This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-379 
entitled 'Defense Space Activities: Organizational Changes Initiated, 
but Further Management Actions Needed' which was released on April 18, 
2003.



This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 

longer term project to improve GAO products’ accessibility. Every 

attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 

the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 

descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 

end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 

but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 

version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 

replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 

your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 

document to Webmaster@gao.gov.



Report to Congressional Committees:



United States General Accounting Office:



GAO:



April 2003:



Defense Space Activities:



Organizational Changes Initiated, but Further Management Actions 

Needed:



GAO-03-379:



GAO Highlights:



Highlights of GAO-03-379, a report to Congressional Committees: 



Why GAO Did This Study:



In January 2001, the congressionally chartered Commission to Assess 

United States National Security Space Management and Organization—known 

as the Space Commission—reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

lacked the senior-level focus and accountability to provide guidance 

and oversight for national security space operations.  Congress 

mandated that GAO provide an assessment of DOD’s actions to implement 

the Space Commission’s recommendations. Thus, GAO (1) updated its June 

2002 assessment of DOD’s actions to address the Space Commission’s 

recommendations, (2) ascertained progress in addressing other long- 

term management concerns, and (3) assessed the extent to which DOD has 

developed a results-oriented management framework for space activities.



What GAO Found:



Since June 2002 when we reported that DOD intended to implement 10 of 

the Space Commission’s 13 recommendations to improve the management and 

organization of space activities and had completed implementation of 6, 

DOD has completed action on 3 more recommendations. The only action 

intended but not completed at the conclusion of our work is designation 

of the Air Force as the executive agent for DOD space programs. Most of 

the changes represent organizational actions to improve DOD’s ability 

to manage space.  For example, DOD has: 

* created a focal point for integrating DOD space activities by 

appointing the Under Secretary of the Air Force also as Director, 

National Reconnaissance Office; 

* realigned Air Force space activities under one command; and 

* created a separate position of Commander, Air Force Space Command, to 

provide increased attention to the organization, training, and 

equipping for space operations.  



It is too early to assess the effects of these organizational changes 

because new institutional roles, processes, and procedures are still 

evolving.   



DOD still faces challenges in addressing long-term management problems, 

such as increasing its investment in innovative space technologies, 

improving the timeliness and quality of acquisitions, and developing a 

cadre of space professionals.  DOD has initiated some actions to 

address these concerns, such as increasing resources for research on 

space technology and developing a new acquisition process, and the 

services have begun some plans for developing space professionals.  

However, most planned actions are not fully developed or implemented.  

Further, DOD has not developed an overarching human capital strategy 

for space that would guide service plans to ensure all requirements for 

space professionals are met.



DOD does not have a comprehensive, results-oriented management 

framework for space activities.  The Air Force is developing some 

policies and guidance that could be part of a management framework for 

space activities.  However, we did not have access to the draft 

documents to determine whether they will contain results-oriented 

elements—such as a strategy, performance goals and measures, and 

timelines—that will enable DOD to better focus its efforts and assess 

its progress in attaining its space goals.  Further, no single 

department-level entity has been charged with providing oversight of 

the Air Force’s management of its executive agent for space 

responsibilities to assess its progress in achieving space goals while 

ensuring that all services’ requirements for space capabilities are 

fairly considered.



What GAO Recommends:



GAO recommends that DOD develop a national security space strategic 

plan tied to overall department goals and performance measures; 

establish a strategic approach for space human capital; and designate a 

department-level entity to provide space program oversight and assess 

progress.



DOD agreed with these recommendations.



www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-379.



To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Raymond J. Decker at (202) 512-6020 or 

deckerrj@gao.gov.



[End of section]



Contents:



Letter:



Results in Brief:



Background:



DOD Has Made Further Organizational and Management Changes to Implement 

Space Commission Recommendations:



Progress in Addressing Long-Term Management Challenges Varies:



Space Program Lacks Results-Oriented Management Framework:



Conclusions:



Recommendations for Executive Actions:



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



Appendix I: Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short-and 

Mid-Term Space Commission Recommendations:



Appendix II: Time Line of Major Events in DOD’s Implementation 

of Space Commission Recommendations:



Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:



Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology:



Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



Tables:



Table 1: Elements of a Results-Oriented Management Framework:



Table 2: Status of DOD’s Implementation of Space Commission 

Recommendations as of January 2003:



Figure:



Figure 1: DOD’s and the Air Force’s Organization for National Security 

Space, as of February 2003:



Abbreviations:



DOD: Department of Defense:



NRO: National Reconnaissance Office:



DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency:



This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 

protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 

in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain 

copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the 

copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.



United States General Accounting Office:



Washington, DC 20548:



April 18, 2003:



The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate:



The Honorable Duncan Hunter

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives:



The United States depends on space to underpin many national security 

activities as well as for civil and commercial purposes. The Department 

of Defense (DOD) employs space assets to support a wide range of 

military missions to include intelligence collection; battlefield 

surveillance and management; global command, control, and 

communications; and navigation assistance. Commercial use of space 

extends to activities in transportation, health, the environment, 

communications, commerce, agriculture, and energy. However, the United 

States’ increasing national dependence on space-borne systems creates 

new vulnerabilities that potential adversaries may seek to exploit.



Since the early 1990s, Congress has expressed concerns about DOD’s 

organization and management of space activities, in particular its 

ability to fully exploit space in support of warfighting. In October 

1999, Congress chartered the Commission to Assess United States 

National Security Space Management and Organization--known as the Space 

Commission--to review the organization and management of national 

security space activities and provide recommendations for improvement. 

In January 2001, the Space Commission reported that DOD was not 

properly organized to provide direction and oversight for national 

security space operations. The commission’s recommendations suggested 

actions that could be implemented in the short-or mid-term to better 

position national security space organizations and provide needed 

flexibility to realize longer-term space goals. Thirteen of the Space 

Commission’s recommendations addressed actions DOD could implement to 

improve coordination, execution, and oversight of DOD’s space 

activities. The Space Commission also identified some long-standing 

management challenges, including insufficient investment in innovative 

space technologies, a cumbersome acquisition process, and an inadequate 

program to develop and maintain a cadre of space professionals for 

leadership roles in all aspects of 

space-related activities.



In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, 

Congress mandated that we provide an assessment in 2002 and 2003 of the 

actions taken by the Secretary of Defense in implementing the Space 

Commission’s recommendations.[Footnote 1] Our June 2002 report stated 

that DOD had completed or was in the process of implementing most of 

the Space Commission recommendations.[Footnote 2] Our objectives for 

this subsequent report were to (1) update the status of the actions DOD 

has taken to implement the Space Commission’s recommendations, (2) 

ascertain the status of DOD’s efforts to address long-term management 

challenges, and (3) assess the extent to which DOD has developed a 

results-oriented management framework for space activities that 

includes critical elements to foster program success.



Results in Brief:



In response to the Space Commission’s recommendations, DOD has taken 

further steps to implement some organizational changes that have the 

potential to improve its ability to manage space activities, but it is 

too early to assess the effects of these and earlier changes DOD 

announced because new institutional roles, processes, and procedures 

are still evolving. Since June 2002, when we reported that DOD intended 

to implement 10 of the commission’s 13 recommendations and had 

completed implementation of 6, DOD has completed action on 3 more 

recommendations. The only action intended but not completed at the 

conclusion of our work is designation of the Air Force as executive 

agent[Footnote 3] for DOD space programs. Organizational changes 

completed include creating a focal point for space by naming the Under 

Secretary of the Air Force as Director, National Reconnaissance 

Office,[Footnote 4] and charging this individual with responsibility 

for integrating space activities across DOD as well as milestone 

decision authority[Footnote 5] for major space acquisitions; creating a 

separate position of Commander, Air Force Space Command, to provide 

increased attention to the organization, training, and equipping for 

space operations; and creating a mechanism to identify space spending 

across the department.



