1 High Frontier November 2008 Volume 5, Number 1 The Journal for Space & Missile Professionals expressed in this journal are those of the authors alone Editorial content is edited, prepared, and provided by the High Frontier High Frontier High Frontier AFSPC/PA Peterson AFB, CO 80914 Headquarters Air Force Space Command Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Commander Vice Commander Director of Public Affairs Creative Editor High Frontier Staff Maj Frank Zane MSgt Jennifer Thibault Contents Introduction General C. Robert Kehler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Senior Leader Perspective Work Worth Doing US Representative Terry Everett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 First Steps Towards a Strategic Position Dr. Andrew W. Palowitch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Challenge of Protecting Space Capabilities Dr. Wanda M. Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Space Protection Promoting the Safe and Responsible Use of Space: Toward a 21 st Century Transparency Framework Maj Patrick A. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Components of a Space Assurance Strategy Mr. Samuel Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Probability of Survival Col Lee W. Rosen and Lt Col Carol P. Welsch . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Moving Beyond SSA: An Attribution Architecture for Space Control Maj Wallace Rhet Turnbull . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Fractionated Satellites: Changing the Future of Risk and Opportunity for Space Systems Mr. Naresh Shah and Dr. Owen C. Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Industry Perspective Space Situational Awareness Architecture Assessment Mr. Phillip D. Bowen and Mr. Clifton Spier . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Action-based Approach for Space Protection Mr. Steven Prebeck and Mr. Kenneth Chisolm . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Walking the Walk, Integrating Space Effects Planning into Ground Operations Now Lt Col Stuart A. Pettis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Professional Development Are you a Sam or a Courtney? Lt Col Robert J. Vercher and Lt Col Andrew S. Kovich . . . . . . . . 50 Book Review Space as a Strategic Asset Lt Col David C. Arnold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Next Issue: 50 th Anniversary ICBM
High Frontier 2 Introduction General C. Robert Kehler Commander, Air Force Space Command The United States national security is critically dependent upon space capabilities and this dependence will grow. ~ National Security Presidential Directive 49, US National Space Policy, August 2006 T he last 50 years of sovereign space exploration and ex ploitation have proved invaluable to the continued suc cess of our military, allies, and nation. As we look forward to how we preserve our sovereignty and freedom of action within the space domain. In response, Headquarters, Air Force Space established a joint Space Protection Program (SPP). The SPP is an enduring joint activity empowered to provide decision makers with a range of informed options and recommendations on how best to preserve our space systems, through collaborative efforts across the Department of Defense and Intelligence Communi ties (IC). This quarters High Frontier compiles perspectives on space protection highlighting the urgency, the impacts, and future challenges. Past, current, and future senior leaders from the US House of Representatives, industry, academia, defense agencies, USSTRATCOM, and HQ AFSPC offer their perspectives, share their personal experiences, and highlight some challenges as we look toward the future. section begins with US Representative Terry Everett, as he elabo rates on his beliefs that the space domain is no longer a sanctuary, which we need to put First Things First in space acquisition and build a cadre of space professionals. Next, Dr. Andrew Palow itch, director, Space Protection Program, provides insight into the strategy development process for a comprehensive SPP. The Senior Leader Perspective concludes with Dr. Wanda M. Austin, president and CEO of The Aerospace Corporation, as she pro capabilities. articles on Space Protection. Maj Patrick Brown leads this sec tion with a discussion on the importance of transparency through joint collaboration and international partnerships and how this could lead to enhanced satellite safety. Mr. Samuel Black pro poses a space assurance strategy which focuses on diplomacy and purely defensive measures to provide for space assurance. Third, Col Lee W. Rosen and Lt Col Carol P. Welsch focus on satellite protect the next generation of satellites. Next, Maj Wallace Turn bull proposes an attribution architecture for space control which establishes a solid foundation upon which national leaders can Protection section is authored by Mr. Naresh Shah and Dr. Owen Brown. They propose fractionalization as an approach in which modern technologies are used to decompose large systems into smaller physical elements. General C. Robert Bob Kehler (BS, Education, Pennsylvania State University; MS, Public Administra tion, University of Oklahoma; MA, National Security and Strategic Stud ies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island) is commander, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), Peterson AFB, Colorado. He is re sponsible for the development, ac quisition, and operation of the Air Forces space and missile systems. The general oversees a global net work of satellite command and control, communications, missile warning and launch facilities, and ensures the combat readiness of Americas intercontinental ballistic missile force. He leads more than 39,700 space professionals who provide combat forces and capabilities to North American Aerospace Defense Command and US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). General Kehler will assume cyberspace responisiblites as directed by CORONA Fall. General Kehler has commanded at the squadron, group, and twice at the wing level, and has a broad range of operational and command tours in ICBM operations, space launch, space operations, missile warn ing, and space control. The general has served on the AFSPC Staff, Air Staff, and Joint Staff and served as the director of the National Security was the deputy commander, USSTRATCOM, where he helped provide the president and secretary of defense with a broad range of strategic mission areas, including space operations, integrated missile defense, computer network operations, and global strike. In the Industry Perspective section, we present two articles; proven systems engineering approach to decomposing the Space Situational Awareness mission area into key functional attributes predicated upon the countrys need for space protection capabili ties. Second, Mr. Steven Prebeck and Mr. Kenneth Chisolm de liver an alternative approach to tackling the SPP problem by start ing at the end state and reversing the process to determine actions required to create the desired outcome. provides recommendations for integrating Air Force space opera tors into Army tactical level operations. In the Professional Development section, Lt Col Rob Verch er and Andrew Kovich encourage individuals who study the art of leadership to view this dynamic and complex subject through the lens of two characters in Anton Meyers novel, Once an Eagle. We conclude this quarters volume with a book review by Lt Col David Arnold, entitled Space as a Strategic Asset. As with all issues of the High Frontier I hope you are leverag ing this magazine to expand your personal and professional ho rizons. We are clearly in the midst of interesting times and since we get paid to deal with interesting times, I look forward to your articles on the next volumes topic, 50 th Anniversary ICBM. As we navigate through the decisions from the Fall CORONA 2008, I encourage you to think about the nuclear enterprise and the implications of a new command, how best we can make the transition, how it impacts the mission, the people, and how it con tributes to strategic deterrence.
3 High Frontier Work Worth Doing US Representative Terry Everett Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces House Armed Services Committee Washington, DC Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt M y 16 years in the US House of Representatives have been tremendous. It has been an honor to serve the great people of the state of Alabama and a privilege to work with this community of dedicated professionals to enhance our nations strategic forces capabilities. As I near the end of my tenure as a member of Congress, I would like to take the op portunity to share my assessment of the strategic forces port folioin particular the state of national security spaceand discuss our future challenges. Educating Congress and the American Public Often, members of Congress come to me during debates on space-related issues and ask for my views and recommenda tions. They have a genuine interest in the topic, but lack an indepth appreciation of how truly vital space has become. I think the American public is in a similar position, generally support ive of our investment in space but largely unaware of how es sential the capabilities and services provided by satellites are to our national security, economy, and modern way of life. When it comes to national security, my colleagues have a general sense that space capabilities are important to military operations, but I am not sure they realize how truly integral naval vessels, and land vehicles they support and fund simply can not be effective without the communications, navigation, and other services provided by our space capabilities. Retired Army General Larry Dogden tells one of my favorite stories. He once asked a soldier if he uses space; the soldier replied no, I just need this black box to talk to my commander and tell me where I am. We have witnessed tremendous growth in commercial and civil uses of space; growth that was not imagined 16 years ago. On the commercial side, a 2007 Space Foundation re port highlighted that the global space industry grew to nearly $220 billion; an 18 percent increase in a two-year time span. Commercial aviation, shipping, emergency services, in-vehi transactions have come to rely on services from space. 1 Ag riculture, which is a prominent industry in my home state, has tem (GPS) and satellite imagery to track farm equipment, as sess crop health, and forecast crop production. 2 Most recently, Senior Leader Perspective quick damage assessments and survivor search and rescue from Hurricane Ike were made with support from Global Hawk un manned aerial vehicles connected via satellites. 3 Educating others to understand the importance of spacethe so whatand why we must continue to support these capa bilities will remain a continuing challenge for our community. Another challenge will be ensuring we maintain our access to these capabilities. I have focused much of my energy on raising awareness at a national level, though admittedly, in small steps by leveraging legislative vehicles and the print media. In June 2006, I held a Strategic Forces subcommittee hearing to broad en understanding of our military and economic dependence on space. The 2007 defense bill included language tasking the Na tional Space Studies Center at Maxwell AFBs Air University to examine our nations economic and military dependence on space and the implications were we to lose these capabilities. 4 We have only begun this important conversation and education with the Congress and American public, and must continue the effort. Establishing Greater Space Protection and Space Situational Awareness I strongly hold to the belief that space is no longer a sanctu ary. What has become increasingly clear over the last several years is the need for greater space situational awareness (SSA) and protection of our space assets. Senior administration of much cooperation across the defense and intelligence commu nities to mitigate our collective vulnerabilities. The January Everett-Hunter press conference picture with caption, Representa tive Terry Everett with Representative Duncan Hunter of California calling on the president to strengthen our space protection capabili ties, 31 January 2007.
High Frontier 4 2007 Chinese anti-satellite (ASAT) test was a strong wake-up call for Congress and the administration, but was merely the tip of an iceberg of counterspace threats that continue to grow below the surface. A greater emphasis on addressing our space vulnerabilities was clearly needed. Therefore, in a bipartisan manner, Repre sentative Ellen Tauscher of California, chairman of the Stra tegic Forces subcommittee, and I sponsored legislation in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act directing the secre tary of defense and director of National Intelligence to develop a comprehensive space protection strategy. 5 I am encouraged by the actions and progress they have made to-date. Last year we saw Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) and the National centers activities. This past August, the defense and intelli gence chiefs delivered their joint space protection strategy to Space Protection Program, jointly led by AFPSC and NRO. As I understand it, this body will examine our space architecture, looking across the spectrum of technology, operations, and pro grammatics, to identify near-term and future opportunities to enhance space protection and mission assurance. The real test of putting this strategy into action still lies ahead of us. I would like to see the community incorporate the strategy into their overall investment portfolio, which includes lieve we must strengthen the requirements and acquisition pro cesses to ensure protection is considered during key milestone reviews. This may result in changes to the capabilities current four percent of the white space budget is allocated to SSA and space protection. In a welcome move, this has increased over the last year. However, in 2008, several key SSA initia tives, such as the Self-Awareness SSA System, Rapid Attack Fence, ended up on the Air Force unfunded priority list. Will we see action follow words? As a former intelligence analyst, I have a deep appreciation for the complexities of intelligence. Our space intelligence community does an excellent job with the little information they have, particularly the National Air and Space Intelligence Cen ter and Missile and Space Intelligence Center. However, future tion that rest on greater foundational intelligence and tighter linkages between operations and intelligence. This capability will only come with a commitment to long-term investments in SSA and intelligence collection capabilities, analytical tools, and the cultivation and retention of experienced analysts. One of the most challenging dimensions of space protection or interference events. I have been particularly focused on space deterrence and escalation management. We have wit nessed ASAT tests, laser dazzling, and jamming incidents, yet we dont seem to have clear policy red lines for attacks against our satellites, clear decision-making processes, or established response options. This year, I successfully included language in the House-passed version of the defense bill to explore these issues through Department of Defense (DoD) wargames and exercises that together will improve our military and policy 6 As Chinas ASAT test and our own satellite intercept mission last February demonstrated, any future space incident will re quire a whole of government approach, leveraging political, military, intelligence, diplomatic, legal, economic, and strategic communications tools. I recently participated in a seminar with senior space leaders to discuss these issues. I was pleased to see such a broad swath of government, academia, and foreign partners tackling these important policy issues. Putting First Things First in Space Acquisition Another topic I have found incredibly challenging is space acquisition. Oversight of space acquisition programs demands a level of technical knowledge most members of Congress sim ply do not have. We instead focus on simple metricsperfor mance, cost, schedule, and risk. However, these simple metrics have painted a fairly accurate and bleak picture of space acqui sition. The recapitalization and modernization of our space portfo lio has placed great strain on the acquisition community and the space budget. We have seen symptoms of this strain in NunnMcCurdy breaches for Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)High and National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, schedule delays to the GPS-IIF and Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite programs, and the program restructuring of Transformational Satellite Communications System and Space Radar. Balancing recapitalization and mod ernization, and the affordability of both, is perhaps the most taxing aspect of managing and overseeing the national security space portfolio. One way to alleviate the strain is to increase the space topline, which I have long advocated. But short of that, the community crease to the space budget or realignment of recapitalization and modernization programs, the space portfolio will become unaffordable and unexecutable. I have previously written about the need for government and industry to improve cost estimating, strengthen systems engi neering and quality control, limit requirements growth, more closely manage the prime-subcontractor relationship, and re build our nations cadre of space acquisition and cost estimat As Chinas ASAT test and our own satellite intercept mission last February demonstrated, any future space incident will require a whole of government approach, leveraging political, military, intelligence, diplomatic, legal, economic, and strategic communications tools.
5 High Frontier ing professionals. I could probably go on, but fundamentally it highlights the necessity of becoming a smarter buyer and up holding the basic tenets of leadership, discipline, and account ability. We must have the leadership to make tough decisions, and to say no on occasion. We must be smarter in acknowl edging not every requirement is affordable, smarter not to be fooled by budgets that do not close, smarter in recognizing proposals that are underbid, smarter in understanding risk, and more disciplined in holding to these stances. Lastly, we must hold ourselves accountable for both the good and the bad. I say we because Congress is as much a part of the problem and solution as the executive branch and industry. I believe the Back-to-Basics acquisition approach in stituted by former Air Force Undersecretary Ronald M. Sega is sound; it is similar to my First-Things-First philosophy. There are small signs that the community has turned the corner; however, we wont know for sure until the current and next and schedule are completed. With concerns about vulnerabilities and single-point failures, we must also change the legacy model of building a few large, expensive, complex satellites. One area of potential promise is 2007 legislation, was to focus on getting simple, low cost solu tions rapidly on-orbit to meet the urgent needs of our combatant commanders. Secondarily, ORS would provide more frequent opportunities to demonstrate innovative concepts and technolo gies at a lower cost, while energizing our industrial base and technical workforce. With this effort, I see a stronger national security space portfolio in which ORS systems complement, not replace, traditional space programs. While ORS has much promise in getting us to a more nu merous, distributed architecture in space, it is still a nascent satellite acquisition time. We must give it time to mature; it will take time to invest in technology and system development, to develop new thinking on employment and operating concept, to adapt government and industry to this new paradigm, and time to make ORS successful and transition these successes to the rest of our space architecture. Resisting the Rice bowl and Creating the Right Teamwork Incentives extent to which rice bowls dominate decisions on space pro grams. To illustrate this point, I have seen the defense and in telligence establishments take over a year to make a decision on a space-based military intelligence system while they argued over what to buy and who should buy it. Supposedly this was an urgent need. The loser in all this is the soldier on the ground who relies on this capability being there when needed. I do not see any incentives for the community to work to gether. The current reward structure is based on an organiza tions ability to protect its budget and control programs. It is unfortunate that we dont have customer satisfaction surveys for space. I think a key improvement a new administration could introduce is a reformed incentive structure that rewards teamwork and cross community collaboration. Similarly, the understood, clear lines of leadership in national security space have become a tangle of spaghetti line charts. For example, questions about space acquisition bring answers Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asking him to re-establish the dual-hatted undersecretary of the Air Force and director of primarily due to concerns that one leader could not effectively manage both the Air Force and NRO space portfolio. I fail to understand why one person cannot provide oversight and lead ership across national security space. The secretary of defense has the entire defense portfolio under him. I know opinions in Congress vary. However, I believe one person setting policy and making planning, acquisition, and re source decisions in the context of an integrated architecture bet ter serves our national security and reduces unnecessary over laps. The next Congress and new administration will have an opportunity to review this concern as well as other space orga nization and management issues, particularly with the comple tion of the congressionally mandated national security space organization and management review, led by Mr. A. Thomas Young, a respected space authority and former Lockheed Mar tin executive. Building a Cadre of Professionals Lastly, I want to touch on an area that is important to me professional development and science and math education. The nucleus of our space effortsour nations space cad rehas weakened over time. We have seen a reduction in the number of trained, experienced government space acquisition, science and engineering, and program management profession als. Those remaining have become increasingly reliant on in dustry without having the wherewithal to provide experienced pattern and foster a space cadre of smarter, more empowered professionals who know the technical, operational and pro grammatic aspects of their acquisition programs. I sponsored legislation last year that required the secretary of defense to submit a report to Congress on the management of the space cadre within the DoD. I commend efforts by the military departments to expand their space professional devel opment activities, to include increased education and training I know opinions in Congress vary. However, I believe one person setting policy and making planning, acquisition, and resource decisions in the context of an integrated architecture bet ter serves our national security and reduces unnecessary overlaps.
High Frontier 6 opportunities, establishment of space-related specialty codes, and development of personnel databases. However, as noted in management actions are needed to better identify, track, and train Air Force space personnel. This is an issue broader than the Air Force. Without an assessment of space cadre require ments and the development and use of metrics, I believe it will numbers of personnel with the expertise, training, experience, and leadership to meet current and future national security space needs. I am also interested in ideas on how to strengthen youth sci ence and math education, and recruit more young folks into aerospace careers. I wish I had a simple solution for this. I sense todays youth are naturally fascinated by space and space exploration. However, without conscious long-term efforts to motivating and rewarding work, to retain them, I fear that we will put at risk our leadership in space science and technology, the health of our industrial base, and our nations overall leader ship in space. Final Thoughts I am incredibly thankful to the national security space com munity, and particularly the men and women of the US Air tenure on the Strategic Forces subcommittee, I have had the good fortune to visit key Air Force facilities, operations cells, and industry centers of excellence. I am grateful to the many hard-working airmen, industry representatives, and senior lead ers who have briefed me over the years, hosted me during site visits, and taken the time to educate me on these important mat ters of national security. Space is one of the most unique, challenging, and exciting things our nation does. We have challenging space policy and that we will work through them. I am proud to be associated with our nations space efforts and with the people who make them happen. This has been and will continue to be work worth doing. Notes: 1 The Space Report: The Guide to Global Space Activity, Executive Summary, The Space Foundation, 2007 update. 2 Southeast Farm Press December 2007, http://southeastfarmpress. com, 2, 12, 17, 29. 3 Geoff Fein, Global Hawk Provides Imagery In Ikes Aftermath, US Representative Terry Everett (R-Alabama) Eightterm Republican congressman from the Second Congressio nal District of Alabama from 1993-present. Ranking mem ber, Strategic Forces Subcom mittee, House Armed Services Committee. He served in the United States Air Force from 1955-59 as an intelligence specialist. Stateside, he pur sued a three decade career in journalism culminating in the ownership of a chain of news papers in south Alabama. In Congress, Everett also serves as the second ranking member on the House Permanent Select Commit tee on Intelligence and the House Agriculture Committee. In 1998, Congressman Everett received the Excellence in Programmatic Oversight Award from the House Republican Leadership for his Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee probe into improper burial waivers chairman of the newly-created House Armed Services Subcommit tee on Strategic Forces, overseeing the subcommittee until 2007. Congressman Everett's efforts as chairman and ranking member have focused on improving space acquisition programs and begin ning a national debate on space. Congressman Everett has spear headed key legislative initiatives in national security space, includ ing development of a space protection strategy, management of the space cadre and space acquisition personnel, and establishment of chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, he held frequent including space control, threats, and acquisition challenges, and space radar, space cadre, and space policy. He has also labored to maintain proper funding for important space acquisition programs and initiatives, such as space radar, Transformational Satellite Communications System, and the National Space Studies Center. In October 2006, Congressman Everett was honored by the Mis sile Defense Advocacy Alliance for his work in support of missile defense overall and in particular funding for the research and devel opment of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense missile system. In September 2008, he was presented the National Nuclear Security Administrations (NNSA) Gold Medal for support of the NNSA. Without an assessment of space cadre requirements and the development and use of metrics, personnel with the expertise, training, experience, and leadership to meet current and future national security space needs. Defense Daily 16 September 2008. 4 Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, Report of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, on H. R. 5122, Report 109-452, 298. 5 Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 911 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat 279). 6 Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, Report of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, on H. R. 5658, Report 110-652, 339.
7 High Frontier First Steps Towards a Strategic Position Dr. Andrew W. Palowitch Director, Space Protection Program Peterson AFB, Colorado / Chantilly, Virginia S urvivability has always been a primary design objec tive for satellite programs. Inaccessibility for repair and natural space hazards have necessitated the incorporation of protective hardware measures such as shielding and circuit re dundancy. This historic approach to satellite survivability has evolved dramatically driven by man-made space hazards and the development of counter-space systems. But, independent of a space hazard analysis, the need for satellite survivability has also taken on a new level of importance with considerations from a different point of view. First, we, as individuals have developed a fundamental reli ance on space systems for everyday activities including com munications, personal banking, weather forecasting, and navi gating our cars. We keep increasing our demands for improved continuity of service and new capabilities. Commercial pro viders are constantly expanding the space-derived products and services market with new options to buy commercial imagery children and pets. Second, but more importantly, we, as an ing thousands of satellites, have linked our future for contin ued global economic prosperity, national security, and safety directly on our now highly interconnected set of space systems that we have collectively established. Recognition and appreciation of these factors necessitate a new approach in space protection. We, speaking as the inter national community again, long ago transcended the value of solely focusing on the protection of individual satellites and have moved to the need for protection of global space system effects. However, all the necessary institutions and arrange ments have not kept pace with this transition from individual satellite focus to interdependent system reliance. International policy, law, agreements, and cooperative ventures addressing protection have yet to be considered much less put into effec tive operation. Despite the challenge in the international scene, on a national level progress is being made. The Pentagon has initiated bilateral discussions with several nations. And the developed and accepted this year by national leadership. The strategy addresses all military, intelligence, civil, commercial, and allied space effects important to US national security under a comprehensive protection approach. Strategy Program Results Throughout the early months of this year an integrated team of defense, intelligence and state participants worked on the fundamental principles of a comprehensive space protection Senior Leader Perspective strategy. During their strategy development process dimen sions of the protection problem were examined which widened set of military defensive approaches. Elements of the proposed strategy covered aspects of protection from situational aware ness through assurance that important space effects could be maintained to support national interests. In late July the Space Protection Strategy was approved by the Department of De fense (DoD). It was subsequently forwarded to Congress as part of a Congressionally Directed Action response to the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. In the report that accompanied the Strategy to Congress was a reference to a newly formed organization, the Space Protec tion Program (SPP), and a description of its central role in the execution of the newly developed strategy. The SPP was of (AFSPC) effort to provide decision-makers with strategic rec ommendations on how best to protect space systems. General C. Robert Kehler, commander AFSPC, and Mr. Scott Large, director, NRO (DNRO) signed into effect the SPP mission to preserve national security space effects through an integrated strategy and to articulate vulnerabilities, assess threat impacts, identify options, and recommend solutions leading to compre hensive space protection capabilities. Their vision was to con solidate all stakeholders protection initiatives and requirements under a central national strategy and better leverage everyones resources to maximize the return on our collective investments in space. The SPP employs a small highly specialized cadre of USAF and NRO space professionals to execute its mission. Initial collaborative efforts have leveraged, by design, the previous work and resources of the Space and Missile Command, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Se Close coordination has been maintained with DoD acquisition, intelligence, and policy organizations, with the director of Na tional Intelligences interests, and with the National Security Council staff. Interactions with other US government agen the DNROs desire for a holistic approach that leverages the strengths of the entire space community. It has been all to easy over recent years to criticize the state of the US space commu nityits personnel, technical depth, readiness, and organiza tional structure. But as is evident from continued achievements collectively it is still by far the best in the world. US Representative Terry Everett recognizes the challenge of putting strategy into action and has challenged the space com munity to incorporate protection strategy into acquisition deci sions to enhance the stability of our national infrastructure. In
High Frontier 8 Espousing altruistic ideals for peaceful cooperation in space among space-faring nations and implementing well designed protection activities may provide a sound framework upon which to build national or international space protection programs. However ... charter to develop a technically-based long-term implementa tion of the strategy, the SPP has been called to provide realtime support for space program decision-makers. SPP Deputy Director for Technology, Dr. Stewart Cameron, drawing upon staff is supporting several NRO acquisition programs. In a similar fashion, SPP Deputy Director for Strategy, Col Joseph Squatrito, USAF, and his staff are supporting several pressing US Air Force mission areas. This is a start. The long term goal of centrality of space protection guidance within the en tire space community will serve the nation well by connecting previously disconnected short-term program decisions under a common approach which serves the larger national strategy. Protection Challenges Far from being easily achieved, the implementation of spe the right answerfaces both internal and external challenges. No US government programs are ever free from the complex quirements, and organizational sensitivities. But more serious are the pressures from external forces including the political ing in the space environment without common internationally accepted guidelines, and the potential misperception of the mo tive behind well-intentioned actions. Further, the complexity of potential protection options raises the question How do you know you have the right answer in effects cover the gamut from defensive hardware built into next generation satellites to investing in rapid replenishment capa bilities to restore capability after loss. A rigorous repeatable analytical process must underlie all proposed comprehensive protection schemes. Interestingly among the possible options, two enduring protection themes bear continued work indepen dent of all other pursuits. First is to reduce man-made hazards in space and threats to space systemswhich includes debris creating events. Second is to achieve comprehensive space sit uational awareness focused on identifying hazards, ascertain ing intent, and attributing actions. Espousing altruistic ideals for peaceful cooperation in space among space-faring nations and implementing well designed protection activities may provide a sound framework upon which to build national or international space protection pro grams. However, rogue actors with little or no dependency upon or investment in space systems carrying out asymmetric actions point out the fallacy of relying on this approach exclu sively. The US policy for free access to and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes is thoughtfully balanced by our National Space Policy position that freedom of action must interests. Towards a Greater Good Our future for continued global economic prosperity, securi ty, and safety is linked inextricably to the capabilities we derive from space systems. It is time to achieve a level of protection for those systems commensurate to the threat we project to their survivabilitybut more importantly to the value we derive as a global community from those capabilities. Andrew W. Palowitch, PhD (BS, Mechanical Engineering, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; MS and PhD, Bio-Optics, University of California at San Diego; MA, International Relations, Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) is the founding director of the Space Protec tion Program. Prior to assum ing this role, Dr. Palowitch was the Intelligence, Security and Technology Group, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and a SAIC Techni ligence, defense, and homeland security problems. From 2002 to 2005, Dr. Palowitch was the director of the CIAs DCI Systems Engineering Center. In these positions he developed systems solutions, guided collection system acquisition, and led op erations to guarantee global assured clandestine technical access. He led intelligence community systems engineering activities un der direction of the DCI. From 1998 to 2002, Dr. Palowitch was the chairman and chief ics-based sensor modeling, simulation, and analysis on complex intelligence and defense systems. Dr. Palowitch concurrently man aged technical evaluation of DynaFund's international venture capi tal investments to acquire breakthrough technology. Previously, from 1996 to 1998, Dr. Palowitch served as the chair Corporation, located in San Diego, California. In this position he designed, developed, and manufactured revolutionary light-acti vated-silicon-switches for advanced defense pulsed power systems and commercial high power electrical distribution systems. Dr. Palowitchs additional education includes: Senior Execu tives in National and International Security, Harvard JFK School of Government, 2004; US Government Intelligence Fellows Program, 2003; and Executive MBA Program, Stanford University, 1998 and 2001. Dr. Palowitch served as a United States Navy Submarine Of SSN 683, from 1982 to 1987.
9 High Frontier The Challenge of Protecting Space Capabilities Senior Leader Perspective Dr. Wanda M. Austin President and CEO The Aerospace Corporation El Segundo, California O ver the past half century, the development, operation, and utilization of space systems have matured to deliver ca pabilities that today underpin US economic, technical, and mili tary leadership. Space systems provide us with essential global services in the areas of communications, navigation, weather, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and also provide Awareness of the vital role of space capabilities in our economy and national security has grown in recent years due in part to the well-publicized capabilities provided to the military and the public by the Global Positioning System. But attention to the engineering and operational challenges involved in protecting those capabilities from both man-made and environmental in terference has not kept pace. The recent Chinese antisatellite test highlighted the vulnerability of space assets, but success in protecting space capabilities will face several lesser known and operate in the hostile radiation and debris environment of outer space, often for decades without any easy or practical (that is, in expensive) means for repair or replacement. Design efforts aim to extend the design life and improve operational performance of spacecraft, but more can be done. The second challenge is to improve the operational techniques for space systems. Space craft often provide extremely limited data from which to infer what is happening in orbit. Available data must be aggregated, technically analyzed, and interpreted in order to develop courses of action. The third challenge is that lengthy spacecraft develop ment cycles may delay the introduction of needed changes for of space capabilities would take even longer than that. Finally, a robust strategy to protect space capabilities would allow the rapid re-establishment of any lost capability either through re plenishment of lost systems, or augmentation with terrestrial or airborne capabilities where feasible. Addressing each of these challenges will require good forward planning and execution from the myriad organizations involved in space system devel opment, both commercial and military. The Challenge of the Space Environment The space environment presents some unique hazards that can disable a spacecraft quickly and permanently. These include man-made debris moving at orbital speeds, and the extreme nat ural radiation environment of space. From a daily operations perspective, the man-made debris for example, tens of thousands of objects, mostly debris, are be ing tracked in orbit. Any object in orbit moves at very high speed (e.g., 18,000 mph), and for this reason its orbit is not eas ily changed. As a result, the location of space assets is relatively ing at high speed and will persist in orbit for many years, some age. Therefore, concerted effort in the international community to identify existing debris hazards, develop strategies to avoid damage, and limit creation of new debris will be a necessary and permanent feature of future operations. The problem of track ing tens of thousands of objects with the necessary precision is technologically challenging, and improved methods of tracking and planning must be developed. The Department of Defense (DoD), The Aerospace Corporation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others have been active in developing such methods for many years, but more remains to be done. Another important problem in protecting space assets arises from the extreme natural radiation environment in space. This radiation can affect electronic components in ways that mim whether the problem is the result of space weather or of hard ware failures. Improved monitoring of the space environment, more radiation-tolerant components and designs, and better onboard monitoring would all contribute to improved protection by providing better information upon which to base operations Figure 1. Computer-generated representation of man-made debris in orbit around Earth.
High Frontier 10 decisions. Methods to help detect the difference between radia tion-induced failures and equipment failures have been deployed to ground stations in the past, but much more can be done to im prove awareness of the effects of the environment on spacecraft and electronics, and to assist operators in correctly diagnosing problems and developing solutions. The Challenge of Improving Operational Techniques chanical structures that must operate 24 hours per day for many years without any easy means for their repair or replacement. Virtually all space systems are operated by remote control from the ground, so determining the exact cause of a problem on an orbiting spacecraft must be done by inference using the very limited data coming from the on-board spacecraft telemetry. Although the available health and status information com ing from spacecraft has increased, current spacecraft and their ground systems are not designed to help detect and diagnose many problems that can occur in orbit. radio frequency interference with spacecraft. Many nations uti lize the congested radio frequency spectrum available to space systems, and there is a potential for both intentional and uninten tional interruption of space services through radio frequency in terference. The interfering signal may originate from nearly any locate. Quickly determining the problem and locating the source of the interference on the ground is challenging, and requires ef fective operational procedures and analysis. New systems will In 2006, 14 th Air Force Commander, Lt Gen William L. Shel ton, reported that Panamsat, and other commercial and interna tional satellite communication systems, had been intentionally jammed, indicating a clear need to quickly locate the source of the trouble and bring appropriate pressure to bear to resolve the problem. Interference with these assets may not only result in substantial commercial losses, but may also affect military op erations due to the use of commercial services by the military. Unintentional interference can often be resolved privately if the governmental intervention. As in many areas of the space do main, international cooperation would provide additional sourc es of information concerning problems, and also lead to quicker and more effective solutions. The data available to decision-makers regarding events un folding in space is often imprecise and untimely, yet actionable options must be developed quickly. Therefore, it will be neces sary to rapidly detect service disruptions, attribute the source of the problem in order to assess the impact, and to reconstitute the space capability quickly if necessary. But good decision-making is dependent upon good information, and it will be necessary to create and maintain a more comprehensive picture of the state of the situation in space in order to operate more effectively. Clear ly, much more sophisticated monitoring of spacecraft, as well as the development of methods for improving the onboard sensing (detection, analysis, recording, tracking) of electromagnetic and laser energy that could be potentially damaging to satellite sys tems, would help promote effective action. The Challenge of Lengthy Development Cycles for Space Systems and Architectures The long development and life cycles for many spacecraft, particularly the more complex national security satellites, de mand a strategic approach to develop and implement protec tive measures. Space systems may require ten years to design, develop, and deploy in orbit, and needed changes may not be introduced into service for years. Once launched, most current new challenges, and early replacement would be extremely ex pensive. Therefore it would be prudent to implement a twofold strategy that includes making spacecraft more adaptable once launched, coupled with a capability to operate through disrup tions until an effective solution can be implemented. An example of an area in which spacecraft might be made more adaptable is in the mitigation of radio frequency interfer ence on satellite operations. The Aerospace Corporation and others have developed techniques to adaptively mitigate such interference to allow continued operations, but such techniques are not routinely used due to added expense and complexity of such design. A second example can be seen in systems such as the Transformational Satellite program and other spacecraft, which will likely have communication systems more in com mon with the internet than current systems do. This will ne cessitate information assurance measures similar to those that now protect against viruses in desktop computers, and intrusion into databases. Software and other onboard systems will have to be adaptable to mitigate problems that may arise over time in this area. More adaptable spacecraft may be able to operate through problems more effectively, but a more robust strategy (collections) of space assets and possibly other assets as de scribed next.Figure 2. Representation of solar wind-generated radiation environ ment that can impact space asset effectiveness. NASA
11 High Frontier The Challenge of Reconstituting or Augmenting Space Capabilities Regardless of how adaptable and robust any individual space portfolio of space assets and capabilities in order to compen sate for the loss, whether permanent or temporary, of any space asset. Both military and commercial space system operators have used this strategy in the past to compensate for the loss of an asset by replacing it with another orbiting asset that was limited circumstances, such as in geosynchronous orbit where spacecraft can be shifted at relatively low expense. With careful planning and investment, however, the number of opportunities to provide backup capabilities could be increased, and the time needed to make adjustments for nonfunctioning assets could be shortened. In fact, this concept could be generalized to include augmentation by terrestrial and airborne capabilities in some cir cumstances. However, there are important technical and economic dif the cost of early replacement of existing space assets is usually prohibitive, often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and the time required for launch is not responsive, often requiring many years. This had led to calls for more responsive systems such as the DoDs Operationally Responsive Space Program, which typ quickly. This approach can provide numerous possibilities for innovative concepts, including concepts for constellations of small satellites that operate together. Such constellations hold the promise of being robust due to their distributed nature, and the possibility that they might degrade more gracefully than other architectures. At present, small satellites cannot replace the capabilities provided by larger satellites, but in the future, innovative architectures of this kind may one day augment capa bilities and improve protection. Similarly, augmenting space ca pabilities with airborne or terrestrial capabilities may be equally respect to Earth coverage, timeliness, and other characteristics. Nonetheless, airborne and terrestrial capabilities could augment or temporarily replace space capabilities in certain circum stances, such as in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to relay communications. In any case, implementing architecture solu tions to help protect space capabilities will require a long-term commitment and coordinated actions among the various agen cies that currently plan and procure these systems. Conclusion Recognizing that our reliance on space capabilities is grow ing and that our investments are large would suggest that an ounce of protection is worth ten pounds of cure. We are fortu nate that intentional interference with space systems has so far been extremely rare. But increasing worldwide recognition of the US dependence upon space capability now, more than ever, demands greater vigilance and improved protective measures. Therefore a multifaceted approach to improving the security of space capabilities is needed, including improved surveillance, improved protection of space and ground assets, more robust ar chitectures, and better operational procedures. Doing all these things will require a long-term strategy with effective means of coordinating government actions, and to the extent possible, the actions of commercial space operators. Clearly, technical solutions are only part of what must be ad dressed by a national space protection strategy; there must also be international and diplomatic actions aimed at ensuring free dom of access to and use of space for all. Thus, protecting our space capabilities has been and will continue to be an engineer ing, operational, and diplomatic challenge. A number of hopeful steps have been taken in this direction, the most recent and important one being the establishment of the Space Protection Program, which is a joint program of the vide recommendations on how to best protect our space assets. The memorandum establishing this program on 31 March 2008, states that the program will assess vulnerabilities and provide strategies and roadmaps for improving protection of space ca of developing and implementing such strategies will be large. However, the impact of losing these vital national assets would be immense, and we must take prudent steps now to improve the protection and security of space capabilities. Dr. Wanda M. Austin (BS, Mathematics, Franklin & Mar shall College; MS, Systems Engineering and Mathematics, University of Pittsburgh; PhD, Systems Engineering, Univer sity of Southern California) is the president and chief ex Aerospace Corporation, an zation dedicated to the objec tive application of science and technology toward the solution of critical issues affecting the nations space program. At Aerospace, Dr. Austin has been the general manager of the Military Satellite Communications Division, where she was re sponsible for systems engineering support to the Air Force in the architecture, acquisition, development, and orbital operation of ad vanced satellite communications systems and programs. She was senior vice president of the Engineering and Technology Group, directing a staff of 1,000 engineers and scientists working in a wide range of space-related disciplines. Before being named president and CEO, Dr. Austin was senior vice president of the companys National Systems Group, which supports the national-security space and intelligence community in the acquisition, launch, and orbital operation of advanced technology space systems and their ground data stations. Dr. Austin is internationally recognized for her work in satellite and payload system acquisition, systems engineering and system simulation. Among her many awards are the Air Force Scroll of NASAs Exceptional Public Service Medal, and the Air Force Mer itorious Civilian Service Medal. She is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
High Frontier 12 Promoting the Safe and Responsible Use of Space: Toward a 21 st Century Transparency Framework Maj Patrick A. Brown, USAF Space Protection Program (Integration) Headquarters Air Force Space Command/National Peterson AFB, Colorado S ince the dawn of the Space Age, the United States has consistently expressed its commitment to the basic prin Space Treaty and other elements of international law. The most fundamental principle is the safe and responsible use of space. With public and congressional opinion keenly focused on the need to protect US economic and national security space in terests, and the need to preclude any misunderstanding of in tentions in space, this article proposes a conception of ways and means that approaches space protection through increased transparency with the objective to promote global prosperity. The current environment of relatively stable relations be tween space-faring nations allows for the international com munity to evolve, increase and delineate transparency efforts before sterner tests of resolve, patience and commitment can occur. As a leading proponent of international cooperation to ensure safe and responsible use of space through measures such as mitigation of orbital debris and collision avoidance warning, measures. A renewed effort toward a transparency framework consistent with US National Space Policy and enabling interna Space Protection tional cooperation has the potential to enhance satellite safety and reduce uncertainty in an evolving space security environ ment. Shared knowledge through space situational awareness will be the key factor for this effort. Prosperity The international community already recognizes and ex seem capricious here to restate the contributions of space to human endeavors, but nonetheless, the contributions of space services to commerce; weather; precision, navigation, and tim ing (PNT); search and rescue; television; and earth sensing are clear manifestations of our reliance on space services to main tain a quality of life and accustomed prosperity. For example, as of 15 August 2008, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) reports 191 COSPASSARSAT rescues in the US for 2008. Worldwide, this system has rescued over 24,500 people since 1982. With a combina tion of low-Earth orbit and geosynchronous satellites from the US, the European Union (EU), Russia, and India, the interna tional COSPAS-SARSAT program continues to grow and be a model of international cooperation. According to NOAA, the four original member nations have now been joined by 29 other nations that operate 45 ground stations and 23 mission control centers worldwide or serve as search and rescue centers. 1 Further, at the time of this writing, Hurricane Ike is bear ing down on the Texas coast. Unlike the Galveston storm of 1900 that claimed over 6,000 lives, an Atlantic basin hur ricane in 2008 is monitored by weather satellites from its conception on the west coast of Africa allowing early model ing and preparation. Hurricane hunt ers are tracked with Global Positioning System (GPS)-equipped Iridium-based blue force trackers while surveying the storm; search and rescue helicopters and emergency management personnel with the same trackers and mobile satellite communications are poised to render aid to those who did not evacuate fol lowing landfall. Many news commen tators noted that the orderly evacuation from the Texas coastal areas including Galveston was attributable to the vast amount of data available to citizens and civil personnelsadly, many citizens will choose to ride out the storm. The Figure 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite and Information Service Geostationary Satellite Server.
13 High Frontier mar, Burma or earthquake recovery operations in China. So, as more countrys become space-faring nations or come to rely on space services, the international community will look to those same countries to act as responsible stakeholders that cooper ate with other nations to advance the common interests of all humanity in outer space. Cooperation with other nations in all aspects of space could contribute to the development of mutual understanding and strengthen the relationship between governments. In this re gard, the principles of transparency, reciprocity, and mutual multinational cooperation. Protection through Increased and Sustained Transparency All nations must now know the imperative to protect space interests. As stated above, protection can be achieved through transparency measures. In doing so, however, applying a com mon understanding of transparencya frameworkis elusive. In a multinational arena, long understood or evolving cultural trends weigh heavily on the interpretation and decision pro cess. One countries interpretation of transparency, or even lit eral translation, is often divergent from anothers. Therefore, a common framework with globally acceptable measures must follow. Transparency could be an approach which results in building parency can also take the form of clear, declaratory policy state ments. Or, it could also take the form of open architectures or shared data sources, when possible. In all forms, the central goal of the transparent measure is to reduce uncertainty over intentions. In the following, I sight two examples of US trans parency from this last year relative to space activities designed I believe to communicate intention and reduce uncertainty. The ment. For the undetermined future, the US will continue to provide civil and military PNT signals by GPS. Even as the US, Japan, PNT services and space-based augmentation systems like the Federal Aviation Administrations Wide Area Augmentation System and Japans Multi-functional Satellite Augmentation System, the global community still requires GPS. A small set of examples include international shipping, civil search and rescue, and timing for international banking transactions. Oth er countries have come to rely on GPS and can ill afford to build their own. The US is committed, and frankly now has the testament to this, the next generation of GPS satellites will no longer continue the selective availability option and additional civil signals are being offered on the latest and next generation satellites. 2 The US also demonstrated the use of transparency before and tions, foreign governments, and the broader international com munity well prior to the event. Presentations were made dis cussing the anticipated results of the engagement and noted that the action was consistent with all US national and international orbital debris mitigation guidelines. Following the successful engagement, modeling data and debris totals demonstrated pro jected deorbit times. The USA 193 engagement represents the value of US transparency in the quest to protect the public from a potentially harmful reentry while protecting shared interests in the global commons of space and Earth. In fact, over the years, space users have literally littered space with rocket bodies, debris, and errant satellites, purpose fully and negligently, easily accepting this as the cost of doing business in the unforgiving environment of space. Currently, the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB, Cali fornia tracks more than 18,000 man-made objects in space, to include everything from active satellites to man-made debris. 3 One could envision an international space community embrac ing earthly green practices to make space environmentally debris. Examples of this may include deorbiting errant objects in low-Earth orbit, or exploring ways to remove dead objects in the geosynchronous belt. This responsibility is not the USs alone. Every space-faring nation, international consortia, and commercial space provider has the responsibility and right to protect its space interests economic, investments, and national security. In this manner, all cooperative countries should provide for mutual protection at every opportunity. Not only are these goals consistent with US National Defense Strategy and US National Space Policy, but also with international norms and conventions. Finally, returning to the previous statement on open archi ency measure for space protection is shared knowledge. The best source of shared knowledge given the lack of clear, de claratory policies or stated and followed intentions, is derived from shared space situational awareness (SSA). Shared Space Situational Awareness activities include more stringent debris mitigation, collision, and explosion avoidance measures, the development of safer One could envision an international space community embracing earthly green prac cycle space debris.
High Frontier 14 SSA is foundational. SSA is the requisite current and predic tive knowledge of the space environment upon which space operations dependincluding physical, virtual, and human domainsas well as factors, activities, and events of friendly 4 Simply, shared SSA is the ability to discern the true nature of an event in space and take positive, full spectrum actions from tion to prevent a disruption to space services. The Department of Defenses June 2008 National Defense Strategy tempers this best: The best way to achieve security is to prevent war when pos sible and to encourage peaceful change within the international system. Our strategy emphasizes building the capacities of a broad spectrum of partners as the basis for long-term security. We must also seek to strengthen the resiliency of the interna prepared to deal with sudden disruptions, to help prevent them from escalating or endangering international security, and to 5 For the US, SSA enables command and control of space resources to ensure timely and accurate decision making for both military and non-military space operators and users. It enables decision makers the ability to fully leverage and protect American and allied space capabilities. SSA is developed by integrating, fusing, exploiting, analyzing, and displaying tradi tional and non-traditional space surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence, and environmental sensor information and data sources along with system health and status information pro vided by space system operators. 6 Finally, SSA promotes open communications and understanding providing a mechanism for escalation control and exclusion of misunderstandings. The challenges and opportunities of shared SSA can be illus trated by the pilot program, Commercial and Foreign Entities in October 2004, CFE provides two-line element sets, decay predications, launch support conjunction assessment and re However, balancing national security requirements of the US, allies and friends against the desire for transparency has result ed in less than complete information sharing. A renewed effort toward CFE would continue to function as a baseline to greater cooperation and collaboration on space surveillance data. space partnerships and space engagement activities in order to promote sustainable space safety. Collaborative programs with allies, friends, and other states will be used to promote continuity of service, interoperability, and development of col laborative space systems, including grounds segments, when possible. These are important ways to share the cost of space capabilities, lower tensions, promote economic development through the use of commercial space activities and foster trans parency. These actions will increase the use and value of space for the international community and assist in achieving key US assurance, dissuasion, and deterrence objectives. And with multinational cooperation to SSA, the value of shared SSA will increase exponentially. All space users have a vested interest in space, and unlike any other domain, we must continue to educate them on the cataclysmic effects of irrespon sible use of space. Unlike a massive oil spill along a coastal plain or effects of irresponsible manufacturing plant runoff into rivers that Mother Nature can correct over time, effects in space are mostly permanent. In fact, a collision or massive explosion of large satellites at geosynchronous orbit has the potential to pollute the belt with debris for certainly our lifetime or lon ger without human intervention to reclaim the use of space orbits. ing transparency, will increase predictability in space, allow for timely maneuvering decisions on fuel and longevity concerns, and reduce uncertainty and misunderstanding for any purpose ful interference conditions should they occur, and they will. building measure, also reinforces other sharing efforts in Earth Setting the Tone for Future Cooperation Bilateral engagements such as those conducted earlier this year between NASA and Chinese scientists, the US Air Force Academys Eisenhower Center sponsored informal discussions of new opportunities for expanded cooperation with space-far ing nations should begin now. Protection through transparency is critical to reversing possible trends in an evolving space se curity environment. The international community should accelerate engagement activities now to increase and sustain transparency efforts. This investment of time and funds to support engagement will prove invaluable over time and is essential to strengthening relation ships prior to any adverse changes in the current the geopolitical environment. The international community must be prepared for rogue nations or irrational actors to conduct actions in or through space contrary to the purpose of this article. Accel eration of efforts toward these ends now while the space envi ronment is relatively stable and resources are primed, ensure a the peaceful use of the space domain for the global commons. Historically, the US has rested on the assumption of the US as an indispensable nation. 7 The National Defense Strat All space users have a vested interest in space, and unlike any other domain, we must con tinue to educate them on the cataclysmic effects of irresponsible use of space.
15 High Frontier egy on some level supports this comment: The security of the United States is tightly bound up with the security of the broader international system. 8 With respect to space, despite the abundance of US capability to provide situational aware ness, the proliferation of space assets and services, the global dependence on those services, and the ever increasing pressures to promote ideals without an overt use of power, soft or hard, will encourage the international community to readjust to a new reality of increased and sustained transparency geared toward promoting global prosperity. The National Defense Strategy goes on to say, our strategy seeks to build the capacity of fragile or vulnerable partners to withstand internal threats and external aggression while improving the capacity of the inter national system itself to withstand the challenge posed by rogue states and would-be hegemons. 9 Charting a Way Forward In last quarters High Frontier I stated, The US must ap ply innovative thinking to exploit the inherent advantages of the space medium and enhance space capabilities to help solve the security challenges we are faced with today and in the fu ture. 10 I repeat that call in this article for the US and the larger international community to promote and act on initiatives for voluntary transparency measures. Again the National Defense Strategy provides the enabling language: Both China and Rus sia are important partners for the future and we seek to build collaborative and cooperative relationships with them. We will develop strategies across agencies, and internationally, to pro vide incentives for constructive behavior while also dissuad ing them from destabilizing actions. 11 The National Defense Strategy strikes the right balance between building collabora tive and cooperative relationships with the international com munity and protecting US interests through all-encompassing strategies using all elements of national power not just the obvi ous military power. To that end, the US can move out with full funding of CFE or a similar program to provide shared SSA under the current legal regimes while the current environment and relations are rela tively stable. Release and openness of the data consistent with national security of the many participants should not hinder the and establish with the international community improved, vol untary measures on more stringent debris mitigation, collision, and explosion avoidance measures, the development of safer to space protection through increased transparency, while not new, if acted on now can lead to improved collaboration and cooperation consistent with US national policy and defense strategies. The author wishes to acknowledge the following for contributing to the article: Dr. Andrew Palowitch (director, Space Protection Program), Col Joe Squatrito (deputy director Space Protection Program), and Mr. Mar tin Oetting and Ms. Elizabeth Woish (The Aerospace Corporation). Maj Patrick A. Brown (BBA Management, Midwestern State University; MS, Admin istration, Central Michigan University; MMOAS) is as signed to the Space Protection Program (Integration), Head quarters Air Force Space Com mand (HQ AFSPC)/National Peterson AFB, Colorado. He is responsible for providing the Space Protection Program director with a comprehensive range of options and recom mendations for integration of operations and intelligence protection capabilities and effects. He maintains current knowledge of intelligence and national defense needs and anticipates future space protection needs, and maintains a close two-way collaboration between AFSPC and NRO operations and intelligence functions. Major Brown was commissioned from assignments as a missile combat crew commander at Minot AFB, the sole space advisor, planner, and chief of Special Technical Op erations (STO) for 9 th Air Force/US Central Command Air Forces commander at Shaw AFB, South Carolina, the assistant director of operations for the USAF Weapons Schools space squadron at Nel lis AFB, Nevada, and HQ AFSPC staff positions as a command lead and Strategic Studies branch chief. He has deployed numer ous times to theater combined air and space operations centers to include positions in strategy and STO during Operation Iraqi Free doms Major Combat Operations from February to April 2003, the primary Afghanistan air strategy planner for Operation Enduring Freedom from December 2003 to March 2004, and other deploy space strategist, STO chief, and deputy director of space forces in support of major theater exercises. Major Brown is a resident grad and Air Command and Staff College. Notes: 1 NOAA SARSAT, http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/, accessed 12 Septem ber 2008. 2 Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT), US Space-Based Po sitioning, Navigation and Timing Policy and Program Update, 4 Decem ber 2007, http://pnt.gov/public/2007/2007-12-IGNSS/shaw.ppt, accessed 12 September 2008. 3 Louis Arana-Barradas, The Space Link, Airmen Magazine July/ August 2008, 12. 4 DoD, Space Situational Awareness Strategy and Roadmap Report to Congress 16 April 2007. 5 Robert M. Gates, US Secretary of Defense, National Defense Strategy, http://www.airmanonline.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD080630-074.pdf, June 2008, p. 9.. 6 HQ Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), National SSA Roadmap April 2008. 7 Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York, 2003) 94. 8 Gates, Ibid., 6. 9 Gates, Ibid., 6. 10 Patrick A. Brown, Rescuing Apollo: Building Consensus toward a National Strategy for Space, HQ AFSPC, High Frontier 4, no. 4 (August 2008) 38. 11 Gates, Ibid., 11.
