SPACE LAUNCH POLICY ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 132
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 29, 2011
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: January 19, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
CRGunn/1-19-83/
SPACE LAUNCH POLICY ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF
EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES
In consonance with the President's National Space Policy (NSDD-42)
goals to "expand the United States private-sector investment and
involvement in civil space and space related activities" and the
principle to "encourage domestic commercial exploitation of space
capabilities, technology and systems for national economic benefit"
the following subset of policies relating to the Nation's space
transportation systems are established:
(1) Within the transition of the United States Government
(USG) spacecraft to the Shuttle, USG shall encourage and facilitate
the purchase or use by the private sector of those USG Expendable
Launch Vehicles (ELV) designs, processes, procedures, tooling,
ground support equipment, facilities and property that will be
excess to USG needs after the transition to the Shuttle.
(2) The USG shall not recover ELV development, production or
facility sunk costs.
(3) The USG shall provide on a reasonable, reimbursable
basis, those support services that can only be secured from the
USG and that are necessary for the conduct of commercial ELV
launches.
(4) All United States commercial ELV launches shall be
conducted from USG national ranges.
(5) The USG shall have priority access for national
security and launch opportunity critical missions to joint use USG
facilities and support services.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
2
(6) NASA and DOD shall be the Government agencies
responsible for:
o determining those ELV designs, processes, procedures,
tooling, ground support equipment and facilities
that are excess to the USG needs;
o determining those support services and the reasonable
reimbursable bases that the USG shall provide that
are necessary for ELV commercial launches from the
USG National Ranges;
o determining those jointly used tooling, ground support
equipment and facilities and the reasonable reimbursable
bases that the USG shall provide that are necessary
for ELV commercial launches;
o determining the transition means and schedules for
turning over or sharing USG ELV facilities and
properties;
o determining the cost of residual inventory of flight
and ground software and hardware, propellants and
other USG ELV spares and supplies excess to the USG
needs;
o providing technical advise and assistance in operations;
regulation, or licensing of commercial ELV's on a
reasonable reimbursable basis.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
for:
3
(7) The shall be the lead Government Agency responsible
o licensing and regulating commercial ELV enterprises
o negotiating sale, lease or use of USG facilities
and property identified by NASA and DOD for joint use
or excess to USG needs.
o negotiating agreements and cost for USG provided
support services necessary for ELV commercial
launches
o coordinate and facilitate all USG actions pertinent
to commercial ELV launches.
(8) Licensed ELV commercial enterprises shall:
o comply with USG national and international laws
and treaties
o comply with USG and applicable State security,
safety and environmental requirements and
regulations
o maintain all tooling, ground support equipment,
facilities and properties used or leased from the
USG at the same level of readiness and repair
(less normal wear and tear) as when turned over
for use.
o indemnify the USG against laibilities for damage/
injury or fatalities to persons and property of
other nations.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
4
(9) The USG shall not be liable for damages caused by
USG support services, joint use facilities or
properties sold, leased or used by licensed ELV
commercial operators.
Notwithstanding the USG policy to encourage and facilitate
private sector ELV entry and competition with the Space Shuttle,
which is the United States' primary launch vehicle for U.S.
Government, commercial and foreign payloads, the USG ,intends to
vigorously seek and secure agreements and contracts for Space
Shuttle launches from all potential sectors, national and foreign,
government and private.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
January 20, 1983
TO: irector, Customer Services
FROM: MOG/Director, Space Shuttle Operations
SUBJECT: Commercialized ELV Impact on Space Shuttle
The Interagency Space Launch Policy Working Group is now
addressing issues surrounding the commercialization of
space transportation. Phase I of these efforts are directed
to determining the benefits to the U.S. Government derived
from commercialization of Expendable Launch Vehicles. As you
are aware, there are proposals before NASA to commercialize
Delta and Atlas Centaur and before DOD to take over the Titan.
The Working Group would like your assessment of existing or
potential missions any or all of these ELV's might capture
that otherwise would most probably fall to Space Shuttle.
Also, since U.S. commercial ELV's would be in competition
with Space Shuttle, what impact might they have on the Space
Shuttle other than reducing flight rate, e.g., force Space
Shuttle to:
o comparable commercial pricing;
o commercialize at the same time in order to
preclude the U.S. Government from competing
in the same "market" as the private sector;
o abandon the commercial and foreign market to
U.S. ELV.
Your thought and perspective would be
Working Group. A discussion of these
would be appreciated at your earliest
most helpful to the
issues with the Group
convenience.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION
CHARTER
Develop national policy options to encourage and enable
commercialization of existing and new space transportation
systems and elements of both Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV)
and the Space Shuttle Space Transportation System (STS).
TASK PLAN
o Phase I--Expendable Launch Vehicles
o Define concepts and criteria for commercialization
o Examine existing and proposed commercialization
ventures
-Basis for venture and projected viability -
-Benefit to private sector
-Benefit to Government
-Necessary Agreements/Guarantees/Approvals/Regulations/
Legislation
-Potential impact upon:
-National Security
-National Economy
-Foreign Competition
-STS Program
-International Treaties/Laws
o Examine commercialization task team studies of remote
sensing to meteorology by DOC/NASA and STS by NASA
o Examine proposed legislation on commercialization
o Draft policy options
o Criteria--January 28, 1983
o Review of Commercialization Ventures and Government
Studies--February 18
o Draft policy options--March 4
o Phase II--Space Shuttle
o Review of Commercialization Ventures and Government
Studies--March 25
o Draft policy options--April 8
o Interagency Coordinated Proposed NSDD to IG--April 22
o Working Group Report--June 1983
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
S_Rfr=c
INC OF AMERICA
Vice President George Bush
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, D.C.
C:"r!?:!?? Government bnct Public AllarrS
December 7, 1982
S- It 3X) ?
2.!-.50 V.yee: N
Wasten;ror. D C 20037
202-659-0955
Dear George:
I've enjoyed updating you on SSI and the future of private industry in
space operations. Now I'd like to bring to your attention an emerging govern-
mental issue that I believe is of primary concern to all firms undertaking
commercial space operations.
I've al ways been able to report that the government has been responsive
to SSI requests for assistance and permissions and that the government has not
been an obstacle to private space firms. However, as SSI has evaluated the
business opportunities in space, the pattern of government activities has
begun to loom as a major roadblock.
To explain, the federal government is making a number of budgetary and
policy decisions that will fundamentally affect the ability of private firms
to conduct space business. For example, the federal government is considering:
building a fifth Shuttle Orbiter; finalizing the future of the Landsat remote
sensing satellite system; and permitting civilian use of the NAVSTAR global
positioning system. Each of these deci sions could substantially undercut a
potential private sector business: a fifth Orbiter might well impair the market
and funding for private sector operation of expendable launch vehicles; a
government-subsidized competitor in remote sensing or naviigation/positioning
probably would dry up investment funds for private projects in these areas.
Yet, each decision is proceeding with little more than a perfunctory nod
toward the private sector.
Before such critical decisions--and others to follow--are made, I bel ieve
the federal government must examine its policy on private enterprise in space.
Important questions must be answered, foremost among them:
o To what extent and under ?,hat condi tions will the federal government
compete with existing or potential private business activities in space?
o If federal activities not essential to national security?however
val uatl e?preempt private activities, will the government fund such
operations?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
.4.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Vice President George Bush
Page 2
o Will NASA and other federal agencies focus on very high-risk, long-tem
research projects that the private sector cannot undertake, or will federal
agencies establish and operate space systems that constitute--in fact if
not in intent--competitors for private space businesses?'
o Is the government willing to assume the risks as well as the benefits
of truly private space commercial activities--i.e., is the government
willing to accept the fact that although any given private sector initia-
tive may succeed spectacularly, such a business also could encounter
,delays or actually fail?
Until such questions are arswered and policy priorities clarified, the
federal goveinment and potential investors in private sector space operations
cannot make coherent, cohesive decisions on federal government space activities
vis-a-vis private ones. But upcoming decisions virtually may dictate the future
of private space businesses that al ready have expended?or soon will expend--
funds invested by American taxpayers in pursuit of free market profits.
Consequently, I hope that you and the President's science advisers will
consider implementing an overarching policy that will define the role of the
federal government in space as noncompetitive with commercial activities.
I believe such action would be both completely consistent with the recently
announced Presidential space policy and critical to the viability of the
emerging private sector space operations industry. I would appreciate the
opportunity to schedule.. time to discuss this matter personally with you.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
(\Arta
David Hannah, Jr.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
NASA AND COMMERCIALIZATION
PRESENTATION TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
JANUARY 1983
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4 rrrrrmrryrrTrTnT777771Trrn.,77r,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
THREE CATEGORIES OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST
I. NEW SYSTEMS AT NEW SITES.
II. SYSTEMS AND ACTIVITIES COMPLEMENTARY TO STS.
III. EXISTING ELV SYSTEMS.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
REVIEW APPROACH
I. DISCUSSIONS CONDUCTED WITH INTERESTED PARTIES:
SSI
ARC TECH
TRANSPACE
GENERAL DYNAMICS
MARTIN
FEDERAL EXPRESS
SPACE TRANS. CO.
FAIRCHILD
ORBITAL SYSTEMS
McDONNELL DOUGLAS .
ORBITAL SYSTEMS LTD
ASTROTECH INC.
GRUMMAN
BOEING
II. REVIEW CONDUCTED OF APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES, ETC.
AEROJET
LTV
ROCKWELL
DOD
DOC
BATTELLE
ECON
III. REVIEWED IN DETAIL THE SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED AND
DETERMINED KEY DECISIONS AND ACTIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT
EACH CATEGORY.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
11111smlan im I," sr un,.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
NEW SYSTEMS AT NEW SITES
DOMESTIC
1. SSI ? CONESTOGA VEHICLE ? MATAGORDA ISL., HAWAII
2. ARC TECHNOLOGY ? (HYBRID?UNNAMED) ? 200 MI OFF WEST COAST
3. PROJECT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ? VOLKS ROCKET ? VARIOUS
NASA ACTIONS
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT TO STATE, FAA, AND FCC.
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT AS AGREED TO BY NASA.
FOREIGN
1. ESA/ARIANESPACE ARIANE ? FRENCH GUIANA
2. GERMAN ? ORTRAG ? VARIOUS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4
.121111411!Ifir111.111.111fi to .1tr!rrf ?-71-17", ..
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
NEW SYSTEMS AT NEW SITES
OTHER GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS
STATE DEPARTMENT ? EXPORT .LICENSE, NOTIFICATION OF LAUNCH
FAA ? AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE AIRSPACE (FAR EXEMPTION)
FCC ? FREQUENCY UTILIZATION
AT&FA ? REGISTRATION OF ROCKET
NORAD ? NOTIFICATION OF LAUNCH
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
SYSTEM PROPOSALS COMPLEMENTARY TO STS
ACTIVITY UNDERWAY
1. PAM D - McDONNELL DOUGLAS
2. MATERIALS PROCESSING - McDONNELL DOUGLAS
INITIATED ACTION
1. FIFTH ORBITER - SPACE TRANS. CO. (FEDERAL EXPRESS)
2. SRM-1X - ORBITAL SYSTEMS INC.
3. MARKETING - GRUMMAN, BOEING, USBI, MDAC, ROCKWELL, ETC.
4. PAYLAOD PROCESSING - ASTRO TECH INTERNATIONAL INC.
PLANNED ACTIONS
1. LEASE SATELLITE - FAIRCHILD
2. MATERIALS PROCESSING - GTI
3. MATERIALS PROCESSING - BALL AEROSPACE SYSTEMS
4. MATERIALS PROCESSING - JOHN DEERE & CO.
5. MATERIALS PROCESSING - DUPONT
6. MATERIALS PROCESSING - INCO
7. MATERIALS PROCESSING - UNION CARBIDE CORP.
NASA ACTIONS
REVIEW PROPOSALS, DETERMINE MERIT, DETERMINE IF COMPETITION REQUIRED
COORDINATE INTERAGENCY REQUIREMENTS
IF APPROVED ENTER JEA, MOU, OR CONTRACT AS REQUIRED
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4 I? ? . ? . g ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
EXISTING ELV SYSTEMS
1. CENTAUR - GENERAL DYNAMICS, SSI
2. DELTA - TRANSPACE
3. TITAN SPACE TRANS CO. (MOU WITH MARTIN, UTC, AEROJET)
NASA ACTIONS
DECISIONS REQUIRED
INITIATE COMPETITION (AS DESIRED)
PLAN TRANSITION (DOD MISSIONS, NASA AND OTHER U.S. GOV'T MISSIONS,
C&F MISSIONS)
.?PROVIDE TECHNCIAL ADVICE/ASSISTANCE IN LICENSING TO STATE,
FCC AND FAA
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : 61A-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
TYPICAL TRANSITION PLAN
LAST PROD.' VEHICLE
FOR GOV' T MISSION
GOVERNMENT PRODUCTION
PRIVATE SECTOR PRODUCTION
ASSUME PRODUCTION RESPONSIBILITY
LAST GOV' T
LAUNCH
GOVERNMENT LAUNCH OPERATIONS
FOR BOTH
_COMPLETE PRIVATE SECTOR ?
OPERATIONS
ASSUME LAUNCH RESPONSIBILITY ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: dIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4 ?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
DOD/NASA DECISIONS HEQUitew rum
GOVERNMENT OPERATED SYSTEMS
HARDWARE AND PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES
0 "SUNK" R&D COST RECOVERY ON CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT
0 RENTAL, LEASE, OR USE PERMIT OF PRODUCTION AND PLANT TOOLING,
TEST EQUIPMENT DRAWINGS, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES, ETC.
