Butler’s background, though, seems to be primarily on the cyber side, as NextGov reported. He has “real, hands-on programming experience” from his early career in the Air Force, and later served in a number of intelligence positions; he was the head the military intelligence business for Computer Sciences Corporation prior to his appointment. It’s not clear how much of that experience dealt with space systems, but at first glance it does raise the question of how much attention space will get from the new office compared to cyberspace.

• Perhaps the biggest item in the bill is language that blocks the Defense Department from spending any money appropriated for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) “until the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees that the NPOESS program is being managed in compliance with the Department of Defense 5000-series acquisition guidelines and that the participants are complying with the MOA [memorandum of agreement] signed on December 18, 2008.” The report also calls for an updated independent assessment of the program’s cost and schedule.
• The appropriations committee, the report notes, “is concerned that there is no clear path for space system investment.” The report calls for the development of an annual long-range (30 years) report that “will provide a necessary roadmap for future government and industrial base investments.” The same section also presses the DOD to create a major force program category for space by the FY2011 budget submission next February.
• The report directs the Air Force and the NRO to create a “sustainment plan” for the EELV program that would allow it to continue until 2030. That plan would address in particular liquid-propellant rocket engine development “identify the minimum level of investments and areas of technology development required to ensure the United States has a robust and viable liquid rocket engine industrial base beyond 2015″, particularly for upper stages. The same report language also calls for a review of the merger that created United Launch Alliance, assessing the cost savings promised at the time of the merger. (Another part of the report calls for development of a “five-year investment strategy” for the next block of both EELV vehicles as well as the SBIRS missile warning satellites.)

He noted that, over the last several decades, there has been a trend towards bigger, more complex, and more expensive systems designed for a “one size fits all” approach. “The systems that we purchase have only become more complex and more unaffordable,” he said. “That model is a Cold War relic.” Today, though, changing needs means that one size doesn’t fit all. Different users have different data requirements, he noted, constellations that consist of just a few large, expensive spacecraft are particularly vulnerable.

“The solution is to change our business model,” he said, moving to multiple systems (not all of which necessarily are space-based) tailored to meet specific needs. This doesn’t mean large spacecraft won’t go away, but layered on to that would be smaller systems that can better meet certain needs better than large spacecraft. Such an approach would have a number of benefits, ranging from increasing the rate at which new technology is implemented in space systems to avoid disruptions in the space workforce by the long gaps between development of large systems.

This approach would seem to be highly compatible with Operationally Responsive Space (ORS), the central topic of this discussion at this conference, although Hartman cautioned that the ORS Office needs to deliver on that potential in the near future, such as with the upcoming launch of TacSat-3. “If you’re in the ORS Office, you need to show results.”

What’s the solution? There are any number of alternatives (one idea of his he mentions in passing is creating an autonomous “Space Corps” within the Air Force analogous to the Army Air Corps prior to the creation of an independent Air Force), but the key is to get away from how space is currently treated by the Air Force. “[I]t is clear that the status quo, using existing Air Force management and doctrine, simply will not work in an age of an increasingly contested space domain. Support of a non-existent ‘aerospace’ regime not only prevents space from thriving, it equally undermines Air Force leadership of the vital air superiority mission.”

The full report has not been published yet, but will be soon, according to the AviationWeek.com article. What’s uncertain is whether the Bush Administration, in its final months in office, will take any steps to try and implement the plan. What role Congress will play is also unknown. Certainly anything that takes away power (and money and jobs) from some of these organizations, particularly SMC in Los Angeles, will be opposed by the likes of Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a key member of Congress on defense and intelligence issues who also has SMC in her district.

To Fisher, Shenlong is an ominous development, giving China the ability to strike quickly and without any defense: “A larger unmanned space plane based on the Shenlong could easily be designed to carry out precision ground-attack missions at speeds and at altitudes that would avoid interception.” He adds: “Today the U.S. has no capability to deter China’s potential use of military space planes.”

