Space

   Space has often been referred to as "the high ground," in the sense of giving its occupier a dominating view (and prospective control) of a potential battlefield. Today it is a key operating régime within the Joint Staff's Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance (ISR) functional assessment area. Traditionally, it has provided a global capability for three basic military functions:

"Space... is a key
operating regime
within the Joint
Staff's...ISR...
functional
assessment area."

Location - Determining where objects of interest are, either absolutely or relatively. This both supports the sensing missions and is fundamental to the missions of navigation and search and rescue.

Communicating - Telling people and systems what they need to know or do. As a mission in its own right, this function typically relays commands to forward elements and passes sensor and positioning information back to users.

   To support these three functions in space, we need to get them there in the first place and then manage, support, control and exploit them once there. We do this via the following generic functions:

Launch - To include both the vehicles themselves and the facilities that enable and support the launch process;

Command and Control (C2) - The operational infrastructure that manages space assets and their involvement with the rest of the world; and

System Interfaces - The architectural "connections" through which space products and services are provided to user and support systems.

"Half our space
program's budget
— and all its
people — go to
space systems'
surface compo-
nents for...O&S
...activities and
facilities."

   Our perspective is both supportive and future-oriented: how to perform end-to-end space activities better and cheaper — to include determining whether they should be performed by different means or even not at all. Therefore, DUSD(S) views space systems differently from the user, or "customer," to whom they represent capabilities in an operating environment. These differing perspectives are depicted below.

DUSD(S) and User Perspectives on Space Systems

The DUSD(S)'s Space Community

"... DUSD(S) is
the DoD's space
representative in 
a highly complex
and dynamic
interagency
environment."

   The leverage and popularity of our defense space capabilities are indicated by the range of "players" represented in the graphic. For several years, government space capabilities have also been used to foster civil and commercial initiatives, particularly in communications, sensing, and use of DoD launch facilities. Commercial markets have in turn been shaping advanced technology arenas where defense needs had previously ruled. Today, the growing number of space-faring nations offers us both opportunities and challenges. The following examples illustrate the trends.

   For over a decade, the Commercial Space Launch Act and national policy have mandated DoD support for U.S. commercial space activities. As executing agent, the Air Force has done a first-class job of maintaining America's access to space — not just for national security missions, but for civil and commercial activities as well. The Air Force finalized a policy that addresses critical competition issues associated with increasing commercial use of government launch property and defines processes for use of launch ranges. Thus, like other space capabilities developed initially for national security purposes, our launch capability has become a broader national asset. Furthermore, the law requires the DoD to provide this launch support at marginal cost only; i.e., we charge commercial users only what it costs us directly to provide the launch and range support. In June of last year, we testified to this effect before the House Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and also noted how we were taking steps to meet the challenge presented by our (and the commercial sector's) success.

   The challenge arises from the annually increasing ratio of commercial to government launches and their budgetary impacts. Specifically, commercial launches from Cape Canaveral, FL, outnumbered DoD and NASA launches starting in 1995, and they will outnumber DoD and NASA launches from Vandenberg AFB, CA, during 1997. We further project that commercial launch requirements (to deploy and sustain new commercial satellite constellations providing worldwide messaging, voice and data communications and remote sensing) over the next five to ten years will continue to outnumber government launches. Our dilemma is that reimbursements for our direct operating costs do not allow for sustainment and modernization of our launch infrastructure, which will continue to benefit commercial interests as much or more than its government owners. The following table projects these overhead and investment costs.

"...
reimbursements
for  our direct
operating costs do
not allow for
sustainment and
modernization of
our launch
infrastructure ..."

   DUSD(S) Approach. The DoD's efforts to both fulfill its federal role and meet the launch challenges are threefold:

We are integrating commercial requirements into the EELV and longer-term spacelift planning;

We have provided seed money for commercial spaceports and continue to foster their development; and

We still need to assure continued funding support for the Government's launch infrastructure.

   The EELV program is aimed at reducing the cost and preparation time for launch — for both government and commercial missions. Payload, standards and launch range working groups, with participation by the commercial satellite industry as well as federal agencies, are assuring that all user needs are considered in the development of the launch vehicle, its facilities, and existing ranges. This $2 billion program will provide a family of modernized launchers with reduced operating costs.

   The National Spacelift Requirements Process (NSRP) is seeking consensus among civil, commercial, defense and intelligence space sectors on common spacelift needs. Its resulting document will contain top-level requirements usable in the development or modification of any national launch system capability. Annual review of this document by the National Spacelift Requirements Council (representing DoD, DOC, NASA, and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Office of Commercial Space Transportation) will keep it current.

   The DoD (especially the Air Force) has already played a pivotal role in bringing spaceports to life as a new element of the U.S. commercial space sector. The Air Force Dual Use Space Launch Infrastructure Grant Program jump-started infrastructure development projects by providing $20 million in matching funds (on a 3:1 federal-to-industry basis) for spaceport construction projects, other commercial infrastructure projects, and related studies in FY 1993 and 1994. Several diverse spaceport projects are underway today, including projects for a variety of new small launch vehicle processing and launch facilities in California, Florida, Alaska, and New Mexico.

   On the DoD side, we are examining the potential of commercially operated launch sites to help support government launch programs, especially for small payloads. In 1996, the SecDef approved the demonstration flight of a converted Minuteman II missile to evaluate the concept and costs of using them as launchers. If this initiative succeeds, commercial spaceports could provide a lower-cost alternative for small payloads.

   In March 1996, we formed an Interagency Working Group to develop federal guidelines for government interaction with commercial spaceports. Participation included my office (co-chair), the Army, Navy, Air Force, Joint Staff and USSPACECOM from DoD, and the FAA (co-chair), NASA, DOC and DOS. Once in place, these guidelines will enable each federal agency to develop implementation guidelines for interacting with launch site operators and also offer a basis for joint responses to proposed changes to national policy or law.

   Meanwhile, we continue to address the increasing stress of commercial activity on our own launch capabilities — especially as we are funded only for our national security activities. We are looking into the potential of fee-for-service and increased contractor participation at launch sites, so that we can recover more of our investment, and thereby achieve a more equitable sharing of launch infrastructure costs.

   The loss of a GPS satellite aboard a Delta II booster this past January — the first launch failure in over a year — showed once again how dependent the space community is on ready, reliable launch for timely space access.

   The bottom line is that we have a long and successful role in supporting the commercial space sector and helping it compete in the world market. For 1997 and on, we also need to restructure our government launch capability to sustain our assured access to space for defense.

   For several years now, the DoD has been "changing its culture" with respect to systems acquisition. Based on both market forces and the need for acquisition reform, the Department has been expanding its use of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products, commercial in lieu of military specifications (MILSPECs) and standards, and adoption of commercial "best practices" in contracting and project management. We are looking more and more for commercial space solutions and partnership with industry, partly because DoD is a decreasing factor in the overall space market and partly to save defense R&D money for key military capabilities. In short, the space acquisition and support environment has evolved radically. Industry is more of an equal partner in many areas, and a leader in even some critical areas, like electronics, where the commercial market dominates. The scope of partnership exchange continues its needs to broaden:

DoD needs to make better use of industry business practices, customer orientation and financial arrangements to maximize the value of its procurements; and

Industry needs to be more involved in assessing requirements, performing system trades, solving cost problems, and making known its support needs.

   The Services and the NRO, as program executing agents, are doing well in transitioning their business processes to incorporate more commercial products and practices. The use of joint government-industry IPTs, for example, also helps to assure that commercial and industrial factors are considered in a timely way throughout defense acquisition programs.

"We are looking
more and more
for commercial
space solutions
and partnership
with industry ..."

   Both before and after the 1996 National Space Policy's provisions, DoD assets have supported civil agency objectives or operations. Cooperative activities have involved DOC/NOAA, NASA, DOE and DOT on a continuing basis. Both national security and civil sensors and communications links have been used for space-based observations of the earth's land, atmospheric and oceanic conditions for both government and commercial purposes.

"NPOESS will be
the nation's single
source of global
weather data for
operational DoD
and DOC use."

   NPOESS is a Presidentially directed program; however, as it transitions from Phase 0 into Phase I, our near-term challenge is to maintain participation and the program schedule in view of likely continuation of selected agency budget and staff downsizing efforts.

"With relatively
inexpensive user
equipment,
[GPS's] accurate
positioning
capabilities have
become a routine
service for many
operations."

"... the NASA-
DoD AACB
investigated areas
for cooperation
that could achieve
significant cost
reductions and
enhanced mission
effectiveness and
efficiencies. "

   The DoD, DOT, DOS and other agencies all have roles to play, both in managing GPS augmentations and in protecting the national interest. Our military is now planning to use a stronger, more jam-resistant GPS signal (called the Precision Code) to drown out competing GPS signals and counter enemy exploitation attempts on the battlefield.

