it comes to iran. the idea this iran, because they're killing sunni extremists are our friends? you have to be smoking something and it's not tobacco to believe that. all right? >> thank you. we have a question over here. >> yes. i'm nate madden with the 21st century wilbur force initiative. and i was wondering if the panel could speak a little more to understanding this ideology. dr. gorka, you mentioned how the narrative of -- the information warfare is that we're putting out, that the west is putting out, is completely insufficient to combat what isis is doing on social media. how can the narrative be better influenced to counteract that? and is it going to require just simply educating people in a very secular context that cosmology, teology and

escatology are very important in this situation? >> buy the book. how many theologianses does the pentagon have? i don't mean chaplains. i mean theologianses that understand the enemy threat doctrine of the group isis? i would say it's about the same number of insurgents defeated by air power alone. how do we address it? you've really hit a crucial question. with the political elite on both sides of the aisles that sees itself as post-modern secular and sophisticated, it's very hard to take religion seriously. one thing i've learned working with people who have had multiple tours in theater, five six tours in theater, is that if you don't have religion, i don't care what it is. i don't care if you're a zoro zoroastrian, seventh day add ven tis, i don't care what it is,

you'll never understand this enemy. you won't be able to absorb the context of suicide bombing. the logic of suicide bombing. we have to you know, take political distortion out of the intelligence cycle. my creator on this earth if you say, he's a disenfranchised undereducated person who needs a job, you have allowed politics you've allowed your own ideology to infect the intelligence cycle and you'll never get a strategy out of it. let's take intelligence out of the strategy cycle. read what the enemy says. read brigadier, he's the claus of jihad. the most important writer in the muslim brotherhood.

read abdullah asam, the real creator of al qaeda, bin laden's mentor he issued -- because we no longer have a caliph, a caliphate, therefore you must self-deploy and become a holy warrior. if we don't read these things, we will not win this war. and allowing politics to get into our understanding of the enemy is akin to -- is akin to in 1944, as we're about to deploy onto the beaches on to omaha, the normandy landings, it's akin to you know, the generals in england telling all the troops about to get on those transports, don't say the word nazi. you'd be fired. you must understand what mobilizes the enemy. so, let's take politics out of it. let's talk about religion. we don't have to go declare war

against islam. on the contrary, we have to be honest. as somebody mentioned here. who are the majority of victims of isis? it's all christians and jews. it's not yazidis. in many actual theaters -- he was a sunni, burnt to death. let's talk honestly about the biggest -- i'll close on this thing. the most amazing chapter in this book is by my old editor from jaynes, steven ulph, he is a walking genius on isis ideology. it's a tough chapter to read. very dense. he identifies immediately what is the key vulnerability of everybody we face today, al nusra, aqap doesn't matter. the key vulnerability of all these actors is their claim to authenticity. their statement they are the best muslims and fighting to

protect islam, because if you're the best muslim, you don't emulate jordan fighter pilots. on what basis are you the best muslim? we have to destroy that narrative, i mean, the local sunnis have to destroy is it with our assistance, but we have to start. and i think the 15th year of the war might be a good time to start. >> thank you. right down here in the front? >> carl. i would like to draw my question out of actually three books. rulers of evil by frederick it upper saucy operation gladio a very new book and a authoritative comic book "the prophet" which speaks about the history of islam. to draw on your analogy, dr. dr. gorka of the coca-cola and pepsi f we look in a broader historical context the great

religions of leaving christianity aside the roman church and islam as equivalent to coke and pepsi, it's good to have an enemy. and the argument could be made that actually the papacy was very much involved in even the creation of islam and the drawing of arabs to mohammed back in 1500, 1400 years ago in order to lessen the enemy. it's good for each side to have an enemy and everyone gravitates toward one side or the other. >> do you have a question? >> can you speak to the relationship between the papacy and the islam expansion and contraction and even the difference between vatican and islamic interests. >> i'm just going to take the privilege of being the chair here. i think one of the things that both al qaeda and isis is trying to do is make this into a religious war. so i think the best thing that we can do to counter that

narrative is make sure that you know we are not blaming the entire religion of islam for what's happening. i think that, you know, what's happening in terms of the violence and terrorism that we're seeing certainly you know these people see themselves as muslims and very much using the religion of islam. but i think it would be a mistake if we would equate the 1 billion plus muslims that are here in the world as being equivalent to what is remitted by isis and al qaeda. i'll just stop there. did anybody else want to comment? >> no i've -- i've heard this gentleman's conspiracy theory questions before, so i'm not going to address them, but thank you. >> okay. do we have another question? yeah, right in the back. >> i just want to take a moment to thank our great panel

speakers. obviously, our moderator. i'm dr. laura core. overall, our panel has stressed issues of ideology and strategy. if you could be -- if you could serve as an adviser, what is three key points you would suggest for u.s. strategic responses when it comes to u.s. ideology and threats? because when we look at other countries as researchers we see that they have definitely addressed issues of extremism countering violent extremism, terrorist radicalization, deradicalization where countries have used counterterrorism and counterinsurgency successfully. thank you. >> katherine do you have anything to say in terms of what's happening in africa? are the african governments really engaged? is the u.s. supporting deradicalization efforts in these countries? >> i think one of the biggest challenges facing the united

states is that we have outsourced our decision-making on a lot of these issues to partners who may not have the same vision as to what a successful outcome is. and here i am thinking about the case in somalia where we rely heavily on ethiopia and kenya as to what a future state of should look like. saudi arabia whose actions in yemen could arguably be said to be inflaming the conflict there. algeria, who is very much self-interested in protecting its borders and only its borders and the terrorist threat that resides inside its borders to fight islamic and magreb. that's the first step, taking ownership. the second is recognizing that the al qaeda threat the isis threat, they are insurgencies. we hear them described as terrorist sgrupz in the news. terrorism is simply a tactic these groups use.

they tap into long-standing grievances within the country that generally come from the central state itself. so, the american partnership directly with the central state, which is sometimes driving the grievances is not exactly always the most beneficial one. it is hard to work around, i understand this. we cannot be simply going around a governing state within a sovereign territory. but it is something we need to be very cognitive of as we pursue our counterterrorism or counterinsurgency relationship. third, i think we need to recognize that our actions inside and outside of different theaters play very concretely to these individuals. how dot sunni feel as we're negotiating an iranian nuclear deal? as we move to protect the yazidi and not the iraq in syria? we have set ourselves up to say that we are trying to fight isis on behalf of the muslim world.

and yet we are only coming to the rescue of certain individuals. that is not playing well in a fight that is, in essence, sectarian in the middle east. and we are seen as fighting only the sunni. and not protecting those moderate sunni that would otherwise look to the united states and have looked to the united states for support. so, i think that's the three major changes that i would like to see come out of the discussions that we've seen going on for the past couple of months. >> i think katherine has such a great point there. when you think about how -- how do we face the issue of deradicalization or this ideology that seemed to turn into coca-cola in two years, you know, right before our very eyes. and nobody's focused on what is happening on the ground. nobody's been able to exploit what baghdadi is doing because in all honesty, we ignored it.

in all honesty nobody knew who to talk with in syria. who are the right players? we were fumbling around trying to figure things out as baghdadi was on the rise, as al nusra was building up momentum. and then you see the disenfranchised sunni across the board receiving this amazing message. it touched their hearts. it reached right into their beliefs. it grabbed them. and we ignored it, again. because just can't happen again you know? they were the -- they were the jv team. nobody wanted to pay attention to what was happening on the ground. and u.s. intelligence as well as european intelligence officials as well as iraqis on the ground were warning over and over again that something was coming and nobody wanted to listen.

it's an ideological war that's going to require us to reaching out to not just specific players and not just hoping we can find a quick solution to wrap this up. but reaching out to everyone including the sunnis population so that people like baghdadi and leaders that will follow him, if he gets droned there will be someone else that will rise won't have the kind of power to do what he's already done again.