It’s difficult to gauge how accurate these claims are—Chinese military planning is hardly transparent, as Fisher notes—but assume for the time being that these claims are accurate, and China is indeed developing a spaceplane of some kind for military applications, including weapons delivery. How, then, should the US respond? “At a minimum, Washington should delay the planned 2010 retirement of the Space Shuttle until a new space plane can replace it, as a way to retain a deterring potential military capability,” he argues. In his earlier essay, he added, “It may instead now be necessary to consider retaining one or two Shuttles and to develop defensive and offensive payloads for them, until a less expensive and perhaps smaller unmanned or manned space plane can be developed.”

That’s a difficult recommendation to take seriously. The shuttle is expensive, hardly responsive, and all but disowned by the military for nearly two decades. How the shuttle could “deter” any Chinese military spaceplane isn’t at all obvious. If the Pentagon was truly concerned about the threat posed by such a Chinese capability, a better approach might be to put more money into the Falcon program, both for the small launch vehicle and hypersonic cruise vehicle that could have “prompt global reach” (or, sometimes, “prompt global strike”) capabilities. However, Fisher doesn’t mention Falcon in his essays, and only makes a passing reference to the X-37.

Expect some more scrutiny in the months to come of SBIRS; the Alternative Infrared Satellite System (AIRSS), a potential replacement concept whose future had appeared uncertain once SBIRS appeared to be on track; and milspace procurement in general.

Finally, I am deeply concerned about future threat uncertainty and worldwide ballistic missile proliferation. I believe the performance of the BMD system could be greatly enhanced by an integrated, space-based layer. Space systems could provide on-demand, near global access to ballistic missile threats, minimizing the limitations imposed by geography, absence of strategic warning, and the politics of international basing rights. A space layer would apply pressure on launches from land or sea, depriving the adversary of free rides into midcourse with advanced countermeasures. While deployment of such a system must be preceded by significant, national-level debate, that debate must be informed by science. To that end, we are ready to begin a focused investigation of the feasibility of having an integrated space-based layer, and I am requesting $10 million for FY 2008 to begin concept analysis and preparation for small-scale experiments. These experiments will provide real data to answer a number of technical questions and help the leadership make a more informed decision about adding this capability.

This got major play in an article by the Russian news agency RIA Novosti yesterday, but little else, primarily because it’s a small part of a much larger program, with more concern about the status of near-term terrestrial elements. (And because the Russians have been beating the drum pretty hard recently about US proposals to place regional missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.) Space-based missile defense has been a sensitive issue for years, out of concern by some that the same system that could be used to knock down enemy missiles could also be used to disable or destroy satellites, hence the statement by Gen. Obering that any space-based system “must be preceded by significant, national-level debate.”

(The same subcommittee also has a couple hearings of interest scheduled for next month: one on Earth sciences research on March 7 and one on “Transitioning to a Next Generation Human Space Flight System” on March 28.)

There are, though, a couple of other hearings today with tangential space policy relevance. This morning the House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the Air Force FY08 budget, with the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff scheduled to testify; there may be questions about military space programs and/or the effects of the China ASAT test.

Wednesday afternoon the new Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing titled “Competition and the Future of Digital Music”. What does that have to do with space? One of the witnesses will be Sirius Satellite Radio CEO Mel Karmazin, who will be asked about his company’s plans to merge with rival XM Satellite Radio; the hearing was announced in the wake of last week’s merger news. Some see the XM-Sirius merger effort as a pathfinder for a much bigger space business deal: a second attempt at a merger between satellite TV companies EchoStar and DirecTV. If the XM-Sirius merger founders on antitrust worries (there is also a separate, and perhaps bigger, FCC regulatory hurdle that merger has to overcome), then it seems unlikely a DirecTV-EchoStar deal would pass muster. If XM-Sirius does go through, though, don’t be surprised to see a DirecTV-EchoStar merger deal, with better odds of passage than their effort several years ago. That would have ripple effects on the industry, including satellite manufacturers and launch service providers as well as their component suppliers, further down the road.