Pam Underwood and the FAA’s role in global spaceport operations.

[ Music ]

>> Maria Varmazis: Welcome to T-Minus "Deep Space" from N2K Networks. I'm Maria Varmazis, host of the T-Minus "Space Daily" podcast. "Deep Space" includes extended interviews and bonus content for a deeper look into some of the topics we cover on our daily program.

[ Music ]

Today's conversation is with Pam Underwood, who is the Director of the Office of Spaceports in the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation. She's going to walk us through the role of the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation in regulating the commercial space industry, ensuring safety in launches, reentries, and spaceport operations. We'll be learning about the FAA efforts to minimize airspace closures, streamline procedures, and enhance collaboration between the space and aviation sectors for efficient and safe operations. Here's Pam, starting us off first by introducing us to her office at the FAA and what it does.

[ Music ]

>> Pam Underwood: Many people are familiar with the Federal Aviation Administration and what they do for the airline industry. Of course, we regulate the airline industry, we have air traffic controllers, we certify airplanes, we, you know, manage pilot certificates. But what's little known is what the FAA also does for the commercial space transportation industry. And that's where we come in. My office, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, is responsible for regulating the safety of launch and reentry, and the operation of spaceports or launch and reentry sites. That's the piece that most people don't know. It's been really exciting. I've actually been with the office for a little over 17 years. And to see the growth in the commercial space transportation industry is just exciting.

We don't regulate launches that are by and for the government. So, when NASA was flying the Shuttle program, that was by NASA, for NASA, because that was a NASA purpose. We did not regulate that. But now that government agencies are using commercial industry, we regulate those activities. For example, now that NASA is using the commercial companies to do resupply of cargo and crew to the International Space Station, all of those missions are 100% licensed by the FAA. Because it is actually a commercial company that's conducting the launch, making those safety decisions. They're the ones that design and operate the vehicles. So, therefore, it requires oversight from the federal government, which is where the FAA comes in. In those cases, the government, NASA in this case, is only buying services. So, it really allows them to use their program dollars more wisely and not have to own and operate vehicles. And it helps the success of the commercial industry. So, we regulate the commercial industry. But please know that does include sometimes government as a customer.

>> Maria Varmazis: In my mind, I've been thinking mainly about Florida. But that's not the only place where launches are happening across the country. Do we need more spaceports in America?

>> Pam Underwood: That's a great question. And I get that question all the time. So, some people may not know but we actually have 14 FAA-licensed spaceports around the country. They're all over the place, not only there in Florida. We've got in Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, California, Texas, New Mexico. They're all over the place. We're very rich when it comes to spaceport infrastructure. We're very fortunate in this country to have it.

So, what I often get is, why do we need any more? Isn't that enough? Well, how many airports do we have? Did anyone judge the number of airports? No. I mean, it's really a matter of convenience based on where people wanted to go. And it's the same thing for space. There's a little bit more physics involved because you have to consider trajectories and where you want to be on orbit. If you're going to orbital, suborbital, the types of vehicles you're flying. But it's still the same.

We shouldn't look at the number necessarily of spaceports. We should look at the capabilities. What does our industry need? What do we need? And if it's options so that they can have more capability for their customers, then that's what we should have. So, it should be capability-driven rather than just chasing a number. Because, otherwise, someone could say, I don't know, five's enough, or 20's enough, or 50. I mean, pick the number. It's kind of a bit arbitrary.

Let's look at the capabilities, which is kind of what they do in the airport's perspective. You know, if I want to get to different, these parts of the country, then I need to have airports in those locations. Especially when we look to the future of things such as our industries calling it point-to-point transportation. So, it, you take off from one place as a rocket and you land in another place as a rocket. Our aviation friends might be thinking, Pam, we do that all the time. We always take off and end as one thing. But in the space industry, that's kind of new. So, it would be point-to-point, either orbital or suborbital transportation.

And as we look to do that, increasing the number of spaceports might be needed. Now, the industry is not quite there yet. There are some vehicles capable of doing it. I don't know the market's really ready yet. But it's definitely something coming in the future. So, you know, the caution I give to people is don't prejudge the number. Let's look at the capability. Because if the industry starts to move more seriously towards point-to-point transportation, that's where then, okay, well, what kind of capabilities do we need to satisfy it comes into discussion.

