U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected

Programs

(name redacted)

Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy

June 4, 2007

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL33601

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

Summary

The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military space activities be

conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD and the intelligence community manage a

broad array of space activities, including launch vehicle development, communications satellites,

navigation satellites (the Global Positioning System—GPS), early warning satellites to alert the

United States to foreign missile launches, weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites, and

developing capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of space to

adversaries (called “space control” or “counterspace systems”). The 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War

is dubbed by some as the first “space war” because support from space displayed great

improvement over what was available during the previous major conflict, Vietnam. These

systems continue to play significant roles in U.S. military operations. How to organize DOD and

the intelligence community to work effectively on space programs has been an issue for many

years.

Tracking the DOD space budget is extremely difficult since space is not identified as a separate

line item in the DOD budget. Additionally, DOD sometimes releases only partial information

(omitting funding for classified programs) or will suddenly release without explanation new

figures for prior years that are quite different from what was previously reported.

A breakdown by program acquisition costs for individual weapon systems in the DOD budget

request for FY2008 is available online at http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/

fy2008_weabook.pdf. The FY2007 authorization and appropriations bills contain the authority

and funding for DOD space activities, but, as mentioned, do not specify figures for those

activities. The House and Senate passed conference agreements on both the FY2007 national

defense authorization bill, H.R. 5122, and the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631.

The President signed the appropriations bill into law, P.L. 109-289, (H.Rept. 109-504; S.Rept.

109-292; H.Rept. 109-676: in Congressional Record H6996-7309) on September 29, 2006, and he

signed the authorization bill into law, P.L. 109-364, (H.Rept. 109-452; H.Rept. 109-702: in

Congressional Record H8061-8540) on October 17, 2006. Specific figures for the programs

included in this report are contained in those sections.

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

Contents

Recent Congressional Activity ....................................................................................................1

Background ................................................................................................................................1

DOD Space Budget.....................................................................................................................2

FY2008 Budget Request .......................................................................................................2

FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations ............................................................................3

Selected Military Space Program Issues ......................................................................................3

SBIRS-High..........................................................................................................................4

Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT)..............................................................4

Space Radar ..........................................................................................................................5

Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) (formerly SBIRS-Low)..............................6

Contacts

Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................7

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

Recent Congressional Activity

On April 19, 2007, the Senate Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

held open and closed hearings on military space programs in review of the defense authorization

request for fiscal 2008 and the Future Years Defense Program.

Background

The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military space activities be

conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). The Undersecretary of the Air Force is DOD’s

executive agent for space. The intelligence community makes significant use of space-based

intelligence collection capabilities. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an agency within

DOD, builds and operates intelligence-collection satellites and collects and processes the

resulting data, which are provided to users such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

(NGA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). NRO, NGA, and NSA are all under the

oversight of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).1

DOD and the intelligence community manage a broad array of space activities, including launch

vehicle development, communications satellites, navigation satellites (the Global Positioning

System—GPS),2 early warning satellites to alert the United States to foreign missile launches,

weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites, and developing capabilities to protect U.S. satellite

systems and to deny the use of space to adversaries (called “space control” or “counterspace

systems”). The 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War is dubbed by some as the first “space war” because

support from space displayed great improvement over what was available during the previous

major conflict, Vietnam. These systems continue to play significant roles in U.S. military

operations.

How to organize DOD and the intelligence community to work effectively on space programs has

been an issue for many years. Congress established commissions to review the NRO in the

FY2000 intelligence authorization act, P.L. 106-120; NGA (then called NIMA, the National

Imagery and Mapping Agency) in the classified annex to the FY2000 DOD appropriations act,

P.L. 106-79; and overall U.S. national security space management and organization in the

FY2000 DOD authorization act, P.L. 106-65. The NRO, NGA/NIMA, and “Rumsfeld Space

Commission” reports are discussed below.

Although U.S. military and civilian space programs are separated organizationally, the functions

performed by satellites and the vehicles that launch them are not easily divided. Both sectors use

communications, navigation, weather, and remote sensing/reconnaissance satellites, which may

operate at different frequencies or have different capabilities, but have similar technology. The

same launch vehicles can be used to launch any type of military, civilian, or commercial satellite.

DOD uses some civilian satellites and vice versa.

1

See CRS Report RL32515, Intelligence Community Reorganization: Potential Effects on DOD Intelligence Agencies,

by (name redacted), for more on the DNI and potential effects for DOD intelligence agencies, including NRO, NGA,

and NSA.

