he basically said this is nothing. we re-engine fighter chens jets for generations and that's much more complicated than what we're talking about here. so with that back drop mr. culbertson your company is converting to the rd-180 russian engine. is that correct? considering your current experience, how easy is it to change to that vehicle? >> it depends on the period of it at the time that you move forward with it. the engine that we are using in the future generation of launch vej vehicles which we intend to start flying next year was specifically designed as a replacement. so the arrangement of the thrust back there, the piping, if you will, for the fuel systems, the connections, the size of the engine and the thrust levels

were all very comparable to the nk-33 because it had been in development for all tm ten years now to replace that engine on a couple of different russian rockets. so when we started talking to them over three years ago, they were pretty far along on that path already. there was a lot of analysis and whether we reached a point where we needed to move forward with another engine, it was the one that was most likely to succeed in our application and the one that was available to make sure we could deliver cargokargcargo. >> ms. van kleeck, you've had heard some reference to it today and in the next panel, we're going to hear that it's going to cost a significant amount of money to re-engine the atlas five with the ar-1. can you address where 200 -- and as i understand it, it's going to cost at least $200 million to modify the other spot for the

arrow one. can you address that? >> yes, i can. the -- we've been working closely with ula for several years now on replacing an rd-180 in various forms. like i said, we have looked at this problem over the last ten years. we have an active contract right now identifying the specific changes that need to be made, assuming this goes into an at atlas five vehicle. for the record in terms of the estimate for those costs, i've heard a variety of numbers. i've never heard a $200 million number. the number i've heard are in the low tens of millions of dollars. i think that cost estimates still needs to be refined but the type of modifications that

are required are very minor. >> for the ar-1? >> for the ar-1. yes. >> now, mr. meyerson. >> can i add to mr. culbertson's comments. his response, the key word was it, ten years of investment by the russian government to develop a replacement for the nk-33 which was developed into the av-26 that's the key point ten years and we don't know how much money was invested. the b-4 is being developed. it's fully funded. we're more than three years into the development. so this is real. it's not a paper engine. >> great. do you have any -- mr. bruno has stated both the b-4 and the ar-1 would work on the atlas five with modifications. one with more modifications than the other. can you describe the extent to which we would have to modify the at last five for your engine to work? >> i think that's a better

question for mr. bruno. it's -- but the engine, when you're developing a new engine you start with requirements and the details really matter. because it is so far along in its development, those details are much more well understood so that mr. bruno's team at ula can look at that and design the right system to meet the national security needs. >> mr. bruno, i'd love for you to visit there topic. >> this is an excellent sort of example of the difference between an engine provider and a launch vehicle service provider. it will not cost tens of millions of dollars to incorporate any version of an ar-1. recall that we started with an understanding that the performance level coming out of either of these two engines will not match the rd-180 and we will be using a pair of engines to do that. >> let me ask you, would the combined thrust of the two engines be comparable? >> yes, it will. in fact, it will be larger than the two.

in addition to that, the rd-180 uses a novel control system to move the no, sir 8 and steer the rocket based on tapping off the engine fuel system. that's a technology that does not exist in the united states. and by the way one that we do not have an interesting in developing. so there will be a new thrust sector control system to go along with that. so when we do all of that with the new performance point that's required and the new thrust levels that will be delivered, there will be instruct furs changes, there will be alterations to the pad to accomplish even the ar-1. the number that was quoted was not unreasonable, but i think you will hear from the -- >> $200 million i think we're going to hear from the air force later. do you think that's accurate? >> i do think that's accurate. >> i can drive that number down if i am willing to leave the tank exactly the same size that

i have on atlas. but if i do that because of the lower efficiency of that engine and its first generation as they launch system for several missions, i will be adding one or more solid rocket boosters to the launch vehicle. and so the cost competitiveness, the affordable of that system will be less than the at last today. >> so getting you those modifications moves you towards the new rocket system you want but is not necessary for the replacement engine that we are pursuing or that i'm pursuing. >> it will not lift the same missions. so i think you're asking me could i keep the tank size the same take the engine that i am -- that is made available to me strap on the extra strap ones and deal with the additional cost? i could did that for the first set within the fleet. so remember that the at last is a fleet of rockets.