>> Maria Varmazis: That's a great answer to an admittedly, overly simple question. So, thank you for repeating that. So, if I understand correctly, there are different types of spaceports. It's not just like it's a spaceport, and it's just this one thing. There are different kinds. Can you walk me through what that means?

>> Pam Underwood: Absolutely. So, we have different spaceports grow up, depending on the types of customers they're trying to serve and the locations where they're at. This goes back to the physics question because not all places are really suitable for different kinds of launches. So, right now we have horizontal launches, meaning they take off like an airplane, and they land typically like an airplane. Or we have vertical launches. That's what I think people see more of. Last year alone, our launch rates, 92% of our launches were vertical. So, that's the where the pointy end goes up and the flames come out the bottom. That's a vertical launch. That's the vertical launch. The horizontal launch is a little different. They take off and land like airplanes, and they usually use a runway. So, that's where the different types of spaceports come in.

All the 14 FAA-licensed spaceports that I talked about before have specific features. Five of them are vertical. The rest of them are horizontal. And so, therefore, they'd satisfy different launch vehicle companies depending on the type of vehicle they're operating.

But then, there's other things that spaceports need, too. So many people focus on just the launch. But if you look at the ecosystem that is a spaceport, they have to support a lot more than just a launch day. So many things have to happen in order to lead up that launch. Think about all the testing or manufacturing that has to come in order to enable that launch or the instrumentation checkouts, or builds that they have to have. The spaceport has to have all of that infrastructure to be able to support those preparatory activities in addition to just the launch. So, that goes into the capabilities as well. Can you test your engines from that site, and then go down the road and then actually conduct a launch? Or do you have to test your engine someplace else, and then go to a different place to launch? That's the things that the space companies need to put together when they're looking at the capabilities of the spaceports.

>> Maria Varmazis: And I was going to ask you mentioned, we're talking primarily about private companies, obviously. You know, I was thinking about single vehicle licenses, you know, folks in West Texas going up and flying out of their own private spaceport. Do they have to abide by the same rules? Like, what's involved there?

>> Pam Underwood: Absolutely. So, I said we have 14 FAA-licensed spaceports. We also have something called private spaceports, where they're owned and operated by the company themselves for their own purpose. So, they're not a multi-user site. They're owned by the company, and the company launches their own stuff there.

So, we have three of those in Texas. And the companies that own those also do the launch of the vehicles from those sites. In that case, the FAA has taken out the administrative burden of needing two licenses because the safety is going to be covered. The launch vehicle companies have to get a launch license. The spaceports have to get a spaceport license. But if you're one and the same, you don't need two licenses. One license can cover all of the safety, and the FAA takes that into account. So, when we identify one as what we call a private or exclusive use launch site, meaning it's exclusively for that company, then they only have to get the one license. But all of the safety elements are addressed in that because the FAA has identified that, you know, both need to be covered in that one license.

>> Maria Varmazis: Thank you. I genuinely have been wondering about that one as well. All right. So, we've been talking about different kinds of spaceports. So, this is not an easy question. This is a big part of your job. How does one license spaceports?

>> Pam Underwood: Yeah. So, the spaceports have requirements that they have to meet. So, you have to fill out an application. And it's not like an application to get a driver's license. It's like a page long. You're talking volumes and volumes of data. And primarily, spaceports have to meet things such as control of public access. Because more than likely, they're going to have activities or maybe certain commodities on site that they would, or might be hazardous to people. So, you have to control people, keep people from getting into places they could get hurt. So, control the public access is part of it.

You also have to consider environmental assessment and impacts. Based on the kind of vehicles you want to host there, what could be the environmental implications from that? So, they'll have to undertake an environmental review. They'll also do something called a launch site safety assessment, which will take a look at the operations they've proposed and whether or not they can be done there safely, meeting FAA safety requirements. So, they will really kind of do a feasibility study, if you want to call it, to demonstrate to the FAA that what they want to host there can be done and meet safety.

So, there's quite a bit of information that has to be provided to the FAA to be able to show compliance with the regulations. If they show compliance, then they get a launch license. If they don't, then the FAA will work with them to see if there's other ways they could meet it. But there's, it's a very stringent process, for sure. And safety is we always lead with safety and the FAA, for sure.

