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 commandments it is not written in stone?

>> the federal acquisition regulations provide for different models. 15 is one set, another set is referred to as 12 and there are others that do exactly that and provide guidance when it is appropriate to use the less elaborate systems. >> so there is some flexibility within that. is far-15 the biggest and scariest monster out there. >> yes. >> but there are bigger monsters. but you just mentioned that to scare us. ghost stories. >> it happens in the world we live in at ula. >> the question that was mentioned, monopoly. but nobody likes monopoly but in the best case we would have adieu only or adieu og only, we need other millionaire to back miss van gleek or where is branson with others with eggees and when you say the business case isn't exciting about this, the diminishing number of pay loads, the substantial risk it

takes an investors ego to propel the sort of speculative investment, the glory of space faring. but so i think as we fear monopoly we should fair in mind the best case is we're going to have an olig only and that is not an whole lot better. we love retail where we can get amazon pricing for everything but that is not likely to get to happen here despite mr. bezos. and finally there is the touchy issue of recruiting brilliant personnel. and we in america relied heavily on warner van bron and other folks imported from germany and the last one just died down in huntsville, alabama and there are brilliant scientists who make a difference. i couldn't help but note on the first page of mr. myerson's

testimony, he's recruited folks from lots of places including someone with merlin experience. that is interesting. it makes me think, regarding the rd 180, the failure is not to have recruited a russian who knew how that worked. where is that person? and maybe the chinese did that when they integrated that into the long march or maybe they just stole the blueprints. but you kind of wonder you hope that a team of scientists can do great things and in many cases they have. but in some cases there are brilliant individuals who come up with the seektd sauce -- secret sauce. and that leads us to the very interesting feature of space x where they do not rely on the patent system to protect their ip preferring instead the trade secret system, which is basically thumbing their nose at

the entire western system of protecting intellectual property. and i'm not defending the inefficiencies of the patent office but this is kind of an interesting challenge here. you just keep it locked up in a safe, maybe loke the coca-cola formula, as opposed to publishing and disseminating and protecting legally. so there are many kwhal enks -- challenges that we face to make sure we have assured access of space and perhaps a unique security capability, whatever is required, on the timetable that we need to serve the war fighters and yet we're relying on commercial and global and international models that may or may not service this unique national capability. so these are some of the challenges that the sub-committee faces as we try to come up with a fair solution that above all puts america first. so that is how i see it. and if you all publicly or

privately have corrections amendments to that modifications, i would appreciate hearing from you. because we're trying to do the right thing and not have congress mess up yet again, like we did last year. thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i would note, when congress messed up last year it was with language that the private sector gave us to put in that bill. we didn't dream up that language. let's go to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine for any questions he may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. bruno, you mentioned earlier, to close the business case, ula, to compete in the commercial sect for for space launch is that correct. >> yes. >> mr. myerson does blue origin intend to compete in the commercial space launch industry with its own system? >> in the very long-term yes we do. but our first iteration is our

sub orbital new shepherd which we flew last month and the mer shant supplier to ula and other companies and making the engines available. >> and for you, mr. bruno. if blue origin enters the space and competing directly against you in the commercial market and you are entirely dependent upon them for the rocket engine, does that pose a risk to the cost of government launches? >> in the foreseeable future, i see the activities in the market place as complementary. in what my colleague rob is referring to is in the far future, when we'll have ample opportunity to work out arrangements. >> if the ar 1 engine ultimately is not what is down-selected, what is the future for the ar-1 miss van clique? >> currently the ar 1 is

relevant to this particular change and launch vehicles at this particular point in time. we don't reengine launch vehicles, but every ten years or we have different opportunities to do that. we would maintain the technology, probably put it at a technology level. but if there isn't a launch vehicle provider that will use it it will -- the development will not be completed at this point in time. >> is there a chance that that launch vehicle provider might materialize and the ar 1 would find itself relevant in the commercial and the eelv program? >> it is possible. there are -- it clearly depends on what some of the launch vehicle providers, what their paths going forward are. but as you know there are multiple providers here on this panel and we've talked about a limited market so in the near term, it is not a high probability. >> one of the challenges we have

is certainly it seems like there are two different directions that the panel is trying to accommodate. one direction is the air force's position, which is we need to purchase launch as a service. and of course that is -- that has been the going mindset for everyone for quite a while. and then we ended up in this position where the russians got aggressive. and boy, i'll tell you i share chairman's position that we don't want to send one more dollar to russia that we don't have to send to them and i agree with chairman rogers that we need to do everything possible to mitigate the risk to our own assured access to space. that is what drove us to this position today where we have language in the ndaa that ultimately might not be compatible with language that says we need to purchase launch as a service. so this is a challenge that we'll continue to have.

unfortunately the panelists today find themselves in a challenge where they are trying to basically go two different directions at the same time, given what has happened in the world and of course we as congress need to figure out a way to make this the best for our kurn, the best for the taxpayers, the best in the national security interest of the united states and i know chairman rogers has that in his heart. the goal here is to get off any russian engines and make sure we have assured access to space. and we've got to make that happen. and i just appreciate you guys being here and working through this with us as we try to make it happen for our country. thank you guys very much. >> thank the gentleman and i concur with that completely. and now recognize the gentleman from colorado mr. cav man for any questions i might have. >> i have one question. mr. myerson and mr. thornberg from space x, has a large rocket

engine been built and flown in space, and why -- what are the advantages of building this type of engine? >> by large i'll say no, engines greater than 250,000 pounds in thurst, there is no large methane engine built and flown to space that i know of. we've been busily working on the b-4 and made some specific design choices to mitigate any risk from that development and design choices in the chamber and injectors and materials that will give us confidence we can develop this engine by the end of next year and get into testing and meet the vulcan launch vehicle requirements. >> mr. thornberg. >> to your first question about have we flown a large methane rocket engine, no we have not done that. but the one thing i want to point out is the one aspect you hear about the novel technology and some of the new engine power

plants being discussed today i wanted to point out to the committee that the one common thread across whether it is rafter or ar-1 or be-4 is really the ox rich stage combustion technology. all three engines incorporate that and that really does represent the technology coming to the table. so whether you are trying to replace something with atlas in terms of an ar 1, you still have to finish the development of the technology and it is the same for be 4 and the same for a raptor engine. and i want to comment that the talented engineers in the united states have been working on these types of technologies since the late '90s through problematic of air force and nasa, these technologies have been available but yet to be fully funded and brought to the table until these conversations are happening now. so that is kind of where we stand on the methane engine developments. >> would anybody else like to

comment on that? >> yes, sir, i would. i agree that the common thread through these things is the oxford staged technology. however, i would say -- i mean we've worked on methane, we have worked on mathain since the 60s and built a number of different devices, none of which has flown yet. methane is probably important for mars missions when you are dealing with landers and things like that where you want to make your propellant in space. in terms of the difference though between a methane and a kerosene engine for a booster, the oxford is the same but the fuels, kerosene is characterized and the ability to run kerosene in an ox rich environment is characterized. the russians have perfected this technology over decades. i'm confident we can do that with methane but it will take time. it took russians time to get where they are and we understand that. and we have built off of that and studied that technology for

20 years and i believe this can be done for methane but i think the time frame is quite a bit longer. >> can anyone else comment? >> not about methane sir but i would like to point out there are other technologies involved here that involve propulsion systems and that is the solid rocket moat yores whether they are strap-ons or main stages, that is part of our heritage as a country and we are very much involved with that and in working with several people on the panel to make sure that is part of the systems. any system going forward has newly developed or perfected solid rocket motors as a part of it whether it is the main engine or additional propulsion or second stages and that is a discussion, how to maintain the lead in this country in solid rocket motors and propellants over the rest of the world to

help with national defense as well as our access to space for these big pay loads. >> yes, mr. thornberg. >> just a comment back on the methane side. i think the research and development and the testing performed by space x private investment and actives with blue origin are proving out the viability of methane whether it is ox rich or a full flow combustion cycle and we've been hiding jet propulsion in this country since the dawn of the space age and hydrogen offers for design methane falled between hydrogen and kerosene due to its cryogenic properties but there is research and development ongoing in the private sector independent of government investment over the last several years. >> can i add one comment to that. we talked about methane but the choice of fuel for the be 4 is liquified natural gas which is

