i don't think she will get us into a nuclear war either but it is a much more confrontational foreign policy. >> what about other countries, china, north korea, that could pose some trouble because of how he responds? >> well, north korea has been a problem for a long time. i think at this point it is more a problem for china than the u.s. it is a pure client state of china. i don't like the way china is managing it. i would like them to do something to change things around rather than tolerate the horrible dictatorship that exists there. but i think china will keep it a very bad, very unhappy, but a very low volatility situation. >> let's go back to domestic politics. where do you place donald trump's economic man against hillary clinton's plan? what key factors in this plan do you think will nurture small business versus secretary

clinton? >> well, i think it is, i think first off, it is just the general way in which it is rejecting the sort of bubble thinking. i think what we have to acknowledge is that the bubble that's we've had in this country since the 1990s, have not been catastrophic. the tech bubble that i experienced in the late '90s was extremely exciting. it seemed to accelerate things tremendously. but then after it crashed, b to c meant pack to consulting. b to b meant back to banking. >> the enormous amount of talent. people went to new industries. they lost their jobs. the careers went sideways for many years. i think the bubble history has been catastrophic.

i think would it start with talking about that. temperamentally. i think that trump understands. it understands the ways in which government regulations, they're not that bad for big business. it knocks out the small business that's might compete. but it is catastrophic for small businesses, and there's been much less formation of small businesses in the last decade or so in the u.s., relative to historic baseline. you can debate why this happens. why questions are hard to answer. but my instinct is that it has something to do with the toughness of the regulatory climate. >> mr. trump builds himself as a big, a good businessman. there is been a lot of stories about the bankruptcies, the fact he won't release his taxes. he has contributed to charities.

do you have concerns? >> i think he's been a successful businessman. a very successful real estate developer. no question about that. we can debate how many zeroes he has in his net worth. he has a lot. a huge number. i think the real estate is an industry that's very different. it is not one i would consider myself an expert at evaluating. it is a fairly zero sum business. a very tough business, especially in our urban cities in manhattan and san francisco. and i suspect that in many ways, what trump did is par for the course in that context. we have an enormous. a transparency on our political leaders. i think that's a good thing.

and on the whole, there is always a question. there's a point where it gets pushed too far. we would worry that you ask so much. we examine people under an electron microscope if you're running for dog catcher in this country. and at some point, i think this is the single biggest reason that more talented people do not run for political office and do not get involved. there is transparency in some ways often gets taken in a very toxic direction. so at this point, the american people know far more than enough to make up their minds between two candidates. >> you do agree that the vetting process should be strong and thorough? >> it should be very strong. and it is very strong. i believe there are a large

number, we have in some ways, a less talented group of people running today versus 40 or 50 years ago. i think the vetting process was very tough when kennedy was running for president in 1960. it is not cheer that somebody like kennedy would be electable in today's world. >> has mr. trump give you any private insurances he wouldn't roll back rights on lgbt rights? >> i've not had conversations with mr. trump on that specific subject. i do think that he represents a seed change from the republican party of bush 43. you think of the way bush 43 was speaking negativebly gay marriage at every single campaign event in the 2004 election. it is something where trump has, everything he's indicated is that he would be quite expansive on gay rights. >> lastly, i'll move to another

topic. do you personally support mr. trump's rhetoric and comments about traveling to the united states? >> i don't support a religious test. i wouldn't use, i certainly don't support the specific language trump has used in every instan instance. but i think one thing that should be distinguished is the media is taking trump literally. he never takes them seriously. he always takes them literally. a lot of the vote here's vote for trump take trump seriously but not literally. so when they hear things like the muslim comment or the wall comment or things like that, the question is not, are you going to build a wall like the great wall of china or how exactly are you going to force these tests? what they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy. we'll try on figure out a way to

figure out how do we, how do we strike the right balance? it is not all or nothing. it is not that we should let everybody in or nobody in. those are two very different positions. those are exclusive but not exhaustive. and the question, the policy question, how to tackle that. and i think there is something, we live in an immigration bubble. where you say, it is all good. you should not ask questions. i think we could have a better policy. i personally would like when canada or australia, i think those countries have much better policies. and we've become a more normal country. >> do you believe you've set a dangerous precedent with the hulk hogan video and are you engaged in any other lawsuits?

let's start with that precedent. is that a dangerous precedent to set? >> i don't think so. let's start with the facts of the case. it involved a sex tape. if you make a sex tape of someone with their permission, you are a pornographer. if you make a sex tape without their permission, we were told now, you are a journalist. i would submit that is an insult to all journalists. this is not about the first amendment. it is about the most egregious violation of privacy imaginable, publishing a sex tape, surreptitiously taken behind someone's bedroom. and that is an insult to journalists. that's why that's why gawker

lost so catastrophically in tampa, florida. they were arguing all these abstract theories. and we kept focusing on the facts of the case. a deposition of a.j., the editor who published the sex tape. and the deposition. we asked them, is there a sex time you wouldn't publish? maybe it if it involved a child. we asked what age child? if it was a 4-year-old child. gasps by the jury at that point. maybe it was -- he was an expiring child pornographer. and that's not what journalism is about. so i strongly believe in the first amendment. i believe journalists are a privileges group. they play an important role in getting us information. checks and balances.

these were not journalists. >> do you think what happened to gawker could happen to other news publications? could wealthy, powerful people seek revenge against a news organization because of something they didn't like and use their influence and money to take they will out? >> wealthy people shouldn't do that. if they try, they won't succeed. gawker, it was a pretty flimsy business. it was a bad business. it didn't make that much money. they could have withstood all the lawsuits. they lost because of an enormous verdict that came against them of i could have underwritten many more lawsuits. that was not the problem. the he they lost on the facts. i was very careful in the hulk

hogan, we didn't even bring a liable action. that was what i wanted to make clear that it was not about the media. >> are you he said gauged in any other lawsuits against news organizations? >> not, i've been involved in the gawker case. nothing else. they were a sociopathic, they were not even remotely in the same ballpark. >> tell us how you got involved. and especially how and when you got connected to charles, hulk hogan's lawyer and why did you this secretly. >> it was a multiyear, i have to

be a little bit careful since the litigation is still ongoing. i got involved over a number of years and it was one of these things, as you got involved you need to believe in the justice of the case more and more. there were so many different people that you interacted with who had been destroyed in many cases, in most cases. it was not super prominent people. or super wealthy people. it was people who couldn't afford to do anything. one of the striking things, if you're middle class, upper middle class, if you're a single digit millionaire like hulk hogan, you have no effective action with the legal system. it costs too much. this was the modus operandi of gawker. to go after people who had no chance of fighting back.

we can debate about whether it would have been better to fun it all the way through but my judgment was that mr. hogan deserved his day in court and that would have distracted from his day in court. that transparency would have turned it into this very different narrative. the gawker narrative. the millionaire trying to squash the first amendment rather than what i think it was actually about. the egregious violation of policy and a sex tape. i've been involved with the internet for the last 20 years. i'm generally in favor of the internet. i think it has been a good thing. but i think that there are some parts of it where things have gone wrong. and one kind of phenomenon that's very new that can take place on the internet is this sort of transparency and

anonymity combined. we have the mob, flash mob that's get directed at specific individuals. that's a very new phenomenon and gawker in some ways perfected it. you pick on people and destroy their lives. you write nasty stories. the writer might write comments that are even more stroishs generate a virtual mob that would go after these people. there were many different targets. targets in silicon valley. but one big class of targets that gawker went after were people in the media. the one class of people they especially hated, were other reporters, other writers, and you know, in the sort of pre history, as we're building up to this case. a few people talked about and it some of the people encouraged me to keep going were some of my friends in the media. they knew how much gawker had

actually specifically targeted more successful writers and reporters over the years. >> you've had a feud with gawker for more than a decade as i said. when did you decide funding another person's lawsuit would be another course of action and when did you set this in motion? >> you know, it would have been roughly with the time the firm started to work with hogan. my initial view was what you were supposed to do, you were supposed to take your beatings, crouch down, go into a fetal position and hope they moved on to something else. and sort of around 2011, one of my friends convinced me that if gawker could get away with this sort of sociopathic repeat behavior over and over, it was this tragedy. nobody would ever continue to ryan lives one after another.

