This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Military Space

DoD Releases Space Force 101 Document

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 12, 2018
Filed under
DoD Releases Space Force 101 Document

Final Report on Organizational and Management Structure for the National Security Space Components of the Department of Defense
“Establishing a sixth branch of the Armed Forces requires Congressional action. This report outlines immediate steps by the Department of Defense to protect U.S. vital interests in space, including:
– Accelerate space technology and anchor development initiatives to the modernization priorities outlined in the National Defense Strategy,
– Establish a Space Development Agency, a joint organization charged with rapidly developing and fielding next-generation capabilities,
– Establish a Space Operations Force of career space experts who are trained, promoted and retained as space warfighting professionals and who form a space community of engineers, scientists, intelligence experts, operators, strategists and more,
– Establish an affordable and efficient operating structure with accountable civilian oversight to provide service and support functions for the Space Force,
– Establish a new U.S. Space Command to improve and evolve space warfighting, including integrating innovative force designs, concepts of operation, doctrines, tactics, techniques and procedures.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “DoD Releases Space Force 101 Document”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    It will be watching the P Match wits with the pentagon. We saw how it turned out with the national security team.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Or painful to watch. A match of wits when one side is unarmed? That makes me think of some association football (soccer) matches, Germany v. Brazil and US v. Japan. Those really weren’t fun to watch, although some of the fans did do some entertaining (but quite rude) things.

  2. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    One of the stated goals of the Space Development Agency will be “Bold breakthroughs designed to obsolesce our competitors.” Where do people learn to write that way? Does the DoD have a special training course?

    Seriously, the whole Space Force thing looks completely internal to the Department of Defense. Nothing is said about NASA, NOAA, or non-DoD national security organizations who operate spacecraft (other than saying the Space Force will coordinate with them on issues of mutual interest.) Even the mention of the Special Forces (mentioned in an Aviation Week article). It’s mentioned as an example of an existing, unified command with people drawn from multiple services.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Of course. All the advocates for U.S. Space Force ever recommended was spinning the U.S. Space Command off from the U.S.A.F. so it would have its own procurement and command structure independent of the pilot based culture of the U.S.A.F. That is exactly what is being proposed for it.

      But I see a number of ways for NASA to benefit from an independent U.S.S.F. First, of course is the potential to partner with the proposed Space Development Agency in developing and deploying new space technology, much as the NACA partnered with the newly created U.S.A.F. in the X-Plane programs of the 1950’s. Second, Patrick AFB, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Vandenberg AFB will likely become U.S. Space Force Bases (SFB) and as part of the transition will have the opportunity to get the money for needed improvements including improvements to the Eastern and Western Ranges. Since NASA uses these facilities to support its launches it will benefit. And the increased procurement budget for military space will likely benefit the space commerce industry, benefits likely to spill over to NASA. This is why it is understandable that Administrator Bridenstine is supportive of it, since as a space policy expert he understands how it will benefit NASA.

      As a side note I think retired Gen. Pete Worden would be a great pick to be the first Secretary of the Space Force when Congress formally creates it.

      • David Fowler says:
        0
        0

        The US Space Command was disestablished in 2002.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          True, it’s officially gone through a number of shuffles and name changes since by the USAF, the most recent being last year when it’s current official name the “National Space Defense Center” was given to it because the last two names were so confusing even in military jargon and why many continued to refer to it by its old name. Indeed, since the changes in 2002 the USAF Leadership seems to have been trying to figure out just what to do with it, something a lot of the space policy experts seem to be overlooking. All the more reason to finally spin it off, give it some stability and a clear identity.

          • james w barnard says:
            0
            0

            The organizational components are going to be made up by combinations of what are currently USAF commands, and it will take a while for them to get it right. I suspect that there will be a lot of “jointness” where some functions overlap between USAF and USSF. Time will tell.

          • David Fowler says:
            0
            0

            While the USAF would clearly provide the bulk of the organization, the Army also has the 1st Space Brigade and 100th Missile Defense Brigade. The Navy and Marine Corps have some elements as well.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, it will be very interesting to see if they are moved into it or are allowed to stay within their respective services. It will also be interesting to see what elements of the different cyberwarfare units are included and which will remain with their respective services.