>> go ahead. >> so, my three. i'm a child of the cold war. that's my socialization and i miss it immensely. i think we can learn a lot from the cold war. the first thing we have to do is we have to really aggressively support all of those very brave sunni reformers that we are not helping at all. there are some very brave people in the middle east and north africa who day in and day out to write about how these people are not truly muslims. how they're distorting jihad. how democracy and islam can function together. if you're interested in who these people are, go to the website al musli in arabic and english. these are people america doesn't touch because it's not a religious war. in the cold war we supported the

dissidents incredibly aggressively. we have to do this now because they are on the front line and it's their lives as well. second, we need to push back at the strategic level against the propaganda. right now, we don't do information operation. the state department is 11,000 followers for its twitter feed on look back, turn away. there's one turkish woman by herself broadcasting into the middle east who has 1.3 million followers. that's one woman. so, we have to be strategic about our response. and i recommend an incredible model from the end of the cold war called active measures working group. an interagency tiny organization with congressional staff as members of the i.c., the active measures working group that targeted soviet propaganda and blew it out of the water. national definition university is a very good online study. ignore the historic stuff, the theoretical stuff and go straight to the story of what the active measure working group did. we need one of those run out of the white house today.

lastly, we need to ditch you know complete irrelevant concept such as counter radicalization. counter radicalization is a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. counter radicalization is equivalent to de-nazifiction. when did you do de-nazifiction? when we won. that's when we controlled german territory. counter radicalization is a small little tactical activity that doesn't address the ideological strategic stress of the enemy you're facing. we need to support president cici. president cici is the number one target for isis, al qaeda. on january 1st -- how many people in this room know that on january 1st this man walked into the vatican of sunni islam, so sunni islam does not have a pope but it has a vatican called the

al asr. he walked in there with all the -- he said, have you to help me execute a religious revolution to take down the jihadis because they're stealing our religion. we've been waiting 14 years for an arab leader to say that. what happened here in d.c. when he said that? crickets. nothing on cnn. nothing on "the new york times." that is the only way we're going to win by supporting local reformers at the grassroots level and not treat them like pariahs because they used to wear a uniform. >> that's great. thank you. >> i hope what sara has said about iraq and how we weren't paying attention while isis was rising, i can only hope it's a lesson for afghanistan and that we -- the white house will get away from this idea we have to put political timelines on withdrawal and drop the

timelines, keep residual forces in afghanistan as long as we need to. so hopefully there has been something learned by the fact that we pulled all u.s. forces out of iraq perhaps, a little more quickly than we should have. you know, i'm not saying we need to be fighting everywhere on all fronts, but we certainly can afford to keep u.s. forces imbedded in countries where the threat is greatest and where the partners need our advice training, equipment and those issues. yeah, there's a question at the back? >> hi. i'm a friend of sara. i'm originally from afghanistan. the conversations are really great. thank you so much. i just have a point that, you know, coming from afghanistan and being a witness of what's been happening, i just believe

there's a big difference between two generations. the new generation and the young generation that are coming right now. as sara said, american people are exhausted of this several years of work. truly afghans are truly exhausted. many people, social activists in kabul, who truly believe in democracy. they're supporters of human rights. like dr. gorka said, we need to find the right people to build a stronger relationship so we can stand against the terrorist groups, the extremist rising. there are so many people who will work towards, you know supporting democracy and human rights and work for it. so, i think -- i guess my question is, how can the united states and international community in general can cope with the right people in the local level, you know to fight or to stand against the growing

extremists? >> great. sara? >> i want to say something about nahid. i'm so happy you're here. she is an example of a strong afghan woman, which we never see in the united states so much. we always see the stories of afghan women who have been, you know maimed or harmed or forced into their qulots. she stood up and fought for the rights of afghan women during karzai's passage of the shariah laws. and she is -- she's quite someone. she's an example. she's not an anomaly. she's an example of muslim women and muslim men all across the world that i've met who i believe, we have ignored and we have not reached out to and who can make the greatest difference

for our nations and who can help find an established piece. and i think that her point i think that you're right. you asked a question. what do we do? i think we need to make valiant efforts as people, as lawmakers as academics to reach out to our muslim friends overseas the families, the people that are -- especially the women and children, and build those relationships so that we don't end up the way we've ended up today. in battles you know and the kind of slaughter that she's had to witness and that many people around the world are living with every day. >> i think, yeah the u.s. is going to have to engage with the civil societies of these nations. that's the key for moving forward. any more? okay. over here, in the back.

>> i'm stanley. like professor gorka, i'm a child of the cold war. i was a student in the soviet union. and i recall one of the soviet students once praising stalin. i asked, did he kill a lot of people? she replied, well, what do you do with people who oppose the revolution? of course you kill them. i objected. i was here with some british students. she had not been exposed to that alternative idea. she thought everybody did this. i can understand the ideological struggle, like presenting an alternative idea people haven't been exposed to the other idea, but with regard to islamic state, even zawahiri denounced islamic state, and yet people are joining. they've been exposed to the other idea. they are choosing to go with the more savage. you mentioned the book "the master of savagery," they are choosing to go even though they

know the alternative. that's what i have difficulty understanding. >> yeah, the -- we have to be really careful. one of our biggest sins is strategically when we mirror image. i was asked by an audience, how can this be going on? how can the people there put up with the decapitations and being shot in the head because you're not wearing a face veil? because to us it's shocking. don't impose your categories upon a population that may not agree with the same categories. the saying i would love to 1,000 years under a dictatorship rather than the chaos of democracy. that's a phrase i heard in afghanistan. yes, it may make us horrified but we have to understand what is the context of that savagery. is it like the person you met in the soviet union? that person who died, not a

human being. they're a capitalist. they don't count. that's the only way you can kill 8 million ukrainians, by saying they're not humans. by starving them to death as stalin did. again, we have to start with the bare essentials. what are the categories of that culture? what are they used to? what are the motivations? we get annoyed if the wi-fi in our hotel isn't fast. that's not really the definition of governance in the fatah region. and we think that, well, it should be. maybe an electricity a day would be impressive. so, again, it's shocking to us, but let's step back. let's take off our skins. let's take off our cultural blinders. try to understand it in its context and then we'll see things like the mastery of savagery work because if i deem the shia not to be humans, if i didn't even use the word shia

well, anything's possible but that doesn't mean we can't degrade their message. what gives al baghdadi the right to be the caliph? we don't even know if he's actually a kuresh but it's a requirement to be a caliph. if he really a kareshi? let's have a propaganda vote to prove that. that would hurt him a lot. you declared yourself a caliph? how's that? anybody thought of that inside the i.c.? i doubt it. most don't even know that. understand the culture, hire some theologianses and not social sign stisciencists, unfortunately. >> thank you. we have sometime for one more question. this is your first question, yes? okay. so right here in the middle. i'm sorry the rest of you can ask afterward. >> hi. i'm michael casey from george

washington university. just to continue the discussion on ideology there's an interesting article in "the washington post" monkey cage by lawrence ruben discussing what he calls ideational balancing and ideational security balance. he writes the islamic state's most certainly trigger defensive actions from threatening regimes that play out in the religious public space. the risk here is that you're attempting to out-islam the islamists. so he says, the risk is by arguing on islamic terms against the islamic state these regimes will continuously move the terms of combat further and more deeply into the islamic states battlefield. you look at places like saudi arabia where, you know in a very extreme form of islam is central to the identity of the regime. you look at places like professor gorka mentioned, cici in egypt trying to revolutionize islam. joer darngs they're revolutionizing their flag.

how do you move it on a battlefield that is, you know, preferred by the islamic state? thank you. >> superb question. excellent question. you cannot win this war on their terms. why? because the jihadi ideology -- the ideology of global jihadism is literal one and strengthened by islamic principle of abrogation. the violent passages of the koran come from later periods revealed to mohammed. according to the tenth century, if there's a contradiction in the koran, it cannot be a contradiction. the latter passages must abrogate the earlier ones. it's an apparent contradiction. which plays into the jihadis hands. mohammed's life was violent at the end. that's when he came back and decimated mecca and became the caliph. literalism will always benefit

the jihadi. that's why i mentioned cici and abdullah. have you to take this out of the realm of the theologianses and it's got to be a politically driven thing. we need the attitude model. whatever you think of turkey today, you know, the turkish state under his followers was muslim and stable and functioned. not in the way that we understand a democracy but in a way that worked for turks. but that was driven by, what? a top-down approach that said, look, i'm your president and i'm going to secularize politics. what you do on the mosque on friday, that's absolutely cool. what you do at home on your prayer rug, that's your thing. but you know what? islam's not going to inform politics. i'm going to segregate it like the founding fathers segregated it in america. that is the only way it's going to win. it is a battle that has to be fought on the political arena saying that islam is compatible modanity but we have to separate religion from politics as the west has done. that's the only way we're going to win.

theological debates will always favor the bad guys. >> but that would also just focus in on each individual nation state. i mean, it couldn't be something that we could do i don't think at all. it would be each individual nation state. >> correct. >> great. i think that's a great note to add on. i hope you all will join me in applauding a very excellent panel. >> thank you. >> that was great. thank you. you can watch this heritage foundation event again later today on our website. just go to c-span.org. some news from "the washington post" this morning. the iran nuclear talks in vienna are being extended through the weekend as officials said on

friday that an interim agreement will remain in place until monday while the negotiations continue. the extension is the third since the original deadline of june 30th elapsed without a final agreement being reached between a six-nation group seeking curbs on iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. although it's possible that a deal could be finalized at any time the extension suggests the torturous negotiations are expected to last a couple of days, at least. again, that from "the washington post." shortly after 10:00 a.m. this morning the confederate battle flag on the state house grounds in columbia, south carolina, was lowered during a ceremony following yesterday's signing of a law passed by the south carolina legislature to remove the flag and display it in a nearby civil war museum.