and there were other things did things far worse than me. i was convinced, if i didn't do something, nobody would. >> the candidate you're supporting for president, mr. trump, has spoken about libel laws so he can sue. we have laws in place right now to protect public figures as well as citizens. where do you draw the line? >> i don't think the libel laws need to be changed. i think that certainly, there are questions about how we, are there new facts and circumstances? i think it is always good to ask questions. if you're the child of a she been rid, do you get subjected to the same amount of scrutiny as a celebrity? even if you're a public figure considering your sex tape be made public? i don't think so. if you're a tech ceo of a start-up with 12 people, should

you be subject to the same scrutiny as a public figure? so i think there are some corner pieces we should explore. i think there are ways the internet has changed the boundaries. i think we need to examine some of the core presents. on the core principle. that should stand and that has been a good thing. i don't think that needs to change or should challenge. >> speaking of that, charles has developed the reputation as the go-to lawyer. he now represents roger ailes against the new york magazine, milana trump. do you feel this is a freedom of the press in any way? how do you characterize what he does? >> i'm not going to speak to all the, i'm not familiar with all the details of the litigation. i'm not underwriting those lawsuits, to be clear.

i do think what actually matters in litigation is what happens at the end game. it is like, you want to understand litigation, like chess, you must study the end game. do you ultimately win or lose? and that's, if you bring a harassing lawsuit and you lose, that also sets the precedent. it is a precedent for greater press freedom over time. so i think that when one brings litigation, you have to think all the way through to the end game. and i wouldn't do it because number one, i think the first amendment should be respected. but number two, many of these sorts of cases i wouldn't bring. i think you ultimately won't win. >> it is very different from gawker where we could map out with a high level of certainty. if we had our day in court, we wouldn't win. >> since you came to the lion's

den, let me ask you your concerns about the media today. what do you think about the problems with the media? the news media? and what do you think that means for society and what would you do to fix them? >> well, with identifying problems and how to fix them are two very different, different kinds of questions. i am always fixated on economic questions. and the economic challenge that is very severe is that a lot of the business models that media companies have are not working as well as they used to. i don't know what you need to do to fix it. is the way i tell newspapers, magazines, these are incredibly robust businesses in the 1980s and 1990s. if you work at a newspaper, it

was like you were working at a utility company. it was this cushy position because you were a local monopoly. and the internet inadvertently eroded these business models. it is economically not doing as well. and i think that is a big challenge. i think monday onlilies the media enjoyed were in some ways good thing. even though we don't want it in many ways, monopolies were good and they've been eroded. and that's the core challenge. it is not the self-understanding people have. you don't like to say, i'm working at a monopoly company. that's why we're doing so well. but i think that's the history

of it. >> sticking with the gawker situation, on the opposite side, since you say you believe in good journalism, do you think it is the responsibility of folks like yourselves who have the resources and the ability to help fumd good journalism out there and would you do so? >> i wouldn't want to compete with jeff besos ever. i think he is the toughest person in the world to compete with. i have no plans to buy the washington times. but i think getting, you know, it is possible that's a direction that the media will change in. where it becomes almost a nonprofit undertaking and i'm not sure that's the healthiest way for the media industry to

develop. i think a lot of nonprofit organizations are not that effective them could good but it is often, they're often not managed all that well. i'm not sure that is the solution. >> as a libertarian, what do you think are the greatest threats to your freedom today and what do you think about increasing people's individual freedoms? >> well, i think it is, you know, look, interest ideological answer is always the government. and then from a libertarian perspective, it is incarcerating too many people in the society. it is the government regulating the economy too much.

and then i would like to see, i would like to see less involvement by the u.s. as less of a global policeman. i would like to see fewer people in jail in the u.s. another place where the u.s. is an exceptionally crazy country. we have incarceration rate that's completely out of sync with the rest of the developed world. i would like to see an incarcerate like western europe or australia, that would be a sane direction to go in. and then the regulation of businesses. i think a way, the issues i would want to focus are ways where the u.s. actually just becomes like other developed countries. >> going back to the republican national convention speech, you said our nuclear base use disks.

it would be kind to say that government software works poorly because much of the time it doesn't work at all. if you're talking about less government and more libertarian things, how does america fix that? >> well, my ideal would be a smaller government that does more with less. the ideological debates we have in washington, d.c. are always more with more versus less with less. it is sort of run away spending with no controls or austerity where you're 300 pounds and you will chop off your thumb as a weight control measure. that's the weird public policy debate we have. whatever the technology industry is with is doing more with less. i think that would be a healthy perspective for us to have in d.c.

so the question is, whatever we spend in the military, can we achieve the same for less? so if you have an f-35 fighter jet that doesn't fly in the rain, maybe you could, is there such a thing as a less expensive sgret can 90 in the rain? i suspect there is. this is where i differ from libertarians. they might be excited about it and say shut down the whole government. and i think we should take it as challenge to make it work better. everything is as bad as the f-thrive, you should shut down everything in the town and have them go home. what i always point out is the decline. libertarianism would not have sold as well in the '40s or 50s or 60s in the u.s.

furm a libertarian. it is fringe today. it was super fringe in the 1950s and 1960s. that was a society where the government couldn't do anything. the libertarian party got started in the 1970s in the u.s. the 1970s is the decade where things really stopped working in this country. so i think there is a steep link between libertarianism and the decline of our government institutions. >> a quick reminder. the national press club is the leading organization for journalists. we fight for free press worldwide. for more information about the club, please visit our website. press.org. on november 21, gina mccarthy from the environmental protection agency will speak here. november 30, the general manager of the washington metropolitan transit authority will be here. and december 2 will host the mgm chairman james murray.

i would like to ask theed audience to remain seated until our guest has departed. >> my final question, what is your future in politics? how do you decide which candidates or perhaps political parties you'll support? >> well, i think my future is going to continue to be in the tech industry. that's what i'm good at. i always have a schizophrenic view of politics. i think it is a horrible business, incredibly destructive, a lot of it is like trench warfare on the western front where there is crazy amounts of carnage and nothing ever changes. the other part is that it is really important. there are some problems that can't be solved outside the political arena. and the way i deal with my schizophrenia is that i occasionally get involved but

don't want to make it a full time thing. >> thank you very much. our road to the white house coverage continues a the campaigns wind down. later today, hillary clinton stumps in the battle ground state of north carolina. and we're live from raleigh at 7:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. and a number of state race debates this evening. first, the candidates to represent new york's 22nd district in the house of representative. the republican is up against kim meyers. that's live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. later we'll show you debates for the texas 23rd district. all of that on c-span2.

c-span. where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. now, douglas, deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy, is joined by a representatives of firms working in the commercial space floridaation launch and data industries. they discuss ways the u.s. military and nasa could further develop relationships with the private sector. hosted by the central for strategic and international studies in washington. this is about 90 minutes. >> we have full attendance here. i'm todd harrison. i am the director of a new initiative. we started here at csis called the aerospace security project.

