GAO: DOD’s Responsive Launch Effort Lacks Consolidated Plan
Boeing’s ALASA launch system features a F-15E aircraft and an innovative booster. (Credit: Boeing)
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) study has found the Defense Department lacks a consolidated plan for developing a responsive launch capability that could rapidly place satellites into orbit on short notice.
“DOD attributes this omission to a lack of requirements for responsive launch, noting that no existing space program has them,” the report states. “DOD officials told us that such requirements are premature without a validated need for responsive launch.
“Officials from the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) added that responsive launch needs cannot be well defined at this time due to uncertainties in the threat environment, and stated that DOD will validate future responsive launch requirements once it acquires new information from intelligence and defense studies presently underway,” the study added.
The DOD is pursuing multiple programs designed to provide rapid launch capabilities, including Airborne Launch Assist Space Access (ALASA), XS-1 and Super Strypi. Defense officials say the programs are not duplicative. None of them programs has flown successfully. The first Super Strypi launch attempt failed earlier this week; the other two programs are still under development.
GAO was charged with reviewing the DOD Responsive Launch Report that was issued in June 2015. The oversight office made no recommendations in its assessment.
Read the full report. The executive summary of the GAO review follows.
Space Acquisitions:
GAO Assessment of DOD Responsive Launch Report
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense’s (DOD) June 2015 report generally addresses four of the five elements called for in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-66, 915 (2013)), including descriptions of
- existing and past operationally responsive launch efforts (“responsive launch” refers to the ability to launch space assets to their intended orbits as the need arises), in addition to some criteria for considering launch costs;
- existing launch requirements and the need for validated requirements for responsive launch;
- various government and commercial efforts to develop an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability; and
- innovative methods that could contribute to launch responsiveness.
DOD’s report does not, however, include a consolidated plan for developing a responsive launch capability. DOD attributes this omission to a lack of requirements for responsive launch, noting that no existing space program has them. DOD officials told us that such requirements are premature without a validated need for responsive launch. Officials from the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) added that responsive launch needs cannot be well defined at this time due to uncertainties in the threat environment, and stated that DOD will validate future responsive launch requirements once it acquires new information from intelligence and defense studies presently underway. In lieu of a consolidated plan, the DOD report calls for reassessments of responsive launch needs and national security space program architectures, to help clarify requirements, and to take advantage of emerging responsive launch options. DOD’s June 2015 report also outlines numerous efforts within the department to develop or demonstrate a capability for responsive launch. DOD officials told us that these concurrent programs were not duplicative, however, as the offices were pursuing different objectives.
DOD and contractor officials we spoke with highlighted several potential challenges DOD faces as it pursues operationally responsive launch capabilities. For example, DOD officials told us that existing national security space program architectures (including payloads, ground systems, user equipment, and launch systems) may need to be modified to improve responsiveness, which could present challenges. Also, DOD currently lack requirements for responsive launch, but plans to validate future responsive launch requirements as it gains knowledge about emerging threats. Once DOD defines its responsive launch needs and validates future requirements, having a single focal point for prioritizing and developing its responsive launch capabilities will be important.
Why GAO Did This Study
The NDAA for fiscal year 2014 included a provision for GAO to provide an assessment of DOD’s responsive launch report within 60 days of issuance. The NDAA for fiscal year 2014 directed the DOD Executive Agent for Space (EA for Space) to provide in its report, a study of
- existing and past operationally responsive, low-cost launch efforts by domestic or foreign governments or industry;
- conditions or requirements for responsive launch that would provide the necessary military value;
- various methods to develop an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability; and
- viability of greater utilization of innovative methods.
Additionally, the NDAA for fiscal year 2014 directed the EA for Space to provide a consolidated plan for developing an operationally responsive, low-cost launch capability within DOD. The EA for Space office reported the results of its study to the congressional defense committees in June 2015. Our report discusses: (1) the extent to which DOD’s report addresses the information called for in the NDAA for fiscal year 2014, and (2) the challenges, if any, DOD may face as it pursues a responsive launch capability.