DOD has taken some actions to address long-term management challenges, 

but the extent of progress in identifying and implementing needed 

actions has varied. For example, DOD plans to increase its budget for 

space science and technology by 25 percent between fiscal years 2003 

and 2007 and almost double it by 2009. However, the availability of 

such funding in view of other departmental priorities is uncertain. 

Further, the Air Force has a draft acquisition approach intended to 

streamline the acquisition process and reduce the cost of building and 

launching space systems, but the process has not been fully validated 

and finalized. In addition, DOD and the services have not developed and 

implemented human capital plans needed to build a cadre of space 

professionals to lead space activities in the future. Specifically, DOD 

lacks an overall human capital strategic approach for space that could 

give guidance and facilitate development of individual service plans to 

better manage space forces. Further, it has not established time frames 

for completing such plans.



DOD has not yet developed a comprehensive results-oriented management 

framework for space activities that includes critical elements to 

foster future program success. As the executive agent for DOD space, 

the Under Secretary of the Air Force has begun developing, in 

collaboration with the other services and defense agencies involved in 

space activities, a national security space strategy and a national 

security space plan. According to officials in the office of the 

executive agent for DOD space who are developing the strategy and plan, 

the documents will set the goals of national security space activities, 

identify approaches to achieve those goals, and provide input to the 

Defense Planning Guidance [Footnote 6] which serves as a basis for 

assessing whether the services’ planned budgets fulfill national 

security space priorities. The officials hope to finalize these 

documents in early 2003. However, because these documents have not been 

finalized and we were not provided access to draft plans, it is not 

clear whether they address all the critical elements of a results-

oriented management framework--such as performance goals and measures. 

Without a results-oriented management framework, DOD will not be able 

to fully gauge its progress toward more effective national security 

space activities. In conjunction with its fiscal year 2000 budget, DOD 

developed a department-level performance report that specifies measures 

for some performance goals, but the report did not include goals and 

measures for space activities. In addition, no single entity in the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense has oversight responsibility to 

assess the Air Force’s progress in effectively managing departmentwide 

space activities and achieving associated performance goals and 

measures. Until such plans and oversight are in place, DOD cannot be 

assured that its investments will optimally support its current and 

future requirements for space operations.



Accordingly, we are making recommendations to improve the management 

oversight and accountability for space operations. DOD agreed or 

partially agreed with our recommendations.



Background:



America’s interests in space, according to the National Space Policy, 

are to support a strong, stable, and balanced national space program 

that serves our goals in national security, foreign policy, economic 

growth, environmental stewardship, and scientific excellence. DOD 

policy states that space--like land, sea, and air--is a medium within 

which military activities shall be conducted to achieve national 

security objectives. [Footnote 7]



The national security space sector is primarily comprised of military 

and intelligence activities. The Air Force is DOD’s primary procurer 

and operator of space systems and spends the largest share of defense 

space funds, annually averaging about 85 percent. The Army controls a 

defense satellite communications system and operates ground mobile 

terminals. The Navy operates several space systems [Footnote 8] that 

contribute to surveillance and warning and is responsible for acquiring 

the Mobile User Operations System, the next generation Ultra High 

Frequency satellite communication system. The U.S. Strategic 

Command[Footnote 9] is responsible for establishing overall operational 

requirements while the services are responsible for satisfying these 

requirements to the maximum extent practicable through their individual 

planning, programming, and budgeting systems. The Air Force Space 

Command is the major component providing space forces for the U.S. 

Strategic Command. The NRO designs, procures, and operates space 

systems dedicated to intelligence activities. The National Security 

Space Architect develops and coordinates space architectures for future 

military and intelligence activities. The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Marine Corps, and other DOD agencies also participate in 

national security space activities. The Office of National Security 

Space Integration, which reports to the Under Secretary of the Air 

Force and Director, NRO, facilitates integration of military and 

intelligence activities and coordinates implementation of best 

practices among agencies.



The management and organization of national security space programs and 

activities has received continual congressional attention since the 

early 1990s. In 1995, DOD responded to congressional concerns about the 

lack of a coherent national security space management structure by 

consolidating certain space management functions within a new Office of 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space. However, in 1998, 

under a defense reform initiative, DOD abolished this office and 

dispersed the management functions among other DOD offices, primarily 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 

Communications, and Intelligence and the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.



The Space Commission[Footnote 10] noted that the United States has an 

urgent interest in protecting the access to space and developing the 

technologies and capabilities to support long-term military objectives. 

It stressed the need to elevate space on the national security agenda 

and examine the long-term goals of national security space activities. 

The Space Commission provided a total of 16 recommendations, including 

a call for presidential leadership to set space as a national security 

priority and provide direction to senior officials. However, 13 of the 

Space Commission’s recommendations were directed at DOD and focused on 

near-and mid-term management and organizational changes that would 

merge disparate activities, improve communication channels, establish 

clear priorities, and achieve greater accountability.



DOD Has Made Further Organizational and Management Changes to Implement 

Space Commission Recommendations:



The Secretary of Defense directed a number of organizational changes to 

improve leadership, responsibility, and accountability for space 

activities within DOD in response to the Space Commission’s report. 

After some delays, most are complete or nearing completion, although it 

is too early to assess the effects of these changes. The Space 

Commission found that DOD’s organization for space was complicated with 

various responsibilities delegated to different offices within the 

department. For example, the Space Commission determined that it was 

not possible for senior officials outside DOD to identify a single, 

high-level individual who had the authority to represent DOD on space-

related matters. Further, the commission noted that no single service 

had been assigned statutory responsibility to “organize, train, and 

equip” for space operations. The commission provided 13 recommendations 

to DOD intended to improve the focus and accountability within the 

national security space organization and management.



As we reported in our June 2002 assessment, the Secretary of Defense 

decided to implement 10 of the Space Commission’s 13 recommendations 

while opting to take alternative actions for the remaining 3.[Footnote 

11] In a May 8, 2001, letter to the defense and intelligence oversight 

committees, the Secretary stated that the department would not 

implement the Space Commission’s recommendation to create an Under 

Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and Information.[Footnote 

12] DOD also did not seek legislation to give the Air Force statutory 

responsibility to organize, train, and equip space forces, as 

recommended. Rather, the Secretary said the department would address 

these organizational and leadership issues with alternative actions. 

For example, DOD elected not to create a new office to integrate 

military and intelligence research efforts, deciding instead to 

increase coordination among existing offices. At the time of our last 

report, DOD had completed action to implement six of the 

recommendations, and four were in the process of being implemented. DOD 

has now completed action on three more, with actions on the remaining 

recommendation still in progress. See appendix I for information on the 

status of each of the Space Commission’s 13 

DOD-specific recommendations.