and instead of me droning on as i'm known to do and trying to describe the project, which would probably take me ten minutes. we have a short video that we're going to show and i will apologize in advance for the narration. but i'll let the short video do the explanation for me. and then we'll move into our main event today. >> the way the global economy increasingly depends on reliable and secure access to space systems. the aerospace security project examines the technological budgetary and policy issues affecting air and space domains. our research is focus in the three areas. space security examines the evolving military uses of space and how the hacking of behavior can effect it. it explores alternative architectures can enhance the resilience of u.s. space

systems. air dominance looks at the future of air and missile forces in a more contested operating environment. it examines the role of stealth, unmanned systems. how they can be integrated with options for the air and ground base legs. commercial and civil space explores international partnerships in space. advances in commercial space technologies and policy issues that affect commercial space programs. the goal is to provide innovative, insightful and timely analysis to help educate and inform decision makers as new opportunities, athletics and technologies emerge. smart policy decisions can ensure the united states continues to lead in the air and space domains. welcome to the air and space security project. >> now i can say there is something worse than watching

yourself on video. it is watching yourself in front of other people. now we got that out of the way so everything will start getting better from here. it is my pleasure to have this great group of panelists assembled here today. the topic for discussion, a very timely one. how the u.s. military can leverage commercial space capabilities, or improve the way it is leveraging commercial space capabilities in the future. i've asked each of the panelists to prepare opening remarks about, five minutes each. so i'm going down the line, introducing each of them. and letting them have their opening remarks. then after that i'm got go ask a few follow-up questions and then we'll open it up to the audience for your questions. so i'll start to my left. the deputy assistant secretary of defense for space policy. he has been right at the middle of this for many years now.

>> thank you. i am a little hoarse because i am nursing a cold. thanks very much for everybody for being here. i want to thank todd for bringing this together. i don't think there are that many surprise that's you'll hear from me today. more a renunciation of the things that we have been talking about, for the last several years. we're starting to do them which is the good part. let me start with the challenge that's we faced and why these challenges are fundamental to what we need to do between the military ask the commercial world. the challenges are pretty

understandable. there are people who want to take systems away from the u.s. and we don't worry that it just because they take space capabilities away. they take away the leverage that we get from the space capabilities. many of you have seen that in your life times. as we've seen it go from a war that was could not strained to a naval war to ones that are worldwide and fought on a global basis. clearly when you have people doing targeting from halfway around the world from places in las vegas or nevada, you can understand how space plays into even the lowest level of combat going ahead and taking out individual targets, versus organizing an entire campaign. so space is fundamental to everything we do in connection to war. everything we do in nuclear war as well. space is fundamental to that as well.

we have come to depend on space and you've all mattered a thousand times. so we have to figure out how to make that not happen. we could go ahead as some people have suggested previously, trying to figure out how to fight wars without space. quite frankly, what happens when you lose space for a short time during battle? to fight war the way that the u.s. wants to fight war without space is really anathema to us. it mean our soldiers and sailors, our airmen, our seamen are being put at risk and we don't want them to be put at risk. space gives them that advantage. we could try to do it by building more numerous space systems by ourselves by the u.s.

government. that's neither fiscally responsible, nor quite frankly, operationally responsible. if you do that, they have the same vulnerabilities. it is a much more resilient kind of capability to have. everyone has different vulnerabilities and different advantages. and quite frankly they bring with them a sense, a different kind of political dynamic as well as a different kind of resilience die animal tokyo an equation. so we want to figure out how to ingest these capabilities into the overall architecture. clearly we have been doing this for years already in the commercial satellite communication regime. in sat height communications, over 80% of the communications we use in combat today are commercial satellite communications. but that's not being used, that's not being viewed from a

resilience standpoint. an asuretier standpoint. that's being used from a through put standpoint. we don't have enough capability. but if we really want that to be an operationally resilient, we need to not only use it. the the true network operations so we could easily go from one to another. similarly in remote sensing, we see a great birth of sensing capabilities in the nation and we buy those images, one by one today. if you really want to knit them together into a truly robust resilient war fighting framework, you have to go ahead and do more than just buy images. you have to figure out how to task them cooperately.

you have to fuse the information together. so we're not just talking about leveraging these commercial services. we're talking about integrating these services. not just communications and sensing although those are the predominant ones we see today. we see a big rise in situational awareness. and those capabilities go ahead and complement and add to the capabilities we have in the government today. not just the sensors but to fuse it in new ways and new manners. so we get from the commercial world, a diversity of capability. a diversity of vulnerability. a diversity of use cases and a way of supplying that capability, rather than you would get from a simple

monolithic approach which is what we've had in space today. we think if we do that and if we do it well, we can create far more capabilities than we have today. some people ask me, couldn't an adversary do the same thing is that i answer, not easily. all these space capabilities, the new capabilities are almost entirely which the u.s. it enables us to get more and more commercial satellite services, commercial space services. we have to change policies with regard to licensing to make it easier for people to go ahead and invest in advanced space capabilities within the u.s.

because that frees up the services we see and would it allow to it come to the market more quickly, more rapidly. more agilely. we see one of the most marked sectors right now in space servicing missions. that's a capability the u.s. would almost never fund. if it is done commercially and it comes forward and we can create the right licensing structure, it becomes the self-supporting capability that we can then go ahead and utilize for government usage. so we have to figure out how to put the policies in place to attract them. and we have to figure out a way to work with them. theets are the things we want to do as a government.

encouraging the commercial space wor world. they can't be taken away because there are too many sources with strong points versus weak points and we can assure our sailors and soldiers. let me stop this. and we'll do more on the question and answer. thanks very much. >> thank you. and so next up is scott pace. a professor of the school of international affairs. so while doug was able to give us a military perspective, i've asked scott on the panel to give us a broader policy perspective. >> thank you. i guess one of the first things i'd say is why would a professor, why would he talk about this issue? and i think one of them is that some of the most interesting problems in international

affairs these days are those beyond areas of international sompblt? so events on the high seas, cyberspace, arctic regions. where no one is necessarily claiming sovereignty over those areas. and we are faced by a number of pressures against the rules based order that we've tried to build. the inls constitutions they helped create is that these are coming in some cases from state actors who are looking for the traditional spheres of influence. others, particular case of something like isis, is really a throwback, sorry for thor academic term, we're not even a nation state.

we're trying to do something else. the way we behave in outer space, think others will behave in other shared areas. so for example, the russian behavior in ukraine, chinese behavior in the south china sea, should give us pause about the degree on which we can rely upon them to follow other areas of international order. there's a thing that we talked about where we talked about signaling. in the immediate aftermath of world war ii, much to our resistance, we had to step signals that stalin was sending us. in the early days following the cold war, we took signals gorbachev was sending. again facing some resistance because we like to think that

the world is reasonable and americans can work everything out. the signals we are teague from russia, they say they don't buy into some of the assumptions we've had over the last decades. so it is a cause for concern. if you look at space areas, there is a tendency to think of stove pipes. there is a cool plaurnlg a private company is going off and doing. and so there is not a tendency to look at space activities the way the chinese might look it a. in term of a wonderful phrase. comprehensive national strength. the u.s. has quite impressive national strength. but we often don't really act that way. and we don't treat night more integrative way to advance our interests.

