Defense Space Activities: Organizational Changes Initiated, but  
Further Management Actions Needed (18-APR-03, GAO-03-379).	 
                                                                 
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.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-379 					        
    ACCNO:   A06665						        
  TITLE:     Defense Space Activities: Organizational Changes	      
Initiated, but Further Management Actions Needed		 
     DATE:   04/18/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Agency missions					 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     National defense operations			 
	     National preparedness				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-379

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

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. 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 seniorlevel 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 resultsoriented

management framework for space activities. 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. Highlights of GAO- 03- 379, a report to

Congressional Committees

April 2003

DEFENSE SPACE ACTIVITIES

Organizational Changes Initiated, but Further Management Actions Needed

Page i GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
Background 4 DOD Has Made Further Organizational and Management Changes

to Implement Space Commission Recommendations 6 Progress in Addressing
Long- Term Management Challenges Varies 13 Space Program Lacks Results-
Oriented Management Framework 17 Conclusions 21 Recommendations for
Executive Actions 22 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23 Appendix I
Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short- and Mid- Term Space Commission
Recommendations 25

Appendix II Time Line of Major Events in DOD*s Implementation of Space
Commission Recommendations 28

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 29

Appendix IV Scope and Methodology 32

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 34

Tables

Table 1: Elements of a Results- Oriented Management Framework 18 Table 2:
Status of DOD*s Implementation of Space Commission Recommendations as of
January 2003 26 Figure

Figure 1: DOD*s and the Air Force*s Organization for National Security
Space, as of February 2003 10 Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities 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.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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,

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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. 1 Our June 2002 report stated that
DOD had completed or was in the process of implementing most of the Space
Commission recommendations. 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.

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 3 for DOD space programs. Organizational
changes completed include

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. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

creating a focal point for space by naming the Under Secretary of the Air
Force as Director, National Reconnaissance Office, 4 and charging this
individual with responsibility for integrating space activities across DOD
as well as milestone decision authority 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

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.

Page 4 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

goals, and provide input to the Defense Planning Guidance 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.

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. 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

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). Background

Page 5 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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 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 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.

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.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

The Space Commission 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.

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. 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

10 The present Secretary of Defense led the Space Commission prior to his
nomination to his current position. 11 GAO- 02- 772R. DOD Has Made

Further Organizational and Management Changes to Implement Space
Commission Recommendations

Page 7 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

for Space, Intelligence, and Information. 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 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;

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.

Page 8 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

 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.

Page 9 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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.

Page 10 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities Figure 1: DOD*s and the Air
Force*s Organization for National Security Space, as of February 2003

Page 11 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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 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 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 16 for fiscal years

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.

Page 12 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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.

Page 13 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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.

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, 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.

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.
Progress in

Addressing Long- Term Management Challenges Varies

Increased Investment in Space Research and Technology Planned

Page 14 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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.

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 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. 19 However, the guidance for
executing acquisition procedures is still in draft, 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.

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. Draft Space Acquisition

Process Not Validated

Page 15 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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. 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. 22 The Space Based Infrared systems also
experienced increased cost and schedule delays. 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 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. 25 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 SystemLow 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.

Page 16 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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. 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 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. 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. 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
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. DOD and Services Lack a

Strategic Approach to Build and Maintain Cadre of Space Professionals

Page 17 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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. 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 30 provide agencies at all levels with a framework for

30 P. L. 103- 62. Space Program Lacks

Results- Oriented Management Framework

Page 18 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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
Critical elements

Define the program*s overall purpose, mission, and intent (i. e.,
strategy).

 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. Describe detailed implementation actions as
well as measurements and indicators of performance (i. e., performance
plan).

 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.

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

Page 19 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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
midterm,

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

Page 20 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

program outcomes. In its 2000 Annual Report to the President and Congress,
DOD provided a performance plan for achieving its annual performance
goals, 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

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.

Page 21 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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. 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.

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

32 DOD Directive 5100.88 (Sept. 3, 2002). Conclusions

Page 22 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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. 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 resultsoriented
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.
Recommendations for

Executive Actions

Page 23 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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 Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Page 24 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

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

Appendix I: Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short- and Mid- Term
Space Commission Recommendations Page 25 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space
Activities

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. Appendix I:
Status of Actions Taken to

Implement Short- and Mid- Term Space Commission Recommendations

Appendix I: Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short- and Mid- Term
Space Commission Recommendations Page 26 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space
Activities

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 progress* 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 No action intended In

progress Completed

The Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence should
meet regularly to address national security space policy, objectives, and
issues.

. Secretary of Defense should establish an under secretary of defense for
space, intelligence, and information. a . 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.

. . 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.

b Air Force should realign headquarters and field commands to more
effectively organize, train, and equip for prompt and sustained space
operations. . . Air Force Space Command should be assigned

responsibility for providing resources to execute space research,
development, acquisition, and operations.

. Amend title 10 U. S. C. to assign the Air Force responsibility to
organize, train, and equip for air and space operations. c . Secretary of
Defense should designate the Air Force as DOD*s executive agent for space.
d . Assign the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the Director of the
National Reconnaissance Office. . Designate the Under Secretary of the Air
Force as the Air Force acquisition executive for space. e .

Appendix I: Status of Actions Taken to Implement Short- and Mid- Term
Space Commission Recommendations Page 27 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space
Activities

Space Commission recommendation No action intended In

progress Completed

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 . Secretary of Defense should
direct the Defense

Advanced Research Products Agency and service laboratories to undertake
development and demonstration of innovative space technologies.

. . Secretary of Defense should establish a Major Force Program for Space.
g . 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.

Appendix II: Time Line of Major Events in DOD*s Implementation of Space
Commission Recommendations

Page 28 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space Activities

Date Event

January 11, 2001 Space Commission report published. May 8, 2001 Secretary
of Defense sent letter to Congress detailing intended

actions. Oct. 1, 2001 Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center realigned
from Air

Force Materiel Command to Air Force Space Command Oct. 18, 2001 Secretary
of Defense issued memorandum directing actions and time lines for
implementing selected Space Commission recommendations. December 13, 2001
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. January 2,
2002 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. February 7, 2002 Under Secretary of the Air Force designated
to be Air Force

Acquisition Executive for space. February 14, 2002 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. February 2002 *Virtual* major force
program for space included in DOD*s Future

Years Defense Program. April 19, 2002 Commanding general assumed command
of the Air Force Space

Command separate from U. S. Space Command and North American Aerospace
Defense Command. June 26, 2002 GAO interim assessment of the status of
DOD*s reorganization of

space activities. August 2002 National Security Space Architect space
program assessment.

Appendix II: Time Line of Major Events in DOD*s Implementation of Space
Commission Recommendations

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 29 GAO- 03- 379
Defense Space Activities

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 30 GAO- 03- 379
Defense Space Activities

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense Page 31 GAO- 03- 379
Defense Space Activities

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology Page 32 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space
Activities

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 Appendix
IV: Scope and Methodology

Appendix IV: Scope and Methodology Page 33 GAO- 03- 379 Defense Space
Activities

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.

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments Page 34 GAO- 03- 379
Defense Space Activities

Raymond J. Decker (202) 512- 6020 Janet A. St. Laurent (202) 512- 4402

In addition to the names above, Margaret Morgan, MaeWanda Micheal-
Jackson, Robert Poetta, and R. K. Wild made key contributions to this
report. Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(350200)

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and 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.

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 fulltext 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.

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

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 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 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***