          • David Fowler says:
            0
            0

            One thing that I remain unclear on, is why would would need both a US Space Force, if all space functions are to be centralized there, and a new US Space Command, a joint organization.

        • the guy with the cat says:
          0
          0

          This comment is unintentionally funny. “Disestablished”?

          • David Fowler says:
            0
            0

            That is the term used by historians when temporary organizations without lineage are shut down. Units with lineage are inactivated. Sorry if you find that to be humorous.

          • sunman42 says:
            0
            0

            And the belief system of people who oppose such efforts is antidisestablishmentarianism?

  3. Fred says:
    0
    0

    First time I’ve heard the term warfighting.

  4. George Purcell says:
    0
    0

    Just because the idea is from Trump (or his advisors) doesn’t mean it is a bad idea. I think getting space ops away from the fighter jocks at the Air Force is a really solid idea.

    • cynical_space says:
      0
      0

      While I believe this is the first time the proposal has gotten backing and direction direct from the President, the idea itself has been bouncing around Washington since at least the Clinton administration.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      The Air Force is already procuring more robotic aircraft than manned aircraft. It isn’t clear how this will affect the traditional command structure, but it’s hard to see it being limited to pilots in the future. It may become more like what we would anticipate the command structure will be for space systems and operations.

  5. chuckc192000 says:
    0
    0

    That first bullet point says they can’t create a Space Force without congressional approval. So here’s a list of things we can do until Trump forgets about the whole idea.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      First, it wasn’t anywhere close to Trump’s idea.

      Second, it was probably the increase in the pace of related tech during the Obama administration that triggered this emphasis…and so the push is not likely to go away so long as that pace is sustained. If you read the document, this push is to build the organization, support, and command infrastructure to fill in applicable tech innovations later.

      Third, for better or worse, Trump doesn’t forget anything.

  6. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    Maybe one of the reason for Trump’s space force is to restart an actual space DDT&E effort elsewhere. The document says all the right things. All the things that NASA has failed at since the Shuttle started operating. NASA has been wasting talent and experience for so long they no longer have any left. These folks at least aspire to developing new capabilities.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      The Space Development Agency does have the promise to do just that in areas of launch, satellite control, perhaps even orbital refueling of satellites.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        A new start up organization might bypass the bureaucratic morass than long time big organizations, like NASA, have become. And I’ve heard that if I think NASA is bad, they are just pikers compared with the long time DOD infrastructure.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Unfortunately, this proposed Space Force would be assembled from existing parts of the Department of Defense, and would probably inheret the bureaucracy as well. I don’t think the Air Force saw significant changes along these lines when it was split off from the Army.

  7. David Fowler says:
    0
    0

    Will a Space National Guard component be created by the Air Force Army Guard space units?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, that would be an interesting given that National Guard Units in theory belong to the states. On the other hand I believe it would be logical to have Reserve Units that leverage civilian capabilities and workforce.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        Cannot imagine a state owned national guard space force.

        • David Fowler says:
          0
          0

          Well, there are a number of Air Force space squadrons in the Guard, as well as a space group, and the Army’s 100th Missile Defense Brigade is a Guard unit.

        • David Fowler says:
          0
          0

          A very quick count of Guard unit shows the 233d Space Group, and six space-related squadrons, as well as a number of support squadrons. The Air Force Reserve has the 310th Space Wing, with the 310th and 710th Operations Groups and a support group.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Oddly, the 109th wing of the New York Air National Guard primarily provides transport services for the National Science Foundation in Antarctica. (How does the New York Guard manage to get those sorts assignments?) That’s arguably as strange an assignment for a state (i.e. not normally federal) military force as operating satellites would be. Not that logical consistency has ever been deeply embedded in the US military’s structure and organization…

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I can’t see how Reserve units would be useful. They are generally called up when there is more hardware available than people to use it. When it comes to operating unmanned spacecraft, even during a war, I don’t think that situation would come up.