in part, that's the space community's own fault. it was human space flight. as opposed to, human space flight as an answer to a question. so one of the things i tried to say is that space policy is a derivative policy. it comes out of u.s. economic and national security and to some extent, what we try to do. we use space to advance those interests. so you have to look at where our geopolitical interests these days. where are the economic interests these days. where are our symbolic interests. the if you want to be optimistic, the we have some great people thinking about them. the glass is half empty. in we haven't been able to bring

it together. in particular if you look at the civil space side, the lack of a clear path, it is a very, very serious threat. not just because space enthusiasms are wondering what they're going the to do. but we have an international partnership with our closest friends and allies and we're not able to say what comes next. you know how long it takes. if we're not planning on what is coming next, what you're really planning is going out of business. the chinese are commenting on this. they know space program will come to an he believed in 2024. to some extent, that's fine. i don't mind the chinese being in space. i do mind them being up there without me. because space is not simply something where we send our machines, or where we send

people for photo opportunities. our security, our economy, even our own self-image depends on this. yet we don't treat it quite that way. we are looking at a world where space becomes more important. norms and behaviors, who will write the rules? who will shape the international order beyond that of traditionals? the rules made by those who show up. not those who stay behind. if we are not partnering with other people, we are staying behind. many of you know that i'm a critic of much of the exploration policy. i want to be clear that i think the current policy is quite good and i would hope we don't see a traumatic change in it the way

we saw in 2010. however, if could i surgically change one thing about that policy. it would be human space policy. not just because i'm a moon enthusiast. but it doesn't provide partnerships with international partners and therefore it lessens our ability to shape and mold the direction of the space environment as we might like. in many ways, it is an old-fashioned policy which is looking at what can the u.s. do by itself in now we want to get people to do things with us. we need goals, civil some moration, military, that they can partner with us on. so i look forward to discussion, not only how can that, the

global rule spaced order that we would want to live in rather than the one i think we're heading toward. thanks. >> now we'll shift our last three panelists are all trirelated. so we'll start next with dawn the harms at boeing international and among her many responsibilities, she does strategic planning for commercial sat height programs. so if you could give us briefly a perspective from the boeing civil space side, the commercial space side, in particular, you're one of the representatives here who actually builds satellites. with that i'll turn it over to dawn.

>> thank you. so boeing has been in the commercial satellite business for more than 50 years, beginning with the first u.s. synchronized launch in 1963. since we built 170 commercial satellites for 50 different customers, 20 different nations. it's a very global business. we've also, as you know, built many numerous government satellites for nasa and military customers. so, what are those technologies that we might be able to leverage from the commercial sector to the government sector? i think there are many, but i'll tell you a little bit about what we are doing in terms of technology development. maybe you can help find the common ground where we can leverage. one of the most requested requirements from our commercial customers as we go through a very period of strong,

innovative changes, like we have never seen before in the 25 years i have been in business is flexibility on orbit. what does that mean? everybody wants to future proof their business plans. any asset that is going to be up in space for 15 years, they want technologies that can morph as business plans change, as requirements change and what does that mean for manufacturers. what we have done and have been doing over many years is developing digital requirements, digital technology. so, the digital signal processor, which is at the core of my of our digital payloads, we have been since early '90s with the initial development generation one processor. subsequent to that, there was the dot com period and from the

middle east a mobile system and i'd go and spaceway. these have generation processors two, three, four and then we had wjs, the wide band global satellite system that took on more higher level processing capabilities. we leveraged that over time and the current block two wjs system, then sold it commercially. since that time, we have been disrupting ourselves with technology every two years. this is what we need to do and what our customers are demanding. we couple that heart of technology with ray technologies and beam steering and the like. you can virtually change the frequency, change the bandwidth, change the coverage on the ground, move the satellites

anywhere and rekoconstitute the business plan. i have to believe there's an application for the government side there as well. other things we are doing in the antiwave jam where we can use them on wide band platforms in any frequency. there's spectrum technologies where we are developing the capability to operate very high satellites without noninterference basis. that's enabling more systems to co-exist. just as important as the technology is we are trying to find ways to use commercial contracting processes with the government side. so, i feel there's, you know, something we can do to -- to

simplify the government contracting processes. okay, what are the things we can do to leverage our capabilities and maybe be able to affect some policy changes? one of the biggest issues that we see is just the budgetary periods where we believe the funding should look at longer term commitments. currently, it's an annual budget. if there could be a commitment for five years or the life of the satellite, it would be extremely helpful for companies like boeing and other manufacturers who are looking at investments in technologies. if there's only an angle commitment, it's hard to make those strong investments that require capital. we have also heard that the

reason for the hesitation by the department to enter into the long term contracts is because the market conditions could change and the rates would fall and they would be stuck with elise at a higher price. but, the commercial market has already addressed that. there's ways to build in contracting language to derisk that type of concern where you could adjust the rates based on market conditions. so, the last thing that i think i would like to bring up is the spectrum aspect. so, spectrum is a scarce resource, the ability to work with the government spectrum and have federal government allow commercial users to use that spectrum on a non-interference basis would be helpful for our

experience. i'll let the rest of the questions come in. thanks. >> thank you very much. next up is marcy. she is senior vice president of government relations at digital globe. i believe you have a satellite that's hitting somewhere down in cape canaveral about to launch. >> it's got a beautiful ocean view right now. indeed. so, i have been with digital globe almost five years. before that, i was in the air force on the operational side of things. kind of a dual perspective here. the couple things i want to address are how the government can better leverage commercial and what policy needs changing to make that happen. so, just as an overview for you all, there are three things i want to talk about in the leveraging.

first is delivering actual insights from a multiple source kind of platform. the second is looking beyond acquisition to actual integration. so, you concur whole heartedly and the third is minimizing barriers. from a policy perspective i will touch on regulatory monitorization and space traffic management. we'll start in a few things. let's talk about deliverable insights. so, for those that don't know, digital globe, sometimes we get painted as the old guy in town, not very flexible. in fact, we understand you do not exist by pure pixel alone. if you look at our plan and what is already in action, we have image imagery, platform and services, which is analytics. we believe it is a three-lane highway to the future. so, to make that happen, you need a number of different

things, which we are using. first is data. that data has to be accurate and that accuracy impacts a number of things, not just the quality of the image, but the usefulness that come from that information, the meta data as well as the actual picture. so, using that good information gives you better analytics and services on the back end. we have, right now, we bring in 70 teara bites of data. it will bring in 120 terabytes every day. we have storage of 100 peta bytes. we use that for what we are doing with that information. along with that information you need algorithms. of course digital globe has a great team and we build algorithms to extract information. we also believe in using the

wisdom of other folks building algorith algorithms. we have gdbx, a platform that is not just our information in the long 15-plus year archive of information, but a variety of other sources of information. so, it's an ecosystem we built. we have around, i think north of 30 commercial customers as well as government customers as well. we invite folks to bring in your information, your algorithm and use our cloud based platform to get the information you need. wholly believe answers is the direction we are going. we also believe that leveraging crowd sourcing and automation are key. so, in that platform, we built machine-to-machine building, helping narrow search spaces so you can give that information to the analysts and they cannot

spend their time doing hours and hours and hours of finding the needle in the hay stack of needles. so, with that becomes a predictivage e agnalytics as we. a couple things i will mention, we have partnering with vricon and bringing in great 3-d imagery that goes with it. a couple other things people may not be aware of, this is where it goes to, there's a number of things that specifically use this. we use human landscaping. it's not just the imagery or geo imagery, but the cultural that comes with it. there is an entire system or program that's built and helps identify not just borders of countries, but tribal borders and tribal alliances and how medical or water security fits into different areas and so a

number of different coms use that information. one of the aspects that could be applied in a military environment is if you are going to build a supply line or supply hub somewhere, taking that information into consideration so you know who you are negotiating with, maybe you limit the number of tribal leaders or, you know, in the less safe areas, war lords, maybe you avoid building another war lord because you have taken all those things into consideration. a couple things that i think if we look at going beyond acquisition to actual integration, one of the things we would like to do is engrain throughout some of the more new capabilities that are out there. if you take just the schoolhouses and d.o.d. training, i think in the schoolhouses, they are using iconos imagery in the

schoolhouses. it's a graper. if it's not 16 years old, it's almost 16 years old. it's still better quality than the other stuff that is out there right now. but there's a lot that has progressed since then. having leaders understand what the capabilities are and starting at the ground level and making sure people are aware of what's out there. there's a program we have called global egd. anybody with a dot mil or dot gov address can look at this. it is literally five or six clicks and you are looking at whatever part of the planet you want to look at. it is the most current information. we have images, downloaded and had it on the website in 11 minutes. the average is around a couple hours. if you are one of those guys in a forward operating base and want the most current information, itd's not just the most current, but you can see the changes as well. that's out there.

