Testimony by Dr. Buzz Aldrin on “Space Tourism” Before the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

            This can be contrasted with the current situation where the exorbitant cost of the Shuttle and ISS operations have become a millstone around the neck of our
space exploration programs and the American taxpayer.

Your second question:  What are the major hurdles which must be overcome before the space tourism business will be self-sustaining?

            Actually, it may be self-sustaining already.  Some Russian officials have said that Dennis Tito’s check covered the entire out-of-pocket cost of launching the Soyuz
rocket that took him to the space station.

            If space tourism already makes financial sense when you fly Russian expendable rockets — what happens when their technology becomes reusable?  When
Russian launch costs suddenly drop and their safety goes way up?  I’ll touch upon this more in a minute.

            We Americans have spare seats for rich tourists, too.  The Space Shuttle often flies with only five or six people, when it can hold seven to eight.   The United
States could be learning about space tourism, using the assets it already has.  Flying passengers on the Shuttle can be part of the research that leads to new vehicles,
based on first-hand experience with the Shuttle tourists. 

            So, I have to say that NASA’s refusal to actively encourage passengers on the Shuttle is a major hurdle.

            This leads directly to the other major hurdle for space tourism, which is access to capital.  Private launch companies have not been able to convince investors and
lenders to support their efforts.  This hurdle can be addressed several ways. 

            First, investors need market research on space tourism.  As I noted, we immediately can start getting some of this data by a series of flights by paying Shuttle
tourists.  This is the most reliable data — real people spending their own money to fly, not just answering survey questions. I know of two individuals right now, a
well-known Hollywood producer and a well-known television correspondent, who are ready to go right now. 

            Second, investors and lenders worry about regulatory uncertainties.  In other words, “If you build it, will the government let you fly it?”   Initial passenger flights
on the Shuttle can start the process of sorting out the regulatory issues of passenger space travel. 

            Third, investors and lenders hate technical risk.  The private operators of the next space transportation systems should be assisted by NASA in perfecting
available technologies, and not forced to use “bleeding edge” technologies that will increase technical risk.

            Fourth, only a large potential market will attract sufficient capital.  That’s why our focus must be on developing the future space tourism market and creating
the vehicles to satisfy space tourism market demand.

            Another hurdle is the current structure of the space transportation industry.  The two major private companies, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, formed a
monopoly to operate the space shuttle.  Even monopolies have good ideas from time to time, and one idea was to turn the Columbia Orbiter into a commercial vehicle,
one that might take passengers.  NASA’s reaction was to have the president of the monopoly fired.

            On the military space side, the two major companies both were given contracts for the EELV, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.  With the 20/20 clarity of
hindsight, we can now see that this was a mistake.  Now neither of them has any incentive to develop reusable vehicles, despite what may be said for public
consumption, at least until they’ve recovered their considerable sunk costs in the new systems.

            So, we have a civilian space agency that’s been hostile to tourism, and the two major private companies left with no incentives to move on to reusable systems
that could greatly serve our national interest and the waiting tourism market.  In the mean time, the Russians just announced at the Paris Air Show that they are
moving ahead with their reusable first stage system, the Baikal.  Making matters worse, they have found a market for their vehicle in Europe where they are now
attempting to team with ESA to use it as a reusable booster on the Ariane 5, replacing the more costly and accident prone expendable solid rocket motors.

            Therefore, until NASA becomes an advocate for space tourism, or Congress intercedes and mandates the DoD or NASA to develop reusable space
transportation, and it can be done during this administration, the current establishment structure will not produce what we need.

Your third question:   What role should the federal government play in promoting space tourism?

            Well, first it should keep its promises.  Speaking very personally, I want you to know what NASA has done directly to my ShareSpace Foundation.  At the end of
March, after great effort, we responded to a NASA request for cooperative research proposals on the Human Exploration and Development of Space.  We offered to
compile detailed and sophisticated market research on the potential demand for passenger space travel.  Two months later, NASA told us our proposal was exactly
what they wanted, and that we’d won.  But in the same letter, it said the money to fund the entire program had been hijacked by other budget needs.  This,
unfortunately, has become more of the norm for doing business with NASA, not the exception.

            More than 150 universities, foundations and small companies had responded to the NASA request.  This request plainly said that while funds for “out years”
might be uncertain, at least money was set aside and available for this year’s work.  I understand the need to reshape budgets for future years, but it is shameful to
yank away current year funding from people who have worked hard and in good faith.  I doubt that NASA has congressional approval for this maneuver.  I hope you
tell them to put the money back where they found it.

            Next, NASA should immediately set up the mechanism for flying paying passengers on the space shuttle.  My ShareSpace Foundation has been proposing this to
NASA for two years now.  We offered to create a scientific research program on what’s required to safely train passengers for space travel, and what medical standards
should be developed for screening passengers.  The passengers’ own ticket money would pay for all the research, and my Foundation would make the results freely
available.  This would be a tremendous help to all the companies planning space tourism ventures, and to the government agencies that would regulate them.  Left
over ticket money would go back into NASA to support other space tourism initiatives.

            Since the Shuttle was declared operational, more than 100 seats have gone unused.  If the value of a seat is $20 million, that amounts to $2 billion in lost revenue
for the space program.

            The ShareSpace Foundation proposal for Shuttle seats would see the chance to fly to orbit made available in many different ways.  Some seats would be sold to
the highest bidders, to determine just how much early pioneers are willing to pay for space travel.  This is important market research data.  Some seats would be
offered via sweepstakes or lotteries, so that every American could have a small chance of flying to space.  Others might be sold to television networks, so that
professional communicators could educate the public about the nature of the experience.  It also would be good to have an independent journalist or two check in
person on the space station’s progress.  As things stand now, the taxpayers will pour up to $95 billion into a government construction project, and the only people who
will report on how its going are employees of the federal agency in charge of construction.  This strikes me as very unusual for such a massive expenditure of taxpayer
funds. 

            If NASA continues to be hostile to using the Space Shuttle, all space tourists will be forced to use Russian companies, as Mr. Tito did.  This makes no sense to me. 
We have spare seats in the Shuttle, and using them doesn’t cost NASA a cent — instead, it brings in extra money.  As I hope you recognize by now, space tourism is not
just a cute idea.  The country that leads in space tourism will reap a tremendous drop in launch costs and far greater vehicle reliability.  Its exploration initiatives, and its
military space activities, will dominate the 21st century.  As you can see, the United States is way off course on this subject, and it desperately needs Congress to firmly
set a new pro-tourism policy.  And the Russians have again assumed a lead position in this important area.

            Another arena for government action is tax policy.  The IRS code should be amended to remove some unintended disincentives.  For example, airports and
seaports are allowed to issue tax-exempt bonds.  Spaceports are not.  Such an amendment would be nearly tax neutral because this industry is just getting started.

            The IRS code should be further amended to encourage the development of new privately owned and operated space passenger vehicles that significantly reduce
cost and increase safety.  One such mechanism would be an investment tax credit designed to draw in several dollars of private capital for each dollar of tax credit. 
Provisions to prevent abuse must be a part of the package, and these would include a sunset clause.

            The IRS code should also be amended to incentivise the development of new space based businesses such as space hotels.  One such mechanism would be a tax
holiday. Again, such an amendment would be tax neutral because these new industries do not yet exist.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you on these matters of great national importance.