DOCSLIB.ORG

Rebuilding America's Military

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rebuilding America's Military SPECIAL REPORT NO. 245 | APRIL 27, 2021 Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Space Force John Venable Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Space Force John Venable SPECIAL REPORT No. 245 | APRIL 27, 2021 CENTER FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE II REBUILDING AMERICA’S MILITARY: THE UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE About the Author John Venable is Senior Research Fellow for Defense Policy in the Center for National Defense, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. The Rebuilding America’s Military Project This Special Report is the sixth in a series from the Rebuilding America’s Military Project of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, which addresses the U.S. military’s efforts to prepare for future challenges and rebuild a military depleted after years of conflict in the Middle East and ill-advised reductions in both funding and end strength. The first paper in this series (Dakota L. Wood, “Rebuilding America’s Military: Thinking About the Future,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 203, July 24, 2018) provides a framework for understanding how we should think about the future and principles for future planning. The second (Dakota L. Wood, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Marine Corps,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 211, March 21, 2019) discusses the current status of the U.S. Marine Corps and provides prescriptions for returning the Corps to its focus as a powerful and val- ue-added element of U.S. naval power. The third (Thomas W. Spoehr, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Army,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 215, August 22, 2019) provides context and recommendations on how the U.S. Army should approach planning for future conflicts out to the year 2030. The fourth (John Venable, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Air Force,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 223, March 26, 2020) examines the state, status, and mindset of today’s Air Force, evaluates critical aspects of the service, and recommends specific policies and actions that the Air Force needs to pursue to prepare itself for future conflicts out to the year 2040. The fifth (Brent Sadler, “Rebuilding America’s Military: The United States Navy,” Heritage Founda- tion Special Report No. 242, February, 18 2021) provides a road map for deployment of a fleet designed for great-power competition with China and Russia. It proposes a balance between readiness and forward presence, peacetime competition and warfighting, over the critical 2021–2035 time frame. This paper examines the impact of service concepts, doctrine, and plans to provide context for the state, status, and mindset of today’s Space Force. It then evaluates critical aspects of the service and recommends specific policies and actions that the Space Force needs to pursue to prepare itself for future conflicts. As an organization, the Space Force is evolving rapidly, and details associated with the number of personnel, active organizational components, and the like that were current at publication will certainly change during the coming months and years. This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/sr245 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. SPECIAL REPORT | No. 245 APRIL 27, 2021 | III heritage.org Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7 I. Background ............................................................................................................. 9 A. U.S. Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 9 B. Five Critical Years: 1957–1961 ...................................................................................... 10 C. Gaining Traction: 1962–1991 ....................................................................................... 12 D. U.S. Operational Dominance in Space ............................................................................ 12 II. Reorganization and Recognition of Space as a Warfighting Domain ................................ 14 A. Space Development Agency (SDA) .............................................................................. 14 B. Identifying the Pool of Space Personnel ......................................................................... 15 C. U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM) ........................................................................... 15 III. USSF Organization ................................................................................................ 15 A. Space Operations Command ..................................................................................... 16 B. Space Systems Command ........................................................................................ 16 C. Space Training and Readiness (STAR) Command ................................................................ 17 D. Deltas and Garrisons ...............................................................................................17 E. Personnel ........................................................................................................... 18 F. Acquisition Reform ................................................................................................. 19 G. Funding ............................................................................................................ 19 IV. Current Capacity and Capability .............................................................................. 19 A. Backbone Satellite Constellations .................................................................................21 B. ISR Satellites ........................................................................................................21 C. Space Situational Awareness Systems ........................................................................... 23 D. Ground-Based Space Surveillance Systems ...................................................................... 24 E. Defensive Space Systems ......................................................................................... 28 F. Offensive Systems ..................................................................................................31 V. Space Doctrine ...................................................................................................... 