High Frontier 16 Components of a Space Assurance Strategy Mr. Samuel Black Research Associate The Henry L. Stimson Center Washington, DC A space assurance strategy strives to ensure that the presi dent, US armed forces, and US citizens, allies, and friends can call upon space assets when needed. This is easier said than done because satellites are as valuable as they are vulnerable. A carefully-considered space assurance strategy requires three com ponent parts in proper measure and priority: effective diplomacy, defensive measures to make satellites harder to attack, and latent antisatellite weapon (ASAT) capabilities. Diplomacy can estab lish norms that are in the net national security interests of the US because they clarify responsible behavior and facilitate responses to irresponsible behavior. Defensive measures can be useful at the margin, but are likely to provide only limited physical protection. for disruptive attacks to succeed and by making severe penalties for such attacks more likely to succeed. Great care must be exer cised with regard to offensive hedges. The deployment and use of latent ASAT capabilities can pose grave hazards because they can result in making the use of satellites less assured. Most US presidents have considered the use of ASATs as a last resort under exceptional circumstances and have been inclined to support dip lomatic initiatives that strengthen norms promoting the peaceful uses of outer space. In recent years, increased efforts have been focused on defensive measures that make attacks on satellites less likely to disrupt the vital services that they provide. I argue that space assurance is most likely to be achieved by relying on defensive countermeasures and diplomatic initiatives that strengthen international norms against harmful interference of ASATs by the US are most likely to decrease space assurance by undermining norms for the peaceful uses of outer space and by prompting asymmetric responses from potential adversar ies. Dedicated ASATs are unnecessary because the US has other means to respond forcefully to punish those who would be fool ish enough to attack US satellites, including by means of existing systems with the latent capability to attack satellites. To further dissuade other space-faring nations from deploying and using ASATs, I endorse the continued research and development of multi-purpose technologies that clarify US capabilities to respond to threats against satellites. The Three Components Beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower, US presidents have pursued diplomatic initiatives, including tacit and explicit agree ments, to establish common restraints protective of satellites. The most successful of these form the cornerstones of the inter national legal regime which facilitates the peaceful use of outer space. The Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear explosions in outer space, and the Outer Space Treaty bans the placement of Space Protection weapons of mass destruction in orbit. 1 The latter also states that nations cannot claim parts of outer space or celestial bodies as their sovereign territory, and calls for all nations to use space for peaceful purposes. Other agreements, including SALT I (Strate gic Arms Limitation Treaty Agreement), the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, include provisions against harmful interference with the satellites used to monitor compliance with their provisions. 2 Presidents have been cognizant of the limitations of diplomacy, and have not been willing to rely solely on diplomacy to provide for space assurance. They have also endorsed defensive measures that would make such attacks less likely to disrupt satellite opera tions. Defensive measures for space assurance include physical protections against some forms of attack. Increasing redundancy and satellite maneuverability, hardening satellites against jamming and lasing, and improving space situational awareness (SSA) are all ways of reducing satellites vulnerability to attack. Offensive measures are a third possible way of addressing the satellite vulnerability problem, but are by far the most problem distance the US from its allies and friends. They are also likely to accelerate offensive hedges by key space-faring nations, reduc ing space assurance. Consequently, US presidents have usually viewed the use of ASATs only in the event that attacks on satellites cannot be avoided. US presidents have been able to authorize the use of weapons systems that were not expressly designed to de stroy satellites, but that have the capability to do so. For example, the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system was used in February 2008 to destroy a satellite, though this is not its primary function. Space Diplomacy The administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower con cluded at the dawn of the space age that US national security in terests would best be served by acceptingand indeed, exploit ingsatellite operations, even at the risk of allowing unimpeded Soviet satellite operations. The Eisenhower administration pro moted the concept of freedom of space as early as 1955, and adopted the principle that all nations had the right to use space for peaceful purposes. 3 However, the National Security Council urged that care be taken not to prejudice US freedom of action to continue with its military satellite programs. 4 This inter pretation of peaceful, one that accepts the use of space for some military functions, has subsequently been widely accepted. The USSR initially objected to this interpretation, but dropped in Oc tober 1963 its position that satellites and aircraft should be treated Eisenhowers diplomacy had mixed results. Some of his initia tives, like a push to establish an international body to inspect all rocket payloads, failed completely. Others, like the creation of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), required sustained support to get off the ground. COPUOS was established in December 1958 but failed to meet for three years due to a Soviet boycott. 5
17 High Frontier In July 1962, Secretary of State Dean Rusk told President John F. Kennedy that the US probably cannot keep the Soviets from attempting physical ASAT measures if they decide to do so. 6 The Kennedy administration decided that the US should conduct di plomacy while also hedging its bets. In a major breakthrough, Kennedy negotiated the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned any nuclear tests in outer space. 7 This treaty set a limited norm protecting satellites against the damaging effects of nuclear explo sions, though both sides retained the means to violate this norm. The Kennedy administration also led discussions on banning the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space that led in 1963 to the passage of a resolution by the United Nations Gen eral Assembly, Stationing Weapons of Mass Destruction in Outer Space. This resolution endorsed statements made by the United States and Soviet Union in which both stated their intentions not to place weapons of mass destruction in orbit. 8 Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, the US built on the foun dation laid by the General Assembly resolution. Negotiators con cluded an agreement which set the basic parameters binding space operations, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Parties to the treaty countries and in the interest of maintaining international peace and security. 9 The treaty limits all sovereign claims and some military activities in space. The Outer Space Treaty also laid the groundwork for later treaties, including the Moon Treaty, Regis tration Convention, and Liability Convention. President Richard M. Nixon built upon this foundation and oversaw the negotiation of several arms control agreements which established the principle that certain types of satellites were deserving of protected status to help monitor compliance with arms control obligations. Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy E. Carter both supported the pursuit of hedging strategies to support diplomatic initiatives. Two days before the end of his term, Ford approved a new US policy on ASAT capabilities. It directed the secretary of defense to acquire a non-nuclear ASAT while simultaneously urging the consideration of diplomatic initiatives that would raise the crisis threshold for use of an antisatellite and restrict the development of high-altitude ASATs. 10 President Carter continued this approach. In Presidential Directive/NSC-33 he authorized an ASAT testing schedule for the explicit purpose of using the tests as leverage in negotiations with the Soviets. 11 produce a deal before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan brought an end to negotiations on strategic arms reductions and ASATs. 1982 National Space Policy did not rule out space arms control entirely, it was not closely linked to other military space programs 12 During Reagans sec ond term, he authorized the Nuclear and Space Talks, which failed to produce a substantive agreement on space issues, but which facilitated subsequent agreements securing deep cuts in deployed nuclear forces. After the Cold War ended, President Bill Clinton saw no reason to pursue a treaty banning ASATs. Clintons 1996 National Space Policy set improving our ability to support military operations worldwide, monitor and respond to strategic military threats, and monitor arms control and non-proliferation agreements as key priorities for US space activities. The policy also declared that consistent with treaty obligations, the US will develop, operate, and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of ac tion in space. The policy of President George W. Bush focuses primarily on ensuring US military freedom of action in space. 13 The Bush ad ing measures, but only when they are voluntary in nature and do not curtail freedom of action. The administration has opposed space diplomacy when not in conformity with these parameters. At the same time, the Bush administration has not implemented key recommendations of the Rumsfeld Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organi zation, which called for, among other things, ensuring that the president will have the option to deploy weapons in space. 14 Diplomacy has established basic principles and norms that sup port the peaceful use and exploration of outer space. The Outer Space Treaty established the guiding principles of space activities. Subsequent treaties and multilateral agreements established trans parency, safety, and liability measures which facilitate the use of space. Still other agreements have declared that states should refrain from taking certain actions that interfere with satellites. However, diplomacy has its limits. Many kinds of harmful inter and a number of countries maintain the capacity to break existing rules. Defensive Measures Purely defensive means for satellite protection are relatively uncontroversial and can reduce the vulnerabilities of space sys tems to some types of interference. Defensive measures generally fall into one of three categories: increasing the redundancies of space systems, protecting satellites against attacks at the margins, and improving SSA. Some protective and defensive measures can only be justi regardless of cost. For example, while only 24 satellites are ab solutely necessary for the system to operate effectively, the US maintains a constellation of 33 Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites. 15 These nine additional satellites offer improved accu racy, and also make the potential loss of any one GPS satellite somewhat less costly in terms of the quality of the services pro vided by the system as a whole. Increasing the redundancies built in to other space systems, and particularly those with intelligence, surveillance, or reconnaissance functions, would be a useful step. It would reduce the degree to which harmful interference with satellites could exacerbate the destabilizing aspects of crises or interference is most crucial at such times. Redundancy can also be approached in other ways. For exam ple, the US can develop and maintain the capacity to accomplish missions currently performed from space with a mix of spacebased and terrestrial systems. For some capabilities, like the pre cision navigation and timing provided by the GPS, this is not fea sible. However, the suite of reconnaissance and communications outer space. Work to protect satellites against various kinds of attacks is on going. Some measures, like enhancing satellite maneuverability,
High Frontier 18 can apply to almost any kind of satellite. Such efforts enhance the forts must be more focused. For example, the GPS is only useful to the extent that its signals can be received by individual receiv ers. As was discussed on these pages in May, GPS signals are quite weak. 16 to this system, though the technology may be transferable to oth ers. GPS-related defensive measures will have to keep pace with trends in technological development. The US has proven itself to be quite capable of doing so thus far. To improve protection of other systems against interference the US must address different technical problems. Reconnaissance satellites, for example, can be blinded, temporarily or perma nently, by lasers. Efforts to protect against these technologies are currently under consideration, if not well underway. 17 By address ing some vulnerabilities of reconnaissance and other military sup port satellites, the attractiveness of these satellites as targets can be reduced. At a bare minimum, defensive efforts make it more be more forceful and thus less covert. Enhancing SSA is also related to reducing the likelihood and effectiveness of attacks against US satellites. That the US must improve its SSA is accepted as fact by nearly all policymakers, practitioners, and commentators. If SSA is good enough, it can provide enough information about attacks to attribute them to an adversary, mitigate their effects, or avoid them altogether. Any comprehensive space assurance strategy will need to in clude a growing defensive component. Many nations have gained access to technologies with the latent capability to attack satel lites. These technologies can be used for other missions, and thus cannot reasonably be expected to be phased out simply because they threaten satellites. Furthermore, it may not be feasible or de sirable to restrain with diplomacy all the ways of interfering with satellites. Defensive efforts can manage the threat posed by tech nologies that space-faring nations can not or do not want to ban. Efforts to reduce the effectiveness of attacks on satellites have a number of advantages. By conveying a message to potential ad versaries that attacks are less likely to succeed, satellite protections bolster deterrence. They mitigate, at least in part, the destabilizing effects of losing communications, early-warning, reconnaissance, or other space-based services during a crisis or war. Defensive measures are politically uncontroversial and thus do not interfere with diplomacy; they can support diplomacy by reducing the ef fectiveness of some types of interference. Many of these mea sures are cost-effective relative to the investments already made in satellites. The intersection of these advantages into a single option makes defensive counterspace efforts indispensable. Offensive Hedges All US presidents have pursued, to various extents, offensive hedging strategies to prepare for a worst-case scenario of space warfare. These hedging strategies have mostly been limited to the research and development of some multipurpose capabilities and the deployment of systems with latent ASAT capabilities. For a brief period of time after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US Armys Nike Zeus, was quickly dismantled in favor of the second, the Air Forces Thor. 18 Both were acknowledged to be impractical because they relied on a 1.5 megaton nuclear warhead to destroy targets. 19 The US was well aware at that time that the use of nucle ar weapons in orbit would result in the indiscriminate destruction of all satellites in the area. The primary reasons for the reluctance of most previous US administrations to engage in dedicated ASAT testing have rested on national security grounds. Even those presidents who have had an interest in deploying dedicated ASATs have been stymied by the objections of Congress and resistance by allied countries, which help account for how few dedicated ASAT tests the US has undertaken. US ASAT tests would also likely trigger ASAT tests by other nations (and vice versa), thereby reducing space assur ance for all space-faring nations. The Soviet response to President Reagans Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) provides an example of how the rejection of diplo macy and the pursuit of space weapons and ASATs can be harmful to national security. Reagans original budget plan for SDI called propriated half that amount, and no system was deployed, the programs existence prompted responses designed to defeat it. 20 Moreover, congressional majorities placed strict limits on ASAT and SDI tests, resulting in a severe disconnect between the Reagan administrations stated policy objectives and its ability to imple ment them. In effect, this disconnect resulted in severe disad vantages to the US, generating negative military and diplomatic responses while severely constraining the US military programs that prompted them. Thus, in ignoring diplomatic instruments that restrict US military freedom of action in space and investing heavily in space weapons, Reagans policies led to a net increase of the threat facing US satellites. The net consequences of the Bush administrations National Space Policy, which also denigrated diplomacy and emphasized US freedom of military action in space, were similar. Bilateral relations with potential adversaries and close allies deteriorated. Potential adversaries accelerated hedging strategies, as was evi dent in the series of Chinese ASAT tests, only the last of which was successful. This resulted in less space assurance. The asym metric responses provoked by dedicated ASATs required more military spending to counter them. At a time when US national and economic security required more space assurance, the Bush administrations approach provided less space assurance. A strike on US satellites would prompt the US to retaliate, and rightly so. However, there is no reason that this retaliation should be limited to others satellitesmost valuable targets are terres trial and there is no reason to believe that reciprocal strikes against nition, dedicated ASATs are useful for one purpose: attacking ad versaries satellites. If multipurpose systems like missile defenses can already accomplish this task and serve as a credible deterrent, there seems to be no need for dedicated ASAT programs, espe cially within the context of a space assurance strategy. terproductive. Tests and deployments of dedicated ASATs will surely trigger similar tests and deployments elsewhere. At the same time, there are no guarantees that restraint will be recipro cated. Therefore, the most prudent hedges are the latent capabili ties which exist today.
19 High Frontier The Way Forward The diplomatic and defensive components of a space assurance strategy deserve greater emphasis. Physical protective measures that are cost-effective at the margin are clearly part of the solution to the dilemma of satellite vulnerability. Defensive measures in clude improving satellite maneuverability, hardening against las ing, better signal encryption, increasing redundancy, and perform ing missions with a mix of space-based and terrestrial platforms. Some satellite networks, like GPS, are so crucial that they warrant redundancy regardless of cost. Though the physical protection provided by defensive measures is limited, the message sent is clear. US satellites will be harder to attack, and if they are at tacked, the US will retain the means to respond with deadly force. This is the essence of deterrence. Diplomacy can build norms for responsible space-faring na tions while clarifying irresponsible actions. Diplomatic agree ments can seek to restrain the testing and use of dedicated ASAT weapons. The norm central to space assurance is not interfering with the normal operation of satellites. By establishing this and other norms, diplomacy establishes principles which enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of responses to rule-breaking. Di plomacy can be backed up by the pursuit of hedges in the event of a failure of diplomacy, as was the case during the Carter admin istration, when Washington and Moscow tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a ban on space weapons. In the year from July 1977, the Miniature Homing Vehicle program that eventually led to a successful air-launched ASAT test in 1985. 21 Funding for the pro gram nearly tripled between Fiscal Years 1978 and 1981. 22 The two sides participated in three wide-ranging sets of talks between June 1978 and June 1979, though no agreement was reached. When US administrations place a heavy emphasis on space warfare capabilities and denigrate diplomatic initiatives, the net effect is less, not more, space assurance. Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush adopted space policies that sought to maximize US military freedom of action in space while resisting diplomatic initiatives that restricted this freedom of action. The results in both cases were increased tension with other space-faring nations, increased US funding for systems with a dedicated or latent ASAT capability, and asymmetric responses and ASAT tests by potential adversaries. These policies made it more likely that an incidence of space warfare would be highly destructive. The number of threats to US satellites increased, while diplomacy was not used to strengthen norms against attacking satellites. systems with latent ASAT capabilities and tests of multipurpose technologies. Latent capabilities, such as missile defense and la sers, will likely be developed and deployed in greater numbers. However, after the destruction of the USA-193 satellite in April 2008, no further tests on satellites are needed to clarify the latent ASAT capabilities of missile defense. Indeed, further tests of antiballistic missile systems in an ASAT mode would be seriously detrimental to space assurance in almost all circumstances. Mul goals which are oriented towards peaceful applications. Involving National Aeronautics and Space Administration would be one way of signaling these tests benign intent. There are inherent tensions between diplomacy and hedging. Thus, clarity is required about diplomatic objectives and the downside risks of hedging strate gies. Latent capabilities clarify US capabilities to respond in the event of a resumption of ASAT tests by others. There is no need to test and deploy dedicated ASATs to stress US capabilities. Diplomacy is time-consuming and potentially unreliable states have the option to break their word if they so choose. Dip lomatic initiatives can also be disingenuous, serving as a cover for pursuing offensive capabilities. While recognizing these limita norms conducive to space assurance. Norms cannot be set by military actions alone. Indeed, the absence of diplomatic norms The purpose of diplomacy is to clarify which actions are ac able. Diplomacy can also facilitate cooperation in other areas, matic efforts have in the past yielded treaties. The limitations of treaties make them less desirable for the task at hand. They take a long time to negotiate, and dealing with tricky problems about weapon) would be extremely contentious. Something in between regime has the best chance to enhance space security in the near term. This option enjoys wide support in the US and around the world. As General Kevin P. Chilton stated in answer to a written mand, I think as a government, we should examine the potential utility of a code of conduct or rules of the road for the space domain, thus providing a common understanding of acceptable or unacceptable behavior within a medium shared by all nations. 23 Similarly, the European Parliaments recently passed resolution on space and security asked European Union member states to explore the possibility of developing legally or politically bind ing rules of the road for space operators. 24 Rules of the road for space are often proposed in the form of a code of conduct for responsible space-faring nations. Rules of the road in the form of a code of conduct have several advantages. In a code of conduct, national authorities can make their own determinations about possible violations of norms. It may be possible to avoid linking a code of conduct for space to missile defense and other thorny issues, allowing negotiations to proceed more quickly. The most important component of this code of conduct would be a pledge to refrain from harmful interference with space ob jects. A norm against harmful interference with satellites would clearly establish a norm, lay out irresponsible actions, and fa cilitate responses to violators of the norm. Focusing on harmful actions, rather than on the weapons used to commit them, would sence of space weapons. It would also address the worst aspect of unrestrained ASAT capabilities, their tendency to create thousands of pieces of orbital debris when tested or used. The absence of de structive ASAT tests would greatly ease the tasks of debris mitiga a lacuna in the existing treaty regime, shore up the norms against harmful interference with satellites, clarify irresponsible behavior,
High Frontier 20 and facilitate the isolation and punishment of bad actors. New diplomatic initiatives may fail, but they ought not to fail for want of trying. If diplomacy is the primary element of a space assurance strategy, as it has been for most presidents, the US can still maintain the capacity to strike satellites using the latent ca pabilities of existing systems. Space assurance is best served by relying on diplomacy and defensive measures, while keeping of fensive measures in reserve. Conclusion A space assurance strategy which focuses on diplomacy and purely defensive measures is the most likely to provide for space assurance. Diplomacy can establish and reinforce norms. In do ing so, it lays the ground work for responses to irresponsible ac tions. Defensive measures can support diplomacy while also re ducing at the margins the likelihood that attacks on satellites can disrupt their functionality. They also send a message that attacks are less likely to succeed and more likely to provoke a punitive a useful role if properly constrained. President Eisenhower called for ASAT research as an insurance policy against possible hostile activities in space. 25 This should be the guiding precept of the offensive hedging strategy of tomorrow. Given the recent resur gence of ASAT testing in space and the hints that other nations are preparing to respond in kind, a near-term limit on this behavior would be ideal, especially because the number of countries with the latent capability to attack satellites is expanding. In this con text, continuing to ignore the potential of diplomacy to contribute to space assurance seems untenable. What is needed is a reversion to a traditional, time-tested approach to space assurance. Notes: 1 US Department of State, Limited Test Ban Treaty, http://www.state. gov/t/ac/trt/4797.htm; US Department of State, Outer Space Treaty, http:// www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm. 2 Samuel Black, No Harmful Interference with Space Objects: The http://www.stimson.org/space/pdf/NHI%20Final.pdf. 3 National Security Planning Board, Draft Statement of Policy on Feyock, ed., Presidential Decisions: NSC Documents (Washington, DC: The George C. Marshall Institute, 2006). 4 National Security Council, US Policy on Outer Space, NSC 5918/1, 17 December 1959, in Stephanie Feyock, ed., Presidential Decisions: NSC Documents (Washington, D.C.: The George C. Marshall Institute, 2006). 5 James Clay Moltz, The Politics of Space Security (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 98. 6 Dean Rusk, NSC Action 2454, 2 July 1962, in Stephanie Feyock, ed., Presidential Decisions: NSC Documents (Washington, DC: The George C. Marshall Institute, 2006). 7 Ibid., 258. 8 Raymond L. Garthoff, Banning the Bomb in Outer Space, Interna tional Security 5, no. 3 (Winter 1980-1). 9 Outer Space Treaty, Articles I and III, http://www.state.gov/t/ac/ trt/5181.htm. 10 Brent Scowcroft, US Anti-Satellite Capabilities, NSDM 345, 18 January 1977, in Stephanie Feyock, ed., Presidential Decisions: NSC Doc uments (Washington, DC: The George C. Marshall Institute, 2006). 11 Jimmy Carter, Arms Control for Anti-satellite (ASAT) Systems, Presidential Directive/NSC-33, 10 March 1978, in Stephanie Feyock, ed., Presidential Decisions: NSC Documents (Washington, DC: The George C. Marshall Institute, 2006). 12 Ronald Reagan, National Space Policy, NSDD-42, 4 July 1982, in Stephanie Feyock, ed., Presidential Decisions: NSC Documents (Wash ington, DC: The George C. Marshall Institute, 2006). 13 National Science and Technology Council, National Space Policy, fact sheet, 19 September 1996, http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/li brary/policy/national/nstc-8.htm. 14 Executive Summary, in Report of the Commission to Assess Unit ed States National Security Space Management and Organization (Wash ington, DC: Commission to Assess United States National Security Space, 11 January 2001), 12. 15 Maj Michael A. Toraborelli, The 2 nd Space Operations Squadron: Transforming Operations, High Frontier 4, no. 3 (May 2008). 16 Lt Col Jon M. Anderson, Military Positioning, Navigation, and Tim ing: Strategic Challenges and Opportunities, High Frontier 4, no. 3 (May 2008). 17 Paul Marks, Pentagon Wants Laser Attack Warnings for Satellites, NewScientist.com 28 May 2008, http://technology.newscientist.com/ar ticle/dn14002-pentagon-wants-laser-attack-warnings-for-satellites.html. 18 Paul Stares, The Militarization of Space: US Policy, 1945-1984 (Itha ca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 120. 19 Stares, 123. 20 Baker Spring, Congresss SDI Cuts Deserve a Bush Veto, Execu tive Memorandum #243, 19 July 1989, http://www.heritage.org/Research/ NationalSecurity/EM243.cfm. 21 Stares, Appendix II, Table 2, 262; 206-7. 22 Ibid., 209. 23 General Kevin P. Chilton, Advance Questions for General Kevin P. Chilton, USAF: Nominee for Commander, United States Strategic Com mand, 7 September 2007, http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2007/ September/Chilton%2009-27-07.pdf. 24 European Parliament, Resolution of 10 July 2008 on Space and Security 10 July 2008, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0365+0+DOC+XML+V0// EN&language=EN. 25 Stares, 106. Mr. Samuel Black (BA, Gov ernment and Politics, Univer sity of Maryland-College Park; MPP, International Security and Economic Policy, Univer sity of Maryland-College Park) is a research associate at the Stimson Center, where he works in the Space Security and South Asia programs. He is responsible for research and analysis on a range of security policy and budgeting matters; substantive editing and writ ing; and project management and reporting. Black recently authored the Stimson Center Report No Harmful Interference with Space Objects: The Key a United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research conference entitled Security in Space: The Next Generation. Prior to join ing the Stimson Center, Black served as a research assistant at the Center for Defense Information, where he focused on Space Secu rity and Missile Defense issues. He is a Presidential Management Fellowship Finalist for 2008, and was awarded the Capt William P. Cole III Peace Fellowship by the University of Marylands School of Public Policy.