i'm certain that is not being disem naited as well. we need to work to disseminate that better. besides major combatants, we use that for humanitarian assistance or natural disasters, those kind of things as well. we can get into greater detail if you would like, but touch on the policy changes that would be really welcome. no surprise to folks we have been muching modern sags. the regulatory modernization is slow, it's restrictive, it's cumbersome. i know there's a lot of people working on it, but there's a lot of benefit that would come with improvements in that process. the concern with the slowness of it, i'm sure rich and i will agree on this one is that that

slow and cumbersome process pushes customers to international competitors. so, we know they use the cumbersome process of the u.s. government as a reason not to go with u.s. companies at times. then, just quickly, on space traffic management or responsible space, i think it's a conversation that definitely needs to occur. we have been talking for the last year and a half, it's grown. it's definitely an area that needs to be discussed. there's a number of different areas we are looking at of different altitudes for maneuverable and not maneuverable satellites or making, particularly if you are a university or eighth grade class, come to space and learn. le's make things trackable so we minimize the potential for space debris and clearly, i think, smings are going to need to come down more quickly in 25 years as it stands right now.

>> thank you, marcy. the last panelist, rich, who is vice president at planet formerly planet labs. has the name change officially taken place? >> it's a branding. we are still planet labs institutionally, but we go by planet. >> okay, going by planet. so, rich, i'll turn it over to you. you are also in the imagery, remote sensing part of the space market, but very different, the digital globe. i'll allow you to explain. >> thank you. nice to see everybody here today. it's challenging to be the last one on a panel with so many insightful and smart people because you wonder what the heck am i supposed to say after everybody else had such great things to say. i'm going to try to abstract out a little bit. i won't necessarily talk about planet labs specifically where small satellite and sensing

company, revisit across the globe at medium resolution. okay, we got that out there. it's interesting, boeing has been in the space business for a little over 50 years. planet has been in this business just over five years. what i think you are seeing in industry are companies that range from emerging to established. they are working on space based platforms that range from small to medium to large. in constellations of single to dozens to hundreds to multiples of hundreds of satellites in many orbital regimes. what that is doing is creating a city of information that's being generated about the planet in realtime that's being fed through the kinds of tools and devices marcy mentioned for machine learning and algorithm development and creating, i think, what can reasonably be called information

infrastructure about the habitability and change and sustainability of the planet that we are living on. i should mention, in addition to the ways that we see diversity, there are many different portions of the spectrum. so, all this activity, i think, generates an interesting perspective in response to something scott said where oftentimes, historically space policy is a derivative. i think the evolution in what we are seeing here is pushing a different perspective, which is commercial space industry is now a partner leg of the stool to our national space capabilities to national security and civil in a way that's more than just being the industrial contractor base, which it had been so capably and critically for so long.

i think that pushes on the question of what can be done that's new and different and interesting in the area of policy or plans on the government that take advantage of what you are seeing from space from the space companies as they are emerging. you are seeing faster times, disaggregated systems, companies that planned short orbital lifetimes with their satellites. you see people intentionally doing graceful deorbiting. if you have that sweep, if that's the overview of what you are seeing, before you can get to questions of integration, be it from the data and information side and the inside side, or be it from the space side, in terms of thinking about what hardware can do for you in a new kind of way, you have to have a bit of a period of demonstration and

exploration. industries doing things differently and quickly. i would say that government military, civil doesn't matter. it needs to find a way to do rapid demonstrations and get data of what capabilities can bring. that data and information can inform planning in a new kind after way. we are used to the historical process of analysis of alternatives, receiving information about potential cost and schedule sensitivities around new developments. if you can compliment that with rapid demonstrations, a different sized platform from a industry that can respond in 12-18 months, you can have greater confidence in the plan you might make when it comes to how you might choose to flexably design a future architecture. would you choose a single point solution? where would you fall on the decision? would you go with the network,

ek st cetera. how you want to be flexible. confidence in how quickly or with what kind of speed you can execute either a change in architecture or update to architecture and gives you speed and confidence and how much has to be a series of decisions associated with the satellites or series of decisions with products and services derived. it gives the folks in government positions the idea to play with subtlety. how you choose to go with government only and-to-a more service basted. how you choose to go to a single satellite versus architecture and how you do it in a demonstration capacity can send signals as scott was talking about associated with which parts of the architecture, the ones you care most about and

responds aggressively to, the ones you are willing to tolerate a different kind of risk, the ones you consider interinauguration as scott and deb were talking. they are abstracted points. but i think, in terms of the question driving the panel, which is how do we see the government at large and the question specific to the military, it's -- i see it by first recognizing that industry is changing with all the factors we mentioned. b, choosing to find ways to engage with industry through demonstrations, experiments, data buys and figuring it out in realtime and integrating that into the planning so your future is now so the future architectures are integrated as well. i'll close with this, what we are seeing, marcy talked about the kinds of things you can bring to the table. what we are seeing in the

industry is the evolution of just data to information to insights to indicators and instruments to do something based on the indicators you receive. that's happening across market verticals and it's the same set of trends and movements happening inside government decision making. if we are both seeing that, we might have different ends and different objectives in terms of what the instruments are. we might as well find ways to work together smartly on part of that core and part of that proce process. >> thank you. all of the panelists, great opening remarks. i think it really set the stage here for a good discussion. while the audience is getting their questions ready, i wanted to start the discussion here with doug. i'll go to you first. from military perspective, if you could reach out at the

commercial space industry and direct how they are spending their money, if you could magically make them invest more or less in certain areas, what would you do? where would you like to see them putting their investments and where they are going in the future? >> let me make sure, this is your question. i wouldn't actually do that. >> yes. >> but, but, seriously. i think the big issue that the government is going to look at as we try to ingest commercial space services, is cyber vulnerability. that is the key. we have seen the much valued experiments people are doing in anti-satellite activity across the globe. but, quite frankly, the soft underbelly is the cyber as a rule neribility.

if you are going to depend on satellite services, they are more than many other services dependent upon what connects to it. that's got to be a keiery area. it will be hard for us to rely on space services fielded through the commercial practices that don't have good cyber security beneath them. of course it's difficult to add that on later. that's something you have to go ahead and address from the get go. it tends to be fairly expensive when you do that. there's this tension that is developing. what's interesting is, if you are a commercial satellite manufacturer, you may not want to guard against the attack because the likelihood your satellite gets a shot by it is quite low. on the other hand, the likelihood that your network gets attacked in a cyber attack

is quite high, as we see every day. that is something both the commercial world and, i think, the government world. it should be concerned with it. how do we go ahead and in our satellite and space capabilities, commercial, civil, government, international, how do we make sure they are against the cyber attack. that's the keierre ya i focus on. >> scott, next, i'll go to you and, you know, in your decades of experience in this area, i know you may have had a hands in previous laws or policies enacted here, what is changed fundamentally about the commercial space industry and what does that mean in terms of updating government laws, regulations, policies? what do you think needs to happen right now? >> well, i think one of the things that happened is that some of the visions that people

had in the reagan administration or the bush administration, bush 41, have come to fruition. there is the thought that if we had more commercial activities in space, not only would it spur innovation, but pressure on the civil and military communities who otherwise who you would lock into their own ways of being. they would achieve a talk with each other, then not move. so, the idea of injecting another innovative force from the private sector was certainly something we thought about back in the '80s. one of the things that happened in the '90s is you saw the integration of space with information technologies. from a nerdy perspective, this makes sense. protons don't weigh anything. high launch costs have an advantage to moving information.

