Challenges to the United States in Space

Challenges to the United States in Space

Updated January 27, 2020
Challenges to the United States in Space
Preserving key U.S. national security and economic
industries. China is especially aggressive in capturing space
interests is widely seen to depend on assured access and
services market share in developing nations. Nations as
widespread use of space-based systems. Satellites are as
diverse as South Korea and the United Arab Emirates are
essential to military and intelligence operations as fighters,
pursuing commercial space industries.
warships, and combat vehicles. Major portions of the global
economy rely on space systems; they facilitate the entire
Although the global space economy has grown steadily
global financial system, stock markets, communications,
over the past decade, the market is finite. At the same time,
agriculture, and transportation, as well as other commercial
analysts note that the competitiveness of a nation’s
and civil activities. A June 2015 Department of Homeland
commercial space industry has a relationship to its ability to
Security report estimated $1.6 trillion of annual U.S.
field affordable national security space systems. Most
business revenues depend on satellites. Space systems are
observers believe that maintaining a healthy U.S. space
also a permanent and seamless component in the nation’s
industry over the long term could require a better balance
critical infrastructure, as vital as the electrical grid or the
between viewing the space industry as a strategic military
highway system.
asset and allowing its firms to compete in the expanding
global commercial space market.
Space, however, is no longer the exclusive domain of great
powers, nor does it remain a sanctuary for science and
A key focus area is the U.S. national security space launch
exploration, free from conflict. In fact, U.S. officials and
(NSSL) market. Since 2006, a joint Boeing-Lockheed
others identify space as a warfighting domain. Adversaries
Martin venture, United Launch Alliance (ULA) under an
are aware of U.S. space superiority and understand the
Air Force contract, provided NSS missions with a number
critical reliance on space systems to achieve U.S. national
of certified launchers, the Atlas and Delta rockets. Space
interests. Many military and industry analysts believe it
Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) entered the market in
prudent to plan for a future in which space is increasingly
2015, gaining certification to compete for NSS launches
competitive, congested, and contested.
with its Falcon-9 launcher while lowering launch costs.
SpaceX developed a more capable launch vehicle in the
Competitive
Falcon Heavy, which DOD certified in June 2018 and later
Nations with comprehensive space programs possess
awarded NSS missions under Phase 1A of the NSSL
distinct military, economic, and scientific advantages, but
program. ULA, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, and Blue
complexity, expense, and barriers to entry into space have
Origin have all submitted bids for phase two of the NSSL
allowed only a few space-faring nations to develop
program, with each company proposing their rocket
substantial space capabilities.
designs: Vulcan, OmegA, Falcon, and New Glenn,
respectively.
The rise of a robust global commercial space sector is
rapidly altering the picture. Global revenue from space-
Many observers believe that market dynamics have the
based services annually exceeds $300 billion, with more
potential to reduce prices, but they also require monitoring
than two-thirds in the commercial sector. Well over $100
to ensure uninterrupted strategic access to certified U.S.
billion in annual revenues arises from commercial space
launchers. The existing Atlas and Delta inventory and the
data services (mostly direct-to-home television). Over $100
Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy are expected to provide
billion derives from commercial space equipment
sufficient certified launchers to meet national security
manufacturing. Finally, governments spend about $80
requirements for the next few years as markets settle.
billion per year on space programs, with the U.S.
However, developing new rockets remains challenging, and
government spending roughly 60% of that $80 billion.
timelines and certifications may not go as planned. This is
especially true in light of broader global market pressures
Most space technologies have become dual-use, and
facing U.S. launch companies.
commercial space revenues now dwarf investments by
governments. This creates a dilemma. Governments
Worldwide, the number of launch contracts available for
regulate their space industries for strategic reasons, but
competition averages just 20-25 per year. Arianespace in
more and more, nations also compete in the far-less
Europe has historically dominated this market, followed by
regulated commercial space market. Eleven nations now
Russia. China and India are taking market share as well.
have the space industrial capacity to develop, manufacture,
Launch supply may soon outpace global demand. The U.S.
launch, and operate their own space systems. More than 50
launch sector likely faces small margins for error in crafting
nations have purchased and operate satellites and have
future development and production plans.
partial elements of a space industrial base. U.S., European,
Russian, and Japanese firms still dominate, but India and
China possess comprehensive and rapidly growing space
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Challenges to the United States in Space
Congested
Contested
There are over 2,000 active satellites in orbit. However,
Most defense experts consider space to be the ultimate
nearly all satellites operate in just three key orbital regimes.
military high ground, with particular importance to U.S.
Low-Earth orbit (LEO) has roughly 1,300 satellites (at 300-
national security operations. Adversaries have studied
1,000 km altitude). Most LEO satellites perform Earth
warfighting concepts and focused on space systems as a