>> Maria Varmazis: Oh, 100%. And thinking on safety and, I mean, to me, my mental model, again, super easy if there's nothing around. If there's, if. Right. I mean, I'm sure --

>> Pam Underwood: Yeah.

>> Maria Varmazis: -- not, easy is very relative here.

>> Pam Underwood: No.

>> Maria Varmazis: Yeah. Just go ahead.

>> Pam Underwood: You're right.

>> Maria Varmazis: No, I know.

>> Pam Underwood: You're right.

>> Maria Varmazis: But when you've got an area that's more populated, I mean, what goes into that? Like, how would you even license a spaceport that has, you know, a decent amount of people living around that I can't imagine how complex that is. So, what goes into that?

>> Pam Underwood: What you're talking about is actually, it's part of the spaceport license. But it's actually more scrutinized with this specific launch vehicle because the spaceport license in itself doesn't actually authorize a launch. It authorizes them to then be able to host companies to come use their site, mostly ground-based operations. But the most hazardous piece, when it comes to flight, is actually considered in a launch license that the vehicle companies have to get.

And what you're talking about is paramount. So, we call it a consequence-based assessment. What around could get hurt? Where I live in Florida, there's large population centers in and around Cape Canaveral. There's Orlando. There's a lot of population in this area. So, you have to really consider those consequences. So, the FAA really scrutinizes those safety systems to make sure that the hazards can't get to that populated area. There's other parts of the country where there's not as much population, so you have to, you know, then you're able to say, well, what's around it, that could get hurt.

And you could kind of, we call it a kind of, a consequence-based assessment. And that's part of the new regulations that I talked about, that we published in 2020. It actually makes it easier on the FAA and industry to be able to take into account those consequences. So, when the consequence could be high because the population's around, then we really want to have different assessments for that. But if there's, you know, a lot of agriculture and not a lot of people around, you know, there might be some ability that they have might, maybe a broader range of trajectories that they could use or something. So, it's what we call a consequence-based assessment. And it's been really helpful to the industry and the FAA to open up more launch opportunity.

>> Maria Varmazis: I live in the Boston area. We're super close up to it.

>> Pam Underwood: Oh, yeah.

>> Maria Varmazis: And I know --

>> Pam Underwood: Big time.

>> Maria Varmazis: -- that, yeah, I mean, I, there is often discussion of a spaceport going up in Maine. And it's less populated up there. But up in the northeast, it's like it's crowded. And when I talk to folks who are not into space stuff at all, they're going, how on earth would that be possible up here where, you know, we're all so crowded? And it's just, I just had to, I was just wondering how would that work, so?

>> Pam Underwood: No, it's a great question. And a lot of times, it's going to based on what trajectories. So, you know, whether it's the Maine Spaceport or Michigan, or you name the state, what trajectories do they want to take from there? So, the spaceport itself, again, ground-based operations, very localized hazards. You could only hurt so much on the ground. And that spaceport license is going to address keeping the people away from those hazards. Now, as soon as you launch from there, then now you're taking your hazards in the air, and it can have a wider, broader dispersion.

So, what trajectories can you take without impacting the public you're describing? Overflight of Boston would be a very bad idea. Too many people there. I don't know how you would meet safety criteria. But maybe if you flew, maybe if you took off and flew east, like over the ocean. You know, sometimes there are things like oil platforms to take into account or large shipping lanes that you have to consider because that still is population. But all of that is considered in the launch licensing process. So, every trajectory from a spaceport would be considered for those safety implications. Because that's what we are responsible for in the FAA, to protect for public property, national security, and foreign policy interests of the United States during launch and reentry. So, it's, and again, like I said, we always lead with safety.

>> Maria Varmazis: It sounds so complex, just hats off. I'm very grateful for what the FAA does and I just, the more I learn about it, I'm like, that's a lot. I'm really glad that's not my job. I'm just saying, just.

[ Music ]

We'll be right back after this quick break.

[ Music ]

So, you mentioned security. And we were talking a little bit about the spaceport security reviews. So, could you tell me a little bit about how you've been working on those and what that means?