with the drop of gps prices, the rest of the commercial i.t. waves, which you are seeing in gps and remote sensing information fusing together. space and cyber have a high degree of overlap with each other. so, there's been that integration that's been the change. the other big change has been the rise of private equity finance and cyber, not cyber, venture capital financing, which in part, people have debates about this. in part has been driven by the quantitative easing done since the financial crisis, driving interest rates down and people go into higher risk areas. the private equity and venture capital portion of activity has been surprising to me, not because people are interested in space and i.t. things, but the range in depth this has gone on. in part driven by economic conditions as well.

so, looking forward to the future, what might come out of this is that the increasing secular trends in the budget of mandatory spending being what it is and the pressure this is putting on all nondefense discretionary spending. we can argue about variations between this or that view between the white house or congress or parties or whatever, what programs ought to move or not move. the budget allocations and the caps and structure of the federal budget is going to be the grinding pressure point. it is like a glacier coming south, pushing before it. in that environment, the political community is going to find itself dealing with that front and foremost. the operational community and the space side and the commercial side are looking at how to get the most out of the

limited resources they have. this, in turn, is going to drive deeper questions about what should be done in-house, what should be sent out, what capacity should we need to retain in government and which ones are we willing, you know, to let go? so, we can argue about particular projects. he difficulty for the responding to that is going to be how realistic they are or truthful as to where is the new demand coming from and where is it privatization. some of the sensing colleagues here their market segment has seen amazing growth in ways i didn't predict or see back in the early '90s when we first started remote sensing. in the last decade, what we have seen is location based services and people like google and facebook bringing new demand to the market.

not just market demand repurposed the way nga might be doing itd or noaa doing it commercial, but brand-new private sector driven demand. that sector of the space market is a different kind of beast than, say, what's happening in launch, where the government is still primary driver of this activity. there's a lot of new stuff coming along. >> this last question for the three industry panelists, you can answer in whatever order you wish. several of you hinted and talked about changes you would like to see on the government side, contracting and licensing regulations. what are specific areas where you think thereby quick wins, especially given this is a presidential election year. maybe a change in administration coming along. are there quick wins for

congress in the new administration next year where they could update laws, where they could change practices in a way that would benefit commercial space industry and also the government? don't forget your mike. >> we'll tag team this, probably. so, i would say, actually, congress has at least certain committees made great strides in trying to address the issues that are cumbersome and weigh upon sensing. we are incredibly thankful for that. there is a path forward and we hope it continues into the new administration and the new congress. i believe it will. some of the things they are looking at are the regulatory oversight, which probably when it was set up 20 plus years ago made sense. when every satellite was classified government satellite,

now that the world is different, we need to look at what do they really need to see, oversee and what can we let go? that conversation is ongoing. i hope 2017 is the year where the answer comes that there's a lot that can be let go. and we focus on the things that really are, one, just monitoring of what the companies are doing, so, we know, much like the fcc oversees commercial satellites. then, you know, when there is truly a very unique national security implication that we don't disregard that. i don't think anything specific on that one, i didn't want to steal your thunder. >> have at it. >> i'm going to answer slightly differently. it's an area where i think we should beware, be a little

cognizant of the downside of going for quick wins. i'm looking at space traffic management as an area because it's really important. there are lots of questions unanswered about how authorities might be owned for evaluating debris or conjunction or collision risks associated with new, emerging large scale constellations and orbits. there's clearly an emerging need, but if one responds a little too quickly, one could begin a solution that is not quite right and creates more headaches than if one took a little bit of time and so i think one of the things the government has a great power to do before it can choose to regulate or before it can choose to do any kind of oversight is have a bit of a convening

function and stand there with the warning that some folks are afraid of that often says, hey, if we don't see certain things evolve, we might have to step in and regulate. exert that convenient function. with it say, what can you industry do to establish some of your own rules of the road or norms of behavior that are relevant to issues we are facing with traffic management, situational awareness and orbital debris that could alleviate the effort to move on the regulatory front, but doesn't take away the time and the sense of urgency for people to act and make smart decisions. >> i would agree with the debris mitigation. we would be happy to participate in something like that, a form like that. also, we are looking for, i think, more lease model.

something in acquisition to get these things moving. we feel the acquisition process is long retracted and leasing should be simpler and doable in some cases. also, regulatory wise, i still, not to give away satellites spectrum, space spectrum -- it would be extremely helpful. >> in terms of things for congress, things to suggest, one of them, going back to doug's point about i.t. security and so forth, this administration put funding in for space defense activities which has been a positive development. the next administration is well advised to continue some of that work because a lot more needs to be done. the second thing i would say regarding regulations, there is

this issue of constellations that richard referred to. i have been participating in u.n. discussions on long term sustainability of space activities and 12 guidelines reached consensus since june. sometimes the u.n. activities is like watching paint dry as it works through. when something comes out with consensus, it is powerful. half the regulation or guidelines that did come out, they dealt with regulatory issues. i'm reminded of this because of the convening functions. the guidelines sound zero with order. if you are going to regulate, talk to the industry you are going to regulate. talk to the other ministries involved in doing this. think about cost benefit. this stuff sounds, i mean, really basic. but, getting other countries to kind of buy in and go, yeah,

that's something we need to do is particularly important for space because any one bad actor can make things harmful. then the last thing i wanted to mention, commercial sensing regulation was touched on. i want to get back to the spectrum issue. spectrum is important not only for space community but developing countries because they don't have access to space or infrastructure. there is a split, as many people in this room know, between the fcc, which responds to itself as independent commission and everybody else in the agency who respond to executive branch. so, you have a separation of powers issue going on between fcc and the agencies, which makes getting both pennsylvania avenue synced up. there is a lot of money in terestial broad band.

space provides very unique capabilities that aren't always recognized or realized by the commission when they make these decisions. so, not just satellite spectrum, gps, weather and environmental. if they were missing, they would be just as devastating as if we were attacked by a foreign enemy. making sure that doesn't mess up is something congress as a whole will want to watch. each major committee is going to watch the spectrum issue because it touches their abilities. >> all right. with that, i'll open it up for questions from the audience. i think we have a microphone in the back here. go with this gentleman here. >> i was wondering, a question, you mentioned the need to leverage commercial capabilities for national security purposes. do you see a role for allies and partners in terms of

capabilities or technologies or platform that is could or should be leveraged for national security. >> sure. thanks very much. normally, my stump speech on this includes commercial and international. since this was mostly a commercial discussion today, i left it at that. absolutely. if you look at most of the space on the planet, most of them tend to be partners or allies of the united states. obviously two exceptions of that exist, but the rest of them happen to be pretty good allies of the u.s. most of them do want to partner with the u.s. scott was talking about the international space station earlier. we have a bunch of partners in civil space and partners in military space, quite frankly. in fact, we began a formal of that four years ago, five years ago, called the combined space operations initiative, the cspo

initiative. it includes five allies and will expand more in the future. we have been playing war games with allies. we finished with one in germ any with seven nations recently. every one of these nations brings their own robust capable systems to the floor. i like to try to remind people that some of the most protective communications on the planet, not in the x-band spectrum belong to our allies in uk and france as opposed to the u.s. so, there are incredible capabilities out there in all mission areas, whether that be in the position navigation time area, imaging, space situational, every other missionary you can think of, there are capabilities that our allies bring that can easily be shared and incorporated. we have not thought about doing

that in the past. that needs to change. it has been our habit to go ahead and use just u.s. space capabilities. that makes no sense at all in both the fiscal environment scott talked about and the threat environment i talked about. it makes no sense to marry our capabilities. 100% we are looking at that. >> down in front here. microphone? >> hi, i'm pat with defense daily. i have a question. they talk about how they see a role for rocketry for military use. unfortunately, it seems the air force's range on a 20th century mind set where they launch every few months or so and it's an expendable vehicle. is that a problem and what are you doing to nudge the air force forward to a response of range

practices to use the rocket technologies. >> sure, thanks. so, i don't know that i would call it a problem, i would call it a condition that we have right now. that condition is predicated upon the fact we haven't found an economic use in military space yet for response of reusable launch. i often view launch as the most exciting, but quite frankly the most boring part of a space station mission. it's exciting if you sat at a launch pad like i have, it's a very exciting time. that excitement sometimes tells us that's the most important part of the space mission. it's not. that is a trucking operation, quite frankly. it's a very high horsepower truck to get things into orbit. what we care about is what we bring into orbit. if we bring into orbit to rich's

point, if you want large consolations you need that kind of capability. i view we have a condition of launch that exists today that reflect the space architectures we have. we don't have a condition of launch today that reflects the fact we can't do something. it's that we don't need to do something. the minute we need to do it and we might need to do it either commercially, we might need to do it militarily. the minute we need to do it, i'm fully confident what we have seen in launch with the likes of spacex and rocket labs and everybody else in this ever increasing market, i think the solutions will be brought to bear. i am far less worried about how we'll respond to our next architectural needs thanchitect.