observation, weather monitoring, or mobile communication
particular U.S. vulnerability. Some nations, particularly
services. Geosynchronous-Earth orbit (GEO) has about 430
Russia and China, are pursuing nondestructive and
satellites (at roughly 36,000 km altitude). At this altitude,
destructive counterspace weapons capabilities, such as
satellites travel at the same rate as Earth’s rotation, enabling
jammers, lasers, kinetic-kill or anti-satellite (ASAT)
a stationary dish on Earth to “stare” at a single point in the
systems, and cyber-attack capabilities. U.S. satellites no
sky to receive a satellite signal. Thus, most GEO satellites
longer enjoy sanctuary in space, and U.S. military space
conduct stationary telecommunications services (e.g.
superiority can no longer be taken for granted. The Trump
television broadcasting). Conversely, GEO satellites can
Administration and senior government officials openly
“stare” downward at large portions of Earth, making this
declare space to be a warfighting domain.
the preferred orbit for missions such as missile early-
warning, nuclear test detection, and electronic intelligence.
A major development in this regard is the National Space
Between the LEO and GEO are Medium-Earth orbit (MEO)
Defense Center (NSDC) at Schriever AFB, CO. The NSDC
satellites. Most of the 75 MEO satellites are used for
is a joint and interagency collaborative effort between the
services such as GPS.
Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and
commercial industry to research U.S. space vulnerabilities
These three main orbits around Earth create restrictions
and develop tactics and doctrine to deal with potential
similar to those created by lanes in a road. Practically
attacks on space systems.
speaking, there are a limited number of “slots” available for
satellite operations, especially in GEO. This creates
Against this backdrop of rising challenges, most experts
“congestion” in several ways. First is the sheer number of
view the diplomatic and legal frameworks to govern space
satellites requesting to occupy the available slots. Some
as antiquated and inadequate. Four agreements form the
prime locations for satellites are already crowded. Second is
basis of space law, and all were created in the early space
the growing number of actors in space. The 1,000-plus
age when space was considered a sanctuary, few nations
operational satellites are owned by more than 100 different
had access to space, the Cold War dynamics defined the
government and commercial entities from more than 50
view of space, and commercial space endeavors were
limited. Today’s realities are different. Experts agree that
nations. Both the overall number of satellites and the
number of players is predicted to expand.
the stakes are far higher, more competitors are vying for
advantage, and capabilities to disrupt satellites are
A third congestion issue is radio frequency allocation. To
proliferating. Some believed creating a separate service for
maintain an active radio link to the ground, all satellites
space would help defend and protect U.S. space systems.
must compete for a limited number of radio frequency
Space Force
assignments. For U.S. satellites, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) submits requests on
On December 20, 2019, the U.S. Space Force (USSF)
behalf of satellite operators to the United Nations
became the sixth branch of the Armed Forces—established
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which
within the Department of the Air Force after the enactment
manages global radio frequency use for satellites. These
of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for
frequencies are finite, and allocation is increasingly
FY2020. The mission of the Space Force is to organize,
challenging as demand grows.
train, and equip space forces in order to protect U.S. and
allied interests in space. The USSF is responsible for
Fourth, over 60 years of space activities—along with some
acquiring military space systems to provide space
explosive events in space including the 2007 Chinese
capabilities to the joint force. Similarly, in 2019, the DOD
antisatellite (ASAT) test, the 2009 Iridium-Cosmos satellite
reestablished the U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM),
collision, and India’s ASAT test in 2019—have left large
the 11th unified combatant command, formed to deter
quantities of uncontrolled debris in these orbital “lanes.”
aggression and conflict, while defending U.S. and allied
This includes tens of thousands of trackable items (softball
freedom of action. USSPACECOM is responsible for
size or bigger) and many millions (170 million according to
delivering space combat power to the joint force.
NASA) of smaller objects, any of which may disable or
destroy a satellite. Orbital collision prediction and
Space is now a more competitive, congested, and contested
avoidance capability is limited, but improving. The U.S. has
domain. Experts agree that Congress, other U.S.
the greatest national capability in both debris tracking and
policymakers, and senior military leaders attempting to
collision warning, which is carried out by the Combined
maintain the historic U.S. advantages in space face a host of
Space Operations Center (CSpOC) at Vandenberg AFB,
challenges. Regardless of procurement, acquisition, and
CA. CSpOC has a growing number of data-sharing
access challenges, broad congressional support for
agreements with allies and commercial companies. In 2014,
maintaining U.S. space dominance was critical to the
the Air Force began to develop a “Space Fence” system
establishment of the U.S. Space Force in late December
designed to improve tracking of orbital debris and satellites.
2019 and will continue to be important to monitoring its
progress, through both legislation and oversight.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Challenges to the United States in Space

Stephen M. McCall, Analyst in Military Space, Missile
Defense, and Defense Innovation
IF10337

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10337 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED