The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is tasked by Congress to support the U.S. space launch industrial base and sustain robust launch capability. In this report, the authors explore how recent market dynamics impact USSF's ability to fulfill this charge.
Contains papers presented at the Air Force Historical Foundation Symposium, held at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, on September 21-22, 1995. Topics addressed are: Pt. 1, The Formative Years, 1945-1961; Pt. 2, Mission Development and Exploitation Since 1961; and Pt. 3, Military Space Today and Tomorrow. Includes notes, abbreviations & acronyms, an index, and photographs.
The United States defence economy is remarkable for a number of reasons - including sheer size. It receives a significant (albeit decreasing) share of GDP and has a significant international footprint. Its purpose is to provide the resources for national defence - against a set of complex and capable adversaries. The main players in the defence economy are households, and the Federal Government. The associated interactions determine the resources provided for national defence and their allocation among various defence needs. This Element focuses primarily on interactions between government and industrial suppliers within the institutional peculiarities of the defence marketplace. This includes the developments that have determined the course of defence industry consolidation post-Cold War. The authors also highlight the persistent gap between resources available for defence and the means to execute the National Security Strategy. Finally, they offer some tentative thoughts regarding developments likely to shape the defence economy's future.
The authors examine the application of classical deterrence theory to the space domain and argue that to build a tailored deterrence strategy for China in space, China's own objectives should be considered.
On June 15, 2011, the Air Force Space Command established a new vision, mission, and set of goals to ensure continued U.S. dominance in space and cyberspace mission areas. Subsequently, and in coordination with the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Space and Missile Systems Center, and the 14th and 24th Air Forces, the Air Force Space Command identified four long-term science and technology (S&T) challenges critical to meeting these goals. One of these challenges is to provide full-spectrum launch capability at dramatically lower cost, and a reusable booster system (RBS) has been proposed as an approach to meet this challenge. The Air Force Space Command asked the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council to conduct an independent review and assessment of the RBS concept prior to considering a continuation of RBS-related activities within the Air Force Research Laboratory portfolio and before initiating a more extensive RBS development program. The committee for the Reusable Booster System: Review and Assessment was formed in response to that request and charged with reviewing and assessing the criteria and assumptions used in the current RBS plans, the cost model methodologies used to fame [frame?] the RBS business case, and the technical maturity and development plans of key elements critical to RBS implementation. The committee consisted of experts not connected with current RBS activities who have significant expertise in launch vehicle design and operation, research and technology development and implementation, space system operations, and cost analysis. The committee solicited and received input on the Air Force launch requirements, the baseline RBS concept, cost models and assessment, and technology readiness. The committee also received input from industry associated with RBS concept, industry independent of the RBS concept, and propulsion system providers which is summarized in Reusable Booster System: Review and Assessment.
From the authors' abstract: "This analytical study looks at the importance of Deep Space Operations and recommends an approach for senior policy leaders. Section 1 presents a capability requirements definition with candidate solutions and technology strategies. Section 2 recommends an acquisition and organizational approach. Section 3 provides an extended strategic rationale for deep space operations as a national priority." And from the Introduction: [this essay] "presents capability requirements, potential solutions, and strategic rationale for achieving movement and maneuver advantage in deep space. In this context, deep space is anything beyond geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO). Driving the research are two primary assumptions underpinning the need for investment in deep space propulsion. The first assumption is that growing international activity, commerce, and industry in space extends the global commons, thus creating a military-economic imperative for the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to expand its protection of U.S. interests by defending space lines of communication. Although there are wide-ranging reasons to expand the space-faring capabilities of the human species, from the capitalistic to the existential, the fact of its occurrence offers the U.S. immense strategic opportunity. Section 1, operating on this assumption, recommends capability-based requirements for deep space operations given a projected future operating environment.The second driving assumption underpinning this study is that improved movement and maneuver capabilities in deep space offer a wide array of benefits for the current National Security Enterprise, and for this reason alone demands attention in the form of disciplined investment. Furthermore, because the core functional capability required for deep space operations is in-space propulsion, the requirement necessitates a materiel solution.
1. Introduction / 2. Space system fundamentals / 3. Reviewing a cost estimate / 4. Space vehicle cost crosschecks / 5. Common issues in estimating space programs / 6. Resources for space system cost estimation / 7. Recommendations.
Except in a few instances, since World War II no American soldier or sailor has been attacked by enemy air power. Conversely, no enemy soldier orsailor has acted in combat without being attacked or at least threatened by American air power. Aviators have brought the air weapon to bear against enemies while denying them the same prerogative. This is the legacy of the U.S. AirForce, purchased at great cost in both human and material resources.More often than not, aerial pioneers had to fight technological ignorance, bureaucratic opposition, public apathy, and disagreement over purpose.Every step in the evolution of air power led into new and untrodden territory, driven by humanitarian impulses; by the search for higher, faster, and farther flight; or by the conviction that the air way was the best way. Warriors have always coveted the high ground. If technology permitted them to reach it, men, women andan air force held and exploited it-from Thomas Selfridge, first among so many who gave that "last full measure of devotion"; to Women's Airforce Service Pilot Ann Baumgartner, who broke social barriers to become the first Americanwoman to pilot a jet; to Benjamin Davis, who broke racial barriers to become the first African American to command a flying group; to Chuck Yeager, a one-time non-commissioned flight officer who was the first to exceed the speed of sound; to John Levitow, who earned the Medal of Honor by throwing himself over a live flare to save his gunship crew; to John Warden, who began a revolution in air power thought and strategy that was put to spectacular use in the Gulf War.Industrialization has brought total war and air power has brought the means to overfly an enemy's defenses and attack its sources of power directly. Americans have perceived air power from the start as a more efficient means of waging war and as a symbol of the nation's commitment to technology to master challenges, minimize casualties, and defeat adversaries.