22 As we looked at the Constellation 13:55:14 203 1 impacts piece on this possible trade, we believe 13:55:18 2 that industry can accommodate whatever increase 13:55:20 3 in production might come from moving the Ares I 13:55:23 4 into the Delta IV EELV human-rated family. 13:55:36 5 However, we're quick to point out that the 13:55:36 6 industrial base includes the large solid rocket 13:55:36 7 motor industrial base, and that becomes a 13:55:39 8 concern as we thought about the overall 13:55:39 9 architecture at large. 13:55:41 10 We recognized the Delta IV Heavy can 13:55:44 11 use some of the existing Ares I hardware 13:55:47 12 infrastructure -- ground processing and 13:55:47 13 infrastructure, and we tried to take of 13:55:52 14 advantage of that in our assessments wherever we 13:55:54 15 could. 13:55:58 16 You just heard from ULA that they 13:55:58 17 preferred SLC 37A. That would work. We 13:56:00 18 actually preferred SLC 39 a bit more, but both 13:56:04 19 of those options are attainable, depending on 13:56:06 20 which way you wanted to go and how you worked 13:56:08 21 the ground processing piece. 13:56:11 22 The Aerospace recommended option is 13:56:15 204 1 for the human-rated Delta IV Heavy with a 13:56:15 2 cluster of four resigned RL-10 engines. That 13:56:16 3 gives an engine-out ability, which we think is 13:56:20 4 important, and it allows a different kind of 13:56:23 5 thrusting and orbit insertion and a different 13:56:26 6 kind of thrust level than you would need with 13:56:29 7 only one engine. And that became our 13:56:31 8 recommended option among the six we looked at. 13:56:33 9 It is important to recognize as 13:56:36 10 well -- and this plays into the remainder of our 13:56:38 11 findings -- once you make that decision to go 13:56:40 12 with any combination of RL-10 engines assuming, 13:56:42 13 as we did, that the Constellation program is 13:56:47 14 still the program of record, which means that 13:56:51 15 you need a big rocket and that big rocket is the 13:56:54 16 Ares V. 13:56:56 17 Now you have to deal with what are you 13:56:57 18 going to do about the solid rocket motor 13:56:58 19 industrial base and who's going to take care of 13:57:00 20 the J-2X engine development. As you would 13:57:03 21 appropriately determine, because both the Ares I 13:57:07 22 and the Ares V use the J-2X engine, then those 13:57:11 205 1 developmental costs are borne by the Ares I 13:57:13 2 program. 13:57:14 3 So if that went away, now that burden 13:57:15 4 of developing that engine shifts over to the 13:57:18 5 Ares V program, and we'll see that when our cost 13:57:21 6 findings show up here in just a minute. Next 13:57:23 7 chart. 13:57:23 8 So the story now moves from the 13:57:26 9 technical ability to use a Delta IV Heavy human 13:57:28 10 rated in a number of configurations to 13:57:31 11 accomplish the mission then and then to what 13:57:37 12 does it mean to the Constellation at large. 13:57:39 13 So we start out with the idea of we're 13:57:42 14 talking about 14 flights to LEO, to the ISS and 13:57:45 15 lunar orbit targets, and we're presuming that 13:57:47 16 NASA's job is to still take humans beyond low 13:57:53 17 Earth orbit to accomplish the Moon mission and 13:57:53 18 eventually the Mars mission. So, again, we did 13:57:57 19 not attempt to change that architecture at all. 13:57:58 20 If you went with one upper stage -- 13:58:02 21 one RL-10 engine upper stage and delivery to 13:58:04 22 those two orbits, we believe that you could save 13:58:08 206 1 about $6 billion relative to the Ares I program 13:58:12 2 of record. Remember that we believe the 13:58:17 3 performance margins there are a bit closer than 13:58:19 4 they would be with our recommendation of four 13:58:22 5 RL-10's. 13:58:24 6 If you move into our recommendation of 13:58:25 7 the four RL-10's, we find the savings to be 13:58:28 8 about $3 billion from the Ares I program of 13:58:31 9 record. 13:58:36 10 And if you decide you're really going 13:58:36 11 to use the Ares I upper stage with the J-2X 13:58:37 12 engine on top of the human-rated Delta IV, we 13:58:37 13 think the cost comes out about the same in that 13:58:42 14 trade. 13:58:44 15 But immediately one must recognize for 13:58:45 16 all of those options there are some increases in 13:58:49 17 the present cost profile for the Ares V program. 13:58:51 18 Particularly if you choose an option that does 13:58:55 19 not have the J-2X engine, then those costs are 13:58:55 20 going to shift to the Ares V program and have to 13:58:59 21 be borne by it in order to have the J-2X engine 13:59:01 22 ready for that rocket. 13:59:06 207 1 So we find that those cost uppers for 13:59:07 2 the Ares V program would be somewhere between 13:59:10 3 1.1 and that $3.6 billion, depending on which of 13:59:13 4 these other options you choose and period of 13:59:16 5 implementation and some of those details. 13:59:18 6 If one cancels the Ares I program, 13:59:21 7 NASA asserts to Aerospace -- and it was a given 13:59:25 8 in our study -- that it has to add back a 13:59:29 9 substantial amount of funding in order to 13:59:32 10 accomplish the Constellation architecture 13:59:34 11 mission as originally given to them. 13:59:40 12 You can see in the final bullets 13:59:42 13 there, there are elements of that number that 13:59:44 14 NASA has given to us of between 14 and 13:59:48 15 $16 billion. There are industrial-based issues 13:59:52 16 there. There are sustainment of the workforce 13:59:54 17 issues. There are the increased costs of 13:59:59 18 development of the J-2X if you're now not doing 14:00:01 19 that under the Ares I program. 14:00:04 20 We've called one of those elements in 14:00:06 21 the middle bullet there about increased DDT&E 14:00:09 22 cost to the Ares V program. Those costs might 14:00:09 208 1 be partially or perhaps even fully accounted for 14:00:14 2 in NASA's number, but the point is NASA has 14:00:16 3 confirmed that if we went to the Delta IV Heavy 14:00:20 4 they believe at this moment that they would have 14:00:24 5 a requirement for this much additional money 14:00:27 6 back into the program to accomplish the mission 14:00:30 7 they've been given. Next chart, please. 14:00:33 8 With regard to schedule, we believe 14:00:34 9 that human rating of the Delta IV is on the 14:00:37 10 order of 5.5 to 7 years. That is Aerospace's 14:00:41 11 conservative estimate. No doubt there's some 14:00:41 12 time in there to get started. The go-ahead for 14:00:49 13 that would certainly not be today. And we've 14:00:49 14 done conservative things, as you would expect us 14:00:54 15 to do, as we contemplated historical times for 14:00:56 16 human development activity, and we believe it's 14:00:59 17 in the range of 5-1/2 to 7 years. 14:01:01 18 We did not compare that and a date on 14:01:04 19 a calendar to what Ares I is doing. We accept 14:01:06 20 the IOC as presently given for the Ares I 14:01:10 21 program, and this is simply a statement of how 14:01:13 22 long we think this program would take. 14:01:17 209 1 We think the ground facilities and the 14:01:17 2 launch vehicle and components actually are 14:01:17 3 pretty close to their critical path. Both of 14:01:20 4 them are going to take some amount of time. We 14:01:22 5 think Orion need not be on the critical path 14:01:25 6 because it's farther along, and if you want to 14:01:28 7 redesign a new upper stage, you can shift the 14:01:29 8 preponderance of that technical burden over to 14:01:33 9 the new upper stage and try to disrupt Orion as 14:01:35 10 little as possible. So we think there's a way 14:01:40 11 to work that. 14:01:43 12 With regard to the Ares V schedule, 14:01:44 13 it, again, depends on programmatic and program 14:01:44 14 management activities. With more time for the 14:01:47 15 Ares V program, the schedule actually could be 14:01:51 16 positively impacted. But if on the other hand 14:01:54 17 NASA were to cancel the Ares I program and wait 14:01:57 18 a long time before it turned its attention to 14:02:02 19 the Ares V program, there could actually be 14:02:06 20 damage. So the opportunities there exist to 14:02:07 21 actually help the Ares V schedule. 