0 SALE OF GOVERNMENT SPARE PARTS INVENTORIES AND OVERHAUL AND
REPAIR CAPABILITIES (EXCEPTION REQUIRED)
0 MONOPOLY VS FREE MARKET
LAUNCH SITE CAPABILITIES
0 "SUNK" R&D COST RECOVERY ON CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT
0 LEASE, RENTAL OR USE PERMIT SYSTEM UNIQUE FACILITIES TEST
EQUIPMENT AND GSE
- CONTROL OF MODIFICATIONS
0 USE OF LAUNCH SOFTWARE (INCLUDING TEST AND LAUNCH PROCEDURES)
0 JOINT USE OF CERTAIN OTHER FACILITIES
0 GOVERNMENT PROVIDED OPERATIONAL SUPPORT
0 GOVERNMENT PROVIDED BASE SUPPORT
0 SCHEDULING PRIORITIES
0 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
0 MONOPOLY VS FREE MARKET
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
PROGRAM PLAN
0111.11\04?10....loNaminL
1983 1984
4F1M1A1MIJIJIA1SI0INIDIJIFIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOINID
ENGINEERING
PROCUREMENT
1 SUPPORT
4 SETS
[PRODUCTION TOOLING - DESIGN & FAB'
TEST HARDWARE FAB & ASSY
TEST SET UP I
STRUCTURES TEST
1985
JIF1141A1m1J14AislOINJD
PLF MODAL SURVEY
SUPPORT MODULE & COCOON SEPARATION TEST
,
CORL VLHICLL FLIGHT UNITS ( 1 DETAIL FAB & S/A 4 SETS :
ALRC FAB/ASSY/TEST LIQUID ROCKET ENGINES
CSD FAB/ASSY SOLID ROCKET MOTORS
ENGINEERING
PROCUREMENT
4 SETS
PLF TEST UNIT FAB & ASSY
1986
J1F1m1AlmiJ1010-sloINID
1 NLW DIVLIOPMENT
M/W r F/A 1 P&S Aii01_ .A02 ___AN3 A04
4," At2__A1 _Ata
PLF SEPARATION TEST
PAYLOAD FAIRING
DEVELOPMENT ?
FLIGHT PLF FAB/ASSY/TEST
FACILITY CRITERIA
ENGINEERING
-...11?1111?????????11/ ???????????????=yor
OFFSITE FABRICATION
LAUNCH SITE
OPERATIONS
LC-40 MODS
-401 Al3 A04
AGE I&C1
& V/S XPTR MODS
f
V1B TESTING
CORE/SRM MATE
'012 le? `a
LAUNCH CAPABILITIES
NON-RECURRING TESTS
LAUNCH OPERATIONS
}FACILITY
& AGE MODS
19871
? .......?????????????6?6.011
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?TV,'
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
HARDWARE/PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES ? TITAN
CATEGORIES OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY REQUIRED TO SUPPORT FABRICATION,
TEST, AND SHIPMENT OF VEHICLES
FACILITIES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT, I.E., CHEMICAL MILLING FACILITY,
COMPRESSOR HOUSE AND VERTICAL TEST FACILITY
HARDWARE PRODUCTION TOOLS, SPECIAL TOOLING, TEST TOOLING
AND SPECIAL TEST AND HANDLING EQUIPMENT
MACHINE TOOLS
AIR FORCE COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT
ALL DOCUMENTATION USED DURING DESIGN, FABRICATION AND TEST.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
LAUNCH SITE CAPABILITIES ? TITAN
NEEDED FOR USE, MODIFICATION, CONTROL AND MAINTENANCE
VERTICAL INTEGRATION BUILDING (VIB)
LAUNCH COMPLEX 40 IN ITS ENTIRETY
TITAN TRANSPORTER SETS (4)
RAILROAD ROLLING STOCK
SRM SUPPORT FRAME AND STEMS
SOLID MOTOR ASSEMBLY BUILDING (SMAB) AND SRM SUPPORT AREAS
PAYLOAD PAIRING PROCESSING FACILITY
LC-41 PROPELLANT CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL AGE, TEST TOOLS FOR TITAN, SRMs AND ENGINES
OFFICE SPACE, SHOPS, AND WAREHOUSES
LIFE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
SPARES FOR REAL PROPERTY INSTALLED EQUIPMENT
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
LAUNCH SITE CAPABILITIES ? TITAN
JOINT USAGE
SKID STRIP
VIB BAYS, OFFICE SPACE, ON2 FARMS AND DIESEL GENERATORS
RAILROAD TRACKS
PROPELLANT STORAGE AREAS
WAREHOUSE OFFICE SPACE
SMAB HIGH BAY, SLING STORAGE AND CRANE
ORDNANCE STORAGE AND TEST AREAS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
ASSUMPTIONS ON DECISIONS REQUIRED BY USG
HARDWARE AND PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES
0 "SUNK" R&D COSTS WILL NOT BE RECOVERED
0 NOMINAL LEASE, RENTAL.OR USE PERMIT CHARGES UTILIZING A STANDARD COMPUTATION
PROCESS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR SYSTEM UNIQUE PRODUCTION AND PLANT CHECKOUT AND
TESTING TOOLING AND EQUIPMENT
0 USE OF GOVERNMENT DRAWINGS, PROCESSES, PROCEDURES, ETC. WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT
CHARGE BUT WITH RESTRICTIONS
0 GOVERNMENT INVENTORIES OF SPARE PARTS, MATERIALS AND ASSOCIATED CAPABILITIES
EXCESS TO USG REQUIREMENTS WILL BE SOLD TO THE OPERATOR (EXCEPTION REQUIRED)
LAUNCH SITE CAPABILITIES
0 "SUNK" R&D COSTS WILL NOT BE RECOVERED
0 NOMINAL LEASE, RENTAL OR USE PERMIT CHARGES UTILIZING A STANDARD COMPUTATION
PROCESS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR SYSTEM UNIQUE CAPABILITIES, E.G., LAUNCH PAD,
BLOCKHOUSE, GSE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT
0 USG WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO PRIVATELY OPERATED SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AGREED TO SIRD, PRD, PSP, ETC.
0 CHARGING FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND SUPPORT AT THE LAUNCH SITE WILL BE ON STS
PRICING BASIS FOR SUPPORT TO PRIVATE SECTOR ACTIVITIES'
0 USG MISSIONS WILL HAVE PRIORITY ACCESS TO USG FACILITIES (SCHEDULING ONLY)
0 PRIVATE OPERATOR WILL ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF LAUNCH COMPLEX
0 PRIVATE OPERATOR MUST COMPLY WITH USG SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Declassified andApproved ForRelease2013/08/02 : CIATRDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
APPENDIX E
SUPPORT SERVICES AT ETR
The capability of the following support services is available for
each mission to be launched from ETR.
Available from
Available to
Support Service
KSC
USAF
Vehicle
Payload*
Off-loading, loading flight
hardware, and GSE at CCAFS
X
X**
- ?
X
Intrasite (ETR) transporta-
tion, handling, and storage
of hardware and GSE
-
X
X
X
Use of a payload processing
facility and a hazardous
processing facility (DSTF
and/or ESA-60) including
industrial environmental
control and clean room
capability
'X
X
X
X
Use of existing RD and voice
communications capability,
hardware data lines, and
closed-circuit TV among the
launch pad, blockhouse,
. -
X
?
X
X
Delta TM facility (Hangar
.
AE), flight hardware pro-
cessing facilities, includ-
ing the DSTF, and flight
ihardware unique ground sta-
;tion on site
- - - - - --
A 24-hour-day security of
site perimeter, interior
guard support, processing
facilities, and launch com-
plex and intrasite escort
security
-
X ,
X
X
Office Space
X
X
X
X
-
-
*Payload,is defined as al., property provided by the User, in-
cluding but not limited to the spacecraft, upper-stage,
attach fittings, and spin table.
**User aircraft refueling available on a reimbursable basis (to
USAF) as an optional service.
23
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
APPENDIX E (continued)
Available from
Available to
Support Service
-
KSC
USAF .
'
Vehicle'
'
Payload*
Safety support - participa-
tion in ground safety re-
views, site procedure re-
views, and operations mon-
itoring for hazardous opera-
tions
,
Supply of minor quantities
of hazardous materials
(chemicals), nitrogen (gas,
liquid), helium (gas),
freon, and hydrazine
Fluids sampling and analy-
ses
Photographic services
Technical shops support_
Use available NASA test
and equipment and calibra-
tion services on a noninter-
ference basis
"Scape" support, including
support of payload propel-
lant "cart" operations
Ordnance storage and handl-
ing including receiving .
inspection, bridgewire
checks, leak tests, motor
buildup, motor cold soak,. .
and X-ray and propellant
handling and storage
Emergency medical services,
fire protection
Coordination and planning of
site activities, universal
documentation system support,
technical' library services
Spin testing in DSTF
?
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
-
-
X
X
-
-
X
-
? -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_
X
.
X
?
X
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Payload is defined as all property provided by the ser,
including but not limited to the spacecraft, upper-stage,
attach fittings, and spin table.
24
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
IMPLEMENTATION ASSUMPTIONS ? LAUNCH SITE
PRIVATE SECTOR DEDICATED FACILITIES (E.G., COMPLEX 17) AND EQUIPMENT
0 OPERATOR RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIGURATION CONTROL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
0 OPERATOR RESPONSIBLE FOR AWARENESS OF AND COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS
(OSHA, KSC, RANGE)
0 TEST INTEGRATION WITH KSC AND RANGE WOULD BE DONE BY OPERATOR
0 OPERATOR RESPONSIBLE FOR UNIQUE SPARES
0 OPERATOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF PRD'S AND SIRD'S INCLUDING
PAYLOAD REQUIREMENTS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
IMPLEMENTATION ASSUMPTIONS ? LAUNCH SITE
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND SERVICES
0 OBTAIN USE OF COMMON SUPPORT CAPABILITIES
I.E., RANGE SUPPORT ? NEGOTIATE. WITH ESMR
KSC SUPPORT ? NEGOTIATE WITH KSC ? HANGAR AE, TM STATION, MDC,
COMPUTER SUPPORT PAYLOAD
PROCESSING FACILITIES, ETC.
0 ESTABLISH WORKING AGREEMENTS ON JOINT USE FACILITIES
COMPLEX 36 BLOCKHOUSE, DSTF, ETC.
0 NASA LAUNCH SYSTEM TEST ?EAM WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN LAUNCH PROCESSING
0 NASA/RANGE WOULD MAINTAIN OVERALL SCHEDULE CONTROL AND INTEGRATION
0 KSC SAFETY WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN LAUNCH PROCESSING, RANGE SAFETY
WOULD MAINTAIN INVOLVEMENT, "S NEGOTIATED
0 KSC QUALITY CONTROL WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN LAUNCH PROCESSING .
0 NASA WOULD CONTROL FACILITY CONFIGURATION OF JOINT USE FACILITIES
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
LEGAL REVIEW
INTERNATIONAL LAW
NON?GOVERNMENTAL SPACE ACTIVITIES INCLUDING LAUNCH OPERATIONS ARE NOT
PROHIBITED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW.
GOVERNMENT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO REGULATE NON?
GOVERNMENTAL SPACE LAUNCH OPERATIONS
0 PRIVATE LAUNCH OPERATIONS ARE REGULATED THRU AD HOC
APPLICATION OF NONSPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY
0 CURRENT REGULATORY SCHEME HAS PROVEN TO B ADEQUATE BUT IF
COMMERCIAL LAUNCH OPERATIONS PROLIFERATE A REVISED REGULATORY
SCHEME MAY BE NEEDED
GOVERNMENT IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES CAUSED BY PRIVATE
LAUNCHES ORIGINATING IN UNITED STATES TERRITORY
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
LEGAL REVIEW
REGULATION
THE CURRENT SYSTEM WORKS BUT HAS SHORTCOMINGS
0 NO SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL
0 NO MECHANISM FOR ACTUAL SUPERVISION/PAYLOAD VERIFICATION
0 ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT PROBABLY CANNOT BE APPLIED TO SUB?ORBITAL
TEST FLIGHTS AND SOUNDING ROCKETS LAUNCHED/RECOVERED ENTIRELY
WITHIN U.S. (NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF "SPACE" OR WHAT IS "OUTSIDE U.S.")
LEGISLATION TO CHANGE REGULATORY SCHEME WAS INTRODUCED IN 97TH CONGRESS
0 CANNON BILL WOULD MAKE FAA THE LEAD AGENCY
0 AKAKA BILL WOULD MAKE COMMERCE THE LEAD AGENCY
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
LEGAL REVIEW
CATEGORY III OPERATIONS
NASA HAS AUTHORITY TO LEASE OR ALLOW THE USE OF ITS REAL AND PERSONAL
PROPERTY IN SUPPORT OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITIES
0 NOT UNLIMITED AUTHORITY
0 FISCAL RESTRICTIONS
0 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
CURRENT LAW REQUIRES THAT NASA RECEIVE ONLY MONEY AS CONSIDERATION
FOR A LEASE
0 MONEYS DERIVED FROM RENTALS MUST GO TO TREASURY
0 MILITARY DEPARTMENTS HAVE A PARTIAL EXEMPTION
NASA MAY LEASE LAND AND REQUIRE LESSEE TO REMOVE AT HIS OWN EXPENSE
BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS, OR PROPERTY LEFT ON PREMISES BECOMES
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT COMPENSATION THEREFOR.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIATRDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
LEGAL REVIEW
CATEGORY III OPERATIONS
A NUMBER OF LEGAL RESTRICTIONS OR ISSUES NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BY
FIRMS INTERESTED IN COMMERCIAL SPACE OPERATIONS
0 ANTITRUST
0 PATENT LICENSING
0 GOVERNMENT PERMISSION DOES NOT IMPLY LEGAL
AUTHORITY TO ORCHESTRATE PROCESS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIALIZATION
COMMERCIALIZATION OF NOT INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES SHOULD:
? ENHANCE THE ECONOMIC BASE OF THE COUNTRY,
? LEAD TO EXPANDED TAX REVENUES,
? BENEFIT BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
? BE DONE IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF AN OPEN MARKETPLACE,
? ENCOURAGE FREE ENTERPRISE, AND
? ENCOURAGE HEALTHY COMPETITION ON BOTH A DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL SCALE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
CONCEPTS BEARING ON COMMERCIALIZATION
DEFINITION OF COMMERCIALIZATION: PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OP I
GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
GOVERNMENT R&D
GOVERNMENT COST
TAX REVENUES
OPEN MARKETPLACE
FREE ENTERPRISE
PARTIAL COMMERCIALIZATION
GRADUAL COMMERCIALIZATION
GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
AN ACTIVITY AS A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT.
NON?GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY
PRIVATE SECTOR OPERATIONS
PRIVATE INDUSTRY R&D.
GOVERNMENT SAVINGS
TAX INCENTIVES'
MONOPOLY
GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY
COMPLETE COMMERCIALIZATION
IMMEDIATE COMMERCIALIZATION
PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
FEASIBILITY
DEMONSTRATES TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
DEMONSTRATES FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES
BUSINESS PLAN
BASIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS
GUARANTEES NEEDED (I.E., INDEMNIFICATION, ETC.)
PROPOSED LEASES AND/OR PURCHASES FROM GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT NEEDED
SPECIAL INCENTIVES REQUIRED
RECOMMENDED REGULATION
TIMEFRAME OF TRANSITION
OTHER FACTORS
BENEFITS TO THE GOVERNMENT
ADDRESSES FOREIGN SECTOR CONCERNS.
