Q&A: LT. GEN. JOHN T. "TOM" SHERIDAN
MSMF 2009 Volume: 2 Issue: 6 (November/December)
Managing Vital Space and Missile Programs
Lieutenant General
John T. "Tom" Sheridan
Commander
Space and Missile Systems Center
A: The Government Accountability Office [GAO] did an analysis on the current GPS system using data that was provided by the Air Force and other sources and concluded the GPS constellation was not being sustained at a high enough rate. We believe their analysis did not take into account some operational and power management techniques developed since the system went operational that extended the life of on-orbit GPS spacecraft significantly.
Toward the end of a GPS spacecraft’s life, spacecraft subsystems that are not mission-essential can be shut down, while still providing the positioning, timing and navigation signals. Over years, this practice has yielded significant increases in service life for all GPS satellites. Based on this, plus the GPS development process ongoing right now, the Air Force will continue to meet or exceed worldwide civil and military positioning, navigation and timing commitments.
The GAO report also incorrectly cited a “lack of a single point of authority” around the GPS program. The Department of Defense has given the responsibility for the GPS program to the Air Force. Air Force Space Command [AFSPC] and the Space and Missile Systems Center [SMC] have the responsibility to build the spacecraft, test them, launch them and get them into operations. AFSPC, through its operational commands, has the responsibility of operating the systems and providing the information to users. AFSPC works with other services to make sure that we can build the ground equipment necessary for military versions of GPS, and then share information with commercial builders so they can build commercial systems used in telephones or in cars today. We believe GPS program organization and top-down management is very effective.
The Air Force does not have a problem meeting performance requirements, now or in the future. Space is a critical part of our national infrastructure, and GPS plays a most important role. The Air Force has actively pursued and institutionalized procedures and processes to mitigate potential gaps in GPS service and their impact. We currently exceed published commitment, with 30 operational satellites on orbit. GPS IIR-20M and GPS IIR-21M just joined the fleet in space and after completing orbital checkouts will replace older, less capable GPS IIA satellites currently located in primary orbital slots. The Air Force maintains redundant satellites on orbit to mitigate risk of failure on older GPS satellites. We launch new satellites as necessary to replenish the constellation, and the current GPS constellation has the most satellites and the greatest capability in the history of GPS.
GAO correctly points out the potential risk associated with degradation in GPS performance, but GPS is not “falling out of the sky.” The Air Force has plans to mitigate risk and provide GPS performance that exceeds requirements. Since 1995, GPS has never failed to exceed performance standards.
Q: The Transformational Satellite Communication System was a multibillion-dollar program canceled in the president’s FY10 budget. How is your command addressing the TSAT program’s failures and lessons learned in other space and missile acquisition programs to ensure these new systems will be delivered on-time, within cost and mission-ready?
A: The TSAT program didn’t fail; in fact, the work done on TSAT was highly successful. The Department of Defense conducted numerous reviews to assure risks were will in hand, and all critical technologies have achieved a technology readiness level of six. In TSAT’s case, the decision was made to discontinue the current space segment solicitation without awarding a contract due to significant changes to the original requirements and the time it would have taken to field this large system. The best way to avoid this situation in the future is upfront, early and continual cooperation with stakeholders in an effort to capture realistic requirements and manage expectations. Every space development program needs realistic, achievable, clear and validated requirements, which remain constant through each block development if it is to be successful.
There are also systems in the past that have been a bit too immature to accurately predict and guarantee timely delivery. It’s a risk we assumed as we rushed to meet the needs of the warfighter. Recent policy changes have emphasized the importance of maturing technology enough to enter into production. This is a positive step in the right direction. At SMC, we have two organizations in the center that are dedicated to mission development and planning: the Space Development Test Wing and the Development Planning Directorate. They are the incubators for next-generation space capabilities. They work alongside current production programs, external research and development organizations, and sister acquisition centers to ensure a technology is mature enough to enter into production.
We are continually evolving the space acquisition business based on lessons learned. Take the Total System Performance Responsibility [TSPR] concept for instance. TSPR never really delivered on its promises. During the acquisition reform in the late 1980s and early 1990s, despite the fact that the Air Force always retained ultimate program responsibility, we gave up performance management and overall program integration responsibility to the prime contractors. Unfortunately there were significant consequences in doing so, like the launch failures in the late 1990s and delays in Space Based Infrared Systems. Since then, we re-assumed TSPR back from the contractors.