the least capable of which is equivalent to a falcon there are much more difficult orbits that we go to. eventually, there's a limit to how many strap ones i can physically attached to the rocket because of the way the rocket is configured. those missions would suddenly become out of reach of an atlas in this configuration without a tank to carry more fuel. so the be-4 requires more extensive changes to our infrastructure and to our rockets. >> so what does the $200 million figure turn into? >> it would not be unreasonable to triple or quadruple that number. >> so 600 to 800 million. >> yes. >> tell me let's talk about the

other infrastructure involved when we change -- let's say we change to a new rocket. and i'm not saying i'm ready to go there but what else is required for the launch? modifications other than just the rocket. don't you have to change the infrastructure that you use for the launch process? yes. so you know, you could think of it in these pieces. there's the rocket, there's the pad, factory, of course, with its tooling and then the equipment that we use at the launch site to integrate the rocket to the launch site with the satellite and roll it out. so those things are more dependent upon the physical size and considerations with what changes we have to make to accommodate the engine. so my colleague is correct there are far fewer changes with the ar-1 because of the same propellant and so the diameter and length of the rocket will be much more similar, much more of the tooling in the factory can

be the same. the equivalent at the launchpad can be only slightly modified and the pad will have smaller modifications. for the methane engine, the tent will be much larger. i'll have to replace much more tooling in the factory. i'll have to redo what is called the rocket platform and then the changes to the pad are more extensive. >> are those costs part of that triple or quadrupling inspect. >> yes. >> okay. so that was a comprehensive figure. maybe i missed it, but were you able to explain the difference in the 16-month leave that you assumed blue originalin has over arrow jet and their development? >> yes. so both companies are under contract with us. we have sort of weekly engagements, monthly formal reviews, we're tracking both schedules side by side. as i mentioned in my opening remarks, several years later

than blue origin. and that is slily the nature of the 16 months. >> this will be for all the witnesses. do you agree that the government should own that until it makes in the system? >> mr. meyerson do you believe that we should own some of the intellectual property value? >> i think if the government fully invested in the system they should. >> i do agree. >> companies also investing should own their i. -- >> mr. thornburg. >> i agree with my colleagues in that if the government fully

invests for systems that are prioritily dwopt developed they would not. >> what if we pay for 60% of the development costs? is that something that you believe should inhibit our owning a percentage of the intellectual properties value? >> i think it would depend on what type of development we were talking about in terms of the technology. if the technology was an offshoot of something that had been completely developed and invested inti the private corporation, maybe not. but i think it would be case dependent. >> mr. meyerson. >> i think there's public/private partnershipes and there's mechanisms that can be in place to allow industry to invest and account for shared ownership. >> that's one of my concerns. we've already set aside a little over $400 million for this and

we project by the time it's all said and done, 1.5 million will be spent in pursuit of this new engine. and as much as $800 million or more will be paid for by the federal government. it seems to be there should be some intellectual property that arises out of that. >> i want to ask the witnesses this. and this is for all the witnesses. are there clear requirements from the air force as we go into this process about what they're not only clear, but fair and reasonable? mr. meyerson? >> i think -- yeah, i think the requirements are clear, yes. >> ms. van kleeck? >> i assume you're representing the current acquisition process that's under way. >> yes, ma'am.

>> and there's a process that's well spelled out in that. it does focus on an ultimate launch service as opposed to an engine. but it's spelled out. i think there's a lot of different paths that that particular process can go. >> mr. culbertson. >> yes, sir. we understand the requirements of the air force and what they're looking for and we think it is focused on a system that could be developed in a public/private partnership that would give the government the most openings for competition as well as success. >> with regards to the ongoing source selection activity i don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on that right now because i wouldn't want to upset anything that would undo that source selection. >> do you have any comment on this? you're not building an engine but you're going to be buying it. >> i believe the requirements

and the rps activity that you're referring to are very clear from the government. >> fair and reasonable? >> yes. right. >> a couple of cleanup questions for ms. van kleeck been your history is providing with launch service providers or being a launch service prime when developing a new engine. why do you think this appropriate is not appropriate in this situation? >> i think the issue at hand that we're talking about is replacing an engine and right now we are looking at an acquisition process that's looking at replacing a service or looking at an evolution of that service. i believe what that acquisition, you can get through an engine with that process but it isn't the most efficient way to do that. >> finally, mr. bruno, as ula moves forward with a new vulcan launch vehicle, can you tell the committee if you intend to