14:02:10 22 We see nothing inherent about using a 14:02:12 210 1 Delta IV Heavy that detracts from the Ares V 14:02:12 2 schedule other than one now needs to really pay 14:02:16 3 close attention to this industrial base issue to 14:02:19 4 make sure those capabilities are there for you 14:02:22 5 when you need them. 14:02:23 6 The same thing with the Orion 14:02:25 7 schedule. NASA has indicated to us that if you 14:02:26 8 move the Orion over to a new or redesigned upper 14:02:29 9 stage it might take as much as a year to 14:02:32 10 revalidate, recertify, requalify the interfaces. 14:02:39 11 Even if you're not redesigning that capsule, you 14:02:39 12 need to now make sure it's going to fit on the 14:02:43 13 new upper stage that you've decided to do if you 14:02:45 14 put it on a Delta IV instead of the Ares 14:02:48 15 vehicle. 14:02:51 16 And we would say that in all cases, if 14:02:52 17 such a decision were made, those decisions need 14:02:54 18 to happen immediately so that planning can begin 14:02:57 19 and long lead items can occur and all of the 14:03:00 20 things that would be required not to have that 14:03:03 21 schedule slip. 14:03:06 22 We were also asked to contemplate what 14:03:07 211 1 the effects might be on National Security Space. 14:03:10 2 And, again, it could be positive, and it could 14:03:13 3 be detrimental, depending on your point of view. 14:03:14 4 Certainly more production of EELVs for 14:03:18 5 more than one customer would serve to bolster 14:03:22 6 supplier chain robustness. It would have the 14:03:27 7 opportunity to bring down costs for all 14:03:30 8 customers potentially. It perhaps would get 14:03:32 9 suppliers and factories running back closer to 14:03:36 10 the kinds of capabilities and capacities they 14:03:36 11 had in mind when they designed those. 14:03:38 12 On the other hand, as was mentioned by 14:03:40 13 both previous briefers, you could wind up with 14:03:43 14 two configurations of the Delta IV Heavy in the 14:03:47 15 same plant. One would have to understand what 14:03:48 16 differences those make -- if the human-rated 14:03:51 17 Delta IV is a slightly different vehicle than 14:03:52 18 the non-human rated -- and those issues would 14:03:55 19 have to be managed. We think they could be and 14:03:58 20 that would be easily accommodated. 14:04:01 21 You could wind up with a single 14:04:03 22 vehicle that accommodates both users, and one 14:04:05 212 1 would have to really understand what the payload 14:04:07 2 capacity is for that vehicle in light of all of 14:04:10 3 the missions that it now has to do on behalf of 14:04:13 4 the National Security Space programs. 14:04:16 5 We think that the idea of National 14:04:21 6 Security Space and NASA working alongside could 14:04:23 7 be managed to the good of the nation, but it 14:04:26 8 would be something that everyone would need to 14:04:30 9 pay attention to. 14:04:32 10 And we think the pad and range issues, 14:04:33 11 regardless of which pad you go to, are 14:04:36 12 manageable and doable as both presenters prior 14:04:40 13 to me have indicated. 14:04:43 14 So finally, just to reiterate, the 14:04:45 15 Constellation architecture as designed by NASA 14:04:49 16 in 2005 is an architecture, and it behaves like 14:04:52 17 an architecture. The Ares I program feeds into 14:04:53 18 the Ares V program. Developmental costs for 14:04:54 19 engines are borne in the early part of the 14:04:56 20 program and then used in both segments of the 14:04:56 21 program. 14:04:56 22 So when one starts contemplating 14:05:00 213 1 replacing pieces of that architecture, all kinds 14:05:03 2 of things begin to happen, as you see here. You 14:05:08 3 see industrial sustainment costs, workforce 14:05:10 4 issues, perhaps pad issues that you hadn't 14:05:14 5 contemplated. 14:05:17 6 So when viewing the particular small 14:05:18 7 slice of can the Delta IV Heavy take humans to 14:05:21 8 low Earth orbit for less than the Ares I, the 14:05:25 9 Aerospace Center answer is, depending on which 14:05:28 10 option you pick, yes, quickly followed by are 14:05:31 11 you still going to build an Ares V and do you 14:05:33 12 still want to maintain that infrastructure, at 14:05:33 13 which time frankly the total cost of the total 14:05:37 14 mission for NASA depends heavily on what NASA 14:05:39 15 needs to do to sustain that program should such 14:05:42 16 a decision be made. 14:05:46 17 Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to 14:05:48 18 present this initial look into our work, and I'd 14:05:50 19 be happy to entertain your questions. 14:05:53 20 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much. 14:05:56 21 We've got, I think, just a couple of minutes if 14:05:58 22 anybody has questions. 14:05:58 214 1 MR. BEJMUK: I have a question, Norm. 14= :05:58 2 MR. AUGUSTINE: Okay. Fine. We've 14:05:58 3 got two here. I saw both. 14:05:58 4 MR. BEJMUK: You go first this time. 14:06:00 5 MR. GREASON: All right. I've got 14:06:00 6 two, but they're quick. I just want to make 14:06:06 7 sure I'm not misreading what's in here. 14:06:09 8 The no upper stage option for the 14:06:11 9 existing Orion capsule, that's the same service 14:06:13 10 module that was already previously planned -- is 14:06:18 11 that correct -- and it just burns to do -- 14:06:19 12 MR. PULLIAM: Yes. 14:06:00 13 MR. GREASON: -- the rest of the 14:06:00 14 Delta V? 14:06:21 15 If it were true that we had the 14:06:26 16 ability to do RNO propellant supply, then you 14:06:27 17 could also do the next piece of the mission by 14:06:29 18 putting the gas back in, right? 14:06:32 19 MR. PULLIAM: I'm looking at my expert 14:06:34 20 across the room. 14:06:36 21 MR. JOHNSON: We'd have to look at 14:06:37 22 that. 14:06:25 215 1 MR. GREASON: Okay. 14:06:25 2 MR. PULLIAM: We didn't study it for 14:06:25 3 this. 14:06:38 4 MR. GREASON: Okay. No problem. And 14:06:38 5 the second very quick one is -- you said that 14:06:38 6 this 5.5- to 7-year human rating development 14:06:40 7 time is based on the past historical experience, 14:06:43 8 but the only past historical experience I can 14:06:47 9 think of is when we put people on the original 14:06:49 10 Atlas and the original Titan. 14:06:50 11 What did it take to human rate those 14:06:52 12 vehicles? 14:06:55 13 MR. PULLIAM: Can you help me, Ray? 14:06:56 14 MR. JOHNSON: Well, we went through 14:06:58 15 much the same process. They had to look at 14:07:00 16 things like redundant actuators on the ends, you 14:07:00 17 know, they had to look at structural margins and 14:07:01 18 things like that. 14:07:04 19 MR. GREASON: But it took 5.5 to 14:07:05 20 7 years? 14:07:08 21 MR. JOHNSON: We'd have to go back and 14:07:11 22 look at that. I think that those were done much 14:07:14 216 1 more quickly under the circumstances, but we 14:07:15 2 based it on what they have looked at for the 14:07:18 3 human rating of other systems. But also it's 14:07:19 4 just simply the development of recent space how 14:07:22 5 long it's taken is part of what we looked at. 14:07:25 6 MR. PULLIAM: This is Mr. Ray Johnson, 14:07:25 7 who manages our entire group for launch vehicles 14:07:25 8 at the Aerospace Corporation. 14:07:25 9 So it is a conservative estimate. 14:07:30 10 We'd be delighted if it were less than that, but 14:07:32 11 as we looked at the things that we think go into 14:07:36 12 it and how long we would take, we came up with 14:07:37 13 that bound of 5.5 to 7. 14:07:39 14 MR. AUGUSTINE: Yes, sir. 14:07:43 15 MR. BEJMUK: The question: If you 14:07:43 16 replace Ares I with Delta IV Heavy, production 14:07:45 17 of solid rocket segments goes from -- to support 14:07:50 18 the shuttle is around 50 a year. For Ares I 14:07:57 19 that drops down to some smaller number and then 14:08:01 20 later picks up when you bring on Ares V. 14:08:05 21 In this scenario -- and I don't know 14:08:08 22 if you guys had a chance to look at that -- if 14:08:09 217 1 you, let's say, propose and get Delta IV to fly 14:08:12 2 to ISS, you essentially want to cease production 14:08:17 3 of the solid segments until you ultimately start 14:08:20 4 needing it for Ares V. 14:08:26 5 And the question is: Is it possible 14:08:27 6 that we are killing a country's capability to do 14:08:29 7 those solid motors? 