21 High Frontier Probability of Survival Col Lee W. Rosen, USAF Director, Counterspace System Group Space Superiority Systems Wing Los Angeles AFB, California Lt Col Carol P. Welsch, USAF Director of Engineering Space Superiority Systems Wing Los Angeles AFB, California W as 11 January 2007 the modern day equivalent of the shot heard round the world or just another day when the US ignored the precipitous rise of China as they demon strated their direct ascent antisatellite weapon (ASAT) capa bility? Was the 21 February 2008 downing of a crippled US satellite by the US Navy a diving catch to protect the citizens of the earth, or a response to the Chinese? Regardless of the answers to these questions, perhaps the ultimate homage and dium was the recent US Air Force recruiting video showing an enemy missile slamming into an orbiting US satellite. The case for protecting these on-orbit crown jewels has never been more glaring, yet the US has done precious little to bolster its defensive posture in space. This article outlines one small step in bridging this precarious vulnerability gap, focus steps that must be taken to protect the next generation of US satellites. This journey will take years to complete, and many other materiel and non-materiel solutions will have to be put in place, but we must start today. The holistic approach to space protection must also include a more robust and integrated space situational awareness (SSA) capability, a declarative US space protection policy, as well as our proposal for developing a com mon product line of standardized, tactical awareness, attribu tion, and protection capabilities. The case for our protecting our space assets has been es tablished throughout the history of other mediums (land, sea, air, cyber) and by a recognition from several key leaders that space is now a contested environment. Many analogies have been made to freedom of action on the high seas and freedom of action in space. Much of US space policy, from the return of de-orbited space objects to the treatment of foreign astronauts, is based on treaties and customs of the high seas. As economic dependence on the sea for trade and commerce grew, the need to protect that valuable instrument of national power grew com mensurately. The great navies of Europe during their colonial periods were a testimony to their commitment to protection. This same commitment to protecting our freedom of ac tion in space and recognition that space is a contested envi ronment has been emphatically voiced by US leadership. The presidents 2006 US National Space Policy states, The United States considers space capabilitiesincluding the ground and space segments and supporting linksvital to its national in terests. Consistent with this policy, the US will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests. 1 General C. Robert Kehler, commander of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) commented, As I look into the future, I see a time when AFSPC must be prepared to operate and deliver its space capabilities in a contested environ ment We saw some of that evidence when the Chinese tested their ASAT and reminded the whole world that there are capa bilities that can threaten our space systems. 2 Protecting our freedom of action in space is vital to our national informational, economic, and military security. Given our dependence on space systems, space protection must be addressed at the strategic, operational, and tactical lev els. Questions at the strategic level abound. The salad days of space as a peaceful sanctuary were never real. From Sputnik to Shuttle, Corona to Operationally Responsive Space, the socalled militarization of space has been with us since its incep tion. Yet, we have no rules of engagement for how we operate attack on one of its satellites? If we look at the history of airpower, how much national treasure was poured into penetrating Soviet airspace, or pro tecting our Airmen against the worlds most complex integrated air defense systems? The US would never send its aircraft into a known high-threat environment unprotected, yet we send our spacecraft in every 90 minutes. This argument seemingly breaks down given the fact that our spacecraft do not put hu mans in harms way. But what about the soldier that depends on satellite communications to keep him safe? And if US ships in international waters and US Embassys on foreign soil are considered US sovereign territory, then what are US satellites considered? If US satellites are considered sovereign territory, how do we respond to an attack on US sovereignty? Strate gic space protection starts with effective policy to deter attacks against US space systems. The US must clearly articulate a de clarative policy stating that an attack on a US asset constitutes an attack on US sovereignty. This policy must be backed by a concerted effort protecting all US space assets, whether they are military, civil, allied, or commercial satellites carrying US government information. The US cannot depend on strategic policies alone to deter at tacks against US space systems and must consider operational mile of the protection road starts with situational awareness. SSA has ascended to the status of a buzzword in the space com Space Protection
High Frontier 22 munity. Everyone seems to know we do not have enough of it, desperately need more of it, and think that throwing money at the SSA problem will solve all our space control woes. Air Force doctrine says SSA is the knowledge and intelligence that provides the planner, commander, and executor with suf enable course of action development. 3 SSA alone is not pro tection. Protection involves both the to know of SSA, as well as the to act part of defensive counterspace. As such, SSA is a means to the ends of freedom of action in space. Yet, we do not treat it this way. Today, we seem to do SSA for SSAs sake. The reason that the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) ex ists today is not to do SSA. It exists to provide the Joint Functional Component Command for Space (JFCC-Space) credible options to preserve freedom of action in space. We must ensure the JFCC-Space not only knows what is happening on-orbit, but has time to act. The observe, orient, decide, and act loop applies equally in the vacuum of space as it does in the atmosphere. More SSA does not guarantee freedom of action, nor is it necessarily better SSA. If we look at the US space surveil lance network today, we see a system built out of Cold War necessity that has not aged gracefully. The network today con sists of several stovepiped point-solutions that are not well inte grated. AFSPCs interim SSA architecture seeks to modernize and integrate those systems in a net-centric, service-oriented, to be spent in that architecture is not on a new sensor; it is on using what we have today more effectively. The partnership of programs being developed by the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and the Electronic Systems Center is a step in the right direction in providing the means of true, decision quality SSA for the JFCC-Space. Integrated SSA (ISSAnet-centric, Detection and Reporting System Block 20 (threat warning and course of action development), space command and con global information grid), and JSpOC 3.0 (the next-generation for true integrated SSA. But SSA is only one piece of the pro tection puzzle. The US must change the way it designs weapon systems operating in the medium of space. cussed are tactical protection capabilities. Protecting space is hard and costly. While space-based protection is necessary, it is not ideal. The space kill chain timelines are extremely trying and it is challenging to stay ahead of the counter-counter mea sure race with an adversary once on orbit. Driving protection timelines as far to the left (well before the shot is taken) is key. With space-based protection smart decisions need to be made very early on in the program. Aircraft have operated in a contested environment since the dawn of airpower, and as a result, aircraft system engineers have long considered survivability as a key element in combat aircraft system designs. Aircraft survivability is now a mature, and conferences, and a joint service supporting program of 4 The national security space community needs to do the same and apply similar approaches to space systems. This air craft survivability methodology measures survivability as the statistical probability of surviving the attackers complete kill function of the targets susceptibility to an attack (i.e., what is the probability that the target can be detected, tracked, and hit?) and the targets vulnerability (i.e., if hit, what is the probability the target will be killed?). Applying this model to space systems would enable the space system engineer to objectively determine optimum solu tions for enhancing a space systems survivability. Through rigorous analysis, trade studies can be accomplished between various protection approaches and vulnerabilities can be mini mized. Analysis alone, however, wont provide space protection. Implementing space protection starts with establishing a re quirement for protection. One approach to accomplish this is to state a required minimum probability of survival for new space system acquisition programs, and document this requirement in the program capabilities description documents, perhaps even as a key performance parameter for high value space assets. Without a documented requirement, even the most well-inten tioned space system acquirers cannot justify the cost, schedule, and performance impacts to their programs caused by including self-protection systems. To the survivability analyst, it would be desirable to levy a 100 percent probability of survival on all space systems in all threat scenarios since every national national security. The reality is that the US could quickly break the national treasury trying to protect every space system against space system, then, should be carefully determined based on the factors such as the criticality of the space system in a par ticular threats scenario and the likelihood of a particular threat. This is not an easy task since it requires understanding the im interdependencies between systems. The aircraft community accomplishes this task through campaign level modeling. It is time for the space community to do the same. Space campaign tion of the impact of losing different space capabilities. How much does the loss of global positioning satellites affect the length of a land campaign? How does the loss of communica tions satellites affect a theater commanders campaign plan? Answers to these questions help the requirement community understand which systems are the highest priority to protect, and so demand a higher survivability requirement. space systems and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of space architectures, the national security space community must nur vivability analysts are necessary to understand a designs sus ceptibility and vulnerability to current and projected threats, to make trades between various design approaches, and to perform
23 High Frontier architecture studies based on rigorous modeling and simulation. These architecture studies would ideally be based on space campaign and engagement level models, enabling the analyst to identify the most cost-effective architectures and concepts of operations for ensuring that space capabilities will be there when and where they are needed. The national security space community needs to make developing the necessary modeling and simulation tools a priority. The space community could lishing a survivability program, the Joint Aircraft Survivability Program, to coordinate survivability efforts, fund analytical ef forts, and help develop space survivability analysts. The Space Superiority Systems Wing has invested in devel oping robust, analytically-based modeling and simulation tools for evaluating the performance and cost effectiveness of SSA architectures, offensive counterspace systems, and defensive counterspace systems. Tools like the Space Superiority Sys tems Wings Lookout model provide the analysis capability to vestment decisions. Although still in development, these tools are already proving useful for providing objective analysis of new system concepts and architectures. Continued develop ment of modeling and simulation tools, and nurturing an as sociated space survivability community of study, will provide space system developers the ability to determine the right level and type of protection for national security space programs. Just as a combat aircrafts survival is dependent on having situational awareness of the battlespace, space protection is predicated on SSA. Maintaining track custody on all potential threats to all of our assets, in all orbital regimes, and providing like the Navy uses a layered defense system around its carrier battle groups, the Air Force will need to set up a layered de fense system around the USs most important space assets. The inner tactical-level layer of that protection system, on board the asset itself, must take cues from the outer layers, and have to communicate the fact that its in duress, have the capability thing to protect itself. ing information from operational-level SSA assets to make tac tical decisions, with timely command and control, is anything but trivial. The ISSA/RB-20/Space C2/JSpOC 3.0 capabilities mentioned earlier will provide the integrated SSA picture to take the operational-level raw data, and fuse it into actionable information. The rest of the puzzle (self-awareness, communi cation, attribution, and protection) are being developed by the program known as Self-Awareness Space Situational Aware ness (SASSA). The vision for the SASSA program is to produce a common product line of on-orbit awareness, attribution, and in some future instantiation, protection capabilities that are plug and play compatible and minimally obtrusive to the host satellite. The SASSA demonstration program is in the initial acquisi SASSA is to develop the standard for on-board awareness/at tribution capability. The system will be designed to be modular, scalable, and have standardized interfaces to be backward and forward compatible with a number of bus designs and sensor designs. The vision is to be like the standard encryption gear (KG) that is carried on nearly every Department of Defense designers know up front they are mandated to carry a KG; they understand the design interface, and the resultant size, weight, and power requirements for the unit. The heart of the SASSA standard system is the common in terface unit (CIU). Picture your television set. It can plug into any US wall outlet, and has a variety of HDMI, USB, S-Video, and other connections to input other media. The CIU plugs into a number of satellite bus power/comm/data handling infra structures (1553, spacewire, etc.) and will host a standardized, stand alone communication package, a radar warning receiver, and a laser warning receiver. All of this will be delivered in a net-centric data output format. But the community must not be nave or complacent enough to think that we can stop with the SASSA demonstration. Recognizing the need for protection, what is the most cost-ef fective approach to provide protection systems or packages for by using a consolidated acquisition source which can provide protection solutions with the ability to tailor different solu tions for different missions. This approach avoids each space program having to develop their own, unique space protection packages and enables the space system program directors to remain focused on their primary mission. It also achieves econ omies of scale provided by a common product line. The ac quisition source could be responsible for development, testing, and qualifying protection packages. This same source could quantity basis to simplify procurement for all programs. Think of a Space Protection Home Depot where program directors their needs, along with experienced analysts and engineers to help them choose the ideal protection package. To quote the Home Depot approach: You can do it. We can help. An important element of the Space Protection Home De pot is the provision for a program to experiment with new con cepts and tactics, and to demonstrate them in an operationally relevant environment before they are integrated on operational spacecraft. These demonstrations are necessary to reduce risk for operational programs by characterizing the performance and reliability of the space protection package before it is em ployed operationally. These demonstrations would also serve to validate space protection modeling and simulation tools. A dedicated program to develop space protection packages would not replace the excellent work being accomplished by research laboratories. It would be expected that research labo ratories and agencies would continue to pursue research sup porting space protection technologies. However, a dedicated program is necessary to pull promising technologies from the
High Frontier 24 labs and perform on-orbit demonstrations. This function is partially accomplished by the Air Forces Space Control Tech nologies Program (to pull technology from the laboratories) and the DoD Space Test Program (to provide access to space). However, both these programs are inadequately resourced to accomplish the needs of space protection. A reliable funding level must be provided which allows a steady pipeline of tech nology maturation, ground testing, on-orbit demonstrations and evaluations. A deliberately planned, regularly scheduled, small satellite launch dedicated to space protection demonstrations is a must. The ideas presented here are a vision of the future, but there are steps we can take today to work towards this vision without new programs or policies. The SMC Space Protection Forum stood up this year with the mission to facilitate communications between force enhancement programs and the Space Superior ity Systems Wing. This unique forum provides an avenue to ensure programs space protection requirements are well-un derstood and to develop the right protection solutions. The requirement to provide on-board protection capabilities for US satellites is as apparent as the emerging threats. Fu ture programs of record birthed from the SASSA demo must be put in place to operationalize SASSAs awareness, attribution, and communications capabilities, and develop effective, broadspectrum countermeasures to emerging threats. This long-term program should deliver that common, standardized product line of reliable, affordable, ISSA-compatible capabilities, along with the requisite C2 system for protecting all critical US, and potentially allied spacecraft. Today the Chinese are merely testing ASAT weapons. Will the US be ready when China operationally deploys their ASAT weapons? We know how we want a future space campaign to look: an ASAT attack is immediately detected by a robust network of sensors, the sensor data is integrated and presented to the commander in intuitive fashion, along with a menu of possible courses of action. The commander selects a course of action while self-protection packages activate. The ASAT misses its target. Probability of survival: 100 percent. Notes: 1 Technology Policy, 31 August 2006, http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20N ational%20Space%Policy.pdf. 2 A1C Wesley Carter, Kehler: AFSPC has been entrusted with a na tional mission, 15 January 2008, http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/ story.asp?id=123082331 (accessed 8 September 2008). 3 Air Force Doctrine Document 2-2.1, Counterspace Operations 2 August 2004, 51. 4 The Joint Aircraft Survivability Program funds joint technological and analytical tools for enhancing survivability of aircraft. Dr. Joel Wil liamson, Satellite Vulnerability to Direct Ascent KE ASAT: Applying Lessons Learned from NASA, Missile Defense, and Aircraft Survivability Programs, Aircraft Survivability Summer 2008, http://www.bahdayton. com/surviac/asnews/AS_Summer_2008.pdf (accessed 30 August 2008), 25. Col Lee W. Rosen (BS, Human Factors Engineering, USAFA; MS, Space Studies, University of North Dakota; MS, Logis tics Management, AFIT) is the director of the Counterspace Systems Group, Space Superi ority Systems Wing, Space and Missile Systems Center (Air Force Space Command) at Los Angeles AFB, California. Col was as a missile maintenance st Missile Wing, Grand Forks, North Da kota. In 1991, Colonel Rosen was selected to attend the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Upon graduation from AFIT, he was at the Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, Cali fornia. Colonel Rosen was part of the initial cadre of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, Polarorbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, DMSP Pro Missile Training in 1997 and was awarded the Space Operations where he served various positions culminating with executive as sistant to the director of the NRO. In 2001, Colonel Rosen moved to Vandenberg AFB to be the director, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program and later the commander of the 4 th Space Launch the program control chief, and now serving as the director of the Counterspace Systems Group. Lt Col Carol P. Welsch (BS, Aeronautical Engineer ing, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; MAS, Aerospace Management, Embry-Riddle University) is the director of engineering for the Space Su periority Systems Wing. Colo nel Welsch was commissioned as a second lieutenant through the Air Force ROTC program in May 1988. Her career in cludes a variety of assignments as an engineer in space acqui Allard. As a member of Senator Allards staff, she was responsible for all homeland security issues and assisted on military and space legislative issues. She followed this fellowship with assignments Legislative Liaison where she served as the Secretary of the Air Forces focal point for all Air Force space legislative issues. Colo nel Welsch also served as the director of the Space Development Group, Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. In this capacity, she was responsible for the Depart ment of Defense Space Test Program, the Multi-Mission Satellite Operations Center acquisition program, and SMC support to the graduate of the Air War College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama.
25 High Frontier Moving Beyond SSA: An Attribution Architecture for Space Control Maj Wallace Rhet Turnbull, USAF Lead, Simulation Engineering, Plans and Integration Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike US Strategic Command Offutt AFB, Nebraska Setting the Context S ince taking an early lead in the space race, the US Air Force has enjoyed both freedom of action and freedom from action in space. The Air Forces space doctrine seeks to protect these freedoms while also being able to deny an adver sary the same freedoms. 1 For decades, this doctrine has been underwritten by superior US space capability. However, the blanket of superiority that provides US space security is start ing to show signs of wear at the same time as the nation grows increasingly more reliant on the application of space power to win its wars. The space club is no longer as elite as it once was and the proliferation of space technology to non-traditional space actors promises to shrink the asymmetric US space ad vantage. Additionally, new members of the space club may not practice traditional restraints regarding the weaponization of space, a fact well illustrated by Chinas unannounced antisatel lite (ASAT) test in 2007. served as a harsh reminder that space power can be held at risk by a determined adversary. As a result of the Chinese ASAT test, the Air Force has shown a renewed interest in defensive counterspace capabilities. The Air Force Research Laborato ry, for example, has proposed a concept dubbed Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Space (ANGELS) that would employ bodyguard satellites to escort key systems. 2 The ANGELS satellites would be used to inspect host space craft for damage or to provide local situational awareness. A logical extension of the ANGELS concept would be a defen sive escort that could intercept a would-be attacker. While such defensive systems may someday provide limited protection against certain threats, the unique physics of a space attack will always favor the attacker. Flying a spacecraft is quite different has a very small maneuver envelope and it is unlikely that a sat warning. 3 Such warning is, of course, dependent on knowing the attackers position, capabilities, and intentno small feat and one which requires exquisite space situational awareness (SSA). From Surveillance to Awareness The United States collects SSA data from a loose confedera tion of systems collectively known as the Space Surveillance Space Protection Network (SSN). The SSN is comprised of ground-based op tical and radar sensors and a single space-based optical sen sor. Additional SSA data is gathered by various environmental sensors on individual spacecraft but such data is rarely fused and correlated with other SSN data in any meaningful manner. The SSN sensors observe man-made objects as they traverse through space and collect data that is then used to compute each objects orbital path, allowing the objects future position to be predicted. 4 This process is called space surveillance, the end result of which is a database of tracked objects known as the space catalog. The current space catalog tracks about 17,000 man-made objects 10 centimeters (cm) in diameter or larger. 5 Due to sen sor availability, the SSN cannot continuously track every space object. Instead, the SSN uses the computed orbit to predict an objects future position then periodically performs a spot check to update the orbital track. Some objects, such as high inter est spacecraft, are checked more frequently than others. As a result, the SSN might lose track on an object that unexpectedly moves between updates. Once track is lost, it can take days or This operational constraint could be exploited for counterspace purposes; for example, by an orbiting ASAT that masqueraded as space debris before maneuvering to a target. The SSNs historical role has been to monitor space debris for collision avoidance purposes. While the SSN has performed this role commendably, limitations of the current system could have grave consequences in a contested space environment. These limitations have long been known, but in the absence of a credible space threat, the status quo was deemed accept able. Air Force leaders are, however, pushing to expand SSN capabilities and a handful of enhancements and new systems are collectively moving US space control capabilities from a paradigm of surveillance to that of space situational aware ness For example, the planned upgrade of the Air Force Space Surveillance System, also known as the Space Fence, and the Space-Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) system, currently un SSN and improve detection limits for small satellites in higher orbits as well as increase timeliness of space tracking data. A New Space Race While the Air Force is taking steps to build a more robust SSA capability, rapid technological advances are accelerating the rate at which space capability is proliferated to other space actors. The result is a race between satellite systems and space surveillance systems. Satellite technology is constantly evolv ing and does so at a faster pace than space surveillance systems which have multi-decade life-cycles. Nowhere is this more ev
High Frontier 26 ident than in the revolution taking place in very small satellites which can have a life-cycle as short as nine months and can be built for a fraction of the cost of traditional spacecraft. 6 erage satellite size has steadily increased. Sputnik was only 84 kilograms (kg) while a modern military communications satel lite, such as the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system, can weigh as much as 6,000 kg. 7 This trend is the result of a number of factors such as launch cost, development cost, and an increase in requirements. However, technological ad vances are reversing this trend and there is growing interest in making spacecraft as small as possible. This is especially true among non-traditional space actors who value smaller satellites because they lower the cost of entry into the space club. The spacecraft industry has developed a lexicon, shown in table 1, 8 for describing satellites of various sizes, which includes minisatellites, microsatellites, nanosatellites, picosatellites, and femtosatellites. 9 Since the early 1990s, satellites in the micro satellite class (10 to 100 kg) have steadily gained popularity, spurred by advances in microelectronics. Because small satel lites generally cost less to build and launch than traditional sat ellites, they are more accessible to nations that otherwise might not invest in space technology. This phenomenon has fueled a growing small satellite industry. Estimates indicate that over 30 nations have conducted small satellite programs and even more are planning them. 10 Category Mass (kg) Cost (USD) Large satellite >1000 0.1-2B Medium satellite 500-1000 50-100M Minisatellite 100-500 10-50M Microsatellite (microsat) 10-100 2-10M Nanosatellite (nanosat) 1-10 0.2-2M Picosatellite (picosat) 0.1-1 20-200K Femtosatellite (femtosat) <0.1 0.1-20KTable 1. Satellite Categories by Mass and Approximate Cost. Although microsatellites remain a popular option for both governmental and non-governmental operators, interest in even smaller spacecraft has continued to grow. Consumer demand for smaller electronic devices such as mobile phones has driven advances in miniature electronics, microelectromechanical sys tems, and nano-technology. These multi-use technologies have been readily adopted by the small satellite industry, enabling satellites to shrink even further, which in-turn has permitted nanosat and picosat-class satellite missions. Over 30 nanosat missions, ranging from 1 to 10 kg, have missions have validated a wide range of payloads from earth observation to communications systems and capabilities which are constantly improving. Consider for example, the Canadianbuilt CanX-4 and CanX-5 missions, from the University of To rontos Space Flight Laboratory. The CanX missions, planned rendezvous, and inter-satellite crosslink communications in a 7 kg spacecraft measuring less than 20 cm across. 11 It is a small leap to imagine using such a system as an orbiting ASAT which could be used to attack or monitor other satellites. Indeed, no tional systems such as the Deployable Monitoring Nano-Satel lites have already been proposed to do this. 12 Nanosats have demonstrated that considerable functionality can be packed into small, inexpensive spacecraft and technol ogy is enabling even smaller picosat systems. Over 20 picosat and at least two dozen missions are in development. 13 These spacecraft have demonstrated capabilities similar to those of microsat and nanosat missions including imaging sensors, pre cision attitude control, and high-bandwidth communications. Usually measuring less than 10 cm across, it is possible that many picosat systems could operate unobserved by the SSN, particularly in higher orbits such as the medium-Earth orbit where the Global Positioning System (GPS) constellation op erates or the geosynchronous orbit where many military com munication satellites are stationed. Additionally, an adversary could take active measures to deploy such systems covertly such as hitchhiking on civilian systems or employing low-ob servable technologies to reduce a spacecrafts signature, there by decreasing the ability of the SSN to track it. tional reality. Flight-proven nanosat and picosat technologies are likely mature and widely proliferated enough to enable a small orbital ASATs could be developed or procured for rela tively small budgets, making them a more attractive option than expensive and complex direct ascent missile ASATs such as the system demonstrated by China. Small satellite technology will continue to advance and some researchers believe that even smaller femtosat spacecraft, measuring a centimeter or less across, are possible. For ex ample, Maj David Barnhart has proposed a fully-functional sat ellite constructed from a single integrated circuit chip dubbed SpaceChip. 14 Researchers at Cornell University have similarly proposed a spacecraft design that utilizes a novel propulsion scheme and measures only a few millimeters across. 15 Current femtosat designs would do little more than demonstrate feasibil ity but technological drivers will continue to shrink spacecraft components and systems and it is possible that femtosat sized systems could be operational in the not-too-distant future. Architecture as a Policy Enabler The specter of inexpensive and widely proliferated ASAT systems on the horizon should cause Air Force leaders to con sider the implications for space control doctrine and systems. Would-be ASAT builders will maintain an advantage over sur veillance and awareness systems for the foreseeable future. Small satellite builders have or will have the technological means to rapidly develop increasingly smaller satellites at de creasing costs. Defense against such systems, especially with out comprehensive SSA, will remain extremely challenging. In the absence of a robust defensive capability, the United
27 High Frontier States must continue to depend on deterrence to protect its freedom of action in space. The US National Space Policy is predicated on the ability to dissuade or deter adversaries from impeding freedom of action. 16 In order for this policy to suc ceed, would-be attackers must believe that their actions will be detected and accurately attributed, for without such knowledge, the US cannot project a credible deterrent threat. However, in and possibly undetectable ASAT systems, this deterrent power is negated, allowing the adversary to act with impunity. For without reliable attribution, it would be nearly impossible to distinguish a space attack from a satellite malfunction. Mark Berkowitz, former assistant deputy under secretary of defense for space policy, has noted that this capability gap constrains both policy and operational responses. 17 One way to address the policy gap is to build an attribu tion architecture for space control. The attribution architecture must be more comprehensive than the current SSN and other SSA systems; it must be capable of producing an indisputable chain of evidence when a hostile event occurs, thus lifting cur rent constraints and providing national leaders with response options. 18 As General Kevin Chilton, then commander, Air Force Space Command, emphasized in a 2007 speech, None of the things weve been able to do as a nation could be brought to bear without attribution, and attribution is absolutely key. 19 The proposed attribution architecture must truly be just thata holistic architecture, designed as a policy enabler, and not merely a better SSN. It should be a comprehensive space control architecture, utilizing a layered approach to space secu rity. These layers would include, at a minimum, SSA, defense, attribution, robust space systems, and rapid reconstitution ca pability. GELS may provide limited protection for high-value systems. Even if defense is not possible, such systems would still be valuable for providing enhanced situational awareness. Other developmental systems such as the Self-Aware Space Situ ational Awareness concept, which will put a sensor suite akin to a threat warning receiver onboard spacecraft, will also enhance SSAa prerequisite for attribution. The Air Force should ac to ensure that they are part of a space control framework and not just short-term solutions. Other possible improvements for the attribution architecture based optical systems such as SBSS. However, to keep pace with the rapidly evolving threat from very small satellite sys Force should resolve to develop technologies that can locate, identify, characterize, and track very small space systems across all orbital regimes. A critical part of attribution is not just identifying what hap pened, but also identifying who did it. In addition to tracking space objectsthe domain of todays SSN, the attribution ar chitecture will need to characterize and identify the objects, de termine capabilities and even intent, and trace the objects back to the country of origin by providing track custody from launch SSN utilizes today. In order to accomplish this, the attribution architecture will require the ability to fuse and correlate a wide range of data from disparate sensors. Current programs such as Integrated SSA, Space Threat Awareness and Characteriza Reporting System are steps in the right direction. In addition to improving detection and attribution, the Air Force should also focus on improving the robustness of space systems. 20 Todays military satellites are usually large, expen sive systems that are essentially sitting ducks. They are easy to Current satellites systems take years to build and are costly to replace. As satellite components shrink and small satellite systems grow in capability, it is possible that at least some of the capability of these monolithic military systems could be distributed among many smaller satellites. As result, the sys tem could be designed to degrade gracefully instead of failing catastrophically. Another possibility, currently being explored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is a frac tionated spacecraft concept that distributes functions across a cluster of small spacecraft making the system easier to repair and more resilient to attack. 21 Even with the best defenses, SSA, and robust satellite sys tems, it is possible that an adversary could still successfully impair or destroy US space systems. In such an event, the US pability. There is an important distinction to be drawn here between space capability and capabilitythe focus which seeks to develop small and inexpensive spacecraft ca other possibilities include high-altitude long-endurance aerial systems and near-space systems. The Air Force must be willing to cast a wide technology net in order to identify the reconstitu It is clear that the United States is developing capabilities that can be applied across all layers of a space control architec ture. Courageous leadership and vision are needed to ensure that these efforts are developed as pillars in a comprehensive architecture and not merely as stand-alone cylinders of excel lence. Air Force leaders must give consideration to the rapidly ensure that they are part of a space control framework and not just short-term solutions.