mitigate your risk by carrying forward both the ar-1 and be-4 as design options? if not why not? if yes, when will you be able to select the new single option? >> i will not carry them all the way until completion. we will carry both until it is clear that the major technical risk with either path has been retired and we're in a position to make a down selection based on their technical feasibility, their schedule and their forecast at recurring costs. i expect that to happen at the end of 2016. the reason we'll down select and not carry both forward is simply because we cannot afford to carry both all the way. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are five areas i'd like to pursue. some are just contacts and peripheral. but i think it's going to be important for this committee to understand. in the air force rpf, is there a prediction in the out years of

payload size? because i think the assumption is they're going to stay about the same size as they are today. some are and some small. there are some trends going into tomorrow, probably be on the big side if we're going to do cube sets. maybe we don't need the lift. so all this talk about systems and lift capacity, the question is what are we lifting? and as electronics get smaller and smaller, it could be that lighter lift capacity is sufficient to do the job. i don't know. anybody have any answers on this panel? >> so the standard reference for tentacle performance remains what the air force calls the eight reference missions. and so they provide us with a set of orbits and pay loads

lifted to that orbit. the most challenging of those orbits require our complete capability all the way to the atlas five with its five strappons and its largest pay load bearing. >> and part of it is orbit. part of it is weight. >> yes. and it's probably important to understand a subtlety within that, as well, which is the time required in space to reach the highest orbits and that dictates some of the technical characteristics of the upper stage. so when we go to, for example, the ghee your synchronous orbit to preserve the light of the satellite, it takes eight hours flying in space operating an upper stage in order to circular iegz that orbit something not possible with conventional systems to keep them from simply freezing up. >> we haven't given much attention at all to the second stage problem.

you point out it's very important. on the intellectual property issue, the greatest source of wealth on the planet that we have understanding ownership and relationships like that. i guess it gives us some comfort that an american citizen might be owning all this i.p. but sometimes citizens move. sometimes they make private sale decisions that could endanger national security. so this is something that we need to figure out better and in terms of payback to the taxpayers, if we could get one or two form ceutical companies to pay back all the benefits of their blockbuster drugs from basic research done at nih, it would return many more than a few billion dollars. so perhaps we need to work with our colleagues and committees on that on the question of paperwork. mr. bruno mentioned far 15 i think he called it. and that's a requirement that you have to -- some others might

not. but i'm not sure. is that good paperwork? is that necessary paperwork? can we stream line par 15 so that we can reduce the burden for anybody who might have to be subjected to all that paperwork burden? it's not the ten commandments it's not written in stone. >> the federal acquisition regulations actually provide for different models. 15 is one set. there's another set refers to as 12 and there are others that do exactly that and provide guidance when it's appropriate to use the lessee elaborate systems. >> so there is some flexibility within that. is this the biggest and scariest monster out there? >> yes. >> but they're less of a monster? so you just mentioned that to scare us. >> well, it happens in the world that we live in at ula. >> the question mr. einstein mentioned, monopoly. nobody likes monopoly but i think in the best case situation, we would have a did

you opoly or maybe an oligopoly. >> business case about this diminishing number of pay loads, substantial risk. it takes an investor's ego to propel the sort of speculative investment, the glory of space fairing. so i think as we fear monopoly we should bear in mind that we're going to have an oligoply. we love the retail model where we can get amazon pricing for everything and it's not likely to be available. here just like mr. bezos's involvement. so we don't want to be too idealistic in this. finally, there's this touchy issue of recruiting brilliant personnel.

we in america -- i think the last one just died in huntsville alabama. incredibly, there are some brilliant scientists who make a difference. i couldn't help but note on the first bais page of mr. meyerson's testimony, he recruits from lots of places. including someone with merlin's experience. that's interesting. it makes me think regarding the rd-180 is actually not recruiting a russian who knew how that works. where is that person? and maybe the chinese did that when they have integrated a that into their lot in march or maybe they just sold blueprints. but you kind of wonder you know, you hope that a team of scientists can do great things. in many cases, they have. but in some cases, there are these brilliant individuals who come up with the secret sauce.