[ cheers and applause ]

[ cheers and applause ]

[ cheers and applause ] [ cheers and applause ]

>> usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa usa! usa! usa! ♪ hey hey good-bye ♪

♪ nah nah nah hey hey good-bye ♪ ♪ ah nah nah hey hey good-bye ♪ [ cheers and applause ]

[ cheers and applause ] >> usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa! usa!

[ cheers and applause ]

the confederate flag had flown on top of the south carolina capitol dome starting in 1961. a compromise lawmakers reached in 2000 relocated it to a confederate war memorial on the state house grounds. after it was lowered today it was taken in an armored room to relic room and museum. house speaker john boehner releasing this state, i command governor haley the legislature and the people of south carolina from removing the confederate flag from state house grounds. in a short time, we've seen our fellow citizens come together in a thoughtful way to deal with the horrific crime and a difficult issue.

this is the american spirit at its finest. and president obama tweeted today, south carolina taking down the confederate flag, a signal of goodwill and healing and a meaningful step towards a better future. and the flag removal ceremony from the state house grounds in columbia, south carolina will be reairing on our companion network c-span tonight at 8:00 eastern time. you can watch it at c-span.org as well as the flag debate that took place in the south carolina legislature. when congress is in session c-span3 brings you more of the best access to congress. with live coverage of hearings news conferences and key public affairs events. and every weekend, it's american history tv. traveling to historic sites discussions with authors and historians and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span3, coverage of congress and american history tv.

the united states currently relies on russian rocket engines for space launches government, private industry and military officials testify before a house subcommittee about this and ongoing programs and technology to develop an american-made rocket propulsion to replace the russian made rd-180 rocket engine used in u.s. space launches. >> good morning. our strategic forces subcommittee hearing on ensuring national security space in investing in american history and reliance on russian rocket this is related to the day of the funeral of those nine families in south carolina and it's a real tragedy and i know our hearts and thoughts are with them and condolences to their

family and friends. as for today's business, we'll be conducting two panels. in this first panel we have five expert witnesses from the industry who represent current and potential providers of the space launch rocket propulsion for expandable vehicle. our second panel we have three government officials who have management and overseeing the elb program and also an expert adviser to the government on recent launch study. on panel one we have troy bruno. mr. rob myeyerson. julie van kleet mr. frank culbertson orbital atk and mr. jeff thornburgh, senior director of propulsion engineering at space x. i thank all of you for participating in this hearing providing your prospective on national security. know it takes time and energy to

prepare for these things and really inconvenience to come up here but it really helps us a lot in developing public policy, so i really appreciate your service. this is our second hearing. we've recently conducted on space. we are dedicating time to this topic because it's significant to our national security. without an effective space launch program, we lose all the advantages we gain from space capabilities. losing space for our war fighters is not an option. there are key policy and acquisition questions regarding the future of the national security space that need to be addressed. as we've said before i'm committed to ending our reliance on russian rocket engines for national security space launch. i believe we must end our reliance in a manner that protects our military's assured access to space and protects the taxpayers by ensuring we don't trade on one monopoly for another. the house bill accomplishes this. and i look forward to prospectives of our witnesses on the current legislation under consideration for fiscal year

2016 ndaa, both the senate version and house version. because we are committing to enduring our -- ending our reliance on russian engines, we must invest in the united states rocket propulsion industrial base. investment in our industry for advanced rocket engines is overdue. while we may lead in some areas of rocket propulsion we are clearly not leading in all. this is a painfully obvious fact considering that two of the three u.s. launch providers we have here today rely on russian engines. and it's not just the russians leading the way. according to online press reports the chinese may be flying a new launch vehicle on a maiden flight this summer with similar technologies as the russians using advanced kerosene engines. the time has come to resume u.s. leadership in space. i believe the companies before us today can help us do that. however, i am concerned the air force's recent approach and what they may -- i am concerned with the air force's approach in what

may amount to a very expensive and risky endeavor in development of new engines, new launch vehicles and new infrastructure. congress is only authorized funding for the development of rocket propulsion system. launch vehicles are not the problem. the problem is the engine. thank you for being with us this morning. i look forward to your testimony and discussion on these important topics. i now recognize my friend and colleague from tennessee, the ranking member mr. cooper, for any opening statement he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we should approach this hearing as all others with a great deal of humility because i think the bottom line is if we had gotten last year's ndaa right, we wouldn't even be having this hearing. so we're correcting a self-inflicted wound here now, there are many self-inflicted wounds bee depending how far back you want to go in history. it's a little embarrassing for america that we haven't been able to duplicate or exceed the russian technology given the bls of dollars we've expended. but there are tremendous signs of hope. because if we had this hearing a

few years ago, that's when we really should have been worried but we weren't smart enough to be worried back then. now due to the investment, sometimes of our own billionaires, and their love of space, there is some amazingly exciting things happening. so we're really just managing this transition. i'm confident we can do it. i wish -- i don't know whether the chinese with their long march missile have in fact bought the rd-180 or at least copied it successfully, something we apparently have been unable to do. but we don't want to just be held to the past standard. there are new generation technologies that are even more exciting, more capable, so how do we effectively transition to that? a company -- competition can be contentious sometimes, but it is also exciting. and sometimes it brings out the best in us no matter how painful it is. so i'm glad we're having this

hearing. i hope that the net result will be superior congressional performance as well as superior company performance so that we can have assured access to space. thank you, mr. chairman, i look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. >> i thank the gentleman and the chair would inform the other members that they have opening statements they can submit them for the record. now we will move to our first panel. the witnesses are asked to summarize their opening statements, your full opening statements will be accepted into the record. and we will start with mr. bruno. you are recognized for five minutes to summarize your opening statement. >> thank you. chairman rogers ranking member cooper members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to come here today and talk -- and talk about our ongoing transformation of ula and our journey to replace the russian rd-180 with an all-american solution for our rocket engine. as you know, we partnered with blue origin last year for the development of the be-4 engine. it is a methane engine.

it was 3 1/2 years into its development and the engine portion of that effort was fully funded allowing us to move out smartly on that activity. rocket science is hard and rocket engines are the hardest partpart. so prudence required that i also enter into a partnership with aerojet rocket dime for the ar-1 rocket engine as a backup. that's a kerosene engine. it is at present 16 months behind the blue origin 4 engine simply because it started later and it does require significant government funding in order to continue. both engines are currently on plan. they are meeting their project and technical milestones. and most importantly for our nation both will bring the advanced engine cycle technology that is present on the rd-180 to american shores and allow us to regain our leadership in this key technical area. now, as we do all of this ula's focus will remain laser sharp on mission success and schedule

certainty. we are very proud of our perfect on-time successful record of now 96 consecutive launches. many of which were critical national security assets. now, in order to do all of this and avoid an assured access gap and to generate the commercial funds necessary for this investment in this new engine, it is necessary that we be allowed to continue competing with the atlas launch vehicle in order to support those missions and provide the funds that are required to do this. and so i am grateful to the house and especially for this committee and the work that you have done to correct the situation that ranking member cooper referred to that will allow us to have true and proper competition going forward while we protect our own national security. now, as we stand here today the industry has matured to admit a second provider for national security launch. i think that's a good thing. competition is healthy for the taxpayer. and it is healthy for the

industry. i look forward to competing in this new environment. and i am confident that whep there is a fair and even playing field that ula can come to that field and we can win. i'm optimistic about the future of space launch. i am inspired by the missions that i have the privilege to be entrusted with. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. bruno. >> chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. assured access to space is a national priority and a challenge we must meet domestically. blue origin is working to deliver the american engine to maintain u.s. leadership in space and deliver critical national security capabilities. our partnership with ula is fully funded and offers the fastest path to a domestic alternative to the russian rd-180. without requiring taxpayer dollars.