   Aeronautics and Astronautics Coordinating Board (AACB). From June 1995 through May 1996, the NASA-DoD AACB investigated areas for cooperation that could achieve significant cost reductions and enhanced mission effectiveness and efficiencies. The seven IPTs and their areas of investigation included:

Technology and Laboratories - Four technology areas: fixed- and rotary-wing aeronautics, spacecraft, and space transportation;

Space launch activities - Space Shuttle, Expendable Launch Vehicle, range and launch base cooperation, Reusable Launch Vehicle, and Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle;

Satellite TT&C- Shared use of ground stations, Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) support of DoD and NOAA spacecraft, DoD operation of TDRSS and other NASA satellites, and standardized TT&C;

Base/Center Support and Services- Additional cooperation and sharing opportunities at collocated and nearby facilities (plus 24 initiatives for NASA center directors and DoD base commanders);

Major Facilities- Cost reduction and increased cooperation via management agreements and facility alliances;

Interagency Agreements- Process improvement, with specific dispositions of 679 existing agreements; and

Personnel Exchange- Expansion of the program, with responsibility to be given to functional managers.

   Each IPT presented its recommendations at the AACB's 99th meeting, in April 1996. The key fact is that savings and efficiencies are in addition to those identified over previous years.

   Our international space interests are:

Military - If future military operations will use allied or coalition combined forces, it is imperative that we all be able to communicate and operate effectively;

Civil- Government-to-government activities among space-faring nations need to be based on common processes and standards; and

Commercial - Whether space products and services will be developed and provided cooperatively or competitively, we need to assure fair and economical policies and practices where possible.

"The next
generation ...
MILSATCOM ...
is our test case
for cooperation
to attain military
interoperability."

Continue to provide the GPS Standard Positioning Service for peaceful civil, commercial and scientific use on a continuous, worldwide basis, free of direct user fees;

Cooperate with other governments and international organizations to ensure an appropriate balance between the requirements of international civil, commercial and scientific users and international security interests; and

Advocate the acceptance of GPS and U.S. Government augmentations to it as standards for international use.

Accordingly, the DoD is directed to:

Maintain the Standard Positioning Service (SPS) for general users worldwide and the Precise Positioning Service (PPS) for the U.S. military and other authorized users;

With the DCI, DOS and others, assess national security implications of these uses of GPS and other positioning-navigation satellite systems; and

Prevent hostile use of GPS to ensure retention of the U.S.'s military advantage, without unduly affecting civilian uses.

   Our domestic program initiatives will also support our international objectives.

   Communications. As communications are a key to the effective operations of joint and multinational forces, for the past several years, the DoD has called for international cooperation in military space programs. The next-generation military satellite communications system (MILSATCOM) is our test case for cooperation to attain military interoperability.

   At present, our French, German and British allies are planning to pursue an all-European option called TriMilSatCom — a four-satellite system with geostationary orbits whose space and ground components are estimated to cost $2.6 billion. The U.S. could then find itself in the position of having to invest in a national system to assure that its own military and civil requirements are met. While both U.S. and European governments are encouraging cost savings by acquiring each other's commercial subsystems, the opportunity for four-way cost savings via acquisition of a common system may be decreasing. At the same time, it would be mutually beneficial if we can participate in each other's programs in specific areas of expertise to avoid duplicating existing capabilities.

U.S. Milstar II

   We, like our allies, want to foster economic advantages for our industry, but not at the expense of major military benefits for all four nations (and other allies) as a whole. Our current challenge is to continue working in the international arena to encourage as much commonality and interoperability as our community of nations can attain.

"Our current
challenge is ... to
encourage as much
commonality and
interoperability as
our community of
nations can attain."

   Meanwhile, we have already offered our NATO allies access to missile warning data. For joint and coalition operations, it is highly desirable that all forces benefit from timely missile warning.

SBIRS Program

"Defense space
systems must be
designed to
operate in a higher
threat radiation
environment ...
than commercial
space systems."

   Although near-term industrial capability is not endangered, rad-hard technology advances and production infrastructure have declined significantly in the past several years, due to an insufficient business and investment base for existing suppliers. Moreover, rad-hardening becomes more difficult with each new generation of microelectronics technology, and a significant knowledge-skill base is needed to meet the mix of "soft" and "hard" requirements for different systems' components.

   We recommend a combination of:

Restored funding invested equally in rad-hard science and technology (S&T) and manufacturing producibility;

Coordinated oversight by DoD and other government users; and

Collaboration with industry to explore procurement approaches that would stabilize supply and demand, and thus leverage the commercial space market — which could also benefit from rad-hard components' reducing effects on systems' weight and power needs.

   From the above selected examples, our DoD space programs, operations and initiatives are increasingly intertwined with commercial factors in the worldwide marketplace, civil agency programs and operations at home, and the policies and interests of other countries abroad — whether they are our allies or potential foes. Many hard choices and difficult processes lie ahead, but we need to be pro-active rather than reactive, both in enhancing cooperation where possible and in meeting the competition where necessary.