ADDRESSES NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
I. INTRODUCTION
As a result of a number of requests from industrial
organizations, venture capital firms and others on the subject of
commercializing various space transportation services, the
Administrator of NASA requested a study of what NASA is required
to do or make available to the various proposers for their
implementation. In order to complete this action, a complete
review of the question of commercialization of space
transportation services and some of the implications of these
actions were reviewed. This report contains the results of this
review.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
II. BACKGROUND
A. DEVELOPMENT AND EVOLUTION OF LAUNCH SYSTEMS
The United States Government began the development of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) and Intermediate Range
Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) in the 1950's. In the late 1950's and
early 1960's, the adaptation of certain of these systems to space
use, as space boosters, began. At that time, these systems were
clearly utilized for governmental purposes. These systems have
evolved into the present national stable of Expendable Launch
Vehicles (ELV's).
Today's space launchings and operations are presently conducted
by two Government agencies, the Department of Defense (DOD)
specifically the Air Force (AP) and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). A division of responsibilities
between these agencies has evolved in a manner consistent with
the Space Act to the point that, in general, the AP is the launch
operations manager for the national security sector, including
foreign defense system launches; and NASA is the launch
operations manager for the civil sector, including other foreign
launches. This evolution of responsibilities has resulted in a
corolary responsibility for certain space launch vehicle systems,
i.e., the Air Force is systems manager of Titan and Atlas E/F
systems and NASA is systems manager of Scout, Delta and
Atlas/Centaur systems. There have been and continue to be
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
instances of cross-utilization of systems (i.e., a DOD vehicle
for a NASA launch and vice versa) by the two agencies and these
variations will be discussed in sub-paragraph 3 of this section.
1. DOD Institution for Current ELVs
The Air Force, as a launch agent for the DOD, conducts launch
operations from two launch sites, Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station (APS) at the Eastern Space and Missile Center (ESMC) and
a
Vandenberg APB at the Western Space and Missile Center (WSMC).
Titan systems are launched from both sites and the Atlas E/F
system is launched from Vandenberg AFB. Launch vehicle hardware
is procured by a System Program Office (SPO)-Space Launch and
Control Systems of Space Division, Air Force Systems Command, and
the vehicles are launched by the Space and Missile Test
Organization (SAMTO) also under Space Division. Most spacecraft
are procured through the various System Program Offices (SPO's)
of the various branches and organizations or of Space Division
for AF needs and on orbit support is provided the Satellite
Control Facility in conjunction with the appropriate SPO, or by
the using organization.
The resources for the conduct of these operations come basically
from direct annual appropriations with some reimbursable funding
coming through NASA for the use of the national ranges for non-
DOD missions, for Department of Commerce (NOAA) missions at the
Western Test Range for Atlas E/F launchings, and for NASA
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
missions utilizing DOD launch systems. Figure 1-1 describes in
block diagram form the Department of Defense institutional
arrangement for the conduct of expendable launch and space
operations.
2. NASA Institution for ELVs
NASA conducts launch operations from three sites within the
United States. Cape Canaveral AFS (CCAFS) at the ESMC, from
Vandenberg APB (VAFB) at the WSMC and from Wallops Island, VA.,
also on the East Coast to meet DOD, NASA and civil sector
needs. NASA operates the Delta launch system from the Cape
Canaveral APS and from Vandenberg APB; the Scout launch system
from Wallops Island and Vandenberg APB; and the Atlas/Centaur
launch system from Cape Canaveral AFS. These systems are
procured by NASA Project Offices similar to Al' SPO's (responsible
for overall systems management, procurement and launch) at the
Goddard Space Flight Center, the Langley Research Center and the
Lewis Research Center, respectively. Launch operations at VATS
and CCAFS are managed by the Unmanned Launch Operations Division
of the Kennedy Space Center which is responsible to the
appropriate Project Management Center.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
DOD ELV INSTITUTION
SECRETARY
OF
DEFENSE
SECRETARY
OF
THE AIR FORCE
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
COMMANDER
AIR FORCE
SYSTEMS
COMMAND
1
COMMANDER
SPACE
DIVISION
DEPUTY
COMMANDER
FOR
SPACE OPERATIONS
1
AIR FORCE
SATELLITE
CONTROL
FACILITY .
SPACE AND MISSILE
TEST ORGANIZATION
L... --I
WESTERN SPACE
AND
MISSILE
COMMANDER
EASTERN SPACE
AND
MISSILE
COMMANDER
'.11.1=1.1=111
DEPUTY FOR
SPACE LAUNCH
AND
CONTROL SYSTEMS
ELV PROGRAM
OFFICE
FIGURE
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Resources for the conduct of these operations come from a direct
appropriation for the NASA miisions still planned on ELVs (most
NASA missions are planned for Shuttle) and reimbursable funding
coming from other Government agencies and commercial.users of
ELVs. Figure 1-2 describes in block diagram form the NASA
institutional arrangement for the conduct of expendable launch
operations.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4 .4
NASA ELV INSTITUTION
NASA
ADMINISTRATOR
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR
STS OPERATIONS
DIRECTOR
EXPENDABLE LAUNCH
VEHICLES
SCOUT PROJECT
LANGLEY RESEARCH
CENTER
VANDENBERG
AFB, CA
WALLOPS ISL.
VA
CENTAUR PROJECT
LEWIS RESEARCH
CENTER
Dam PR*Jear
GODDARD SPACE
FLIGHT CENTER
UNMANNED LAUNCH
OPERATIONS
KENNEDY SPACE
CENTER
VANDENBERG
AFB, CA
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 ? CIA-RDP92B00181R001701ennn9n_zt
CAPE
CANAVERAL
AFS. FLA
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
3, DOD Institution for Shuttle
The major Shuttle activities underway within the DOD are the
development of the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), the site
construction and activation of the VAFB launch facility, and
planning for the operation and use of the system for national
security missions (Figure 1-3). Space Shuttle site activation
for the Vandenberg site is under the System Program Office of
Space Launch and Control Systems. Shuttle launch processing,
turnaround and landing operations at VAFB will be conducted by
the Space and Missile Test Organization. Flight operations will
initially be conducted at the Johnson Space Center under Air
Force direction using Air Force and NASA personnel.. These
operations are planned to be transferred to the Air Force
Consolidated Space Operations Center (CSOC) when it is activated,
currently planned for 1987.
4. NASA Institution for Shuttle
Space Shuttle Orbiters are developed and procured by the Johnson
Space Center which also has the responsibility for system
management of the development of the overall Space Transportation
System and for space flight operations. The Shuttle Solid Rocket
Boosters, the External Tank, and the Orbiter Propulsion System
development and procurement are the responsibility of the
Marshall Space Flight Center. Launch and landing activities are
the responsibility of the Kennedy Space Center. Kennedy and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Marshall are responsible to Johnson as the System Management
Organization. Figure 1-4 describes in block diagram form the
NASA institutional arrangement for the conduct of launch and
space operations.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
DOD STS INSTITUTION
SECRETARY
OF
DEFENSE
1
SECRETARY
OF THE
AIR FORCE
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
COMMANDER
AIR FORCE
SYSTEMS
COMMAND
COMMANDER
SPACE
DIVISION
LamilmlIWOMMF
DEPUTY
COMMANDER
FOR
SPACE OPERATIONS
DET 2 1.1SCI
MANNED SPACE
FLIGHT
SUPPORT
GROUP
COMMANDER
SPACE AND
MISSILE TEST
ORGANIZATION
DEPUTY FOR
SPACE LAUNCH
AND
CONTROL SYSTEMS
WESTERN
SPACE AND
MISSILE
COMMANDERCOMMANDER
EASTERN
SPACE AND
MISSILE
STS PROGRAM
OFFICE
DET 1
SHUTTLE
ACTIVATION
TASK FORCE
VAFB
IUS PROGRAM
OFFICE
FIGURE 11-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP921300181Rnn17n1Rnrmnn
1,n
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
5. Current NASA Shuttle Operations
The Space Shuttle is presently prepared for launch in a manner
which is similar to the launch of an expendable vehicle. Launch
preparations and vehicle checkout are performed by the Kennedy
Space Center. Mission operations and flight planning are
conducted by the Johnson Space Center. At launch, when the
Shuttle reaches a point designated "tower clear", direct
operational control is transferred from Kennedy to the Johnson
Space Center and is retained by Johnson throughout the mission to
the point of "wheels stop" on landing. Direct operational
control is then returned to Kennedy.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
NASA INSTITUTION FOR SHUTTLE
NASA
ADMINISTRATOR
ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR
STS (ACQUISITION)
ASSOC, ATE
ADMINISTRATOR
STS (OPERATIONS)
STS
PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT
JOHNSON SPACE
CENTER
ORBITER
DEVELOPMENT
JOHNSON SPACE
CENTER
EXTERNAL TANK
MAIN ENGINES
SRB
DEVELOPMENT
MARSHALL SPACE
FLIGHT CENTER
LAUNCH AND
LANDING
KENNEDY
SPACE
CENTER
EXTERNAL TANK
MAIN ENGINES
SRB
PRODUCTION
MARSHALL SPACE
FLIGHT CENTER
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP921300181Rnn17n1Annnon A
ORBITER
PRODUCTION
JOHNSON SPACE
CENTER
FIGURE 04
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
6. Summary System Descriptions
DELTA - 3914
.First Stage - The basic first stage of the Delta is a modified
Thor. The Thor stage has been lengthened 24 feet to a length of
89 feet and the original engine replaced with the H-1 engine
developed for Apollo Saturn 1 vehicle. These engines also burn
LOX and RP-1 and develop a thrust of 200,000 lbs. In addition,
nine thrust augmentation solid rockets Castor II's or Algol II's
are used in conjunction with the first stage. The Thor booster
is guided by the Delta second stage.
Second Stage - The second stage of the Delta vehicle evolved from
the second stage of the Vanguard vehicle. Early versions used
the Aerojet AJ-118 liquid propellant engine (Inhibited Red Fuming
Nitric Acid (IFRNA) and unsymmetrical Di-methyl Hydrazine (UDMH)
storable propellants) and the United Technology FW-4 third stage
motor. The vehicle was always guided through the second stage
initially using a BTL radio guidance system and later a strap-
down inertial guidance system. Later versions of the stage,
although encased in a 96 inch diameter fairing, retain an earlier
version propellant tank diameter of 65 inches. A new engine is
used on the current versions of the stage, the TRW TR-201, which
is an adaptation of the Apollo Lunar Module Descent Engine
(LE).
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
DELTA-,
????? ??????????
I.
?
OXIDIZER
TANK?
32.25
FAIRING
4.77
SOLID
,j.
riL.FUEL
? .-
4
'St
TANK
DELTA
4.93
FUEL
TANK
THOR
22.5
II-- 2.44
1 ? ?
OXIDIZER
TANK
9 SOLID ROCKETS
FOR THRUST
AUGMENTATION
?
ucTrac x n_281?FEET
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
??????? ?
r? ?
I. ?
?
I?
?t
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Third Stage - A spin-stabilized third stage solid rocket motor is
the final stage of the Delta vehicle. Although various motors,
i.e., FW-4, TE-364-3, TE-364-4, etc., have been used as the Delta
upper stage, a new version has been developed for utilization
with either Delta or Shuttle. Using the spin table (usually
mounted to the front of the second stage) and the TE-364-4 motor
the dual compatible stage is called the Spin Stabilized Upper
Stage (SSuS)-D, a larger version is called the Payload Assist
Module (PAM)-D.
ATLAS CENTAUR
First Stage - An Atlas booster designated the SLV-3C is the first
stage of the Atlas-Centaur booster. The major differences in the
SLV-3C are that guidance is received from the upper stage and the
front of the Atlas retains the 10 feet diameter (rather than a
taper to a diameter at the top of 54 inches as is normal for
Atlas vehicles) and it is four feet longer. The SLV-3C Atlas
engines develop a total of 500,000 lbs. of thrust in the booster
and sustainer engines.
Second Ste - In the late 1950's ARPA sponsored a contract with
Convair to build a stage, named.Centaur, which would burn
hydrogen and oxygen as propellants because of the high specific
impulses which would result. The stage was to use a pair of RL-
10 engines from Pratt and Whitney which produced approximately
15,000 lbs. each. ARPA passed this activity to NASA in 1958.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
ATLAS/CENTAUR ?
?
FAIRING
9.66
FUEL TANK..
OXIDIZERTANK
?
INTE STAGE
? ADAPTER
;
, OXIDIZER
ITANK-`
3.05
PT!
CENTAUR
9.15
FUEL TANK
?
aml????111.1.
11
3g.81
ATLAS ?
21.0
?
METERS X 3.281 ? FEET
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
THE TITAN FAMILY
In the 1950s, while the Atlas ICBM was being developed, a
parallel development of
slightly more ambitious
stage required starting
was built by the Martin
Aerojet. The Titan had
but did not utilize the
The original version of
program.
the Titan was underway. It was a
undertaking than Atlas because the second
at altitude. The structure of the Titan
Company and the propulsion system by
the same 10 feet diameter as the Atlas,
light balloon structure of the Atlas.
the Titan vs not used in the space
The Titan II was the follow-on version of the missile and despite
the similarity of name represented a considerable development in
design. The Titan II used storable propellants (N204 and UDMH)
instead of LOX and RP-1. The Titan I was radio guided and the
Titan II was all inertial. The Titan II had a first stage thrust
of 430,000 lbs. and a second stage thrust of 100,000 lbs. The
overall length of the Titan II was 103 feet. A modified version
of this ICBM was used as the Gemini launch vehicle in the manned
space flight program.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Titan IIIB
The Titan MB is an operational space launch version of the
Titan II used exclusively from Vandenberg. It uses an Agena D as
a third stage (24B). \\The Agena stage built by Lockheed uses
storable propellants and was designed for restart in space. This
vehicle has been used in relatively low orbits for classified
military purposes although several have been used in eccentric
orbits close to the pattern of the Soviet Molniya Communications
Satellites. The primary differences between the 24B and the 34B
are the shroud systems and the guidance systems. The 248 is
radioguided through the Agena stage and the 34B is inertially
guided from the Agena.
Titan IIIC
The Titan IIIC is composed of the Titan core vehicle carrying a
third stage called the transtage and two very powerful solid
rocket boosters strapped to the first stage. This vehicle has
only flown fro* ETR.
Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) - These boosters have the same 120
inch diameter as the storable liquid propellant Titan. The SR8s
are assembled from transportable separate segments which bolt
together at the assembly and checkout facility. Five segments
make up the standard booster and the total thrust of each booster
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
. -
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
is 1,200,000 lbs. They are manufactured by United Technology and
are equipped with a parallel smaller tank with pressurized gas to
provide thrust vector control for steering.
Transtage - The third stage of the Titan-IIIC, also built by
Martin, uses two modified A3-10-138 engines built by Aerojet,
once used on the Delta second stage. The Transtage thrust is
approximately 16,000 lbs. from the two motors. The great
advantage of the stage is its ability to make a large number of
starts and stops, enabling it to serve during the boost stage and
thereafter as a space tug to move payloads to new orbits. It
also uses N204 and UDME as a space tug to move payloads to new
orbits. It slso uses N204 and UDME as propellants.
TITAN IIID
This vehicle, used only at Vandenberg, superficially resembles
the Titan-IIIC in that it has the same Titan core and two large
SRB strap-ons. However, it uses radio guidance rather than
inertial guidance and it does not carry the Transtage.
TITAN 34D.
The newest class of Titan vehicles called the 34D. In this
vehicle the SRBs will have five and one-half segments and vehicle
is capable of using the one or two stage version of the Inertial
Upper Stage (1US) developed for the Shuttle. The Titan 34D/RGS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
is the Vandenberg version which is radio guided without a third
stage and the Titan 34D/IUS is the Cape Canaveral version, with
IUS third stage.
SPACE SHUTTLE
In September 1969, a Space Task Group was appointed by the
President of the United States to study the Future course of US
Space research and exploration. The Group recommended that
"...the United States accept the basic goal of a balanced manned
and unmanned space program. To achieve this goal, the United
States should develop new systems of technology for space
operation....through a program directed toward development of a
new space transportation capability...".
The Space Shuttle was to be a true aerospace vehicle: it would
take off like a rocket, maneuver in Earth orbit like a
spacecraft, and land like an airplane. The Shuttle was designed
to carry heavy loads into Earth orbit. Other launch vehicles
have done this, but they could be used only once (ELV's), each
Shuttle Orbiter may be reused some than 100 times.
The Shuttle would permit the checkout and repair of unmanned
satellites in orbit or their return to Earth for repairs that
cannot be done in space. Interplanetary spacecraft would be
placed in Earth orbit by the Shuttle, together with an upper
stage. such as the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), to accelerate the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
spacecraft into deep space. The IDS could also be used to boost
satellites to higher Earth orbits than the Shuttle's maximum
altitude which is approximately 600 miles.
The Space Shuttle has three main units: the Orbiter, the
External Tank (ET), and two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB's). Each
booster rocket has a sea level thrust of 2,600,000 lbs.
The Orbiter is the crew and payload-carrying unit of the Shuttle
system. It is 121 feet long and has a wingspan of 79. feet. It
is about the size of a DC-9 and weighs approximately 150,000
lbs. The Orbiter can carry approximately 65,000 lbs. in its 15
feet by 60 feet payload bay. The Orbiter's three main liquid
rocket engines each have a thrust of 470,000 lbs. They are fed
propellants from the External Tank which is 154 feet long and
28.6 feet in diameter. At lift-off, the tank holds 1,550,000
lbs. of propellants, consisting of liquid hydrogen (fuel) and
liquid oxygen (oxidizer). The External Tank is the only part of
the Shuttle that is not reusable.
B. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL AND FOREIGN MARKET SEGMENT
In 1963, NASA launched the first satellite for a commercial
entity, TELSTAR, for AT&T. NASA provided this launching service
under a contract with AT&T as allowed by the provisions of
paragraphs 203(c.), (5) and (6) of the National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958. In 1965, NASA launched Early-bird for the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
_ . ? .
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
International Telecommunications Satellite Organization
(INTELSAT) in accordance with the provisions of the
Communications Satellite Act of 1962 and the Space Act. This was
the first of a series of thirty launches performed by NASA for
INTELSAT through 1981. The growth of domestic communications
satellite activity began in the late 1960's and has continued
through the 1970's to the present time. Since the late 1970's,
approximately seventy-five percent of spacecraft launching
requirements (mostly communications) have been to geosynchronous
orbit.
In 1968, NASA launched the first scientific satellite on a
reimbursable basis, HEOS-A, for the European Space Research
Organization (ESRO, subsequently renamed the European Space
Agency, ESA). This launching was followed by several scientific
and experimental communications satellite launchings for ESRO,
other countries, and consortia of countries. This type of
launching activity was authorized by the Space Act and endorsed
by the President's Launch Policy of 1972. In this Launch Policy,
the President announced that the United States would provide, on
a non-discriminatory, cooperative or reimbursable basis,
satellite launch assistance to other countries and international
organizations.
NASA policies, procedures and practices in the launching services
area were evolutionary from 1961, the beginning of the TELESTAR
(AT&T) activity. In 1973, NASA began a comprehensive review of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
its expendable vehicle policies which resulted in a major change
in two areas: (1) In the reimbursement area, NASA Policy
Directive (NPD) - 8610.5 was issued and established an "All
reasonable cost" basis for expendable vehicle reimbursement. And
(2), in the launching contract area, revised third party
liability provisions were established. There was a significant
clarification of contract provisions but the other basic policies
remained unchanged. One important point should be made at this
time, these policies were devised when the U.S. had a virtual
monopoly on launching services.
In the latter half of the 1970's, NASA began to develop the
policies, procedures for non-government users of the Space
Shuttle. These activities assumed that: ELV's would be phased
out when the Space Shuttle became operational, the commercial and
foreign market segment would transition to the Space Shuttle as
would all of the government missions, and within the United
States launching activities would remain principally a
governmental activity.
THE INITIAL COMPETITOR
In 1961, three separate European agencies were created to deal
with different aspects of space. The European Launcher
Development Organization (ELDO), was aimed at developing a
jointly funded launcher, eventually named the "Europa". ELDO was
basically a coordinating body for separate national projects; a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02.: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
British first stage (the Blue Streak IRBM), a French second
stage, a West German third stage, Italian test satellites,
Belgian downrange guidance systems and Dutch telemetry links. As
a result of problems caused in part by inadequate coordination,
none of the 11 test launches of Europa, the last of which took ?
place in 1971, succeeded in placing a payload in orbit. In 1973,
the Europa project was cancelled in favor of a new project, the
French-dominated Ariane which was eventually undertaken as a
program by the ESA.
To date, the Ariane has completed five test launches (three
successes and two failures). Ariane has booked 8 spacecraft
launchings for 5 customers during what it calls the "promotional
phase". Firm launching contracts have been signed with 12
customers (including 3 U.S. firms: GTE, Western Union, and
Southern Pacific) for the launching of 17 additional
spacecraft. European programs are underway which will result in
additional spacecraft launchings. A total of 35 firm bookings
for spacecraft (3 in the development phase) launchings for 15
customers. Cuatoper interfetellrecedumes and practices are
generally petterned after those developed within NASA by the
Delta Project.
The development and promotional phase launchings are an ESA
. responsibility and the remaining are the responsibility of
Arianespace, a commercial entity established to provide launching
services. ESA plans to transfer totally the responsibility for
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
production, marketing, and launching of operational Ariane
vehicles and their uprated versions to Arianespace. ESA will
retain the responsibility for developing the uprated versions of
the Ariane family of vehicles, Figure 1-5.
The Arinae system was designed primarily to satisfy the demand
for placing space systems into geosynchronous orbit. The
reliability of the Ariane system is yet to be proven,. but
Arianespace has demonstrated the ability to convince the user
community of the viability of its technology, and that the user
community should consider all systems to be nearly equal in this
respect.
All ESA spacecraft within the performance envelope of Ariane will
be launched by Ariane. Likewise, all U.S. government spacecraft
will be launched by U.S. launchers. It can be safely assumed
that spacecraft to be launched by the member countries of ESA and
Arianespace participants will normally be launched by Ariane.
Time competitive aroma then becomes defined as: (1) private and
public organizations of the Suited States, (2) private and public
organizations of *developed nations*, excluding those with their
own launch capability, (3) private and public organizations of
developing nations, and (4) international organizations, such as
Arabsat or INTELSAT.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
ARIANE NO. 1, 2 & 3
CONFIGURATIONS
New Fairing
Engine Up-Rate
Engin Up-Rate
Engine Up-Rate
Ariane 1 Ariane 2
(1700 Kg) (2000 Kg)
Augmented
Motors
Ariane 3
(2380 Kg)
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4 ,,,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Arianespace has established a goal for a market share of 25 to
30% of the launches in the western world (50 to 60 launches in
.the 1980's). It should be noted that the goal should be
considered a minimum since it would not be a difficult task to
increase both production and launch rates to a higher level to
support a launch rate of up to 20/year. NASA, on the other hand,
has not established market share goals or objectives unless one
considers its projected mission model of 331 Shuttle missions in
ten years to be such.
D. NATIONAL POLICIES
1. Legislation
The basic legislative authority for NASA space transportation
activities is the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958,
Public Law 85-568, normally referred to as the Space Act.
Section 102(c) of the Space Act states that the aeronautics and
space activities shall be to contribute materially to one or more
of severalanumetmiled objectives. The third objective states:
"The development and operation of vehicles capable of
carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living
organisms through space."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
In utilizing this capability, NASA performed the launch of the
TELSTAR spacecraft, designed for experimental communications
purposes, on a reimbursable basis for a non-Government entity in
1963. The authority for this action on a reimbursable basis is
Paragraph 203(c)(6) of the Space Act which states:
"to use, with their consent, the services equipment,
personnel and facilities of Federal and other agencies
with or without reimbursement and on a similar basis to
cooperate with other public and private agencies and
instrumentalities in the use of services, equipment and
facilities....'
Under the provisions of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962,
usually referred to as the Comsat Act, NASA is required "to
furnish to the corporation (COMSAT), on request and on a
reimbursable basis satellite launching and associated
services...." Under this provision NASA began to provide
launching services to COMSAT in 1965.
The principles of rm4ing U.S. launching capabilities to
commercial and fdreign entities eVoiied from the legislative
basis described above. These principles have been embodied in
national policy since 1972.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
2. APPLICABLE TREATIES
The United States of America is a signatory party to several
treaties which establish principles regarding the use and
exploration of outer space. The Department of State (DOS) is the
agency generally responsible for negotiating and executing such
agreements. In addition. DOS is generally responsible for
dealing with foreign governments concerning administration of and
compliance with the terms of international treaties.
The most important general international obligation associated
with private commercial space activities is contained in what is
commonly known as the Outer Space Treaty. Article VI of that
treaty reads as follows:
States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international
responsibility for national activities in outer space,
including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether
such activities are carried on by governmental agencies
or by ton-governmental entities, and for assuring that
national activities are carried out in conformity with
the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The
activities of non-governmental entities in outer space,
including the moon and the other celestial bodies, shall
require authorization and continuing supervision by the
appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities
are carried on in outer space, including the moon and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
other celestial bodies, by an international
organization, responsibility for compliance with this
Treaty shall be borne both by the international
organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty
participating in such organization.
'Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Noon and Other
Celestial Bodies,' Article VI, 18 U.S.T. 2410, T.I.A.S. No. 6347,
(entered into force with respect to the United States, October
10, 1967).
A provision of the Outer Space Treaty also declares that the U.S.
Government is liable for damages to foreign countries, citizens
and corporations resulting from launch activities from U.S.
territory by private companies. Article VII reads as follows:
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures
the launching of an object into outer space, including
the moopoom8 *thin' $01astial bodies, and each State
Party tram whose territory Or faOility an object is
launched, is internationally liable for damage to
another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or
juridical persons by such object or its component parts
on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including
the moon and other celestial bodies.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
More specific provisions which impose similar liability on
governments for damages caused by space objects launched by non-
governmental activities are contained in the "Convention on
International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects," 24
U.S.T. 2389, T.I.A.S. No. 7762 (entered into force with respect
to the United States, October 9, 1973).
General international treaty obligations of the United States
which apply to activities in outer space also exist with respect
to peaceful uses, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction,
and environmental modification techniques having widespread,
long-lasting or severe effects. See Outer Space Treaty, supra,
Articles III, TV; "Charter of the United Nations and Statute of
the International Court of Justice," as amended (October 24,
1945); "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other
Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques."
The United States Government has also agreed to register all
space objects launched from United States .territory on an
international registry. 'Convention on the Registration of
Objectle,Launched into Outer Spain,* 128 U.S.T. 6954 No.
8480 Centered into force with respect to the United States
December 3, 1968). State is responsible for complying with this
registration obligation.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
These treaties impose obligations on the United States
Government, but not directly on. U.S. individuals and
corporations. If U.S. individuals and corporations cause damage
to foreign interests, State would be responsible for responding
at a governmental level to foreign claims.
3. POLICY SUMMARY
The U.S. Government developed its launching capabilities for its
own purposes. Through an evolutionary process outlined above,
this capability has been made available to commercial and foreign
entities requesting these services. This activitiy has grown to
the point that it constitutes between 30 and 40 percent of the
launching requirements. It is this non-U.S. Government launching
requirement that is the principle focus of the numerous
expressions of private sector interest received by NASA and the
DOD.
Before it became e-part of national policy that the U.S. would
_
ennenage domesticaomMercial'esplOttation of space activities
under appropriate U.S. Government authoriiation and supervision,
precedents had been established by NASA concerning commercial
ventures associated with space.transportation. The commercial
aspects of the development of the 3914 configuration of the Delta
expendable launch system in the early 1970's was the first of
these precedents, and the most recent is the Payload Assist
Module (PAM) upper stage system (discussed later in Section III).
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181RoovniRnnn9n_A
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
The National Space Policy announced by President Reagan in July
1962 establishes the expanding of private sector investment and
involvement in civil space and space related activities as a
basic goal of United States space policy. However, that Policy
also makes several other relevant statements concerning space
transportion and the Space Transportation System (STS). One of
these is that the STS, for the near term, is to be managed and
operated by the Government, although the flexibility to
transition to an alternative institutional arrangement at a later
time should be maintained. Another is that expendable launch
vehicle operations shall be continued by the United States
Government until the capabilities of the STS are sufficient to
'meet its needs. The Policy is "mute" on the subject of
expendable systems beyond the time frame described above, and
therefore does not endorse or prohibit their turnover to the
private sector.