2

For additional information on GPS, see “The Future of the Global Positioning System,” Defense Science Board,

October 2005, online at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-10-GPS_Report_Final.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

1

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

After the Cold War, interest in space weapons to attack satellites (antisatellite, or ASAT, weapons)

or ballistic missiles declined initially, but was rekindled beginning with the 104th Congress. Using

satellites to attack ballistic missiles has been controversial since President Reagan’s 1983

announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative to study the viability of building a ballistic missile

defense system to protect the United States and its allies. The Clinton Administration changed the

name of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization to the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization to reflect a new focus on theater missile defense in the wake of the Persian Gulf

War, rather than national missile defense. The George W. Bush Administration changed the name

to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to reflect its interest in broad missile defense goals.3

The concept of placing weapons in space, as part of a missile defense system or otherwise,

remains controversial. A May 18, 2005, New York Times article reported that the new national

space policy being developed by the Bush Administration would “move the United States closer

to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons.”4 Then-White House Press Secretary Scott

McClellan, responding to questions at a White House press briefing, stressed that the new policy,

still being developed, does not represent a substantial shift in U.S. policy. The same day,

Representative Kucinich introduced a bill (H.R. 2420) that would have banned weapons in space

and the use of such weapons to damage or destroy objects in orbit. The House rejected (124-302)

a Kucinich amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2601) on July 20, 2005,

that was similar to his bill.

The issue of using weapons to destroy satellites has received renewed attention after the Chinese

successfully destroyed a defunct weather satellite on January 11, 2007. Since the orbit of that

satellite was approximately where the United States has many of its reconnaissance satellites,

China’s actions have caused a great deal of concern. 5

DOD Space Budget

Space is not a line item in the DOD budget and DOD’s annual budget justifications do not include

a figure for “space activities”; therefore, DOD funding figures must be used cautiously. DOD

sometimes releases only partial information or will release without explanation new figures for

prior years that are quite different from what was previously reported. 6

FY2008 Budget Request

A breakdown by program acquisition costs for individual weapon systems in the DOD budget

request for FY2008 is available online at http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2008/

fy2008_weabook.pdf.

3

See CRS Report RL31111, Missile Defense: The Current Debate, by (name redacted) et al.

Weiner, Tim, “Air Force Seeks Bush’s Approval for Space Arms,” The New York Times, May 18, 2005, p. 1.

5

Liu, Melinda and John Barry, “Sat Wars?,” Newsweek (Online Only), January 25, 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

id/16810197/site/newsweek/.

6

Space spending by all federal government agencies, by year since FY1959, is provided in Appendix E of the annual

Aeronautics and Space Report of the President, submitted to Congress by NASA. The most recent edition

http://history.nasa.gov/presrep2004.pdf covers funding through FY2004.

4

Congressional Research Service

2

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

FY2007 Authorization and Appropriations

The FY2007 authorization and appropriations bills contain the authority and funding for DOD

space activities, but, as mentioned, do not specify figures for those activities. The House and

Senate passed conference agreements on both the FY2007 national defense authorization bill,

H.R. 5122, and the FY2007 defense appropriations bill, H.R. 5631. The President signed the

appropriations bill into law, P.L. 109-289,7 on September 29, 2006, and he signed the

authorization bill into law, P.L. 109-364,8 on October 17, 2006.

Selected Military Space Program Issues

For many years, questions have arisen about whether DOD effectively manages its space

activities, and several commissions and task forces have studied the issue. Congress created a

commission in the FY2000 DOD authorization bill to make recommendations on the overall

management of national security space programs. Chaired by Donald Rumsfeld, the commission

released its report on January 11, 2001, shortly after Mr. Rumsfeld became Secretary of Defense.

The “Rumsfeld Space Commission” made sweeping recommendations for management of DOD

and intelligence community space programs. According to two reports by the Government

Accountability Office (GAO), DOD intended to implement 10 of the 13 organizational

recommendations,9 although no additional updates have been provided.

Several DOD space programs have experienced significant cost overruns and schedule delays,

raising concerns about DOD’s acquisition process for space systems. The Defense Science Board

(DSB) and Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (AFSAB) commissioned a task force chaired by

retired Lockheed Martin executive Tom Young to review DOD space program acquisition

because of significant cost increases in several programs; its May 2003 report was publicly

released in September 2003.10 Four key findings of the report were that cost has replaced mission

success as the primary driver in managing acquisition processes, creating excessive technical and

schedule risk; the space acquisition system is strongly biased to produce unrealistically low cost

estimates; government capabilities to lead and manage the acquisition process have seriously

eroded; and there are long term concerns about the space industrial base. According to press

reports, the task force produced an update in August 2004 that concluded that some of the space

programs it criticized were making progress but still required close review, and that better

coordination is needed between the military and intelligence agencies in setting requirements.11

On April 6, 2006, the Senate Committee on Armed Forces held a hearing on space acquisitions.