for more than a decade we have steadily advanced our capabilities flying five different rocket vehicles and developing multiple liquid rocket engines. we're spending our own money rather than taxpayer funds and we are taking a clean sheet approach to development. as a result we're able to outcompete the russians, building modern american engines to serve multiple launch vehicles. our recent successes demonstrate that. in april of this year our be-3 engine performed flawlessly powering our new shepard space vehicle to the edge of space. the be-3 is the first new american hydrogen engine to fly to space in more than a decade. united launch alliance recognized the merits of our approach when they selected our be-4 for their vulcan rocket. most importantly, it is on schedule to be qualified in 2017 and ready for first flight on the vulcan in 2019. two years ahead of any

alternative. being available two years earlier means there's two years less reliance on the russians. as with any there are many technical challenges. blue's made designed choices to mitigate risk. we also have an extensive testing program under way completing more than 60 stage combustion tests and hot power tests to date. full be-4 testing is on schedule to be completed -- or being conducted by the end of next year. and because we own our own test facilities, we can do this much faster. blue is well capitalized and significant private investment has been made in the facilities, equipment and personnel needed to make the be-4 a success. the engine is fully funded primarily by blue with support from ula and does not require government funding to be successful. instead of duplicating private efforts, the u.s. government should focus its resources on developing the next generation

of launch vehicles to meet national security requirements. in conclusion, no new engine can simply be dropped in to an existing launch vehicle. launch vehicles have to be designed around their engines. and launch vehicle providers are the ones who are best able to decide what type of engine they need. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. meyerson. ms. van cleat you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman rogers, ranking member cooper and members of the subcommittee, it's a privilege to be here today to discuss this important national security issue. simply stated we have an engine problem on the atlas 5 rocket, the nation's best and most versatile national security launch vehicle. it uses a russian-made rd-180 booster engine. on behalf of air jet rocket and dine and its 5,000 employees nationwide, i want to thank this committee for recognizing the problem and taking action. it continues to be our position

that the fastest least risky and lowest cost way to fix this problem is to develop an advanced american rocket booster engine to replace the russian rd-180. with a focus competitive acquisition based on a robust public-private partnership, we firmly believe this can be accomplished by 2019. in fiscal years 2015 and '16 this committee took a leadership role by authorizing for the air force to develop this engine by 2019: we welcome the opportunity to compete for this effort for an engine we call the ar-1. unfortunately, more than six months have passed since fiscal year 2015 funds were authorized and appropriated for the engine development program that this committee mandated. and virtually no money has been spent. it appears that this engine development is being subsumed into a lengthy new launch vehicle development and subsequent launch service acquisition. mr. chairman earlier this week you stated in the press, and i

quote, it is not time to fund new launch vehicles or new infrastructure rely on improving technologies. it is time for the pentagon to harness the power of the american industrial base and move with purpose and clarity in order to swiftly develop an american rocket propulsion system that ends our reliance on russia as soon as possible, end quote. you're exactly right. and we wholeheartedly agree with you. this is a national security imperative and should be treated as such. we have the technology to fix this problem but we must get moving. with the focus public-private partnership aerojet rocket dine has the proven capability to develop state-of-the-art advance technology kerosene fueled booster engine that can be certified by 2019 and be a near drop in replacement for the russian rd-180 on the existing atlas 5. aerojet rocket dine is able to say this with confidence based on more than 60 years of experience developing and producing launch vehicle propulsion. we have at hand these technologies as we've worked on them for the last 20 years.

we have active state-of-the-art liquid rocket engine factories that are currently delivering engines supporting upcoming national security launches. we're the only domestic companies designed, developed and produced and flown rocket engines with thrust greater than 150,000 pounds thrust. replacing the rd-180 requires nearly 1,000 pounds of thrust. we have experience delivering engines on short timelines such as the nation now faces. the delta 4 launch vehicle which produces 700,000 pounds of thrust was developed and produced on a five-year schedule. ar-1 will not be a copy of the rd-180. it will be in a superior all-american engine and will leapfrog russian technology. ar-1 will be available to any u.s. launch booster propulsion user and configureable to launch vehicle. the intellectual property will be retained by the government. to reiterate our nation has an

engine problem on its premier launch vehicle the atlas 5. at aerojet rocket dine we believe the fastest, least risky, lowest cost manner to do this is to develop an advanced american engine to replace the rd-180 on atlas 5. this can be done -- this can only be done by 2019 with a focused and robust development program and a public-private partnership. doing so will preserve access to space and reinvigorate the u.s. rocket propulsion industrial base. chairman rogers, i want to thank you again for holding this important hearing. these are difficult issues and each of us at the table has competing equities at stake. on behalf of aerojet rocket dine i appreciate you allowing our voice to be a part of this conversation. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, ms. van cleat, mr. culbertson, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good morning members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. i have submitted my full statement for the record of

course and in the interest of time will briefly describe for the committee how orbital 8 dk is working to support the united states national security space systems and launch vehicle programs. as a global leader in aerospace and defense technologies, orbital atk designs, builds and delivers affordable space defense and aviation-related systems to support our nation's war fighters as well as civil government and commercial customers in the u.s. and abroad. our company is the leading provider of small and medium class space launch vehicles for civil military and commercial missions having conducted more than 80 launches of such vehicles for nasa the u.s. air force, missile defense agency and other government commercial international customers in the last 25 years. including delivering approximately four tons of cargo to the national space station. as a committee is aware, earlier this year the u.s. air force announced phase 2 development and launch services acquisition plan. one of the key components of

this plan beginning fiscal year 2015 focuses on the rocket propulsion rps prototype program. we believe the air force acquisition plan is well conceived and sportded by congress will provide new space launch capabilities that are affordable, reliable and available by the end of this decade. as both a launch vehicle builder and propulsion system supplier orbital atk is prepared to support the air force's prototype program. orbital atk has proposed both solid and liquid propulsion system developments that will support a new all-american launch vehicle family that meets all the specified national security launch requirements as well as civil government commercial international launch needs. it is true that we are currently using a russian on one of our launch systems but that's because it's the only one available to us at the time. we had to meet our commitment to the international space station and deliver cargo. our new systems however will be developed in a public-private

partnership with significant private investment. and we are confident that our alternatives will be ready to support first flights by early 2019. orbital atk is committed to supporting our nation's assured access to space policy. reliable affordable and capable space launch systems are critical to ensuring our country is prepared to maintain access to space. through the program outlined by the air force we believe u.s. industry is able and poised to respond to this need and will provide the best possible combinations of systems for the future of u.s. access to space. we appreciate the efforts of this committee and this congress to correct the situation we find ourselves in propulsion development in this country. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> mr. chairman, ranking members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. i have prepared a detailed

written statement submitted for the record. mr. chairman, this country's ability to launch rockets without using russian engines should not be in question. america right now has talented rocket scientists, engineers and technicians currently flying or developing innovative american-made solutions to end u.s. reliance on russia today. it bears noting that there's been a concerted movement toward national consolidation of the russian space industry and a series of recent failures with russian rockets, engines and spacecraft. having worked in this business for 20 years for both government and private industry including the air force and nasa's marshal space flight center, i can tell you more is happening now in propulsion development in the united states than any time any my career. what is spacex doing? spacex today is the largest private producer of liquid fuel rocket engines in the world. the first stage mer lin has flown 162 times to space more than any other domestic boost phase rocket engine flying including the rd-180 and the rs 60-a combined. in the past eight years spacex

has developed nine different rocket engines. merlin is the first new american hydrocarbon rocket engine to be successfully developed and flown all while offering the highest weight of thrust. we are creating raptor which will be a fundamental advancement in propulsion technology and serve a number of applications for the national security space market. and we have captured more than 50% of the global space launch market.lyly increasing u.s. market share from 0% in 2012. with respect to a national engine program the air force is under taking a strategy to take result in not just rocket engine but launch systems. we believe this will if done correctly benefit the entire u.s. industrial base properly require investment and meet requirements for government launches. most importantly the air force is seeking to ensure that any new system is commercially viable in order to end the current practice of costly and