commercially available the commodity you can buy and the infrastructure is growing in the last decade because it is four times cheaper and the rocket grade and it is available and clean and supports reuse ability and those are very important points we want to add. >> and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. thornberg, would you like to drill down on a line of questions i was pursuing earlier to hopefully get more clarity. in response for the record from the last hearing general hyten that quote space x has not submitted the changes desired to be accepted under certification for the full thrust system to the air force, unquote. if space x hasn't forthally

submitted the changes how is it your system should be certified for launch or eligible for competition on eelv? >> i'm sorry, i would have to get back to you on the specifics of what has been transferred but since the last hearing there has been numerous conversations between the air force and space x, specifically to address this information, i believe the bulk of that has been provide and is being discussed between the air force and space x but i'm happy to take that and provide it back for the record. >> well that doesn't really satisfy me. let me approach this from a little different angle and i'm going to refer to an article from a march 17th of this year aviation week article entitled, space x sees u.s. air force certification of falcon nine by midsummer and here is a quote out of the article. this -- it is lengthy so bear with me. this year space x expects to

debut another falcon nine upgrade to see a 15% increase in thrust for the fallon nine, 9 merlin 1-d core stage engine and 10% increase in the upper stage tank volume. nasa said such an increase in thrust is likely to require significant design modification to the engine and rocket which could necessity additional certification including a series of successful flights to prove the vehicle. so how is it that nasa can say that these are significant modifications and they require additional certification and possibly test flights and yet you don't seem to think that there is a need for more certification. >> the language used no need for more certification, just to clarify, i guess my comments earlier were mainly with regard to re-setting the clock on certification.

there has been on going certification work to upgrades of launch vehicles long before space x was in existence so my comments were mainly focused on the fact that space x isn't doing anything different than ula has done with atlas and delta in terms of new improvements to systems with performance and cost. and we're working with nasa and the air force who have both certified for our launch for assisting pay load this is year and we have on going conversations with the status of the vehicle and their fully read into the changes and modifications and are planning and on going and fully supportive in terms of gaining the certification for upcoming launches. >> okay. okay, well let me change gears and ask my last question. you stated in your opening statement that there should be a 50/50 investment in a new engine. did space x follow that guideline for falcon 9

investment? >> with falcon 9 investment space x, 100 invested in the development of that launch vehicle, so yes. >> now it is -- you said 100%. it is my understanding that the bulk of space x is forward funded nasa contracts totaling around $3.5 billion. is that correct. >> i can't speak to the total. but if you are referring to the cots program, the nasa money to supply the space station was focused on the dragon space capsule versus the fallon nine launch vehicle which space x funded the development of. >> okay. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. really i appreciate all of y'all, mr. thornberg, you made a great point when you emphasized we got ourselves into the situation and the ranking member when the u.s. stopped investing heavily enough in this technology and developing where we need to be and where we should have been before now. but our full attention is

focused on the matter now. and we appreciate you being here. i would remind all of the witnesses, we're going to keep the record open for ten days in case any members have any additional questions to ask you to respond to for the record and i would appreciate a timely response to those. we are about to have another panel of government witnesses. i very much hope you will listen to them and let us know what you think about what they say because it will continue to help us as we continue to develop and grow and try to move this policy in the right direction. and with that, we stand at recess for this panel to adjourn and then bring the new panel in.

i would like to welcome the experts for our second panel. thank you all for coming here today and preparing for it. we have the honorable katrina mcfarland assistant sect for acquisition. general none hyten, general air force space command. and general mcfarland -- that would have been good and it is great to have you back to testify. we appreciate your opinions and

we also look forward to hearing from lieutenant general sam greaves. and we have dr. mike griffin, representing himself today but deputy chair of the ar 1 risk mitigation study and also a former nasa administrator. mrs. mcfarland, now you are general mcfarland, i'll turn it over to you to start with. you are recognized for five minutes to summarize your opening statement. to all of the witnesses, your opening statements in full will be submitted to the record. if you would like to summarize them with your time, we'll get right to questions. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member and distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate in speaking before this committee since you are supposed to be at recess and ask my testimony be submitted for the record. these are critical to our space

national security as our world has changed over the last decade into a nonpermissive environment. during our march 17th hearing we touched on many top ings concerning the involved expendable launch vehicle program. amongst those were the department's plans for reintroducing competition on how to cure the launch satellites and transitioning away from the russian engine on to domestically sorts propulsion capabilities. and i'm pleased to state we are making progress competition and transition is intrinsically and fundamentally intertwined. this interdependency cannot be ignored, it must be managed. and as you heard from the members before us, it is a complex issue. and with space x fallon 9 launch system now certified for nss launches, we have for the first time since the ula joint venture enabled competition for launch

contract services. however, section 1608 of the fy 15 nda prohibits any use beyond the block one contract for the most cost effective launch capability ula atlas 5 which relies on the russian r 80 engine. we have a multi-year gap without two price competitive launch providers and traced ula has space x for the sole providers on some intermedia and other launches. it impacts the ula viability to compete in the future as an expert to ser the capability as optimistically by an engineer. and yes i'm a recovering engineer, and it is a complex issue, sir. to avoid this unacceptable situation, the department submitted legislative proposal requesting the section be amended. the department believes this

legislative proposal combined with the newly certified space x fallon v 91.1 allows the department to minimize impacts to space capabilities to complete the transition using domestically designed and produced propulsion systems. the department greatly appreciated the support of the legislative proposal and looks forward to working with congress and the defense committee as the fy 16 budget and languages with debated. the air force released a request for information rfi, you heard some of it earlier, to industry around august of 2014 soliciting feedback on approaches of transitioning away from the rd 180 and they supported toco invest with strategy to provide launch capability to support market requirements with marketedly broader approaches than anticipated. as heard.

as a result of the rfi and provide with the access to space mandates, the air force developed a four step incremental strategy to transition into domestic propulsion strategies as being discussed. the department remains committed to working with congress and industry to transition off the rd 180 engine in the most efficient and expeditious and affordable manner possible and assuring continued appliance with the access to space and commercial trade transportation service laws. again, thank you for your support to our critical missions and i look forward to our discussions. >> thank you miss mcfarland. general heighten, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. it is an honor to appear before you again to talk about this important issue with my distinguished colleagues. thank you all for your continued efforts to work this hard topic, because as miss mcfarland said, it is a difficult topic to work

through. and so everybody has witnessed our nation's revolution in space power and how fundamental it is to every military operation that takes place on the global today. however the capabilities are merely an illusion without assured access to space. with today's national reliance on space capabilities assured access has gone from important to imperative and remains one of the highest priorities. the launch industry has fundamentally changed over the last few deck atds. the air force no longer owns the vehicle we launch. we purchase access to space as say service. and industry is now investing large amounts of private capital in developing new engines and rockets and we're collaborating closely with them to determine how to best investment in public and private partnerships. so within context of assured access to space it is critical that we move as fast as we could to eliminate reliance on the russia rd 180 rocket engine. the u.s. should not depend on

another nation for access to space and we need an american hydrocarbon engine. with the ingenuity of this country, we think it is possible by 2019 however the engine still has to be made into a rocket and a complete space launch system and even if that system looks similar to the atlas five we still need to test it and ser it and that will take another year or two once the engine is developed. we don't want to be in a situation where significant resources have been expended and no provider has built or modified the necessary rocket. we can be assured toward competition as we move as fast as we can toward u.s. built rocket engines. thank you for your support. i look forward to continuing your partnership and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. general you're recognized for five minutes. >> chairman rothers and ranking member cooper and distinguish

membered of the sub-committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. space capabilities are essential to the american way of life and they multiply the effectiveness of our war fighters. thanks to the efforts of the men and women of the space and missile systems center, our many contractors and mission partners, we continue to deliver worldwide precision navigation, threat warning, protected strategic and tactical communications and many other capabilities from space. as we have all come to know space launch is a key to providing all of that capability. we address the critical nature of space launch through a policy of assured access to space. maintaining at least two reliable launch systems as a credible method for continued access to space should one suffer a grounding event. we purchase grounding on a commercial basis, leveraging america's most important source

of innovation and national strength, our free market. these two concepts assured access to space and competition are the cornerstones of our national launch policy. they guide our implementation as we execute the 2015 national defense authorization act which outlines the use of the rd 180 and mandates we develop a next generation rocket propulsion system. in response, i will emphasize that the air force is 100% committed to transitioning off of the rd 180 for national security space launch as quickly and as prudently as possible to a domestically produced liquid or solid based rocket propulsion system. from our perspective solely replacing the rd 180 with a new engine is not the complete solution since rockets are heavily influenced by engine design. even a drop-in replacement which

