S2E48 - License to Launch: Regulating the Space Industry

Elsbeth Magilton interviews Kiersten Haugen (Federal Aviation Administration) and Jessica Noble (NanoRacks LLC) about what's new in space law, including what space law encompasses and the latest rules for commercial companies operating in space. Coming later in July please enjoy some "reruns" and staff favorites from our first two seasons. We'll be back with new episodes in August!

Kiersten Haugen is an Attorney at the Federal Aviation Administration, with the Commercial Space Law Branch. Before joining the FAA she was an Assistant District Counsel with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. She graduated from the University of Nebraska College of Law in 2016, and during her time here she interned with the General Counsels to the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Welcome Kiersten! 

Jessica Noble is general counsel for NanoRacks, an aerospace company focused on in-space platforms for commercial, research, and educational activities on the International Space Station and beyond, as well as providing support for satellite integration and deployment. Prior to NanoRakcs, Jessica was with LMI Advisors, advising communications companies on regulatory and policy frameworks. She started her legal career as a trial attorney at the New Mexico District Attorney’s Office and is a graduate of the University of Florida and the Catholic University School of Law. 

Transcript

This is Tech Refactored. I'm your host today, Elsbeth Magilton, the executive director of the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center at the University of Nebraska. Very often when I host the show, we're speaking about my favorite topic: space. And that is exactly what is happening today. And we're joined by two of my friends,

One of whom is a Nebraska law alumni, Kirsten Haugen, and Jessica Noble. Kirsten is an attorney at the federal aviation administration with the commercial space law branch. Before joining the FAA, she was an assistant district council with the US Army Corps of Engineers. She graduated from the University of Nebraska college of law in 2016.

And during her time here, she interned with the general counsels to the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Welcome Kirsten. Thank you so much for having me very happy to be here. Um, and I'll add the fun, legal caveat that all lawyers have that all views expressed during, um, today's show are my own and not that of my employer,

any mistakes are my own  and, uh, thanks for having me. Jessica is general counsel for Nanoracks, an aerospace company focused on in-space platforms for commercial research and educational activities on the international space station and beyond as well as providing support for satellite integration and deployment.

Prior to Nanoracks, Jessica was with LMI advisors, advising communications companies on regulatory and policy frameworks. She started her legal career as a trial attorney at the New Mexico district attorney's office and is a graduate of the University of Florida and of the Catholic University School of Law.

Thanks for being here. Thanks for having me. I will also note, uh, that, uh, I am here today in my own personal capacity. And the views that I may share on this podcast today are my own, they do not necessarily represent the views of my employer, Nanoracks LLC, or our holding company, Voyage or Space Holdings incorporated.

So our general focus today is on commercial space launches or private companies launching things into space and the updated rules here in the US. Uh, but I know a lot of people are not super familiar with the laws and processes space companies have to follow. So I kind of wanna spend the first half of our show outlining the general regulatory framework here in the US.

You know, we can start at the 10,000 foot view. What is space law? So space law would refer to the international and domestic laws that govern activities in outer space. Uh, it is rooted in five core space treaties that date back from the 1960s and seventies, and they essentially established, uh, ground rules for states' activities in outer space.

Most importantly, uh, the outer space treaty- I believe it's 1967.  Yes, it is! My professor would be proud. Yep. Um, the outer space treaty established, you know, these cornerstone principles that outer space is free for exploration and use by all states. And it prohibits appropriation over celestial bodies and limits the use of the moon in those celestial bodies to peaceful purposes.

Um, those are- that's kind of our cornerstone. And then apart from those, we have domestic laws that would govern space operations, and at least from the FAA's purview, um, and our primary piece of legislation is the Commercial Space Launch Act, which authorizes the secretary of transportation to oversee license and regulate commercial launch and reentry activities.

Um, as well as the operation of launch or reentry sites within the United States, um, or is carried out by US citizens, kind of a, a, a very overroad framework there. Jessica, I wanted to give you a second if you had anything to add. So for private companies who also operate in this, in this arena, um, there- there are the FAA launch regulations that apply to this engaging in launch activities, but you also have additional regulatory frameworks here in the US

that govern, uh, communications activities from, from satellites, for both US and international entities that who are looking to communicate, uh, within, uh, the territories of the United States, as well as, uh, us companies who are going to be conducting, uh, either remote imaging or remote sensing via satellite.