33 VI. Spaceborne Assets in Other Services and Agencies ..................................................... 35 A. U.S. Army ........................................................................................................... 36 B. U.S. Navy ............................................................................................................37 C. National Reconnaissance Office .................................................................................. 38 VII. Civil and Commercial Space ................................................................................... 40 A. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ............................................................. 40 B. National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................................................................41 C. Commercial Space ................................................................................................. 42 IV REBUILDING AMERICA’S MILITARY: THE UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE VIII. Requirements and Acquisition ............................................................................... 45 IX. Requirements for the Future ....................................................................................47 X. Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................... 49 A. Organization ....................................................................................................... 49 B. Space Situational Awareness ..................................................................................... 50 C. Defensive Systems ................................................................................................. 50 D. Doctrine ............................................................................................................ 50 E. Requirements Development and Systems Acquisition ...........................................................51 XI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................51 Appendix I: Space Force Backbone Satellite Constellations ............................................... 53 Appendix II: Army Satellites ........................................................................................ 55 Appendix III: Navy Satellites ........................................................................................ 56 Appendix IV: Other Agency Satellites .............................................................................57 Endnotes ................................................................................................................. 59 SPECIAL REPORT | No. 245 APRIL 27, 2021
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rules for the Heavens: the Coming Revolution in Space and the Laws of War
    RULES FOR THE HEAVENS: THE COMING REVOLUTION IN SPACE AND THE LAWS OF WAR John Yoo* Great powers are increasing their competition in space. Though Russia and the United States have long relied on satellites for surveillance of rival nations’ militaries and the detection of missile launches, the democratization of space through technological advancements has allowed other nations to assert greater control. This Article addresses whether the United States and other nations should develop the space-based weapons that these policies promise, or whether they should cooperate to develop new international agreements to ban them. In some areas of space, proposals for regulation have already come too late. The U.S.’s nuclear deterrent itself depends cru- cially on space: ballistic missiles leave and then re-enter the atmosphere, giving them a global reach without serious defense. As more nations develop nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology, outer space will become even more important as an arena for defense against weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation. North Korea’s progress on ICBM and nuclear technology, for example, will prompt even greater in- vestment in space-based missile defense systems. This Article makes two contributions. First, it argues against a grow- ing academic consensus in favor of a prohibition on military activities in space. It argues that these scholars over-read existing legal instruments and practice. While nations crafted international agreements to bar WMDs in outer space, they carefully left unregulated reconnaissance and commu- nications satellites, space-based conventional weapons, antisatellite sys- tems, and even WMDs that transit through space, such as ballistic missiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Peterson Transitions to Privatized Housing by Corey Dahl Have Certain Expectations for Amenities That Space Observer These Houses Currently Lack
    COMMANDER’S CORNER: AMAZING EVENTS OF LAST WEEK – PAGE 3 Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Thursday, September 27, 2007 Vol. 51 No. 26 Peterson transitions to privatized housing By Corey Dahl have certain expectations for amenities that Space Observer these houses currently lack. Now we’ll be Officials here handed over control of base able to provide them.” housing to a private developer this month, Families on base are eager for the changes. the first step in a process that will eventu- Airmen were required to sign new leases ally bring new homes to both Peterson and this summer if they wished to stay in family Schriever. housing, and, according to Bob Mathis, vice Private developer Actus Lend Lease president with Actus, the number of people closed on a $321 million privatization ini- who opted to stay exceeded expectations. tiative for Peterson, Schriever and Los “I had a couple of people tell me they were Angeles Air Force Bases Sept. 20. Actus – op- going to use the opportunity to move off erating under the name Tierra Vista base, buy a house downtown or something,” Communities – will now manage base he said. “But we’re actually at a higher rate housing here and receive servicemembers’ of occupancy than we expected.” base housing allowances each month. And, while families might not see any The transfer of authority also clears the shovels in the ground until April, Mr. way for Actus to begin replacing Peterson’s Mathis said residents can still expect to see 493 homes with 597 new ones and start major changes now that Actus has taken building 242 new homes on Schriever, over.
