Updated January 27, 2020
Challenges to the United States in Space
Preserving key U.S. national security and economic
interests is widely seen to depend on assured access and
widespread use of space-based systems. Satellites are as
essential to military and intelligence operations as fighters,
warships, and combat vehicles. Major portions of the global
economy rely on space systems; they facilitate the entire
global financial system, stock markets, communications,
agriculture, and transportation, as well as other commercial
and civil activities. A June 2015 Department of Homeland
Security report estimated $1.6 trillion of annual U.S.
business revenues depend on satellites. Space systems are
also a permanent and seamless component in the nation’s
critical infrastructure, as vital as the electrical grid or the
highway system.
Space, however, is no longer the exclusive domain of great
powers, nor does it remain a sanctuary for science and
exploration, free from conflict. In fact, U.S. officials and
others identify space as a warfighting domain. Adversaries
are aware of U.S. space superiority and understand the
critical reliance on space systems to achieve U.S. national
interests. Many military and industry analysts believe it
prudent to plan for a future in which space is increasingly
competitive, congested, and contested.
Competitive
Nations with comprehensive space programs possess
distinct military, economic, and scientific advantages, but
complexity, expense, and barriers to entry into space have
allowed only a few space-faring nations to develop
substantial space capabilities.
The rise of a robust global commercial space sector is
rapidly altering the picture. Global revenue from space-
based services annually exceeds $300 billion, with more
than two-thirds in the commercial sector. Well over $100
billion in annual revenues arises from commercial space
data services (mostly direct-to-home television). Over $100
billion derives from commercial space equipment
manufacturing. Finally, governments spend about $80
billion per year on space programs, with the U.S.
government spending roughly 60% of that $80 billion.
Most space technologies have become dual-use, and
commercial space revenues now dwarf investments by
governments. This creates a dilemma. Governments
regulate their space industries for strategic reasons, but
more and more, nations also compete in the far-less
regulated commercial space market. Eleven nations now
have the space industrial capacity to develop, manufacture,
launch, and operate their own space systems. More than 50
nations have purchased and operate satellites and have
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
industries. China is especially aggressive in capturing space
services market share in developing nations. Nations as
diverse as South Korea and the United Arab Emirates are
pursuing commercial space industries.
Although the global space economy has grown steadily
over the past decade, the market is finite. At the same time,
analysts note that the competitiveness of a nation’s
commercial space industry has a relationship to its ability to
field affordable national security space systems. Most
observers believe that maintaining a healthy U.S. space
industry over the long term could require a better balance
between viewing the space industry as a strategic military
asset and allowing its firms to compete in the expanding
global commercial space market.
A key focus area is the U.S. national security space launch
(NSSL) market. Since 2006, a joint Boeing-Lockheed
Martin venture, United Launch Alliance (ULA) under an
Air Force contract, provided NSS missions with a number
of certified launchers, the Atlas and Delta rockets. Space
Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) entered the market in
2015, gaining certification to compete for NSS launches
with its Falcon-9 launcher while lowering launch costs.
SpaceX developed a more capable launch vehicle in the
Falcon Heavy, which DOD certified in June 2018 and later
awarded NSS missions under Phase 1A of the NSSL
program. ULA, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, and Blue
Origin have all submitted bids for phase two of the NSSL
program, with each company proposing their rocket
designs: Vulcan, OmegA, Falcon, and New Glenn,
respectively.
Many observers believe that market dynamics have the
potential to reduce prices, but they also require monitoring
to ensure uninterrupted strategic access to certified U.S.
launchers. The existing Atlas and Delta inventory and the
Falcon-9 and Falcon Heavy are expected to provide
sufficient certified launchers to meet national security
requirements for the next few years as markets settle.
However, developing new rockets remains challenging, and
timelines and certifications may not go as planned. This is
especially true in light of broader global market pressures
facing U.S. launch companies.
Worldwide, the number of launch contracts available for
competition averages just 20-25 per year. Arianespace in
Europe has historically dominated this market, followed by
Russia. China and India are taking market share as well.
Launch supply may soon outpace global demand. The U.S.
launch sector likely faces small margins for error in crafting
future development and production plans.
Congested
There are over 2,000 active satellites in orbit. However,
nearly all satellites operate in just three key orbital regimes.
Low-Earth orbit (LEO) has roughly 1,300 satellites (at 300-