Uh, and then for- for any of these different types of companies, you also have, uh, sort of your traditional, you know, corporate, uh, law frameworks. And some of those can, uh, can be environmental. Some of them and deal, deal with export controls, especially since space technology kind of falls into that, uh, dual use category of both commercial and, and military, but that's, um, try to give a high level, uh, description of some of those

additional areas of, of regulatory applications. So you're saying one of the things, uh, that I often find myself saying to students that I think sometimes irks them off. When I say the best space lawyer is a good lawyer, right? That it's, it's, it's about law and it's about lots of different types of laws and how they interact with the space industry, uh, particularly in the private sector.

Exactly. Uh, it's going to be, uh, anything from employment law to administrative law, to, um, to, you know, national security to the space treaties that Kirsten was just bringing up. So let's draw the, the, kind of the connection line between the outer space treaty and sort of these really, you know, big international agreements that people may have heard of,

right? They, they definitely have more attention to, um, Why things are licensed. I'll- I'll- I'll pose it to you this way. I am sure we have all been at cocktail parties where you get the, the vaguely intoxicated guy who comes at wiser lawyers in space. Right? Mm-hmm, why do we have to slow down, uh, space innovation and slow down tech companies with lawyers and law?

Um, so why do we need to license these sorts of activities?  I absolutely know the cocktail parties that you're talking about and I always joke that I'm like, I don't know how many times I have to explain that my job is real to friends and family . Mm-hmm. And that it's- as a public employee that their taxpayer dollars help fund it, it's, it's very real.

But, um, yeah, so, but the connection is, is pretty straightforward and that is just under those core space treaties, including the outer space treaty. Uh, states are internationally responsible for the activities of their nationals in outer space. So in order to ensure that commercial operators comply with us international legal, legal obligations, as well as our own domestic laws, we require in the United States, that commercial operators who are either from the United States or organized under US

law, as well as any operators who launch or reenter from the territorial United States need to obtain an authorization from the FAA to do that operation. Um, and the only, I guess the only caveat that I would add is that from the FAA side, we don't license any US government launches. So we don't, um, we don't have anything to do with

any NASA or Department of Defense operations. And that just stems from the simple concept that the government doesn't need permission from itself. Um, but yeah, that's, that's the essential connection. Jessica what about when we're looking at other activities besides launch? Right. So traditionally, those other activities have existed in the realms of satellite communications or, or satellite imaging and, um, you know, as use of different orbits, uh, around the earth, uh, we like to

uh, we refer to them as either geo-stationary–so the arc that goes around the equator–or, um, or most often we also hear about lower earth orbit. Um, like for example, when we hear about SpaceXs, Starlink satellites, uh, those, uh, are operating in what we consider to be lower or.  as there, the use of these different orbits has proliferated.

We, uh, we have come to understand that, uh, those orbits can get crowded, the use of spectrum, our radio frequency, to be able to conduct those communications can become crowded. So in compliance also with, uh, those obligations that Kirsten talked about under the outer space treaty for authorization and continuing supervision,

um, we and other countries around the world have, uh, have noted that there needs to be some rules of the road for managing, uh, use of those orbits and those spectrum resources, because they're- they're finite. So there, there needs to be some management of them. So you mentioned other countries in there, so, you know, we're talking a little bit about the licensing process here in the United States, um, and that stemming from our obligations, um, for anything that our nationals do in space from the outer space treaty, uh, it follows.

And I think we, that other countries also are doing things like this. So, um, my question is just sort of how are other countries? And this is again a huge question. So 10,000 foot view here at the most, uh, of, of what other countries are, are doing in operating in space. Is it similar to the us? Are they, are they

drastically different regimes? Uh, internationally, you know, I think it really depends on the level of activity that, that you're seeing from those countries as far as, you know, are they, are they launching satellites? Do they have launch capabilities of, of their own? Um, those that do have launch capabilities of their own have, uh, have seen fit to, uh, to include or to promulgate their own

regulations for launch activities. Most of the time, what we have seen is regulation of, uh, spectrum use for, for satellites and for, uh, remote sensing or imaging and the requirements under each of those regimes can vary greatly, depending on, uh, I'd say where- where the country is in the life cycle of their space operations and, uh, what resources they're using for inspiration for their regulatory framework.

So what other agencies, we know the FAA was certain right for the launch piece. What other agencies are involved in, in the process of supervising our nationals or our private companies as they operate in space? So for purposes of licensing, uh, use of spectrum for, for commercial entities, that's going to be the FCC, the federal communications commission, um, for

uh, for licensing of remote sensing and imaging that falls under Noah and for, uh, I think I had mentioned previously as well, uh, different requirements for exporting space technology. So depending on who- whom a US company may be working with, they're gonna be working with, uh, non-US entities, um, or non-US persons in the, uh, the application of, of their space activities.

Then they could need to get a license, either from us department of commerce or, uh, the department of state, depending on whether their, uh, their application falls under, uh, the EER or the export administration regulations or the IAR, the international traffic and arms regulations.  So let's bring this all together, right?

Cause we have talked about international obligations. We've talked about, uh, space activities outside of launch all the different mini agencies that are involved. And when you start breaking it down like that, at least to me very quickly feels a little overwhelming to think through what that process looks like.

So let's say my name is Elab Dusk  and I want to launch a rocket. Um, and we'll, and we'll make this a simple one, right? We'll we'll just say I want one single communication satellite into geo- stationary orbit. We won't get into Starlink. Um, what process do I need to follow legally again? 10,000 foot view. Sure.

So the process actually begins with the FAA prior to the submission of an application for a license, uh, because of the vast diversity in vehicles and operations, we require that applicants engage in what we call pre-application consultation with the FAA. And at the stage, we kind of discuss the scope of the proposed operation, identify any possible licensing issues and really just help position the operator to submit an acceptable application.

Um, when we review that application, when it comes in, we're basically looking at five major components. The, the meat and potatoes really of the application review is our safety review. Um, this includes evaluation of, you know, safety related features of the vehicle, any safety procedures, any like necessary coordination that the operator needs to do with say local fire departments, the coast guard, um, or even the FAA for notices to airmen.

Um, We also have an environmental review, which can be a pretty time consuming process, honestly, under NEPA. Um, then there's the policy and payload review. And you know, since we're talking about the interagency coordination that's involved, yes, other agencies may have a licensing role depending on the scope of the operation, but when it comes to our license, we, interagency consultation is actually part of our evaluation.

Before we give an operator a license, we conduct a policy and payload review to make sure that the proposed mission is not gonna jeopardize any national security or foreign policy interests. Um, so to that extent, we're working with NASA, you know, the DOD, Noah, FCC, the state department, um, to ensure that, you know, we get the, we get the green light before we give the license.

Um, and really the last piece of the application is the, we have a maximum probable loss termination, and financial responsibility, um, operators are required to obtain a certain amount of insurance. Um, and once we've got that application, we have 180 days under the commercial space launch act to determine whether to issue a license.

If we go ahead and issue a license, then that document will specify the- what are the activities that are authorized, um, as well as any conditions or limitations on that authorization. And then, yeah, once if you've got a license, we continue to monitor for compliance, perform safety inspections, and you're good to go.

So, Jessica, could you give us the, kind of the private sector view on this? Um, I, I think the second half of the show, we're gonna talk a little bit about the new rules. Um, and I think the new rule is largely in response to some historic concerns about the licensing process being, um, difficult to navigate. Um, so can you talk a little bit more about those kind of historic concerns, um, or, or maybe dispute them, but, but whatever your thoughts are on that process, maybe pre 2001 or 2021.

There had been complaints about, uh, about the, the process being, being cumbersome. Uh, there have been complaints across the, the industry, I'd say nauseam, uh, regarding the- I guess the slow pace of the interagency process. And I think that, you know, that, that wasn't just a criticism of, of the FAA. I think that you saw it in the other licensing agencies as well.

Um, So I think that there had, uh, there had been some issues as far as just the, the length of the process waiting for waiting for answers and, um, not having a whole lot of insight into what was happening during the, the interagency processes. I'm not sure how founded those complaints necessarily were as far as the FAA review process went.