>> Pam Underwood: You bet. Absolutely. So, a couple of years ago, I was approached by an organization that reviews security at our nation's airports. It's a, really primarily led by the FBI, but they've got multiple agencies involved. And part of that, they came to me they said, well, we were wondering about how security at spaceports is managed. And from an FAA perspective, we're not a security agency. We're a safety organization. We do have, like I mentioned before, control of public access requirements. But that's not the kind of security they're talking about. They're talking about keeping people who want to come in and cause problems from doing it. We're talking about keeping people who may not know there's a hazard there from getting hurt, which is different. So, --

>> Maria Varmazis: Culturally, very different. Yes.

>> Pam Underwood: Culturally, very different. So, the FAA takes care of the latter, meaning the people don't know there's a hazard we don't want them to get hurt. We don't always take care of the former because that's we're a safety organization, not a security. So, what they did want to do, though, they wanted to partner with us to go do an assessment of our nation's spaceports because first off, do we have a problem? Is there vulnerabilities that need to be aware of?

And so, that's what we undertook a couple of years ago. We went out and we asked the spaceports, the 14, licensed spaceports, hey, could we come do an assessment? And really, it's in three areas; physical security, cybersecurity, and counterintelligence counterterrorism. We want to go do an assessment at all 14, just to determine are there vulnerabilities as, to us as a country for these spaceports with the increasing operations. So, we're not quite finished with them. We've done about 10 of them so far. We have four of them left we're going to do by the end of the year. But it's been really great to be able to determine what are the vulnerabilities.

I think what we need to do now after we complete these assessments, is figure out is what is step two. Because it's kind of interesting. Unlike aviation, there's not a real clear authority for a federal security agency to have oversight for space and spaceports. People have maybe little pieces of it, but it's not nearly as clear as on the aviation industry. So, you know, there's some conversations that need to be happened about that. And most importantly, through this process, each spaceport has been learning about, you know, different areas maybe that they could do a little bit better. As their industry grows, we kind of become more of a secure. And honestly, the way the FAA looks at it, that enhances safety. Because remember, we always lead by safety. So, if we're able to provide some best practices and some feedback to our spaceports about increased security, we feel like it's going to enhance safety too, as well. So, we're really excited about this opportunity.

>> Maria Varmazis: Yeah. Thank you for walking me through that. As I said, to me, it seems like two very different cultures, and I come from the other one of how can I break things. So, --

>> Pam Underwood: Purposely break things. I want to purposely get in and break something.

>> Maria Varmazis: Exactly. Or how can I defend against the person trying to break the thing? And when I started moving into the space world, and I was asking people like, can't that thing be broken? People are like, well, why would you want to break that thing? And it's like, well, people do.

>> Pam Underwood: Sometimes. Yeah,

>> Maria Varmazis: Yeah. Some, sadly, sadly. Yeah. So, it's been very interesting hearing. And anecdotally, for me, how the space industry is sort of, compared to where I came from in cybersecurity, catching up to that point and trying to figure out how to get there, and also who owns the process. So, I will be watching with great interest to figure out, to see how that's going. Because it's sadly important. But again, it is a safety issue. So, I'm just very glad that the FAA is working on it. That's a wonderful thing.

>> Pam Underwood: Absolutely. Well, it's part of our industry growing up a little bit. So, the original Space, Commercial Space Launch Act was passed in 1984. And the space industry looks a lot different in 1984. I mean, we don't even drive cars still from nine-- I don't know that, well, some people might. There's very few cars on the, there are very few cars on the road from 1984. So, it just, it looked a lot different. And security wasn't really pronounced then because, at the time, the vast majority was being done by the government for the government. Commercial industry was a little, a little different.

Well, now, here we are in 2023, and it is 180 out from that. The vast majority of it is being done by the commercial industry. And the government is now the benefactor of being able to just buy services. So, it just takes a look at we've got a little bit of growing up to do because the industry has changed quite a bit from when our laws were originally passed. And I think security is just one of those areas.

>> Maria Varmazis: I'm watching it with great interest, again, personally from where I came from before. And it's just it's fascinating because it is kind of a bummer. Like, especially when you talk about doing really cool, exciting things, it's like, ah, security, not so fun. But it's necessary. So, I'll get off my soapbox on that one. I'm soapboxing. Why am I doing that? So, and please tell me if I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. The FAA does not define what a spaceport is. Is that true? And if so, --

>> Pam Underwood: That's true.