if they don't get there on a federally funded air force base, they get there on a state funded launch base, which is, quite frankly, the way airports can be. that's a better model than the way we compete on launch heads today. >> so, i want to send the same question down the road here and see if the other panelists would like to respond and the advances we are seeing in the launch market. reusability is a means to an end. the end, the objective we are going after here is higher launch rates, more responsive launch and lower cost launch. would you like to comment on how that affects your businesses and types of capabilities that become economically viable? >> well, in the commercial satellite business, the low cost launcher is imperative. i think reusability is attractive to our customers for capturing the low cost and

spacex and others are working on that. so, i think that's good and as far as constellations go, i think it's imperative. >> so, i would say, excuse me, you know, you say reusable. part of what you might be thinking about there when that's discussed is responsive or -- or readily available or some combination of responsive and readily available. whether you are in the small set world or traditional, what you care about is the opportunity to have a better predictability in your schedule, the opportunity to control where you go in terms of orbit, when you go. and to be able to do that in a cost environment that is affordable. right now, the community has to mostly be secondary payloads and be opportunistic in getting

rides, particularly if they are orbits of the greatest utility. i think that some of the companies that doug mentioned and the way you are seeing the evolution of a smaller satellite launch capability that has the advantage of being responsive, potentially reusable in parts, flexible in scheduling will only further enable more of the satellite architecture based on the satellite. satellites are satellite architectures to utilize that. there is a feedback mechanism between the two. >> the only other thing i would add is that, clearly, how we have launched in the past is not necessarily how we will launch in the future. absolutely have to physically look at all options there. so, we'll be looking at a lot of different options as we go

forward. >> let me add one more thing because i think rich hit an important point i didn't mention. there is a feedback loop between how we launch and how we build systems. if every launch is $100 million, that would be a cheap launch, quite frankly. a cheap launch is several million dollars. the capability of a system and make the systems last longer and longer. if launch is cheaper, it may change the kind of system. there is a feedback loop, it is a question, i view it because i'm a satellite guy. i view it from the satellite side. people that lawn view it from the launch end. neither end is the correct end. you have to view it from both ends. there will be an evolution along that, along both sides as we see cheaper satellite manufacturing. then you are going to see us strive for cheaper launch for the cheaper satellite.

so, there's an interesting feedback that we are seeing on both ends of that spectrum that the government will take advantage of it on both ends of the spectrum. >> i'm toby from bloomburg view. this is for anyone who wants to dive in. a number of people in the room were at an event this morning with three service secretaries. they were unsurprisingly asked what is the most pressing military issue for the next president. but i was surprised when air force secretary james said space policy. she said that over the next four years, there are a number of monumental decisions that need to be made. she did not get into details. do you want to say, without reading her mind, what she had in mind and particularly things

that may involve industry as well as the government? >> sure, thanks. that's the second time in four days i have been asked to read a secretary's mind, so, secretary james, obviously, is the principal dod space adviser. so, certainly space is on her mind. i have not talked to her about the most pressing policy issues that she sees. thank you for advising, i probably will go talk to her about that. i do think, you know, if i look at them from my perspective and i haven't spoke much about policy. we talked about them somewhat already. regulatory reform is something we need to go ahead and deal with. i say regulatory relaxation when i'm looking at one portion of the regulatory environment,

which is how we regulate remote sensing capabilities. we need new regulations in areas we don't have regulation today as rich talked about for space traffic management. there's a regulatory agenda for the good of all nations as scott talks about. how will we regulate that to advantage? how will we make sure regulation doesn't disadvantage our companies or activities? i think it's a key question. i don't think anybody knows the answer to it, but it's a quee question. that's number one. number two is really the ability of the, and this is now a defense department question, how do we go ahead and integrate non-u.s. government owned and controlled space services into our u.s. government missions? let me give you an example.

if we drop a gps guided bomb, but guide it in a galileo system and hits the wrong target, whose liability is that? how have we accepted liability? we control gps. we can bring lethal force to bear today on a target because we trust gps guidance to the extent we own it. can we trust non-u.s. government regulated and owned systems to go ahead and bring lethal force to bear? by the way, we do that in telecommunications and in shipping and other areas. we have never done it in space. how do we do that kind of activity? the third policy that i would talk about, just to complete the triplet is indemnification. if we are going to use commercial capabilities and foreign capabilities, how do we go ahead and indemnifying.

we have no policy on that today. we can extend policy but that has not been done yet. we need to think about that. some of that is statutory in nature, some of that is policy in nature. we have to go ahead and attack those. those are three things i throw out there. i will go and talk to secretary james. thank you. >> yeah, i'm not going to attempt to read the secretaries mind on this so doug will report back as to what was there. but, i find some of the comments mysterious because i think we have plenty of policy. there may be questions about how to apply it but i don't see a large vacuum, certainly at a national policy level. i'm not sure exactly what she's talking about. the things i would see as being

important is about execution and implementation. things that are really tough are things like the gps, breach kind of things. how one goes about affording the launch. how do we move toward a war fighting operation the way general hyten talked about to deal with these threats, putting the culture in there? every time that d.o.d. or to be fair, the scientific community has been asked to sacrifice performance for cost, they have gone for performance. on the commercial side, people maybe going for saving cost, but the military and scientific community history has been to go for that extra performance. managing implementation is probably the most driving issue, i think, for the national security issue. areas where there might be overlap or areas that maybe come up as policy. first of all, regulations for

new and emerging innovative activitie activities. that is true. what is striking is we don't hear the phrase department of commerce. i'm an ex-member of department of commerce, my old boss is there, i have warm feelings for it. in these discussions, noaa plays its role in sensing. a lot of the commercial issues are being dealt with by the state department or the transportation department or asked about can d.o.d. maybe that's just an accident, but seems to me more hands could be put on the oars. the other area d.o.d. needs to think about more along with state and others is the application of conflict as applied to space. i went through a bit of an exercise over the last few years along with this long term sustainability stuff with international code of conduct.

the russians were largely opposed to such a code in part because sections of it dealt with use of force in space. i didn't agree with the russian positions and obstructionism. i think they had a point in working through some of the sometimes very complex scenarios that arise in the use of force in space. we don't have a lot of experience with the use of force in space. that's a good thing. there's a lot of uncertainties there. from an academic standpoint to the conflict, international humanitarian law, how it applies. those are things i think actually the -- someone sent the academic community and other researchers should be paying more attention to so they can get to a point where they can be made into a policy choice for somebody at secretary james' level. >> so, i want to go down the row to the industry folks. from your perspective, picking up on doug's comments on

changing the licensing process or potentially changing the licensing process, but also this issue of use of force in space and indemnification of commercial operators. if your systems are being used by d.o.d. for war fighting purposes, even if it's indirectly, you know, how is the industry viewing this? and, you know, picking up on the licensing part, what, specifically, could changed with the current licensing process? >> so, here i will speak specifically for digital globe. we are proud of our partnership with the u.s. government. we understand, and we'll see what happens down the road. we don't take it lightly. it's a point of discussion. that's a partnership that the company clearly wants to continue and is proud of.