14:08:34 8 MR. PULLIAM: Well, you put your 14:08:35 9 finger right on what we believe is one of the 14:08:37 10 critical issues surrounding any alternative one 14:08:37 11 might choose, and you've said it -- 14:08:40 12 MR. BEJMUK: Did you have it in your 14:08:40 13 briefing? I missed it, I guess, if you did. 14:08:42 14 MR. PULLIAM: We did do some work on 14:08:43 15 that which will hopefully be releasable when the 14:08:46 16 more detailed work comes out. 14:08:47 17 We do acknowledge exactly, as you've 14:08:49 18 said, that now there are two primary 14:08:51 19 manufacturers of solid rocket motors and only 14:08:54 20 one those is the manufacturer of large segmented 14:08:57 21 solids. The Ares I is intended to have a 14:08:57 22 five-segment solid. The Ares V is intended to 14:09:03 218 1 have a 5-1/2-segment solid. So that is all 14:09:07 2 understood from an industrial capacity. 14:09:12 3 If you cease building the Ares I, then 14:09:13 4 the big question becomes do you still need to 14:09:16 5 have the ability to produce segmented solids in 14:09:18 6 a few years, and if you're going to build an 14:09:19 7 Ares V, the answer to that is yes. 14:09:20 8 So then the next question becomes how 14:09:22 9 do you do that. And NASA can give you the 14:09:25 10 particulars, but that is a key factor in that 14:09:28 11 number that they believe is required of them to 14:09:31 12 sustain that kind of capability over the years. 14:09:34 13 So, you know, one can take excursions 14:09:36 14 on other ways of doing the large rocket, but, 14:09:39 15 again, for purposes of our scope for this 14:09:42 16 program, we did look at that. We understand 14:09:45 17 that if you -- from a capacity perspective, if 14:09:48 18 you stopped building segmented solids for a 14:09:50 19 while until you needed them, that the resultant 14:09:54 20 capacity in that industry should be viable, but 14:09:57 21 I'm not the person trying to run that industry. 14:10:01 22 I mean, the other supplier of that 14:10:03 219 1 industry operates at about the level that the 14:10:06 2 first supplier would wind up at. But what 14:10:09 3 happens to the people and the tools and the 14:10:09 4 artisans and the techniques and the recipes 14:10:09 5 and -- and the strike and missile defense area 14:10:15 6 certainly would not sustain both of those 14:10:17 7 suppliers. 14:10:20 8 So we believe that if one is serious 14:10:21 9 about moving away from the Ares I that there's 14:10:23 10 still a bit of work to do there so that we 14:10:26 11 really understand the effect of large segmented 14:10:29 12 solids on the industrial base and what that 14:10:32 13 means to the nation. 14:10:33 14 MR. BEJMUK: Thank you. 14:10:35 15 MR. AUGUSTINE: Okay. Last question. 14:10:35 16 MR. CHIAO: Yeah. I was just 14:10:37 17 wondering if you had done any PRA for loss of 14:10:38 18 crew/loss of mission using this configuration? 14:10:41 19 MR. PULLIAM: We did not consider that 14:10:41 20 for this one. It was more of a technical cost 14:10:42 21 and schedule feasibility study. 14:10:45 22 MR. CHIAO: Okay. Thank you. 14:10:37 220 1 MR. CHYBA: Mr. Chairman, just an 14:10:49 2 information request. Clearly this 5.5- to 14:10:49 3 7-year human rating time scale is a very 14:10:52 4 important time scale. I'd like to ask if we 14:10:53 5 could be given by Aerospace more detail -- 14:10:56 6 MR. PULLIAM: Absolutely. 14:10:56 7 MR. CHYBA: -- on the origin of that 14:10:59 8 number, perhaps something in -- 14:11:01 9 MR. PULLIAM: Absolutely. 10 MR. CHYBA: -- writing explaining the 11 origin in detail. 12 MR. PULLIAM: There's, as you might 13 expect -- 14 MR. CHYBA: Thanks. 14:11:03 15 MR. PULLIAM: -- enormous technical 14:11:03 16 underpinning to all of these, and while we're 14:11:05 17 pleased to bring to you what is releasable 14:11:06 18 today, we recognize that the committee might 14:11:10 19 desire to get some of the details behind these. 14:11:10 20 We'll be happy to do that. 14:11:12 21 MR. AUGUSTINE: Gary, I had a similar 14:11:13 22 request. It relates to the industrial base 14:11:15 221 1 backup data and the human resource backup data. 14:11:17 2 MR. PULLIAM: We'll be happy to. 14:11:21 3 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much. 14:11:22 4 MR. PULLIAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14:11:24 5 MR. AUGUSTINE: We appreciate it. 14:11:25 6 Okay. We will now talk about some 14:11:28 7 more commercial launch capability options. And 14:11:29 8 the first one we'll talk about is the NASA COTS 14:11:32 9 program. I think Doug Cooke is going to make 14:11:36 10 that presentation. 14:11:38 11 And we've got four presentations in 14:11:41 12 one hour and a half. And so if I've done my 14:11:47 13 arithmetic right, it says we've got like 14:11:50 14 20 minutes including questions per each. So 14:11:54 15 we'd appreciate that. 14:11:57 16 MR. COOKE: Right. I will try to keep 14:12:02 17 this short because I should give the companies a 14:12:04 18 chance to talk about what they're doing. 14:12:05 19 We, in the Exploration Systems Mission 14:12:08 20 Directorate, have the management of the 14:12:11 21 commercial crew and cargo effort at NASA, known 14:12:13 22 as COTS. And I guess we're looking for charts. 14:12:17 222 1 But that is something that we've had 14:12:24 2 in place and it's an effort that we're proud of. 14:12:26 3 We can go ahead to the next chart. 14:12:30 4 You can point back -- and let's go 14:12:31 5 ahead and go beyond that. I'm going to talk 14:12:33 6 about these subjects. Let's go to the next one. 14:12:36 7 You can point back in terms of 14:12:39 8 national policy in space all of the way back to 14:12:41 9 the original space act in its promotion of 14:12:44 10 commercial use of space. 14:12:48 11 More recently in 2004 with the vision 14:12:49 12 for space exploration, also known the National 14:12:52 13 Space Exploration Policy, there was specific 14:12:55 14 interest in promoting commercial participation 14:13:00 15 in exploration. There was also talk about 14:13:03 16 providing for pursuing the provision of 14:13:08 17 transportation to low Earth orbit by commercial 14:13:13 18 capabilities. 14:13:18 19 The authorization acts of 2005 and 14:13:19 20 2008 supported this, and so we've been on that 14:13:24 21 path. If we can go to the next chart. 14:13:27 22 We established the Commercial Crew and 14:13:30 223 1 Cargo Program down at Johnson Space Center in 14:13:39 2 2005 to lead this effort. It's a small office 14:13:42 3 down there. And their objectives are to 14:13:45 4 implement the space policy and to facilitate 14:13:48 5 U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and 14:13:52 6 crew capabilities. 14:13:59 7 A particular tenet of all of this is 14:14:01 8 that this effort is the development and 14:14:04 9 demonstration of this kind of capability, and 14:14:09 10 what NASA does in this approach is to invest in 14:14:11 11 these developments. It's not a funded contract 14:14:15 12 per se. These are Space Act Agreements that we 14:14:20 13 have, and we are investing in their 14:14:22 14 capabilities, as they move through them. And 14:14:25 15 I'll talk a little bit more about how that's 14:14:27 16 done. 14:14:30 17 And so we have a goal of achieving 14:14:30 18 safe, reliable and cost effective access to low 14:14:32 19 Earth orbit and create a market environment for 14:14:35 20 this type of capability. We can go to the next 14:14:36 21 chart. 14:14:39 22 As a part of this, in the budget, we 14:14:39 224 1 have had a $500 million bucket that we have 14:14:47 2 applied to this capability, these investments. 14:14:51 3 We have been through two competitions 14:14:56 4 on this. We're actually -- in terms of 14:14:58 5 commercial crew and cargo, we're in -- and in 14:15:01 6 this case, it's cargo -- we have two phases. 14:15:07 7 The first phase is a development and 14:15:10 8 demonstration phase where we are making those 14:15:14 9 investments. The second phase is actually a 14:15:16 10 procurement of these services once the 14:15:20 11 capabilities are developed. And I believe Mike 14:15:22 12 Suffredini is going to talk about that second 14:15:25 13 phase. 14:15:28 14 In Phase 1, in going back in history, 14:15:28 15 in August of 2006 we selected two companies for 14:15:31 16 funded Space Act Agreements. 14:15:35 17 One was SpaceX, and that was for an 14:15:38 18 amount of 278 million over a period of years. 