High Frontier 28 evolving nature of the space threat so that system capabilities can evolve accordingly. Unfortunately, many of the systems mentioned in this article are behind schedule and under-funded; which todays Air Force operates, this will require tough choic es and trade-offs. One thing seems certain though: regardless of what choices the Air Force makes, other space actors will develop the capability to hold US space systems at risk. Conclusion Our nation clearly faces an uncertain future where historical space doctrine may be inadequate to guarantee continued space superiority. The Air Force must reevaluate the assumption that space is a sanctuary and help the nation craft a space policy capable of dealing with non-traditional space actors. While it would be foolhardy to give up on the notion of space defense, it would also be unwise to assume that new space actors, who have demonstrated both the will and the technical means to challenge US space superiority, will be deterred by the same means as old adversaries. An attribution architecture for space control lays a solid foundation upon which national leaders can build a viable space policy. Notes: 1 Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-2-1, Counterspace Opera tions 2 August 2004, 5. 2 Paul Rincon, Military satellites may get stealthy, BBC News 21 February 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7257666.stm (accessed 3 March 2008). 3 David Wright, Laura Grego, and Lisbeth Gronlund, The Physics of Space Security: A Reference Manual (Cambridge, MA: American Acad emy of Arts and Sciences, 2005), 153. 4 United States Strategic Command, USSTRATCOM Space Control and Space Surveillance Fact Sheet 25 Feb 08, 1, http://www.stratcom. mil/fact_sheets/STRATCOM%20Space%20and%20COntrol%20Fact%2 0Sheet%20--%2025%20Feb%2008.doc (accessed 13 September 2008). 5 Ibid., 1. 6 Hank Heidt et al., CubeSat: A New Generation of Picosatellite for Education and Industry Low-Cost Space Experimentation, (Proceedings of the 15 th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, 2001), 1. 7 David J. Barnhart, Tanya Vladimirova, and Martin N. Sweeting, Enabling Space Sensor Networks with PCBSat, paper presented at 21 st Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, August 2007, 7; Department of the Air Force, The Air Force Handbook 2007 (Washington, DC: HQ Air Force, 2007), 33. 8 David J. Barnhart, Tanya Vladimirova, and Martin N. Sweeting, Very-Small-Satellite Design for Distributed Space Missions, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 44, no. 6 (November-December 2007): 1297. 9 The term satellite is often shorted to sat so that femtosatellite becomes femtosat, etc. 10 SpaceSecurity.Org, Space Security 2007 (Waterloo, Canada: Project Ploughshares, August 2007) 60. 11 Stuart Eagleson et al., Adaptable, Multi-Mission Design of CanX Nanosatellites, paper presented at 20 th Annual AIAA/USU Small Satel lite Conference, Logan, UT, August 2006, 1. 12 Paul Rincon, Military satellites may get stealthy, BBC News 21 February 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7257666.stm (accessed 15 September 2008). 13 Michael Thomsen home page, Michaels List of Cubesat Satel lite Missions, http://mtech.dk/thomsen/space/cubesat.php (accessed 28 March 2008). 14 Barnhart, Very-Small-Satellite Design for Distributed Space Mis sions, 1297. 15 Justin A. Atchison and Mason Peck, A Millimeter-Scale LorentzPropelled Spacecraft (paper presented at AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Hilton Head, SC, August 2007), 1. 16 Technology Policy, 31 August 2006, http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20N ational%20Space%Policy.pdf 1-2. 17 Marc J. Berkwotiz, Protecting Americas Freedom of Action in Space, HQ AFSPC, High Frontier 3, no 2 (March 2007), 17. 18 Roger Hall, Space Situational Awareness, speech, given at DAR PATech, DARPAs 25 th Systems and Technology Symposium, Anaheim, CA, August 2007, http://www.darpa.mil/darpatech2007/proceedings/ dt07-vso-hall-awareness.pdf (accessed 1 November 2007). 19 General Kevin P. Chilton, Space Command at Twenty-Five, ad dress, Air Force Association 2007 Air and Space Conference, Washing ton, DC, 25 September 2007, http://www.afa.org/events/conference/2007/ scripts/Space-Chilton.pdf (accessed 16 September 2008). 20 Massimo Calabresi, Quick, Hide the Tanks!, Time 15 May 2000, 60. 21 William Matthews, Cluster Solution: Fractionated Sats Could Of fer Survivability, Flexibility, Defense News 10 March 2008, http://www. defensenews.com/story.php?i=3413041&c=FEA&s=TEC (accessed 10 April 2008). Maj Wallace R. Turnbull, III (BS, Astronautical Engineer ing, United States Air Force Academy; ME, Space Opera tions, University of Colorado; MA, Military Operational Art and Science, Air Command and Staff College) is currently lead, Simulation Engineering, Plans and Integration, Joint Functional Component Com mand for Global Strike (JFCC/ GS), US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM),Offutt AFB, Nebraska. He is responsible for developing end-to-end integrated air defense models supporting JFCC/GS mission analysis. After commissioning through the United States Air Force Acad emy in 1995, Major Turnbull was assigned as a spacecraft engineer at the 4 th Space Operations Squadron, Schriever AFB, Colorado. From 1999 to 2002, he served as Space Experiments Program manager at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Space Vehicles Directorate, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts. Major Turnbulls next assignment was chief, Command and Control Development at the next-generation intelligence satellites. In 2006, Major Turnbull tection, and Reporting System Block 20, at the Space Superiority Systems Wing, Los Angeles AFB, California. Major Turnbull is a graduate of Air Command and Staff College where he received the Air Force Space Command Space Research Award for his paper Beyond Awareness: Moving Towards Com prehensive Space Situational Knowledge.
29 High Frontier Fractionated Satellites: Changing the Future of Risk and Opportunity for Space Systems Mr. Naresh Shah Associate, Booz Allen Hamilton, Global Defense Program Lead, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, System F6 Program Arlington, Virginia Dr. Owen C. Brown Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington, Virginia [I]t is important to recognize that space missions are a one strike and you are out activity. Thousands of functions can be correctly performed and one mistake can be mission catastroph ic. 1 ~ Thomas Young, Chairman of the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team O ne strike and youre out. This phrase describes the unforgiving nature of space systems, be they mili tary, civil, or commercial. Indeed, the failure of a small com ponent or an error in a single line of software code can doom a launch, or cause the quick and complete failure of a space craft. In addition, the growing capabilities of other space-faring nations make it apparent that a lethal strike could be literal, and not just a sports metaphor. Because of the large size and ganic failure, or a hostile act, could be devastating. In the words of former National Aeronautics and Space Administration lead tion. Indeed, with todays large monolithic space systems, we do not have an option to fail or for that matter to perform below expectations. However, the frustrating (and often overlooked) fact is that these same space systems are designed with few op tions to exceed original expectations either. A prime example is the ability to take advantage of Moores Law by frequently upgrading computing-related capability on-orbit. 2 Space systems today are large and capable, but also fraught with high risks and limited opportunities due to an inherent lack of robustness and In this article, we examine how and why our space systems have evolved to this condition. We then lenges the conventional approach to space system design, reduc ing risk and increasing opportunity throughout a space systems life-cycle. By implementing a fully networked distribution of space system payloads and infrastructure, this new architecture, an approach called fractionation, can maintain, and perhaps even surpass, the capability we have grown to expect and rely on in our space systems. A new Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program called System F6 strives to prove that this radical method of space system design can work. 3 If it succeeds, System F6 will enable the pervasive growth of an highly capable space systems for decades to come. The Trend Toward Large Spacecraft One of the things that has happened over this past half cen that have gone on have led us to the point where we have very sophisticated but very complicated satellites, very expensive satellites. We have invested in longer life on orbit with more multimission capabilities on a single platform because the cost and risk associated with the launch has tilted us in the direction of more capabilities on individual platforms. 4 ~ Lt Gen Michael A. Hamel, USAF, former commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center Sputnik and the USs Explorer 1. These were small, short-lived spacecraft weighing 184 lbs (84 kg) and 31 lbs (14 kg) respec tively. 5 The beep of Sputnik lasted a mere three weeks, while Explorer 1s science package relayed data for 105 days. The Juno I rocket that lifted Explorer 1 had little, if any, excess lift Space Protection
High Frontier 30 capacity, and stood a mere 21.2 m tall. Advances in liquid propulsion, structures, and avionics quick ly led to much larger launch vehicles. Today, the work-horse of national military missions, the evolved expendable launch ve hicle, has a lift capacity in the several thousands of kilograms range, as do the widely-used commercial vehicles Ariane V, Sea Launch, and Proton. The large lift capacities of modern launch vehicles are necessary to accommodate modern space craft, which continue to grow in both size and power. Figure 1 shows the trend in launch mass of commercial geosynchronous shows a similar trend in power producing capabilities for these satellites. 6 times for communications satellites. National security space craft can be inferred to have similar trends in size, mass, and lifetimes, since the heritage of many commercial and military buses are common. 7 Why this trend? We know that technologi cal advances in space power, structures, thermal management, and other areas enabled (but did not cause) the growth in size the transition from spin stabilized to three-axis stabilized space craft enabled the continued growth in spacecraft mass, arguably introduction of panel-mounted solar arrays. Technological advance has been the push for developing large spacecraft, but what has been the pull? For commercial systems, the primary driver is return on investment. If you for a given increase in spacecraft mass, 8 power increases by a greater fraction (to the power of 1.38). Recognizing that space system cost (including spacecraft and launch cost) increases in proportion to spacecraft mass, there is more bang for the buck as mass is increasedwith power being the bang, and mass being the buck. Using terminology familiar to space craft communications service providers, cost per transponder on a spacecraft decreases with larger spacecraft. In order to craft possible with existing technology and launch capability. Likewise, for satellites with a given number of transponders, the amortized cost of the spacecraft on a per day basis is reduced as lifetime is increased. This is the incentive to design the already large spacecraft for the longest feasible lifetime. 9 These cost trends hold for national security space systems as well, mostly regardless of mission type. Instead of maximizing given set of requirements. This approach drives us to maxi mize the number of capabilities (and hence requirements) per spacecraft. Large multi-payload spacecraft are the result. With requirements established, the systems engineering exercise then is to minimize cost by minimizing size, weight (total spacecraft mass), and power (SWaP) for the design. At the same time, the propellant load is maximized (given launch vehicle constraints) in order to minimize the annual cost of the spacecraft, since it can be amortized over a longer lifetime. In summary, advancing technology has enabled increases in spacecraft size, power, and lifetime, but these larger, more pow erful, and longer living stand-alone spacecraft are the result of users seeking to maximize capability per satellite and minimiz ing the cost per unit of capability. In a static cost-constrained environment, this is a rational economic choice. But we live in an increasingly dynamic world. In this dynamic environment, uncertainty rules and the conventional design paradigm of large spacecraft becomes questionable. Risk and Opportunity in Todays Large Spacecraft (non-zero nor 100 percent) likelihood/probability of occurring and an unfavorable consequence/impact to the successful ac represents the potential for improving value in achieving a goal; risk represents the potential for decreasing the same value. ~ FAA Systems Engineering Manual Todays very large commercial and military spacecraft are technological marvels. In the planning phase of procurement, the current design paradigm of large, multi-mission, long dura tion systems makes a great deal of sense in a resource-limited environment. However, while large spacecraft provide incred ible capability, they are also unable to respond rapidly to uncer tainty throughout the life-cycle of a program. 10 Table 1 displays some of the more notorious uncertain events that can (and have been observed to) occur during a space systems lifetime. 11 The manifestation of uncertainty comes in the form of risk and op portunity, with risk being an unfavorable outcome, and oppor Figure 1. Beginning of Life (BOL) Mass. Figure 2. BOL Power. Figure 3. Spacecraft Design Life.
31 High Frontier tunity being favorable. The examples from table 1 discriminate between these two outcomes which are found on the opposing tails of the curve. How are todays space systems designed and managed with risk and opportunity in mind? Let us take a look. The con ventional approach to dealing with risk centers around the dual tasks of reducing the probability of occurrence of a failure and containing the failures impact on the system. We accomplish this through two means: initial design for reliability and the mis sion assurance process. Enhancements in reliability are effect ed through redundancy and margins: we typically add double and even triple redundancy to our systems. Mission assurance, which includes quality assurance and risk management, focus es on making sure nothing has slipped through the cracks. Through design and practice, we attempt to burn-down risk so as to maximize mission success. We, however, offer the follow ing observations with respect to current stand-alone (hereafter referred to as monolithic) spacecraft design: 1. Increased spacecraft size and capability result in increased complexity. This complexity introduces fragility into the system. The manifestations of fragility show up both as programmatically and systematically. a. More programmatic complexity increases the probabil ity that some event or small combination of events will result in a major slip in schedule or cause cost growth in the program in excess of its budget. One simple ex ample is a multi-payload spacecraft in which a single instrument becomes a critical path item and causes a b. More design complexity results in more unknown-un knowns. That is, more possible failure modes are not accounted for and can not be accommodated through design and/or management. In the past decade, how many catastrophic failures were caused by issues not previously tracked in the risk management process? Although the data has not been analyzed in detail, the 2. With todays monolithic spacecraft, we place all of our eggs in one basket The cost and capability of these space systems are so large that, regardless of the probability of a failure, the impact of that failure is enormous. As the Young committee stated, one mistake can be mission cat astrophic. Catastrophic indeedone failure could result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and years of Given these observations, we see that the risk inherent in our space systems is very high. Now appearing on program risk charts with more prominence is the ever-increasing threat of attack on our space systems. Just as reliability and quality are used to reduce the probability of component failure, surviv ability must now be emphasized as part of mission assurance to reduce the probability of the occurrence of a variety of possible hostile and high-impact events. Once again we face the one strike and youre out scenario. What we desire to achieve, through reliability, survivability, and limited fragility, is robust nessthe ability to retain the original capabilities intended in the system, even in the face of uncertain, environmentally-driv en phenomena. But what of our opportunities? Certainly, our space sys tems provide great utility when they are successful. But op portunity, the inverse of risk, is really a measure of the likeli hood of providing additional value in the face of uncertainty. Table 1 highlighted several opportunities, many of them dealing with improved technologies which follow Moores Law. Not only can we not keep up with technological advances, todays large spacecraft are already notoriously behind the technology curve at launch, by which time they usually contain compo nents at least a decade old. By the end of their on-orbit lives, they are, relatively speaking, technological dinosaurs. ibilitythe ability to change or modify a system at any time during its life-cycle. Re cent experience has proven ware-centric reprogrammable regard to the ability to change or modify hardware, however, our large space systems do not good reason. Flexibility is not an inherent part of a systemit must be designed into it. Add cost, while doing little to ensure basic requirements are met. When focusing on meeting the requirements at hand and mini mizing the risks, opportunity rarely receives a thoughtpar -Table 1. Spacecraft Life-cycle Uncertain Events.
High Frontier 32 ticularly since it comes at a cost. In a cost-centric acquisition paradigm, the systems engineering exercise will always focus on minimizing risk. 12 Our conclusion is that todays space system design paradigm yields large and complex systems which possess great risk, but limited opportunity. One thought is that smaller systems could prove to be more manageable, less complex, and more able to quickly react to uncertain events, while the impact of their loss could be less severe. Unfortunately, while smaller systems may provide reduced risk and increased opportunity, they cannot match the performance demanded of larger spacecraft. We can not return to the past and build small spacecraft for all of our national security needs. Or can we? A New Trend: Distributed and Fractionated Systems Big platforms might be built by sending up components, 184 pounds at a time, for example. Eventually, this way, a telescopic sky station might be established. 13 ~ Robert Plumb, New York Times October 1957 A mere four days after the launch of Sputnik, the New York Times article quoted here predicted great things to come in the conquest of space, including a look at how larger, more capa ble space systems could be built. Obviously, at the time, it ap peared a simple limitation and the only way to get larger, more capable systems into orbit was a building block approach which physically linked components together in space. As we have described, this became unnecessary as technology enabled larg er, more capable, monolithic satellites to be built and launched. But, let us revisit the architectural approach offered in 1957. First we need to consider how modern technology can make this approach more tractable. Then we can address how it can by large and complex monolithic systems. Earlier we charted the evolutionary development of multipayload spacecraft. One can easily imagine the distribution of these multiple payloads onto smaller individual spacecraft. Such approaches have been discussed before, and in many ways represent the old way of doing business. But now let us take this craft, payload by payload and subsystem by subsystem, into physically separate functional elementsindividual spacecraft modules? Then can we create a virtual satellite by wirelessly sider that todays spacecraft are essentially systems of payloads and bus support subsystems. The latter include computers, te lemetry tracking, and command (TT&C) transceivers, mission data downlinks, navigation sensors (e.g., star trackers, global positioning satellite [GPS] receivers), power sources, propul sion equipment, and a supporting structure. The payloads, com puters, TT&C, and mission data downlinks are glued together hotspots, we recognize that data need not be transported over a lessly networked modules orbiting just kilometers apart. Some computing nodes, the TT&C nodes, and the mission data down link nodes. This process of physically decomposing a space craft into a distributed network of wirelessly connected modules is what we call fractionation. What about further fractionation? Could one fractionate the power subsystem? Yes! Imagine a central solar power hub col lecting sunlight, converting it to electricity, and then beaming that power via laser, millimeter radio-wave, or specially tuned induction to other elements in the cluster. How about naviga tion sensors? Since they determine absolute position and in ertial attitude, fractionation of these subsystems sounds daunt ing. However, if we think of a module with a GPS receiver and several relative navigation sensors (already developed or in development) onboard, this module can determine the rela tive distances to other modules and their relative attitudes. In essence, this module becomes the navigation element for the larger cluster. Finally, let us consider the fractionation of the propulsion subsystem. Imagine an infrastructure, in which a space tug accomplishes a rendezvous and docks with a space craft module, reorients and/or repositions it, and then moves appears to be a ridiculous notionthe transmission of forces and torques between neighboring spacecraft with no physical connections. But, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have demonstrated electro-magnetic forma 14 With EMFF, magnetic wire bundles. By controlling the direction (of the north and be attracted, repulsed, and even rotated relative to one another. Using either the tug or EMFF approach, it may be possible for a centralized propulsion module to move an entire cluster glued together by docking mechanisms or magnetic forces. At this stage, it is important to distinguish the concept of fractionation from other approaches to distributed spacecraft. ing system. Such systems, like those designed for the TechSat in a very tightly-controlled formation for the purpose of creat ing a larger sensing aperture. Certainly this is an example of fractionation, but one we call homogeneous since the same spacecraft are replicated to produce the formation. The larger superset of fractionation we are describing in detail here can be homogeneous (all modules similar), heterogeneous (all modules different), or a hybrid mix of the two. Fractionation can involve tightly controlled (relative positions down to the centimeter or fractionation also can be a loosely controlled (relative positions down to the meter) cluster with varying relative distances on the order of tens, hundreds, or thousands of meters. Such rela tive distances are required only to close communications links with minimally acceptable latencies. More recently, novel ar chitectural concepts such as the Space-Based Group have been proposed in which one module acts as the central mission data
33 High Frontier downlink hub for a cluster of other spacecraft. 15 Again, this is a subset of fractionation. At a higher level, the fractionation we are describing is a more general concept, which allows distribution not only of data downlink resources, but also other infrastructure resources such as computing, navigation, and power. With this networked ap proach, many degrees of freedom are now created in the design and infrastructure (i.e., communications to the ground, process ing, etc.) in a way that allows a stakeholder to trade cost, risk, and performance. Note that this means how to fractionate is now a choice. For instance, now one can choose to launch all modules in a cluster at once, on separate smaller vehicles, or a combination thereof. All of one resource (e.g., mission data processing) can reside on one module, be spread evenly across all modules, or something in between. Some modules, such as those that provide computing resources, may be very smallin the picosat or nanosat realm. Alternatively, some modules host ing payloads may still require large structures (e.g., telescopes). In this case, the choice may be made to launch what looks like a conventional monolith, but with a wireless networking capa bility that allows infrastructural upgrades after launch. Final ly, over time, a bus in the sky of infrastructure can develop, which results in a space architecture that alleviates a great deal of burden to the service provider and stakeholder: an in-orbit plug and play architecture could evolve, with the minor ex ception that there are no plugs! Assuming fractionation is possible, why would one want to be a more costly endeavor resulting from the overhead brought about by the decomposition process. For example, assuming the propulsion subsystem is not fractionated out, each module must carry some propulsion and structure. This implies a larger aggregate mass, and correspondingly more cost. The answer is two-fold. First, recognize that a cursory analysis misses many possible offsets to cost which this new architecture may provide. Second, for an equitable comparison between the monolith and a fractionated system, we must deviate from our standard static cost analysis and consider the impact of uncertainty on each ap proach. When considering the changes in risk and opportunity offered by a fractionated architecture, as well as possible en hancements in capabilities, the new design approach warrants serious attention. Cost, Risk, and Opportunity with Fractionated Space Systems it is the exposure (or payoff) that creates the complexityand others you can be slightly wrong and explode. 16 ~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb space system. From a SWaP-only argument, it may appear that fractionation is unwarranted. But consider the following: from production learning effects afforded by an assem bly-line approach to building modules. Some resource modules could be similar across a number of missions and be common to a variety of clusters. The effect would be to drive module costs down. 2. The decomposition of mission and payload into sepa costs. This effect is due to the decoupling of require ments throughout the system. By physically separating functional elements, the transmission of thermal and mechanical phenomena is eliminated while electromag netic interactions are severely reduced. For example, the only to its host module. All other modules in the system maintain only the pointing requirements demanded by the resources they host. 3. The modular nature of a fractionated system leads to a supplier infrastructure which develops modules based on their expertise. Also, modules are built with lifetimes and reliabilities tailored to and suited for their tasks. Both of nomic law of comparative advantage, 17 lead to cost reduc tions throughout the system. The cost impacts above are ones that are rather predictive based on well-controlled, known, and therefore well-estimated processes and tasks. But what of the impacts on cost due to un certain and unpredictable events? That is, how does a fraction ated approach compare to a monolithic one in risk? The effect fractionation has on risk is one of the key motivations behind naturally offers inherent robustness and hence the potential to mainly because smaller modules can address time-critical needs ityor alternatively, a decrease in risk and increase in oppor costs while increasing the predictable value of a space system. amine our three initial observations of the causes of high risk in monolithic spacecraft in order to determine how a fractionated 1. Decomposition of a space system into smaller modules implies that the development delay of a given component on one module does not impact the entire system sched ule. Every other module continues on its schedule and is launched independently to incrementally add capability to the system. 2. With a fractionated space system, all eggs need not be placed in one basket. For instance, a decision can be made to distribute the launch of a system across several launch vehicles. If one launch fails, the entire system is not lost. In aggregate, we have shown that the maximum number
High Frontier 34 18 Another impact of a fractionated architecture is that on-orbit component failures need not be catastrophic. With a clustered sys tem of networked modules, the failure of any one smaller module can be corrected by building and rapidly launch ing a replacement module. With a monolith, the only solution is to wait for another monolith to be built and launcheda more costly and time-consuming endeavor. In fact, it is possible to develop a fractionated architecture in which support functions are replicated throughout the entire cluster, or can even be shared across clusters. In these scenarios, the response to a failure in a given sup port function can be nearly instantaneous. Note that this approach means redundancy can be incorporated into the system by using single string modules, as opposed to to days conventional double or triple redundancy approach (which adds mass and complexity). 3. As previously described, fractionation of functionality into separate modules isolates what were once physically connected subsystems or payloads. Eliminating mechani cal interactions, and limiting electromagnetic ones, re duces the number of not only known, but also unknown failure scenarios. It also drastically reduces the upfront integration effort required to make systems with very dif ferent demands work together. These arguments can be visualized using typical risk man agement tools. Figure 4 shows a standard risk management chart, where the prob ability of occurrence of a risk event is charted against its consequence (impact) on the overall system. When we previ ously described the one strike and youre out character of very large monolithic systems, we were saying that a failure scenarios, regardless of the probability of their occur rence, have large impacts. Thus, despite the forecasts of risk managers, those potentially catastrophic risks associated with large monoliths are clustered on the right, in the predominantly high risk (red zone), section of the standard risk chart. We argue that fractionated systems, by the very nature of their distributed but networked operation, tend to have riskslikely or unlikely, known or unknowncloser to the left side of a risk chart in an area where the impact on the entire system is reduced. The ability to reduce the impact of risk events by simply changing the architectural paradigm, rather than the number and nature of ation. Since this qualitative argument for fractionations effect on risk reduction holds for the effects of on-orbit attack as well as component failure, we conclude that a fractionated architecture provides inherent space protection as well. As with an organic component failure, a successful attack on one element of a clus ter does not necessarily result in complete and catastrophic fail ure of the system. Redistribution of required resources within or across clusters, or rapid launch of new replacement modules is possible. The concept of defensive maneuver is also made possible by the physically distributed nature of fractionation. order to minimize the probability of direct or indirect (by debris) hostile impact. tionated architecture. Adapting to new mission requirements, evolving to new technologies, and scaling to increased demands can all be accomplished with the insertion of smaller new mod ules containing the requisite capability into the already orbit ing system. For instance, suppose a new mission processor is desired for an orbiting space system. With the fractionated ap proach, a relatively small spacecraft containing a new high per formance processor can be rapidly launched, inserted into the orbiting network, and thus improve system performance. Also bility: Figure 1, previously discussed, showed the trend of ever increasing spacecraft size, driven by demand for ever-greater capability. This trend can-not continue forever: within the next one to two decades, if the trend continues, we will reach the lift limitations of our domestic large lift vehicles. So, fractionation can provide the opportunity to get desired capability to orbit, regardless of launch vehicle limitations. To visualize the opportunity gap between monolithic and adapted for use in iden tifying critical system opportunities. As with the previous risk chart, the probability of occur rence of an opportunity event is charted against its overall consequence. The difference from the risk chart is that when both measures are high, we have a favorable green zone result identi fying an opportunity event that can be captured to yield appre tom of this chart where the likelihood of taking advantage of an unforeseen future event is remote. Contrast this to fraction ated systems in which the probability that opportunities can be of discrete modules and the capability to utilize existing infra to scale, evolve, and adapt to unforeseen events. Of course, one risk for fractionated architectures still re mainsthe concept exists only on Power Point charts today. However, DARPA is taking on the challenge of proving the viability of this new concept by attempting to demonstrate it Figure 4. Risk Chart Comparing Monolithic and Fractionated Systems. Figure 5. Opportunity Chart Comparing Monolithic and Fractionated Systems.
35 High Frontier on-orbit. Recently, a new program called System F6 began the process of taking technical excuse off the table. It seeks to develop the technologies necessary to create fractionated satel lite systems and integrate them into our future national security space architecture. System F6 Program DARPAs System F6 program, started in February 2008, will attempt to develop and integrate the technologies necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of a fractionated spacecraft. 19 This program is named the Future, Flexible, Fast, Fractionated, FreeFlying Spacecraft united by Information eXchangeor simply System F6. Its goal is to develop the core technologies that en able fractionation as well as a suite of system engineering tools necessary to help determine the most cost effective designs. cepts, each of which must be adequately addressed if fraction ation is to become a reality. Robust, self-forming networks : Every device on every spacecraft module in the cluster should act as a uniquely addressable node on a network. Ideally, the network au the network to route around failed nodes, and adapts to unanticipated events or the emergence of new capabili ties. Secure, reliable, and interference-resistant wireless com munication : The F6 program is exploring the adaptation of a variety of terrestrial wireless communications stan dards, as well as the development of entirely new ones, to meet the stringent information assurance requirements of national security space systems. Scalable, adaptable, and fault tolerant distributed comput ing : A distributed computing layer, operating just above the network layer, enables the sharing of resourcesfor example, a data processor, a storage device, a communi cations link, or a sensoracross the network. Resources can be added to the network and utilized by any distrib uted application. If a processor on board one spacecraft module fails, that module will be able to use a processor located anywhere else on the networkeven on network nodes located on other modules, or on the ground. wireless power transfer : Beaming power between modules may provide enhanced capabilities for certain space systems. Autonomous, safe, and self-defending cluster navigation : Spacecraft clusters require autonomous cluster manage ment, stationkeeping schemes, collision avoidance strate gies, and survivability features such as scattering be haviors in the presence of external threats. Econometrics, that is, the use of mathematical tools from economics to make rational system engineering trade decisions. We have discussed how fractionated systems promise to reduce risk and increase opportunity for space systems, but the key question will be: how much should one be willing to pay for this? Using a variety of rela cial impact of risk reductions and opportunity increases. These tools, once integrated in the systems engineering process, will provide decision makers with the appropri ate knowledge they need to trade capability, cost, risk, and opportunity. We plan to detail this approach in a subse quent High Frontier article. It is planned that within four years of the program start, Sys tem F6 will be testing fractionation technologies and concepts with a demonstration in orbit of a fractionated space system, which will replicate important national space security mis sions. Conclusion Over the last 50 years our space systems have become in credibly capable and are a key to our national economy and de fense. With capability, however, comes risk and limited oppor tunitymainly due to the large size and associated complexity of our most costly spacecraft. Fractionation is an approach in which modern technologies are used to decompose large sys tems into smaller physical elements. This process provides duce risk. It also enables the rapid addition or replacement of components, thereby providing great opportunities throughout a space systems life-cycle. DARPA has initiated a program, called System F6, which aims to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach. If successful, our future national space architec ture could see dramatic change, as it evolves into a system of systemsa highly integrated space network, where computer processing, downlink, and other resources are available for use in orbit much like an electric outlet or WiFi hotspot are available in your home today. Figure 6. System F6 Enabling Concepts.
High Frontier 36 Notes: 1 Thomas Young, Chairman of the Mars Program Independent Assess ment Team before the House Science Committee, tesimony; Mars Program Independent Assessment Team Summary Report, 14 March 2000, 3, ftp:// ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/2000/2000_mpiat_summary.pdf. 2 Moores Law refers to the historical trend indicating that the number of transistors which can be placed on an integrated circuit doubles every 24 months. Processing speed, memory capacity, and other measures of com puting capability tend to increase at correspondingly exponential rates. 3 The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is an agency of the Department of Defense charged with developing technolo gies which are considered too high risk for other government research and development agencies, but which also present opportunities for extremely high rewards. Former DARPA programs include development of the ini tial protocols and architecture for the internet as well as the radar absorbing material and novel design for stealth aircraft. 4 Universal Shift, Janes Defense Weekly 44, no. 41, 10 October 2007. 5 Although small, Explorer 1 proved capable: it carried a science pack age that is credited with discovery of a belt of charged radiation, now named after the Principle Investigator, Dr. Charles Van Allen. 6 P. R. Anderson and L. Bartamian, Growth Trends in Communica tions Satellites and the Impact on Satellite System Architecture, 26 th Inter national Communications Satellite Systems Conference, 10-12 June 1998, (AIAA 2008-5440). Figures 1, 2, and 3 are incorporated in this article with the permission of the authors. 7 These growth trends continue, for example as the commercial ICO G1 spacecraft launched in April 2008 had a beginning of life mass of 6,634 kg and power of 16KW. Reference Lockheed Martin Successfully Launches ICO G1 Mobile Interactive Media Spacecraft, PR Newswire 14 April 2008. 8 Launch cost increase roughly linearly with spacecraft mass, while spacecraft cost increase exponentially with spacecraft mass. Reference, for example, Wiley Larson and James Wertz, eds., Space Mission Analysis and Design 3 rd ed., (Space Technology Library, 2006). 9 Joseph Saleh, Flawed metrics: satellite cost per transponder and cost per operational day, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2006. This paper points out that the metrics discussed here are misleading unless one considers value, not just cost, in the face of uncer tainty. 10 Owen Brown and Paul Eremenko, Fractionated Space Architectures: A Vision for Responsive Space, 4 th AIAA Responsive Space Conference, Los Angeles, CA, 2006 (AIAA-RS4-2006-1002). 11 Owen Brown and Paul Eremenko, Application of Value-Centric De sign to Space Architectures: The Case of Fractionated Spacecraft, AIAA Space 2008 Symposium, September 2008 (AIAA 2008-7869). 12 The Space and Mission Systems Center (SMC) Systems Engineering Manual from cover to cover refers to the words risk 408 times, and op portunity 8 times. 13 Robert Plumb, New Space Conquests Can Now Be Foreseen, New York Times 6 October 1957. 14 Edmund Kong, Daniel Kwon, et al., Electromagnetic Formation Flight for Multisatellite Arrays, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 41, no. 4, 2004, 659-666. 15 G. Payton, speech by Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force Space to AIAA Astrodynamics and AAS Space Flight Mechanics Technical Com mittees, 2008 Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, 18 August 2008. 16 Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Fourth Quadrant: A Map of the Limit of Statistics, original essay available at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ taleb08/taleb08_index.html. Taleb is also the author of The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House) a recent best sell ing book which discusses the role of seemingly improbable but potentially catastrophic or serendipitous events in our daily lives. 17 are gained in world trade by allowing products to be produced by those countries which can manufacture and deliver them the most cheaply. 18 Owen Brown, Reducing Risk Through a Modular Architecture, Aerospace Corp Risk Management Symposium, 2005. 19 DARPA Awards Contracts for Fractionated Spacecraft Program, 26 February 2008, http://www.darpa.mil/body/news/2008/F6.pdf. Mr. Naresh Shah (BS, Astronautical Engineering and Mathematical Sci ences, US Air Force Academy; MS, Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massa chusetts Institute of Technology; MA, Organizational Management, George Washington University) is an associ ate with Booz Allen Hamiltons Glob al Defense Science and Technology practice and serves as the program lead for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencys (DARPAs) System F6 program. He is responsible for en suring the successful achievement of program milestones and goals by the four program performers, as well as coordinating the activities of the 35-person government team ensuring space systems engineering. In his capacity as a consultant, Mr. Shah provides program management, technology analysis and decision sup port services to several DoD agencies. Mr. Shah is a former US Air Force Major, having obtained his com mission as a distinguished graduate from the US Air Force Academy in 1995. He started his military career as a Draper Fellow with the Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, where he conducted research into the automat ed control of satellite constellations. As an Air Force intern, he worked operational assignments at both stateside and overseas locations in the KC-135. He separated from the Air Force in 2002 as a senior pilot with Dr. Owen C. Brown (BS, Engineer ing Science, Loyola College Balti more; MS and PhD, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Stanford University) is a program manager in at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arling ton, Virgina. He is responsible for conceiving, developing, and manag ing radically innovative space systems for national security. In this role since 2003, he was the program manager for the design, integration, test, launch, and demonstration of the joint DAR PA, Air Force, and Navy Microsatel lite Technology Experiment. He now manages the System F6 program which he conceived, as well as several smaller space system technology development projects. Dr. Brown served on active duty in the US Navy signed to the fast attack submarines USS Flying Fish (SSN 673) and USS Sturgeon (SSN 637) in a variety of engineering and operations po sitions. At Stanford he acted as a teaching assistant for graduate propul sion courses, and was a research assistant at the NASA Ames Research Center. He was employed at Space Systems/Loral in Palo Alto, Califor nia for seven years as a spacecraft reliability, propulsion, and systems engineer. In these roles he was responsible for various aspects of the design, test, integration, and launch of a variety of large geosynchro nous satellites. From 2001 to 2003 he served as a technical consultant to DARPA/TTO for space programs. He led technical efforts for the Rapid Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch program in this position. Dr. Brown recently transitioned to a retired status in the Navy Reserve with the rank of commander after 20 years of combined active and re serve duty. He is the author of many technical papers, and has acted as a distinguished lecturer for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on space history and aerospace topics.
37 High Frontier Space Situational Awareness Architecture Assessment Mr. Phillip D. Bowen Director Surveillance and Intelligence Systems Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Denver, Colorado Mr. Clifton Spier Director, Strategic C4ISR Capabilities Unit Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Services Colorado Springs, Colorado T he United States holds an asymmetric advantage in space that is essential to supporting our national security as well as civil and commercial objectives. The US National Security Space strategy supports a growing range of missions across the intelligence community and Department of Defense (DoD) including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), precision navigation, secure communications, missile warning, and environmental monitoring. Many countries are rapidly moving forward with space capa bilities challenging advantages the US currently enjoys. These nations are pursuing the space frontier to gain the status associ ated with being a space faring nation, and ultimately to further their economic development and enhance their military power. The pace of advancement in space systems is accelerating and maturing to be on par with the US potentially within the next 10 years. Nations or non-state players will have the means neces sary to threaten US space systems and consequently national security. As stated in Executive Order 12333, Timely, accu rate, and insightful information about the activities, capabili ties, plans, and intentions of foreign powers, organizations, and persons, and their agents, is essential to the national security of the United States. The capabilities provided by our space sys tems are fundamental to enabling the Executive Order as well manner as the militarys ground, maritime, and air operations. The US has the worlds most advanced space surveillance capabilities, but does not have the persistent, predictive, realtime space situational awareness (SSA) necessary to advance and protect US interests in the future. There is a critical need to protect Americas space assets, and the protection mission must emphasize an all encompassing approach to SSA, in order to assure freedom of access to space. SSA has become much more than the historical metric track-object cataloging func tions performed by the existing space surveillance network (SSN). SSA requires not only the ability to locate objects in space to maintain the catalog, but must also include a cradle to grave function from moment of launch for all orbiting objects to determine their capabilities, intent and threat potential. The impending micro/nano-satellite era highlights the need for SSA systems to have greater sensitivity and capability for near real time surveillance and characterization of smaller objects to pro vide information rapidly to military and civil decision-makers. The Lockheed Martin Corporation was requested, because of the breadth of its corporate-wide capabilities, to provide a comprehensive SSA architecture perspective for consideration tem SSA program plan. Our approach leverages the extensive experience of our different business areas including: Lockheed Martin Space Systems, which has provided the US the majority of national space systems over many decades; Lockheed Mar tin Integrated Systems and Global Services, which provides in formation systems and ground segments for national and DoD systems; and Lockheed Martin Maritime Sensors and Systems which provides the US government with a number of strategic and tactical radar systems. This article highlights our SSA architectural approach. It begins with an assessment of government provided mission threads that along with threat assessments, provided a basis for assessing the capabilities of the current and near term SSN. provided a basis for assessing current abilities to detect and at quirements. These assessments led to a determination of SSA knowledge gaps that provided a basis for identifying current tions capable of satisfying the future SSA mission. Architecture Analysis and Evaluation lance, reconnaissance, intelligence and environment awareness missions. The effectiveness of different SSA architectures has been measured against these objectives. Instead of attempt ing to address the entire solution set of SSA, Lockheed Martin chose to make some up front assumptions to focus on near term SSA needs. Typically with any architecture, the last 10-20 per cent of capability ends up driving the architecture to a higher complexity and cost. We chose to focus our architecture as sessment on space protection, driving to understand threats and their associated solutions from a military utility perspective. could then be applied back to overall SSA with an percent ness back to military utility. Was the solution able to detect a threat, attribute a threat action, or could it actually enable a de fensive response? A standard systems engineering process was used to understand the needs, evaluate them against potential Industry Perspective
High Frontier 38 solution sets, and then iterate on the process. In the end, we tested our results with various government and military agen cies, making sure the assumptions and the logic of the conclu sions were accurate. Figure 1 shows the engineering evaluation process from a threat based, military utility perspective. SSA objectives were SSA today. Individual candidate solutions (both information effectiveness (detection, attribution, enabling of defensive ac tion) for the mission threads. Lockheed Martins assessment started with a prioritized set of mission threads, or technical performance measures, from the Air Force Space and Missile Centers architecture group. These mission threads are divided into two functional areas: 1. Space protection event threads, described best as the craft at different orbit regimes. 2. Deliberative planning threads, best described as routine These threads represented a very comprehensive base from which to evaluate a threat based SSA architecture. Mission threads were analyzed to establish key system at tributes as measurements to quantify the effectiveness of an ar latency, resolution, data quality, data accessibility, system time This total set represented a comprehensive look at effectiveness. of a system, others focus on how well a system can integrate and act on information. Criteria were developed for each one of these as they were mapped back into the mission threads. All teria for a particular mission thread, but not all attributes were applicable to each one. The attributes were then weighted as to and cost were used as programmatic measurements of a solu tions affordability to the over-all SSA architecture. A subjective analysis at this point focused the assessment on the low-Earth orbit (LEO) and geosynchronous-Earth or bit (GEO) orbit regimes only. These orbit regimes contain the most assets to be protected. We also noticed the implementa tion of candidate solutions tended to group around timeframes of 18 months, 3-5 years, and 5-7 years. Our initial assessment evaluated the architecture at these discrete points in the future, rather than a continuum of different solutions over time. Both assumptions streamlined the process and focused the evalua tion squarely on a near term, threat based architecture. Evaluation of todays SSA architecture was used to expose the gaps in current capability, using the military utility effec tiveness of detection, attribution or ability to enable defensive each individual mission thread. Using this threat based focus, potential solutions. From the mission threads and mapping of key attributes, the high priority needs of an effective architec timeliness, quantity, resolution, etc.) and were established for the mission threads at both the LEO and GEO orbit regimes. Lockheed Martin has had a role in SSA throughout the years by providing over-arching systems, information systems inte gration, and sensors (both space and ground). We have lever aged this experience to create the current state architecture evaluation. We then turned our attention to identify ongoing programs and other potential ini tiatives that compared favorably to the value assessment identi the candidate solutions and are a mixture of contracted activities and proposed or projected ca pabilitieswhether a Lockheed Martin product or not. The can didate solutions were grouped into information systems solu tions (integration of sensor in formation) and sensor solutions (both space and ground). The candidate solutions were evaluated against the attributes and the threads as an architec ture for effectiveness at the 18 month, 3-5 year, and 5-7 year time frames. Our evaluation used mission thread closure as Figure 1. Space Situational Awareness Architecture Evaluation Flow.
39 High Frontier the key criteria of effectivenessdetection, attribution, and enabling of a defensive action. The mission thread was con sidered fully mature when the last step, enabling defensive ac todays architecture to analyze and make initial recommenda tions. Once the framework was established, Lockheed Martin used an internal value model to iterate back on the architecture solutions. This allowed a parametric insight into the individual solutions to view contributing effectiveness versus cost, risk, and schedule. Summation of the results were briefed and tested with several SSA government agencies to validate the conclu sions. Not one information system or sensor solution can satisfy the architecture needs, even for a threat based, mission driven architecture. Information systems provide the earliest pay-off for any architecture, in that the solutions can start to better uti lize existing sensor data almost immediately. It became clear that both information systems and sensors (existing and new) needed to be integrated together as a system in a layered archi tecture, with timely handover and access from one system to another. Geosynchronous space has the most critical need for SSA solutionsa conclusion that was illuminated by the fo cus on mission threads, threat based scenarios, and operational military utility. Finally, in an environment where not all solu tions and good ideas can be fundedmissions with the highest threats and vulnerabilities need to be prioritized. Information Systems and Infrastructure a modern infrastructure to provide the means of discovering and exploiting data and services from a variety of national, resulting data into fused battlespace awareness pictures, from analysts to the commander, providing decision quality infor continuing to develop a high precision space catalog; (4) de veloping a space situation monitoring and assessment capabil ity of the entire battlespacethe situation model; (5) providing an effects-based planning capability; and, (6) for future space systems, developing a multi-mission space operations center. tional information systems view. At the foundation of our next operational space system is a modern services oriented architecture (SOA) infrastructure to provide the means of discovering and exploiting data and services from a variety of national and DoD systems. To avoid space information solutions infrastructure must be standards and evolving products to meet the growing maturity and ca pabilities of commercial off-the-shelf/government off-the-shelf and commercial products and services. There are a few mature SOA implementations in place today and a few being devel oped. While this article does not address the merits of choos ing one or another, timeliness of action dictates choosing an existing SOA and continuing to modernize it via technology refreshing. It is well known that there is a barrier between intelligence informatio n and surveillance information. A second part of the infrastructure is solving moving data across the multiple secu rity domains, in particular among Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet), SECRET Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Com prise level multi-level security (MLS) cross-domain solution available, we recommend MSL solutions to allow for data to enables an operational setting such that surveillance data may be fused with intelligence infor mation to provide a necessary condition for awareness com pleteness. Instantiating separate SOAs at the NIPRNet, SIPRNet, and JWICS levels with guards, provides the timeliest solution and top secret/sensitive com partmented information data into one security domain so that this data can be associated and exploited as outlined in the fol lowing paragraph. The second element of the space information system ele ment solution is appropriately integrating existing data (ISR, Figure 2. Space Functional Architecture View.
High Frontier 40 environmental, space system at tributes and characteristics) into a fused battlespace awareness fying existing data sources and then net-centrically subscribing step, Lockheed Martin surveyed 14 of about 50 programs and of information that are read ily available or could be made available in the near term. We recommend that the government complete this study and expand it to include other contracts to identify data that is available or that could be made available to support space operations. The second step is to net-cen trically subscribe to this data. In the Lockheed Martin study, we for example, Distributed Com mon Ground Systems (DCGS). In other cases there are systems where data could easily be made net-centrically available. For example both Space-based Infrared System (SBIRS) and Com batant Commander's Integrated Command and Control Systems (CCIC2S) are making their data net-centrically available and have shown inexpensive ways to make their data available, not only to the space community, but to other domains as well. The third step to is to associate (and eventually fuse) this data into meaningful SSA information and decision quality informa tion. For example, a Joint Space Operations Center Command ers level UDOP for space launch events has been prototyped 3. With the impending missile defense sensor data made avail able, a clearer picture of what is happening, how accurately do I know what is happening, and what is affected is known in real time providing a common picture of space launch events and its impact to national security objectives. The third element is continuing to develop a more accurate space catalog. A precision space catalog with attendant propa gation techniques enables knowing space object locations more accurately and in many cases, with better discrimination. The fourth element is the heart and soul of SSA. The situ ation monitor and assessment element is the situation model itselfevent-based, anticipatory, and predictive. It is here that the data from the second and third element is appropriately in tegrated and fused by identifying the context for the data to be used, from the high precision space catalog to associated space object metadataspace system attributes, characteristics, and relationships. Consideration is made not only of the situational knowns, but the known unknowns, the expected, the observed, as well as the expected but not observed. Situational aware ness intrinsically harbors persistent uncertainties, so in order to mitigate the fog of war, all these fundamental elements of awareness must be presented to the decision maker to juxtapose the known from the unknown. Within this context, a threat may emerge and be anticipated to enable proactive and pre-emptive action. now able, with the predictive results described above, to en of operational interest to yield pre-planned activities, concepts for execution, and identify factors to assess the effectiveness of action. These COAs can be presented to United States Stra tegic Command (USSTRATCOM) and Combatant Commands to respond to changing events affecting planned or executing commanders intent or to optimize and retask Joint Functional Component Command space units to provide refocused ISR or environmental assessments. The last element provides for optimizing future space ground capabilities. This optimization is two fold: synergy of task ing Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) assets and in opera tions and maintenance (O&M) cost savings. The deployment, whether physical or logical of a multi-mission space operations center capability will allow AFSPC to maximum synergy of tasking and in reuse and commonality of associated O&M. A key element in effecting a more accurate and timely ISR capa bility will be establishing a chain of custody to determine at tribution. With common planning tools among AFSPC assets, a more timely and optimum set of tasking to maintain track custody, for example, can be achieved. Additionally, many of the functions of a special operations commander are common Figure 3. Joint Space Operations Center Commanders Level Commander Launch Event Operating Pictures.