and that leads us to the very interesting feature of spacex where they do not rely on the patent system to protect their idea preferring, instead, the trade secret system which is basically thumbing their nose at the entire western system of protecting intellectual property. and i'm not defending it the patent office or -- you know, but this is kind of an interesting challenge here. as opposed to publishing and dissemester mateing legally. so there are many challenges that we face to make sure we have a perhaps unique natural security capability whatever is required on the timetable that we need. yet we're increasingly relying on commercial molds global

models, international models that may or may not service this unique national capability. so these are some of the challenges the subcommittee faces as we try to come up with some fair solution that above all suits america first. that's how i see it. and if you all publicly or privately have corrections, anticipates to that modifications, i would appreciate hearing from you. we're trying to do the right thing and not have congress mess up yet again like we did last year. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i would note, when congress noticed that last year, it was the language the private sector gave us. we didn't dream up that language. the gentleman from oklahoma mr. bridenstine for any questions he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bruno you mentioned earlier, ula will need to be able to compete in the

commercial sector for space launch. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. meyerson does blue origin plan to compete in the commercial space launch industry with its own system? >> in the very long-term, yes we do. our first iteration we're working on is our suborbital shepherd we flew last month. and making those engines available. and just for you, mr. bruno, if blue origin enters a space and they're competing directly against you in the xlushl market and you're entirely dependent on them for your rocket engines, does that pose a risk to the cost of government launches? >> in the foreseeable future i see your activities in the marketplace as complimentary. and what my colleague, rob, is referring to is in the far future when we'll have ample opportunity to work out arrangement

arrangements. >> if the ar-1 engine ultimately is not what is down selected what is the future for the ar-1, ms. van kleeck? >> currently, the ar-1 is relevant to this particular change in launch vehicles in this particular point in time. we don't re-engine launch vehicles, you know, but every ten years or we have different opportunities to do that. we would maintain the technology. we would probably put it at a technology level. but if there isn't a launch vehicle provider that would use it, it will -- the development will not be completed at this point in time. >> is there a chance that that launch vehicle provider might materialize and the ar-1 would find itself relevant, both commercial and the eelv program? >> it's possible. there are -- it clearly depends on what some of the launch

vehicles providers, what their paths going forward are. but as you know, there are multiple providers here on this panel. and we talked about a limited market. so in the near term it's not a high probability. >> one of the challenges we have is certainly it seems like there are two different directionses that the panel is trying to accommodate. one direction is the air force's position, which is we need to purchase launch as a service. and, of course that has been the going mind-set for everyone for quite a while. and we ended up in this position where it got aggressive. >> certainly i agree with rogers that we need to do everything possible to mitigate the risk to

our unassured access to space. that's kind of what drove us to this position today where we've got language and the ndaa that ultimately might not be compatible with language that says we need to purchase launch as a service. this is a challenge we're going to continue. unfortunately the panelists today find themselves in a challenge where they're trying to basically go two different directions at the same time. given what's happened in the world and we and congress need to find a way to make this the best for our country, the best for the taxpayers, the best in the national security interest in the united states. i know chairman rogers has that in his heart. the goal here is to get off these engines and make sure we have assured access to space. and i appreciate you guys being here and working through us with

this. >> mr. chairman, i have one question. mr. meyerson mr. thornburg, has a large methane rocket engine ever been built and flown in space and why is this a -- and what are the advantages and the challenges of building this type of engine? >> by large, i'll sa no, engines that are greater than 250,000 pounds, there's been no large methane engine that's been built in space that i know of. we've been busy working on the be-4 and we've made some specific design choices to mitigate any risk with that development, design choices in our chamber pressure, design choice necessary our injector and design choices in our material that will give us confidence that we can develop this engine by the end of next

year, get into testing and meet the vulcan launch requirements. >> to your first question about have we flown a large methane rocket engine, no we have not done that. the one aspect as you hear a lot about this novel technology and some of the new engine power plant that are being discussed today, i would to point out that the one common thread across rafter, ar-1 or be-4 is really the ox rich stage combustion tenl. all three engines incorporate that and that really does represent the technology coming into the table. so whether you're trying to replace something with atlas in terms of an ar-1, you still have to finish the development of oxford stage combustion technology. it would be the same for a raptor engine. and i wanted to also comment that the talented engineers in the united states have been working on these types of technologies since the late '90s. through programmatic investment

for the research laboratory and nasa, these technologies have been available, but have yet to be fully funded and brought to the table until these conversation res happening now. so that's kind of where we stand on the methane. >> would anybody else like to comment on that? >> yes, sir, i would. i agree that the common threat through these things is the oxford stage technology. however, i would say there has been -- i mean, we've worked on methane as a company. we built a number of different devices, none of which have grown yet. methane will probably be an important technology with mars missions where we're dealing with landers where you want to make your propellant in space. in terms of the difference between the methane and the kerosene engine, the fuel. kerosene is characterized. the ability to run carekerosene