    [Show full text]
  • Instruction 10-1204 1 June 2006
    BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND INSTRUCTION 10-1204 1 JUNE 2006 Operations SATELLITE OPERATIONS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY NOTICE: This publication is available digitally on the AFDPO WWW site at: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil. OPR: A3FS (Lt Col Kirk Jester) Certified by: A3F (Col David Jones) Pages: 22 Distribution: F This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 10-12, Space, Air Force Instruction (AFI) 10-1201, Space Operations and United States Space Command Policy Directive (UPD) 10-39, Sat- ellite Disposal Procedures (UPD 10-39 is being updated to a Strategic Command Directive (SD)), by establishing guidance and procedures for satellite operations and disposal. It applies to Headquarters Air Force Space Command (HQ AFSPC) and all subordinate units utilizing dedicated satellite control assets or common use and/or unique resources of the Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN), except for Royal Air Force (RAF) Telemetry and Command Squadron (TCS), Oakhanger. This instruction applies to Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) units with satellite control respon- sibilities. Submit changes to HQ AFSPC/A3F, Global Space Operations Division, 150 Vandenberg St., Ste 1105, Peterson AFB CO 80914-4250. If there is a conflict between this instruction and unit, contractor or other major command publications, this instruction applies. Maintain and dispose of records created as a result of prescribed processes in accordance with Air Force Records Disposition Schedule (RDS) which may be found on-line at https://afrims.amc.af.mil. The previous Air Force Space Command Instruction (AFSPCI) 10-1204, dated 1 September 1998, was rescinded in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Space) Barriers for 50 Years: the Past, Present, and Future of the Dod Space Test Program
    SSC17-X-02 Breaking (Space) Barriers for 50 Years: The Past, Present, and Future of the DoD Space Test Program Barbara Manganis Braun, Sam Myers Sims, James McLeroy The Aerospace Corporation 2155 Louisiana Blvd NE, Suite 5000, Albuquerque, NM 87110-5425; 505-846-8413 [email protected] Colonel Ben Brining USAF SMC/ADS 3548 Aberdeen Ave SE, Kirtland AFB NM 87117-5776; 505-846-8812 [email protected] ABSTRACT 2017 marks the 50th anniversary of the Department of Defense Space Test Program’s (STP) first launch. STP’s predecessor, the Space Experiments Support Program (SESP), launched its first mission in June of 1967; it used a Thor Burner II to launch an Army and a Navy satellite carrying geodesy and aurora experiments. The SESP was renamed to the Space Test Program in July 1971, and has flown over 568 experiments on over 251 missions to date. Today the STP is managed under the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD), and continues to provide access to space for DoD-sponsored research and development missions. It relies heavily on small satellites, small launch vehicles, and innovative approaches to space access to perform its mission. INTRODUCTION Today STP continues to provide access to space for DoD-sponsored research and development missions, Since space first became a viable theater of operations relying heavily on small satellites, small launch for the Department of Defense (DoD), space technologies have developed at a rapid rate. Yet while vehicles, and innovative approaches to space access.
    [Show full text]
  • SD 505-1Vol2.Pdf
    S:l£l:!RI£TfREL TO USA AND CAN BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER STRATEGIC COMMAND DIRECTIVE (SD) 505-1 VOL 2 13FEB2004 Operations, Planning, and Command and Control SPACE SURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS­ EVENT PROCESSING (U) NOTICE: This publication is available only from the OPR. OPR: OP50 (Lt Co~c,xe)ussc I Certified by: CSS (Majlc'x'10ssc I Supersedes USSPACECOM Instruction (UI) Pages: 128 10-40, 2 September 1997 Distribution: X Classified by: USSTRATCOM/OP Reason: 1.5 (a) (d) Declassify on: XI SECRETIREL TO USA AND CAN UNCLASSIFIED 2 SD 505-1 V2 13 FEB 2004 (U) This SD implements the Unified Command Plan (UCP) and provides procedures and guidance for worldwide Space Surveillance Operations. In addition, it is in compliance with the requirements as iden­ tified in the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved Capstone Requirements Document (CRD). This SD applies to United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), including the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) and Joint Intelligence Center (JIC); the USSTRATCOM opera­ tional component commands (Air Force Space Command, Naval Space Command, and Army Space and Missile Defense Command); 21st Space Wing, 30th Space Wing, 45th Space Wing, 50th Space Wing, 21st Operations Support Squadron, I st Space Control Squadron, and all Space Surveillance Network (SSN) sites including Royal Air Force (RAF) Fylingdales and Globus II, located in Vardo, Norway. In addition, RAF Fylingdales follows guidance specified in reference (a). (U) Air Force information is furnished on the condition that it will not be released to another nation with­ out specific authority of the Department of the Air Force of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 57 the Role of GIS in Military Strategy, Operations and Tactics Steven D