But I can say from, from other areas where, uh, people had been applying for licenses that included, you know, an interagency review process and I'll bring up, uh, Noah's regulations not to take us too far afield, but there had been, uh, a concern from remote sensing operators during the interagency review process that, um, when these applications went to

the DOD or different agencies or groups within the DOD that it would get lost in a little bit of a black hole. So, um, I- I'm not saying, I don't know for sure if that was the same issue that was happening with the FAA, but that had been a concern that we saw in other areas of, of the industry as well.

Um, and I don't know, Kirsten if, uh, that was a, if you can speak to any of that, if that was an issue or concern that, that you all saw and were thinking about when you were going through the, the rule making, uh, process. Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, we prior to, you know, putting out a proposed rule that would ultimately become part 450 in the code of federal regulations, you know, we had a spark, uh, basically a committee of industry representatives.

Explaining different com different complexities with our existing licensing framework. And I think by far, in a way, the comments that we received, you know, both prior to putting out the proposal and even after we proposed reg text and got comments from the public on, it was just that what doesn't work in, you know, today's

economy today's- you know, the current state of the industry is that, um, the regulations were too prescriptive and that, you know, we tried to apply a one size fits all model for certain safety standards. I mean, these regulations are very detailed of course. Um, but that, you know, in those prescriptive requirements, we were essentially

prohibiting industry from coming up with more innovative standards, different ways to meet those regulations. Um, the same basically achieving the same level of safety, but through a different means, which, you know, it hampers development, it's- it stifles technology, um, advancement. And so the idea was just that

if we could make this more of a performance based framework, uh, we would essentially give a performance standard and then operators would have the freedom and flexibility to come up with whatever methods, um, they wanna use to meet that safety standard that we could, you know, remove that prescriptiveness basically help, help prop up industry to come up with, you know, more innovative means to, to access and use space.

That was, that was a big one. Um, but I think apart from that too, is I- the, it was overly burdensome is another comment that we received that it was, it was burdensome on operators to obtain multiple licenses prior to part 450, the FAA imposed a different set of requirements for each type of launch and reentry vehicle.

And those- like I said, those requirements were prescriptive in nature and, you know, to give an example, um, part 430, 143 says no vehicle safety operations personnel can work more than 12 consecutive hours or 12- or 14 consecutive work days. So the switch to the performance standard would say that, you know, we're not gonna

specify the specific number of hours, um, that somebody can work, but instead we're gonna require an operator to adopt procedures that ensure that safety critical personnel are physically and mentally capable of performing their assigned tasks. Um, so that's- that's kind of a general sense of this. Um, in that part, 450 also provides a licensing framework that applies to all vehicles and theoretically all types of operations.

So operators don't need to go through our regulations and get, you know, a launch license and then a reentry license, which was the, the previous framework. And I say previous, because it's , I mean, it will, it will be off the books I believe- March 2025 or 2026, but it's actually still operators still have the ability right now to continue to use the existing, um, pre- 450 framework for a few more years.

Are, are there operators that are taking that route just because they're familiar with it or, or can you help me understand what would be the incentive? Yeah. Cause it seems to me that performance based is so much better for a company than prescriptive! Yeah. That, that, why would they opt into the old rule?

Right. So certainly operators, uh, from what we've experienced so far, have a lot more interest in, in, you know, part 450, but the, we didn't go with the light switch approach, and we kind of explained this in the preamble to the final rule, because a number of operators- it's, it's quite common to get a launch license that is for a series of license or a series of launches over a set number of years.

And so the license I believe is usually good for five, like three to five years. And so we didn't want it to be the case that you know, at the flip of a light switch, a, you know, whatever licenses were already in existence would cease to work  so the idea, the idea was that we, the role would take effect and then five years after 450 is effective, you know, that would give you a window of time for any existing existing licenses, you know, to run their course.

Um, yeah, so we didn't create a regulatory vacuum, I think is the central central purpose there. So this is maybe a little bit outside of the bounds of space, so if you, if you don't have an answer to it, we can cut this, but I'm really interested in performance based versus prescriptive regulation approaches in other fields, right,

Are other, um, tech based fields using this approach. Is this something that other agencies are doing? Yeah, so honestly I don't, I don't have a ton of knowledge on this, I do know that from the FAA standpoint, you know, commercial space is the first I think to dive really head-first into a performance based framework, but we have tested it out on some other areas of the aviation side.