To address some of the Space Commission’s specific recommendations as 

well as additional opportunities that the department identified for 

improving the organization and management of its space activities, the 

Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum in October 2001 that directed 

actions to:



* assign the Under Secretary of the Air Force as Director, NRO;



* designate the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Air Force 

Acquisition Executive[Footnote 13] for Space;



* delegate program milestone decision authority for DOD space major 

defense acquisition programs and designated space programs to the Under 

Secretary through the Secretary of the Air Force;



* realign the Office of the National Security Space Architect to report 

to the Director, NRO (who is also the Under Secretary of the Air Force) 

and make the Architect responsible for ensuring that military and 

intelligence funding for space is consistent with policy, planning 

guidance, and architectural decisions;



* designate the Secretary of the Air Force as DOD executive agent for 

space with redelegation to the Under Secretary of the Air Force;



* assign the Air Force the responsibility for organizing, training, 

equipping, and providing forces as necessary for the effective 

prosecution of offensive and defensive military operations in space;



* realign Air Force headquarters and field commands to more closely 

integrate space acquisitions and operations functions; and:



* assign responsibility for the Air Force Space Command to a four-star 

officer other than the Commander of the U.S. Space Command (now merged 

with U.S. Strategic Command) and North American Aerospace Defense 

Command to provide dedicated leadership to space activities.



By appointing the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Director, 

NRO, and the Air Force acquisition executive for space, as well as 

designating the Under Secretary DOD’s executive agent for space, the 

Secretary of Defense provided a focal point for DOD space activities. 

The Space Commission recommended the designation of a single person as 

Under Secretary of the Air Force; Director, NRO; and Air Force 

acquisition executive for space to create a senior-level advocate for 

space within DOD and the Air Force and represent space in the Air 

Force, NRO, and DOD planning, programming, and budgeting process. In 

addition, the authority to acquire space systems for the Air Force and 

NRO is intended to better align military and intelligence space 

acquisition processes. In explaining the rationale for this change, 

senior DOD officials told us that the barriers between military and 

intelligence space activities are diminishing because of the current 

need to support the warfighter with useful information from all 

sources. In an effort to improve space acquisitions and operations, 

joint Air Force and NRO teams have been working to identify the best 

practices of each organization that might be shared, according to Air 

Force and NRO officials. These teams have recommended what they believe 

to be 37 best practices to the Under Secretary of the Air Force in the 

areas of acquisition, operations, launch, science and technology, 

security, planning, and programming. Joint efforts to identify best 

practices are continuing in the areas of requirements, concepts of 

operation, personnel management, financial management, and test and 

evaluation.



The Space Commission recommended formal designation of the Air Force as 

executive agent for space with departmentwide responsibility for 

planning, programming, and acquisition of space systems, and the 

Secretary of Defense stated in his October 2001 memorandum that the Air 

Force would be named DOD executive agent for space within 60 days. 

However, the directive formally delineating the Air Force’s new roles 

and responsibilities and those of the other services in this area has 

not been finalized. Air Force officials said they hoped it would be 

finalized in early 2003. Until the directive designating the Air Force 

as executive agent for DOD space is signed, the Air Force cannot 

formally assume the executive agent duties that the Space Commission 

envisioned. In the meantime, the Air Force has begun to perform more 

planning and programming duties. During the delay in the formal 

delegation of authority, the Air Force and other services and defense 

agencies have begun collaborating on space issues in accordance with 

the Secretary’s intent. After the directive is released, the executive 

agent for space expects to be tasked to develop an implementation plan 

that will articulate processes and procedures to accomplish DOD’s space 

mission.



The Air Force has realigned its headquarters to support the Air Force 

Under Secretary’s efforts to integrate national security space 

activities and perform new duties as the executive agent for DOD space. 

The Under Secretary of the Air Force has established an Office of 

National Security Space Integration to implement the executive agent 

duties across DOD, coordinate the integration of service and 

intelligence processes and programs, develop streamlined national 

security space acquisition processes, and lead the development of a 

management framework for space activities. Although this office is 

located within the Air Force and NRO, it will consist of members from 

all the services and some defense agencies. Figure 1 shows DOD’s and 

the Air Force’s new organization for supporting national security space 

activities.



Figure 1: DOD’s and the Air Force’s Organization for National Security 

Space, as of February 2003:



[See PDF for image]



[End of figure]



Also in response to a Space Commission recommendation, the Air Force 

reorganized its field commands to consolidate the full range of space 

activities--from concept and development, to employment and sustainment 

of space forces--within the Air Force Space Command. To consolidate the 

acquisition and operations functions, the Air Force Space and Missile 

Systems Center[Footnote 14] was separated from the Air Force Materiel 

Command and became part of the Air Force Space Command. According to 

the Commander, Air Force Space Command, the consolidation of these 

functions in the same command is unique and should improve 

communications while exposing personnel to both acquisition and 

operations. According to Air Force officials, this new arrangement will 

enable space system program managers who have been responsible for 

acquiring space systems--such as the Global Positioning System--to help 

generate new concepts of operations. Conversely, the arrangement will 

also enable space system operators to develop a better understanding of 

the acquisitions processes and acquire new skills in this area.



To provide better visibility of DOD’s and the Intelligence Community’s 

level and distribution of fiscal and personnel resources, as the Space 

Commission recommended, DOD and the Intelligence Community developed a 

crosscutting or “virtual” major force program[Footnote 15] by 

aggregating budget elements for space activities across DOD and the 

Intelligence Community. This virtual space major force program 

identifies and aggregates space-related budget elements within DOD’s 11 

existing major force programs. According to DOD officials, having a 

crosscutting major force program for space activities is logical 

because space activities span multiple program areas, such as strategic 

forces and research and development. The space major force program 

covers spending on development, operation, and sustainment of space, 

launch, ground, and user systems, and associated organizations and 

infrastructure whose primary or secondary missions are space-related. 

DOD included the space major force program in its Future Years Defense 

Program[Footnote 16] for fiscal years 2003 to 2007 and identified $144 

billion in space spending planned for this period. The Under Secretary 

of the Air Force said he used the virtual major force program to 

facilitate examination of the services’ space program plans and 

budgets.



The Secretary of Defense tasked the National Security Space Architect 

with reporting on the consistency of space programs with policy, 

planning, and architecture decisions. During the spring and summer of 

2002, the Architect led the first annual assessment of the programs 

included in the space virtual major force program and some related 

programs. Teams of subject matter experts from DOD, Intelligence 

Community, and civilian agencies involved in space programs reviewed 

the services’ and Intelligence Community’s proposed budgets for future 

space spending to identify capabilities gaps and redundancies while 

evaluating whether budget requests adhered to departmental policy and 

guidance. The Architect provided the classified assessment results to 

the Under Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Defense, the Director 

of Central Intelligence, and other senior DOD and Intelligence 

Community leaders, to support decision-making on space programs during 

the fiscal year 2004 budget review.



It is too early to assess the effects of DOD’s organizational changes 

for its space programs because new institutional roles, processes, and 

procedures are still evolving, and key documents are not yet finalized. 

According to DOD officials, some delays in implementing the 

recommendations can be attributed to the time needed to select and 

confirm the pivotal senior leadership for national security space, and 

for the new leaders to direct changes in processes and procedures. For 

example, the Senate confirmed the Under Secretary of the Air Force on 

December 7, 2001, and new directorates within his office were 

established on April 15, 2002, to begin national security space 

integration and acquisition activities. Similarly, DOD created a 

separate four-star position of Commander, Air Force Space Command, 

separating the command of the Air Force Space Command from the 

Commander, U.S. Space Command/North American Aerospace Defense Command. 

However, the new Commander, Air Force Space Command, did not assume 

command until April 19, 2002. Developing policy and guidance to 

implement organizational changes took longer than the 30 to 120 days 

specified in the Secretary of Defense’s memorandum of October 18, 2001 

(see app. II for a time line of major events in the reorganization). 

For example, the directive that would designate the Air Force as 

executive agent for DOD space is still in draft over a year after the 

memorandum.