unsustainable government subsidization. spacex stands ready and able to provide access to space for the united states with our launch systems today as well as next generation propulsion launch systems. in may the air force certified the falcon 9 launch system to launch the most critical national security space payloads. we appreciate the air force's confidence. powered by spacex's merlin rocket engine, the falcon 9 can perform 60% of the d.o.d. launch requirements today. we are building and certifying the falcon heavy, which also uses the merlin rocket engine. between these two systems spacex will be able to execute 100% of the d.o.d. launch requirements and provide heavy lift redundancy for the first time to the government. we anticipate falcon heavy certification in mid-2017. at the same time spacex is developing raptor. this stage combustion reusable system will not only be extremely powerful but also versatile, efficient and reliable while achieving commercial viability through notable risk and cost reducing

improvements. raptor will ensure the u.s. remains the global leader in rocket propulsion technology and serve important applications for national security space launch. importantly, meaningful competition is re-entering the eelv program. with this we have seen the incumbent make promises to reduce its costs, innovate and fund new development efforts with private capital. these are good things. much has been made of a so-called impending capability gap in assured access to space. the only gap that currently exists relates to heavy lift capability. this is because the russian powered atlas 5 does not have a heavy lift variant. otherwise there is no credible risk of any capability gap for national security launch now or in the future. existing vehicles including the falcon 9 and the delta 4 are both made in america, certified for d.o.d. launch. the atlas will continue to fly through 2020 under current law even if no engine or launch vehicle is flying by the con gregsly mandated deadline of 2019 there will be no gap.

soon however the falcon heavy launch system will close the pre-existing gap and heavy lift through internal funding by spacex. falcon heavy will be certified years before any proposed national engine program is set to fly. i want to close my testimony with some constructive solutions to truly achieve assured access. first, the united states doesn't need more russian engines to get national security space payloads to orbit. second, continue working to achieve assured access through genuine competition between multiple qualified providers with redundant truly dissimilar launch systems. third, congress must properly structure its engine development effort to maximize smart investment. any government money should be matched 50% by private capital to ensure meaningful co-investment and commercial viability must be a key component of the future system. mr. chairman, thank you. spacex with our u.s.-built falcon 9 and falcon heavy as well as investments in home grown next generation propulsion

systems like raptor looks forward to contributing to the nation's space enterprise. i am pleased to address any questions you may have. >> great. great job. thank all of you. my first question was going to be to the companies do you think you're capable of providing us a rocket propulsion system in advanced rocket propulsion system that can replace the rd-180 by 2019. mr. myers and ms. van cleat answered that in their opening statement. mr. culbertson, you implied y'all are going to get into kpe for this replacement engine. was that an accurate assessment of your opening statement? >> yes, sir. we are certainly working towards that end. >> excellent. mr. thornburg, are you planning on getting in competition for replacement engine for the rd-180 and can you have it done by 2019? >> through our existing launch vehicles with falcon 9 and falcon heavy, we can provide

100% of the nation's needs for national security space missions. in addition we'll continue our investment in next generation propulsion systems and capability to further increase the u.s.'s position and propulsion development. >> so my understanding is you're talking about you can use your falcon 9 1.1 and falcon heavy when it's certified to compete for this mission, but you're not planning to get in the competition to develop a propulsion system to fit on the atlas 5? >> we're investing internally and next generation propulsion systems like raptor and we're happy to have the conversation how we can support the u.s. government. and any time the congress asks what can industry provide to service needs of the country we're ready to participate in that conversation. >> i heard you make reference to the merlin and raptor. if those in fact would work in some way with a launch system, would you be willing to sell those to other u.s. companies? launch companies?

>> from an engineering standpoint, yes, that's something we would entertain at spacex. >> i'm sorry mr. culbertson, you wanted to be recognized. >> i'm not sure i totally understood your question correctly. we are not proposing a system for atlas we are proposing a launch system that would meet the needs of the country in response to the air force -- >> that's what -- you had me excited for a minute there. i want a new engine. i don't want a new rocket. we want something to replace the rd-180 and if to not be a drop-in fit on the atlas 5, something that doesn't require a whole lot of modifications to work on the atlas 5. i understand all y'all like what you've got. and i know mr. bruno wants a new rocket that's awesome as long as we're not paying for it. we want an engine to be able to get our critical missions into space in a timely fashion. and 2019 as you know is a

critical time for us. let me go back to the two people i know are going to compete for it. mr. meyerson and ms. van cleat. will the cost of your engine be comparable to what we're already paying for the rd-180? >> according to our customer at ula we understand it is. it's comparable or better than the rd-180. >> ms. van cleat? >> yes, sir. we've designed the ar-1 to be at or below the price point of the rd-180. >> okay. i want to stay with you ms. van cleat, for a minute. mr. bruno in his opening statement made reference to the fact you are 16 months behind blue origin and your development of your engine. can you address that observation? and what does he mean by that? >> well i don't have my competitor's schedule. i can't say for certain where the 16 months comes from. what i can say is we will be certified by 2019. we're very confident about that. we've spent 20 years developing this technology from the

russians that was pioneered by the russians. we have the factories, we have a schedule. we will be testing full scale engines in the beginning of 2017. we will provide a full engine set to ula in 2018 and we will complete certification in 2019. >> 2018 or 2019? >> we'll complete certification of the engine in 2019. >> mr. meyerson, when do you think you will complete certification? >> we believe the engine will be qualified in 2017 and certified for flight on the vulcan in 2019 or ready for the first flight in 2019 with certification and system coming after. we've been working at this for more than three years and we have the facilities and the people and processes and equipment in place to do so. so we have high confidence in our schedule. we're testing hardware now. we're testing today. so the confidence, the level of ka da ta is well ahead of any alternative. that's what gives us the confidence in our schedule. >> you made reference to the

vulcan in your opening statement. and i know mr. bruno really wants to have a vulcan launch system. >> yes. >> we're interested in the atlas atlas. or ai am in my questioning. will you engine work on the atlas with modifications? and how significant of modify modifications would it take? >> so our engine runs in liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas. as the atlas is designed it will not integrate with the atlas. >> we would have to have a new launch system. >> that is right. >> okay. mr. bruno, tell me -- just talk about this vulcan system. tell me where that came from and when you see that happening and how does that play into what we're doing right now? given you know our previous testimony and my comments publicly and our conversations privately, i feel very strongly i just want a replacement for the rd-180. why are we talking about the vulcan? >> vulcan really refers to a series of evolutions to the atlas that takes several years

to accomplish. the first step in that evolution is simply replacing the engine that is on the atlas. so whether it's an ar-1 or be-4, that atlas with that new engine would be called vulcan and it would still have the atlas upper stage with strap-ones. it's essentially an atlas with a new engine. if i might take a moment i would like to expand on my colleague's answers. i think they were far too modest when they responded to your question relative to the cost of their engines. so first understanding that there is no such thing as an rd-180 drop-in replacement. we are not at this time capable of replicating the thrust level and performance of the rd-180. what they're talking about is providing a pair of engines that would replace the single rd-180. that pair of engines we expect to be upwards of 35% less expensive than a single rd-180. so while the performance of the engine is only first generation

in lagging what the rd-180 has, the manufacturing technology is a giant leap ahead. >> okay. i will get back to you on my next round of questions, but i want to turn to my friend now from tennessee, the ranking member, for any questions he may have. >> thank you. i appreciate the expertise on this panel. and i appreciate my friendship with the chairman. i'm a little worried that we're pursuing a unicorn here. i think mr. bruno just said there is no such thing as a replacement for the rd-180 engine. there is no drop-in equivalent. and we're kind of fooling ourselves if we think there could be in the reasonable future. there's certainly new launch systems, so continuing the theme of my opening statement, i think our first role should be first do no harm. because we wouldn't even be here if we'd gotten the language right in last year's nda.