To assess the extent to which DOD’s report addresses the information called for in the NDAA for fiscal year 2014, we reviewed the report and compared it to information called for in the NDAA for fiscal year 2014, and discussed the data and approach used to develop the report and its findings with DOD officials. To identify any challenges DOD may face as it pursues responsive launch options, we interviewed DOD officials and contractor personnel, and reviewed responsive space requirements and programmatic and policy documents.
What GAO Recommends
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.
5 responses to “GAO: DOD’s Responsive Launch Effort Lacks Consolidated Plan”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It feels like this may be a call to bureaucratize the Operationally Responsive Launch program by getting DoD to point to specific threats and and solutions. In fact, the sources of DoD intel about Chinese threats to our satellites may be too delicate to speak about openly. Certainly, the small satellites these launchers would place in orbit are not yet designed, much less built, at least not openly.
It is notable that if such small satellites are considered sufficient responses to killing the large satellites that are still being bought to collect intel, then people may start asking why the big expensive birds are needed in the first place. How widely will power be dispersed by 40 smaller satellites doing the jobs of 8 satellites up there today? Targeting will become harder to refuse with so many birds. How many rice bowls will that endanger? Are the political sponsors of those building and using current birds the ones pushing GAO for this sort of study?
Still, I do hope that ALASA succeeds soon. Not only is responsive launch needed, but the tech the ALASA stages are using needs some convincing launches to prove itself.
“In fact, the sources of DoD intel about Chinese threats to our satellites may be too delicate to speak about openly.”
The US military budget is, depending on which figures you take to be accurate, somewhere between 3 to 4.5 times the Chinese military budget.
The US space budget is more that the rest of the world combined and 3 to 4 times that of China.
“..Chinese threats to our satellites…”
Threat?, what threat?. The only threat is that the US military industrial complex and their fascistic republican rent boys may face a reduction in their gravy train, should the American electorate one day wake up and smell the corruption. Exactly what are these Chinese threats to US satellites?.
“Not only is responsive launch needed…”
Needed for what?. As part of the next multi trillion dollar war, presumably.
Michael, you said: “Threat?, what threat?…..Exactly what are these Chinese threats to US satellites?”
Over the last 10 years a number of PLA generals and staffers have written open papers about destroying US satellites as a means of “asymmetrical warfare” to undercut US naval abilities in the Western Pacific that are strongly dependent on US military space assets. In line with these publications, the PLA has performed a number of space missions that did rendezvous with one or more of their own satellites in a fashion that would allow the easy destruction of their target satellite, had that been desired. There has been at least one anti-satellite test resulting in destruction of their own target satellite.
It is observed that China’s foreign policy politics are becoming more and more a focus of nationalistic fervor. Many here do legitimately worry that the calming effects of continuing economic growth might be removed from China’s internal political calculus. Then, the Politburo, lacking the stability of democratic representational legitimacy, could well turn to external foci, such as a Pacific conflict, whether over the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea, Taiwan, or Korea, to rally support for their continued rule at home. Such possible conflicts have been a legitimately increasing focus in US military planning.
That combination is what is termed in strategic analysis, “a threat” to US military satellites.
Well then, best continue to spend 4 times as much as them and invade as many countries as possible to kill brown skinned civilians. But no, you are right, the present and future Chinese administration are by definition evil. Not to mention their human rights record. Out of a population of 1,357,000,000, China incarcerates over 1,500,000 of its citizens. Despite the calming effect of decades of economic growth and of having the stability of “democratic” representational legitimacy, out of a population of 320,000,000, the threatened “land of the free” incarcerates over 2,200,000 of its citizens.
The biggest present and ongoing threat by far is prisons for profit and war for profit – the killing of unarmed civilian men, women and children for profit.
Michael, you have strayed completely from the point of the article. Plus, you are attributing statements to me I never wrote, not in this thread, or anywhere on the internet. If you can judge the worth of US programs only by whether you agree with US policy those programs would support, then we are no longer in the realm of talking about the technical and financial and political concerns of those programs, but of your approval of US policy.
I am not interested in your approval or disapproval of US policy. I have my own differences with the current administration on what is useful policy in defense of the networks of industrial society around the world that the US participates in. Thus, I won’t be responding further, because you have managed to bore me.