Progress in Addressing Long-Term Management Challenges Varies:



As DOD’s efforts to build a more coherent organizational structure for 

managing national security space activities near completion, the 

department’s progress in addressing long-term management challenges has 

varied. DOD increased funding for space science and technology 

activities in fiscal year 2004 and plans future increases. Also the 

department is drafting a new acquisition process for space systems that 

is intended to reduce the time to develop and acquire space systems, 

but the process has not been fully tested and validated. Finally, DOD 

has not established a human capital strategy to develop and maintain a 

cadre of space professionals that will guide the space program in the 

future, and none of the services has developed and implemented its own 

space cadre plans or established time frames for completing such plans.



Increased Investment in Space Research and Technology Planned:



Between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, DOD plans to increase its budget 

for space science and technology by almost 25 percent, from about 

$975 million in 2003 to over $1.2 billion in 2007. In addition, DOD 

plans by 2009 to spend over $1.8 billion for space science and 

technology, or almost two times the fiscal year 2003 budget. According 

to the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA), the Space Commission’s report’s emphasis on increased 

investment in space-based technology was the impetus for significant 

increases in space research and development funding over the next 5 

years--from $235 million in fiscal year 2003 to $385 million by fiscal 

year 2007 as shown in the fiscal year 2004 President’s budget request. 

Under current plans, DARPA will receive most of these funds. The 

Director said that over the years the agency’s concentration on space-

based technologies varied and that just prior to the Space Commission 

report, ongoing space efforts were at a low point. The Director also 

said that investments in space are consistent with the agency’s charter 

to solve national-level technology problems, foster 

high-risk/high-payoff military technologies to enable operational 

dominance, and avoid technological surprise. Innovative space 

technology studies currently underway, including the “Responsive 

Access, Small Cargo, Affordable Launch” and “Orbital Express” 

efforts,[Footnote 17] are a direct result of the Space Commission 

report. The Air Force is the next largest recipient of increased 

funding for space research and engineering with an expected budget 

increase of more than $89 million between 2003 and 2007. The Army and 

the Navy have smaller shares of space-related research funding and, 

according to service officials, project small budget increases. DOD 

recently completed a departmentwide assessment of space science and 

technology that it intends to use to direct the priorities of future 

research. However, whether planned funding increases will become 

available in view of other departmental priorities is uncertain.



Draft Space Acquisition Process Not Validated:



DOD is taking steps it hopes will streamline the acquisition process 

and reduce the time it takes to acquire space-based systems required by 

the national security space community. The Air Force has developed a 

new space system acquisition decision process designed to shorten time 

frames for technical assessments and facilitate faster decision-making. 

This approach will establish key decision points based on program 

maturity and provide more oversight earlier in the development of 

complex satellite technology. It will also reduce the number of 

independent cost estimates performed at each key decision point from 

two to one[Footnote 18] and employs a full time, dedicated independent 

assessment team to perform technical reviews in less time at each 

decision point. Having milestone decision authority, the Under 

Secretary of the Air Force determines whether major space systems 

should proceed to the next phase of development. The Under Secretary 

serves as chair of the Defense Space Acquisitions Board, which oversees 

the new acquisition process.[Footnote 19] However, the guidance for 

executing acquisition procedures is still in draft,[Footnote 20] and 

the draft acquisition process is still being validated. DOD has used 

the new process for milestone decisions on three space systems--the 

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, 

the Mobile User Objective System, and the latest generation of Global 

Positioning System satellite vehicles--that had been started under the 

previous acquisition system. Officials said that the process had been 

successful in that it enabled the Air Force to make better and faster 

decisions by identifying problems early that needed to be resolved 

before the system proceeded into the next development phase. The Space 

Based Radar promises to be the first system to begin the acquisition 

process under the new system.



Early identification of potential problems is essential in the 

acquisition process, particularly in regard to issues such as design 

stability, sufficient funding, requirement stability, realistic 

schedules, and mature technology. As we have previously reported, DOD 

programs, including some space programs, have experienced problems when 

these elements have not been sufficiently addressed.[Footnote 21] For 

example, the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite program 

continued to move through the acquisition process despite frequent 

changes to its requirements and experienced cost overruns and schedule 

delays.[Footnote 22] The Space Based Infrared systems also experienced 

increased cost and schedule delays.[Footnote 23] Congress has 

repeatedly expressed concerns about the cost overruns and schedule 

delays of these defense space programs and expected that any changes 

underway to reduce decision cycle time for space programs should not 

detract from the ability of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

the Joint Requirements Oversight Council[Footnote 24] to provide 

meaningful oversight of space programs. Consequently, in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for 2003 (section 911(b)), Congress directed 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to maintain oversight of space 

acquisitions and submit a detailed oversight plan to Congress by March 

15, 2003. [Footnote 25]



DOD and Services Lack a Strategic Approach to Build and Maintain Cadre 

of Space Professionals:



DOD does not have a strategic approach for defense space personnel that 

could better guide the development of the individual services’ space 

cadre plans to support the department’s strategic goals.[Footnote 26] 

The Space Commission noted that from its inception the defense space 

program has benefited from world-class scientists, engineers, and 

operators, but now many experienced personnel are retiring and the 

recruitment and retention of qualified space personnel is a problem. 

The net effect of a workforce that is not balanced by age or experience 

puts at risk the orderly transfer of institutional knowledge. Further, 

the commission concluded that DOD does not have the strong military 

space culture--including focused career development and education and 

training--it needs to create and maintain a highly trained and 

experienced cadre of space professionals who can master highly complex 

technology as well as develop new concepts of operation for offensive 

and defensive space operations. In October 2001, the Secretary of 

Defense directed the military services[Footnote 27] to draft specific 

guidance and plans for developing, maintaining, and managing a cadre of 

space professionals to provide expertise within their services and 

joint organizations.[Footnote 28] However, the Secretary did not direct 

development of a departmentwide space human capital strategy to ensure 

that national security space human capital goals, roles, 

responsibilities, and priorities are clearly articulated so that the 

service implementation plans are coordinated to meet overall stated 

requirements.



The Army, Navy, and Air Force have each produced initial guidance on 

developing and managing their own space professionals.[Footnote 29] 

However, none of these provide details about how the individual service 

will proceed with developing and implementing plans for addressing 

service and joint force requirements in future years, or time frames 

for implementing space cadre management plans. The services’ plans are 

still being developed, and we were not afforded access to the draft 

plans to assess their completeness and viability nor were we given firm 

estimates of when they might be completed and implemented. However, 

service officials told us that planning to date has focused on the 

military officer corps and has not included the enlisted or civilian 

personnel who also support space operations. In conjunction with space 

cadre planning, the services outlined some initiatives to increase 

space education for all military personnel, but these have not been 

fully implemented. While each service has separately begun planning to 

build and maintain a service space cadre, the services have not yet 

begun to coordinate their plans across DOD to ensure a shared direction 

and time frames. The Under Secretary of the Air Force said that other 

areas of space operations, such as acquisitions, have taken priority 

but that he plans to devote more attention to this area to achieve 

greater progress.



Space Program Lacks Results-Oriented Management Framework:



The Department of Defense has produced some policies and guidance to 

implement its space program, but it has not completed a comprehensive 

strategy or an implementation plan to guide the program and monitor its 

results. DOD is in the process of developing some elements of a 

results-oriented management framework, such as a national security 

space strategy, an annual national security space plan, and a directive 

formalizing the Air Force’s role as an executive agent for space. 