so i'm not a technical expert. i'm certainly not a rocket scientist, but it seems to me that in this testimony there's some remarkable differences. first of all i regret it's a little bit unfair the witnesses are at least 3 to 1 against spacex, and i'm not sure that's fair. perhaps we should have given mr. thornburg three times the time. maybe three and a half to one against, but he more than held his own. and it should be exciting for all americans that we have billionaires and entrepreneurs willing to devote so many resources to coming up with new and apparently more efficient solutions. but the factual question, is there a gap? it seems to me we need at least nine rd-180s, we may need 29. we may need more than 29. and meanwhile a lot of what you hear on the hill is a lot of bad mouthing of the russians. and there's plenty of reason to

bad mouth at least their leaders. but while we're dependent on the rd-180 may not be the smartest thing strategically to bad mouth the source. hopefully we can overcome this gap. and mr. thornburg's testimony is that the real gap is the premature decision to retire the delta medium. so there you don't blame the russians. you blame us. or the gap could be air force dragging their feet to certify the new falcon heavy and certainly there are a lot of worthy and important requirements in certification three required successful launches lots of things. i love mr. culbertson's quote when he said, we can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. what congress is really good at is paperwork and putting in artificial requirements that oftentimes impede the private

sector's ability to innovate. i get worried that when it comes to a drop-in engine you're talking about my beloved old chevrolet impala and find a new v-8 in the vehicle. i want a car that will work not just an engine that will perform. when we talk about assured access to space we want a vehicle that can get our payloads up into the appropriate orbit. and it may be that we haven't had enough discussion in this panel of appropriate orbits. and maybe we can't do that in an open setting, but we have to serve all of our national security needs. and some of those are harder to achieve than others. so i hope that this hearing, and it may take the second panel to do it, will be able to resolve the question of whether there's a gap and if so how large and how best to bridge that gap. and to a certain extent all of the witnesses are asking us to buy some vapor wear because

nobody can predict nobody has a crystal ball. one tends to believe mr. bruno when he says getting realistic ain't going to happen before 2021, 2023 maybe because it takes time. at least the american way of doing it. i hope it's not that long. and we should all be encouraged to say with the new methane engine is completely amazing, but also the idea of the raptor is totally amazing. but some existing accomplishments are the things we should be deeply proud of. i am a little worried about mr. thornburg's methodology because the falcon uses nine or ten engines engines. and you claim an engine heritage that is able to be multiplied due to the number of engines. it makes me think that if the falcon 9 were composed of 100 engines, then you would have a track record ten times or 100 times more successful than all the rd-180s.

that's perhaps a specious methodology for coming up with a track record. still you can't deny the accomplishments because you've exceeded what most people would have expected. again, our job here is to not stand in the way of progress. and i think the statement of administration policy was pretty on point when it says often the congressional language especially last year section 1608 gets in the way. so how do we resolve this in a sensible way? we want commercial competition. we want assured access to space. but above all we have to have assured access to space. i'm hopeful that the witnesses can help us resolve these questions. and to say it may take the second panel, but there seems to be general consensus that no one is talking about a drop-in engine. because it's my understanding that even the proposed solutions are either 18 inches too long or four inches too long or really two engines instead of one

engine. so the chairman's goal as worthy as it may be is really not available from any of the witnesses on this panel. now the chairman's goal of cost savings is extremely important but i don't need to remind members of the armed services committee how much money we're wasting on various things here or there. in the scheme of things the money we're talking about here is relatively small and manageable. the key is assured access to space. so if any of the witnesses want to correct my impressions, i've spent much of last night reading your testimony. it was very helpful but it also is so conflicting it's hard to find where the truth lies. ms. van cleek, you seem poised. >> yes. yes, sir. thank you for the opportunity. the markets have been re-engined in the past, both numerous occasions both this country and others. you can replace rocket engines.

the ar-1 is a near drop-in replacement. and i'll explain the differences. and they are minor. we can reproduce an rd-180 in this country. it would cost in my opinion more money than it would to develop a new engine. it's a very complex engine and would cost a lot from a recurring standpoint. i think it's time for the u.s. to leapfrog that technology any way. the ar-1 uses the same propellant. it has the same engine cycle, so have a very similar environment. would use the same tankage, would have the same attach points, has the same performance, not lower performance, same performance. it is two engines. we did look at making it a single engine, but two engines is probably a better long-term solution for the u.s. because it can be used in multiple other applications in the future. and you can have the exact same physical attach points with a two-engine solution. it's really where the propellant feeds the engines and how it attaches.

it is 11 inches longer but we have been told by ula engineers that the length is not an issue. there is length to work with. that will effect minor ground support equipment, but it's very minor. we're talking modest modifications, things that we've done in the past. so it's as near to a drop-in replacement as can be made. >> but there are many other issues acoustics. and mr. bruno was saying just because you started late you're 16 months behind. so we don't know whether they will choose in the down select a year or two from now. >> yes, sir, that's a fact. the acoustics every rocket engine has a specific signature. the fact that it's the same cycle runs at a very similar operating point, we would anticipate that would be similar. >> but there have been lots of anticipations that didn't necessarily pan out. and for assured access to space we need something that will work. >> yes, sir, but we have been a part of re-engine numerous launch vehicles over time. and we have been successful with

those re-engining. this engine has been designed from the beginning to be a replacement to atlas 5. because we saw this problem coming ten years ago. and we had focused on that. we understand the atlas 5 very well. this engine was designed to interface with the atlas 5. >> uh-huh. well, you may have seen the problem ten years ago but you're 16 months behind right now even blue origin and some of these other things. so what -- that puts us in a tough spot. we have to measure the gap and figure out how to fill the gap. >> you know, whether we're again, we can meet 2019. whether we're 16 months behind or not, one would have to look at the details of these schedules and the different milestones to really come to, you know i have not seen that. >> mr. chairman i think my time is more than expired. thank you, sir. >> thank the gentleman. recognize gentleman from oklahoma for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman.

one of the concerns i have is when you consider the house's position and the senate's position on rd-180s, our positions are different. and i've heard that ula is interested in developing the vulcan to the extent they have a certain number of rd-180s available for the future. and if we don't have that certain number then they're not interested in developing the vulcan. my question for you, mr. bruno, is what happens if the senate doesn't come the direction of the house? in that case what happens to the vulcan, and what's your backup plan? >> so either engine path that has just been discussed requires significant investment on the part of ula. without the continued revenue of the atlas, we will lack the funds to be able to accomplish that activity.

without that we are entering into a marketplace where the air force market has declined and is incapable of supporting two providers. now, the good news is the overall lift market is large enough to support both of us both the new entrant and us and additional suppliers. but in order to be viable entity in that environment, we need to be able to effectively compete for civil and commercial missions in addition to competing for national security space missions. without that lower cost rocket and without the investment required to get there we're simply not economically viable in that window. >> you indicated that with the commercial launches in addition to the military launches that there would be economic viability for multiple providers. it looks like even you know, we might get a third provider with orbital atk potentially

participating. that being the case is there a reason ula couldn't get private capital to support the investment? >> it's unlikely that the capital markets would look at this uncertain investment environment any more favorably than our parents do. so investment really dislikes and avoids uncertainty. and as we sit here today, it's very uncertain whether the atlas will even be available to fly during the period between the end of its current contracts and the availability of the new rocket engine. so that leaves a multi-year period of time when we have no product to bring to the marketplace. not very likely that could attract many from capital markets for that. >> mr. culbertson does orbital atk agree with that position? that it's not worth the investment if there's not more rd-180 engines, obviously you're doing without the rd-180 engine? >> i can't really comment on ula's position on this. we do see a market out there

but it's still pretty slim in the classes we're discussing here. we actually have working with ula to continue to supply cargo to the international space station. after we had the accident they, spacex, and a couple other companies stepped forward and said we can give you a ride. and we have contracted with them on a commercial basis to do that. so we are sort of the beginning of their commercial market to continue to fly. but we also are continuing to develop our own systems to fly not only to the space station but fly national security missions. >> mr. thornburg, when you think about the commercial market with the eelv program is the market big enough? and for how many providers? and clearly you guys are already making the investment privately. >> i would also say that you know, as an engineer i'm not noesly studying the markets but

i can say spacex you know believes we can be very competitive across the market. as i mentioned in my opening statement we've recaptured for the united states 50% of the launch market share. so certainly with more cost effective launch solutions, the market does open up. >> and for mr. bruno you would know that the united states and we as members of congress we want to make sure we have assured access to space, which means we need multiple launch service providers for the eelv program. that being the case you know, your investors have got to understand that it is not in our interest as a nation to have two providers and one go out of business and end up with a monopoly. which means there's going to be some level of security would you agree with that? and are your investors, your parents, aware of that? >> the only data i have to operate on at the moment is the forecast the government has provided for the space lift that occurs in that window of time.