At that hearing, Cristina T. Chaplain, GAO’s Acting Director of Acquisition and Sourcing,

testified that DOD’s space acquisition programs continue to face substantial cost and schedule

7

8

See H.Rept. 109-504; S.Rept. 109-292; Conf. Rep. 109-676 (in Congressional Record H6996-7309).

See H.Rept. 109-452; Conf. Rep. 109-702 (in Congressional Record H8061-8540).

9

“Defense Space Activities: Status of Reorganization,” GAO-02-772, June 2002, and “Defense Space Activities:

Organizational Changes Initiated, but Further Management Actions Needed,” GAO-03-379, April 2003.

10

Report of the Defense Science Board/Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Joint Task Force on Acquisition of

National Security Space Programs, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics, May 2003, online at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/space.pdf.

11

See, for example, Merle, Renae, “Report Says Air Force’s Space Programs Improved,” The Washington Post, August

25, 2004, E02.

Congressional Research Service

3

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

overruns. In some cases, according to Ms. Chaplain, cost growth has come close to or exceeded

100%, causing DOD to nearly double its investment with no corresponding increase in

functionality. Additionally, many programs have experienced significant schedule delays—as

much as six years—postponing delivery of promised capabilities to the warfighter.12

SBIRS-High

SBIRS-High is designed as a constellation of five satellites above the equator in geostationary

orbit (GEO) plus sensors on two other satellites in highly-elliptical orbits (HEO). DOD still plans

to launch the sensors on the two HEO satellites, but will procure, at most, three of the GEO

satellites. The funds that would have been spent for the fourth and fifth GEO satellites reportedly

will be used instead to design an alternative system using state-of-the-art technologies. Launch is

scheduled for 2009.

SBIRS-High will eventually replace the DOD’s Defense Support Program series of early warning

satellites that alert the National Command Authority to foreign missile launches; however, the

program13 has encountered significant schedule delays and cost growth, breaching “NunnMcCurdy” cost-growth limits several times. 14 The May 2003 report of the Defense Science Board

and Air Force Scientific Advisory Board criticized early program management of SBIRS-High

and took a cautious attitude concerning whether the restructured program would succeed. 15 An

October 2003 GAO report16 concluded the program remained at “substantial risk of cost and

schedule increases.” Even though test delays and technical difficulties have become

commonplace within SBIRS-High, Congress has continued to acknowledge the program’s

importance, and has therefore maintained high levels of funding.

The President’s FY2008 budget request of $1.07 billion represents a total increase of $400.9

million from FY2007, with $587 million reserved for RDT&E and $483 million for procurement.

The proposal provides for the continued assembly, integration, and testing of the first two SBIRS

geosynchronous (GEO) satellites as well as to the procurement of one SBIRS GEO satellite and

two highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellite payloads. First launch is expected in 2009.

Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT)

The Transformational Communications Satellite17 program is planned to be a follow-on to the

Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) program, 18 which, in turn, is a follow-on to the

12

Ms. Chaplain’s full testimony is available online at http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=1823.

Additional written comments submitted in response to specific questions from the committee are available online at

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06776r.pdf.

13

An overview of this program is available online at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1998/sbirsbrochure/part07.htm.

14

10 U.S.C § 2433, commonly referred to as the “Nunn-McCurdy” provisions, requires the Pentagon to justify

continuation of a program whose costs have grown by 25% or cancel the project.

15

Report of the Defense Science Board/Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Joint Task Force on Acquisition of

National Security Space Programs, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics, May 2003, online at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/space.pdf.

16

“Despite Restructuring, SBIRS High Program Remains at Risk of Cost and Schedule Overruns,” GAO-04-48,

October 2003.

17

An overview of this program is available online at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/tsat.htm.

Congressional Research Service

4

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

current series of Milstar satellites. AEHF itself is controversial because of cost overruns and

changing satellite and constellation specifications. TSAT is expected to “transform” DOD

communications by providing vastly greater capacity than is available today by operating at much

higher (optical) frequencies. If TSAT is delayed, some observers suggest that additional AEHF

satellites may be needed.

In May 2006, GAO released a report outlining the ongoing issues and problems, in the

development and deployment of the TSAT system. 19 Specifically, GAO stated that DOD was not

meeting original cost, schedule, and performance goals established for the TSAT program.

However, GAO noted that DOD is taking positive steps to lower risk in the TSAT program so it

can enter the product development phase with greater chance of success.

The FY2007 appropriation for TSAT is $737.1 million, $130 million below the $867 million

budget request. Congress also directed the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the

congressional defense committees explaining what actions the Air Force has taken to address the

remaining concerns raised by the TSAT Program Review Group and the GAO, including (1) the

need to significantly refine requirements so that program content can be matched to budget

constraints, and how the Department plans to control requirements to prevent problems associated

with ‘requirements creep’; (2) the need to adequately staff the TSAT program office with

experienced space acquisition professionals; (3) the status of refining key performance

parameters so they provide specificity and validation metrics; and (4) the implications for other

programs, such as Space Radar and Future Combat System, of a less capable initial block of

TSAT satellites. This report was delivered February 15, 2007, as required.