The two principle and conflicting interpretations of existing
policy are as follows:
One interpretation is that the STS has been developed and
funded to meet the requirements.of the U.S. Government and excess
capacity will be made available to commercial and foreign
users. This interpretation would allow for private sector
operation of ELV's after Government phase-out (for Government
missions) to meet the needs of the commercial and foreign users,
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP921300181R001701600020-4
as well as private sector investment in increased STS capacity
for these commercial and foreign missions.
On the other hand, there are those who interpret the policy
to state that =Vs will be phased-out completely and should not
be allowed to compete privately operated or otherwise with the
Space Shuttle. Under this interpretation, it is firmly believed
that continuation of ELV's will increase STS costs to. its
Government users by diluting the utilization of and, contributions
to the base costs of the STS by the commercial and foreign
customers. There are complications and/or conflicts that arise
under current policy that arise as a result of the operation of
expendable systems by the private sector. For example, economic
studies have concluded that the economic viability of the STS,
when compared to EIN's is dependent on having a minimum of 300 to
360 flights over the period under study. There is no practical
way that this can be accomplished without an increase in, and a
very high utilization of the STS by the commercial and foreign
market segment. Therefore, there are those who believe that the
existence of commercial or other competitive launch systems would
havea significant impact on :the achievement of STS program
objectives, as well as result in an undesirable competition
between the Government and the private sector for these missions.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
III. CATEGORIES OF EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST IN PRIVATE
SECTOR ACTIVITIES
NASA has received several statements of interest from the private
sector concerning commercial operation of various aspects of
space transportation. Each of these statements of interest
represents a reasonably unique situation; however, for
convenience, we have divided them into three categories: new
vehicles at new sites, systems and activities complementary to
the STS, and existing EIS systems (Figures 3-1 thru 3-3). The
following discussion describes each of these categories and
provides a summary discussion of the decisions associated with
each.
A. NEW SYSTEMS AT NEW SITES
On September 8, 1982, Space Services Inc. (SSI) conducted the
first major private sector launching from a privately operated
launch site. SSI is engaged in a project to design and operate
the first commercial space Launch service. Another firm, ARC
Technology, is also engaged in the design and development of a
new launch system which will be launched from an ocean site.
Although these categories of proposal present the same type of.
fundamental policy problems or Issues that Category III presents,
they are separated because the principle involvement of the
Federal Government in this case is a regulatory one. The
approval process and federal government involvement in initial
SSI launching activity were as follows:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R0017016onn7n_4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
NEW SYSTEMS AT NEW SITES
DOMESTIC
1. $SI ? CONESTOGA VEHICLE ? MATAGORDA ISL., HAWAII
2. 'ARC TECHNOLOGY ? (HYBRID?UNNAMED) ? 200 MI OFF WEST COAST.
PROJECT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ? VOLKS ROCKET ? VARIOUS
NASA ACTIONS
PRO TECHNICAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT TO STATE, FAA, AND FCC.
PROVIOR TECHNICAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT TO THE POTENTIAL OPERATOR
AS AGREED TO BY NASA.
FOREIGN
1. ESA/ARIANESPACE ARIANE - FRENCH GUIANA
2. GERMAN - OTRAG - VARIOUS
FIGURE 3-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
? SYSTEM PROPOSALS COMPLEMENTARY TO STS ?
ACTIVITY UNDERWAY
1. PAM D ? McDONNELL DOUGLAS
2. MATERIALS PROCESSING ? McDONNELL DOUGLAS
INITIATED ACTION
1. FIFTH ORBITER ? SPACE TRANS. CO. (FEDERAL EXPRESS)
2. SRM-1X ? ORBITAL SYSTEMS INC.
3. MARKETING ? GRUMMAN, BOEING, USBI, MDAC, ROCKWELL, ETC.
4. PAYLAOD PROCESSING ? ASTRO TECH INTERNATIONAL INC.
PLANNED ACTIONS
1. LEASE SATELLITE ? FAIRCHILD
2 MATERIALS PROCESSING ? GTI
3. MATERIALS PROCESSING ? BALL AEROSPACE SYSTEMS
4. MATERIALS PROCESSING ? JOHN DEERE & CO.
5 MATERIALS PROCESSING ? DUPONT
6. MATERIALS PROCESSING ? INCO
7. MATERIALS PROCESSING ? UNION CARBIDE CORP.
NASA ACTIONS
REVIEW PROPOSALS, DETERMINE MERIT, DETERMINE IF COMPETITION REQUIRED
COORDINATE INTERAGENCY REQUIREMENTS,
IF APPROVED ENTER JEA, MOU, OR CONTRACT AS REQUIRED.
FIGURE 3-2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4_.
.r!TT
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
EXISTING ELV SYSTEMS
1.
ATLAS/CENTAUR -
GENERAL DYNAMICS, SSI
2.
DELTA
- TRANSPACE
3.
TITAN
- SPACE TRANS CO. (MOU WITH MARTIN, UTC, AEROJET)
NASA ACTIONS
? DECISIONS REQUIRED
NEGOTIATION TRANSITION PLAN (DOD MISSIONS, NASA AND OTHER U.S. GOV'T
MISSIONS, C&F MISSIONS)
NEGOTIATE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ADVICE/ASSISTANCE IN LICENSING TO STATE, FCC AND FAA
?
.FIGURE 3-3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
1. Regulatory Permissions (see Appendix A for a detailed
discussion)
a. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
By letter, dated March 18, 1982, SSI requested an
exemption from Part 101, Subpart C, and any other
provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR's) that would limit, restrict or otherwise
prohibit SSI from launching a Conestoga I vehicle
from Matagorda Island, Texas, into a suborbital
space flight. Co September 1, 1982, the FAA
granted an exemption from the FAR's for the
proposed launch with three exceptions. First, the
launching was cleared through a smaller corridor
than requested. Second, a more stringent abort
criteria was applied. Third, the launch was not
exempt from the FAR's clear weather
requirements. The FAA also issued an order
designating tompotary restricted &trap*** and
app*Opriate notices 10 airmen and notices to
mariners concerning the launching.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
It is not clear that the FAA will have a
comparable role in each such proposal. For
example, one proposal calls for launching outside
U.S. territory off International Airways and
presumably outside the jurisdiction of the FAA.
b. The Department of State (DOS)
On April 16, 1982, SSI requested any authorization
necessary from the DOS as a precondition of the
Conestoga I launching. On September 7, 1982, the
DOS issued a letter approving the launching under
the Aims Export Control Act subject to the
following conditions and limitations:
1. This authorization is confined to the
proposal prototype launch only. Subsequent
launches of this type will require a separate
review and approval.
S. Thsuthorlzatlon is based on the
understanding that the BSI has agreed to comply
with certain safety requirements imposed by NASA
and the FAA on the Conestoga launch.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
3. This authorization is subject to the
understanding that SSI has obtained insurance in
the amount of $100 million for any damages that
may arise in connection with the launch.
4. SSI agrees to indemnify the United States
Government for any damages and expenses that might
arise in connection with the Conestoga launching,
including any payments for which the UnitadStates
may be responsible under any treaty.
e. The Federal Communications Coemission (FCC)
On May 18, 1982, BSI submitted an application for
an experimental radio license on FCC Form 442,
"Application for New or Modified Radio Station
Authorization under Part 6 of FCC Rules
Experimental Radio Services (Other than
Broadcast)". Oft August 23, 1982, the FCC granted
1814s request for trequene les on FCC Form 460B,
"Experimental Rea? Construction Permit and
License."
d. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)/Internal
Revenue Service
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
On July 2, 1982, $SI requested advice by letter
concerning the import of meteorological test
rockets from the Federal Republic of Germany.
Upon receipt of a verbal response that ATP
registration was necessary, SS! filed ATP Form 7
and 4587 and IRS Form 111 on August 17, 1982. On.
August 20, 1982, SSI's registration was approved
and an import license was issued.
2. Other Government Actions
a. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA provided technical advice to the DOS, FCC,
and FAA on the BSI requests for licenses. NASA
also Agreed to provide, at 88 1's request and on a
reillibutsable 'ba
Minuteman I
r.
rocket
meters, one of which was used to power the
Conestoga I launching. In addition to conducting
a review of the technical and safety aspects of
the proposed launching, the agreement with NASA
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
for the rocket motors included provisions on
insurance and indemnification of the United
States, its agencies, employees and contractors.
b. North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) .
NORAD has a responsibility to notify the Soviet
Union in certain specific circumstances associated
with missile/rocket launches. NORAD also performs
a "computation of miss between orbits" (COMBO)
which is a NORAD term for the calculation process
by which it is determined that a launching will
not interfere with other orbiting satellites. SSI
responded to NORAD requests for information and
established a telephone connection from the launch
control complex at the launch site to NORAD.
Other potentially interested countries are
notified of any launching through the DOS.
S. Observations
a. NASA involvement in activities such as that
described above are limited to acting in an
advisory capacity (technical and safety) to the
regulatory agencies, DOS, FAA, and FCC. NASA may,
at NASA's discretion, provide support to the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
private firm when requested. Appendix A outlines
in more detail the basis and requirements for this
category based on the precedent established by the
BSI launching. Although there are many ways that
this process of regulation can be improved, e.g. .
the establishment of a "lead agency", those
subjects will not be discussed as a part of this
review.
B. SYSTEMS AND ACTIVITIES COMPLEMENTARY TO THE STS
As indicated in Section II, private sector investment in certain
aspects of space transportation began in the early 1970's with
private sector development of the Delta 3914 configuration. This
activity was successful and was a prototype for subsequent
agreements such as the Payload Assist Module (PAM) upper stage
agreements between McDonnell Douglas and NASA. A Memorandum of
Understanding has been signed between Orbital Systems Corporation
and NASA for the private sector development and operation of a
dinette* upper
listiftSt ProPo*
actions.
lied theAr447LX. Figure 2-1 shows a
- .
Br consideration and the required NASA
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
_
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
1. Upper Stages in the STS
In December 1976, NASA and McDonnell Douglas
reached an agreement for McDonnell Douglas to fund
procurement and production of the Delta Class Spin
Stabilized Upper Stage (SSUS-D, eventually renamed
PAM) entirely on its own. Under the terms of the
agreement, McDonnell Douglas could market the
upper stage hardware and services commercially, as
well as to NASA, and NASA is not required to
purchase any units. The NASA McDonnell Douglas
agreement on SSUS-D (PAM) was conditional on a
successful conclusion of a NASA/Industry agreement
that the Atlas Centaur class SSUS would be
developed privately as well. NASA, Boeing and
McDonnell Douglas continued talks until agreements
were reached on that upper stage.
2. Joint Endeavor Agreements
NJWILlaas Initiated a joint (NASA/Industry)
approach to stimulate industry participation in
space activities which utilise space technology
with a primary application in the industrial
community. Guidelines for this effort were
published in both the Federal Register and
Commerce Business Daily.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
The agreements generally specify:
- Private sector responsibility for ground-based
research and development of ground and flight
hardware for experiments and technology
demonstrations,
- Private firms would retain commercial patent and
data rights commensurate with participation,
- NASA is responsible for STS services and general
purpose support equipment, and
- NASA will receive scientific and engineering data.
The terms and conditions of specific joint
endeavors are negotiated on a case by case basis
and are commensurate with the risk involvement and
Pwroatmeet of all parties.
3. Exceptional Payloads
As a part of NASA's private sector user
development activities, NASA has an exceptional
payloads clause in its current pricing policy. If
an individual or company has a new commercial use
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02' : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
of space, their payload(s) can be flown at about
half price because of the exceptional opening of a
new commercial area. Proposals with experimental
or innovative uses of space which offer the
potential of great public value may also receive
special pricing consideration from the NASA
Administrator under the exceptional payload
clause.
C. EXISTING ELY SYSTEMS
NASA has received several expressions of interest in the private
sector operation of existing Government developed and operated
expendable systems on a commercial basis. These proposals
request transfer of the existing government capabilities to the
private sector for operation. The systems would be operated
primarily for the commercial and foreign market segments. From a
NASA point of view this Category of proposal is the most
complicated of the three Categories to deal with because of the
reqeltemmat for sive Glover ) involvement in the
establlifibment and operations by the private sector of these
systems.
First tier decisions required by the Government are:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
1. The use of government facilities and property
a. Hardware and Production Capabilities
A major decision associated with both production .
and launch capabilities is concerned with the
recovery of "sunk" cost associated with the
development of these capabilities and systems. A
second decision or set of decisions concerns the
rental, lease or use permit for production and
plant tooling, test equipment, production
processes and procedures, and program unique
spares. The final major decision associated with
this capability is associated with the issue of
system monopoly versus free market use of the
system. A decision in favor of the latter would
greatly complicate the situation.
b. Launch Site Citoat>pities
e two
ha launch site
capabilities that *14 variables with respect to
each of the existing systems:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
(1) Program Unique Facilities and Equipment.
These facilities and equipment, assuming the
answer to "sunk" costs is equally applicable, will
be rented,, leased, or a use permit issued in
accordance with the policies, procedures, and
practices which are established.
(2) Joint Use Facilities and Equipment
The government must authorize use of these
facilities on a shared reimbursable basis and
work out appropriate scheduling arrangements.
This class of facilities includes such NASA
facilities as: Hangar AE, TM Station, Mission
Directors Center, Computer Support, Payload
Processing Facilities, Delta Spin Test Facility,
etc.
2. 'Government Provided Support
At the launch site, it is necessary that
government activities provide support to the
operation and maintenance of program unique
facilities and to launch operations. This support
will be provided by two sources:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
a. Range Support provided by the DOD, Eastern
Space and Missile Center includes mandatory
operations and base support and several
support activities which may be considered
discretionary.
b. NASA Support provided by the Kennedy Space
Center (KSC) will normally be associated with
the joint use facilities and related services
described above. Discretionary support may be
negotiated and agreed to by ESC and the
private sector operator or operators.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
IV. DISCUSSION - BASIC CONCEPTS OF COMMERCIALIZATION
AS the United States private sector begins to look closer at the
-application of space technology and the space environment to
business ventures, it will come into apparent conflicts with on-
going government activities. In general, current national
policy, enunciated by the Presidential Space Policy statement of
July 4, 1982, supports increasing commercial applications.
Although the policy statement does not say so, the private sector
has chosen to interpret this support to be limited only to the
constraints of national security, public safety and international
agreements. This interpretation does not consider that the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 makes the conduct of
certain activities and leadership in space a "governmental
purpose." AS a result, many questions raised by the private
sector are destined to result in apparent conflict. For example,
the question has been raised:
10 what ext*nt Ammd under what conditions will the federal
government lanpote with wasting or potential private
business activities in apse*?