14:15:41 19 We are still going through that. The money is 14:15:45 20 tied to milestones and development of different 14:15:48 21 types of milestones, both funding and technical. 14:15:53 22 We also at that time selected 14:15:57 225 1 Rocketplane Kistler as a recipient at -- I can't 14:16:00 2 remember -- I believe it's 208 million -- for 14:16:07 3 another funded Space Act Agreement. We actually 14:16:13 4 terminated that later because they could not 14:16:17 5 make the milestones. And then we had another 14:16:20 6 solicitation in which we awarded a Space Act 14:16:24 7 Agreement to Orbital Sciences in February of 14:16:28 8 last year. 14:16:32 9 So in Phase 1 we've had two different 14:16:34 10 solicitations, and we now have two funded Space 14:16:39 11 Act Agreements on board that are progressing. 14:16:42 12 And I'll leave the Phase 2 procurement 14:16:46 13 part of this to the final presentation because 14:16:47 14 they'll talk about that in more detail. If we 14:16:50 15 go to the next chart. 14:16:50 16 This is a diagram that talks about -- 14:16:53 17 it talks about the COTS effort and the types of 14:16:58 18 capabilities that we look to. And you hear 14:17:04 19 about capability -- COTS-D and that sort of 14:17:06 20 thing. 14:17:09 21 So what we have is we have COTS-A, 14:17:09 22 which is external cargo delivery and disposal. 14:17:11 226 1 We have COTS-B, which is internal cargo delivery 14:17:15 2 and disposal. We have COTS-C, which is internal 14:17:18 3 cargo delivery and return -- return of cargo in 14:17:23 4 that case. And then COTS-D is commercial crew 14:17:27 5 transport. So when you hear these terms, that's 14:17:32 6 what they represent. 14:17:35 7 And when we had the solicitations, the 14:17:36 8 companies bid against those different 14:17:40 9 capabilities, and they did not have to bid 14:17:43 10 against all of them. So we had different 14:17:45 11 approaches to how this would be done. If we can 14:17:48 12 go to the next one. 14:17:49 13 So we have, as I said, two funded 14:17:49 14 Space Act Agreements. The one we selected first 14:17:55 15 that's still on board is SpaceX. They bid at 14:17:58 16 278 million for the cargo part of this. And 14:18:04 17 also in that proposal they proposed crew 14:18:08 18 capability at 308 million. It is with a 14:18:13 19 Falcon 9 vehicle with a dragon crew and cargo 14:18:18 20 development. 14:18:25 21 We are funded actually for only the 14:18:25 22 cargo part. So that's the part we're currently 14:18:28 227 1 pursuing. If we go to the next one. 14:18:31 2 The next one is Orbital Sciences, and, 14:18:33 3 once again, we selected this last year. This 14:18:37 4 was $170 million award, once again, tied to 14:18:41 5 milestone payments. And it has a pressurized 14= :18:45 6 module that's based on the Space Station MPLM, 14:18:49 7 the logistics module, and it has unpressurized 14:18:57 8 capability. And they launch out of Wallops. 14:19:02 9 The SpaceX rocket is at Pad 40C at the Cape. 14:19:07 10 So both these have demonstrations that 14:19:14 11 they get to. And that is as far as COTS -- this 14:19:17 12 part of the effort, COTS Phase I, takes it. So 14:19:21 13 we're, once again, in development and 14:19:26 14 demonstration, and we reach culmination of that 14:19:29 15 as these capabilities are demonstrated. So if 14:19:33 16 we can go to the next one. 14:19:36 17 We do have two unfunded Space Act 14:19:38 18 Agreements at this point, one with SpaceDev and 14:19:40 19 one with PlanetSpace. And we do interact with 14:19:44 20 them, but these are unfunded. So we don't -- 14:19:50 21 but they are Space Act Agreements, and we work 14:19:52 22 with them. And the next chart. 14:19:55 228 1 So the next two charts you can't read 14:19:57 2 but -- I can't either in this case but -- and I 14:20:00 3 don't intend to. But this is for the committee. 14:20:05 4 And for reference, these are the -- what I've 14:20:08 5 got listed on the next two pages are the 14:20:12 6 milestones and the plan dates for those as of 14:20:16 7 the different revs of the Space Act Agreements, 14:20:19 8 and it actually shows the amounts that are 14:20:23 9 awarded with each milestone. These were 14:20:25 10 negotiated in the Space Act Agreement, and so 14:20:28 11 we're stepping through those at this point. 14:20:30 12 And for SpaceX we have awarded -- I 14:20:34 13 believe it's about 234 million out of 278- at 14:20:38 14 this point, and with Orbital Sciences we're at 14:20:44 15 100- out of 170-. So these represent milestones 14:20:48 16 and progress on these efforts. So this is the 14:20:53 17 way in which we invest in these capabilities. 14:20:57 18 So with that, I want to move on to 14:21:01 19 just another short topic on this subject. Go to 14:21:03 20 the next slide. 14:21:07 21 In the American Recovery and 14:21:07 22 Reinvestment Act, Exploration received 14:21:12 229 1 $400 million. That's where it's allocated to 14:21:14 2 Exploration. 14:21:18 3 150- of this is planned for the 14:21:19 4 commercial crew and cargo effort, and it's shown 14:21:21 5 delineated here. 14:21:25 6 80 million is actually for 14:21:26 7 solicitation in order to get proposals on 14:21:29 8 developing capabilities that will make progress 14:21:36 9 toward the crew capability. 14:21:41 10 There's $42 million to accelerate the 14:21:43 11 development of a docking system that would help 14:21:46 12 in terms of the crew capability and support of 14:21:48 13 the Space Station. 14:21:54 14 There's 20 million to advance some of 14:21:55 15 the work in getting to confidence in the 14:21:57 16 capability for -- as a part of the cargo 14:22:02 17 development. 14:22:06 18 And then there's an $8 million piece 14:22:06 19 of this that's allocated to working on 14:22:08 20 collecting and putting in one place the human 14:22:14 21 rating -- a set of human-rating requirements. 14:22:17 22 Right now we have a human-rating 14:22:21 230 1 requirements document, but it has fingers into a 14:22:22 2 lot of different requirements and standards 14:22:27 3 across the agency. This would be an effort to 14:22:28 4 try to make that a more collected set of 14:22:32 5 information that would help any needs in 14:22:35 6 developing this kind of capability. 14:22:41 7 And with that, I'll conclude, and 14:22:43 8 we're ready to move on. 14:22:45 9 (Inaudible.) 14:22:46 10 MR. AUGUSTINE: Let's see. SpaceX is 14:22:46 11 next. Elon Musk. 14:22:58 12 MR. MUSK: All right. I think we're 14:23:16 13 just waiting for the slides to pop up. There we 14:23:18 14 go. 14:23:18 15 That's just a photo of Falcon 9 on the 14:23:21 16 launch pad at Cape Canaveral. That's a real 14:23:45 17 photo. It's not touched up or anything. 14:23:46 18 And that's the vehicle that will be 14:23:49 19 carrying cargo to the Space Station. We'll do 14:23:50 20 our first test flight later this year carrying 14:23:53 21 our Dragon spacecraft, and then next year we'll 14:23:58 22 be doing our first flight that actually goes to 14:23:58 231 1 the Space Station carrying cargo and bringing it 14:24:01 2 back. 14:24:03 3 I mean, before I -- one thing I think 14:24:04 4 it's very important for the public to realize is 14:24:07 5 that we're currently on a path to sole source 14:24:11 6 human space flight to the Russians. I don't 14:24:14 7 think this is really -- people have quite 14:24:19 8 realized this in the general public, but that's 14:24:20 9 what's going to happen right after the space 14:24:24 10 shuttle retires -- we're sole sourced to the 14:24:27 11 Russians and will be so until there is an 14:24:31 12 alternative. 14:24:33 13 We believe we can eliminate that gap 14:24:35 14 or substantially reduce it at least, and I think 14:24:36 15 it would be money very well spent to have an 14:24:40 16 American entrant into that race rather than the 14:24:42 17 current Space Station situation. Next slide. 14:24:45 18 SpaceX is about seven years old, but 14:24:47 19 the primary goal of SpaceX is actually 14:24:54 20 reliability and it's not reducing costs, 14:24:56 21 although we do reduce costs quite a bit as well. 14:24:59 22 We have about 800 employees who are growing at 14:25:05 232 1 about 50 percent a year. We're in California, 14:25:07 2 Texas and Florida primarily. 14:25:08 3 And really the whole purpose of SpaceX 14:25:11 4 from the very beginning has been human space 14:25:15 5 flight. That's the very reason I founded the 14:25:18 6 company and created it. So next slide. 