is -- the russians have perfected this technology over decades. i am confident we can do that with methane but it takes time. we will be building off of that technology. i believe this can be done for methane, but i think the time frame is going to be quite a bit longer. >> anyone else? >> not about methane, but i would like to point out there are other technologies involved here that involve propulsion systems. they've been mentioned several times. that's a solid rocket loaders that contribute to our access to space, whether they're strap ones or main stages. that's a part of our heritage as a country. and working with several people her on the panel and making sure that that is part of their system. any system going forward is going to have to have either newly developed or perfected

solid rocket motors as a part of it whether it's the main engine or second stages. and i think that needs to be a part of the system. solid rocket motors and solid rocket propellants over the rest of the world to help with national defense as well as our access to space for these big pay loads. >> just to comment back on the methane side i think the research and development that has been performed by spacex's private development as well as what's been happening with blue origin whether it's ox rich or a full blown stage combustion cycle. we've been operating hydrogen propulsion systems in this country since the dawn of the stage. methane typically falls somewhere between kerosene and

hydrogen in terms of its properties. but i do want to point out that there's been government nmt over the last several years. >> i just had one comment to that, as well. we talk about methane, but another choice the commercially available, the commodity that you can buy and the infrastructure in the u.s. is grog rapidly in the last decade. so we chose an lng because it's cheap. it's four times cheaper than kerosene. it's available and it's clean. so it supports reusability applications which we are interested in in the long-term and those are very important points that we want to add. >> i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair now rises mr. lamborn from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'd like to drill down a little bit more on a line of questions i was pursuing earlier to hopefully get more clarity.

the general stated that spacex has not formally submitted the changes to be accepted under certification for the full thrust system to the air force, unquote. if spacex hasn't formally submitted the changes how is it that your system should be certified for launch or illegal for competition on eelv? >> sir, i'd have to get back to you on the specifics of was been transferred. but i can tell you that to my knowledge presently since the last hearing there has been numerous conversations between the air force and spacex specifically to address this information. i believe the blum bulk of all that has been provided. but i'm happy to take that and provide it back for the record. >> that doesn't really satisfy me. let me approach this from a different angle.

i'm going to refer to an article from march 17th of this year, aviation entitled spacex sees u.s. air force certification of falcon 9 by mid summer. here is a quote out of that article. this year, spacex -- and it's lengthy -- this year spacex expects to debut another falcon 9 upgrade, one that will see at least a 15% increase in thrust for the falcon 9 merlin 1-d core stage engine and a 10% increase in the upper stage tank volume. nasa has said such an increase is likely to require significant design modifications to the engine and rocket which could necessitate additional certification work including a series of successful flights to prove the vehicle. how is it that nasa can say that these are significant modifications and that they

require additional certification and possibility test flights yet you don't seem to think there is a need for more certification? >> the language you're using no need for more certification, just to clarify i guess my comments earlier were mainly with regard to resetting the clock on certification. there's been ongoing certification work to upgrade the launch vehicle formed before spacex existed. my comments were basically on the fact that spacex is not doing anything different in terms of bringing on new improvements to systems, but improved performance and cost. i can say that we're working very closely with nasa and the air force. who both certified us for our launches and pay load these year and we have ongoing conversations with them with regard to the status of the vehicle. they're fully read into all the changes, all the modifications that are planning on going and are fully supportive in terms of gaining the certification for upcoming launches.

>> okay. well let me change gears and ask my last question. you stated in your opening statement that there should be a 50/50 investment in a new engine. did spacex fol follow that guideline guideline falcon nine investment? >> with falcon nine investment spacex 100% in investment in the development of that vehicle so yes. >> now, you said 100%. it's my understanding that spacex's capital is forward funded nasa contract or contracts totalling around $3.5 billion. is that correct? >> i can't speak to the total, but if you're referring to the cost program itself, the nasa money under the cost program was focused on the dragon space capsule versus the falcon nine vehicle which spacex funded the development of. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back.