Um, but I, but I really don't have specific examples of other tech fields where performance based has been the shift. This has just been like a general call from industry that they want flexibility. And so long as the argument's valid that so long as they're providing, you know, a method equivalent to the level of safety that we require, why doesn't matter how you get there.

Um, but I, yeah, I honestly don't have specific knowledge. Mm-hmm, , I'm a little bit curious too, about the execution o- of this, right. So if they come up with the performance based standards, um, that reach the same measure of safety, my expectation is that there was some measure of in-house expertise for the prescriptive reg- regulations, right, right.

Of somebody who could review that, who had the right level of expertise. When you come in with performance based in the companies, helping to set those milestones and set those markers, um, does that create a more significant hardship on the agency side? Right. Is that harder, then, for your office, um, to review those in a meaningful way?

And, and do you think that there could be an impact on safety? So I think that, um, so AST, I'm sorry, which is the commercial space transportation office of the FAA, um, you know, they've been, we've been adamant up and down that the new rule will not affect the level of safety that has been required through

our regulatory framework. There's no change to that, but it's it, it's absolutely a valid point though, that we are continuing to see now with new applications that are coming in different methodologies than what we have seen in the past. And that does- it is a heavier lift on the agency to review these.

So in terms of like the balance of, you know, how, how do we protect public safety without stifling innovation? Which is central to the FAA because we do have this dual statutory mandate to both promote commercial space while also ensuring public safety. Um, and, and by public, I mean, in persons and property that are not involved in the launch under title 51 with that dual mandate, um, It is it, this, the shift toward performance based rule making is one that goes toward giving the industry more flexibility at potentially the expense of, you know, heavier resource requirements on the agency.

I think our hope though, to try and balance that out further is to just continue, um, you know, working closely with industry they're, you know, putting out, um, advisory circulars, which are guidance to help explain certain means of compliance with the regulation to give operators kind of a- almost like a shortcut of here's one example and usually the means of compliance very closely match

what we have accepted in the past under, uh, the other regulatory framework will give means of compliance. Um, but we're also working with industry very closely to, you know, kind of help understand these methodologies and make sure that they are equivalent to levels of safety. Um, but it's, it is a challenge this quite frankly, Regulations are very difficult, especially in this industry.

It's really difficult to come up with a set of requirements that is applicable to all regulated parties for every possible situation, especially  in an industry that is so rapidly developing and growing. Um, so it's just, it is a challenge, but quite frankly, this is why I went to law school and why I find my work very fulfilling most of the time.

So are, is that challenge or that piece of it- is that so far speeding the process up or, or how is it? How's the timeline compare to former applications to, to now? So. Quite frankly, I don't think we've had, we haven't driven this vehicle long enough on the road to really be able to assess this. Okay. Um, I think in the interim it does feel like our review process is perhaps a little bit slower because, you know, even just within the agency, we're kind of- we're, everything is, everything is new.

Everything about applying this framework is new and we're still kind of getting our bearings and figuring out how to run like a well oiled machine like we did under, say, part 417 for launch licenses. So there is, there are certainly growing pains, but our ultimately ultimately the review time for the 180 day deadline that doesn't change, that's dictated by statute.

Our regulations still have to, you know, work within that framework. And I think that with 450, another, another piece that, you know, AST has done a great job of encouraging is, you know, honing in on that pre-application consultation to make sure that early on, before that 180 day review clock begins, we are working with operators to understand the nature of the operation.

You know, if they are going to propose novel means of compliance, our regulations require that we kind of talk through some of those for certain areas. If they are, um, heavily technical. And yeah, it is that's, I think that's the best way I can put it. They are, they are growing pains, but, um, it does seem like we're providing the flexibility that we needed to really, you know, move forward with the robustness of today's industry.

So, uh, Kirsten, I want you to answer this, but Jessica, I also want you to answer this. So what has been the reaction right? Is industry happy? You know, I know you had the board that looked at this, uh, companies that maybe were. Uh, we'll say unsettled prior about the length of period or worried about the interagency piece.

Um, what has been the response from the industry? So the industry reaction, I think after 450 was generally favorable; um, but quite frankly, anyone in AST would probably be better suited to really explain this. I think we're still getting lots of feedback on our advisory circulars, um, which is quite helpful. Um, I think that there are points at which the industry maybe would've liked even more flexibility and a little bit more deference in determining some of the methodologies and their compliance with safety standards.