14:25:20 7 We've been able to get a lot of 14:25:22 8 customers on board at SpaceX. So in addition to 14:25:24 9 NASA and the Defense Department, we've got a 14:25:26 10 Sweden, Malaysia, Canada, a number of commercial 14:25:28 11 providers, all whom have done technical and 14:25:33 12 financial due diligence on SpaceX and concluded 14:25:36 13 that SpaceX is a wise bet and put down deposits 14:25:37 14 for launches. Next slide. 14:25:44 15 We reached orbit last year with 14:25:44 16 Falcon 1. Falcon 1 is a complete ground-up 14:25:44 17 development. So we developed the main engine, 14:25:51 18 the upper stage engine, the structures, the 14:25:54 19 avionics, the launch infrastructure and launched 14:25:56 20 the rocket with cryogenic propellant from a 14:25:56 21 remote tropical island, which is not easy. 14:26:02 22 So it's also important to note that 14:26:05 233 1 there are huge lessons learned in Falcon 1 going 14:26:07 2 to Falcon 9. In fact, much of the same hardware 14:26:13 3 that's in Falcon 1 goes into Falcon 9. 14:26:16 4 And as far as the engine is 14:26:19 5 concerned -- and there were some questions 14:26:21 6 raised earlier about the engines -- there have 14:26:22 7 only been three engines developed in the 14:26:26 8 United States that have seen orbital flight in 14:26:29 9 the last -- since, I think, the space shuttle 14:26:29 10 main engine about -- almost 30 years ago is when 14:26:33 11 it was developed. One of them was the RS-68, 14:26:35 12 which is used in the Delta IV. The other two 14:26:38 13 are the Merlin and Kestrel engines developed by 14:26:41 14 SpaceX, which are hydrocarbon engines. Next 14:26:45 15 slide. 14:26:48 16 Here you can see some pictures of 14:26:49 17 Falcon 1 getting prepared for its next flight. 14:26:50 18 It will be carrying a satellite for Malaysia. 14:26:53 19 Next slide. 14:26:53 20 I'm going to go very quickly through 14:26:56 21 these slides since I only have 20 minutes. 14:26:57 22 We've made substantial reductions in 14:26:59 234 1 costs across the board in our engines structures 14:27:02 2 avionics and launch operation. 14:27:05 3 Again, I'm going to be reemphasizing 14:27:09 4 this many times. Falcon 9 was designed from the 14:27:13 5 beginning to be a human-carrying vessel. 14:27:17 6 It also has something which people 14:27:20 7 have taken for granted in airliners, which is 14:27:22 8 engine-out capability. So I think a lot of 14:27:26 9 people would be uncomfortable getting on an 14:27:27 10 airliner where -- with one engine, and yet 14:27:29 11 that's par for the course in rockets. In fact, 14:27:33 12 in a lot of rockets it's even worse than that. 14:27:37 13 Because you may have three engines and if any 14:27:40 14 one of those fails, the mission fails. 14:27:43 15 With Falcon 9 we've designed it in a 14:27:47 16 way similar to the Saturn I and Saturn V, which 14:27:48 17 had engine-out capability. If you lose an 14:27:52 18 engine, it doesn't matter. You can still 14:27:53 19 complete the mission. Next slide. 14:27:56 20 There's a lot of videos on our 14:27:58 21 website. If people are curious, just go to 14:28:04 22 spacex.com, and you can see engine test videos. 14:28:05 235 1 This year SpaceX will manufacture more 14:28:07 2 rocket engines than the rest of U.S. production 14:28:11 3 combined, in fact, more than any country except 14:28:14 4 Russia. Next year we expect to exceed Russia. 14:28:18 5 Next slide. 14:28:18 6 That's the base of Falcon 9. It bears 14:28:23 7 some resemblance to the base of the Saturn I, 14:28:26 8 which had eight engines rather than our nine. 14:28:28 9 Some pretty epic engine firing videos. Some 14:28:33 10 very funny videos on YouTube of the locals 14:28:37 11 observing the engine firings. Next slide. 14:28:44 12 Some pictures our factory in 14:28:47 13 Hawthorne. You can see our engine production 14:28:47 14 line. Next slide. 14:28:47 15 Here's Falcon 9 going through final 14:28:53 16 qualifications. We expect to be ready to launch 14:28:57 17 Falcon 9 later this year, and hopefully we'll 14:29:00 18 have the first and second flight stages on the 14:29:06 19 pad by the end of summer. So you can see 14:29:09 20 pictures of the factory and various stages of 14:29:12 21 the qualification. Next slide. 14:29:14 22 I'm going to go very quickly. This is 14:29:15 236 1 Falcon 9 on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. 14:29:21 2 Next slide. 14:29:21 3 More Cape Canaveral stuff. Next 14:29:26 4 slide. 14:29:31 5 There's Dragon. That's the full -- 14:29:31 6 (inaudible) -- structural test unit of our 14:29:38 7 Dragon spacecraft. Our Dragon spacecraft is 14:29:38 8 designed explicitly to meet the NASA 14:29:40 9 human-rating standards, and we're 90 percent 14:29:46 10 complete on that qualification. It's worth 14:29:48 11 noting that Dragon has five windows -- four 14:29:52 12 windows, I should say, and you don't need 14:29:53 13 windows for cargo, you know, to state the 14:29:55 14 obvious. Next slide. 14:29:58 15 Dragon going through structural 14:29:59 16 qualification testing. The two driving load 14:30:04 17 cases for Dragon are the -- worse-case abort. 14:30:07 18 So if the system aborts, the worse case, and you 14:30:12 19 have these reentry loads, you can have it coming 14:30:14 20 in at 15 or 16 G's. So it's designed to meet 14:30:16 21 those loads. It's also designed to meet the 14:30:20 22 loads associated with a launch escape tower. 14:30:23 237 1 Next slide. 14:30:23 2 That's more SpaceX hardware. I 14:30:23 3 forgot -- I almost forgot to mention -- our 14:30:29 4 Draco engine, that's our in-space engine. So 14:30:33 5 it's basically -- it's actually another -- a 14:30:34 6 third engine which is used for in-space 14:30:34 7 maneuvering for -- primarily for docking and 14:30:37 8 orbital translation. Next slide. 14:30:42 9 More hardware. This is our heat 14= :30:44 10 shield on the bottom left. We developed the 14:30:45 11 PICA-X, which is an improved form of PICA, in 14:30:49 12 conjunction with NASA Ames. Next slide. 14:30:51 13 More hardware. This is the 14:30:55 14 communications unit for communicating between 14:30:57 15 Dragon and the Space Station, and that will be 14:31:00 16 delivered at the end of the month. It's quite a 14:31:04 17 tricky thing to do. Also the crew command 14:31:06 18 panel. Next slide. 14:31:10 19 DragonEye, this is a LIDAR system 14:31:12 20 that's used to image the Space Station. As 14:31:12 21 Dragon approaches the Space Station, it's got to 14:31:12 22 figure out relative orientation and the approach 14:31:19 238 1 vectors and then plot a course to berth with the 14:31:21 2 Space Station. That's going to get flown on the 14:31:25 3 STS-127, which is currently on the pad. So it 14:31:28 4 will be tested before we even go up for this 14:31:32 5 Dragon mission. Next slide. 14:31:36 6 We've completed the Space Station 14:31:37 7 Safety Review Panel Phase 1 and most of 2. We 14:31:41 8 expect to finish Phase 3 in early next year. 14:31:42 9 It's important to appreciate that Dragon is -- 14:31:45 10 even for cargo, Dragon has to be human rated for 14:31:48 11 the approach to Space Station, for being at 14:31:52 12 Space Station and for leaving Space Station, 14:31:55 13 because there are people in Space Station. Next 14:31:57 14 slide. 14:32:01 15 We've done 14 of the 22 milestones on 14:32:01 16 schedule, all financing rounds and all design 14:32:06 17 reviews through critical design review. There 14:32:08 18 have been several major hardware milestones also 14:32:12 19 in there. 14:32:12 20 There's going to be some slips in the 14:32:15 21 remaining milestones, but we're talking about 14:32:16 22 slips that are measured in months, not years, 14:32:19 239 1 which is relatively minor in the space industry. 14:32:21 2 And so we're expecting to complete all 14:32:26 3 of our demonstrations next year -- by summer 14:32:29 4 next year. And next slide. 14:32:32 5 As I mentioned, crew capability is the 14:32:36 6 very reason SpaceX was founded. So we will do 14:32:39 7 whatever we need to do to make this happen. 14:32:42 8 Next slide. 