House Committee Questions U.S. Policy On Use of Indian Launch Vehicles

Two top Republicans on the House Science, Space, and Technology (SS&T) Committee sent letters to Obama Administration officials today seeking answers to a series of questions about U.S. policy on the use of Indian launch vehicles.  India’s Antrix corporation wants to offer launches to U.S. satellite operators, but there is concern that as a government entity, it would have an unfair advantage over U.S. commercial launch companies.

Several small U.S. satellites have been launched on Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicles (PSLVs) in the last several months.  Four Spire Global Lemur-2 cubesats were launched in September 2015 and 12 Planet (formerly PlanetLabs) satellites on June 22, 2016.  PlanetIQ signed an agreement with Antrix in December 2015 to launch two of its 10-kilogram satellites on a PSLV in the fourth quarter of this year.

The FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) has been discussing the matter since last fall.   In October 2015, Samuel duPont from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), briefed COMSTAC on the issue. The committee’s International Space Policy Working Group (ISPWG) held teleconferences on the topic on December 10, 2015 and January 27, 2016.   According to an ISPWG outbrief at COMSTAC’s April 2016 meeting, the discussions led to two findings and a recommendation.  The findings were that India’s launch service pricing structure could not be confirmed as market-based and thus could “distort” competition and undermine U.S. policies and negatively impact the U.S. space industrial base.  It recommended that the U.S. government “maintain the current cautious approach in granting U.S. commercial satellite operators access to India’s state-owned and controlled launch providers.”

Eric Stallmer, President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) industry association, told the SS&T Space Subcommittee in April that CSF opposes any effort “to facilitate a government-subsidized foreign launch company … to compete with U.S. companies.”  However, CSF also does not want to disadvantage U.S. satellite manufacturers and operators whose launch needs cannot be met by U.S. launch services companies, so if no U.S. launch vehicles are available, launching on Indian rockets should be approved on a case-by-case basis, he asserted.

Today’s letters from House SS&T Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX) seek to clarify exactly what U.S. policy is regarding launching U.S. satellites on Indian rockets.  The four letters are addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry, Department of Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy John Holdren. 

Smith and Babin seek basic information about what the policy says, when it was promulgated, and the impact of India’s entry into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) on that policy.  Each official is asked to respond by July 20, 2016. 

India finally joined the MTCR less than two weeks ago on June 27.  The MTCR seeks to control the spread of ballistic missile technology.  Established in 1987 by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan, it now has 35 members, including Russia (but not China).  It is not a treaty and imposes no legal obligations, but is an “informal political understanding” according to its website.

U.S. efforts to convince Russia to join the MTCR after the collapse of the Soviet Union figured prominently in the relationship the two countries have today in the space arena.  It was one of the motivations in the Clinton-Gore Administration’s decisions to invite Russia to join the International Space Station (ISS) partnership and to allow U.S. satellites to be launched on Russian rockets.  In return, Russia had to join the MTCR and renegotiate a deal to sell cryogenic rocket engines and associated technological know-how to India. The United States did not object to selling the engines themselves, but to the technological know-how.  Russia renegotiated the contract and said that it lost $400 million as a result.  The United States agreed to pay Russia $400 million towards its participation in the ISS.