The question nest be broken down before a complete response can
be framed. Basically, the federal government has not
specifically initiated any activity to compete with private
business activities in space the only private business activity
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
is space is the communications satellite activity and there has
been no direct competition between the government and private
business in that area. The apparent conflict really arises when
an existing government activity, such as space transportation
services, or other such activities are placed in the position by.
the private sector of being "competitive" with new private sector
proposals. A, more appropriate statement might be "should private
sector proposals preempt existing governmental activities
initially undertaken for governmental purposes?"
NASA and other federal agencies have no intention to develop and
operate systems which will compete with private business. On the
other hand, it appears to be the intention of the private sector
to develop and operate systems which compete with existing
national government operated capabilities. NASA and the DOD have
been in the space transportation area for twenty-five or more
years in support of governmental purposes, including national
security. It has been national policy for over eleven years that
the netional space transportation capabilities will be made
eve
aablsbu4.s, to the :private sestet *
foreign jovernmeitL It taw already been deemed appropriate for
the United States Government to compete with foreign private
sector entities, e.g., Atianespace. "Why should it (the U.S.
Government) not compete with domestic private sector entities who
choose to enter an existing arena creating a competitive
situation with the government?" Therefore, national policy, with
respect to commercialization of launch systems, must recognize
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
that, although the role of the federal government in space
activities is intended to be a non-competitive one with domestic
private sector activities, the federal government presently finds
itself either in a position of preventing the entry of the
private sector into the space transportation area; or allowing
private sector entry and competing with the private sector. The
latter alternative would appear to be the more desirable
compromise, especially when one considers the real cost of the
"entry fee" into the space transportation area by the private
sector and the national investment in the STS. A possible
criteria for the commercial space transportation activities is
that they should:
- be financially self sustaining (subsidy not
required),
- enhance the economic base of the nation,
- labd to expanded tax revenues,
baiefii both the government and the private
seater,
- be done in the environment of an open marketplace,
- encourage free enterprise, and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
- encourage healthy competition on both a domestic
and international scale.
The following concepts could have a direct bearing on
considerations of the transfer of a Space Transportation
activities to the private sector:
governmental activity vs nongovernmental activity
government operations vs private sector operations
government R&D vs private industry R&D
government cost vs government savings
tax revenues vs tax incentives
open market vs monopoly
free enterprise vs government subsidy
partial commercialization vs complete commercialization
gradual commercialization vs immediate commercialization
government investment vs private investment
The attached chart Figure 4-1, outlines allossible Criteria for
Evalutimn of Propeeste to operate Category III systems. While
,
it is letended tolptiovide a *at/amnia* which could be a basis for
considering Category III proposals with possible limited
application to Category II.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP921300181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
FEASI *ITV
STRATES TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES
DEMONSTRATES FINANCIAL CAPABILITIES
BUSINESS PLAN
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
0 ARTEES NEEDED (I.E., INDEMNIFICATION, ETC.)
PROPOSED LEASES AND/OR PURCHASES FROM GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT NEEDED
SPECIAL INCENTIVES REQUIRED
ENDED REGULATION
Ale OF TRANSITION
OTRER-PACTORS
BENEFITS TO THE GOVERNMENT
ADDRESSES POREIGN SECTOR CONCERNS
ADDRESSES NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS
FIGURE 11-1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92600181R001701600020-4
VT
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
A. PRICING OF GOVERNMENT swIcEs
1. Government Flexibility in Pricing Services to Outside
Users
When the U.S. Government offers a service to non-U.S.
Government users, it has long been understood that
the government is able to employ a variety of pricing
tools to maximize the public benefit from that
service. When a service is offered by a U.S.
Government agency on a reimbursable basis to a non-
government user, it may choose to:
(I) seek a price which includes the cost of
offering the service (including the recovery
of the development costs of that service)
(2) offer the service at a price which reflects
the cost of operating the structure through
which the service is provided
(3) offer the service at a price which reflects
the material cost of providing the service,
exclusive of government effort expended.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
The guidelines for implementation of pricing policy
are found in two documents, The User Merges Statute
of 1951, and Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-25. The 1951 Statute gives the widest possible
latitude to a governmental agency. It simply calls
for taking into account both "direct" and "indirect"
costs along with private value to the recipient,
public value, and other relevant facts. Circular A-
25 clarifies the statue by calling for a "reasonable
charge" for the federal activities "which convey
special benefits to recipients above and beyond those
accruing to the public at large." "Reasonable
charge" is not defined at all in relation to research
and development, investment, and interest costs. Nor
does Circular A-25 attempt to be specific about non-
governmental recipients of federal services on wham a
reasonable cost based user charge should be levied.
In terms of a definition of the public good, Circular
A-25 provides a very broad base on which to build:
"no charge should be made for services when the
identification of the ultimate beneficiary is obscure
and the service can be primarily considered as
benefiting broadly the general public."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181 R001701600070-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Historically, federal agencies have determined cost
reimbursement' policy on the basis of an
interpretation of their individual charters.
(Reference Section II, par. B) The DOD has
traditionally charged "direct costs" for the use of
its capabilities by other government entities and on
DOD programs with foreign governments and "full cost"
for private sector launches on NASA vehicles from the
DOD operated ranges. Nevertheless, both the DOD and
NASA have wide latitude in reimbursement policies
depending on their interpretations of the public good
and their individual charters.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
V. DISCUSSION - REQUIREVENTS pp PRIVATE SECTOR OPERATIONS
A. POLICY
There are two areas in the National Space Policy which appear to
be in conflict when addressing the question of commercial or
private operation of expendable systems. On one hand, the policy
encourages private sector involvement in space, but on the other,
the STS is the primary space launch system with a priority of
cost effectiveness.
Private sector operation of expendable systems would have two
basic results: competition between the STS, ergo the government,
and expendable systems, i.e., the private sector, for the
commercial and foreign market segment and, as a result, a
reasonable probability that a maximum utilization of the STS will
not be achieved and, therefore, the STS does not achieve its
optimum cost-effectiveness.
A fundamental principle upon which government policy is based is
that the government should not compete with its citizens. The
current guidelines for the implementation of this principle are
contained in OMB Circular A-16, which states that the government
should not engage in commercial or industrial activities where
the private sector can provide them more efficiently and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
cheaply. The Circular, and the implementing guidelines, provides
the procedures for the acquisition of commercial or industrial
products and services needed by the government.
'However, the operation of the STS does not appear to be an
activity which meets the A-76 criteria, but the expendable
system, under certain circumstances, could be considered as
meeting the A-76 criteria for private sector operation.
Under the A-76 definitions, the services provided by the STS to
commercial and foreign customers can be considered a government
commercial activity by the A-76 definition in that it provides a
product or service obtainable from a private source, if private
sector operation of expendable systems is permitted. The
creation by the government of domestic private sources for
launching and associated services will definitely create
significant new issues associated with A-76 which must be
addressed in a policy statement on this subject.
Furthermore, a policy statement which addresses the question
private sector Space Transportation Operations must consider two
important factors. First, a policy statement which permits the
private sector operation of expendable systems must recognize the
impact of such a change in poliey on existing STS program
objectives. And secondly, it is quite important to recognize
that a precedent has already been established by the government
in permitting the private sector launching of SSI on September 9,
1982.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
1. Agencies Impacted
The Category I proposals received to date
primarily represent activities which will result
in relatively minor impacts on WSMC operations
because the proposed payloads are relatively small
and they do not currently represent a significant
percentage of the predicted launch rate. Category
II proposals are by definition complimentary to
the STS.
Category III proposals are primarily focused on
ESI C and KSC capabilities and will have a greater
impact on NASA STS operations. On this basis, it
is reasonably safe to state that the resultant
government budgetary impacts of a decision to
allow private sector operation of commercial
expendable systems will be felt primarily by NASA
with a lesser impact on the national security
sector.
B. IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS
This section is primarily associated with the decisions required
to implement the Category III type proposals.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
1. Assumptions
a. Private sector operation of expendable systems
currently operated by the Government will be
permitted.
b. Existing STS pricing policy could become an
issue in the resulting "competition" between
the STS and privately operated ELV's unless
appropriate steps are taken.
c. Extensive Government cooperation is necessary
to the viability of privately operated
expendable systems in Category III.
d. The Government is willing to accept the fact
that each proposal for private sector
operation could either succeed or fail.
e. Private sector entry into competition with
activities which are essential to the
government such as the STS for activities
associated with the commercial and foreign
payloads constitutes a business decision which
is solely the responsibility of the private
sector entity.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
f. U.S. Government spacecraft space missions
shall be designed to take advantage of the
unique STS capabilities and shall utilize
Category III commercial expendable systems
only under unique emergency circumstances.
g. The majority of the decisions in the
utilization of facilities equipment and
support at the launch site will involve both
the Department of Defense and NASA. A
majority of the expendable system operations
activity is on Air Force property.
2. Recommended Decisions
a. Cost Recovery Decisions
(1) "Sunk" capability development costs
Since the Government intends to abandon the
utilization of existing expendable systems without
any attempt to recover these costs, it is proposed
that recovery of "sunk" costs associated with the
development of these systems not be recovered (See
Section on Legal Questions). These systems will
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
be in competition with both the STS and foreign
expendable systems which are not burdened with
such costs.
(2) Use of government facilities and property.
Real property which includes system unique
facilities and equipment should be rented, leased,
or licensed through a use permit to the private
sector operator. A standard computational method
to be used by both the DOD and NASA which is
compatible with STS pricing policy should be
developed to determine the amounts to be charged
for the rental, lease, or license.
Software, including designs, drawings, production
procedures and processes, and launch procedures
will be turned over to a principle private sector
operator at no charge. This private sector
operator will be responsible for the maintenance
of the items.
Spare parts which support system unique production
and launch capabilities and flight hardware will
be sold to the primary system operator at a fair
price.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
(3) Government support and services at the
launch site
Government support and services provided to a
private sector operator of Category III expendable
systems should be made available at the launch
site and should be charged to the private sector
operator on the same pricing basis that commercial
and foreign users of the STS are charged.
This would represent a change in pricing policy
with respect to expendable systems on the part of
DOD and NASA. In regard to this question, the
U.S. Government has two alternatives, one
indicated above and the other is to raise prices
to STS users to the levels currently charged to
ELV's. Although either alternative is acceptable,
it is unknown how the latter will affect the
competitive posture of domestic ELV's with the
Most Observers believe that the latter
alternative will provide an advantage to the
Arlene.
b. Compatibility with STS Pricing Policy
The decisions recommended above with respect to
Government charges to private sector operated
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
systema are directly comparable to and directly
linked to STS Pricing Policy. As a matter of
policy, this linkage should be maintained as long
as the competitive aspects between these systems
exist.
c. Monopoly vs Free Market
A decision must be made concerning non-exclusive
leases or multiple use license or permits for each
individual expendable system versus a single
operator. The single operator is by far the
simpler of the two concepts to implement, but the
non-exclusive lease or multiple use license or
permit avoids the potential criticisms associated
with a monopoly.
A system operator could be decided on a
competitive bests by advertising in Commerce
Seislases Dail of interest. If
%ram than one seeb-Ouptes ben is received, NASA
could use the RIP process to competitively
determine the primary system operator. Provisions
(contractual) between the system operator and the
Government could require providing tooling,
equipment, facilities and services (as desired) to
other licensed operators of the system.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
d. Liability
System operators would be required to provide
insurance which would provide coverage for the
U.S. Government's liability under international
treaties, and domestic claim. This is one aspect
of this activity which may require legislation
(see Legal Issues).
e. Safety and Environmental Regulations
Private sector expendable system operators as
tenants of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station will
be responsible for awareness of and compliance
with Air Force ground and range safety
regulations. These operators will also be
responsible for awareness of and compliance with
OSHA, MSC and environmental regulations, as
appropriate.
f. SecurtAy
Private sector system operators will be
responsible for compliance with security
regulations of ESMC and for providing appropriate
security and safeguards associated with the
unauthorized transfer of technology.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181 R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
g. Scheduling
Private operators of expendable systems at the
launching site (ESM) should be afforded the same
scheduling priorities as afforded currently to
government operated expendable systems for
commercial or SIL (ESMC term for Special Interest
Launch) launchings. U.S. Government payloads and
missions should be afforded priority scheduling in
the use of Government operated facilities. This
priority only applies to rescheduling in the case
of national security or civil missions with a
planetary window which would be missed.
h. Modification of Government-owned Facilities
There are legal questions concerning the
modification of government-owned facilities (see
I. nsurance
System operators will be required to obtain
insurance with the government as a beneficiary
against loss of and or damage to government
property, facilities, or equipment during the
conduct of their activities.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Ds?
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
VI. DISCUSSION - LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO SPACE
LAUNCH OPERATIONS BY. PRIVATE ENTERPRISES
A. International Law
1. Nongovernmental space activities including launch
operations are not prohibited by international law.
a. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 explicitly recognizes
that nongovernmental space activities may occur When it places
responsibility on States Parties for national activity in outer
space . . whether such activities are carried on by govern-
mental or nongovernmental entities ? ? ? "and by requiring State
supervision of "activities of non-governmental entities in outer
space . . ." (Article VI). Furthermore, Article IX refers to "an
activity or experiment planned by it Ethe State Party] or its
nationals in outer space. . . ." This language plus rejection of
the USSR's position providing for a State monopoly for the
exploration and us. of outer space during negotiation of the
Treaty may be viewed as conclusively establishing that private
nongovernmenttlAapaOsettivity4e-sotflprOhibited by international
1
to. Thireelterlipace Tsui* does not attempt to define
space activity." Laundh operations are an integral part of
space activities as they are currently conducted. There is no
reason to doubt that the implicit authorization of the Outer
_
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?? Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
2
Space Treaty extends to nongovernmental launch operations as well
as other activities. Furthermore, the Convention on Liability
for Damage Caused by Space Objects includes launch vehiOlossas
"space objects" and defines launch to include an attempted
launching.
c. /t should be noted that Article 1, paragraph one, of
the Treaty provides for the use of outer space "for the benefit
and in the interest of all countries . . . and shall be the
province of all mankind." While it has been argued that this
provision negates commercial space activity Whether by
governmental or nongovernmental entities, this position has not
been accepted and participation of private industry in commercial
space activity (e.g., communications satellites) has been taken
for granted.
2. Government has responsibility under international law to
regulate nongovernmental space launch operations.
a. Principle Substantive Provisions.