>> thank you. >> really i appreciate all of you all. thornburg, you made a great point when you emphasized we got ourselves in this situation and the ranking member did when you asked about investing heavily enough in this technology and developing where we need to be and where we should have been before now. but our full attention is focused on the matter now. and we appreciate you being here. i would we mind all the witnesses we're going to keep the record open for at least ten days in case members have any additional questions they would like to ask you to respond to the record. we are about to have another panel of government witnesses. i very much hope you will listen to them and let us know what you think. we can continue to grow and develop and try to move this policy in the right direction. with that, we stand in reset for this panel too adjourn and bring the new panel in.

>> i'd now like to open the experts for our second panel.

i want to thank you all for coming here today and preparing for it. we have the honorable katrina mcfarland assistant secretary of defense for acquisition. general john heighten, commander, air force space command and general mcfarland -- or general mcfarland, that would have been good. it's great to have you back to testify on this topic. we truly appreciate your opinions and we look forward to hearing from lieutenant general sam grievous, air commander, air force space and missiles command center. we also have dr. mike griffin who is representing himself today, but he is deputy chair of deaths risk mitigation study and he is a former naz nasa administrationer. general mcfarland, i'll turn it over to you to summarize your opening statement. i would tell all the witnesses, your opening statements in full

would be submitted for the record. >> thank you, chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to speak here before this committee, particularly since you're supposed to be at recess and i ask that my written testimony, aus state be taken for the record. thank you. this continues to be critical to our space defense capabilities and national security especially as our world has changed over the last decade to a nonpermissive environment. during or march 17 hearing we touched on many topics concerning the evolved expendable launch vehicle program. amongst those were the department's plans for reintroducing competition on how we secure our launch services for the satellites and our plan for transitioning away from the u.s. of the rd-180 engine the russian engine, on to domestically sourced propulsion capabilities. while i'm mras pleased to state that we're making progress on both of these, competition is

intrensively and fundamentally intertwined. this interdependency cannot be ignored, it must be managed. as you heard from the members, it's a complex issue. with spacexfalcon 9 now certified for mss launches, we have for the first time since ula's joint venture enabled competition for launch contract services. however, section 1608 for the fy-15 ndaa prohibits any use beyond the block one contract for our most cost-effective launch capability atlas five which relies on that russian rd-180 engine. as enacted, section 1608 creates a multi year gap without at least two price competitive launch providers. it also impacts ula's viability to compete in the future as

discussed. as estimates replace and certify this capability as optimistically about seven years. yes, i'm a recovering engineer and it is a complex issue. to avoid this unacceptable situation, the department submitted legislative proposal number 192 requesting section 16308 be amended. this department believes this legislative proposal combined with the edition of the newly certified spacex falcon 9 ensures capabilities while they complete the transition using domestically designed and produced systems. the department greatly appreciates the subcommittee's support and looks forward to working with congress on the defense committee with the appropriation languages are debated. >> the air force believes in requests for information the

industry around august 2014 soliciting feedback and approaches the transitioning away from the 180. responses supported the department's strategy to coinvest off transition of the rd-180. these are markedly broader approaches than anticipated, as you heard. as a result, in order to comply with the commercial space transportation services and include access to space mandates. the department remains committed to working with congress and industry, to transition off the rd-180 engine and the most efficient, expeditious and affordable management possible. again, thank you for your support to our critical missions and i look forward to our discussions.

>> thank you. general, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cooper, distinguished members of the subcommittee. it is an honor to talk about this important issue with my distinguished colleagues. thank you all for your efforts to work this hard topic. it is a very difficult topic to try to work through. i think everyone has been fortunate enough to witness our space power while our commanders have realized how fundamental space is to what takes place on the goal today. for today's national alliance on space capabilities assured access has gone from important to imperative and remains one of our highest priorities. the launch industry has fundamentally changed over the last decades. we purchased access to spaces and service. an industry is now investing launch amounts of capital and developing new engines and

rockets. we're collaborating closely with them to determine how best to invest in private/public partnerships and u.s.-made rocket propulsion systems. so within context of assured access to space, it's critical that we move as fast as we can to indicate reliance on the rocketing. the united states should not rely on another nation to assure access to space and we need an american hydro carbon engine. we think with the effort and ingenuity of our teams it is possible to development an american engine by 2019. however, the engine still has to be made into a rocket. it still has the be made into a complete space launch system. even if that system looks similar to the atlas five we have to test it certify it and that's going to take another year or two once the engine is developed.

this subcommittee can be committed to the healthy launch space as we move as fast as we can towards u.s.-built engines. thanks for your support and i look forward to your questioning.