>> Maria Varmazis: -- why? Yeah.

>> Pam Underwood: So, it, what's actually defined in regulation is launch or reentry site. That is actually the regulatory term. We call them spaceports because it's a generic term that refers to both. It's both a launch and reentry site. So, the FAA does not define the term spaceport. You will not find that in our regulations. Now, I will tell you in 2018, Congress in the FAA Reauthorization Act did define what a spaceport is. But that's in a reauthorization act. It's not really regulations because we didn't flow it down into our regulations yet. But they're starting to go in that direction. But it's not defined. Like I said, officially, they're either a launch or a reentry site. Yeah. That's absolutely true. But we call them spaceport just because it genericizes both in one word.

>> Maria Varmazis: Does it cause problems that is not defined? I mean, is it not a big deal? Or is it just a matter of nomenclature? I mean, is it a --

>> Pam Underwood: To me, it's a, you know, kind of like slang. So, rather than calling it the proper name of launch or reentry site, we've called it spaceport, which has kind of been what we would generally call slang in the industry. So, it hasn't caused problems from a regulatory perspective because they will either get a launch site operator license or a reentry site operator license from the FAA. And once they have those, for example, you could go on the FAA launch site, launch website now, and you'll see a map. And it says, spaceports. It is a real, --

>> Maria Varmazis: Okay, so.

>> Pam Underwood: -- we call it on our, it's on our map. So, we even use it kind of as a generic term. But the proper name really is launch or reentry site.

>> Maria Varmazis: All right. So, that's spaceports. Let's look forward to the future if we could. Big open-ended question here. What do you think the FAA's future role and mission in the airspace world is going to look like, terms especially like airspace traffic, and all that kind of stuff?

>> Pam Underwood: So, it's, I think it's going to be continuing to keep pace with industry. That's kind of going to be our challenge because the industry is innovating so much. It is such an exciting time in the industry. If you look at the technologies they're bringing into the market to try to make launch happen, bring launch costs down, and bring up efficiency, we as the regulator need to be able to continue to preserve safety. Because we're the FAA. Like I've said multiple times, we lead with safety. Preserve safety but not inhibit that industry.

So, we're very fortunate in this country. We have the best and most launch infrastructure of any country hands-down without questions. No other country has as much as the United States does or the history. Because like I said, our Space Launch Act passed in 1984. Since then, we've licensed over 630 activities. That's huge. No other country has that rich commercial market. So, that's really exciting. What we need to do is continue to let the industry innovate because that allows us to keep that competitive edge and helps the US, the companies, you know, keep finding those markets they're after.

But then we also need to branch out into international standards. So, much like what the aviation did, industry did globally, years ago. I mean, English is the language spoken for air traffic control among other things in the aviation industry. How can we promulgate those U.S. practices because we have good experience and know how to regulate safety, to how can that become the global standard? Because then it doesn't matter where you're launching from, whether it's a U.S. company, or otherwise, that same level of safety is preserved. And that's exactly what they do on the aviation. And that's exactly what we should be doing in the space industry.

Our industry is going global. And it's not because we're driving business overseas. Right? That's usually looked at negatively. Buy America and keep American. In this case, they're chasing markets. They're trying, they're seeing foreign customers. And those foreign customers often want them to launch from their countries for convenience reasons of the customers. That's not a bad thing. That helps the industry. That helps the US. So, how can we make sure that that, you know, same level of safety occurs no matter where they launch from? So, the U.S. is uniquely positioned to be able to provide that global leadership in this area.

>> Maria Varmazis: Yeah. I just imagine if point-to-point takes off, I mean, how would that coordination work? Because I have these conversations with people, and they're kind of going, I don't know how that's going to happen. We just hope somebody figures it out. And I'm going, well, who's going to do that? So --

>> Pam Underwood: What I like to think of is look at what we handled with aircraft certification. So, at multiple times a day, thousands of times a day, United States airplanes land in other countries and come back all the time. And those other countries have accepted the safety assessments that the FAA completed which is an aircraft certification on those aircrafts. They've accepted the certification of the pilots that are operating those vehicles. And we do that through agreements with another country. They accept ours. It's like a reciprocity. They agree to accept it.