According to officials in the Office of National Security Space 

Integration responsible for developing the strategy and plan, these 

documents along with the annual assessment of the services’ space 

budget proposals will enable the executive agent for DOD space to track 

the extent to which resources are supporting national security space 

priorities. Officials also said that as executive agent for space, the 

Air Force plans to report on its progress to officials in the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense although the content and process that will be 

used is still being developed. However, DOD did not provide us drafts 

of the national security space strategy and plan or the executive agent 

directive; therefore, we could not assess whether these documents 

comprise a results-oriented management framework or specifically how 

DOD will provide department-level oversight of the Air Force’s 

activities as executive agent for space.



Management principles embraced in the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993[Footnote 30] provide agencies at all levels with a 

framework for effectively implementing and managing programs, and shift 

the program management focus from measuring program activities and 

processes to measuring program outcomes. Table 1 more fully describes 

these principles and their critical elements.



Table 1: Elements of a Results-Oriented Management Framework:



Principle: Define the program’s overall purpose, mission, and intent 

(i.e., strategy).; Critical elements: * Long-term goals--typically 

general in nature that lay out what the agency wants to accomplish in 

the next 

15 years.; * Approaches--general methods the agency plans to use to 

accomplish 

long-term goals.; * External factors--factors that may significantly 

affect the agency’s ability to accomplish goals.



Principle: Describe detailed implementation actions as well as 

measurements and indicators of performance (i.e., performance plan).; 

Critical elements: * Performance goals--stated in objective measurable 

form.; * Resources--a description of the resources needed to meet the 

performance goals.; * Performance indicators--mechanisms to measure 

outcomes of the program.; * Evaluation plan--means to compare and 

report on program results vs. performance goals.; * Corrective actions-

-a list of actions needed to address or revise any unmet goals.



Source: GAO.



Note: Management principles contained in the Government Performance and 

Results Act.



[End of table]

:



These principles and critical elements, when combined with effective 

leadership, can provide a results-oriented management framework to 

guide programs and activities at all levels. These management tools are 

designed to provide the agencies, Congress, and other decisionmakers a 

means to understand a program’s evolution and implementation as well as 

to determine whether initiatives are achieving their desired results.



DOD has established some elements of a results-oriented management 

framework for space programs that are embedded in various directives, 

guidance, and instructions. For example, the Sept. 30, 2001, 

Quadrennial Defense Review forms the backbone for the development and 

integration of DOD’s missions and strategic priorities, and details six 

operational goals including one to enhance the capability and 

survivability of U.S. space systems. DOD views the review as its 

strategic plan, in compliance with Government Performance and Results 

Act requirements, and, as such, the review forms the foundation from 

which DOD’s results-oriented performance goals are identified and 

progress is measured. Additionally, the September 1996, National Space 

Policy prepared by the White House National Science and Technology 

Council provides broad guidance for civil, commercial, national 

security, and other space sectors.



Although DOD’s space goals are linked to the overall national military 

policies, DOD has not developed all elements of a management framework 

to effectively manage DOD’s space operations or measure their progress. 

The Office of National Security Space Integration is in the process of 

developing a national security space strategy and plan that will set 

out priorities to guide planning and budgeting across the department 

and better integrate military and intelligence space activities. The 

strategy and plan will form a roadmap for achieving space goals in the 

near-and mid-term, according to an official developing these documents. 

These documents will be key to setting research, development, and 

operational goals and integrating future space operations in the 

military and intelligence communities. According to National Security 

Space Integration Office officials, the national security space 

strategic plan will be linked to the overarching National Space Policy 

and existing long-range space strategies and plans such as those of the 

NRO, National Security Space Architect, and the military services. 

These officials told us that the national security space strategy and 

plan and the annual assessment by the National Security Space Architect 

of whether the services’ budgets are consistent with policy, planning 

guidance, and architectural decisions, will be key components of their 

space management approach. However, officials said that they have not 

yet determined performance goals and measures to assess program 

implementation progress and ascertain whether program initiatives are 

achieving their desired results. Until such plans are finalized, DOD 

cannot be sure that it is investing its resources in the best way 

possible to support current and future requirements for space 

operations. National Security Space Integration Office officials said 

they hope to release the national security space strategy and plan in 

early 2003, but they did not provide us a copy of the draft strategy or 

plan. Therefore, we could not determine the extent to which these 

documents contain all the key elements of a results-oriented management 

framework.



A framework to lead and manage a space program effectively requires a 

program-specific strategy and performance plan to implement actions. 

However, to date DOD has not established specific space objectives that 

are linked to overall program goals and resource requirements, nor has 

it established specific performance goals or other mechanisms to 

measure program outcomes. In its 2000 Annual Report to the President 

and Congress, DOD provided a performance plan for achieving its annual 

performance goals,[Footnote 31] but it did not include performance 

goals and measures for space activities in that report.



Without a results-oriented management plan, linked to higher-level 

strategies, the services do not have clearly defined space objectives 

and milestones to guide their initiatives, nor does DOD have a 

mechanism to ensure successful accomplishment of integrated efforts 

without gaps and duplications. For example, lacking an integrated 

national security space strategy and plan, the services developed their 

fiscal year 2004-09 program budget plans without clearly defined 

objectives and milestones for space activities. In addition, the 

National Security Space Architect’s assessment of defense and 

intelligence space programs’ planned budgets for fiscal years 2004-

2009, was complicated by the lack of an integrated overall strategy 

with performance measures. Instead, the Architect relied on multiple 

policies, studies, architectures, and guidance to identify overall 

effectiveness goals. Without an overall space strategy, including 

results-oriented goals and performance measures, DOD cannot fully gauge 

its progress toward increasing the effectiveness of national security 

space activities.



Moreover, it is not clear which DOD office will be responsible for 

assessing the efficacy of the Air Force as executive agent for space or 

evaluating progress in achieving performance goals, once they are 

established. Witnesses before the Space Commission expressed concerns 

about how the Air Force would treat space activities and the extent to 

which it would fully address the requirement that it provide space 

capabilities to the other services. Several organizations within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense participate in ongoing oversight of 

space activities, including Offices of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence); the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics); and the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Policy); and the Director (Program Analysis and Evaluation). 

While each office has oversight responsibilities for different aspects 

of space activities, no one office is charged with ensuring that the 

Air Force’s space program is having the desired results. DOD’s guidance 

on executive agents specifies that the principal assistant(s) in the 

Office of the Secretary should assess executive agents’ performance no 

less frequently than every 3 years, although it does not specify the 

mechanism to be used for the assessment.[Footnote 32] According to DOD 

officials, the principal assistants for the executive agent for space-

-the Air Force--are the offices named above, and the issue of how the 

progress of the Air Force as executive agent should be assessed is 

being discussed, and the process and content by which the national 

security space program will be independently evaluated or whether one 

office will be designated to lead such an independent evaluation has 

not been decided. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD said 

that currently the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 

Communications, and Intelligence has responsibility to establish policy 

and provide direction to the DOD components on command, control, 

communications and intelligence-related space systems and serves as the 

primary focal point for staff coordination within DOD and other 

government agencies. However, it is not clear from the comments whether 

this office will be tasked with oversight of activities of the Air 

Force as executive agent for DOD space.