41 High Frontier across missions. By taking advantage of this, personnel train allow a pooling of resources. Likewise, commonality of infra structure and some mission capabilities allows for development and maintenance cost savings. These six information system elements together with the sen sor system elements, provide the necessary capabilities to en able superior persistent, predictive, and real-time SSA. Aware edge of time to shape a situation in a pre-emptive fashion and to control the battlespace tempo, in order to achieve the intent and objectives of leadership and ensure the success of our na tional objectives. Operational protection of national space as sets requires predictive awareness and pre-emptive action; both of which are key elements of superior protection capability. Sensing Systems Lockheed Martin explored a variety of technologies and candidate solutions for sensors and architectures that would provide the necessary performance attributes borne out in our assessment of SSA gaps/needs. Several key premises were es tablished as part of this exploration. First, our knowledge of the adversary and subsequently the threats of the future will always have a level of uncertainty and lead to a conviction that adaptability. Secondly, the solutions proposed should lean to ward rapid development/solution cycles to address emerging tions and architectures should provide appropriate standardiza tion and performance headroom to allow higher performing new technologies and system concept of operations (ConOps) tion/change. These premises drive the solution space toward simpler so lutions (single sensor/mission systems) with high technology System-11 class spacecraft. Large multi-mission, multi-sensor platforms have historical development cycles on the order of six development and delivery. Small and microsatellite solutions ly (typically 3X-10X) at lower cost. A secondary but important ben platforms is the opportunity for significantly lower launch (and therefore life cycle costs) costs by en abling the use of smaller launch vehicles, multiple satellites per larger launch vehicle or as a secondary payload of opportunity on other planned launches. Many passive sensor technologies such as visible wave length electro-optic (EO) sensors have dramatically reduced view) and as such exhibit enticing gaps in coverage that would likely be exploited by our adversaries. Sensor/architecture so lutions for SSA must address these weaknesses in a manner that enables persistent surveillance. Another challenge for passive SSA sensors is presented in range to the object of interest. As the distance to the object in interest increases, the detection sen sitivity of passive (such a EO telescopes) sensor is decreased by the square of the distance (1/R 2 ). While active SSA sensors such as radars are largely insen sitive to solar and weather exclusions, the sensitivity/perfor mance of radars is even more susceptible to range (1/R 4 ). For space borne solutions, radars are generally harder to integrate into smaller platforms due to the power necessary to have an effective range. On the other hand, existing technologies are based electronically steered array radars to address reasonable range (LEO/ medium-Earth orbit [MEO]) missions within the overall SSA architecture. Todays ground radar technologies to address a variety of on demand missions, such as new for eign launches and queued high interest/specialized tracks at all altitudes. Affordable and supportable radar solutions can be provided to support SSA general and queued search missions in the near earth regime and tasked missions in MEO/GEO. For the high altitude SSA missions, several performance at tributes drive the sensor solution space, including timely access without solar exclusion, sensitivity, and resolution. Given the GEO altitude. Several unique orbits are available that pro vide excellent performance against the SSA mission needs in relatively small platform and sensor packages. Microsatellite solutions in a hybrid architecture, often providing overlapping coverage and performance appear to provide the best solution These high altitude solutions combined with supporting sensors on cooperative GEO assets can provide a near and mid-term solution for the SSA mission with extensibility to the far term need. These basics of sensor solution physics combined with a strong desire to minimize new technology needs (cost, risk, and development time) drive the solution space toward a layered architecture where proven technologies can be applied effec tively and affordably to provide the necessary performance at the lowest risk, lowest cost, and least sensitivity to emerging/ changing threats and SSA needs. After careful assessment of the necessary attributes of the sensor system, it was determined that a single sensor system operating within a single or lay ered constellation would be extremely complex, unaffordable, and unattainable with available or near term technologies. The Figure 4. XSS Class Spacecraft.
High Frontier 42 Mr. Phillip D. Bowen (AAB, Anderson College, South Carolina; BS, Engineering, Clemson University, South Carolina) currently serves as director of the Surveillance and Intelligence Systems mission area for the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company. He is responsible for executing the development and delivery of critical national level programs and capturing new business opportunities. His mission area has responsibility for Space Superiority programs and Rap id and Responsive Space pro grams, which includes Operationally Responsive Space. Mr. Bowen previously held the position of director, Global Sur veillance and Intelligence Systems and Space Radar program. His primary responsibility in this role was management of the Space Radar program and for expanding Lockheed Martins role in ra dar related technologies both domestically and internationally. Mr. Bowen joined Lockheed Martin in 1979 and has held progressively responsible positions within the company covering all phases of program development and execution. Mr. Clifton Spier (BA, Math ematics and Computer Sci ence, San Jose State Univer sity) serves as the director, Strategic Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capabilities Unit for Lockheed Martin In formation Systems and Global Services, Mission and Combat Support Solutions located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He is responsible for executing the development and delivery of operational and strategic level command and control developing, and capturing new business opportunities. His busi ness area is responsible for supporting USSTRATCOM, NORAD, NORTHCOM, and Air Force Space Command elements evolving from legacy systems and centers to new standards based, separate operating agency architectures across space, air, and missile mis sion areas. His unit also includes an expanding presence into the commercial market place with evolving First National Bank of Ne braska systems work, the Federal Drug Administration, the Depart ment of Homeland Security, and the Veterans Administration and international opportunities leveraging his business areas personnel and skills. Mr. Spier served in the US Air Force from 1978 to 1982 in space operations and acquisition. Upon leaving the service he joined Lockheed Martin (formerly IBM Federal Systems then Loral Fed eral Systems) in 1982 and has held progressively more responsible positions within the company including deputy program manager CCSE/C&DP; ReARC program manager; SIP program director; IEC program director; director, SBIRS Increment 2 Ground; and director, ISC2 programs. He is a graduate of the Defense System Management College Advance Program Management Course (APMC 95-2). combined performance attributes of capacity, sensitivity, time liness, accuracy, and resolution alone would require a multitude of new technological advancements. Based on the results of this SSA sensor solution study, Lockheed Martin recommend ed a layered sensor solution that effectively utilizes available sensor data from all current sources, utilizes host available resources to add SSA features/sensors to planned government and commercial satellites, initiates spaceborne high technology readiness level (TRL) small or microsatellite solutions to ad dress high altitude needs, and provides distributed ground radar solution to address the lower altitude regimes. Conclusions The Lockheed Martin team brought forward a proven sys tems engineering approach to decomposing the SSA mission area into its key functional attributes predicated upon the coun tries need for space protection capabilities. Our analyses were based upon possible threat scenarios that can be foreseen now and in the near term with currently existing technologies that potential adversaries can acquire. The single most relevant conclusion is that SSA must support the entirety of the space superiority mission and must be operated as a cohesive single able to evolving threat conditions as security environments evolve. The SSA must prioritize missions by focusing on the highest or most immediate threat with the foresight of under Our study results highlighted several key needs both in the information systems and underlying infrastructure required for the mission as well as several new sensor systems in conjunc tion with planned upgrades to the existing SSN. In the informa Air Force investments in standards based SOAs that are able to incorporate new data sources rapidly as well as being able to process multiple security levels. The information infrastructure must be adaptable to incorporate new sensing systems and be able to manage the entire sensing system with a dynamic and adaptive planning function at its core. The technologies for both the information systems and sen sor systems are at a very high TRL; in many cases the space system must be architected as a comprehensive system that includes both terrestrial as well as space based sensors. The fully understand and characterize it, sensors need to be in GEO. By using high TRL small satellite solutions, the nation would be able to provide high performance and high responsiveness at a much lower cost. The use of proven information and sensing systems can substantially lower the development, deployment, and operations costs for a future SSA system.
43 High Frontier Action-based Approach for Space Protection Mr. Steven Prebeck Site Manager, Operations Support Program Raytheon Colorado Springs, Colorado Mr. Kenneth Chisolm Engineering Fellow, Chief Engineer Raytheon Rocky Mountain Engineering Aurora, Colorado The Space Protection Problem Set M ore than any other nation, the United States relies on space operations for its military, civil, and economic activities. These operations provide the critical force multiplier that has been key to US military success during the past two de cades. The United States involvement in space started primarily to support military activities (communication, intelligence and reconnaissance, and navigation) in addition to civil (primarily meteorology and remote sensing) and commercial (communica tions) activities. more and more commercialized. During the past two decades, civil users have carved out markets in communications and re mote sensing. We have also seen a greater dependency on our military utilization of commercial space services to augment ca pabilities. As a result, it is imperative we protect the space assets that are so vital to our national security and economic interests. In the 1970s, the Soviets developed and successfully tested a direct ascent anti-satellite weapon (ASAT) capable of inter US developed an air-launched ASAT capability. These offset ting chess moves remained the status quo through the Cold War and beyond. A decade ago, in the National Defense Industrial Associations 1998 Summer Study on Space for United States Space Command, 1 General Howell Marion Estes III posed the following ques tions to industry: What does indus try want? and What is industrys position on space protection? At that time, and until recently, the pri mary perceived threat to on-orbit assets was environmental effects. The study stated, There was no consensus among commercial rep resentatives that there was any cred ible threat that would justify overt protection measures. Even if there was a threat, there was no consensus that commercial space required pro tection. The increasingly multi-national nature of commercial space makes unilateral threats unlikely. In short, the perceived threat was not great enough for com mercial satellite operators to expend precious on-orbit weight and power to incorporate onboard protection measures at the ex pense of revenue-generating payload capabilities. Recent Events Emerging Threats In January of 2007, the Chinese successfully launched a di rect ascent ASAT from their Xichang region and destroyed their defunct Fengyun 1C weather satellite. The Fengyun 1C weather satellite circled Earth in a low-earth, sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 860 kilometers. This capability by the Chinese places commercial imaging and civil meteorological satellites operating in this orbit regime at risk. Figure 1 shows this event and other potential threats. In addition to ASATs, other emerging capabilities can nega tively impact satellite services, short of destroying a satellite. A growing concern for the US is the deployment and employment of radio frequency jammers against satellite systems, much as the Iraqis used to affect Global Positioning System signals around Baghdad in the early stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. For instance, various countries are developing laser systems that could dazzle a satellites electro-optical sensors and temporar ily blind it. Other countries are developing or purchasing microsatellites that, because of their size, are able to escape detection by US groundand space-based space tracking sensors. This new micro class of satellites has the potential to impact US or friendly satellite operations. The establishment of the Space Protection Program on 31 March 2008 by the commander of the Air Force Space Com for US and allied space systems. Industry Perspective Figure 1. Chinese ASAT event showed viable threat to satellites.Analytical Graphics, Inc.
High Frontier 44 Gaps Sensors and Data The traditional approach for dealing with space threats is to fully understand everything that is happening in space to de termine if these threats impact assets. This approach, in turn, drives the tasking and generating of large amounts of data from groundand space-based optical, infrared, and radar sensors of the space surveillance network. The space-based assets of the US Air Force Defense Support Program (being replaced by the Space-Based Infrared System) and other space-based assets aug ment this network. Constraining this data collection is the limit in the volume of space that our existing sensors can survey at any given time. Gaps in this sensor coverage contribute to space situational awareness (SSA) limitations. A long lead time ex ists for procuring and deploying new ground-based assets, with even longer lead times for new space-based assets in eliminat ing some of these coverage gaps. Considering these gaps, our existing assets still produce huge amounts of data that correlate evant to a particular activity or asset of interestthis data analysis is time and manpower intensive. Different Way of Looking at the Space Protection Problem An alternative approach to tackling the problem is to start at the desired operational end state, and reverse the needed to enable actions that result in that state. This approach greatly re duces the amount of data for collection, fusion, and analysis. Figure 2 shows a simple illustration of this approach by working through a maze. The tradi tional way of starting at the beginning of the maze and working through it may lead to multiple dead ends and delays, while starting at the desired action or end point allows working through the maze without dead ends and delays. Following the maze analogy, an alternative to learning everything about every object in space is an ac tion-based approach. For any given potential threat, desired objectives exist for countering the threat. These objectives are achieved by effects, actions. Effects planning, delivery, and assessment require data for situ ational awareness. Rather than using the current approach for aggregating and integrating all SSA information, the action-based approach aggre together data and information needed to support these actions. Figure 3 shows this action-based approach. Once the assets orbit domain is determined and the threat desired effect or action. Ideally, for a given effect or action, tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) associated with data requirements are needed for implementation exist. Unforeseen scenarios also exist where TTPs and information needs develop as a situation evolves. The analysis, planning, and execution complexity of the TTPs, and their associated data needs with ad hoc requirements dictate the level of battle management and command and control needed to deliver space effects. The key is that the analyst obtains only relevant data from all source data, eliminating the need for time-consuming sorting and fusion of entire data sets. Figure 2. Maze analogy for reverse engineering a Space Protection problem. Figure 3. Action-based Approach for Space Protection.
45 High Frontier of an adversarys laser weapon delivering short duration daz zling of an imaging satellite. The desired objective is to en sure the United States continued ability to perform space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), anywhere and any time. To accomplish this objective, a possible course of action is to deny the adversarys capability (be it diplomacy, avoidance, or other action). This action requires geolocation of the laser dazzler. Geolocation is supported by reconnais sance, anomaly detection by the satellite, characterization of the anomaly, attack assessment, and intelligence gathering on the critical elements of data needed to perform the functions (for example, overhead imagery, Intelligence collections, telemetry, and weather data). These activities are also decomposed to de essential elements of information that enable selecting and ex ecuting courses of action aimed at achieving the end state. A key enabler to this approach is establishing rapid proto typing programs and facilities to develop and evaluate new ca pabilities quickly. Raytheon has established the Battle Lab for tive compartmented information labs operational. The devel opment activities in these facilities provide several advantages. First, the development activities produce usable prototypes and capability in a quick reaction environment. Second, they pro vide insight to enable improved concept generation and eval focus requirements assessment, generation, and deployment of accelerated timelines. Summary The recently announced Space Protection Program has the potential to make a difference in protecting space assets so vital to our national security and economic interests. However, we must still overcome the problems facing us today: large amounts of data to process into information and knowledge from our ex isting sensors, and gaps in our SSA coverage. To be effective while constrained by limited ISR resources ecution of threats: tasking for and using only what is needed to successfully understand threats, and then deliver the effects. We historically begin gathering and tasking for all available in formation before we have determined a desired objective. The approach discussed in this article provides a better use of limited resourceslink effects to an objective, select appropriate TTPs, gather relevant available data, and task for additional data as needed. Space effects must be decisive to support clearly de in a timely manner. Notes: 1 1998 Summer Study on Space, National Defense Industrial Associa tion, December 1998. Mr. Steven R. Prebeck (BS, Avia tion/Meteorology, University of Illi nois; MBA, University of South Da kota; MS, Airpower Studies, School of Advanced Airpower Studies; MS, National Security Strategy, National War College) directs operations of Raytheon Companys Operations Sup port Program site in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mr. Prebecks Space Control ex perience began with his assignment as th Test Squadron. He then took command of the 5 th Space Surveillance Squadron at Royal Air Force Feltwell, United Kingdom. Following his squadron command, he moved to be the deputy commander for the 21 st Operations Group where he led all activities for the passive space surveillance squadrons. His Operations at Air Force Space Command Headquarters where he led an integrated counterspace mission team providing policy and guidance for the offensive counterspace, defensive counterspace, and space situational awareness mission areas. Mr. Prebeck served in the United States Air Force from 1979 to 2005. He was awarded the Legion of Merit with one oak leaf clus oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal, and the Air School, Air Command and Staff College, the School of Advanced by the Project Management Institute as a Project Management Pro fessional. Mr. Kenneth D. Chisolm (BS, Electrical Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology) is a Raytheon Engineering Fellow and the chief engineer for Raytheon Companys Rocky Mountain Engineering organization, supplying technical expertise to Raytheon sites in Aurora and Colorado Springs, Colorado, and Omaha, Nebraska. He is also the technical director for a Ray theon-wide research and development ac tivity focused on space control activities. Mr. Chisolm has fourteen years of space control experience in cluding leading numerous technical studies and supporting spacecontrol related pursuits and programs. He was an analyst on the Space Control Architecture Development Team at the Department chitectures for offensive counterspace, defensive counterspace, and space situational awareness mission areas. Recently, he was the lead architect for the Raytheon GPS OCX proposal team, and the chief engineer for the Raytheon Transformational Satellite Mission Operations System study and proposal. Prior to his space-related activities, Mr. Chisolm was a system engineer on various airborne Mr. Chisolm has been employed by the Raytheon Company (formerly Hughes Aircraft Company) since 1985. He is a graduate of the Hughes Radar System Engineering Development Program. He serves on the Raytheon Corporate Architecture Review Board, Architecture Framework-8 Architect, and the Software Engineering Institute as an Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method Evaluator.
High Frontier 46 Warfighter Focus Walking the Walk, Integrating Space Effects Planning into Ground Operations Now Lt Col Stuart A. Pettis, USAF Commander, 1 st Air Support Operations Squadron Overview I n the February 2008 issue of the High Frontier, Maj John Thomas and Maj Rich Operhall presented a compelling argument for why space and cyber effects planners need to be better integrated with ground maneuver units below the corps level and how these planners can be integrated with existing Air Force air support operations groups, air support operations squadrons (ASOS) and tactical air control parties (TACP). Al 1 st ASOS, supporting the US Armys 1 st Armored Division. In 2007, I took command of my squadron and then deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom where I served as the expeditionary squadron commander and ALO for Multi-National Division North. Based on my experience, Majors Thomas and Operhall are spot on. However, I believe they stopped short and the time air control parties. Tactical Air Control Parties All airmen know the role of the Air and Space Operations Center (AOC) within the joint theater air control system. Fewer understand the role of TACPs within this construct. Per Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-1.3, Counterland Opera tions, Tactical Air Control Parties serve as the principal Air Force liaison element aligned with Army maneuver units for corps through bat talion. The primary mission of corps through brigade-level TACPs is to advise their respective land commanders on the capabilities and limitations of air and space power as well as assist the ground commander in planning, requesting, and coordinating close air support. 1 In laymans terms, TACPs are the only airmen in a ground unit headquarters and are charged with representing the full ar ray of Air Force capabilities to the ground commander. Traditionally, a TACPs pri mary role is to assist the ground unit in integrating close air support (CAS) into their scheme of maneuver and then over seeing execution of CAS. This mission traces its origins to World War II and to Lt Gen Elwood R. Pete Quesada, who placed pilots with radios into armored columns. 2 TACPs are aligned to battalion, brigade, and corps levels as 3 At the battalion level, a TACP often consists of two airmen, one of whom is a Joint Terminal Attack skilled at integrating and controlling CAS. A brigade TACP a major or captain), as well as several JTACs and airmen. The brigade TACP integrates airpower into the brigades scheme of maneuver as well as oversees the activities of the battalion TACPs within their unit. A division TACP, which resembles a brigade TACP but also adds squadron functions such as mainte nance and supply, is led by a lieutenant colonel and has several ALOs under their command. They also oversee the operations of the brigade and battalion TACPs within their unit. The corps TACP, known as the corps ALO containing the air support oper ations center, oversees the operations of all the TACPs within a theater. It is led by a colonel who also serves as the expedition ary group commander. The corps ALO is the senior USAF liai son to the corps, but works directly for the joint forces air com ponent commander and interacts directly with AOC, integrates air into the corps scheme of maneuver and processes immediate requests for CAS. Besides group-level functions, it also adds numerous intelligence professionals to TACP operations. Because they serve as the single face of the Air Force to nu merous Army units, TACPs have always represented other Air Force functions while maintaining their core competency of CAS integration and control. There are also air mobility liaison Figure 1. Key Air Force and Army components of the Theater Air Control SystemArmy AirGround System.
47 High Frontier specially trained to implement the theater air control system and to control airlift assets engaging in combat tactics such as airdrops. 4 Also, in addition to the intelligence personnel as signed to the corps TACP, intelligence, surveillance, and recon TACPs in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2007 and beginning in 2009 will be permanently assigned to Air Support Operation Force ISR capabilities, improve intelligence requests, increase AOC awareness of intelligence needs and support TACP intel ligence requirements. 5 Current Space Integration into Ground Operations Currently, Air Force theater space personnel reside in the Combined Air and Space Operations Center with a single Air Force space planner forward deployed to the air component co ordination element in Iraq and a single Air Force space planner forward deployed to the joint space support team in Iraq. Sup porting these personnel is the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg AFB, California. However, there are no space personnel deliberately assigned to a TACP similar to AMLOs and ISR LNOs. developed Functional Area 40 (FA40) several years ago. Un like an Air Force specialty code, members of functional areas come from Army branches such as artillery or military intel ligence and compete for admission into a functional area after seven years of service. They are then tracked, developed, and assigned to staffs where they provide commanders with exper tise and guidance on conducting the space component of op erations, which enhances a commands ability to task, collect, process, and act on space-based products, information, warn ings, and space-related capabilities. 6 At the corps and division level, there are one or two FA40s, known as a space support ele ment (SSE). In addition, US Army Forces Strategic Command provides Army Space Support Teams which can plus up an SSE as required. Figure 2 below shows how space expertise is cur rently integrated in both the air and ground components. 7 Coming from other branches such as infantry or artillery, FA40s have an intimate understanding of Army operations. To gain an understanding of space operations, they attend an 11week, intensive academic program of instruction which covers topics such as space environment, space control, force enhance ment, analytical tools, and joint space capabilities. They can also attend Air Education and Training Command, civilian in stitution and National Security Space Institute courses. 8 From Operation Desert Storm to the present our focus has been on integrating air and space operations. This challenge However, for the past decade we have successfully integrated air and space operations through personnel assigned to air op erations centers and our directors of space forces. We can now focus on integrating space with other components. An obvious question is can Air Force theater space per sonnel, who are assigned to the combat air operations center (CAOC) and the air component coordination element (ACCE), integrate space effects into brigade and battalion operations? CAOC space operators do amazing work but their focus is on the internal processes of the CAOC and not on individual ground unit plans. Also, given that there are one corps, four divisions, and over 20 brigades in Iraq, each planning synchronized but unique operations, it is unlikely they could sup port each unit. The single space planner on the ACCE staff integrates with both Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) and Multi-National Corps-Iraq (although the current charter of the ACCE is to only support MNF-I), but as a one-deep posi tion it is not in position to cover tactical level unit planning and execution. Fi nally, the Army, more than any other ser vice, relies on face to face contact during planning they also expect personnel to pull information through common op erating pictures and shared information Figure 2. Integration with the Ground Component. The single space planner on the ACCE staff integrates well with both Multi-National ForceIraq (MNF-I) and Multi-National Corps-Iraq (although the current charter of the ACCE is to only support MNF-I), but as a one-deep position also is not in a position to cover tactical level unit planning and execution.
High Frontier 48 servers. The challenges that the US Army counterparts face are daunting. Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided navigation is now standard as are GPS-aided artillery munitions. Ground forces are extremely reliant on satellite communications and as the number of patrol bases increases, these requirements will also increase. We are also operating in two countries adjacent to Iran, whose ballistic missile capability is increasing at a time when demands for base operating units and transition teams are stressing air defense artillery manning. There is also increasing awareness and use of specialized space capabilities, even at the division level. FA40s are doing outstanding work, but do not bring a space professionals years of technical systems experience to prob lems. Air Force space operators spend years just conducting throughout their careers. Those selected for duty in theaters are usually the best we have to offer and are in most cases weapons brings both a US Army perspective and a depth of space knowl edge to challenges. This approach mirrors the relationship that ALOs have with members of the Fire Support Element within each Army echelon and unit. Doing this also follows a trend of RAND Corporation and other studies. 9 Way Ahead An obvious way to address this need is by adding space professionals, similar to AMLOs and ISR LNOs, to TACPs. Because this follows an established model, it should be very palatable to both the Army and Air Force. To meet the intent of pairing these individuals with FA40s, they should be added only to those ASOSs which have a division TACP which is where ISR LNOs are also placed. With only 10 active-duty divisions in the Army, this is not a sizeable requirement. Rather than deploy as individual augmentees, these individu als should be assigned to each ASOS so that they can train with both their ASOS and aligned division. This will allow them skills. As stated before, the Army is very reliant on face to face contact and each division operates with a slight difference. are also critical given TACP operating locations. A less obvious solution is to select space operators to serve as ALOs. This is a radical departure from the current philoso understand CAS and have air sense can serve as ALOs. As AFDD 3-1.2 states, a land maneuver unit, who functions as the primary advisor to individual land commanders on the capabilities and limita tions of air power. Acting as a land commanders expert on air and space operations, ALOs must be involved in the supported land commanders military decision-making process (MDMP) so they can perform detailed air support planning with their own staff. 10 from serving as an ALO. The requirements are that he or she be an advisor, an expert on the capabilities and limitations of air power, be an expert on air and space power and be involved in a ground commanders MDMP. Based on my experience, I would further break the required knowledge down as follows: An ALO must: Understand the capabilities and limitations of US and co alition aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles) per forming CAS. Understand munitions capabilities and limitations and options for limiting collateral damage. Understand airspace control measures. Understand joint, Air Force, and Army doctrine relating to CAS. Understand the theater air control system and CAOC pro cesses. Thoroughly understand joint terminal attack control pro cedures. Understand the Armys MDMP and orders process. None of the requirements in either doctrine or my break down require air sense. In fact, our battalion air liaison of A less obvious solution is to select space operators to serve as ALOs. This is a radical intimately understand CAS and have air sense can serve as ALOs. Figure 3. A soldier from the 172 nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team shows an Iraqi soldier how to navigate using a map and GPS prior to an Iraqi-led operation near Mosul. Tech Sgt Jeremy T. Lock
49 High Frontier Lt Col Stuart A. Pettis (BS, Florida State University; MS, University of North Dakota; MS, Air Force Institute of Technology) is commander of the 1 st Air Support Operations Squadron, Wiesbaden Army tactical air control parties for the global war on terrorism and the United States Armys his toric 1 st Armored Division. Be tween October 2007 and May 2008, he was the commander of the 1 st Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron and the eration Iraqi Freedom. A career space operator, Colonel Pettis has served in a variety of duties in the Missile Warning and Space Con of Space and Information Operations Plans for Third Air Force as well as the head of tactics development for Air Force Space Com mands tactics squadron. He is a graduate of the United States Air Force Weapons School and a contributor to the book Space Power published in 2006 by Air University Press, as well as to Air and Space Power Journals online journal Air Chronicles experience can serve as ALOs. This is not to say that there would not be a very steep learn coming straight from an Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) crew assignment would have the prerequisite knowledge. on second assignments after serving in a theater AOC, have be offset by mandatory training such as the ALO Qualifying Course. Creating a space ALO from scratch without select impossible. However, training using weapons school or ad vanced space training courseware, the ALO Qualifying Course and courses on doctrine could be easily built. operations. Over the last several months the Air Staff has looked at ways they can continue to provide rated operators to unmanned aerial vehicles, ALOs, and command and control as signments and still maintain pilots in cockpits. Numerous op tions have been explored including creating a permanent ALO This would also provide a core of space operators with very would train and deploy with Army combat units, integrate at the the Air Force and AFSPC, with this type of experience return ing would be immeasurable. Conclusion Although the Air Force is the lead service for space, we have neglected the integration of Air Force space expertise with ground operations. We have instead relied on another service to be the advocate for our capabilities. It is inconceivable that need to have Air Force space operators advocating Air Force space capabilities. They can partner with Army space person nel, but ultimately this is our mission. By utilizing the existing ASOS and TACP structure we can integrate space operators into Army tactical level operations almost immediately. We should make this an imperative. type of experience returning would be immeasurable. Notes: 1 Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-1-3, Counterland Opera tions 11 September 2006, 63. 2 Thomas Alexander Hughes, Overlord: General Pete Quesada and the Triumph of Tactical Air Power in World War II (New York: Free Press, 1995), 141-169. 3 AFDD 2-1.3, Counterland Operations 52. 4 AFDD 2-6, Air Mobility Operations 1 March 2006, 62. 5 Capt Ryan T. Hudson, TACP Intelligence Operations USAF Weap ons School Paper, Nellis AFB, Nevada: 19 th Weapons Squadron, 2008. 6 United States Army Human Resources Command, Functional Area 40 website, What is FA40, http://www4.army.mil/FA40/index.php. 7 Maj John Thomas, Air, Space, and Cyberspace Integration with the 8 United States Army Human Resources Command, Functional Area 40 website, What is FA 40, http://www4.army.mil/FA40/training.php. 9 Bruce R. Pirnie, Alan Vick, Adam Grissom, Karl P. Mueller and Da vid T. Orletsky, Beyond Close Air Support: Forging a New Air-Ground Partnership (Santa Monica: Rand, 2005), 36-38. 10 AFDD 2-1-3, Counterland Operations 11 September 2006, 62.