closely matched the rd 180 physical performance would require modifications to launch vehicle structures and fuel and heat lines and heat shields to accommodate even minor differences in performance. as was mentioned by the previous panel, the thrust control and throttling of the rd 180 engine is a critical characteristic of the atlas 5. the new engines thrust will require changes to the electronic control significants and significant engineering analysis to develop new flight profiles to launch the various satellites. so in other words a rocket engine specifically engineered to replace the rd 180 on the atlas would most likely be used only for the ula atlas and not by any other launch service providing without significant modifications to the engine and or the launch vehicle. we also do not believe this would meet the intent of open competition. additionally, as a product of

the market research, we found if we procured an engine not designed for a specific launch vehicle, commercial providers would be unlikely to build a rocket around it without the government also funding the redesign of their launch vehicles adding time cost and risk we cannot afford. so the air force is pursuing a strategy of share investment with industry using public-private partnerships at the launch service level. the goal of this plan is to produce two domestic commercially viable launch systems, including the accompanying liquid fuel engines and solid rocket motors. in our research, we assess that industry time line is predicting complete rocket propulsion systems by 2019 are aggressive. history az consistently shown that developing and testing a engine takes six to seven years with another year or two beyond that to integrate into the launch vehicle. now with all of that said we

are moving fast, very fast on this. to execute this plan we have developed an aggressive four step acquisition strategy to reach this end state as quickly as possible. step one, pursue technical maturity and risk reduction, building our expertise within the u.s. step two, targeting rocket propulsion system svelte. step three providing the launch system. and finally step four directs the acquisition of national security space requirements. as we move forward, our over all goal is to preserve assured access to space by maintaining our laser focus on mission success. our approach will accomplish this by supporting competition, where it credibly exists and by acquiring space launch as a service from certified commercially viable providers using domestically produced rocket propulsion systems. if we do this le -- will be on a

path of transitioning off the rd 180 and have two launch providers that are certified to meet national security space requirements by the end of fq 22. thank you for your support in helping us get here and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general grieves. doctor rur recognized for five minutes. you need to turn on your microphone. >> chairman rogers ranking member cooper and distinguished members of the committee, i'm honored to testify on the matter before us today. however, before beginning any substantive discussion i think i should note for the record that i'm here as an independent witness and a private individual. i've received no consideration of any kind in connection with the topic of today's hearing from anyone. i'm here on personal leave and at personal expense and do not represent any company, agency or committee on which i've served in the past or presently serve.

so with that said, we're here to discuss the rd 180 and its replacement. the rd 1845 has been used for two decades on various versions of atlas and without that engine or a functionally equivalent replacement, today's launch vehicle will be grounded and with it two-thirds of the national security pay loads as we presently have the manifest. and so while i completely agree that we should not continue to be dependent upon a foreign power, much less an adversary for any element of our national space launch capability i do believe that the legislative action which has been taken in this regard is a bit too abrupt. it might be that we should wean ourselves of this dependent a bit more gently. but if the atlas is grounded then what? u.s. policy and law require two independent systems for national security space launch

capability. this requirement is met but only partially four with the delta four family. pay loads said pay loads could be shifted from delta and that may be so and many are not interchangeable and would require considerable rework and considerable cost to shift from at law to delta and more over the delta is in general more expensive than the equivalent atlas and the top end delta performance -- of delta 4 medium is less than that of the top end atlas. so some atlas pay loads will not be transferable to delta. finally, the delta production limitations are such that without a massive increase in manufacturing and launch infrastructure, very limited search capacity is even possible. so the net effect of shifting national security space systems from atlas to delta should we have to do so will be several years of delay for the pay load

and many billions of dollars for the increased cost. some have said the best forward path is to discard decades of government investment with the atlas and development a whole new system. this does nothing to solve today's problems and even if it did, it is irrational to suppose a new launch vehicle could be obtained more quickly and at less cost than a new engine alone. others would have us believe that u.s. government can purchase launch services from among multiple competitors as if selecting a particular airline based on airfare and schedule. purveyors would have us believe if we have an engine supply problem, the u.s. government should stay on the side lines while the market solves the problem. but in reality, the u.s. national security launch architecture is a strategic capability having far more in common with other strategic acts

such as fighters, bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines than airlines and cruise ships. those of the market cannot be allowed to determine whether or not critical pay loads make it to space. accordingly the u.s. government must be prepared to ensure that the supply chain required to maintain this critical asset remains in tact. that supply chain is currently quite fragile because while we have been supporting the russian rocket engine industrial base, our own has withered. to conclude, we have an engine problem, not a rocket problem. i believe we should solve it by building a government funded government owned equivalent to the rd 180 as quickly as possibly we can do so. we should not allow the on skating issues to cloud our view of what must be done. thank you. my full statement i hope will be entered for the record. >> it certainly will. listen, before i get into my questions that i prepared, you

heard the previous panel. is anybody just chomping at the bit to take on something that came out in the previous panel that you think the committee needs to hear for sure. dr. griffin. >> sir, i might -- i need to comment on the -- one of the last statements of the space x representative that the development of falcon 9 was done on private funds and that nasa money spent went on dragon. i personally am the originator of the cots program and that program was intended to provide seed money -- and i emphasize seed money not majority funding, for the development of a new launch vehicle and a delivery system for cargo to space station. after i left the agency with the inauguration of president obama, considerably more money was supplied to space x. i think from public sources it is easily possible to show that

space x has received about $3.5 billion or so possibly more, in open source funding. seeing as how they've conducted seven launches for nasa, countsing the one upcoming this week, that is either an extraordinarily high price per launch of about half a billion dollars per launch, which i don't believe is the case or a considerable amount of that money has gone into capitalizing the company. the money was not segregated out according to dragon or falcon 9 so i very strongly believe that the government money which has been provided to space x has in fact, gone for the development of falcon 9. >> anybody else? anything that just jumps out at you? you all heard me hope optimistically that more than two companies will be competing for this engine and i hope that we wind up with three or four or

more getting into this competition when it really gets going. all right. and in last years 2014 space hearing, i asked the witnesses if they think the developing a competitively acquired next generation engine available to all u.s. providers that couldectively replace the rd 180 was important. general shelter, the predecessor of gent heighten, said i would be a strong support if we can find the money to do it closed quote. mr. gill clinger, who used to work for miss mcfarland, in the long run it is in the interest of the government to produce a next gen u.s. rocket. we took their vic and asked for a domestic propulsion by 2019 and provided $220 million just to get started. and now when i read your plan, it is not clear to me that we

are focused on developing a domestic engine. what has changed since that testimony? and i would like to ask all of the witnesses in your pough fegsal -- professional judgment, if we have two options, one to replace the engine with a proven technology or two to builda new engine with unproven technology and new launch vehicle and new infrastructure what is the risk, most expedient and least cost to the taxpayers? anybody that wants to take it on? general hyten? >> so mr. chairman i'll make two comments and then i'll turn it over to my fellow members on the panel. the first comment is that the united states leads the world in two elements of the rocket engine business. we lead the world in solids and we lead the world in liquid oxygen and hydrogen engines. i think we should lead the world in every category of development and the one we don't lead in is

hydrocarbon development. the united states, no matter what the rest of the discussion that goes on, the united states should develop a technology program that builds hydrocarbon technology for the united states across the board. i think it is essential to what we do as a country we've avoided that for about 20 years and we ought to take that on and go forward with that, however this turns out. the second issue is what has changed? what changed since the last time we talked is we actually have a bill. we have a national defense authorization act that gave us specific guidance and the guidance said that we need to pursue engines that go -- that grow to a domestic alternative for national sure space launches and tells us they have to be made in the united states and all of the previous panel did that and they have to meet the requirements of the national space community and they did that. and develop no later than 2019, that is a challenge but we heard that. and then be developed using full and open competition. that full and open competition is exactly the structure we put in place. we were specifically told by the

law not to go to a specific vendor or build a specific engine and look at open competition and we looked at the previous panel and the thing that struck me about the previous panel is how impressive is how much they had embraced that across the board from blue origin to arrow jet to orbital to space x to look at that, so the competition was important. but when you go through competition, you have to make sure it is full and open and fair across industry. that does not happen overnight. so i make those two comments for the record, sir. >> general graefs. >> mr. chairman you asked whether or not we should replace the rd 180 with proven technology. as the previous panel did express, we do not have the capability within the united states today to replace that engine. so whatever we come up with will