so, it's part of the mix. i'll leave it there. as far as the regulatory licensing, i hope that the next secretary of commerce, it's a good point, follows in the footsteps of secretary pritzger and embraces what they have. they are the lead for the decisions with inputs from others and so, hopefully, there will be a real understanding that pushing the time frame that stay somewhere near the regulatory time frames and those kinds of things. i hope there's a greater upgrade embrace with that. >> is it time we move to a regulatory licensing process where there's a presumption of yes, you will be approved? if a license was granted for something system in the past, should it be a presumption? >> i feel like i just handed you

this question. we actually have been pushing for a change in the mantra. right now, it's incumbent upon industry as to why we should do something. there are a lot of times we point out to folks that it actually is happening in this country on their website. why are you restricting us from it? it needs to be a conversation as we go forward and understand that. but, in the shift of things going from completely classified and a very aerospace centric to where we are now and implications and the world is a different place than when the regulations were put in place. it's time for that shift, we ho holeheartedly agree. >> there's a fundamental assumption that is made in the question of should you move to the assumption of a yes subject to some compelling reason to say

no, which is that there ought to be or there ought to remain in place the kind of process associated with doing licensing that exists now. what i would say is, it's worth challenging the assumption. it's going to bring it to the original question to get to the point, which is, i certainly don't know what was in the secretary's mind. there are ways policy can be fractualal. there could be d.o.d. questions to get to in the line of what doug was talking about. the framework is roughly correct and big picture questions you need to take a swing at. overall, the framework is still right. the other question, though, is to take a pause and say, okay, the framework is still right because we think certain sorts of fundamental assumptions are

still true. in the -- there is the fundamental assumption that there should be an inner agency review for national and everything else. it's worth to accident the fundamental question. what if there was a regime that verified practices were not incompatible with our international obligations and then otherwise license this activity in a way to allow it to be free market based and commerce based in ways that lots of other digital information markets are, whether internet based, social media based, et cetera, there are digital information markets and services that have no or little to no regulatory touch because they never came from space and never came from this government only environment. space sort of stays there because of this historical precedence it came from the government. make the time for that

assumption has come for review and the regulatory environment should change as well. >> that's a good point. several of us are on this noaa advisory committee for commercial remote sensing so we've discussed this before. so i am pointedly asking questions. but you raise a great point, rich, if twitter and facebook had been subject to inner agency review, would they have ever been approved? probably not. i would guess, or at least delayed by many years. so doug, what do you think? would you be okay with a licensing regime where there's not necessarily an inner agency review process? >> so in the best -- in the best resemblance of a political candidate, let me skirt your issue. and answer with a theoretical problem and then you may be able

to figure out where i stand on this. it struck me when dawn was speaking that she talked about simcon satellite launched in 1963. we didn't have a regulatory review process for that satellite. as a result, no satellite communication service is subject to national security review. it's a frequency review but not a national security review. i would posit that as great a threat as remote sensing may be to u.s. forces or u.s. national security, people have used satellite communications even u.s. supplied satellite communications for means for a capabilities nefarious to the u.s. national interest. yet we don't subject communications to national security review because we're not used to doing that. we never did it. it's not how it developed. we developed remote sensing law and licensing practice because it was sprang from a government own capability that became a

commercial capability following the landsat act. and so we viewed it through a different lens. and i have to wonder if that lens is the correct lens because as rich says, we don't apply that lens to any other kind of commercial activities in general. there are some structures of itar and missile technology control regulations which we do have and some of those work well and some of those less well but there's a different process for those that's speed things through the system. i wonder if we don't need to relook at this whole area, and that's something the next administration needs to deal with. have we been treating space in ways that are different than we treat every other domain in terms of how we allow commercial activity to proceed? and should we, therefore, change how we view space?

>> well, as one of the people who is guilty for writing the section of the 92 act, i couldn't get away with simcom press debt back in the day. so it was necessary but you're absolutely right. the things which are different today is globalization. unmanned air vehicles. the blending of gis and other information technologies. all these things which we didn't have in mind in the early '90ss. when we first constructed this licensing regime, i would have been thrilled if there were two competitive commercial companies in the market. that would have been great. but a whole bunch of other things have happened since then, and you're right. we subject to these past historical images, filters, which we don't do to other things. the place to fix that, i would argue, is actually in legislation. we could work around the 960

regulations. we could work around the national policy directives and write them in different ways. but the fundamental foundation of the licensing regime is in law. now i want you to always be careful in messing with law because you are not sure of unintended consequences. but this is one of those areas where we mention what the next administration will have to deal with. this is something the next congress needs to deal with and consult with and talk with the administration, industry and so forth, but more and more in these areas, i think the congress is going to play a larger, more important role in the next decade than it has in the past. this is odd for a space policy person. i look to eisenhower and kennedy as driving that. if i look at things that happened in space exploration, the debates over satellite systems, remote sepsing, really the kong, believe it or not, is

going to play this larger role. it's somewhat like the jokes. congressional leadership is like military intelligence. it's one of those party jokes you make. but it's not a joke. and i think that remote sensing, which was an area that the congress led on in 1992 is an area congress can and should lead on because this is not fixable solely within the prerogative administration. >> unfortunately, we've run out of time here. we had many other questions in the audience. i suppose we'll have to do this again. i want to thank all of the panelists for joining us today and thank all of you for participating in this discussion. [ applause ]

this weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history, collin callaway, history professor at dartmouth college on native american history from the colonial era through westward expansion. >> they presented themselves to us as allies and frebds of the future but clearly our enemies. they're occupying our lands with troops, which is the one thing we're fighting against. and at the same time by cutting off and withholding gifts, refusing to give gifts, limiting trade with us, that's initially a declaration of hostile intent. >> later at 10:00, on "reel

america," the 1966 campaign for california governor between incumbent democrat edmond g. pat brown and challenger republican ronald reagan. >> my experience has turned me inevitably toward the people for the answers to problems just instinctively, i find i believe and put my faith in the private sector of the economy. and i believe in the people's right and ability to run their own affairs. >> and every single solitary category of business and issue that tells whether or not california's economy is good is proven that we have done a good job. >> then sunday morning at 10:00 eastern on "road to the white house" rewind." next tuesday a lot of you will go to the polls and stand there in the polling place and make a decision. i think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? >> our proposals are sound and

very carefully considered to stimulate jobs, to improve the industrial complex of this country to create tools for american workers and at the same time anti-inflationary in nature. >> the 1980 debate between incumbent president jimmy carter and former california governor ronald reagan. and at 7:00 -- >> a realist would not have proposed his life to fighting slavery and a realist would not have said this -- which is that a disillusion of the union for the cause of slavery would be followed by a war between the two severed portions of the union. it seems its result may be the extriipation of slavery from this whole continent and calamitous and desolating as this course of events and its progress must be, so glorious would be its final issue that as god shall judge me, i dare not say that it is not to be desired. >> at the new york historical society, james trob, author of "john quincy adams -- militant

spirit" and robert kagan debate the question, was john quincy adams a realist. they also talk about the foreign policy views and the legacy of the sixth president. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. coming up on american history tv in primetime, road to the white house rewind looks at past presidential debates. next, the september 23rd and aucts 26th, 1976 debates between president gerald ford and former georgia governor jimmy carter. later, the october 11th and 15th 1992 debates between president george h.w. bush, then arkansas governor bill clinton and texas businessman ross perot. next, "road to the white house" rewind brings you archival coverage of presidential races. from 1976, the first debate