Let USA upgrade the Shuttle; that's terrific. If it makes more sense to invest in A-1, Pathfinder, VentureStar, Delta Clipper, Roton or anything else, then let's let private money flow into those projects, and let's let industry make those decisions instead of Washington, D.C. Washington should not be deciding what is the perfect path to cheap access to space. Most of you are here – I hope – from other parts of the country. I believe that Rick was complaining about the transportation system right here in Washington. If you remember, the transportation system here in Washington was designed by a Frenchman. When Mr. L'Enfant designed these roads, it's pretty hard to determine what was going on in his mind. They go in all directions; you cannot go on one road across the city. They change names, and you have to turn to stay on the same road. This is a perfect road system for a government. I finally figured it out a couple of years ago after I was elected, because I had some people coming here to Washington to complain about the government. Once they landed in Washington, they couldn't find the government – and that's what that was all about.
Well, we should not be relying on government to set the whole direction for this incredible industry that I believe we will have in space in the years ahead. Certainly government will play a role – there's no doubt about it – but government should not be the deciding factor. In fact, what government should be doing is developing the technology and helping to push back the technological frontiers, so that the private sector and not the bureaucracy will be able to accomplish this mission and be able to make the ultimate decisions.
I have a distrust of government – everybody knows that; that's my basic philosophy – I'm a conservative Republican. But government does have a role – and its first role, as I say, is to help develop the technology that we need to push back, not only the space frontier, but elsewhere where we can encourage the development of new technologies. We also have to write clear, stable laws and regulations, and we need to encourage people to invest in space technologies. We can do that through the tax system, and I've spoken to Dan Goldin about this. Dan is not only optimistic; he's enthusiastic about the idea of trying to restructure our tax system so that people will have a great incentive to invest in new space business. This could be a whole new source of revenue for some of the things that we're trying to do, because if we could change the tax law in a way that would make it profitable for people with large amounts of money to invest in space, they will invest in space because there will be a profit in it.
And anything that I've said today about this potential conflict on space in terms of Mars and the Shuttle – well, let me say a few good words about Dan Goldin. We may have a little disagreement here on this – maybe a big disagreement – but I have the utmost admiration for Dan Goldin. I think he is a terrific Administrator of NASA. He's doing a great job; he's a wonderful human being, a bright man with a vision for the future. I enjoy working with him, and I'm looking forward to working with him in the future. So please don't think that because we've had a little disagreement here, it's personal at all. In fact, it's not personal. My admiration for Dan Goldin has not been diminished one iota – and, again, as Chairman of the Space Subcommittee I'm looking forward to working with him.
Basically, let me say that we need cheap access to space, not just because we need new technologies (and I'm trying to push new technologies) – but because space will open the door that will permit Dan Goldin to do those things he wants to do. He does want to go to Mars, and we will be able to do that once we bring down the cost of getting into low Earth orbit. We also will be able to do some of the things that I'm dreaming about. I dream about the day that we have a colony on the Moon again. I can imagine actually having a colony on the Moon that is productive, doing things that will help us on the Earth in my lifetime. I don't see anything more in the Mars mission than simply going there one time, planting a flag, and spending billions of dollars to do it. But we can actually have an ongoing, exciting colony on the Moon in our lifetime if we can bring down the cost of getting into space. We can have facilities in space that will generate clean, cheap power for the people of the Earth. I'm not a big fan of the global warming theory, as most people know; but I want to develop methods that will produce cheap and clean power for the people of the world. We can do that using solar collectors and microwave technology in space – if we bring down the cost of getting into space. We can mine asteroids. We can have colonies on asteroids! We can do things in space that I can't even think of right now. And the fact is that we are just on the edge of the universe – and it's just that one step into space that we're talking about. We've got to bring down that cost – and then, as Heinlein said, we're halfway to anywhere else in the universe.
I don't see mankind in terms of a ten-year budgetary cycle; I see humankind as being in this tremendous advance that will not stop until we are at the stars – until we can transport ourselves in ways that no one could ever dream of. Just think of what it was like at the turn of the century. Many people were still using horses to pull their plows in the United States. My parents were farmers. They still had horse teams that they worked with. And when someone in the neighborhood got a car, it was a big deal. At the turn of the century, there were no heavier-than-air craft flying anywhere in the world. Now we're arguing about how to go to Mars! That was a hundred short years ago -- just a very short time in the history of humankind. I am tremendously optimistic about what can be accomplished, because the rate of change is not declining; it is accelerating. As we go into a situation where we can actually process that information and use it for our betterment, it will catapult humankind into higher and higher orbits – into human conditions that our greatest science fiction writers couldn't even imagine twenty years ago. So that's what we're all about today. That's what this Conference is about. We want to get there – and I understand that people want to take some short cuts because they're anxious to get there. But it's not the time for short cuts. It's the time to move ahead with a solid system where we can actually take that step and then have a platform from which we can take the next step. I see lots of those scattered around here. Any one of those can be part of that foundation that will provide us with a staging area for the next step.