be a new engine and the ar 1 and be-4 they were both mentioned. and replacing an engine has effects on the over all capability we plan to deliver. so we must verify the impacts of any changes to any component in the system especially an engine, on the rocket itself and the ability to deliver that capability to orbit. so combined with what the general just mentioned, our approach is to look at the total capability and the system that will result to any changes to the component to include the engine and that is why we start from the launch service -- the ultimate capability assess what the impacts are and then decide whether or not as you'll see through the four-step process that we have in place, whether or not any of the providers, and by the way, we did have what we're referring as a broad response from industry, to the rps proposal that we put out

there, that arrived a couple of days ago, that we're assessing right now, so there is interest, but we must look at impacts from any changes to the rocket to the system on that system. thank you. >> miss mcfarland. >> gentlemen i think it is clear that one thing came out from each of the previous industry, there isn't a drop in replacements of the rd 180 on the table. form, fit and function maybe but not a drop-in exact replacement. so really what we are focused on is risks. how do we leverage our funds in risk. it is leveraging funds from the government and risk from the government and we pass that risk back to industry or do we take and work together with industry and funding and share the risks? i call it the pay me now or pay me later. each of these industries have

already stated there is a limited industrial base for commercialization immediately. i shared with you earlier the satellite industry association study that said there is a modest growth somewhere between 4%-9%. and they in the commercial world don't use the size that we do for pay loads. so we carry, no matter what under under writing of whatever comes out of here. and because we don't have the ip to the rd 180 and we haven't developed as has been stated repeatedly the engineering expertise that understands the methodology in expect form we have some modicum of risk and therefore the proposal as it stands and with rfp are pursuing the government industry and smart together to the point where they can make a logical

decision to the next step. can we purr v.a. going forward with a launch system shall we look at just propulsion system, shall we look at just engine and what is the most cost effective and by the way timely -- we're racing against time -- proposal. the advancements from industry is reassuring. the question is now where do we place that risk and how can we afford it, particularly, as i mentioned to you earlier and with the ranking member, we're certained with sequestration -- concerned with sooeks with trying to rush forward and replacing this on replayment it hits us right at the crucial point, fy 16. >> you heard the previous panel talk about the degree of modifications that would be required to take one of the new proposed rocket engines and put

it on the rocket itself and they didn't disagree with numbers that i heard from you earlier general of $200 million for not just the rocket but all of the infrastructure changes and that was the floor. do you still believe that is at a someone mim what we are looking at no matter which alternative we select? >> mr. chairman i won't disagree with what mr. bruno said, what his numbers are. the numbers i shared with you are the numbers i heard from mr. bruno. we'll know more as we get into the contract activities with them. gem graefs will go down that path with him but those numbers are ballpark fair to look at. but i think there are tens of mills. i think $200 million is the floor. >> one dig change from the last big assured access hearing to this hearing that is striking to me, is the idea of hitting 2019 for completion of testing and

providing your system for air force certification seemed ambitious but realistic. now, you heard from the previous panel, high degrees of confidence, they believe they will have not only completed of their system, but have completed certification easily by 2019. general, you seem to have real concerns about that. do you think that is optimism or silly? >> sir, i believe they're discussing certification of the engine. when we talk certification, we're talking certification of the system. so the engine plus everything any modification to the engine brings with it software, structures, loads, flight dynamic, processinging manufacturing. that's what we refer to assert if i indication. so i do believe it's aggressive but that's only parts of the

answer. answer. >> you just created a new question for the record. what certification process. >> mr. chairman, i was listening real close. and the answer from blue origin, quote was ready to integrate and fly and certificate if i kafgs the engine in 2019. so i think that's a great question for the record. >> i strongly agree that hydrocarbon engine technology is one that we let go at our national peril. i would point out we've never actually agreed not to have it. we just did a may goke or buy decision and we decided to buy it.

that option doesn't look so smart right now. and so i think we need to relearn how to make it fp i'm not interested in replicating rt-180 technology i'm interested in going beyond it. and that's what i believe we will and should do. secondly, i believe that there is considerable self-interest on the part of a number of different parties in estimating the difficulty of integrating a new engine on launch vehicle. i don't think it's a $10 million problem. but i'm not sure that i agree that it's aity humity itymulti 100 million dollar problem. i have a list of eight different rocket engine stages which have been reengined over the course of 50 some years of american space history. i would be be happy to submit that for the record. but i simply, the history of

this matter does not show to be so horribly difficult to reengine a vehicle as some of our earlier witnesses were saying. >> and if you would submit that for the record. >> i will submit that for the record. i just simply don't believe to be so difficult. >> before i go to the ranking member, i want to go back to the specific language you wrote down that blue origin and aero jet offered. when blue origin said they would be ready to fly by 2019 does that mean they had completed the certification process? >> for their engine. i interpret that had as the engine would be ready for us to start into a certification flight test program in 2019. certification flight test program takes a year or two. usually about two years to go from a very first flight of an engine, so that was interesting to me because -- >> and what is the aero jet language mean to you? >> what that means to me was a

similar thing, except thept by the they said by the ended of 2019. they said sld it would be ready. the engine you can, not the system. >> so in either case, notjust the engine, not the system. >> that's what i heard from both. but it's important to point out that both of those technologies have significant challenges that they will have to work through. now, i believe that industry on both sides especially on the competitive environment can aggressively pursue those and get through those, but methane is a new endeavor when you get above 250,000 pounds of thrust. and this stage combust across the board has not been done. so still technical risks to pursue. >> thank you. any questions? >> thank you mr. chairman.

i'm a budget hauler. and i hate to bring the up the issue of sequestration, but that is probably the most important issue we face not the only for some you this, but for all the military issues. and this committee has ducked it yet again. so we will be borrowing 30 billion we say nonbudgeted, increase the deficit, probably borrowing it from china. yet none of us has thought over or proposed we'd buy the long march missile from china to meet our gap. but we're taking the money from them. but we wouldn't consider buying their missile based on rd-180 technology. so i hope the members of this committee and of this congress will solve the sequestration

problem, something that repeated congresses have failed to do which dramatically injures our national defense capability. so that's the big issue. so within that giant issue we're focusing on this. i need to ask the witnesses and the chairman this question. general grieves indicated there has been broad interest in the latest rfp. great. but that's for more than reengineing. so i'm interested to get clarity in this hearing whether the chairman would be interested in a new rpf just for a new engine. are we buying missile systems or are we buying new engines? general grieves. >> congressman the broad response from industry includes initial proposes from both

engine providers as well as launch service providers. so we're assessing that combination as we speak. we received it three days ago. we're on a time line to select the best. >> but any new rfp would delay the whole process. >> yes, sir. but we believe -- >> you've already expressed exsfreemex extreme skepticism about the possibility of getting a certified engine replacement by 2019. >> yes, sir. we believe a new rfp would delay the process but we also believe that the current process we have rps encompasses both opportunities for inputs from engine provider and launch service providers. so within that total inputs we believe we'll find a way through this. >> and with last year's nda,

specific language on this, the agreement includes the house provision which with an amendment that would direct the secretary of defense to develop a rocket propulsion statement developed no later than 2019 meets the requirement of the national security space community and is available for purchase by all space launch providers of the united states. we note that this appropriation is, quote, not an authorization for funds for development of a new launch vehicle. period. and i'll submit that for the record. >> but this committee can say 2019. that doesn't mean it will happen. and we've heard from our acht experts extreme skepticism that that could happen. >> but i hope you also heard opt michl. optimism. when you in-gauge the best scientists and engineers that we have, i think it's possible to get there in 2019. the skepticism that i think

you're referring to is talking about the significance technical challenges in a couple of areas. and then we also have the thruster control issue that we have to work through. we're not going go down that technology path. i think in the long term that will be a good technology ram for the united states to go down, as well. >> well we keep on using this word competition at least from the previous panel. really only two competitors when you get down to it. there is the ula group and then there is spacex. and orbital wants to get in maybe sometime. but this isn't a retail environment. there are not lots of folks vying for this lumpy business. you now, more folks interested in commercial but that's not what we're talking about here. this basically at least due to market interest is not an interesting business space unless you're a multibillionaire with a big ego.