That's the same kind of model we should go to for space. So, if it's a U.S. company leaving New Mexico and landing in pick the country, London, Germany, wherever, it's going to be 100% licensed by the FAA. Because we are responsible for licensing all U.S. entities. Anyone or thing organized under the laws of the US, we will license, no matter where they conduct their activities. So, in those cases, why wouldn't we try to go towards a model where those countries accept the FAA license, just like they did with the aircraft certification and the pilot certificates? That's what we should go towards.

And I'm hoping then that eases people's concern about how do we handle this international point-to-point transportation because now we'll have some norms that we can follow from the aviation industry. Space is regulated very different. They're very, very different safety assessments. But the idea should be the same. The reciprocity between governments would, I think, absolutely paved the way for that point-to-point or other global international markets.

>> Maria Varmazis: Yeah. And I know a lot of people are working on that coordination. And there's a lot of talk about that. So, I, again, another, I'm personally watching with great interest to see how that develops because it just seems to, something new seems to be unfolding. Very quickly. Almost every day I'm tuning in, I'm going, oh, something else has happened. That's really cool.

>> Pam Underwood: It is.

>> Maria Varmazis: My head spins --

>> Pam Underwood: Me, too.

>> Maria Varmazis: -- a little bit. It's, yeah.

>> Pam Underwood: Me, too.

>> Maria Varmazis: You work in this thing.

>> Pam Underwood: Me, too.

>> Maria Varmazis: How do you keep up with all of this? My goodness.

>> Pam Underwood: I know. I know. It happens so frequently. It really does. It's great. That is a great problem to have, though. Really a nice problem to have. The industry is doing so well. When it becomes normal, when it becomes complacent, that's a good thing. That's when we know we've achieved safety because people aren't worried about it. They know it's safe. And the industry is prospering because it's happening so frequently. There's no problems with it. So, I, that's not a bad thing.

>> Maria Varmazis: Yeah. I'm imagining, in your mind, is the goal like, one day, that if we have that kind of space travel, that it's going to be just sort of like getting on a plane today? Just not a big deal?

>> Pam Underwood: Absolutely. When we get on an airplane, it's not a matter of if I'm going to arrive. It's am I going to get there on time? And are my bags going to show up? You know. That's what we worry about. And we're not quite there yet, with human, with spaceflight, especially human spaceflight. But it absolutely could be there, you know, in coming years. With increased experience of our companies and as these vehicles start to become more reliable, absolutely.

>> Maria Varmazis: I wanted to give you the floor, if there's anything that you wanted to sort of plug for what your team is working on or what you're working on. I wanted to give you that opportunity.

>> Pam Underwood: Yeah, the big plug I would have is for the industry. So, anyone listening, take notice what the commercial space industry is doing. It is really amazing. I know that, generally, probably a lot of your audience hears about the big names that, you know, are on the TV all the time. But I promise you, for every big company, there's a lot more little ones trying to get there. Take notice of that. It's really exciting. The things that they're doing, the innovation, that technology they're trying to bring to market, is definitely something worthwhile to keep track of. Not just the big ones.

I mean, we've got companies now developing a wide variety of platforms to launch from. Not just your traditional rockets with the pointy end up in the fire at the bottom. It's going to be really, really exciting in the coming years. And so, the FAA, like I said before, our job is to keep pace with them. Have to keep, make sure that we're regulating for safety, but then let them continue to innovate so that the industry can continue to grow. Because we're definitely already the global leader. Now, let's stay that way, and really push it into the future.

[ Music ]

>> Maria Varmazis: And that's it for T-Minus "Deep Space" for July 15, 2023. We'd love to know what you think of this podcast. You can email us at space@n2k.com or submit the survey in the show notes. Your feedback ensures that we deliver the information that keeps you a step ahead in the rapidly changing space industry. This episode was produced by Alice Carruth. Mixing by Elliot Peltzman and Tre Hester, with original music and sound design by Elliot Peltzman. Our Executive Producer is Brandon Karpf. Our Chief Intelligence Officer is Eric Tillman. And I'm Maria Varmazis. Thanks for listening.

[ Music ]