But ultimately, you know, we can't derogate from our, our responsibility to protect public safety and, you know, make the determinations that our, our responsibility by law. So it's, you know, I think the attorneys and for sure, ASU were confident that the rule we put forth preserves the level of safety that we wanted.

And we're hopeful that, you know, with all, despite all of the growing pains that ultimately we're gonna get to a place that we have a much better, more suitable regulatory framework, um, going forward. That's usually the hallmark of a good compromise, right? No one is a hundred percent happy, right? Oh my gosh.

Well at least, you know, ideally we wouldn't be, we'd be out of the position where. Have to we, we could stop issuing so many waivers, which was another, you know, another one of the problems under the, the previous regime is that if, if everything didn't quite fit the prescribed requirements, if, if your situation is novel and it doesn't fit, we'd need to look at waivers, which is, it's an extra burden on the agency.

It's an extra burden on operators, it's more paperwork, um, the, the idea is to get us out of, out of that pattern going forward.

Yeah, I, I would just note that, uh, while the, the response from, from industry has, has generally been, been favorable, um, and I would say like, if you sat in on any of the meetings of the, the industry associations, you, you know, post, uh, uh, post the passage of, of, uh, 450, you would hear a lot of positive feedback, but then also if you go and you read articles and say space news, you are going to see opinions all over the board.

And I think that that Kirsten just, you know, hit the, the nail on the head. You're going to have, uh, people who are, are not quite happy, um, folks- and folks who are okay with it. But I you're going to have folks who believe that there should be no regulation of space activities, and who are going to, uh, who are going to make that opinion known on every public platform, which, uh, which they can, but it doesn't fall into, uh, you know, what is practically needed, both from

the standpoint of our, our international requirements, or even just from, you know, a day to day operational requirement from the perspective of, uh, of commercial entities. I think for the most part, we understand that having a- having effective regulations, not overburdensome or overbearing regulations, but effective regulation makes for a, a more robust space industry and helps support.

At least in our, our perspective, the US space economy. So with any regulation, right, it's this delicate balance between keeping people safe and encouraging industry growth. And I remember, um, notable Republican Congressman turned NASA administrator of years back, uh, making the comment that a failure to regulate the space industry was de facto regulation.

Um, Uh, meaning that if we didn't provide a structure that was easy to navigate an understandable and some sense of security for the space industry, they couldn't get solid investments. So we were squashing them by failing to regulate them. Um, Kirsten I'm certain as an employee, you cannot tell you can maybe not answer this question  but if you can please do, um, do you think this fits the bill?

Does- does 450 hit that balance? Right? Are we providing the structure that they need without overly burdening them? So I think that the FAA is quite confident that part 450 does achieve the balance. I mean, as with any regulation, it's quite likely that it will require some amendment and modification as we, you know, basically work these, these provisions and find out, you know, any, any pain points for industry and what's not working.

But I think that at this point, you know, the industry- we, our agency is quite confident that these regulations, um, achieve the right level of safety, you know, are consistent with our past practice and will continue to protect the public, the uninvolved persons and property, um, from the hazards that are inherent to launch and reentry activities going forward.

But we acknowledge though that, you know, it's- no one wants to be regulated, no, no one is like, man, I really wish that there were more paperwork requirements involved in what I do. That's just, that's just not a piece of any regulated party and I, I, that's not unique to space by any means. So, you know, I think that we are doing-

what we can with an industry that is so rapidly developing, um, and involves just such a, a great diversity of vehicles and missions, um, you know, to, to just make sure that our statutory mandate is fulfilled. That was very diplomatic. It was a good answer. Um, I, I was just going to add in there that while no one wants, no one wants to necessarily to be regulated,

no one wants to do more paperwork. Uh, no one also, or at least industry does not want to have surprises later on down the road industry would like to have some sort of, uh, reliability on, uh, on what is expected of them and what they can do as far as their, as their operations. So, uh, I, I think that- I do think from, from what we have seen so far of, of part 450 and how these regulations are, um, have come down as far as what industry has talked about, you know, especially in regard to looking at, um, more performance based standards rather than-