14:32:46 9 So one of the advantages of using the 14:32:46 10 Dragon for crew is that it will already have 14:33:00 11 been flown many times with cargo. So you have 14:33:02 12 essentially the same vehicle, the same 14:33:05 13 spacecraft and the same rocket that will have 14:33:07 14 flown many times before you even put people on 14:33:10 15 board. This is a huge -- a risk-retirement 14:33:14 16 approach. So, you know, it should be pretty 14:33:18 17 safe by the time you'd want to put people in it. 14:33:21 18 Next slide. 14:33:24 19 Regarding the effects of safety, 14:33:24 20 again, we're designed to the 1.4 factor of 14:33:31 21 safety throughout the vehicle unequivocally. 14:33:35 22 The EELVs would require some work at least in 14:33:39 240 1 some places to get to 1.4. The Falcon 9 does 14:33:42 2 not. It was designed for that from the 14:33:46 3 beginning. Next slide. 14:33:50 4 So in terms of what is necessary to go 14:33:50 5 from the cargo Dragon to the crew Dragon, 14:33:56 6 there's only one major development item, and 14:34:00 7 that is the launch escape system. And that's 14:34:03 8 the driving -- that drives the schedule for 14:34:07 9 completion of crew capability, and that is an 14:34:08 10 approximately 24-month development cycle. 14:34:11 11 So we've already done the preliminary 14:34:15 12 design on that. We need to complete the design, 14:34:17 13 qualify it and test it. That two years -- 14:34:20 14 basically from the moment NASA says go, it's 14:34:22 15 about two years minimum to get that capability 14:34:25 16 working. 14:34:28 17 If you add some margin in there -- if 14:34:29 18 you add another six to nine months of margin, 14:34:31 19 that says, I think, comfortably under three 14:34:34 20 years to get -- from today to get human 14:34:37 21 capability. So that really eliminates the gap, 14:34:39 22 from our standpoint. 14:34:44 241 1 I mean -- I do agree, by the way, with 14:34:45 2 having both Soyuz flights and COTS crew flights 14:34:48 3 at the same time, you know, as planned for the 14:34:54 4 same year, because you want to make sure that 14:34:56 5 you -- that there's no gap there. 14:34:58 6 So I do agree with the approach that 14:35:00 7 the space operations director of NASA has to 14:35:05 8 purchase or use flights. I would do the same in 14:35:08 9 their position. I just think it makes sense to 14:35:14 10 turn on commercial crew capability and have it 14:35:16 11 planned for that same period of time. 14:35:20 12 We can also do what's called a 14:35:22 13 life-boat Dragon which is just an emergency 14:35:26 14 escape vehicle. We can do that a lot faster 14:35:29 15 than we could do the ascent phase because no 14:35:31 16 launch escape system is needed. So we could do 14:35:34 17 the life-boat Dragon in one and a half years, 14:35:37 18 which would improve the capability of the Space 14:35:41 19 Station because our Dragon -- our crew capsule 14:35:45 20 is capable of carrying seven people rather than 14:35:47 21 three people for the Soyuz escape vehicle. Next 14:35:50 22 slide. 14:35:55 242 1 So there's a lot of value that's been 14:35:55 2 delivered for -- under the COTS program. I 14:35:58 3 mean, if you compare this to almost any other 14:36:02 4 space development program, you say what did the 14:36:03 5 government get for $278 million -- actually they 14:36:05 6 haven't even paid 278 million -- 230 million. 14:36:08 7 This is pretty -- this would be pretty 14:36:13 8 darn high on the list of highest value for the 14:36:15 9 money. So, yeah. All right. Next slide. 14:36:18 10 So, yeah. Next slide. I think I've 14:36:18 11 probably got like two minutes left. 14:36:18 12 I think we've seen this slide. Next 14:36:18 13 slide. 14:36:21 14 So COTS is really an enabling function 14:36:21 15 for NASA. By having COTS, again, commercial 14:36:39 16 crew servicing of low Earth orbit activity at an 14:36:43 17 affordable cost, that is really -- that really 14:36:46 18 enables NASA to go beyond low Earth orbit, to go 14:36:48 19 to the Moon, to go to Mars and maybe go to an 14:36:51 20 astroid. 14:36:55 21 On the other hand, if NASA's budget 14:36:55 22 is -- has to be dedicated to low Earth orbit 14:36:59 243 1 servicing, then that's all NASA can do. And the 14:37:01 2 reality is that NASA is not going to get a giant 14:37:05 3 budget increase. 14:37:10 4 So it seems like the only way 14:37:11 5 forward -- the only way we're going to do 14:37:12 6 exciting things in human space flight is if 14:37:13 7 commercial companies handle the low Earth orbit 14:37:18 8 stuff and NASA focuses on the stuff beyond low 14:37:19 9 Earth orbit. Next slide. 14:37:24 10 That's it. Any questions? 14:37:26 11 MR. AUGUSTINE: Great. Elon, thank 14:37:28 12 you. 14:37:28 13 Are there questions? 14:37:29 14 Please, Chris... 14:37:34 15 MR. CHYBA: Thank you. On one of your 14:37:34 16 early slides on the Falcon 9, you included the 14:37:36 17 statement that it has a greater than five time 14:37:39 18 cost reduction compared to domestic competitors. 14:37:42 19 I simply don't understand what that's 14:37:46 20 trying to tell me. Can you elaborate on that? 14:37:46 21 MR. MUSK: Sure. That's just if you 14:37:50 22 take the cost of -- the average cost of an 14:37:52 244 1 ELV -- yeah -- and you compare that to our 14:37:55 2 vehicle it's somewhere around four or five X 14:38:01 3 difference. But Falcon 9 is about a $40 million 14:38:06 4 cost per flight -- per mission commercially. My 14:38:12 5 understanding is that if you had an equivalent 14:38:13 6 ELV you'd be paying closer to 200 million or 14:38:15 7 just below 200 million. 14:38:19 8 MR. CHYBA: Okay. Thank you. 14:37:34 9 MR. MUSK: But that's particularly 14:38:22 10 when you factor in the fact that there's 14:38:22 11 Air Force infrastructure payments that have to 14:38:25 12 be divided by those flights, which we do not 14:38:29 13 receive. 14:38:32 14 MR. AUGUSTINE: Leroy... 14:38:33 15 MR. CHIAO: Thank you for your 14:38:35 16 presentation. Congratulations on your success 14:38:35 17 to date. I had a question on Falcon 9 and 14:38:35 18 Dragon. 14:38:38 19 Assuming COTS-D goes forward, do you 14:38:39 20 have a test program identified for Falcon 9 14:38:44 21 before you'd have confidence to put a crew on 14:38:46 22 board? 14:38:46 245 1 MR. MUSK: Yeah. Absolutely. 14:38:35 2 MR. CHIAO: And how many flights do 14:38:35 3 you envision having to -- for that test program? 14:38:52 4 MR. MUSK: Well, I think we'd want to 14:38:57 5 have at least a dozen flights of Falcon 9 before 14:38:58 6 we put crew on board. But that's not going to 14:39:01 7 be a problem because, I mean, we have right now 14:39:03 8 21 flights on manifest already. 14:39:06 9 MR. CHIAO: Okay. And I assume also 14:39:09 10 you'd have a test program for your crew escape 14:39:10 11 system? 14:39:15 12 MR. MUSK: Yes. 14:39:15 13 MR. CHIAO: And would that be part of 14:38:35 14 that test program? Would it actually -- would 14:39:15 15 you test that system off of Falcon 9? 14:39:15 16 MR. MUSK: Yeah. There are two major 14:39:15 17 tests. There's the pad abort test, which we 14:39:15 18 don't -- we would not need the rocket for. That 14:39:22 19 could be done at White Sands or something like 14:39:25 20 that. And then there's a high altitude abort, 14:39:26 21 which is really the same cost as a mission, if 14:39:31 22 not slight greater. So we'd want to do both of 14:39:32 246 1 those tests. 14:39:34 2 MR. CHIAO: And then once you get a 14:39:35 3 manned capsule, how many flights do you 14:39:37 4 envision -- manned flights into orbit before you 14:39:40 5 declare operational capability? 14:39:46 6 MR. MUSK: Well, for that we would 14:39:48 7 consult with NASA. I think that would be as 14:39:51 8 much NASA's call, if not more, than ours. But 14:39:52 9 I'd figure at least two or three. 14:39:57 10 Because there's very little difference 14:39:58 11 between our crew versus cargo version, it's kind 14:40:01 12 of a different situation than many developments 14:40:05 13 before which have been dedicated to crew or 14:40:07 14 dedicated to cargo. 14:40:10 15 MR. CHIAO: Okay. Thanks. 14:38:35 16 MR. AUGUSTINE: Thank you very much. 14:40:12 17 MR. MUSK: All right. Thank you. 14:40:12 18 MR. AUGUSTINE: We appreciate it a 14:40:14 19 lot. 14:40:14 20 We'll turn to Orbital next. 14:40:15 21 MR. CULBERTSON: Good afternoon 14:40:33 22 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. 