and by the way the missing billionaire for the hydrocarbon engine, maybe we can find a texas oil man interested in funding the search platform. because dr. griffin is probably right, we need world class research in this area. where has it been for decades? we haven't had the backing for it somehow. so we're in this fix right now. >> we were buying it from russia because it was in ms. mcfarland mcfarland's words pay me now or pay me later. and we chose to take the route buying a relatively inexpensive recurring engine rather than preserving our own industrial base. at this point that does not look like it was the smart alter made difference then and i would suggest that we do not repeat it. >> well, i don't want to put words in your mouth, but there are some advantages sometimes to big government and you proposed a government funded, government owned solution. many of my colleagues call that

big government and they resist that they want to turn virtually over everything to the private sector. >> i'm a free market conservative and if i thought that the market were such as to supply this item as it does for airline transportation or computer then i would want the government to buy it off the market. my observation is that -- he will work i'll just put it like this. last year ula conducted one commercial launch. that's the ratio of free market to national requirements. so i suggest -- i'm urging the committee to consider regarding this item as a national security item first with some possibility of dual use. but for the national security side, if we believe to be so, then we must ensure our supply

chain. and that is everything from thrust spector control systems and guidance systems to ground interdiction instruction to air frames to engines. we must ensure cradle to grave we in the national security community have taken care that we can get every item we need. >> i like your argument because we do need assured access to space. i thought you went a little bit too far if you use the ula ratio last year as the appropriate mix. it could be that the ula is the higher cost provider for commercial and that's why so much of the business has been taken by spacex. but regardless of that, there are certain needs that opt government can perform and we should step up and do that. and fully pay for those unlike we're doing with the overall aulall defense budget. we're still borrowing from the chinese. so we have to get real about this and this committee has failed in that regard. i'm a little worried about the aspect of the air force

demanding competition and performance and everything. and then you're the gatekeeper. so you could slow walk or prevent, you know, otherwise qualified vendor from achieving success. this assumed horizon of 6 to 7 years is worrisome because we won world war ii in that time frame, but now everything is slower in the modern age. so i'm a little bit worried and we saw this a little bit with the last spacex certification. it was six months longer than expected and i want to make sure all the is are dotted and all the ts are costed. but sometimes we're not quite sure where it's lost in the bureaucracy bureaucracy.rosted. but sometimes we're not quite sure where it's lost in the bureaucracy.sted. but sometimes we're not quite sure where it's lost in the bureaucracy.ed. but sometimes we're not quite sure where it's lost in the bureaucracy. >> we're 100% focused on expediting our transition as well as ensuring that we have a level playing field between all

applicants for that work effort. and we have not to date excluded any of the proposed options to include solids. that will drive to us a conclusion expeditiously. and we do have the opportunity if we find that for one or more reasons that one or more of the proposals that we're reviewing now will not close business case perspective, won't meet requirements, someone can't meet what we need to essentially go back to step one which is the technical maturation activity to pursue an engine development if needed. >> that sounds great, but the definite nation of expeditiously in the modern age is six to seven years. >> i'm talking for step two which is the rfp we're currently assess awards between september and december of this year. it's a two step process.

there is the set of initial proposals that we have now either meet or not meet the requirement. narrowing it down and moving on. because you've heard from the previous panel, sir, these providers have been working on this issue for quite some time on their own. and we do not believe it will take an exor tabtshrbitant amount of time to get to a decision. >> we all hope it won't be an exorbitant amount of time, but no one ever has proposed reforming farv 15. >> what the air force used was an owner transaction. that's similar to what you see that is a very important tool that they're use to go expedite not only the speed but the innovation. it's not and he prescriptive as we discussed. >> so not as scary as the big

monster, but this is a little monster? >> this is like boo-boo. >> i'm sure they will be comforted by that. essential question of fact here. spacex of its that they can handle 60% of national security loads. ms. mcfarland said they can do four of eight. dr. griffin said two thirds of the pay loads would be grounded. so what is it? >> well, i'll answer.loads would be grounded. so what is it? >> well, i'll answer. i was privileged to be asked to serve on the mitchell committee last year as deputy chair to look at rd-180 alternatives and we surveyed the manifest at that time. and two-thirds of the individual flights in the manifest were on atlas 5, one version of it or

another. that's just a fact. when spacex talks about can lift 60% of the pay sdlt loadpayload, many of those pay account loads will be repeat versions of the same anything. it didn't mean that they can list 60 respect 060% of all possible spacecraft.anything. it didn't mean that they can list 60% of all possible spacecraft. >> do we have the legal ability to force the continuation of the delta medium? because that's what spacex claims would eliminate any gap even today. >> i'm not a lawyer. >> general gleefrieve, you're a lawyer. >> yes, sir. i believe the entire discussion revolves around the ability to

remain competitive with something like a falcon 9. and as mr. bruno mentioned before, they are asking for the time to transition between where we are today and whatever their new system is. and to do that they need a steady stream of revenue so if delta 4 was forced to compete with vulcan 9, it would novembers costnovember s not be cost competitive and nos likely not win. so without that steady stream of revenue, it would be hard to receive the capital they need to make that transition so it's not a matter of whether delta 4 can meet all requirements or we can force them to stay, it's -- i believe it's matter of whether

ula can can remain in business during the transition. >> so we can make it happen if they we them to make it happen. >> yes, sir. >> final point would be this. i'm worried overall that the shorten you're of generalships does that meet these multiyear national security capabilities. so many of the personnel and leaders of these companies are retired air force and when we have three your, four year -- i'm not impugning anyone's integrity integrity, but when we're rotating out personnel success is sometimes defined as punching your ticket on your command. and if that's sufficient -- because we're so the receiving end of a 20 year problem here. wonder where those folks are. >> i understand the argument,

and i'll point out that i came back into this element of the business in february of 2010. and i started coming over here to the hill in february of 2010 working this issue as the spacing aspace ing a acquisition person, now commander of space command. so i've been in this area focused on this area for over five years now. and this is essentially important to me personally to make sure we get this done correctly because i don't want to leave a problem for the people that come after me because i understand that i have a finite amount of time left in the service now. i want to make sure that we get it right on that the folks that come after me don't have to worry about this problem. >> and you're a good man and five years on a problem is a very long time for the air force. but that pails in comparison to the admiral's tenure with navy nuclear. >> i understand the argument.

>> thank you mr. chairman. >> and the point ranking member is making i completely agree with, one of my frustrations, we have these shorten you'res of really sharp people like you. it would be nice if we could make those instead of three year tenures six years or thereabouts. anyway, gentleman from oklahoma recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since the issue of the sequester came up, i'll take an opportunity to share what i think a lot of us on this panel worked on very hard. every year we reauthorize the department of defense, every year re appropriatewe appropriate funds for the department of against.fof defense. we have done in a again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year.tin a again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year.hain a again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year.tin a again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year.n a again this year. and we have found a way to

unwind the sequester for a year. a again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year.a again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year. again this year. and we have found a way to unwind the sequester for a year. some would argue that the color of money isn't right. i would argument they're's. i would also that the money spends the same way and the money is all green. and what we need to do is unwind this defense sequester permanently, but for now, we have funded the department of defense at the president's budget request level. that's what we've done and we worked really hard on both sides of the aisle to make this happen. and when the president qvc threatens to veto defense appropriations or to veto the ndaa after we've met his budget request, the world is listening to that. and it doesn't help the situation at all. this is an important issue. we need to unquibd wind it permanently. but the reality is every year we authorize the department of defense year we appropriate funds. this meets that same situation.

when i heard general grieves talk, this sound like the same process that dr. griffin went through with cots. so my question, why is it inappropriate then but it was appropriate then. was the cots successful. it see seen likepn seems like it's at least working. >> well, a major difference i think is in then seems like it's at least working. >> well, a major difference i think is in then seems like it's at least working. >> well, a major difference i think is in the seems like it's at

least working. >> well, a major difference i think is in theseems like it's at least working. >> well, a major difference i think is in theeems like it's at least working. >> well, a major difference i think is in the amount of money involved. in the cots pranl at ss program at nasa, we allocated as we intended a fairly small amount of money across two providers. and the clear terms of the agreements were that there would be a very significant majority of corporate investment was our plan at that time. the program did work. we got two new launch vehicles out of it, domestic launch vehicles. falcon 9 and orbital atk. i think it is a very different thing for the national security launch infrastructure to be told to purchase launch as a service implying that there is an open market of providers from which the department can buy a launch on a marginal cost basis as if it were an airline ticket. and then oh, by the way to be hold that they have to fund the development of that capability. >> is that not what cots was?