than prescriptive, um, it gives them that leeway, but also gives them a lane to swim in. And to say, as long as I am meeting these types of standards, then I should reasonably expect to be able to acquire a launch license. Or I also apply that to other areas of the, of the space industry as well, but having a reasonable expectation of if-

if I follow these rules, this will happen. And it's also something that you can, you can show your investors as Elizabeth. You, you mentioned, uh, a, uh, former, uh, Congressman had, had mentioned as well, but that is important is- they, they ask, what do you expect? You will, you will be able to accomplish within say the next three years, the next five years, the next 10 years, as far as your business plans,

and is there a regulatory framework that exist for you to be able to accomplish those? What are the, the hurdles that you may need to face in order to accomplish those plans? So the more clarity that there is on those regulatory requirements, the better it is for, for industry. So as we've said, 450 really focuses on launch and re-entry, um, but there's a bit in the middle there, right,

of- of what the operation is doing while it's in space. Um, and so, you know, my, my question here is, again, another broad one, but sort of what's going on there when we're looking at on orbit activities. Um, what, what are space operators concerned about, excited about, what's happening in the regulatory sphere right now for on orbit activities?

So right now, that is an interesting question.  um, as, as you mentioned there, uh, there is not, uh, outside of, uh, communication, satellite communications that we talked about earlier, or, uh, remote sensing or, or imaging. There, there's not a regulatory framework in, in the us that addresses those on orbit activities outside of, out outside of those examples.

Uh, and we are in a time of change within the space industry, where there are a number of companies, uh, mine included who are, who are looking to build their own platforms in space, both crude and un-crude. Um, so looking to- to house people on their in space platforms and to be able to live and work,

vacation, um, to all kinds of things in space. And right now there is not a regulatory framework for those activities. And it is an area where there- there's a there's question from, from industry. As I mentioned before, there will be those who will say, no, you don't need to regulate. There's uh, uh, famously, uh, been a quote within the, the space industry of-

of- uh, an attorney who has asked, "well, are you going to regulate playing the violin or brushing your teeth on, on orbit?" And I don't think anyone is truly looking at, you know, those, those activities, but it does raise a question where is the, the appropriate line for regulation on orbit and, uh, then past thatm

which entity- who, who is the appropriate authority to regulate those- those on orbit activities? Um, and I don't know if Kirsten can really talk to this too much because she's in one of those entities that, you know, we've been, we've been bringing up, but it's know there's been question as do we, do we continue to house?

Uh, or do we- uh, lay this authority with the, with the FAA, or do we look to another entity? Um, and there are those who have proposed also the, the department of commerce and the office of space commerce as a potential regulatory authority, so there hasn't been an answer to date, uh, as that question and, uh, Congress has not acted on this yet.

I'll toss this to Kirsten, I think. Yeah. So, um, I, I think I've kind of like outlay- outlined our authority briefly, but just to be perfectly clear, the FAA license would cover the launch and the re-entry component. And so really like, you know, we have within our regulations, a definition of when launch begins and when launch ends, you know, same for re-entry.

But between those two, between those two operations there, that's where the, the regulatory void exists. Um, and I think that what's important to keep in mind, is that what we explained earlier about, you know, the, the outer space treaty international law continues to hold states responsible for the activities that happen in outer space.

So there- that regulatory void, isn't just, you know, why do we need to add requirements for the sake of adding requirements that void really represents? You know, a gap as far as there's a lack of us supervision over operations that could have a direct implication as far as our compliance with international legal obligations.

And that's the reason why, you know, it's, it's something we need to remedy, um, especially for prolonged space operations, you know, that are again, growing in complexity in nature, just like Jessica outlined, um, yeah. That there, that there is a need to cover that gap. Thank you both so much for being here today.

I really enjoyed this conversation. I learned a ton about 450, um, and I'm sure our listeners did too, and about space law generally. Uh, I have been your host Elsbeth Magilton, thanks for joining us on this episode of Tech Refactored. If you wanna learn more about what we're doing here at NGTC or submit an idea for a future episode, you can go to our website at NGTC.unl.edu.

Or you can follow us on Twitter at UNL underscore NGTC. If you enjoyed this show, don't forget to leave us a rating and review wherever you listen to podcasts. Colin McCarthy created and recorded our theme music. And this podcast is part of the Menard Governance and Technology programming series.

Until next time Houston, we have a launch license.