and it's important to remember that we're the ride for national security assets. they're recapitalized in waves. so we are currently recapitalizing a set of national security satellites that are well past their design life. that's going to complete in a short number of years. they'll be a long trough until the new assets run out of life. and then they'll be recapitalized. so it's very cyclic. what has been forecasted to us by the government, and it's a pretty sound forecast because we can see the satellites and the pipeline being designed and built, is that that marketplace drops from about eight to ten a year to five. and then that will be divided between at least two providers. so two or three. and that's not a sustainable economic model if you do not also have access to civil and commercial markets. >> okay. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. chair now recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr.

kaufman, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. first, mr. bruno, congratulations for outstanding record of success. jeff bezos said "ula has put a satellite in orbit almost every month for the past eight years. they're the most reliable launch provider in history. and their record of success is astonishing." i'm proud that ula is headquartered in colorado. i'm fully confident ula will remain very competitive in the future. you enjoyed an exclusive contract because of your competence. but i want to ask you what exactly can congress do to ensure that across the board we have created an environment that promotes innovation while not unfairly tipping the playing field towards or away from any

potential provider? >> certainly. but first i have to observe that that comment reveals that mr. bezos is obviously a very intelligent man. so in order to have a fair and even competitive playing field that is healthy in any interest of the government and good for industry it's important of course that the participants in that competition are able to bring competitive products to the marketplace. that's why we need continued access to atlas. in addition to that, the competition itself needs to be fair and even. so we must be held to the same technical standards in terms of the performance, in the missions we're able to fly, as well as the contracting requirements. so today the ula is required to perform to what's called far apart 15 which are a set of very complex and sophisticated acquisition regulations. they require for us to provide

elaborate, extensive and expensive financial recording, tracking and reporting systems. our competitor in a commercial marketplace does not. and so all of these elements have to be leveled. and then i would also advise the government that for national security missions for which our nation's safety depends and war fighters lives are at risk that a low-price technical acceptable type of priced shootout is not an appropriate methodology. you wouldn't buy your car that way. you wouldn't buy your home that way. and our soldiers lives should not be dependent upon it. so when competing and when making selections, they should consider cost equally balanced with technical performance reliability and schedule certainty. remember i mentioned the assets being recapitalized are generally beyond their design life. there is an urgency to replacing them as soon as possible.

that too should be considered. >> thank you, mr. thornburg. congratulations on successful certification of the falcon 9. in march mr. shotwell testified in this committee that you have dcaa auditors doing manufacturing audits right now. and your cost and your rates have been audited. was that testimony correct? and can you briefly describe the frequency and extent of the dcaa audits for -- that spacex undergoes and the number of dcaa personnel resident in its spacex facilities? >> to your first question was the testimony correct, i believe

the answer to that is yes. with regards to the question about dcaa audit and frequency, and my position within engineer engineering and working vehicle development, i'm not familiar with the frequency of the visits. i can tell you that we're working very closely with the air force and the d.o.d. i'd be happy to go collect that information and return for the record. >> i would really appreciate it if you could get that back to us for the record. mr. chairman i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for having this very important hearing. and thank you for the timeliness of this hearing. mr. thornburg i'd like to ask you about the current version of the merlin engine that you're using. is it the new -- is the new baseline -- is the full thrust merlin engine the baseline for the falcon version 1.1 going forward? and does spacex intend to bid that system for upcoming eelv launches? >> the current engine we're

flying is the merlin 1d boost engine. your reference to the full thrust is minor upgrade to the full engine basically takes the full potential of that engine system for future missions and then falcon 9.91. >> now, what are the differences between the two systems both hardware and software? i've heard that there are hundreds of differences. is that correct? >> i can't recall the exact number of differences. i can say that from a technical standpoint engineering wise the differences are very minor in terms of the changes and the upgrades to the engine. it's all in line with our continual improvement of a repulsion system and overall systems, but essentially we're taking the existing merlin 1d with its present design and performance and taking the additional performance that we have available there and

offering it to our customers and to enhance the performance of the falcon 9.9.1 system. >> what i'm trying to get at is with the changes that you've incorporated, does the previous certification cover the new what amounts to what i would consider a new version once you've started making a lot of changes? >> as far as the certification effort to date recent certification of the falcon 9, the merlin 1-d engine now going forward the bulk of that is identical. so we're talking about minor changes and upgrades to the system that will be reviewed through ongoing and future engineering review board activity with the air force. >> so even though there are an undetermined number of changes you can't give a number, you

don't think that amounts to anything worth recertifying? >> no. >> or reopening the -- >> no, i can comment that the ongoing dialogue with the air force through the certification process has been fantastic. we're working very closely with the air force as well as the aerospace corporation. the type of improvements and modifications that the falcon 9 launch vehicle is going through now is no different than improvements that atlas and delta have taken on over the years. so we're in line with that in terms of the initial certification and then ongoing certification act ifts as these improvements come online. >> okay. i just wish there was a little more certainty in this because you can't even tell me how many changes there are. i guess that's a concern i think we should get to the bottom of. changing gears here, ms. van cleek, what advanced technology

does the rd-180 use and why is it important that we bring that technology to the u.s.? >> well the rd-180 is what's called a stage comebustioncombustion, the r-25 that powered the space shuttle was also one of these engines. the russians pioneered and perfected the oxford stage combustion engine during the cold war. and the u.s. didn't. the u.s. perfected solids and hydrogen systems. so it's a very high performing, hydrocarbon engine. it provided a lot of advantage to the original atlas vehicle. some of the things in it are advanced codings, advanced materials. it's very compact, very high pressure. those are things particularly the materials for things that

this country did not choose to pursue and didn't develop. and so that is where the -- there is a technology gap in this particular variant of rocket engines in this country. >> mr. meyerson, would you agree with that assessment? >> in terms of the rd-180 and the important and efficiency of cycling, yes, i agree. i think if you look back to the time that lockheed martin and the choice of the rd-180 was an enabler for the atlas 5. that atlas 5 rocket would not have worked without the rd-180. today i think it's time to take a fresh look and look at a new engine that's in the oxford stage cycle combustion is critical and that's what blue origin has chosen for the be-4. but the be-4 is the choice of methane, liquefied natural gas as a propellant is one of those enablers. >> okay. thank you. and thank you for being here. >> i thank the gentleman.

start our second round of questions. i was listening to my buddy from tennessee when he was talking about his chevy and dropping a new engine in. and how sometimes that wasn't all that easy because, you know i've made it very clear my priority is to re-engine the atlas 5. and just reminded me as he was talking, he and i had the true privilege to meet with an american treasure earlier this week, retired general tom stafford also apollo astronaut. we both visited this topic with him. you know how big a deal is this to re-engine this rocket? and he basically said it's nothing. we re-engine fighter jets for generations. and that's much more complicated than what we're talking about here. and so with that backdrop mr. culbertson, your company is in the process of changing the engine in the antari's launch vehicle from the nk-33 to the rd-180 russian engine.

is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> considering your experience, how reasonable is it to change an engine to existing launch vehicle? >> it depends on the background of the engine and what it was originally designed for and the material of it at the time you move forward with it. the engine we are using in the future generation of antari's launch vehicles we intend to fly next year, was specifically designed as a replacement for the nk-33 which the aj-26 was based on. so the arrangement of the thrust factor, 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 almost ten years now to replace that engine on a couple different russian rockets. so when we started talking to them over three years ago, they were pretty far along on that path already. we did a lot of analysis to make sure it would in fact be compatible.