cots was the funding of the development the lyultimately. >> a small portion of the development. money matters. that's exactly right. the level of the investment matters a lot. when we established the cots program, we wanted to see a major element of contractor skin in the game. we did not want the skin in the game to be entirely that of the government. if the government was going to fund it as a new development then we should just do it as a prime contract. >> i just have a few seconds left and i just want to reiterate the point i made earlier which is the department of defense will be fully funded and the president needs to sign that into law. and i think it's critically important that we not take risk of shutting down the department of defense because the president believes we don't have enough money spent on the irs or enough money spent on epa or the

national endowment for the arts. that is not an appropriate thing to do especially given the threats that we face in the world. with that, mr. chairman i'll yield back. >> i recognize representative kaufman. >> thanks. general, everyone appears to be in unanimous agreement on two points. first, that competition is good since it provides cost savings and resiliency and, two that we need to eventually transition off the russian rd-180 engine. i'm very concerned we haven't rationally thought through that process and the time lines. in other areas of national defense, we would never consider phasing out the capability until we had confidence in a follow-on. we're not going to -- for example, f-35 will be ready to

fight before phasing out the f-16. i'd never advocate for the phase out of one weapon system until i was confident the follow-on system is operationally ready to support the mission. in this space launch arena, we anxious slus to phase out the rd-180 engine without full confidence that a robust capability is ready to replace it. what is the department doing to ensure there is no gap in assured access to space between the time the atlas and deltas are phased out and the follow-on vulcan and falcon heavy become operational? >> so congressman, i agree with your assessment. the first rule of wing walking, you don't let go of one hand until you have firm hold of the next hand and i'm concerned

we're about to let go of one without if i were hold of thefirm hold the next. i think the efforts of the acquisition community have come up with to reach out to industry broadly, to come up with a competitive strategy that looks at that, to use different acquisition authorities to allow them to go as fast as the acquisition process will allow them to go has been the right thing to do. but if he does everything exactly according to plan and we get an engine by 2019, we still can't let go of the wing and that's why the department has come back to you and requested the ability to continue to rd-180s for that transition period and i agree with that request. >> if the supply of rd-180s were cut to less than 14 engines, what would be the practical result? >> there are two possible practical results. practical result number one is

that ula can no longer be competitive in a competitive market and therefore they decide that they can't compete and we move into another monopoly. the other is that the government because of the assured access to space requirement decides that that can't be allowed to stand and therefore for the transition period we decide to pay the premium and fly the delta 4 as a price point that will be significantly higher and pay the difference with the taxpayers' dollars. >> what is the department doing and lieutenant general you height want to comment, to to ensure you're not replacing a sole source provider with a difference sole source provider?want to comment, to, to ensure you're not replacing a sole source provider with a difference sole source provider?meight want to comment, to, to ensure you're not replacing a sole source provider with a difference sole source provider?want to comment, to, to ensure you're not replacing a sole source provider with a difference sole source provider? >> the approach is to find one that will be available for the

capabilities in the future. we're going down the path so we can have that new rocket. whether vulcan or the atlas we're going down that path. and we have a much more -- much healthier industrial base now spacex is certified for an element of the capabilities now. so we have spacex out there. so we have capability aies out there if we can take advantage of all of those schl systems. that's what our approach is trying do. >> we initiated this in earnest last august with requests for information from industry and we've been work with them very very closely. and the rocket propulsion system ongoing now, step two as we referred to it. the goal is based on what we gathered from industry on their capabilities across the board, to end up with an initial four potential candidates and whittle it down to two. so we are ensuring based upon

the capability within the nation that we will preserve access to space. >> would you like to comment further? >> exactly what the two gentlemen said. departments look at this as here we are, we is not got the intellectual capital currently inside our government let alone outside the industry to do a one for one replacement. the rfp out on the street is to grow that knowledge immediately under a special type of an acquisition tool, if you would. the ota. it has in there logical steps that would say, okay we can now see what is the quickest clearest most affordable way to get to closure. and at this time that is i think the most prudent approach to doing it. >> thanks. i yield back. >> chairman recognizes the gentleman from colorado.

>> thank you. and i want to follow-through on a question i was asking earlier. if i could just go down the line starting with you, mids. mcfarland. it has to do with a question i was asking to spacex. if they haven't submitted changes for the upgrade falcon 9, then how is it -- how can it be said that their system is certified for launch or eligible for competition on the eelv? >> well, post that hearing on march 17 they did come in with a statement of intent and indeed are working with the air force for the heavy launch. >> and the other point i'll say sir, is that part of the transition phase of that is moving to the full thrust engines on their per lynnin merlin capabilities. that is a similar process to the delta vehicle when we went to

the rd-68s-68 to the rd ssh-68 a. he they worked closely with us on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability.on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability.n that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability. that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability.n that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability.on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability. on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability.e they worked closely with us on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability. they worked closely with us on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability.they worked closely with us on that. once we certify the system, items a baseline capability. as industries learn, they to demonstrate their changes.'ems a baseline capability. as industries learn, they to demonstrate their changes.ms a baseline capability. as industries learn, they to demonstrate their changes.it's a baseline capability. as industries learn, they to demonstrate their changes. general greefrieves can talk about that. >> and the air force has designated my position assert if i official for new entrants. arrests part of that, we are working with them very closely. i co-chair meetings every two weeks.arrests part of that, we are working with them very closely. i co-chair meetings every two weeks.sarrests part of that, we are working with them very closely. i co-chair meetings every two weeks.rrests part of that, we are working with them very closely. i co-chair meetings every two weeks.ests part of that, we are working with them very closely. i co-chair meetings every two weeks. we as says the current status, any changes they are realizing to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end, we are well awaresays

the current status, any changes they are realizing to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end, we are well awareeays the current status, any changes they are realizing to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end, we are well awareys the current status, any changes they are realizing to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end, we are well awares the current status, any changes they are realizing to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end, we are well awares the current status, any changes they are realizing to ensure it becomes certified in time. so in the end, we are well aware of any changes. daily our teams are organic government team, our nfrd team, we're working with spacex to fully understand what it will take to accept those changes whenever they may be as is certified system. shall this is no different than what with done have ula in the past. less december when we flew the rl 10 c, we went through a significant effort with ula ahead of time to understand the changes of that system -- of that engine, what it would do to the system and certify for flight which we did it last december and ittit flew very successfully. so today as we speak spacex has provided what changes they envision for the upgraded falcon

9. we are daily intense effort with them to understand and hopefully certify that system. >> and you mentioned test flights in the case of ula. will test flights be part of the protocol with spacex? >> as a basis yes, sir. but i will use the rl 10 c as an example nap example. that engine was qualified. and we fluew it for the first time with an operational mission back in december. so it depends on the level, degree, amount impact of the changes that we're looking at to determine whether or not it would require reflight or test flight. no different, sir than what we've it up historically with our launch providers. >> and dr. griffen, would you care to comment? >> i would agree with regard to certification of new capability.

in fact, i would say the idea that we fly a large number of repeated copies of rockets is something that may look true from the outside but truthfully it's rare to go very long in a string without upgrading or changing something about the rocket. so you're in this continual process of evolution. and certainly we don't do a nonvalue-added test flight, a whole separate test flight with no payload. just wouldn't want to spend that kind of money. on the other hand when you're fielding an entirely new rocket you will do a couple of test flights typically before you put a valuable payload on it. so there is apsis an informed yumt that has to be ampplied to

determine when you need a test flight because the upgrade is just so big that you don't want to arriving the payload. >> and for a couple of clarifications. ms. mcfarland, some people have made unhelpful comments out in the public that the money from the sale of the rd-180 engines goes to, quote, vladimir putin and his cronies. >> i can't say where the money goes. the government buys launch services from ula. but on may 6 of 20 14rks14, the u.s. court of claims received the opinion opinion opinion that the payments do not directly contravene executive order at this time and would inform the court in the case of such determination in the future had it to be overturned. so we did due dill against on

this against on this. >> thank you for you that clarification clarification. reuters reported that the contracting approach used by ula to purchase engines employed questionable contracting practices. is that true? >> no. we followed standard process where the air force procuring officer with advice from such agencies as the dcma, dcaa examined the contracting approach to both ula and rdamros. and they went through and eventually did a price analysis to assess whether or not the proposed prices we were paying were within historical woundbounds.