(1) The provisions of Article III (activities in
accord with international law) and Article IV (prohibition
against weapons of mass destruction/peaceful uses) apply to
States as well as private entities launching under their
jurisdiction.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R00170160002n-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
3
(2) Each State is internationally liable for damage
caused by objects: (1) which the State launches. (2) which the
State procures the launching of, or (3) which are laundhed from
the territory of the State (Article VII).
(3) Prior notice and international consultations
are required before proceeding with space activity if there is
reason to believe the activity is potentially harmful to the
space activity of another (Article IX).
(4) Registration and certain launch information is
required by Articles II and III of the Convention on the
Registration of Objects Launched Into Outer Space.
(5) Other obligations may arise under various
treaties, other international agreements or the developing
. international customary law of outer space.
b. Procedural requirements of regulation.
? (1) Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty requires
State authorization and supervision of nongovernmental space
activities. The position of the U.S.Governments as enunciated
by the Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, is that
Article VI is self-executing. That is, that even in the absence
of implementing domestic law, private concerns must obtain
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
4
United States Government permission prior to conducting a space
launch. The State Department uses, the Arms Export Control Act
and its implementing regulations to provide review and authori-
sation for private laundh operations.
(2) The nature and extent of the supervision,
required by international law are not expressly stated in Article
VI. Presumably, the supervision should be conducted in such a
way as to enable the supervising state to effectively control the
private launch within the limitations of international law.
c. Entities to be regulated. Article VI and Article IX
of the Outer Space Treaty appear to place responsibility on a
party to the treaty for the space activities of its nationals
irrespective of the place from Which a launch might occur. Thus.
the United States is responsible for the supervision and author-
ization of a United States company launching into space from
outside U.S. territory. With regard to the Liability Convention
the situation is less clear. The State from whose territory a
space object is laundhed is liable but another state which
'procures ? the launch is also liable. Whether merely granting
permission to launch (i .s. authorisation under the Outer Spam
Treaty) constitutes procuring a launch under the Liability
Convention is uncertain. The status of multi-national companies
is also questionable.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
5
B. Regulation of Non-Government Laundh Operations
1. Private Launch Operations are Regulated Through Ad Hoc
Application of Nonspecific Statutory Authority.
a. State Department. Private launches are regulated by
the State Department under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2778).
?
: (1) Functions under the Act have been delegated to
the Secretary of State (E.O. 11958), Who has promulgated Inter-
national Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. Parts
121-128), and administers the Act through the Office of Munitions
Control, Bureau of Politico - Military Affairs.
(2) Spacecraft and related data and launching
equipment are listed on the Munitions List (22 C.F.R. i 121.01).
Items on the munitions list may not be exported without a license
(22 C.F.R. i 123.01) and an "export" includes "taking out of the
United States in any manner .
I ? (22 C.F.R. i 121.19). The
Department of State has concluded that a launch is an export
subject to ITAR requirements.
(3) In processing an export license related to a
space launch under ITAR, State has requested the input of various
other agencies including NASA.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181 R001701600070-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
b. Federal Aviation Administration. The Federal
Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. f 1301, et seq.) as interpreted by the
FAA is not generally applicable to spacecraft, however, the Act
grants the Secretary of Transportation authority to regulate air
space (49 U.S.C. i 1348) and regulations concerning the control
of airspace (14 C.F.R. Parts 71-77) administered by the FAA have
been promulgated: as have special air traffic rules which apply
to unmanned rockets 14 C.F.R. I 101.21.
(1) FAA regulations on unmanned rockets provide for
notice requirements and prohibit rocket operations under the
following conditions: if creating an aircraft collision hazard,
in controlled airspace, within 5 miles of an airport, through
5/10 cloud, in less than five miles horizontal visibility, into
cloud, within 1500 feet of any person not associated with the
operation, between sunset and sunrise. If the rodket is operated
in restricted airspace only the 1500 foot requirement is appli-
cable (14 C.F.R. I 101.23). Operations from a restricted area
require pemission from the controlling agency (14 C.F.R.
101.5).
(2) A waiver of the above provisions may be granted
(14 C.F.R. 101.3).
(3) Establishment of permanent or long term
authority for conducting unmanned rocket operations requires
application for an exemption from FAA air space regulations (14
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
NU
_
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
7
C.F.R. i 11.71). A petition for exemption may be handled under
procedures for changing airspace use. The FAA's Director, Air
Traffic Service (or other specified official), may require a
rule-making action with provision for publication of the proposed
rule in the Federal Register and the possibility of .a bearing (14
C.F.R. ii 11.61-.69). [Note: the FAA required the exemption
procedure rather than granting a waiver for SSI's Conestoga I
launch from Matagorda. This included Federal Register publica-
tion.]
C. NASA. Under the Space Act NASA has legal authority
to issue non-economic regulations dealing with the peaceful pur-
poses of a private launch, safety, operations of orbital and
suborbital space vehicles, and, possibly, other areas as well.
(1) NASA has not previously acted as a regulatory
agency and does not desire to assume sudh a role.
(2) NASA has been consulted by the State Department
and FAA during their consideration of applications for private
space laundhes.
d. Federal Communications Commission. The FCC assigns
radio frequencies Vbidh are needed to support private laundh
operations. 47 U.S.C. 5 151 et Ls., 47 C.F.R Parts 0-99.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
??
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP9213661-6-1-R-001761600020-4
8
e. Other Government Agencies. Other government agen-
cies (e.g., the Department of Defense) have been and will be
consulted by the Department of State and FAA during the consid-
eration of applications for private space launches. The North
American Air Defense Command (NORAD), though admittedly without
regulatory authority, has expressed an interest in being made
aware of private rocket launches. Under the Gun Control Act, 18
U.S.C. ft 921-928, manufacturers of certain "destructive devices"
(including rockets) are required to make informational filings
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and pay a
fee to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Treasury
Department. Other government agencies may assert some interest
or authority in launch operations and add additional formal or
informal regulatory requirements.
2. The Current Regulatory Scheme Has Proved to be
Adequate But If Commercial Launch Operations Develop and
Proliferate, a Revised Regulatory Scheme Nay be Needed.
a. The current scheme has proved adequate both from
the government and private company's perspective. The approval
process is somewhat cumbersome, however, and various changes have
been suggested.
b. The Outer Space Treaty as domestic law. The U.S.
Government's position, as stated by the State Department, is that
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
.?
?? ?? ? ......????????????????????. ???? ? ????????????????????;?,ra ?rara.4111?????????????????? go, ?? ow raw
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
9
Article VI is self-executing. Clearly the provisions of Article
VI (authorization and supervision-of non-governmental space .
activities) constitute obligations of the United States under
international law. Whether the Treaty itself has effect as
domestic law to require private entities to obtain U.S. govern-
ment permission to launch space vehicles (i.e., is self-execut-
ing) has been questioned by lawyers for BSI but they have
refrained from Challenging the State Department's position in
court on this issue as well as the applicability of the Arms
Export Control Act. NASA, of course, agrees with the U.S. Gov-
ernment position as interpreted by the State Department on the
Treaty and defers to the State Department on the interpretation
of the statute Which the Department is Charged with administer-
ing.
c. Limits of the "export" concept. The Arms Export
Control Act has long been applied to the launch of spacecraft in
the sense of Payloads. With the advent of commercial launch
operations the State Department now applies the Act to the launch
of the booster without a payload or with only an engineering
payload (e.g., export applications by BSI for the Conestoga I
launch and by ARC Technologies). Lawyers for BSI have questioned
Whether the launch of a booster id an "export' When its
explosives (propellents and destruct mechanism) are to be
consumed or destroyed in the launch and its physical structure
is intended to disintegrate= be recovered by the launching
company. Moreover, in test launches within the borders of the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
??
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-.4
10
United States below a certain altitude (30-50 miles), the space-
craft cannot be considered taken out of the United States."
While there is no international or domestic law definition of
where outer space begins, the United States would be unlikely to
concede in an international or domestic controversy that its
national air space terminated below 50 miles (astronaut qualifi-
cation height). The Arms Export Control Act probably provides no
authority to regulate sounding rocket operations or booster test
flights within the borders of the United States. Furthermore, if
the rocket does not enter "outer space" the Outer Space Treaty
would not be applicable.
d. Unmanned rocket flights will continue to be within
the jurisdiction of the FAA even in cases Where the Arms Export
Control Act does not apply. The Filik does not purport to provide
supervison in the sense of Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty
but did undertake a thorough review of SSI's petition. There
are, however, limited circumstances in which unmanned rockets
could be laundhed under the authority of current FAA regulations
without obtaining a/waiver or exemption. Rocket flights outside
of controlled airspace which comply with 14 C.F.R. Part 101
require only notification not permission.
e. Suggested Changes from the Private Sector. BSI's
attorney have suggested that a revised regulatory scheme should
contain the following elements:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
11
(1) Recognition of the comprehensive nature of the
Federal approval process and the need for
national uniformity to preempt unwarranted
state and local regulation;
(2) Required insurance levels based on the maximum
probable accident;
? (3) Range safety guidelines based on approved
Federal government range safety procedures;
(4) Limiting the decision to grant or deny launch
approval to consideration of the following
issues: public safety, national security,
insurance coverage, indemnification and
balancing of competing interests of airspace
Users.
(5) Mandatory time limits for processing appli-
cation. to assure that launches ars not unduly
delayed;
(6) Embodiment of the principle that approval of a
private, permanent launch site, i.e., desig-
nation of restricted air space, is not a major
Federal action requiring an environmental
impact statement; and
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
12
(7) Procedure for an inexpensive, expedited appeal
of administrative determinations.
Some of these principles were embodied in legislation introduced
in the 97th Congress by Senator Cannon and Congressman Akaka.
f. Other Changes. Other changes that should be
considered are implementation of specific procedures for
supervision and payload verification, and, inclusion of rocket
test programs and sounding rockets within a comprehensive scheme
if one is promulgated.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
????????????? ?? ? ? ??? ??? ????? ? ? ?? ? ??1???? ? ? ????????
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
13
C. COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS FROM GOVERNMENT LAUNCH SITES WITH
SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
1. NASA has broad legal authority to lease or all the use
of its real and personal property and equipment in support of
commercial space activities but this authority is not unlimited
and there are fiscal law restrictions as well as policy
considerations that may affect the feasibility of any given
commercial proposal that involves private use of NASA facilities.
a.. Space Act Authority. The Space Act provides .NASA
with a broad charter to direct, engage in, and facilitate space
activities and to otherwise promote the peaceful utilisation of
space (e.g., Space Act sections 102(d), 203(a)). NASA has
express authority in Section 203(c)(3) to "lease to others real
and personal property" which is in addition to the property
disposal authority under the Federal Property and Administration
Services Act (40 U.S.C. I 471, et In.), NASA's procedures for
leasing nonexcess land ars found in NPD 8813.2. Under section
203(c)(5) NASA has authority to "enter into and perform such
contracts, leases, cooperative agreements, or other transactions
as may be necessary in the conduct of its woxIc on sudh terms as
it may deem appropriate . ? Tho legislative history refers to
this as ?broad authority" and the limited judicial construction
of this language has applied it broadly, Lodge 1958 v. Webb, 580
F. 2d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
*"...????? _ . . .
. .
--?????-.- ? - Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
??
?
14
Section 203(c)(6) provides authority for NASA to cooperate with
public or private agencies in the use of services, equipment and
facilities. Under this authority NASA, has entered into a broad
spectrum of cooperative arrangements and other agreements on a
reimbursable and non-reimbursable basis.
Under the authority of the Space Act, NASA. has leased a large
facility to the Garrett Corporation for commercial utilization.
NASA provided a rocket motor to:SSI on a reimbursable basis to
support its program of development of a private space launch
capability. In both cases the property was determined to be
non-excess. The land will revert to NASA possession in the
future. The rocket motor was transferred to accomplish a Space
Act purpose, the advancement of vehicle design and the
demonstration of private launch capability.
?
b. NASA has a twenty year history of providing
commercial launch services on a cost reimbursable basis under the
authority of the Space Act. NASA practice in. this regard is well
known to Congress and has been approved by the Comptroller Gen-
eral. In recent years payloads launched by NASA have included
commercial propulsion units such as PANS and orbital kick motors.
On legal and practical grounds it can be said that NASA's current
practice in the launch services area stands as precedent for a
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
------ ? ?-u- Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : dIA-RDP92B0618-1 R001701660020-4
15
commercial firm providing all propulsion for a space launch
(i.e., private ownership and operation of the booster and all
payload assist propulsion) with the government providing ground
launch support on a cost reimbursable basis. Whether such an
arrangement would be commercially viable is not known. In the
event, no such proposal has been received. The concept, however,
stands as a model of an arrangement for which there is precedent
and for Which legal authority may be assumed. The more a com-
mercial proposal departs from the established model the more
thoroughly it must be scrutinized on legal grounds. CA proposal
that a commercial firm provide all propulsion through acquiring
one of NASA's current EIN models from the manufacturer would
require NASA permission for co-production).
c. General principles related to private use of gov-
ernment property. There is no absolute prohibition on the
private use of public property. Opinions of the Attorney General
and Comptroller General have discussed the principles related to
the private use of public property based on general Constitu-
tional ana policy principles rather than express authority under
the Space Act. Even in the absence of express statutory author-
ity private concerns have been allowed to cultivate federal land,
construct railroad tradks *across a federal reservation, use
government production equipment, use government data processing
equipment and other government property. A summary of the
principles related to such uie is as follows:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
- ? A.... ? AWN, ?????????L "aft. ? ob. ? *NO " ????????????1..... ? ??? amr mare..
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
16
Such decisions have held generally that the head of a
Government department or agency has authority to grant to a
private.individual or business a revocable license to use
Government property, subject to termination at any time at
the will of the Government, provided that such use does not
injure the property in question and serves some purpose
useful or beneficial to the Government itself. The Attorney
General has stated that the question as to Whether the
granting of such a license in any given case is beneficial
to the Government is for the exercise of the judgment of the
official vested with the power to grant, rather than a
question of law to be determined in advance by the law
officers of the Government. 47 Comp. Gen. 387, 389.
The term "injure" obviously is not to be taken literally since
production equipment suffers normal wear and tear during use and
the laying of railroad tracks causes some injury to land. Injury
means some damage which renders the property unfit for its
intended use. Fair wear and tear is permitted.
Other government policies indicate that an individual or business
receiving such a license should reimburse the government for the
benefit received. (OMB A-25). Generally, a government license
should be offered on a nondiscriminatory (competitive) basis.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-R5P92B00181R001701600020-4
17
d. Limitations on NASA's statutory authority to sell
property. NASA is limited in its ability to mike an outright
sale of ELV system assets. Despite NASA's broad statutory
authority a disposition of property is governed by the Federal
Property and Administrative Services (FPAS) Act and application
of the procedures of that Act to a proposed commercial takeover
of an operating ELV system would probably prove be be impractica-
ble.