I want to thank all of you because you're part of building that foundation, too. It's not just technology with metal and composites and engine parts that build that foundation. Part of the foundation is the human understanding and the human acceptance of the necessities of where we're going and what we're going to do. You folks, probably more than anyone else, represent America's cutting edge and America's frontiersmen. So thank you to the Space Frontier Foundation, to NASA, and to all of you for letting me be part of this today and to extrapolate on my own position as Chairman of the Space Subcommittee. I believe in what I'm saying, and I believe that people can honestly disagree. What you heard today was not "My way or no way", but was instead the advocacy of things that I really believe in. I know you believe in those things too, and I know that there are some people who disagree with me. All I say is that this is a great country, it's a democracy. Technology and freedom – that's what America is all about. And part of freedom is respecting those people who have disagreements with you. So no matter what they are, we're all going to work together, and we're all going to get there. Thank you all very much.
Questions from the press:
Q: Eric Daley of Gannett News Service: Congressman Rohrabacher, you said that the Shuttle should perhaps be in a museum sooner or later. What would you envision would happen to NASA's infrastructure if the Shuttle goes into a museum? And how would Congress, with its parochial interests, manage that downsizing?
Rohrabacher: It was asked that, if the Shuttle does go into a museum – realizing that NASA's infrastructure is built around the Shuttle – how will we overcome that problem, and what will happen to NASA?
Our policy should not be based on maintaining government jobs. Neither space policy nor any other policy should be based on that. Unfortunately, I believe that much of the inertia that we have experienced has been due to the fact that people in government jobs – in NASA and, by the way, in private-sector situations too -- have been hesitant about change because they can't see themselves in the picture. That's not going to work. That's not what's going to make progress for humankind. I think that every time the Shuttle takes off, there are golden chains attached to that Shuttle, and they are attached to golden desks. And that's what's costing all the money going up there. It's not necessarily the specific costs of the Shuttle itself, but everything that's attached to the Shuttle. We have to break that dependency.
In my area in California, we had 11 percent unemployment six or seven years ago, right after I got elected. The unemployment rate in my area is now 2 percent. We don't have unemployment in my area now; what we have are people who are between jobs. And why? Because we took people out of the cycle of being employed by huge corporations or the government. And because of the computer capacity and computer technology that is available to the average person, these aerospace workers went out and have established all kinds of enterprises in developing environmental technologies, health care technologies – technologies that are exportable and good-paying. But it required that the entrepreneurial spirit be forced upon them before they did it. And I think that once we get the thousands of people in NASA that were dependent upon the Shuttle – once we get them to the point that they are no longer dependent upon the Shuttle, they're going to be better off. And certainly we don't want to breed another generation of people who are dependent upon the Shuttle. And everybody, including the country, will be better off at that point.
Q: Bill Sweetman from Popular Science magazine: I'm interested, Congressman, in your views on how the follow-on reusable vehicles will play out in terms of NASA -- in terms of its relationship to X-33 and possible competition with VentureStar, and in terms of the different but parallel needs of the Air Force for a military spaceplane.
Rohrabacher: All good questions – and let me put it this way. I mentioned this in passing in my speech. We don't need a situation where, fifteen years from now, we have the best space transportation system in the world, but it is reliant upon one technology built by one company. We don't need that. That will have a deleterious effect upon that company, and on costs, and on quality. Competition is a good thing. The concept for the follow-up RLV that we have in mind is designed for (number one) if something happens to the VentureStar, so that it doesn't work for some reason (and we all pray that it does) we aren't stuck with a $400 million per flight Shuttle for decades on – and, if it does work, after a 10-year time period we have at least two vehicles with two companies involved so that they will be in competition in the future that will come to play to keep quality higher and to keep the costs down. There are also – and I'm sure that you're discovering this right now – a myriad of other ideas that are bubbling to the surface. All of you were probably in the same shoes that I was in, in the sense that we spent a lot of time and effort and money and a lot of our intellectual capital in pushing NASP, the National Aerospace Plane. I thought at the end of that: "My gosh, why did I waste my time on this?" But in the end what happened is that a lot of the composite materials, and a lot of the research and development that went into NASP, are now going into some of these vehicles and actually opening the door to much greater competition by them. So it won't just be one follow-on; I think there will be several follow-ons. But there has to be at least one. And I would hope we can afford that, and afford to give the others a little bit of a boost. Finally, the last part of the question dealt with the military, and where the military plane is. I don't usually talk about the military end of this. But I will not apologize for it. I believe the United States of America should be the strongest power in the world, and be able to defend our interests anywhere in the world against any adversary in the world. I have no apologies to make on that at all.
And this piece of technology will do more to maintain the peace and stability of this planet if it is in the hands of a democratically elected government – the United States – than any other thing I can imagine being developed in the next 20 years. This will give America the high ground over any future battlefield. No longer should we ever think about sending hundreds of thousands of American troops overseas to meet an enemy head to head. That's Old-think. The Saddam Husseins of the world are not worth risking the death of thousands of Americans. If we have this technology, the Saddam Husseins of the world can hang it up – because we'll be able to have the high ground over their country; and if they have committed acts of aggression upon their neighbor, they can pay an awful price and we will be able to deliver it.
I don't talk about this because people sort of look at it as the negative, because we're talking about the use of force. But in reality we're talking about the maintenance of peace, and maintaining stability, and making sure that the democratic forces on this planet – the good and decent people on this planet – have a technological edge over the Saddam Husseins and the Khaddafis and all those other petty dictators in the Third World and in the Second World.
So, with that, I see the military playing an important role in this. And this is the ultimate joint-use technology – this concept that we're talking about today.
Thank you all very much. I enjoyed being with you.
|
|
|
.