High Frontier 50 Are you a Sam or a Courtney? 1 Lt Col Robert J. Vercher, USAF Commander, 12 th Missile Squadron Malmstrom AFB, Montana Lt Col Andrew S. Kovich, USAF Commander, 90 th Maintenance Operations Squadron F. E. Warren AFB, Wyoming I had been accustomed throughout my life to classify all public servants into one or the other of two general categories: one, the men who were thinking what they could do for their job; the other, the men who were thinking what the job could do for them. 2 ~ Henry Stimson, Secretary of War 1909-1911; Secretary of State 1928-1932; Secretary of War 1939-1945 T here are many how to articles written about the art of leadership; this is not one of those articles. Rather, this article will ask more questions than it answers and simply serves as the extension of an on-going leadership discussion between the two authors. A discussion that often starts with the ques tions: are you a Sam on that issue or a Courtney or, is that person acting like Sam or Courtney? We hope this article will encourage individuals who study the art of leadership to view this dynamic and complex subject through the lens of two char portrayed in Anton Myrers novel Once An Eagle The stories of evil, ethics and morality, corruption of power, career over fam ily, devotion to country, and unchecked ambition. Charles C. Krulak, former commandant of the United States Marine Corps stated that this story has more to teach about leadership than a score of modern-day management texts. It is the primer that lays out, through the lives of its two main characters, lessons on how and how not to lead. 3 how and which is the how not. As a member of the military, our focus is often on what a military member does as opposed to what we actually are, or should be. 4 Right now we are all working hard to learn our role. Duty performance is critically important but one should stop and take the time to think about what they are meant to superintendent, or chief. How will I act in that role? Whom will I emulate? As members of the profession of arms there is an intentional focus on building the foundation for future success today. Therefore, it is important to ask: What is my vision for my future self? 5 Will I be like Sam or be like Courtney? To help build a vision of our future selves, this article relates the stories serve in Americas wars from World War I through Vietnam and Professional Development differ is in their approach to leadership and the trust placed in them as commanders. 6 In the novel, Sam Damon enlists in the army and later re is a natural leader, excellent commander and successful soldier to the Army, his troops and the nation. He demands excellence from himself and spends countless hours honing his superior in the success of any commander and that intuition can be de veloped through the lifelong pursuit of military education which he accomplishes diligently during his off duty time. 7 He is a demanding commander who sets high standards in training in ably Sam Damons most valuable traits are providing vital in formation to his superiors and giving an honest assessment of every situation, even when it is not popular or could jeopardize his career goals. 8 This is not to say that Sam has no concern for his army career. Rather he purposely chooses the tougher road in his career by never avoiding the controversial issue, never taking advantage of his subordinates, and never engaging in sycophantic behavior to achieve success. 9 Additionally, Sam learns to be careful of those who are willing to display military operations in the very best light possible. In Sams experience, long war against a tough, resourceful enemy but in the illusion of a cheap and easy victory. 10 The bottom-line for Sam Damon is to always prepare himself and his subordinates for the next challenge, take care of his troops, and ensure his unit is at the pinnacle of combat capability. Courtney Massengale gains suc cess through a different approach. Courtney Massengale is a smart, charming, and ambitious cation as Sam Damon. He is poised, polished, and a highly ef Jack Pershings personal staff. He is selected to write a guide stowed on General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Courtney is very ad ept at balancing army needs with the political realities he faces in Washington DC. He worries about the political fallout from every issue and sees no need to disrupt the course of his career by taking a stand on an issue he can do nothing about. Why ascribes. Further, omission of distasteful pieces of news is his primary objective especially if he feels he will be chastised and men or materials to carry out his mission, Courtney makes due with the situation, despite the dangers/losses, rather than challenge his superiors by advocating for a different approach.
51 High Frontier Courtney believes it most important to present a positive/can do image to his superiors rather than rock the boat. 11 He is very careful to ensure he makes the right connections inside and out side the army and to hold every position that ensures advance ment. 12 Courtney has the opportunity to work closely with se As a commander, Courtney takes care to ensure blame is never ally held responsible. The success of his organizations (and his organizations do succeed) is always attributed to his command ability and superior tactical skill. Often these accolades are a result of his personal public relations efforts. Courtney is often more concerned about what his troops can do for him rather than what he can do to help the troops carry out the mission. The bottom-line for Courtney Massengale is to always seek out the best opportunities to shine and to ensure that his decisions meet with approval from the majority of his superiors. While some of these examples of Courtneys leadership are certainly negative, there are more subtle examples of his failures in moral courage to which many of us are also extremely susceptible. 13 Often, our attention can be diverted away from our primary mission or the well-being of our troops. Institutional pressures unrelated to mission accomplishment often consume much of our time and wear down our ability to make honest decisions or provide honest feedback. 14 How does one address these chal lenges? Is it possible there are redeeming qualities to be found elusive charm to solving problems like Courtney does. Does it really matter how the job gets done? 15 While Sam approaches every problem or issue through the frontal assault method and gets his hands dirty, Courtney seems to rise through the ranks without ever getting his hair mussed. Is it really a tough call to determine which issues to fall on your sword for? Is it valid as a for what is right? If you know you will be relieved and replaced by a yes man, should you take action and be relieved? Is the right answer to say yes sir and move out even if you know it to be a critical mistake? 16 Are you a Sam or a Courtney? The question still stands as a viable means of self-analysis or unit analysis. What decisions do you see in front of you, or what leaders do you see around you taking on some of the characteristics of either of Myrers characters? Is it possible to be all Sam or to be all Courtney, or is it possible that institutional or peer pressures force a com everyone wants to be a Sam Damon. But, what happens if you need to take on a trait found in Courtney Massengale to han dle an unyielding boss to accomplish something good for your group or organization? 17 Is that a form of manipulation where the ends justify the means, or does Courtney-like behavior begin to erode a leaders ability to differentiate between self-good and unit-good? Should one build a resistance or stubbornness to the temptations of ambition? Is it correct then to seek opportunities or should one wait to be chosen? 18 Unfortunately, this is the great leadership debate explored when you read the book and ship styles in use but the true test comes only when a leader is called upon to act. 19 Which approach is right for a young leader to emulate the personal leader, or the institutional leader, or both? This struggle can best be summed up by a real Air Force leader, Col John Boyd. Colonel Boyd effectively captured the concept of As Boyd stated, One day you will come to a fork in the road. And youre going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go. If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments. Or you can go that way and you can do somethingsomething for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you wont have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. Thats when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go? 20 So what is the point of this story? What are the takeaways? How should you respond to these challenges? Can you be some body AND do something? Only each individual can answer these questions. Which brings us back to the original question: are you a Sam or a Courtney? Notes: 1 AFB papers as Sq/CC commentaries in the fall of 2007. We have provided examples in the footnotes to provide the reader additional perspectives and commentary. 2 Edgar F. Puryear, American GeneralshipCharacter is Everything: The Art of Command (Novato, California: Presidio Press, 2000), 1. 3 Quote from General Charles C. Krulak, former commandant, USMC found at: http://www.once-an-eagle.com/. 4 Roger H Nye, The Challenge of Command: Reading for Military Ex cellence (New York: Berkley Publishing Group, 1986), 2. 5 Ibid., chapter 1. 6 Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodges, The Servant Leader (Nashville: Countryman, 2003), 15, 17. According to Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodg is whether to see the moment through the eyes of self-interest or for the a servant leader of a self-serving leader?; Maj Gen Perry Smith (USAF, retired), Learning to Lead Part 1 and 2, govleaders.org, 1997, http://gov true test comes only when a leader is called upon to act.
High Frontier 52 leaders.org/genpsmith.htm. Smith adds, Be a Servant Leader. Too many leaders serve their ambitions or their egos rather than their people.; Andy Andrews, The Travelers Gift: Seven Decisions that Determine Personal Success (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Books, 2002), 49, 50. Andrews had the following to say about servant leadership, I will seek wisdom. I will be a servant to others. A wise man will cultivate a servants spirit, for that particular attribute attracts people like no other. As I humbly serve others, their wisdom will be freely shared with me. Additionally, he said, I will become a humble servant. I will not look for someone to open my doorI will look to open the door for someone. 7 American GeneralshipCharacter is Everything: The Art of Com mand, 160, 158, 169 respectively. Generals Bradley, Patton, and Ridge way all offer perspectives on lifelong learning. According to Bradley, of war and the principles of tactics and how certain leaders applied them. You are never going to meet with that exact situation, but when you know all these principles and how they were applied in the past, then when a situation faces you, you apply those principles to your present situation and hope you come up with a good solution. I think the study of military histo ry, and what the great leaders did, is very, very important for any young of you must know history. Read it objectively, dates and even minute details of tactics are useless. What you must know is how man reacts. Weapons change, but the men who use them change not at all. To win battles you do not beat weapons, you beat the soul of every man. Ridgeway added, A man by himself can have but a very limited experience. So youve got to draw on the experiences of others, both in reading and in talking to men who have made their names in combat, who have demonstrated superior leadership.; Ibid., 85. With regard to intuition or the gut call in decision making, General Bradley also has this to say: My theory is that you col lect information, little bits of it, and it goes into your brain like feeding information into a 1401 IBM calculator. Its stored in there, but you are not conscious of it. You hear some of it over the phone, you see some of then suddenly you are faced with a decision. You dont go back and pick up each one of the pieces of information, but you run over the main items that are involved and the answer comes out like when you push the button on an IBM machine. You have stored up this knowledge as it comes in and when you are suddenly faced in battle with a situation needing a decision, you can give it. 8 US Department of Defense, remarks to Air War College, delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Maxwell, Alabama, 21 April 2008, http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1231. Secre tary of Defense Robert M. Gates stated the following: Dissent is a sign of health in an organization, and particularly if its done in the right way and respectfully and so on. But people who dissent, who take a different view, who kind of are orthogonal to the conventional wisdom are always at risk or two, were looking out for him. 9 George Grant, The Courage and Character of Theodore Roosevelt: A Hero Among Leaders (Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 1996), 112, 120, 139. Teddy Roosevelt offers some valuable insights here: The man who knows the truth and has the opportunity to tell it, but who nonetheless refuses to, is among the most shameful of all creatures. My success so far has only been won by absolute indifference to my future career. It is not always easy to keep the just middle, especially when it happens that on one side are corrupt and unscrupulous demagogues, and on the other side corrupt and unscrupulous reactionaries.; Paul Yingling, A Failure in Generalship Armed Forces Journal May 2007; Lt Col Paul Yingling adds the following thoughts: The general who speaks too loudly of pre paring for war while the nation is at peace places at risk his position and status A military professional must possess both the physical courage to face the hazards of battle and the moral courage to withstand the barbs of years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.; Fred Kaplan, Challenging the Generals, New York Times Magazine 26 August 2007. 10 Anton Myrer, Once An Eagle (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1968), 621. 11 Learning to Lead Part 1 and 2. Smith goes on to write, Serve, Dont Humor the Boss. Too many leaders see their big tasks as keeping their bosses happy, getting to the bottom of the in-box, or staying out of trouble. That is not what leadership is all about. Leadership is serving the mission and serving your people. 12 American Generalship would submit that the opportunity to learn should be ones number 1 prior ity rather than what the perceived reward will be at the end of the assign and the second is to serve and dont ever mix those two up. Eisenhower offered his perspective on the value of positions close to senior leaders when he said, How does one develop as a decision-maker? Be around people making decisions. 13 Stephen Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers: the U.S. Army from the Norman dy Beaches to the bulge to the surrender of Germany June 7., 1944 May 7, 1945 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 334. In his book, Citizen Soldiers Stephen Ambrose quoted a World War II soldier with the follow ing description of behavior not conducive to strong leadership. The soldier stated, Chickenshit refers to behavior that makes military life worse than it need be: petty harassment of the weak by the strong; open scrimmage for power and authority and prestigeinsistence on the letter rather than the spirit of ordinances. Chickenshit is so called instead of horse or bull or elephant shit because it is small minded and ignoble and takes the trivial seriously. Chickenshit can be recognized instantly because it never has anything to do with winning the war. 14 Learning to Lead Part 1 and 2. Maj Gen Perry Smith stated, Avoid the Cowardice of Silence. During meetings, so-called leaders often sit on their hands when it is time to raise a hand and speak up. Leadership requires courage courage to make waves, courage to take on our bosses when they are wrong, and the courage of conviction. Every Robert E. Lee needs a James Longstreet to tell him exactly the way it is. 15 Jeffrey A. Zink, Hammer-Proof: A Positive Guide to Values-Based Leadership (Colorado Springs: Peak Press, 2006), 49. How we lead is as important as the results we achieve with our organizations. As Jeffrey Zink wrote, The ends dont justify the means. Ends and means must both accomplish.; Perry M. Smith, Rules and Tools for Leaders: A Down-toEarth Guide to Effective Managing (New York, New York: Berkley Pub lishing Group, 1998), 35. Some individuals tend to be more interested in survival, in staying out of trouble, in avoiding extra work, or in being pro moted, than in carrying out the mission in as effective a way as possible. 16 General Charles G. Boyd, Air War College, Air University Gradu ation, 2006, FreeRepublic.com, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1661858/posts. The following remarks by General Boyd provide useful guidance for action in response to these questions. He said, Your voice, esteemed and credible though it is, has an effectis only truly ef fectivewhen it is used inside the corridors of the policy formulation pro made the more so by the subservient nature of your culture. You say sir or maam to those senior to you, and while that courtesy has considerable value, it also makes it harder to speak in counter argument to your seniors. merit in the maintenance of civilian control over the military. Acceptance of that subordination doesnt make it easier to tell your superior when he or she is wrong. But this you must do, and if you dont you forfeit the right to hard it sometimes can be to oppose strong willed bosses even when youre certain you are right. You work hard, you have talent and want to advance, career. But this is the only professionalindeed, ethicalcourse avail have left, you will be proudest of those times you took the risk to do the right thing and not the expedient. And you will be most ashamed to recall the times you remained silent when you should have stated your mind ians who are placed in positions of authority over you. They will know less than you about the science and craft of your profession, they will lack your training and education in this arcane business, yet sometimes hold strong
53 High Frontier of ideas can crack intractable problems. PoliciesAdaptors prefer well established, structured situations. Best at incorporating new data or events into existing structures or policies. Innovators prefer unstructured situa tions. See opportunities to set new structures or policies with attendant May have trouble establishing role in time of needed change. Innovators are essential in time of change or crisis. May have trouble applying them selves to ongoing organizational needs. Perceived behaviorAdaptors are seen by innovators as sound, conforming, safe, predictable, relevant, seen by adaptorsas unsound, impracticable, risky, abrasive, often shocking their opposites, and creating dissonance. views about its application. Your taskindeed your responsibilityis to help them make the right decisions. With all the power of persuasion you can muster, and at whatever personal risk you perceive that may require, you must tell your bosses what your professional judgment dictates. It is thenbefore the decisions are madethat you are most effective, not in the TV studios and on the op-ed pages later, after you failed, or worse, did not try, to alter a bankrupt course of action. 17 A follow-on question could be: What if youre a Sam working for a Courtney? 18 Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs (New York: Random House, 1999), vi. General Grant provides an answer to this question when he said, It is the men who wait to be selected rather than those who seek The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (New York: Random House, 1979) and Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (New York: Random House, 2001). Teddy of the consequences it could have to his faithful service. This is clear when he responded to his aides question about him becoming president. Roosevelt said, Dont you dare ask me that. Dont you put such ideas into my head. No friend of mine would ever say a thing like that. You... You... Never. Never. You must never either of you remind a man at work on a political job that he may be president. It almost always kills him politi cally. He loses his nerve. He cant do his work. He gives up the very traits that are making him a possibility. I am going to do great things here. Hard things that require all the courage, ability, work that I am capable of. But if I get to thinking of what it might lead to...I must be wanting to be presi dent. Every young man does. But I wont let myself think of it. I must not. Because if I do I will begin to work for it. Ill be careful, calculating, cautious in every word or act and so Ill beat myself. 19 Dick Winters, Beyond Band of Brothers: The War Memoirs of Major Dick Winters (New York, New York: Berkley Publishing Group, 2006), 293. Dick Winters who led the Band of Brothers counsels us to Remain humble. Dont worry about who receives the credit. Never let power or authority go to your head True satisfaction comes from getting the job done. The key to a successful leader is to earn respectnot because of rank or position, but because you are a leader of character. 20 Grant T. Hammond, The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Se curity (Washington: Smithsonian Books, 2001), 10, 206, 340. Robert Co ram, BOYD: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War (Boston, New York, London: Little, Brown and Company, 2002), 285. Another question Boyd would ask is: Do you want to be part of the system or do you want to shake up the system? Grant Hammond had the following to say about so-called mavericks: We need devils advocates, nay-sayers, doubting Thomases, those who question our assumptions, ends, means, and costs of the course of action the nation adopts the trick is to allow the mavericks to exist and to be heard, to select those who have real contributions to make from those who merely complain, to keep a certain amount of inhouse criticism and nay-saying as a counterpoise to the routine taking care of the mavericks is not something the American military does well. leave rather than continue to get hammered in the effort to create change. With this in mind, it is important that General Matthew Ridgeway stated mavericks.; Bob Briner, Ray Pritchard, The Leadership Lessons of Jesus: A Timeless Model for Todays Leaders (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1997), 59. Briner and Pritchard add: A good manager makes the existing system work to his or her advantage; a good leader questions the system, making the changes necessary for improve ment.; Perry M. Smith, Taking Charge: A Practical Guide for Leaders (Washington DC: National Defense University Press, 1986), 87. Perry Smith provides an interesting description of adaptors and innovators. and perceived behavior, Smith delivers these descriptors: Problem solv generally agreed problems, breaking previously perceived restraints, gen erating solutions aimed at doing things differently. SolutionsAdapters but generally fail to contain ideas that break the existing patterns complete ly. Innovators produce ideas that may not be obvious or acceptable. Pool Lt Col Robert J. Vercher (BS, Auburn University; MA, Webster University; MA, George Washington Univer sity; MMOAS, Air University) is the commander, 12 th Missile Squadron, Malmstrom AFB, Montana. During his career, he has held a wide variety of lead ership positions in space/mis sile operations. He served as an ICBM crew commander, crew instructor, senior standardiza tion/evaluation crew com mander, Delta II chief of train ing, and Emergency War Order instructor. He also served on the US Strategic Command, HQ Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and 20 th Air Force staffs as an ICBM strike planner, USAF intern, aide de camps, executive of Lt Col Andrew S. Kovich (BS, Bowling Green State Uni versity; MS, Central Michi gan University; MMOAS, Air University) is the commander, 90 th Maintenance Operations Squadron, F. E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. During his ca reer, he has held a wide vari ety of leadership positions in space/missile operations and maintenance. He served as an ICBM crew commander, crew instructor, senior standardiza tion/evaluation crew com on the US Strategic Command and 20 th Air Force staffs as an ICBM Emergency War Order Plans and Procedures. Colonel Kovich is the author of USAF Relevance in the 21 st Century: A First-Quarter Team in a Four-Quarter Game, published in the July-August 2006 edition of Military Review ; th Air Force: Developing 21 st Cen tury Strike Planners and Sustaining Nuclear Expertise in AFSPC: A Way Ahead for ICBM Maintenance and Operations published in August/November 2007 editions of High Frontier Colonel Kovich and Colonel Vercher were the recipients of the Best Crew Award and the Blanchard Trophy at the 1994 Guardian Chal lenge Competition and the 1995 Thomas S. Power Award for best missile crew in the US Air Force.
High Frontier 54 Book Review Space as a Strategic Asset Space as a Strategic Asset. By Joan Johnson-Freese. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Notes. Index. Pp. 304. $46.50 Hardcover ISBN: 0231136544. When an author admits up front that she did not write the book she wanted to (p. viii), it certainly is harder on the reviewer. But when a book is as well written as this one, it inevitably generates as many questions as it tries to answer, thus furthering collegial thinking, and in the end, advancing knowledge. This book is a considered approach to the problem of space strategy, looking at many aspects of the national space programs in an attempt to de velop a strategic plan for success in space. Whether you believe that space is a strategic asset or a domain of warfare in the same way that air, land, sea, and cyberspace are, its the strategic-level approach to space that makes this book valuable. Additionally, whether or not you agree with the authors prescription for na tional space, it is important for space professionals to get out of their stovepiped cubicles and think about the broad strategic meaning to the domain in which we operate. This full spectrum approach to space strategy, not focused on the often-tactical de tails of budget and technology, is a welcome approach to the broad questions facing the national space programs. The premise of this book is that many current space poli cies are failing because they do not serve the national interest and need to be reconsidered using a wide-ranging approach (p. vii). Further, the author argues that the US has no compre hensive space strategy and that the US needs a national space strategy focused beyond military space programs (p. ix). The it will fail, in the authors opinion, because it is not a plan (p. 79). However, it is unlikely the US will achieve the lofty goal of a comprehensive national space plan in 2008 with a program the size and shape of current US programs. The current space program is far bigger than in 1960 when the national space pro gram, indeed the US government, were far smaller and the threat far more measurable. It may be easier for a program the size and shape of Indias or Chinas to achieve a comprehensive national plan for space that the author suggests the US needs. The authors recommendation for a suc cessful space strategy is spelled out after sev eral chapters of building a case. In the end, therefore, the author argues that space secu tension of the security dilemma and preserve American space leadership in the military, civilian, and commercial domains (p. 238). To achieve that goal, the book suggests that the US needs to resolve the security dilemma and maintain military space leadership; move toward strategic stability (i.e., prevent tech nology from driving strategy [p. 243]); cre surveillance data for all); write the rules of the road on an international scale; truly and real istically internationalize manned space programs; and maintain trol regimes. Therefore, the reviewer would like to suggest a skip forward and read the last, spoiling the ending, so to speak. prescriptive chapter. The author wants to use the US space program to enhance national soft power by using the familiar DIME approach to international relations. This is in part an appeal to reinvigorate the manned space program, an historical font of US soft power, where the author fears we are ceding our leadership (p. 55). In deed, the author argues, the impact not just on science and en gineering leadership, but imagination and vision (p. 80) could be disastrous. However, if it took the space race to get to the approach to space? As the author points out, China has seen the advantage that the US military reaped from space and seeks to enhance its own position (p. 209). So, the author suggests, perhaps it is time for another dtente effort, to turn competition to achieve dtente in todays multilateral, hypertechnological space environment. Additionally, the soft power approach is also an attempt to convince the reader that the US cannot contain space technology and must rein in space control and force application programs rather than seeing all space activity through a lens of hard power (p. 25). By limiting that which is exported, the author also ar gues, the US is limiting the aerospace industry, on which the US military and economy depend, thus committing strategic suicide (p. 168). In this way, the US, unable to monopolize space technology, will not have to put the technological genie back in the bottle after it has escaped (p. 26) and will hold onto the leadership position it has held since Apollo (p. 52). thor admits (p. ix), which unfortunately, leads to the inevitable question that violates the old adage about book reviewing but needs to be asked: Would the conclusions of this book be any different be cause of the 2007 Chinese antisatellite weapon launch or the 2008 US satellite shootdown? Has anything changed in the conditions that led to the authors conclusions? Has anything changed in the discussion of weaponization agreement with the authors conclusions, for its grand approach to the problem of US space strategy this book is highly recommended to space professionals who are, or will be, stra tegic thinkers.Lt Col David C. Arnold is the deputy commander of Thule Air Base, Greenland, and the author of Spying From Space: Constructing Americas Satellite Com mand and Control Networks (Texas A&M, 2005).
55 High Frontier High Frontier HQ AFSPC/PA, High Frontier