?
Outright Ale of an ELV to a commercial customer also appears to
require application of the FPAS Act. NASA has transferred flight
components to private concerns under circumstances Which might be
perceived as tantamount to sale but such transfers involved non-
excess property and were structured to assure a Space Act purpose
was accomplished by the transfer. NASA. has also acted as pur-
chasing agent for users of NASA-provided launch services as, for
example, in the purchase of explosive bolts. Such theories can
be applied to commercialization proposals as long as commercial
launch operations are viewed as ?aeronautical and space activi-
ties of the United States for which NASA is responsible. Pro-
perty transferred without regard to its use would probably have
to be considered excess to NASA's needs and subject to disposi-
tion only under the procedures of the FPAS Act.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
-? ? Declassed and Approved For Release 2013/0'8/02 : CCA-RDP92B06181R00:17016-660-16:4-
18
e. Fiscal law restrictions. There are a number of
restrictive fiscal laws that may play a role in the determination
of Whether a particular commercial proposal is legally authorised
or feasible. Among those fiscal and related laws are the
followings
(1) Limitations on Reimbursement
(a) 31 USC ? 484 Deposit without deduction
The gross amont of all moneys received from whatever source for
the use of the United States, except as otherwise provided in
section 487 of this title, shall be paid by the officer or agent
receiving the same into the Treasury, at as early a day as
practicable, without any abatement or deduction on acount of
salary, fees, costs, charges, expenses, or claim of any
description Whatever. . . .
(b) 31 USC 487 Proceeds of sales of
material
All proceeds of sales of old material, condemned stores, supplies
or other public property of any kind except the proceeds of the
sale or leasing ? ? ? as provided in section 465 of Title 40 (the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 19493, or in
other law, shall be deposited and covered into the Treasury as
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
? Ire. ? ? .4. ? ? ...moo
Declassified and Approved For Release 26-1-3/0-8162 :-6IA-.RDP92B00181R001701600020-4 "
??
19
miscellaneous receipts, on account of "proceeds of Government
property," and shall not be withdrawn or applied, except in
consequence of a subsequent appropriation made by law. ? ? ?
(c) 31 USC i 489 Payment of expenses of sales
from proceeds
Subject to applicable regulations under the Federal Property and
Administrative Servies Act of 1949, as amended, proceeds from the
sales of old material, condemned stores, supplies, or other
public property of any kind, before being deposited in the
Treasury, either as miscellaneous receipts on account of
"proceeds of Government property" or to the credit of the
appropriations to Which such proceeds are by law authorized to be
made, there may be paid the expenses of such sales, as approved
by the General Accounting Office, so as to require only the net
proceeds of sudh sales to be deposited into the Treasury, either
as niscelleneous receipts or to the credit of such appropria-
tions, as the case may be.
(d) 31 USC 628 Application of moneys
appropriated
*Except as otherwise provided by law, sums appropriated for the
various branches of expenditure in the public service shall be
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
-: Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
??
20
applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively
made, and for no others.
2. Lease
(a) 40 USC I 303b Lease of building by
government; money consideration
Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the leasing of
buildings and properties of the United States shall be for a
money consideration only, and there shall not be included in the
lease any provision for the alteration, repair, or improvement of
such buildings or properties as a part of the consideration for
the rental to be paid for the use and occupation of the same.
The moneys derived from such rentals shall be deposited and
covered into the Treasury as miscelleous receipts.
(b) 40 USC 304g Disposition of property
voluntarily abandoned to United States
In the event that any tpersonal3 property is or has been
voluntarily abandoned to any agency in such manner as to vest
title thereto in the United States, it may be retained by such
agency and devoted to official use only. If such agency shall
not desire so to retain such property, the head thereof shall
forthwith notify the EWA] Administrator to that effect. . . .
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
' ???? ??? ? ??? ? .? .??? ? ? ?????? ? ...AD....
? - ? . ? ? ? . ? ? - . ? ??? ??????? ??? ? ??????? ? ?? ? ? ????? ? ? ? : . ?
? ??? Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
??????? ?? ? .1, ? ? ? ? .? ?
? ?
21
(3) Sale or Disposal
(a) 40 USC 464. Disposal of surplus
property -- Supervision and direction
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the OSA]
Administrator shall have supervision and direction over the
disposition of surplus property.
0 0 0
(b) 40 USC i 465. Proceeds from transfer,
sale, etc, of property -- Disposition of receipts
All proceeds under this subchapter from any transfer of excess
property to a Federal agency for its use, or from any sale,
lease, or other disposition of surplus property, shall be covered
into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, exept as provided in
subsections (b)-(e) of this section.
All the proceeds of such dispositions of surplus real and related
personal property made by the Administator for General Services
shall be set aside in a separate fund in the Treasury.
0 0 0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600070-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
22
(4) Antitrust Law.
(a) 40 USC 468 Applicability of antitrust
laws to property disposal
Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, no
executive agency shall dispose of any plant, plants, or other
property to any private interest until such agency has received
the advice of the Attorney General on the question Whether such
disposal would tend to create or maintain a situation inconsis-
tent with the antitrust laws.
0 0 0
If such notice is given by any executive agency other than the
General Services Administration, a copy of such notice shall be
transmitted simultaneously to the Administrator. Within a
reasonable time, in no event to exceed sixty. days, after receipt
of such notification, the Attorney General shall advise the
administrator and any other interested executive agency whether,
so far as he can determine, the proposed disposition would tend
to create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust
laws.
0 0 0
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
(5) This section shall not apply to the disposal
of--
23
(a) real property if the aggregate amount of
the original acquisition cost of such property to the Government
and all capital expenditures made by the Government with respect
thereto is less then $1,000,0001
0 0 0 ?
(b) 40 USC i 490
(j) The (GSA) Administrator is authorized and directed to charge
anyone furnished services, space, quarters, maintenance, repair,
or other facilities (hereinafter referred to as space and
services, at rates to be determined by the Administrator from
time to time and provided for in regulations issued by him. Such
rates and Charges shall approximate commercial Charges for
comparable space and services, except that with respect to those
buildings for WhiCh the Administrator of General Services is
responsible for alterations only (as the term 'alter" is defined
in section 612 (5) of this title), the rates Charged the occupant
????
for such services shall be fixed by the administrator so as to
recover only the approximate applicable cost incurred by him in
providing sudh alterations. The Administrator may exempt anyone
from the Charges required by this subsection if he determines
that sudh charges would be infeasible or impractical. To the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
ea
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
24
extent any such exemption is granted, appropriations to the
General Services Administration are authorized to reimburse the
fund for any loss of revenue.
(k) Any executive agency, other than the General Services
Administation, Which provides to anyone space and services set
forth in subsection (j) of this section, authorized to charge the
occupant for such space and services at rates approved by the
Administrator. Moneys derived by such executive agency from such
rates or fees shall be credited. to the appropriation or fund
initially charged for providing the service, except that amounts
which are in excess of actual operating and maintenance costs of
providing the service shall be credited to miscellaneous receipts
unless otherwise authorized by law.
(c) Commitments Not To Exceed Appropriation.
41 USC 3 12 No contract to exceed appropriation
No contract shall be entered into for the ersction, repair, or
furnishing of any public building, or for any public improvement
which shall bind the Government to pay a larger sum of money than
the amount in the Treasury for the specific purpose.
2. Current law apparently requires that NASA receive only
money as consideration for a lease and that moneys derived from
rentals must be deposited as miscellaneous receipts? the military
departments have a partial exemption from that provision.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
25
Under 40 U.S.C. 303b, leases must be for money consideration
only and monies received must be deposited into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts. The restrictions of 40 USC 303b apply
"except as otherwise specifically provided by law ? ? e 4," One
section of the Space Act (Section 203(c)(11)) does expressly
provide exemption from those requirements but that section deals
only with VIC concession agreements. The Lewis Research Center
has entered into a lease arrangement Whereby a substantial part
of the rental goes to defray utilities, security, and maintenance
(Garrett Cbrp. lease at Plumbrook). The NASA General Counsel has.
yet to render an opinion on Whether the Space Act authority to
"perform . . . leases ? ? ? on such terms as it deems appropriate
. . ." constitutes an express exemption from 40 USC i 303 b.
The military departments do have lease authority (10 USC i 2667)
whereby they may lease land and receive non-monetary considera-
tion and Whereby costs for utilities or services furnished to the
lease. may be deducted from rent and applied to the credit of the
appropriation paying for tho utility or service rather than being
covered into miscellaneous receipts. Military lease authority
may be pertinent in the case of Atlas-Centaur and Delta since the
launch sites for these vehicles are on Air Force land.
3. Notwithstanding various fiscal law restrictions, NASA
may lease land and require the lessee to remove at his own
expense buildings or other improvements erected during the term
of the lease and failing such removal_provide that improvements
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
_ Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R00.17016000204
26
or other property left on the premises shall become property of
. the United States without any Compensation being paid therefore.
The requirement that only monetary rent may be received and ex-
cluding alteration or repair of improvements from being part of
the consideration (40 U.S.C. 303b) does not mean that NASA cannot
require restoration of the premises to their original condition
as a condition of the lease. Restoration of the premises is part
of a lessee's common law obligations and thus is not a separate
part of the consideration. The.failure of the lessee to restore
the premises (i.e., remove improvements) and other property at
the lease's termination allows the government to treat the pro-
perty as abandoned and take title to it. Permanent improvements
left on the land at the end of the lease term become part of the
real property by operation of law.
In executing leases under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2667 the
Air Force routinely includes such provisions. The following are
standard clauses from Eng. Form 1367a, Lease of Property on a
Military Reservation,
20. That, on or before the date of expiration of this lease
or its termination by the lessee, the lessee shall at its
cost vacate the leased property, remove the property of the
lessee therefrom, and restore the leased property to as good
order and condition as that existing upon the date of
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?
?.2-? - ? %a la 1.1 t? ..;?? o..16 ? et' aft
? " ? ? Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
?
27
commencement of the term of this lease, less ordinary wear
and tear and damage to the leased property covered by
insurance and for which the Government shall receive or has
received insurance funds in lieu of having the damaged
property repaired, replaced, or restored. If, however, this
lease is revoked, the lessee shall vacate the leased
property, remove the property of the lessee therefrom, and
restore the leased
property to the condition aforesaid within such time as the
Secretary of the Air Force may designate. In either event,
if the lessee shall fail or neglect to remove the property
of the lessee and so restore the leased property, then, at
the option of the Secretary of the Air Force, the property
of the lessee shall either become the Property of the United
States without compensation therefor, or the Secretary of
the Air Force may cause it to be removed and the leased pro,-
erty to be so restored at the expense of the lessee, and no
claim for damages against the United States or its officers
or agents shall be created by or made on account of such
removal and restoration work.
20. (Alternate) That on or before the date of expiration
of this lease or its termination by the lessee, the lessee
shall vacate the demised premises, remove the property of
the lessee therefrom, and restore the premises to as good
order and condition as that existing upon the date of
commencement of the term of this lease, damages beyond the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R0017016nnn7n_4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
28
control of the lessee and due to fair year and tear
excepted. If, however, this lease is revoked, the lessee
shall vacate the premises, remove said property therefrom,
and restore the premises to the condition aforesaid within
such time as the Secretary of the Air Force may designate.
In either event, if the lessee shall fail or neglect to
remove said property and so restore the premises, then, at
the option of the Secretary of the Air Force, said property
shall either become the property of the United States with-
out compensation therefor, or the Secretary of the Air Force
may cause it to be removed and the premises to be restored
at the expense of the lessee, and no claim for damages
against the United States or its officers or agents shall be
created by or made on account of such removal and
restoration work.
Although 41 U.S.C. i 12 provides that no "contract shall be
entered into for . . . any public improvement Which shall bind
the Government to pay a larger sum of money than the amount in
the Treasury for thelspecific purpose,? long standing Air Force
practice has been to acquire improvements to real property
through the means described above without any specific appro-
priation. Since the abandoned improvements become part of the
real property by operation of law at no expense to the Govern-
ment, 41 U.S.C. i 12 is not deemed applicable. Another statute
specifically authorises property voluntarily abandoned to the
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
? ? -- ? -
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02: CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
29
United States to be used for public purposes (40 U.S.C. 303g). A
provision which provides for payment to the owners of abandoned
property (40 U.S.C. ? 484(m) is probably not applicable to
improvements to real property. ?
NASA's authority to lease non-excess land is such that it may
properly follow the practice of the military departments in
acquiring public improvements by the methods described above.
Neither the requirement that only money be received as rent nor
the requirement to deposit receipts in the Treasury without
deduction (the principle differences between military and NASA
lease authority) affects this result. NASA and military lease
authority are substantially analogous in this regard.
4. A number of legal restrictions or issues need to be
considered by firms interested in commercial space operations.
a. Anti-trust. There are possibilities for
violations of the anti-trust laws associated with the
commercialization of existing systems. The anti-trust laws
generally prohibit monopolies, unfair competition and other
anti-competitive arrangements. The mere fact of government
involvement does not immunize a private company from anti-
trust liability. Commercialization proposals should give due
regard to possible anti-trust violations.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013./08/02 CIA-RDP92B00181R0017016000204 ?
30
b. Patent Licensing. The government holds licenses
for the privately developed technology used in its launch vehi-
cles or is otherwise authorized to use the technology without
charge. This same situation does not necessarily apply to a
commercial firm which utilizes the technology of an existing
launch system. Commercial firms need to carefully review the
status of patents and licenses related to ELV technology.
c. Recovery of Sunk Costs. The Department of Defense
has a policy of recovering the nonrecurring costs on commercial
sales of Defense products and technology. See DAR 2-2400 and
7-10464. There is a procedure for requesting a deviation from
this policy. The NASA Procurement Regulations contain no
equivalent provisions and such a policy has only occasionally
been applied in NASA.
Commercialization of the Titan and any other DOD administered
launch system requires consideration of these provisions.
Researdh needs to be conducted with a view toward Whether this
4
policy would apply to DOD developed systems now administered by
NASA.
d. Finally, while the government can authorize
commercialization of a laundh system, it cannot direct associate
contractors, suppliers or others to deal with the commercial
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4
31
entity which is authorised to operate the system. Government
permission, thus, does not imply that tho government has legal
authority to orchestrate the commercialization process.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/02 : CIA-RDP92B00181R001701600020-4