they also took a look at the rs-68 what it cost to produce that engine versus what we were paying for the russian engines. they correlated all this information. so in the end, all the steps were taken. we followed all those rules and we vehemently dispute the accuracy of that information. >> thank you for that clir fay clarification and thank you all for being here and your service to the country. thank you, mr. chairman. >> appreciate the questions. you know i mentioned this earlier, i think it was in the first panel that the house version of the ndaa for 2016 in this subject matter area and the senate the language is different. so this is a qui for allestion for all the witnesses.

please comment on the impact of the current fy 16 ndaa senate language regarding the prohibition of russian rocket engines. are nine engines from the 2015 to 20178 time frame enough to maintain assured access to space and keep competition going? time frame enough to maintain assured access to space and keep competition going? why does this issue need to be addressed now? >> no it does not. we have in block 1-a multiple launch competitive launch opportunities that this would not allow us to have two viable competitors for. >> and the follow-on to that as we go to phase two -- >> first do you concur? >> i concur with what ms. mcfar larnd just said. my biggest concern is phase two where we have approximately 28 launches that we will manifest there would be no atlases available to compete for those launches at that time.

that brings the whole discussion that we had a little while ago about the vie and ofability of ula, that's an even bigger concern for me. >> so i want to make sure that we understand. both ms. mcfarland and general heighten are saying that the nine engines are not enough to maintain assured access to space. >> yes, sir. >> okay. general grieves. >> i concur entirely. it gets back to the entire discussion on whether ula remains commercially viable to meet the transition. >> and that's important because -- >> because they need the steady stream of revenue to -- >> i mean in the big picture, we need two people that can -- >> yes, sir. >> and so we would be falling down on the overall goals of making sure we maintain assured access to space by having two providers. >> yes, sir. >> the requirement for two providers comes more out of, if

you will, my era. back in 1986 we lost in sequence a shuttle a space shuttle, titan, atlas and delta. and so by the second half of 1986 the united states had no access to space capability at all. from among the many recovery actions taken following the loss of challenger, it was determined that we would in the dependsableexpendable vehicle arena keep two independent paths to space at all typeimes for national security purposes. items presidential policy for severaled a past administrations and it is law. i think all of the history is now 30 years old almost, i think we depart from that at our peril. >> one thing you'll hear is that

we can legal on that iskcan rely on nasa. do you concur with that interpretation of our circumstance? >> sir, i do not. i am going to be visiting with nasa to see what they have in their sls vehicle. from what i understand and i'm sure general grieves and heighten can explain further, it is a very costly way to send up an asset given what we have to do for our mission manifest. >> nasa uses atlas and delta for most of their scientific missions today. they're working down a couple of other paths. space launch system the sls program is a giant rocket. a giant rocket built for inter-planetary exploration. it is not built to put satellites in low earth medium orbit. we need all the time to talk about the partnerships and we have great technology

partnerships. but they do not have a rocket system that would meet our requirements. >> i concur. that set of criteria that we use to -- in fact i sign letters for every one of them. that cry criteria that we use in most cases are somewhat different because their risk hole toll rantserance is a little higher than ours. >> you used to run nasa. do you think we ought to be relied on nasa? >> i don't. because in actuality as was said earlier, nasa relies on the

department of defense for the procurement of delta and atlas launch if i cans. the sls is intended for human exploration of the solar system, which i devoutly hope we will resume. but to use it for unmanned security launches is possibly somewhat equivalent to using an aircraft carrier to transport care cargo across the ocean. a bit of an overkill. >> what is the estimated cost of your four part plan including all necessary investments in engines, launch vehicles and infrastructure and what is the basis of that estimate? >> we do not have a final estimate. a lot of it depends on the assessment that we're doing right now. we do have funding in the 16 pb to address step two and step lee

of the four step process. but we are looking to see what estimates we get and we'll work that in future budgets. >> dr. griffin, what are your thoughts on the cost of the air force's four part plan versus funding in rd-180 replacement for existing launch vehicles and infrastructure? >> well, as general grieves just said, i can't know yet what the cost of the four part plan will be. i will offer the opinion that i very strongly believe nat cheapthat the cheapest way for the united states to regain its national security launch independence is to reengine the atlas 5. that i said in my testimony for the record. so i can't prejudice the outcome of a procurement process which is ongoing. even though i'm not an attorney i know that. but i do hope that the outcome of that procurement process

results in a decision to reengine the atlas 5. >>. >> mike: mcfarland. >> what would it take to off-ramp a path that is focused on developing an engine? >> i think that's a good question after we've had a chance to he reviewreview what has been proposed. >> general grieves, you state that, quote, a rocket engine specifically engineered to replace the rd-180 on the atlas would most likely be usable only for ula's atlas. however, according to press reports, orbital atk wanted the rd-180 so much they sued to get access to it. it was settled out of court. isn't it reasonable to concludes

the rd-180 would be flying today if orbital had access? >> the answer is yes, but the rd-180 would be flying today if orbital had access? >> the answer is yes, but i believe i also said without significant modification to the receiving launch system, the launch vehicle. so, yes, the rd-180 could be transitioned to another launch system, but it would come with mods. >> there are claims industry doesn't need any money to get off the rd-180. can we just rely on industry to provide us the capabilities we need for our military in the end will the government need to pay for its requirements? >> no, we can't. and i think dr. griffin answered this earlier when he talked about the business case. if you look at the business case, the business case is national security space launches. which means we need to be able to fund the critical elements of the industrial base to make sure

that it's there. and right now that element of the industrial base is the not there to support where we need to go in the future. i think it's the responsibility of the department of defense and the government to make sure that industrial base is there for nasa security. >> excellent. i have many more question, but i will submit them to y'all to get back to us for the record because it is noon and we have worn out our welcome i'm afraid. but i very much appreciate your time and effort. you have been enormously helpful to us. and i look forward to our continuing effort to get off this rd-180 and on to a new path of independence. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

set the stage where stories in the paper playing out what happened in congress today. this is the headline from "usa today" deals with spending issues being put on hold that dealt with displays of the flag. could you tell us what happened yesterday? >> yeah. so we started the day there was first of all on wednesday night there was an interior appropriations bill that they were working on the floor. and the story before that is because they always do.

democrats had added very noncontroversial basically banned the use of federal funds to display the confederate battle flag on federal land. so, you know, cemeteries that are under the national park service control would not be able to display the confederate flag. and that was added, you know, in a very quick voice vote. no republican spoke against it. and it seemed like, you know, that provision would just get through without any real debate. apparently we had some republicans not satisfied with that. and they asked for a vote on the confederate flag basically on giving that amendment. they were considerable enough size where they said if we don't get a vote on this we're not

going to pass this interior appropriations bill. so the chairman of the subcommittee, the interior appropriations subcommittee, ken calvert, though he doesn't support the amendment himself he added back in an amendment or basically cued up an amendment for a vote which would have undid that particular democratic amendment. so basically would allow as currently, you know, the provisions allow, it would allow the confederate flag to be displayed on federal lands. that was on wednesday night. and by thursday morning had sort of woken up to what was already a growing, you know, public relations fiasco for a bunch of republicans. essentially speaker boehner made the decision that they weren't going to have the debate on the house floor and they weren't going to subject a lot of members to that particular vote

right now. >> so, mr. fuller, so let me put you on pause for a second. we have the speaker's statement from yesterday as part of this debate. let's listen to what he had to say and continue on. >> our members rightly tried to address the concerns yesterday in a way that was consistent with how the obama administration has handled this issue. i frankly supported the goal of trying to work with all the parties to address their concerns, but listen, we all witnessed the people of charleston and the people of south carolina come together in a respectful way to deal with frankly what was a very horrific crime and a difficult issue with the confederate flag. i actually think it's time for some adults here in the congress to actually sit down and have a conversation about how to address this issue. i do not want this to become some political football. it should not. >> mr. fuller, though, will this become a political football do you think?

