Paying for military space applications

Interesting. Comments?


http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2003/0803milspace.html
Air Force Magazine
August 2003 Vol. 86, No. 8
How can the Air Force keep funding two major mission areas—air
and space?
Footing the Bill for Military Space
By Benjamin S. Lambeth
[EXCERPTS]

Of all the uncertainties that currently affect the Air Force's
prospects for realizing the near-term promise of military space,
none is more crucial than the basic question of how—and at what
opportunity cost—those prospects will be financed.

Under current arrangements, USAF has increasingly come to shoulder
the burden of funding what are, in effect, two major military
mission areas — air and space — with an annual budget share
intended for only one. Although all of the services benefit from
the space product ultimately provided, military space funding
comes almost entirely out of the Air Force's budget...

Recognizing this growing Air Force predicament, the Congressionally
mandated Space Commission concluded in January 2001 that America's
military space capabilities are "not funded at a level commensurate
with their relative importance." The commissioners voiced special
concern that the Army and the Navy are the defense community's
largest users of space products and capabilities, but the budget
activities of those two services "consistently fail to reflect
the importance of space." This pointed up a "dichotomy between
the importance of space to the Army and the Navy [and] the
funding commitment these services make" which "needs to be
addressed..."

An aggravating factor is that space applications have become
increasingly expensive as the US defense establishment has become
increasingly dependent on them. One seemingly intractable cause
has been the high cost of space launch, which has imposed a limit
on the rate at which the US can expand its military assets on
orbit. The constant-dollar price of getting a satellite to low
Earth orbit has not changed much over the past two decades. The
cost per pound to LEO for most commercial satellites now on orbit
ranges between $3,600 and $4,900, depending on the altitude and
character of the orbit. The cost per pound for getting a payload
all the way out to geostationary Earth orbit is considerably
higher—$9,200 to $11,200.

Furthermore, the prospect for any substantial diminution in
launch costs over the next 10 to 15 years remains dim because
of the unalterable physics of chemically fueled, rocket-based
launch. There is little near-term technology offering any
promise of circumventing this problem.

One mitigating factor is miniaturization. It has slowly but
inexorably increased the functionality of each payload pound on
orbit, making possible the development and launching of smaller
satellites. A decade ago, military satellites typically weighed
between 5,000 and 20,000 pounds. Now those going to LEO usually
weigh between 500 and 2,000 pounds. This means that the cost-per-
pound issue may turn out to be less pressing in the future.

Further compounding the continued high cost of space launch is
another factor. The Air Force is facing an acquisition challenge
of the first order due to the block obsolescence of many on-orbit
systems now in service and the emergence of a new generation of
replacements. Virtually every major US military space system is
due for an upgrade or replacement over the coming decade, at an
estimated cost of some $60 billion. These include the Global
Positioning System satellites, all military communications
satellites, and the Defense Support Program constellation of
missile-launch sensors.