The numbers tell an alarming story. Though nearly 70 percent of the world's commercial satellites are assembled in the United States, only 45 percent are launched from the United States. Because more than 60 U.S. satellites have been approved for export to launch from Russia, the Ukraine and China since 1995, U.S. rocket manufacturers and their vast supplier network have lost approximately $2.4 billion in direct revenues - a figure that doesn't include American satellite launches by the powerful European Arainespace Consortium.
Why are we losing out to other nations? One reason is cost. As author Gregg Easterbrook pointed out in the June 2, 1998, edition of The New York Times, companies that launch satellites aboard American space vehicles can expect to pay between $10,000 and $12,000 per pound. Nations like China - where the government partially subsidizes the cost of satellite launches - can offer the same services for half the cost.
A second reason for our nation's declining share of commercial space launches is the relatively small number of available launch vehicles in the United States. From 1977 to 1986, the space shuttle was the only spacecraft authorized to carry satellites into orbit. That nearly 10-year hiatus in American rocket development gave a huge advantage to nations that used that time to build and improve the Russian Proton, European Araine and Chinese Long March rockets.
Last fall, I joined Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), Rep. Dave Weldon (R-Fla.), members of the House Science Committee, members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a broad, bipartisan coalition in tackling these problems through the enactment of the Commercial Space Act. That legislation took steps to create a stable business environment for the U.S. commercial space industry, while simultaneously making the government's use of space technology more efficient and saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Even better, it did not add new federal regulations or raise taxes by so much as a penny. President Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 28, 1998.
The Commercial Space Act will help to address the cost and capacity problems that have plagued our nation's commercial space industry. For example, it breaks the federal government's monopoly on space travel and encourages launch options that might lower costs. Until the passage of this legislation, the space shuttle was the only American craft authorized to both leave and re-enter our planet's atmosphere. Commercial companies that have an interest in providing repeat services to their customers might benefit from the same principle of reusability that powers the Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor space shuttles.
In addition, our legislation helps to mitigate the United States' dearth of launch vehicles by allowing the conversion of excess ballistic missiles into space transportation carriers. International arms-control agreements have rendered these missiles useless for national defense, and the hundreds in storage eat up close to $10 million a year. Replacing their nuclear warheads with scientific and educational payloads will give the United States a practical, low-cost method for putting satellites into orbit. But more less-expensive rockets will do little to erase other nations' competitive advantage if the United States does not have the infrastructure needed to launch them. That's why a similar bipartisan coalition recently introduced the Spaceport Investment Act. This legislation would make the financing of spaceport construction and renovation 100 percent tax-free - an innovation that could spur private investment in the important task of building and modernizing our nation's space launch facilities.
While airports, high-speed rail, seaports, mass transit and other transportation projects can raise money through tax-exempt bonds, spaceports do not currently enjoy such favorable tax treatment. This amounts to a glaring omission in federal policy. Airlines, cruise lines and shipping lines could not exist without airports and seaports. In the same fashion, state-administered spaceports provide vital incentives for space-related economic growth by supplementing the launch infrastructure already provided by the federal government.
My home state offers tangible proof of spaceports' value to the commercial space industry. Since its creation in 1989, Spaceport Florida has facilitated more than $100 million in space-related construction and investment projects. This includes the modification and conversion of Launch Complex 46 from a military to a commercial space facility. Virginia, Alaska and California also host spaceports, and 10 other states - Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah - are considering their establishment. We must take advantage of this opportunity to make the public and the private sectors partners in the effort to build badly needed launch sites around the nation.
The Commercial Space Act and Spaceport Investment Act will boost the effort to recapture space business in the United States. But these legislative initiatives must be part of a larger solution. In the coming months, I will be exploring the idea of a National Space Summit that brings together lawmakers, federal and state space administrators, business leaders and academic representatives with the goal of launching a united effort to revitalize our commercial space industry and reverse our rapidly declining share of space launches.
For far too long, federal policy in dealing with our nation's space launch industry has been stuck on the launch pad. Our choice is clear: We can either repave our pathways to outer space or face the unacceptable alternative of losing even more commercial space business to other countries. I am confident that the 106th Congress will choose the option that returns the United States to its rightful, pre-eminent role in outer space.
[Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) is a member of the Finance Committee.]
advertisement