    CHAPTER 57 The Role of GIS in Military Strategy, Operations and Tactics Steven D. Fleming, Michael D. Hendricks and John A. Brockhaus 57.1 Introduction The United States military has used geospatial information in every conflict throughout its history of warfare. Until the last quarter century, geospatial information used by commanders on the battlefield was in the form of paper maps. Of note, these maps played pivotal roles on the littoral battlegrounds of Normandy, Tarawa and Iwo Jima (Greiss 1984; Ballendorf 2003). Digital geospatial data were employed extensively for the first time during military actions on Grenada in 1983 (Cole 1998). Since then, our military has conducted numerous operations while preparing for many like contingencies (Cole 1998; Krulak 1999). US forces have and will continue to depend on maps—both analog and digital—as baseline planning tools for military operations that employ both Legacy and Objective Forces (Murray and O’Leary 2002). Important catalysts involved in transitioning the US military from dependency on analog to digital products include: (1) the Global Positioning System (GPS); (2) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); (3) high-resolution satellite imagery; and (4) geographic information systems (GISs) (NIMA 2003). In addressing these four important catalysts, this review is first structured to include a summary of geospatial data collection technologies, traditional and state-of-the-art, relevant to military operations and, second, to examine GIS integration of these data for use in military applications. The application that will be addressed is the devel- opment and analysis of littoral warfare (LW) databases used to assess maneuvers in coastal zones (Fleming et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Space Power Upon History (1944-1998)*
    * The Influence of Space Power upon History (1944-1998) by Captain John Shaw, USAF * My interest in this subject grew during my experiences as an Air Force Intern 1997-98, working in both the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Space, and in SAF/AQ, Space and Nuclear Deterrence Directorate. I owe thanks to Mr. Gil Klinger (acting DUSD(Space)) and BGen James Beale (SAF/AQS) for their advice and guidance during my internships. Thanks also to Mr. John Landon, Col Michael Mantz, Col James Warner, Lt Col Robert Fisher, and Lt Col David Spataro. Special thanks to Col Simon P. Worden for his insight on this topic. A primary task of the historian is to interpret events in the course of history through a unique lens, affording the scholar a new, and more intellectually useful, understanding of historical outcomes. This is precisely what Alfred Thayer Mahan achieved when he wrote his tour de force The Influence of Sea Power upon History (1660-1783). He interpreted the ebb and flow of national power in terms of naval power, and his conclusions on the necessity of sea control to guarantee national welfare led many governments of his time to expand their naval capabilities. When Mahan published his work in 1890, naval power had for centuries already been a central determinant of national military power.1 It remained so until joined, even eclipsed, by airpower in this century. Space, by contrast, was still the subject of extreme fiction a mere one hundred years ago, when Jules Verne’s From the Earth to the Moon and H.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Coast Is Getting Busy: 6 New Rockets Coming to Cape Canaveral, KSC
    4/16/2019 Space Coast is getting busy: 6 new rockets coming to Cape Canaveral, KSC Space Coast is getting busy: 6 new rockets coming to Cape Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center Emre Kelly, Florida Today Published 4:04 p.m. ET April 11, 2019 | Updated 7:53 a.m. ET April 12, 2019 COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. – If schedules hold, the Space Coast will live up to its name over the next two years as a half-dozen new rockets target launches from sites peppered across the Eastern Range. Company, government and military officials here at the 35th Space Symposium, an annual space conference, have reaffirmed their plans to launch rockets ranging from more traditional heavy-lift behemoths to smaller vehicles that take advantage of new manufacturing technologies. Even if some of these schedules slip, at least one thing is apparent to several spaceflight experts here: The Eastern Range is seeing an unprecedented growth in commercial space companies and efforts. Space Launch System: 2020 NASA's Space Launch System rocket launches from Kennedy Space Center's pad 39B in this rendering by the agency. (Photo: NASA) NASA's long-awaited SLS, a multibillion-dollar rocket announced in 2011, is slated to become the most powerful launch vehicle in history if it can meet a stringent late 2020 deadline. The 322-foot-tall rocket is expected to launch on its first flight – Exploration Mission 1 – from Kennedy Space Center with an uncrewed Orion capsule for a mission around the moon, which fits in with the agency's wider goal of putting humans on the surface by 2024.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Almanac 2007
    2007 Space Almanac The US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine 74 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 Space 0.05g 60,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 22,300 miles Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Medium Earth Orbit begins 300 miles 0.95g 100 miles Low Earth Orbit begins 60 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Stratosphere begins 10 miles Illustration not to scale Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 75 US Military Missions in Space Space Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Launch of satellites and other Provide satellite communica- Ensure freedom of action in space Provide capabilities for the ap- high-value payloads into space tions, navigation, weather infor- for the US and its allies and, plication of combat operations and operation of those satellites mation, missile warning, com- when directed, deny an adversary in, through, and from space to through a worldwide network of mand and control, and intel- freedom of action in space. influence the course and outcome ground stations. ligence to the warfighter. of conflict. US Space Funding Millions of constant Fiscal 2007 dollars 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Fiscal Year 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total 1959 1,841 3,457 240 5,538 1983 13,051 18,601 675 32,327 1960 3,205 3,892