Conclusions:



DOD has charged the Air Force with leadership responsibilities for 

space activities and has taken some actions that have the potential to 

improve its management ability. While DOD plans to increase investment 

in technology, has developed a new acquisition strategy, and has 

directed the services to begin some initial planning on the national 

security space cadre issue, more remains to be done to meet these long-

term management challenges critical to success in national security 

space activities. In the area of creating a space cadre, however, DOD 

lacks an overall human capital strategic approach to manage the space 

forces, leaving the services at risk of developing human capital plans 

that do not meet the overall national security space needs of the 

department. Moreover, no time frames have been established for 

developing coordinated plans. Furthermore, the department does not have 

a complete results-oriented management framework to assess the results 

of the changes in its organization and processes and gauge its progress 

toward achieving its long-term goals in the future. Therefore, the 

services and Intelligence Community continue to develop national 

security space programs based on their own requirements without the 

benefit of overarching guidance on national security space goals, 

objectives, and priorities. Also, in its fiscal year 2000 performance 

report that accompanied its budget, the department did not include 

performance goals and measures for space activities, which would be a 

mechanism to highlight program progress and signal the relative 

importance of national security space activities. Although the Under 

Secretary of the Air Force, as DOD’s focal point for space, is 

responsible for leading the implementation of the national security 

space strategy and plan, questions have been raised about the extent to 

which the Air Force will fairly address the needs of the other services 

and defense agencies. Furthermore, DOD has not specified an oversight 

mechanism at the Secretary of Defense level to periodically assess the 

progress of the Air Force in achieving the department’s goals for space 

activities and in addressing the requirements of the other services and 

defense agencies. Without such oversight, it will be difficult for DOD 

to know whether the changes made are having the desired results of 

strengthening national security space activities.



Recommendations for Executive Actions:



To improve the management of national security space activities, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following actions:



* require the executive agent for DOD space, in conjunction with the 

services, to establish a departmentwide space human capital strategy 

that includes goals and time lines to develop and maintain a cadre of 

military and civilian space professionals;



* require the executive agent for DOD space to develop a comprehensive 

management framework for space activities that includes a results-

oriented national security space strategy tied to overall department-

level space goals, time lines, and performance measures to assess space 

activities’ progress in achieving national security space goals;



* include performance goals and measures for space activities in DOD’s 

next departmentwide performance report; and:



* designate an oversight entity in the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense to periodically assess the progress of DOD’s executive agent in 

achieving goals for space activities.



We further recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to review, and as 

necessary, adjust service cadre plans to ensure they are linked to the 

department’s space human capital strategy when completed.



Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:



In its comments on our draft report, DOD agreed with our 

recommendations to establish a departmentwide space human capital 

strategy; develop a management framework for space activities that 

includes a results-oriented national security space strategy tied to 

overall department-level space goals, time lines, and performance 

measures; include goals and measures for space activities in the 

department’s next performance report; and designate an oversight entity 

in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to assess the progress of 

DOD’s executive agent in achieving goals for space activities. In its 

comments, DOD stated that it is already in the process of developing 

strategies and plans to address the issues of strategic planning--

including goals, time lines, and performance measures--and developing 

space professional personnel. DOD partially agreed with our 

recommendation that the military services’ space cadre plans be linked 

to the department’s space human capital strategy when completed, 

stating that the services are already drafting separate plans that will 

be synchronized and linked to an overall national security space plan, 

and that the services should not wait to complete their own plans. We 

agree that development of an overall plan can logically take place 

concurrently with service planning and have reworded our recommendation 

accordingly. The intent of our recommendation to develop an overall 

human capital strategy and service plans that are appropriately linked 

to the overall strategy is to ensure that the services and defense 

agencies provide adequate training to meet service and defensewide 

requirements. Furthermore, with an integrated approach, the service 

plans should offer training programs that minimize duplication of 

effort and reduce critical gaps of coverage to effectively create and 

maintain a capable space cadre across the department. DOD’s comments 

are included in this report in appendix III. DOD also provided 

technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.



Our scope and methodology are detailed in appendix IV. We performed our 

work from June 2002 to February 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Contacts and staff 

acknowledgements are listed in appendix V.



We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, the 

Navy, and the Air Force; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the 

Commander, U.S. Strategic Command; the Director, Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency; and the Director, Office of Management and 

Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov.



Please contact me at (202) 512-6020 if you or your staff have any 

questions concerning this report.



Raymond J. Decker, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management:



[End of section]



Appendix I: Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short-and Mid-Term 

Space Commission Recommendations:



The Secretary of Defense agreed with the Space Commission’s finding 

that the Department of Defense (DOD) needed a new and comprehensive 

national security space management approach to promote and protect 

U.S. interests in space. In a May 8, 2001, letter to the leaders of the 

defense and intelligence oversight committees, the Secretary informed 

Congress that he would take actions to improve DOD’s management 

structure and organization for national security space actions. These 

actions largely represented organizational and management changes the 

Space Commission recommended to improve DOD’s focus on national 

security space activities and better coordinate military and 

intelligence space activities.



We reported in June 2002 that DOD had implemented or was in the process 

of implementing 10 of the 13 recommendations the Space Commission 

directed to it. At that time, DOD had completed action on six 

recommendations and was in the process of implementing four others. The 

Secretary of Defense chose not to implement three of the commission’s 

recommendations and instead opted to (1) establish a focal point for 

space within the Air Force rather than create an Under Secretary of 

Defense for Space, Information, and Intelligence; (2) increase the Air 

Force’s responsibilities by department directive rather than requesting 

legislative change; and (3) direct existing organizations to conduct 

innovative space research and development rather than create a new 

organization to do so.



As table 2 shows, DOD has implemented or is nearing implementation of 

these 10 recommendations. DOD has completed actions to implement three 

recommendations that were categorized as “in process” in our June 2002 

report, as designated by the arrows in the table. Only the 

recommendation that the Air Force be named executive agent for DOD 

space remains to be finalized. However, the Air Force has taken on more 

leadership responsibilities over the last year based on a memorandum 

that expressed the Secretary’s intent to have the Air Force become the 

DOD executive agent for space.



Table 2: Status of DOD’s Implementation of Space Commission 

Recommendations as of January 2003:



Space Commission recommendation: The Secretary of Defense and the 

Director of Central Intelligence should meet regularly to address 

national security space policy, objectives, and issues.; No action 

intended: [Empty]; In progress: [Empty]; Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Defense should establish 

an under secretary of defense for space, intelligence, and 

information.[A]; No action intended: Yes; In progress: [Empty]; 

Completed: [Empty].



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Air Force should assign 

responsibility for the command of Air Force Space Command to a four-

star officer other than the commander, U.S. Space Command and North 

American Aerospace Defense Command.; No action intended: [Empty]; In 

progress:; Yes; Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Defense should end the 

practice of assigning only Air Force flight-rated officers to position 

of commander, U.S. Space Command and North American Aerospace Defense 

Command.; No action intended: [Empty]; In progress: [Empty]; Completed: 

b.



Space Commission recommendation: Air Force should realign headquarters 

and field commands to more effectively organize, train, and equip for 

prompt and sustained space operations.; No action intended: [Empty]; In 

progress:Yes; Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Air Force Space Command should be 

assigned responsibility for providing resources to execute space 

research, development, acquisition, and operations.; No action 

intended: [Empty]; In progress: [Empty]; Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Amend title 10 U.S.C. to assign the 

Air Force responsibility to organize, train, and equip for air and 

space operations.[C]; No action intended: Yes; In progress: [Empty]; 

Completed: [Empty].



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Defense should designate 

the Air Force as DOD’s executive agent for space.[D]; No action 

intended: [Empty]; In progress: Yes; Completed: [Empty].



Space Commission recommendation: Assign the Under Secretary of the Air 

Force as the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office.; No action 

intended: [Empty]; In progress: [Empty]; Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Designate the Under Secretary of the 

Air Force as the Air Force acquisition executive for space.[E]; No 

action intended: [Empty]; In progress: [Empty]; Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Defense and Director of 

Central Intelligence should create a research, development, and 

demonstration organization to focus on innovative space research and 

development.[F]; No action intended: Yes; In progress: [Empty]; 

Completed: [Empty].