  8. cynical_space says:
    0
    0

    Here is another trivia (trivial?) question. Will the top officers in the Space Force be generals or admirals? The AF was born in the Army, and follows that rank chain. It stands to reason that the SF was would also follow that chain since most of the planned functionality is currently in the AF.

    However, what happens in the future when the SF starts getting it’s own military ships? Then it starts looking more like Star Fleet or a Space Navy. Will they have to reshuffle all the ranks?

    I guess they could follow the current AF way of organizing squadrons and such, but will that hold up with a space fleet? Actually I guess any rank chain would work. However, it may become more of a political issue as the Navy guys likely will not want to see their ranks fall from use.

    This is certainly not the main issue here and maybe the individual ship issue is far enough into the future to not worry about, but I was just wondering…

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      If actual military spacecraft remain unmanned, we might not think of them as a naval fleet. Or we could end up with robotic admirals.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Is that necessarily unprecedented? You mentioned in another comment that the Air Force is buying more UAVs than piloted aircraft (unsurprising, given the cost of just one F-22 or -35, which is more than one of NASA’s small Explorer class mission…) But it raises an interesting question. How are the Air Force UAVs organized? Are they grouped into squadrons? I couldn’t find a definitive answer, but I did discover that the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Attack Wing has transitioned entirely to UAVs. If we can have an unmanned air wing, I don’t see why we couldn’t have an unmanned naval fleet.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          It varies with the service. In the Air Force drones are operated by squadrons organized similar to those operating manned aircraft. Drone operators are commissioned officers, often current or former pilots who no longer quite meet the medical standards for flying in person, and drone operation, even for drones based overseas, is usually controlled from bases in the US as communications and missions are worldwide. In the Army drone operators are often enlisted personnel who have no flying experience but grew up playing video games and are trained ab initio on drones, and are deployed overseas with the ground forces they support. This makes sense as military objectives, tactical employment and organizational structure are more important in determining how aircraft should be operated than whether they are manned or unmanned.

          Similarly military space vehicles are employed in a broad spectrum of roles, whether as launch vehicles, strategic missiles, communications infrastructure, tactical reconnaisance, national intelligence, weather observation, or even potentially planetary defense against the odd NEO. In some cases, i.e. launch site support, manned aircraft may be used to support both unmanned launch vehicles and human spaceflight. A single military mission may involve ground forces, ships, aircraft and spacecraft. So it makes sense that military space vehicles should be assigned to forces and elements based on specific missions rather than whether they operate on land, sea, air or space or whether they are crewed, controlled remotely, or autonomous.

      • cynical_space says:
        0
        0

        While I follow your reasoning, I am not convinced an entirely unmanned Space Navy would work. The Navy’s traditional role is to project military power far from the home country. This is not just wartime battles, but also includes more mundane things like protecting shipping (not trying to imply that job is not important!) and other tasks that protect a nation’s interests far from the country that don’t involve actual combat.

        If we get to the point where we are expanding into the solar system, I believe interplanetary distances will require a “person on the spot” to make some decisions. Of course UAV’s (USV’s?) will be tools that are available to military commanders as they are now, but I can’t see a whole fleet of them making up the entirety of a country’s Navy, where the distances between the controllers and the vehicles are of the magnitude of interplanetary space.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          It’s a completely hypothetical question at this point, and the answer may depend on technology which does not currently exist. But what would that distance for human presence be? Two-way light time is 16 minutes per AU. Call it 2.5 seconds to the Moon and 8-40 minutes to Mars. 2.5 seconds might push the limits of teleoperation but if the drone were sufficiently autonomous, that wouldn’t be a problem. Something like ten minutes might be fine for supervision, rather than action-by-action control, but forty minutes would probably be pushing it. But that all depends on the state of the art in artificial intelligence and autonomy, how much we trust it, at some remote point decades in the future.

          I guess repairs and maintenance would also be an issue. That’s something military vehicles need and which we currently have people do. It isn’t clear how easy that would be to automate (especially since the nature of damage to a vehicle might not be easy to predict and program in.)