For FY2008, the President has requested a budget for research and development of $963.6

million—an increase of nearly $234 million over FY2007 funding levels. The total appropriation

of $729.9 million in 2007 was a net increase of 43% from FY2006. The first TSAT was planned

to launch in late 2014, but the Air Force pushed that date to early 2016.

Space Radar

Space Radar20 is planned to consist of a yet-to-be-determined number of satellites that would

track mobile targets (as opposed to fixed targets) on the ground. As of January 2007, the Air

Force had not yet decided on the final design of the satellites or the final architecture of the

constellation. The House Appropriations Committee has sharply criticized the program for the

past several years21 due to ongoing cost overruns and missed R&D milestones.

Congress also directed the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)

to submit a joint report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees describing (1)

the respective roles and responsibilities of the intelligence community and the DOD with respect

(...continued)

18

The first AEHF launch is scheduled for April 2008.

19

Space Acquisitions: DOD Needs Additional Knowledge as it Embarks on a New Approach for Transformational

Satellite Communications System, GAO, May 2006, available online at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06537.pdf.

20

An overview of this program is available online at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sr.htm.

21

For example, in its 2004 report on the FY2005 DOD appropriations bill (H.Rept. 108-557), the committee noted that

the estimated cost for a nine-satellite constellation was $34 billion, and the Air Force considers nine satellites to be less

than half the number required. The committee expressed skepticism about the $34 billion estimate, as well.

Congressional Research Service

5

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

to the development of the Space Radar program, including an updated Memorandum of

Agreement between the Secretary and the DNI; (2) the process by which the intelligence

community and the DOD coordinate joint development efforts and requirements definition; and

(3) the plans for achieving a cost-share agreement between the intelligence community and the

Department for the development and acquisition of a Space Radar capability. Congress also asked

for a commitment from the Secretary and the DNI that Space Radar would be a single system

responsive to the requirements of each organization. This report was due March 1, 2007, but has

not yet been submitted.

Beginning in FY2008, funding for the Space Based Radar will transfer to the Defense

Reconnaissance Support Activities Program and funding amounts have been classified for the

FY2008 budget request because of the program’s integration into the National Intelligence

Community. For FY2007, Congress appropriated $186.4 million for the Space Radar program,

nearly twice the FY2006 budget of $98.3 million. The first satellite launch is scheduled for

FY2016.

Additional information about Space Radar is available in the January 2007 Congressional Budget

Office report, “Alternatives for Military Space Radar.”22 This report outlines four alternative

system/constellation architectures that would meet the mission requirements of the Air Force.

Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) (formerly SBIRSLow)

The Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS, previously SBIRS-Low) is designed to

support missile defense. 23 The goal of an operational STSS is to track missiles through all three

phases; discriminate between warheads and decoys; transmit data to other systems that will be

used to cue radars and provide intercept handovers; and provide data for intercept hit/kill

assessments. Tracking missiles during the mid-course phase is more difficult than during boost,

because the missile is no longer firing its engines and hence does not have a strong infrared (heat)

signature, making it necessary to track a cold object against the cold background of space.

Similarly, tracking warheads after they have been deployed, and discriminating between

warheads and decoys, is a technically challenging task.

Cost estimates are problematic because there is no final system architecture and the schedule is in

flux. In March 2005, GAO reported that DOD’s estimate for the program between 2002 and 2011

is approximately $4.5 billion; a life cycle cost was not provided.24

For FY2008, the president requested a budget of $331 million for the STSS program, an increase

from the FY2007 budget of $322 million. Launch information was not available.

22

This report is available online at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7691/01-03-SpaceRadar.pdf.

The STSS program has gone through several name changes, making it difficult to track. Management of this program

was transferred from the Air Force back to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), to emphasize that

missile defense is its primary objective. BMDO is now the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). For more on missile

defense, see CRS Report RL31111, Missile Defense: The Current Debate, by (name redacted) et al.

24

GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Status of Ballistic Missile Defense Program in 2004, March 2006, GAO-05-243. In this

report, GAO reported that DOD had estimated the life-cycle cost for STSS (then SBIRS-Low) through FY2022 at

$11.8 billion. The House Appropriations Committee reported in late 2001 (H.Rept. 107-298, p. 250) that the program’s

life cycle cost had grown from $10 billion to over $23 billion.

23

Congressional Research Service

6

U.S. Military Space: Status of Selected Programs

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications

Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

7

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.