The restructuring was done incrementally beginning with launches, then focusing on systems engineering and a “Back to Basics” approach to acquisitions. “Back to Basics” has five elements: partnerships, horizontal integration, implementing new business practices, and a renewed focus on people and on processes.
Today’s focus has also evolved into re-invigorating mission assurance with the ultimate goal being mission success. Not just a focus on engineering, but proper contract selections, contractor incentives, rigorous test and evaluation, and baselining programs early for ensuring success. At the heart of it all is an overarching need to have realistic and accurate cost estimates and proper funding with reserves.
Q: How does SMC collaborate with small business? Discuss important, near-future SMC industry working groups, conferences and other business opportunities of which the community should be aware.
A: SMC, through its small business specialists, is a member of the DoD Western Regional Council for Small Business Education and Advocacy. Additionally, SMC is actively involved in the Mentor Protégé programs of several of its industry partners, to include The Boeing Company and Northrop Grumman. SMC is an active participant in several national, regional and local small business conferences to include the Annual National Veteran Small Business Conference and Expo; the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Small Business Fair; and events sponsored by the General Services Administration, the National Contract Management Association, and state and city organizations.
Due to the nature of SMC’s primary mission, space acquisition, and the large scale of the programs involved, the majority of the opportunities for small business fall within the realm of advisory and assistance services [A&AS]. SMC has a suite of A&AS contracts for acquisition support services, financial management services and technical services. The contracts for acquisition and financial services are set aside solely for competition among small business firms, while the contract for technical services is partially set aside for small business. Also, the proposals from prime contractors on all major acquisitions are evaluated and graded based on the percentage of possible sub-contracts awardable to small business. There are additional opportunities for small businesses interested in base operations and maintenance contracts. These are handled through the 61st Contracting Squadron [61 CONS]. They, too, have a small business program. They regularly award in excess of 90 percent of their annual obligations to small-business concerns.
Q: Your “help wanted list” of the three leading space and missile technology challenges that your command needs industry’s and the academic community’s help to solve.
A: SSA. While we have a fairly robust Space Surveillance Network, a family of sensors, improvements can be made in several areas. First, increased ability to detect, track and identify smaller objects in all orbital regimes would improve our spaceflight safety capabilities. Leveraging of other nontraditional sensors through a data-sharing, net-centric environment could assist with objects in certain difficult orbital regimes and improve our timeliness for event detections. Finally, improvements are needed to assist with uncorrelated target [UCT] processing within the JSpOC Mission System [JMS]. The key to maintaining superior SSA is the near real-time fusion of Space Order of Battle, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and environmental data for responsive combat planning and execution. This must be a robust technology, implemented within the JMS, capable of correlating data from disparate sources to support the wide spectrum of missions at the JSpOC. For environmental monitoring, there has been little DoD/national investment in system effects technologies. An environmental effects program aimed at overall space environmental system effects response should be established as well as comprehensive data fusion to correlate intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and environmental data for combat planning and execution.
Hydrocarbon Boost Engine Demonstration. AFSPC’s Spacelift Development Plan [SDP] stresses the importance of this demonstration for modernization of the Atlas V launch vehicle with a U.S.- produced engine in 2015 and for a potential Reusable Boost System [RBS] as a successor system to EELV in 2030. AFSPC recommends restoring funding previously cut from this program and pressing toward the originally planned completion in 2014.
GPS User Equipment [UE]. Increasingly challenged operational environments and the need to aggressively control size, weight and power of GPS receivers drive the need for development of improved antennas and antenna electronics, chip-scale atomic clocks, and replacement of hardware signal processing components with software implementations. In addition, there are significant cost issues associated with current anti-tamper technologies that focus on hardware solutions. New anti-tamper methods employing software/zeroization assurance that mitigate physical destruction shortcomings while reducing cost must be pursued.
Technologies for next-generation Military Satellite Communications [MILSATCOM]—optical amplifiers, modulation antennas. With the cancellation of TSAT, we have re-organized MILSATCOM Advanced Development to examine what steps to take to evolve AEHF and WGS. We will need to fund this area in the near term to protect the nation’s expertise as we move forward. ♦