    [Show full text]
  • USARMY/NASA Redstone Arsenal, Superfund Site Profile
    USARMY/NASA REDSTONE ARSENAL | Superfund Site Profile | Superfund Site Information | US EPA Español 中中: 中中中 中中: 中中中 Tiếng Việt 中中中 United States Environmental Protection Agency Learn the Issues Science & Technology Laws & Regulations About EPA EPA Superfund Program: USARMY/NASA REDSTONE ARSENAL, HUNTSVILLE, AL Contact Us Share EPA’s Superfund Program: Making a Visible Difference Where is this site? The U.S. Army at Redstone Arsenal (RSA) is an active installation that Stay Updated Regional News encompasses 38,300 acres of land southwest of Huntsville, Alabama. Public Participation Since opening in the early 1940s, development within RSA has largely Opportunities: There are no meetings or revolved around the historical need to produce, and later dispose of, comment periods scheduled at conventional and chemical munitions. From 1942 to 1945, DA this time. operations were used to manufacture raw materials for toxic agents and incendiary materials, and to assemble, store, and ship the final Site Reports and products. Onsite waste disposal activities included the disposal of Documents construction debris, drums, and chemical munitions, and open burning No published Administrative of combustible materials. After the war, the RSA became a center for Record documents currently the receipt, storage, and demilitarization of Allied and German available. No published Special chemical agents. In 1949, RSA’s mission changed to research and Collection documents development of rocketry and guided missile systems. In 1960, civilian currently available. rocketry and missile activities were transferred to National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) The George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) which is located in the central portion of the Site Facts installation (1,841 acres).
    [Show full text]
  • 53Rd IAA HISTORY of ASTRONAUTICS SYMPOSIUM (E4) “Can You Believe They Put a Man on the Moon?” the Apollo Program
    70th International Astronautical Congress 2019 Paper ID: 48885 oral 53rd IAA HISTORY OF ASTRONAUTICS SYMPOSIUM (E4) \Can you believe they put a man on the moon?" The Apollo Program. (3) Author: Mr. John Goodman Odyssey Space Research, United States, [email protected] DORIS CHANDLER AND THE SATURN V GUIDANCE DEBATE Abstract Doris Chandler was a NASA engineer who led the team of men who developed the on-board guidance algorithm used by the Saturn launch vehicles. She received a B.S. in Mathematics from Tulane University with a Phi Beta Kappa Key and joined the Aeroballistics Laboratory at the Redstone Arsenal in 1953. As a NASA employee at the Marshall Space Flight Center in the 1960s, she served in three management positions: Deputy Chief of the Guidance Theory Section, Chief of the Guidance Application Section, and Chief of the Applied Guidance and Flight Mechanics Branch. In the early 1960s, Doris Chandler's team developed one of two competing mathematical concepts for Saturn guidance. The advent of flyable digital computers permitted the development of software- based guidance algorithms. Reference trajectory guidance methods employing analog computing, used for ballistic missiles in the 1950s, were not suitable for new space launch vehicles like the Saturn V. The Polynomial Guidance Mode (PGM), championed by Peenem¨undeveteran Rudolf Hoelker, used guidance polynomials derived from curve fits of nominal and dispersed optimal trajectories computed using the calculus of variations. PGM required extensive pre-flight computation but resulted in simple on-board software. Doris Chandler's team developed the Iterative Guidance Mode (IGM) based on an idea of Peenem¨unde veteran Helmut Horn that involved Lawden's linear tangent steering law.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Almanac 2005
    SpaceAl2005 manac Stratosphere begins 10 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Low Earth orbit begins 60 miles 0.95G 100 miles Medium Earth orbit begins 300 miles 44 44 AIR FORCEAIR FORCE Magazine Magazine / August / August 2005 2005 SpaceAl manacThe US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth orbit 22,300 miles 0.05G 60,000 miles NASA photo/staff illustration by Zaur Eylanbekov Illustration not to scale AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2005 AIR FORCE Magazine / /August August 2005 2005 4545 US Military Missions in Space Space Force Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Launch of satellites and other Provide satellite communica- Assure US access to and freedom Pursue research and devel- high-value payloads into space tions, navigation, weather, mis- of operation in space and deny opment of capabilities for the and operation of those satellites sile warning, and intelligence to enemies the use of space. probable application of combat through a worldwide network of the warfighter. operations in, through, and from ground stations. space to influence the course and outcome of conflict. US Space Funding Millions of constant FY06 dollars $50,000 DOD 45,000 NASA 40,000 Other Total 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 59 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 02 04 Fiscal Year FY NASA DOD Other Total FY NASA DOD Other
    [Show full text]