>> it already has. you know, even by then. so they pulled the bill, but the thing was that obviously under the rules of the house the minority leader can get a vote on a privileged resolution. so pelosi, and i think this was so pelosi, and i think this was politically advantageous for a lot of democrats because they hijacked the floor and hijacked the news cycle for a day. she just put up a very small resolution of essentially it would only effect one flag on the house side. the resolution would just remove any symbol flag that has a reprint of the confederate flag on it, which the only one that has that obviously is mississippi's state flag. and there's only one flag that's displayed that's not a nonmember office flag. the resolution was sort of tailored to just flags that were

not outside of members offices. so it was a very small resolution, but truthfully it was just serving as a proxy for this whole confederate flag debate. what we saw on the floor was republicans looking to avoid that debate absolutely had it yesterday. and, you know, we saw very clearly sort of the division between republicans and democrats on the broad brush level, but a lot of republicans really do insist that if they hadn't voted on this calvert amendment, so-called calvert amendment, first of all the amendment would have gone down. but you would have really seen a lot of republicans who just don't support the confederate flag voting against the amendment. but some republicans insisted. so it was part of a revealing vote instead much more of a party line system though you did have republican from florida who refused to vote with his party. he was the only one who actually broke ranks on that. democrats made an incredible show yesterday with confederate flag resolution where it was a show of force.

on the floor they voted with the voting cards rather than voting by electronic device. it was a lot of shouting on the house floor. >> and that's matt fuller roll call explaining a little bit of what took place in the confederate flag and house spending bill. he writes for that publication. you can read his story online. mr. fuller, thanks for explaining that to us. >> thanks for having me. this morning the confederate battle flag was lowered from the south carolina statehouse grounds following yesterday's signing of the law by governor haley sending to a nearby museum. the ceremony reairs tonight at 8:00 eastern. you can also watch it at cspan.org as well as the debate in the south carolina legislature. steve israel chair of the democratic policy and communications committee talks about the party's priorities for congress status of the budget and appropriations bills possibility of a government shut

done down, iranian nuclear negotiation and 2016 elections. sunday 10:00 p.m. and of6:00 p.m. on c panspan. with the upcoming release of the new noefl go set a watchman c-span2 book tv focuses on the novelist starting saturday night at 7:45 eastern. we talk about the impact of lee's book "to kill a mocking bird," her life since its publication and the events that led to the discovery and publication of her new novel. we'll also reair these programs sunday evening beginning at 6:30 eastern. also on sunday night at 10:00 radio talk show host hugh hewitt on hillary clinton's second run for president. on c-span saturday night starting at 8:00, congressional commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war with readings and remarks by members of congress. and sunday at 6:30 carly

fiorina visits with. in that voters. and american history tv saturday lectures on history, flagler college professor on the factors that led to the great depression and president roosevelt's actions to help the american people and the economy. and sunday evening at 6:30, best selling historical novelist on general sherman the burning of atlanta and columbia and why sherman is not the villain of popular legend. get the complete schedule at cspan.org. next a discussion on the current oversight of intelligence agencies and what lies ahead for the future. a number of former congressional staffers who worked on intelligence oversight for lawmakers offer their views.

we will get started with our post-lunch panel. welcome back everybody. i also work at the center for justice and we have three wonderful speakers with us this away as away as we away as we turn to the issue of judicial oversight and also of national security cases. i think we'll hear a variety of views and perspectives. to my left, david has done many amazing things. he's been serves as chair of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. which as many of you know serves a critical function in protecting privacy and civil liberty liberties.

in particular, two reports one on section 215 of the patriot act and another one on section 702 and currently working working oshts big kahuna the counter-terrorism under 12333. to his left is faisa from the aclu and litigated national security cases and been involved in a variety of projects to reform intelligence laws. and finally on the far left is judge robertson who served on the district of columbia direct court and served for three years on the fieza court. three years. and maybe he'll tell us about your service there and why you left as well. and i'm hoping, with these three panelists, to get three

different perspectives on how judicial oversight works. david has agreed to step in for judge wald who is unable to join us because of a family emergency. so with that i'm going to start and i'm going to start with you, judge robertson and a very general question which is can you tell us from your perspective what is the strength and weakness of judicial oversight and those involving intelligence operations? >> the first thing i have to do with quarrel with the word oversight or talk about "oversight" versus judicial decision making. judges are not used to being overseers and the oversight idea is strange. and the whole fisa court concept at first wasn't really oversight

of everything, it was issuing warrants. judges can issue warrants. they know how to do that. and the search warrant process kmumed the first 15 or 20 years of the fisa activities, was the bread and butter of fisa was doing -- and we'll get to that point. but to the extent we're talking about judicial oversight and i have to say and i hope this doesn't sound cynical, but have i to say the chief strength of it is whatever public reassurance there is in finding that these unimpeachable -- almost unimpeachable black robed judges are deciding things, that should reassure people there is no politics involved. even that is under cut by the whole -- by some of the suggestions that the fisa court

has been a rubber stamp, that it is political. i deny both of those charges and we can spell that out if you need to. but it is the fact that judges are doing it that is the biggest strength. on weaknesses well, we're going to get to that, i think. but in my view the real -- the biggest problem is where i began, the biggest problem is when fisa does oversight instead of deciding between competing views of the case or with an adversary in the case it's not doing what judges are supposed to do. it is not deciding a case, it is doing something different it is doing some policy oversight and i don't think the judiciary should be doing that. >> so let me ask you about the issue about the fisa being a rubber stamp and that comes from the number of applications from

the court that fisa has approved and fisa court and others have pointed out that is not an acras understanding of the role that the court plays because a number of applications are modified and there is a back and forth process between the government and the fisa judges to get things right and that is why you see such a high rate of approval. but my question really is that back and forth process which is taking place entirely in secret and behind closed doors, does that give you any pause in terms of thinking about the kind of role that the fisa court plays? >> well i always distinguish the warrant issuance function from the program approval function which is where i part ways with what has been happening. but with the warrant issuance function i wouldn't call it ministerial, but it is not

frankly rocket science. the justice department people who help prepare -- the warrant applications, the fbi agents who do it the cia people who do it all of the people who are working on preparing waurntd applications are fastiddious, careful, precise, and if not they get sent back to do it right. so it is true they are sent back and forth. but it is not back and forth on real arguments of the law but is it did you identify this person properly, and do we know what reliance you have on this particular informant and why, have you properly described probable cause. but that is all warrant application stuff and it is not -- it's not -- i would not put an adversary in the room for the issuance of warrants any more than i would issuance of search warrant by magistrate

judges. >> so hina you've litigated a number of these kind of cases and do you agree with that assessment that the strength of judicial -- i'm going to call it oversight, but judicial review shall we say for recision, of intelligence, is the strength the federal judicial and what do you identify as the weaknesses. >> it is good to start out with agreement, especially with a former judge. and yes, i agree that judicial review is a strength obviously. it is part of our system of checks and balances. and i think that that has been demonstrated in this particular surveillance context by the second circuit's decision in aclu versus clapper recently in which for the first time an appeals court took on and examined after an adversarial process surveillance authorities that were deeply controversial

and criticized as unlawful and overbroad, conducted a really meticulous and comprehensive analysis before finding that, in fact, the core records program was unlawful and that is undoubtedly a strength a strength of our system, a check of our -- a strength of our checks and balances. the problem is with intelligence generally, this kind of decision is the exception and certainly not the rule. and i think that is a problem in a period of time that i've been fascinated all day long and last night listening to members of church community talking about the oversight they conducted and the changes that resulted at the extent to which we're now back in a period where the intelligence agencies have undergone a radical transformation in terms both of what they do how they do it the sources of authority they

claim and the extent to which the sources of authority have been secret and in many instances remain secret. so you have the cia for example just stepping away for a moment from the nsa the cia for example, which has gone far beyond his legitimate foreign intelligence gathering purpose anden gamged in torture and unlawful detention, you have it expanded program under the obama administration where it has turned into a para military organization running a lethal force program far from -- including lethal force, far from my battlefield and that is one example of a set of many controversial policies and practices which the courts have not engaged on the merits. over and over again, in the last ten years, we and others have filed multiple cases, multiple briefs challenging these

controversial policies. almost without exception, those cases have been dismissed they've been thrown out on standing, state secrets immunity doctrines, political questions doctrines. and that has meant many things but among the things that has meant is that the judicial has not engaged on the merits with some of the most controversial policies in the national security intelligence arena with huge impacts on individuals including the right to life, privacy, first, fourth and fifth amendment rights. and through the decision not to engage on the merits far too often the judicial has written itself out of saying not just what the law is, but whether the executive branch has complied with it in hugely significant areas of national security and

civil liberties. >> so david, you look at these intelligence programs from a different perspective. you're meeting with the nsa, many days and learning from the inside how these programs operate and really getting the intelligence communities' understanding as well as hearing from the civil liberties groups who are advocating on you performing these programs. how do you see the judiciary to the counter work you are doing. >> first of all, i agree with what has been said by the prior panelists and judge wald might have agreed with what i might say today but my views are my own. but the independence of the court adds credibility to its review. the court has an appellate process where it can correct decisions. >> and you mean th