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Defense should direct the 

Defense Advanced Research Products Agency and service laboratories to 

undertake development and demonstration of innovative space 

technologies.; No action intended: [Empty]; In progress:; Yes; 

Completed: Yes.



Space Commission recommendation: Secretary of Defense should establish 

a Major Force Program for Space.[G]; No action intended: [Empty]; In 

progress: [Empty]; Completed: Yes.



Source: GAO analysis.



[A] Secretary of Defense opted to establish a focal point for space in 

the Under Secretary of the Air Force.



[B] This recommendation no longer applies as the U.S. Space Command has 

been disestablished and its missions transferred to the new U.S. 

Strategic Command.



[C] DOD opted to increase Air Force responsibility for organizing, 

equipping, and training for space operations without requesting 

legislative change. In August 2002, it revised its directive 

promulgating the functions of the department and its major components 

(Directive 5100.1) to reflect all services’ responsibilities to 

organize, train, and equip space forces.



[D] The executive agent is a term used to indicate a delegation of 

authority by the Secretary of Defense to a subordinate to act on the 

Secretary’s behalf. The exact nature and scope of the authority 

delegated may vary. It may be limited to providing administration and 

support or coordinating certain functions or extend to direction and 

control over specified resources for specified purposes.



[E] The acquisition executive is the individual charged with overall 

acquisition management responsibilities within his or her organization.



[F] This organization was not established.



[G] A major force program is an aggregation of related budget items 

that can be used to track resources that support a macro-level combat 

or support mission.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix II: Time Line of Major Events in DOD’s Implementation of Space 

Commission Recommendations:



Date: January 11, 2001; Event: Space Commission report published.



Date: May 8, 2001; Event: Secretary of Defense sent letter to Congress 

detailing intended actions.



Date: Oct. 1, 2001; Event: Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center 

realigned from Air Force Materiel Command to Air Force Space Command.



Date: Oct. 18, 2001; Event: Secretary of Defense issued memorandum 

directing actions and time lines for implementing selected Space 

Commission recommendations.



Date: December 13, 2001; Event: Under Secretary of the Air Force sworn 

in, after confirmation by the Senate, and appointed Director, National 

Reconnaissance Office, by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of 

Central Intelligence.



Date: January 2, 2002; Event: Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics) promulgated policy memorandum directing DOD 

research community to undertake research and demonstration of 

innovative space technologies and systems.



Date: February 7, 2002; Event: Under Secretary of the Air Force 

designated to be Air Force Acquisition Executive for space.



Date: February 14, 2002; Event: Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) delegated milestone decision 

authority for DOD major space programs to the Secretary of the Air 

Force with authority to redelegate to the Under Secretary of the Air 

Force.



Date: February 2002; Event: “Virtual” major force program for space 

included in DOD’s Future Years Defense Program.



Date: April 19, 2002; Event: Commanding general assumed command of the 

Air Force Space Command separate from U.S. Space Command and North 

American Aerospace Defense Command.



Date: June 26, 2002; Event: GAO interim assessment of the status of 

DOD’s reorganization of space activities.



Date: August 2002; Event: National Security Space Architect space 

program assessment.



[End of table]



[End of section]



Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:



OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:



6000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-6000:



COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS, AND INTELLIGENCE:



Mr. Raymond J. Decker:



Director, Defense Capabilities & Management Team U.S. General 

Accounting Office:



441 G. Street N. W. Washington, D.C. 20548:



March 20, 200:



Dear Mr. Decker:



This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) report, ‘DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES: 

Organizational Changes Initiated, but Further Management Actions 

Needed’, dated February 19, 2003 (GAO Code 350200).’:



In general, the Department concurs with the findings in the report, but 

offers several recommended changes to enhance accuracy. Specific 

comments are attached.



Sincerely,



Patricia S. Gamble:



Signed by Patricia S. Gamble:



Acting Director: Space Programs ODASD(C3ISR, Space & IT Programs):



cc: DoD IG:



GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2003 (GAO CODE 350200):



“DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES INITIATED, BUT 

FURTHER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS NEEDED”:



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE GAO RECOMMENDATIONS:



RECOMMENDATION l: Require the Under Secretary of the Air Force, in 

conjunction with the services, to establish a department wide space 

human capital strategy that includes goals and timelines to develop and 

maintain a cadre of military and civilian space professionals:



DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The DoD and Services are already laying the 

ground-work for a National Security Space (NSS) space human capital 

strategy that will be synchronized with separate Service plans, also in 

development, to develop and maintain a cadre of military and space 

professionals.



RECOMMENDATION 2: Require the Under Secretary of the Air Force to 

develop a comprehensive management framework for space activities that 

includes a results-oriented national security space strategy tied to 

overall department-level space goals, timelines, and performance 

measures to assess space activities’ progress in achieving national 

security space goals:



DoD RESPONSE: Concur. A comprehensive management framework for space 

activities that includes inherent performance measures and reporting 

mechanisms are being developed.



RECOMMENDATION 3: Include performance goals and measures for space 

activities in DoD’s next department wide performance report:



DoD RESPONSE: Concur.



RECOMMENDATION 4: Designate an oversight entity in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense to periodically assess the progress of DoD’s 

executive agent in achieving goals for space activities.



DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Currently, ASD (C31) has responsibility to 

establish policy and provide direction to the DoD Components on C31-

related space systems and serves as the primary focal point for staff 

coordination within the DoD, with other Government Departments and 

Agencies.



RECOMMENDATION 5: The Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of 

the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to develop service space cadre 

plans linked to the department’s space human capital strategy when 

completed.



DoD RESPONSE: Partially Concur. Recommend changing ‘develop Service 

cadre planes:



linked to’ to ‘review and, as necessary, adjust Service cadre plans to 

ensure linkage to’. The DoD and Services are already drafting separate 

space cadre plans that will be synchronized and linked to an overall 

National Security Space human capital strategy. Cadre plans underway 

now are necessarily focused on service-unique career issues but do not 

preclude further coordination to meet Departmental goals and 

opportunities. The Services should not wait until a Department-wide 

space human capital strategy is developed to complete their individual 

plans.



[End of section]



Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology:



To update the status of actions the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

taken to implement the Space Commission’s recommendations, we 

identified and monitored changes in DOD’s organization and management 

of space by reviewing DOD and service briefings and internal department 

directives and memoranda that identified issues and directed 

initiatives for improving management of space activities. We held 

discussions with officials from the Offices of the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) and the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer) to 

discuss department guidance on implementing the recommendations and 

implementation activities. To identify actions the services took to 

improve management of space activities, we reviewed documentation of 

implementation actions and held discussions with Army, Navy, Air Force, 

and Marine Corps officials. Offices represented were the Under 

Secretary of the Air Force; the National Security Space Architect; the 

Air Force Space Command; the Air Force Space and Missile Systems 

Center; the 14th Air Force; the Army Space and Missile Defense Command; 

the Naval Network and Warfare Command; and Headquarters Marine Corps. 

Sites visited included the Pentagon, Washington, D.C; Peterson Air 

Force Base and Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, Colorado; 

Los Angeles Air Force Base, Los Angeles, California; and Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, Lompoc, California. The National Reconnaissance Office 

provided written answers to questions we submitted.