when we reached the 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 ensure we could continue to deliver cargo. >> great. ms. van cleek, you've already heard some reference to it today in your interchange with the ranking member. and in the next panel we're going to hear it's going to cost a significant amount of money to re-engine the atlas 5 with the ar-1. can you address where -- and i understand it you're going to hear it's going to cost at least $200 million to modify the atlas 5 for the ar-1. can you address that? >> yes. we've been working for years in various forms. like i said we have looked at this problem over the past ten years. we have an active contract right

now identifying the specific changes that need to be made assuming this goes into an atlas 5 vehicle. we're also looking at a vulcan configuration. that configuration requires a different launch vehicle. relative to the atlas, the changes that need to be made and i will submit those for the record in terms of the estimate for those costs have heard a variety of numbers. i have never heard a $200 million number. the number i've heard for the changes associated with an ar-1 going into an atlas 5 are more in the low tens of millions of dollars. i think that cost estimate still needs to be refined, but the type of modifications that are required are very minor. >> for the ar-1? >> for the ar-1 to fit on the atlas 5 vehicle. yes, sir. >> now, mr. meyerson same question. >> can i add to mr. culbertson's comment, his response. the keyword was ten years of investment by the russian government to develop a

replacement for the nk-33, which was developed into the aj-26. that's the key point, ten years. and we don't know how much money was invested. the be-4 is being developed, it's fully funded. we're more than three years into development. so this engine is real. there's real hardware to see. it's not a paper engine. >> great. tell me, mr. bruno has stated that both the be-4 and ar-1 would work on the atlas 5 with modifications. one with more modifications than the other. can you describe the extent to which we'd have to modify the atlas 5 for your engine to work? >> i think that's a better question for mr. bruno. but the engine when you're developing a new engine, you start with requirements and the details really matter. because the be-4 is so far along in its development, those details are much more well-understood so mr. bruno's team at ula can look at that and

design the right system to meet the national security need. >> mr. bruno, love for you to visit this 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. the thrust level -- >> let me stop you there. would the combined thrust of the two engines be comparable to the rd-180? >> yes, it will. in fact, it will be larger than the two. >> okay. >> in addition to that the rd-180 uses a very novel thrust vector control system to move the nozzle and steer the rocket based on fluidics that tap off the engine fuel system. that's also a technology that does not exist in the united states. and by the way one that we do not have an interest in

developing. so there will be a new thrust vector 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 need to be delivered, there will be software changes, structure 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 -- >> $200 million? i think we're going to hear from the air force later. >> right. >> you think that's an accurate -- >> i do think that's an accurate. >> that's for the ar-1? >> that's for the ar-1. 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 a 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 affordability of that system

will be less than the atlas today. >> so getting you those modifications moves you toward 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 is made available to me strap on the extra strap-ons and deal with the additional cost. i could do that for the first set within the fleet. so remember that the atlas 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-ons i can physically attach to the rocket because of the way the rocket is configure configured. those most difficult missions would suddenly become out of reach of an atlas in this

configuration without a longer tank to carry more fuel. >> okay. now, that's the ar-1 we're talking about. now let's talk about the be-4. >> yes. so the be-4 requires more extensive changes to our infrastructure and to our rocket. >> what does the $200 million figure turn into with the be-4 as the down selected engine? >> it would not be unreasonable to triple or quadruple that number. >> so $600 million to $800 million? >> yes. >> okay. let's talk about the other infrastructure involved. let's say we do change to a new rocket. and i'm not saying i'm ready to go there but what else is required for the launch? i mean, modifications other than just the rocket. don't you have to change 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 so those things you know, are more dependent upon the physical size and configuration of 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 it is the same propellent and so the length of the rocket will be similar, much more of the tools in the factory can be the same and the equipment at the launch pad can be slightly modified and the pad will have smaller modifications. for the methane engine because the methane is much less dense the tanker is much larger i'll have to redo the factory and move the rocket to the pad and

then the changes to the pad are more expensive. >> are those costs part of the triple or quadrupling? >> yes. >> so that was a comprehensive figure. maybe i missed it but were you able to explain the difference in the 16 months of lead that you assert that blue origin has over air jet in their development? >> yes. so both companies are under contract with us. we have sort of weekly engagements engagements, monthly formal program reviews and we're tracking both scheduled side by side. as i mentioned in the opening remarks, their rocket design started later than blue origin and that is the nature of the 16 months. >> okay, thank you. >> this will be for all of the witnesses. do you agree the government should own the intellectual

property for any investment it makes in a jet propulsion system. and i know you are talking about private money. but if you think we are going to invest should we own some of the property value. >> i think if the government invested in the system they should own it. >> yes. >> and miss van gleek. >> yes. >> and if the companies invest investing should also own their ip that they develop. yes, sir. >> and mr. thornberg. >> agree. if the government fully invest they would retain ip rights but for systems privately developed they would not. >> now i'm recovering attorney so two of you used the term fully invest, what if we pay for 60% of the development cost? is that something that you believe should inhibit our

owning a percentage of intellectual properties value? let's start with mr. thornberg. >> i think it would depend on what type of development. if the technology was an off shot of something developed by the private corporation, maybe not. but i think it would be case dependent. >> mr. meyer son. >> i think the contracting method, there is public and private partnerships and methods in place to allow industry to invest and account for shared ownership. >> that is one of my concerns. we've set aside 4 someone-- $400 million and we project 1.3 and $1.5 million will be spent for the new engine and $800 million or more paid for by the federal government and it seems to me there should be some interest that we have -- an intellectual

property that arise out of that. i want to ask the witnesses this and this is for all of the witnesses, are there clear requirements for the air force about what they are expecting but do you think they are clear but fair and reasonable, mr. myerson? >> i think -- yeah, i think the requirements are clear yes. >> mostly sunny van clique? >> i assume you are referencing the current acquisition process that is underway? >> yes, ma'am. >> yeah, and there is a process well spelled out in that and it does focus more on ultimate launch service as opposed to an engine, but it is spelled out. i think there are a lot of different paths that that particular process can go. >> mr. culberson, i'm sorry.

>> yes, sir we do feel that based on our experience based on commercial and the government market we understand the requirements of the air force and what we are looking for and we do think it is focused on a system that could be developed in a public-private partnership that would give the government the most options for competition as well as success. >> mr. thornberg. >> with the on going source election activity i don't think it is inappropriate for me to comment because i don't want to influence that source competition. >> do you have any opinion on this. >> i believe the requirements and the activity you are referring to are very clear from the government. >> fair and reasonable? >> yes. >> great. >> a couple of cleanup questions. miss van clique, your launch

service prime when developing a new engine why do you believe this approach 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 is looking at replacing a service or looking at an evolution of that service. i believe with that acquisition you can get to an engine through that process but it isn't the most efficient way to do that. >> okay. and finally, mr. bruno as you move forward with a new vulcan launch vehicle can you tell the committee if you intent to mitigate the risk by carrying the ar 1 and be 4 and if not and why not and if yes, when will you be able to require -- or be able to down select a 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 with either path has been retired and we are in a position to make a down selection based on technical feasible and the schedule and forecasting recurring cost. i expect that to happen at the end of 2016. the reason we'll down-select and not carry both forward is splim my because -- simply because i cannot afford to carry both. >> thank you. recognize the ranking member. >> there are five areas that i want to pursue, some are context and peripheral but i think it is important for the committee to understand. in the air force, rps, is there a prediction of out load of payroll size. so i think the presumption is they will stay the way they are today and some small and some large and if we're going to do cube sets maybe we don't need the lift capability. so all of this talk about lunch

systems and lift capacity the question is why do we lift it. and as electronics get smaller and smaller it could be that lighter lift capacity is sufficient to do the job. i don't know the answer to that question. anybody have any answers on this panel? >> so the standard reference for technical performance remains what the air force called the eight reference missions. and so they provide us with a set of or bits and pay load weight to be lifted to that orbit. those have not changed as of this date. the most challenges of those orbits require our complete capability all the way to the atlas five with the five strapons and the largest pay load faring. >> and part of it is orbit and part of it is weight. >> yes. and it is probably important to

understand the subtlety within that 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 the gio sink ron is orbit and if you intend to project which they do to preserve the satellite, it takes eight hours in space to circularize that orbit something not possible with conventional fuels like kerosene for example, without elaborate systems could keep them from freezing up. >> we haven't given much attention to the second stage problems so you point out something very very important. on the intellectual stage issue, it is the greatest source of wealth on the planet but we have difficulty understanding ownerships like. >> that it gives us some comfort that a american citizen might be owning all of this ip but

sometimes citizens move. citizens make private sale decisions that could endanger national security so this is something we need to figure out better and in terms of payback to the taxpayers if we could get one or two pharmaceutical companies to pay back the benefits of their blockbuster drugs from basic research done at n. >> h. it would return many more than a few billion dollars so perhaps we need to work with our colleagues on other committees on that. on the question of paperwork mr. bruno mentioned far 15, i think you called it. and that is a requirement that you have to endure, that some others might not. but i'm not sure, is all of far 15 good paperwork, necessary paperwork. can we stream line far 15 to reduce the burden for anybody subjected to all of the paperwork burden. it is not the ten commandmen