14:40:34 247 1 Thank you very much for the opportunity to 14:40:36 2 present to you today and to the members of the 14:40:37 3 audience that are here. 14:40:39 4 Just a couple of words of introduction 14:40:41 5 about Orbital before I give you the status of 14:40:44 6 our COTS system and -- our COTS effort and our 14:40:46 7 Cargo Resupply Service program. 14:40:50 8 Orbital has been in existence for 14:40:52 9 approximately 27 years. We've deployed over 14:40:54 10 500 systems into space, satellites and various 14:40:57 11 other orbiting vehicles. We, in the last five 14:41:02 12 years, have over 60 successful launches, and the 14:41:07 13 company is continuing to move in many different 14:41:11 14 directions to support space flight, both 14:41:14 15 commercially and for the U.S. government. And 14:41:17 16 we think that this is a fantastic opportunity 14:41:20 17 for the commercial sector to demonstrate what 14:41:24 18 they can do to support this country in 14:41:27 19 maintaining human space flight. Next slide, 14:41:28 20 please. 14:41:30 21 The COTS architecture is basically 14:41:30 22 five elements. The Cygnus visiting vehicle 14:41:34 248 1 includes the service module, and, of course, on 14:41:39 2 the front of that is the cargo vehicle. 14:41:41 3 Currently we are contracted for eight missions 14:41:44 4 on the CRS contract. So we have changed our 14:41:47 5 plan on the COTS mission from an unpressurized 14:41:51 6 cargo module to a pressurized cargo module to 14:41:56 7 demonstrate that capability end to end, 14:41:58 8 including opening the hatch and transferring. 14:41:58 9 The Taurus II is our launch vehicle, 14:42:00 10 and I'll go into more detail on that in a few 14:42:03 11 minutes. 14:42:06 12 And then, of course, we have the cargo 14:42:06 13 operations which will allow us to work with NASA 14:42:10 14 on the necessary cargo to sustain the station, 14:42:13 15 mission operations to support the flight and 14:42:14 16 then the integrated launch site operations at 14:42:16 17 Wallops Flight Facility. Next slide. 14:42:20 18 A brief overview of the mission itself 14:42:21 19 from launch. I know this is a very busy slide 14:42:24 20 but for your read ahead tonight, I guess, on the 14:42:27 21 plane. 14:42:31 22 It shows you the sequence from launch 14:42:31 249 1 to rendezvous with the station, berthing by the 14:42:34 2 station arm and then unberthing and de-orbiting 14:42:39 3 to take the unwanted material from the station. 14:42:44 4 Next slide. 14:42:47 5 Taurus II. Taurus II was originally 14:42:47 6 planned by the company to fill the medium launch 14:42:51 7 vehicle need in the nation with the impending 14:42:54 8 end of the Delta II program and the gap that we 14:42:59 9 perceived between some of our larger vehicles 14:43:02 10 such as the Taurus and Minotaur IV and V and the 14:43:05 11 heavy-lift vehicles. The company decided to 14:43:11 12 embark on new development program that was named 14:43:14 13 Taurus II. 14:43:17 14 As NASA's solidified to the COTS and 14:43:17 15 then Cargo Resupply Service, Taurus II became 14:43:21 16 the vehicle that we decided to use for that 14:43:25 17 effort and is focused on that now. 14:43:28 18 The Cargo Resupply is -- its first 14:43:30 19 nine customers and, of course, we are marketing 14:43:35 20 to other areas to use Taurus II for supplying 14:43:36 21 the needs of the nation as well as commercial 14:43:39 22 customers. It will have a great deal of 14:43:42 250 1 capability and flexibility. It's currently -- 14:43:45 2 original missions are planned out of Wallops, 14:43:49 3 but we can launch out of other places, as you'll 14:43:52 4 see in just a minute. 14:43:56 5 Dual AJ26 engines, based on the NK-33 14:43:57 6 engines from Russia, with a second stage 14:44:02 7 provided by a Castor-30, which is a Heritage 120 14:44:05 8 engine. 14:44:08 9 We are also working towards an 14:44:09 10 enhanced second stage to fill the higher cargo 14:44:14 11 needs in the out-years and talking to providers 14= :44:17 12 of that second stage at this point. At the 14:44:20 13 moment we are looking towards a liquid fuel 14:44:22 14 second stage. 14:44:26 15 It incorporates flight-proven 14:44:29 16 components from leading global suppliers and 14:44:33 17 uses subsystems that we've already deployed on 14:44:37 18 other orbital launch vehicles. 14:44:39 19 As you'll see on the next slide, we 14:44:40 20 have a legacy all of the way back to Pegasus of 14:44:40 21 using those systems, enhancing them and 14:44:44 22 increasing their capabilities. And if you trace 14:44:46 251 1 through the various legacies, you can see that 14:44:48 2 it leads to Taurus II using the leverage of our 14:44:51 3 heritage and the many years of launch success. 14:44:55 4 Next slide. 14:44:58 5 The next couple of slides are a little 14:44:58 6 bit busy, but it's just to show the comparison 14:45:02 7 of the Taurus II projected performance to both 14:45:05 8 low Earth orbit and higher -- next slide -- as 14:45:08 9 well as a comparison to other known launch 14:45:11 10 vehicles in terms of environments and 14:45:14 11 performance. Next slide. 14:45:15 12 Payload Accommodations. It's a 14:45:16 13 3.9 meter fairing. So it will accommodate most 14:45:22 14 science payloads and, of course, will 14:45:25 15 accommodate the pressurized cargo module for the 14:45:27 16 COTS mission as well as the CRS program. 14:45:33 17 It's designed to maximize payload 14:45:36 18 integration to make it efficient and effective. 14:45:39 19 It will be integrated in a -- finally in the 14:45:42 20 flow in a horizontal fashion, which will give us 14:45:45 21 access to the payload until 24 hours before 14:45:49 22 launch, and, of course, we'll maintain all of 14:45:51 252 1 the required contamination control and power 14:45:53 2 requirements as we proceed to the launch pad. 14:45:59 3 Next slide. 14:46:03 4 Potential launch sites are listed on 14:46:03 5 this page. 14:46:03 6 Currently we were working with NASA 14:46:04 7 and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Space Board to 14:46:05 8 development the launch capabilities for a liquid 14:46:08 9 rocket out of Wallops. That has not been done 14:46:12 10 before, and so we are working through the 14:46:14 11 development aspects of that with a lot of 14:46:16 12 cooperation from our partners in that. Wallops 14:46:21 13 will allow us to reach the Space Station orbit 14:46:21 14 without any problem either from performance or 14:46:25 15 trajectory. 14:46:28 16 If we have payloads that we're going 14:46:29 17 to fly in the future that require polar- or 14:46:32 18 sun-synchronous, we have our options as well as 14:46:34 19 the potential to launch out of Cape Canaveral 14:46:37 20 should that need arise in the future. 14:46:40 21 Kodiak is very interested in talking 14:46:44 22 to us about launching from there as they develop 14:46:47 253 1 a new launch pad there. 14:46:49 2 And then, of course, Vandenberg is an 14:46:49 3 option for high inclination. Next slide. 14:46:52 4 The work in progress at Wallops Island 14:46:55 5 is depicted on this slide. You can see a number 14:46:57 6 of facilities that will be either modified or 14:47:00 7 updated or built to support this activity. 14:47:03 8 In the upper left, the cargo 14:47:07 9 processing building exists on the main base now, 14:47:09 10 and that will be used for the early missions for 14:47:12 11 processing the payloads. And then we're looking 14:47:12 12 at developing additional facilities on the 14:47:15 13 island to process as well as to fuel payloads. 14:47:18 14 The horizontal integration facility is 14:47:22 15 a new facility that will be built in the next 14:47:24 16 year to process two vehicles simultaneously, and 14:47:27 17 then the transporter/erector will carry the 14:47:30 18 vehicle from the horizontal integration facility 14:47:35 19 to the pad. 14:47:35 20 The pad is the previous 0-A pad that 14:47:36 21 was -- supported solid rockets and now is being 14:47:42 22 modified to support liquid fueled rockets, and 14:47:48 254 1 we're installing a liquid fueling facility, of 14:47:49 2 course, to support that capability. There are 14:47:50 3 some modifications required to the pad, of 14:47:51 4 course, to support the higher thrust as well as 14:47:53 5 the transporter/erector that will carry the 14:47:54 6 vehicle to the pad itself. 14:47:58 7 On the next slide, you see a depiction 14:48:00 8 of how that will look in the future. In the 14:48:03 9 center of the photograph up there is an artist 14:48:07 10 rendering of the Taurus II on the pad. And the 14:48:10 11 flame bucket extends out towards the seawall and 14:48:14 12 so the ramp comes up from inland towards the 14:48:16 13 line of sight and then the transporter/erector 14:48:18 14 will place the rocket on the pad 14:48:22 15 approximately -- less than 24 hours before 14:48:25 16 launch. 14:48:28 17 In addition to the work at Wallops, we 14:48:29 18 are working with Stennis Space Center on 14:48:31 19 constructing an engine test stand that will 14:48:34 20 support our program, the testing of our engines 14:48:36 21 prior to launch. Next slide, please. 14:48:38 22 That's a big hole in the ground, and 14:48:41 255 1 that's where they are right now in addition to 14:48:43 2 some support structure. But getting that hole 14:48:47 3 started and building the flame trench to support 14:48:50 4 the engine testing was a big step in cooperation 14:48:53 5 with NASA under a Space Act Agreement with 14:48:57 6 Orbital. That will be a part of our flow of the 14:49:01 7 engines coming from Aerojet in Sacramento. Next 14:49:04 8 slide. 14:49:08 9 These are the AJ26 engines. In the 14:49:09 10 lower right you can see there the number of 14:49:12 11 engines that are in storage. That's about half 14:49:14 12 of them. And then the engines themselves will 14:49:15 13 be processed, modified and then shipped to 14:49:19 14 Stennis for testing and then on to Wallops for 14:49:21 15 integration testing there and for launch. Next 14:49:25 16 slide. 14:49:28 17 The upper stage on the early missions 14:49:28 18 is a Castor-30. The static fire of that is 14:49:30 19 scheduled for this month, though I've heard it 14:49:34 20 may delay until July. ATK is developing this as 14:49:38 21 an offshoot from the Castro-120 and will provide 14:49:42 22 us with a lot of capability in the early 14:49:46 256 1 missions and possibly some growth directly out 14:49:48 2 of that engine. Next slide. 14:49:53 3 The payload fairing tool gives you an 14:49:55 4 idea of the size of the payload fairing and the 14:49:59 5 dimensions -- or, rather, the configuration of 14:50:01 6 it. Next slide. 14:50:03 7 The Cygnus visiting vehicle, it's a 14:50:05 8 service module, on the right-hand side with the 14:50:11 9 solar arrays, and then on the -- the gray on the 14:50:14 10 left side is the pressurized cargo module. 14:50:16 11 As I mentioned, we modified our plans 14:50:20 12 on the COTS mission to move to the pressurized 14:50:20 13 cargo module in order to demonstrate that 14:50:22 14 capability once we were awarded the CRS contract 14:50:25 15 and all of our missions were scheduled to be 14:50:29 16 pressurized cargo. Next slide. 14:50:33 17 The PCM itself will accommodate the 14:50:34 18 number of CTBs that you see up there. We 14:50:38 19 actually think that we can increase the 14:50:42 20 efficiency of the cargo stowage inside the 14:50:43 21 module -- and we're working on plans to do that 14:50:49 22 now -- to carry more CTBs as well as carry them 14:50:51 257 1 more efficiently and more securely. 14:50:55 2 We can also support powered payloads 14:50:59 3 and hard-mounted payloads as required as the 14:51:02 4 manifest shapes up. Next slide. 14:51:05 5 The service module itself in an 14:51:06 6 expanded view shows you the various components. 14:51:10 7 It's fairly standard spacecraft components. 14:51:14 8 They come from a variety of providers integrated 14:51:19 9 by Orbital at our facility in Dulles and tested 14:51:23 10 there, and then the entire spacecraft will be 14:51:28 11 finally assembled at Wallops itself after 14:51:31 12 integrated testing and environmental testing, 14:51:35 13 which we also do at Dulles. Next slide. 14:51:37 14 One feature of our vehicle is the PROX 14:51:40 15 system. Similar to Elines Coo-coo (phonetic), 14:51:44 16 it will allow us to do the rendezvous and 14:51:48 17 approach to the station. It's based on the same 14:51:51 18 system that the HTV is using. 14:51:51 19 So there's some legacy there as well 14:51:53 20 as the ability for NASA to monitor the 14:51:54 21 performance both systems on both spacecraft and 14:51:59 22 to learn from them so that we can, as we move 14:52:01 258 1 down the road, increase capabilities for 14:52:04 2 providing cargo as well as other vehicles more 14:52:06 3 efficiently and safely to the Space Station. 14:52:10 4 Next slide. 14:52:14 5 The Cygnus will approach in free 14:52:14 6 flight to a point about ten meters away from the 14:52:18 7 station, at which point it will be grappled by 14:52:22 8 the station's arm and installed on the node and 14:52:23 9 the hatch opened for -- next slide -- for 14:52:26 10 unloading of the cargo. 14:52:29 11 You can see it will be berthed at 14:52:31 12 Node 2. 14:52:35 13 We plan on being there for two to four 14:52:36 14 weeks, depending on the requirements of the crew 14:52:39 15 and how long it takes to unload as well as to 14:52:42 16 load it with the material that will be discarded 14:52:45 17 during de-orbit. Next slide. 14:52:48 18 Just some pictures of the standardized 14:52:50 19 bags that we'll be carrying for reference. Next 14:52:55 20 slide. 14:52:55 21 And then also, of course, we can carry 14:52:58 22 both powered stowage lockers, to a certain 14:53:01 259 1 extent, as well as ICEPAC lockers that can be 14:53:06 2 late loaded for scientific specimens. Next 14:53:06 3 slide. 14:53:11 4 Trash on the ISS -- on the right-hand 14:53:12 5 side that's Carl Walsh. That's not the trash. 14:53:14 6 The left-hand side is elements of the station 14:53:18 7 crew presence that need to be discarded 14:53:21 8 periodically from the station, kittoes and 14:53:26 9 yedevaze (phonetic), some of which are 14:53:27 10 carried -- most of which are carried back on 14:53:30 11 Progress now, but with six people up there, they 14:53:32 12 need to be discarded more frequently. And we 14:53:35 13 hope that everything in them burns up before it 14:53:36 14 gets back to Earth. 14:53:37 15 But that will be a part of our job -- 14:53:39 16 is to help offload the hardware and waste from 14:53:41 17 the station and dispose of it in the atmosphere. 14:53:45 18 Next slide. 14:53:45 19 And we did bid on and have the 14:53:52 20 capability to develop both unpressurized and 14:53:52 21 return cargo capability. We've not been tasked 14:53:56 22 to do that yet by NASA. If that were to happen 14:53:57 260 1 in the future, then we would get to work on that 14:54:00 2 and provide that capability on a reasonable 14:54:03 3 schedule along with what we plan to do today. 14:54:05 4 We do think that the work that we're 14:54:09 5 doing today is very important for the future of 14:54:12 6 human space flight from this country. 14:54:16 7 Maintaining an American presence on the 14:54:22 8 International Space Station -- a robust American 14:54:23 9 presence on the station and being able to supply 14:54:23 10 them is very critical, especially with the 14:54:27 11 transportation gap of the shuttle finishing its 14:54:30 12 missions. 14:54:33 13 Keeping that presence up there is 14:54:34 14 going to be watched by the rest of the world, 14:54:35 15 watched by our own industry and our own young 14= :54:38 16 people as they make decisions on where they want 14:54:43 17 to go with their futures and whether they want 14:54:46 18 to go into technology and whether they have a 14:54:48 19 place to go in space. So even though cargo 14:54:51 20 doesn't seem like a glamorous profession to be 14:54:53 21 in to start with, it's just one of the elements 14:54:53 22 that we have to maintain in order to keep people 14:54:57 261 1 flying in space and to keep this country 14:54:59 2 maintaining the Space Station that we have 14:55:02 3 invested so much in. Next slide. 14:55:04 4 To summarize the status of our COTS 14:55:06 5 program, we've completed 10 out of our 21 14:55:11 6 milestones, system level PDR is complete and 14:55:13 7 Phase I of the Safety Review Panel is complete, 14:55:17 8 with Phase II coming up in about two months. 14:55:20 9 We changed, as I said, from 14:55:23 10 unpressurized cargo to pressurized cargo and 14:55:26 11 then updated the Space Act to reflect that and 14:55:28