To determine progress in addressing some of the long-term space 

management challenges, we discussed challenges DOD, the Space 

Commission, other experts, and our previous reports have identified 

with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Army; 

the Air Force; the Navy; the National Security Space Architect; the 

U.S. Strategic Command; the U.S. Northern Command; the Joint Staff; and 

outside experts. Given time and resource limitations, we focused our 

work on three of the many long-term management challenges to DOD’s 

space program--investing in science and technology, improving the 

timeliness and quality of space acquisitions, and building and 

maintaining a cadre of space professionals. To assess progress in 

investing in technology, we reviewed documentation and held discussions 

with officials from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; the 

Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering; the Office of 

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology); 

Naval Network and Warfare Command; the Naval Research Laboratory; and 

the Air Force Research Laboratory. To assess progress in implementing 

its acquisition

initiatives, we reviewed documentation and discussed the initiatives 

with officials representing the Office of the Under Secretary of the 

Air Force and the Air Force Space Command. In addition, we discussed 

education and training initiatives with officials from the Air Force 

Space Command; Air University; Air Force Academy; the Army Space and 

Missile Defense Command; Army Command and General Staff College; the 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations; the Naval Academy; the Naval 

Postgraduate School; and Headquarters Marine Corps.



To assess whether DOD had a management framework that will foster the 

success of its improvement efforts, we reviewed departmental plans and 

strategies that set organizational goals and discussed oversight and 

management activities--including setting strategic goals, developing 

measures of progress, and planning time lines--with senior DOD and 

service officials from offices that have major responsibilities for 

managing space activities, including the Offices of Assistant Secretary 

of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence), the 

Under Secretary of the Air Force, and the Air Force Space Command. We 

used the principles embodied in the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 as criteria for assessing the adequacy of DOD’s management 

framework to effectively manage and oversee the space program.



[End of section]



Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:



GAO Contacts:



Raymond J. Decker (202) 512-6020:



Janet A. St. Laurent (202) 512-4402:



Acknowledgments:



In addition to the names above, Margaret Morgan, 

MaeWanda Micheal-Jackson, Robert Poetta, and R.K. Wild made key 

contributions to this report.



[End of section]



FOOTNOTES



[1] P.L. 107-107, section 914.



[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Space Activities: Status of 

Reorganization, 

GAO-02-772R (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2002).



[3] The executive agent is a term used to indicate a delegation of 

authority by the Secretary of Defense to a subordinate to act on the 

Secretary’s behalf. The exact nature and scope of the authority 

delegated may vary. It may be limited to providing administration and 

support or coordinating certain functions or extend to direction and 

control over specified resources for specified purposes. The DOD 

directive that will define the scope of authority in this instance has 

not yet been formally approved.



[4] The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) designs, builds and 

operates the nation’s reconnaissance satellites. NRO provides products 

to DOD and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others. 



[5] The milestone decision authority is the individual designated to 

approve entry of an acquisition program into the next phase of the 

acquisition process.



[6] The Defense Planning Guidance, issued by the Secretary of Defense, 

provides goals, priorities, and objectives, including fiscal 

constraints, for the development of military departments’ and defense 

agencies’ budgets.



[7] Fact Sheet: National Space Policy-the White House, National Science 

& Technology Council (Sept. 19, 1996); and DOD Directive 3100.10 (July 

9, 1999).



[8] Navy operated space systems include the Ultra High Frequency 

Follow-on, WindSat Ocean Surface Wind Vector Measurements from Space, 

and Navy Space Surveillance System. The Naval Space Surveillance System 

will be transferred to the Air Force.



[9] The U.S. Space Command merged with the U.S. Strategic Command on 

October 1, 2002. The combined command is responsible for space 

operations, information operations, computer network operations, and 

strategic defense and attack. 



[10] The present Secretary of Defense led the Space Commission prior to 

his nomination to his current position.



[11] GAO-02-772R.



[12] The National Defense Authorization Act of 2003 (P.L. 107-314, 

section 901) authorized DOD to create an Under Secretary for 

Intelligence. The responsibilities for this new position have not yet 

been released.



[13] The acquisition executive is the individual charged with overall 

acquisition management responsibilities within his or her organization. 





[14] The Space and Missile Systems Center designs and acquires all Air 

Force and most DOD space systems. 



[15] A major force program is a budget mechanism by which DOD 

aggregates related budget items to track resources that support a 

macro-level combat or support mission, such as strategic forces or 

general purpose forces. 



[16] DOD’s Future Years Defense Program is the official document that 

summarizes the force levels and funding associated with specific 

programs. It presents estimated appropriation needs for the budget year 

for which funds are being requested from Congress and at least

4 years following it. 



[17] “Responsive Access, Small Cargo, Affordable Launch” is an effort 

to provide quick and economic launch capabilities for micro-size 

satellites; “Orbital Express” is an effort to demonstrate the 

feasibility of refueling, upgrading, and extending the life of on-orbit 

spacecraft.



[18] The new process will require a cost estimate from the program 

office and an estimate led by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s 

Cost Accounting Improvement Group.



[19] The Defense Space Acquisitions Board is composed of 

representatives of the military services and defense agencies invited 

by the Under Secretary.



[20] National Security Space Acquisition Policy 03-01.



[21] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Space Operations: 

Planning, Funding, and Acquisition Challenges Facing Efforts to 

Strengthen Space Control, GAO-02-738 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 

2002); U.S. General Accounting Office, Best Practices: Better 

Management of Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System 

Outcomes, GAO/NSIAD-99-162 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999); U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Best Practices: Better Matching of Needs and 

Resources Will Lead to Better Weapon System Outcomes, GAO-01-288 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2001); U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Defense Acquisition: Best Commercial Practices Can Improve Program 

Outcomes, GAO/T-NSIAD-99-116 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 1999); and 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Best Practices: Capturing Design and 

Manufacturing Knowledge Early Improves Acquisition Outcomes, 

GAO-02-701 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2002)



[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Acquisitions: Risks Remain 

for the AEHF Satellite Communications System, GAO-03-63 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 31, 2003).



[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Acquisitions: Space Based 

Infrared System-Low at Risk of Missing Initial Deployment Date, 

GAO-01-6 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2001).



[24] The Joint Requirements Oversight Council is composed of senior 

military officers from each service and makes recommendations to the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on programmatic alternatives, 

tradeoffs, risks, bill-payers, and effectiveness.



[25] P.L. 107-314.



[26] In prior reports and testimony, we identified strategic human 

capital management planning as a governmentwide high-risk area and a 

key area of challenge. See Major Management Challenges and Program 

Risks: Department of Defense, GAO-03-98 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 2003).



[27] The Commander, Air Force Space Command, is charged with managing 

career development and education and training within the Air Force, 

which contains the majority of space professionals.



[28] As we reported previously, DOD also lacks a strategic approach to 

manage joint officer requirements. See U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Military Personnel: Joint Officer Development Has Improved, but a 

Strategic Approach Is Needed, GAO-03-238 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 

2002).



[29] Planning for the space personnel in the U.S. Marine Corps will be 

included in the Navy’s space cadre planning. 



[30] P.L. 103-62.



[31] Cohen, William S., Annual Report to the President and the 

Congress, Appendix I (Washington, D.C.: 2000). The 2000 Performance 

Plan was the last one DOD produced.



[32] DOD Directive 5100.88 (Sept. 3, 2002).



GAO’s Mission:



The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 

exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 

of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 

of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 

analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 

informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 

good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.



Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:



The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 

abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 

expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 

engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 

can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 

graphics.



Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 

Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 

files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly 

released products” under the GAO Reports heading.



Order by Mail or Phone:



The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 

each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 

of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders should be sent to:



U.S. General Accounting Office



441 G Street NW,



Room LM Washington,



D.C. 20548:



To order by Phone: 	



	Voice: (202) 512-6000:



	TDD: (202) 512-2537:



	Fax: (202) 512-6061:



To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:



Contact:



Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov



Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:



Public Affairs:



Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.



General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.



20548: